The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Feminism as Psychological Warfare (Because @FFigureFBust Asked)

Posted on | April 18, 2016 | 28 Comments

While monitoring online feminism, I noticed someone had RT’d @FFigureFBust, posting a cartoon with this feminist “joke”:

Man: “You wear too much makeup.”
Woman: “You consume too much oxygen.”
Man: “It’s just my opinion, you’d look better withou–”
Woman: “So would you. Without oxygen.”
(pause)
Woman: “F–k your opinions.”

 

 
This is a variation of the feminist attack on “mansplaining,” made famous by Rebecca Solnit’s book Men Explain Things to Me. Despite all the caveats and disclaimers with which Ms. Solnit qualified her argument, it can be summarized as feminism’s two-word message to men: “SHUT UP!”

Feminism is ultimately about complete contempt for men, per se. If you are a man, nothing you say is of interest to any feminist. Everything men do is bad and everything men say is wrong. This categorical certainty — the absolute moral and intellectual inferiority of males — is so commonly accepted among feminists that none of them ever question it, because they never even notice it, for the same reason fish don’t notice water.

Saturday I published a 4,000-word exploration of this (“The Queering of Feminism and the Silencing of Heterosexual Masculinity”) showing how anti-male attitudes are fundamental to “feminist theory, which condemns heterosexuality as an oppressive ‘institution’ forcibly imposed on women by the social system of male domination known as patriarchy.”

Feminists believe all women collectively suffer from systemic oppression, and that all men participate in and benefit from this oppression, by which men obtain unjust privilege. It is not necessary for a man to say or do anything harmful in order for feminist to hate him. He is male, and therefore he can never deserve anything except hate. “Being constantly insulted by feminists . . . is something men are expected never to notice.”

Feminist rhetoric is a method of psychological warfare, intended to inspire all women to embrace this contemptuous attitude toward men, and also to demoralize and confuse the male enemy. Feminists deliberately insult men, falsely accusing them of complicity in wrongdoing, and if any man dares object to this kind of anti-male hate propaganda, his protest of innocence will be cited as proof of his guilt (a tactic known as “Kafkatrapping”). This is why feminism is actually not about equality, because if feminists believed men were equal, a man might be permitted to say a word in his own defense. Instead, feminist discourse is a constant stream of accusations against men, who have no right to respond to these insults. Like the accused in Stalin’s “show trials” of the 1930s, men are expected to confess their guilt, to denounce themselves for their crimes as vrag naroda, and to testify against others who were complicit in their counterrevolutionary plots.

So here was this cartoon posted by @FFigureFBust, a typical expression of feminist “humor” in which the punchline is “F–k your opinions.” Let the question be asked, “What kind of man would be such a fool as to tell a woman that she is wearing ‘too much makeup’?” Certainly no wise man would ever say this to a woman, not even to his own wife. However, men often do express a general dislike for “too much makeup,” preferring a more “natural” appearance. Of course, as any woman can explain, what some men praise as the “natural look” usually requires quite a bit of work to achieve, and a woman must be highly skilled in the use of makeup to make it seem as though she isn’t wearing makeup at all.

However, this cartoon isn’t really about makeup, is it?

No, this cartoon is about “SHUT UP!”

The cartoon is intended to depict men generally as clueless and idiotic, and to convey the message that no woman should ever care about any man’s opinion. Feminists will often emphasize this disdain in regard to heterosexual male preferences about women’s appearance and behavior. Whatever it is that a heterosexual man may like or dislike about women, in particular or in general, no feminist ever wants him to say it. This has the effect, of course, of granting feminists an absolute monopoly in terms of offering advice to women. No matter how disastrous the result of following feminist advice may be (e.g., a herpes infection), feminists tell women that the patriarchy is to blame for these bad outcomes.

Now, as soon as I push the “publish” button on this, it will be as if I’ve lit the fuse on a hate-bomb. Some readers will say rude things about @FFigureFBust and, as a result, I will be accused of engaging in “harassment” and condoning “misogyny.” However, you see, it doesn’t matter what I say or do. Nothing will prevent feminists from slandering me, because I am a heterosexual male, after all, and what is feminist rhetoric except an endless slander campaign against heterosexual males?

All I can do is point to examples of feminism’s hateful rhetoric, analyze and describe the significance. My purpose is to inform readers who, although they probably understand that there is something profoundly wrong with feminist ideology, do not have the leisure to engage in this kind of in-depth analysis of feminist rhetoric. Without a proper analysis, however, men might make the mistake of arguing with a feminist, which is futile, because feminism is always a lecture, never a debate.

Well, when I called attention to @FFigureFBust’s feminist “joke,” this resulted in a brief colloquy in which I made the point that “feminists constantly lecture the world about their opinions, and permit no man to say a word in reply.” She asked why I had addressed her, but when I went to reply to that question . . . blocked. So here is your answer, Ms. Horne.

Does she understand my answer? Am I attempting to persuade her that she is wrong? No, because no feminist has ever admitted that she was wrong about anything. Merely by calling herself a feminist, she declares to the world her belief in her own omniscience. A feminist believes she knows everything about everything, and no man knows anything at all.

Here, watch her 17-minute video about feminism:

Has she stated her case persuasively? Would anyone care to transcribe her argument, such as it is? I got about 2 minutes in — “women are closer to my heart and are more relate-able to me” — before my eyes began to glaze over from the effort of trying to decode her British accent. She said something about female genital mutilation and girls being married off at age 11, as if anyone not named Omar or Mohammad might be in favor of such practices. This is sort of like environmentalists who declare they’re in favor of clean water, as if they expect someone to argue against clean water. Feminists are always going on about some obvious atrocity and declaring that anyone who disagrees with them is defending these atrocities. This is why feminists make blatantly false claims about the prevalence of rape (e.g., the 1-in-5 myth), in order to provoke their critics to express doubt about these claims, at which point, feminists accuse their critics of being pro-rape. Feminists believe they are entitled to invent any “fact” that will advance their agenda, and then engage in character assassination against anyone who objects to feminist lies.

The all-time classic of feminist dishonesty was the Great Super Bowl Domestic Violence Hoax of 1993, when it was claimed that Super Bowl Sunday was “the biggest day of the year for violence against women.” There was no evidence for this claim, and yet reporters rushed to print as fact that on the day of the NFL championship, domestic abuse hotlines were “flooded with more calls from victims than on any other day of the year,” to quote the Boston Globe. Christina Hoff Sommers exposed this lie and other examples of feminist myth-making in her 1994 book Who Stole Feminism? Yet despite the documented proof that feminists habitually lie, here we are more than 20 years later, still expected to pretend that feminism’s credibility is beyond question!

Never Take Advice From Feminists, unless your goal in life is to become a Crazy Cat Lady, which is one of the few subjects where feminist expertise is useful. “Feminism is a movement of crazy women, by crazy women, for crazy women,” and you should doubt the mental health of any woman who calls herself a feminist. Therefore, never talk to a feminist:

Guys: Learn to take a hint. Learn to walk away.
If a woman tells you she is a feminist, say nothing and walk away.
No feminist wants to hear what a man has to say, and life is too short to waste your time taking to feminists. Just walk away.
Leave feminists alone, and then they can complain about that.

Every day, feminists prove there is no point in arguing with them, and anyone attempting to argue with @FFigureFBust will be blocked. Because she is a feminist, you may be sure that she will never acknowledge what I’ve written here in reply to her question. Feminist “success” requires them to pretend that there is no valid criticism of their ideology, nor any reason why intelligent people should oppose their agenda. Feminism is a cult which claims a monopoly on truth, and no member of the cult can admit the possibility that anyone outside the feminist cult is qualified to dispute this monopolgy. Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and the silencing of men is necessary to the movement’s triumph. Well, good luck trying to shut me up.

 


Category: Sex Trouble

Rule 5 Sunday: The Tax Deadline Cometh

Posted on | April 17, 2016 | 7 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Trying to find a suitable pic for the end of the tax season was tougher than you’d think, since Hollywood seems to prefer the nerd stereotype for accountants of all kinds, but eventually I did find Governor Nikki Haley (R-SC) who was a bookkeeper as a child and holds a BS in Accounting from Clemson. I also found former Playmate of the Year Donna Edmondson, who went into tax accounting after a whirlwind career as a Playboy model, and serves as our appetizer this week. As usual, many of the following links are to pics normally considered NSFW, and the management is not responsible for whatever ills befall you because you fail to exercise discretion in your clicking.

Exactly what it says on the label.

Goodstuff leads off this week with Cybill Shepherd, followed by 90 Miles from Tyranny with Hot Pick of the Late Night, Morning Mistress (Tight Buns Edition), and Girls With Guns (Country Girl Style). Animal Magnetism checks in from Japan with Rule 5 Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon, The Last Tradition submits Elizabeth Hurley and Toccara Jones, and First Street Journal salutes those women in uniform Pulling the Trigger.

EBL’s herd this week includes Michelle Fields, The Bear Is Loose, French 60s Rule 5, and Katrina Kaif.

A View from the Beach offers A Drop of Water with Amanda Cerny, Katy Perry Beats Nuns, Dispatches from Clinton.com, Tanya for Thursday, Weather Girl Wednesday, Good Year Predicted for Chesapeake Crabs, Are You Feeling Lucky, Punk?, “Wild Woman”, Neandertal Y-Chromosome Found Lost (cave girls), and Floron du Jour: Girl with Good Taste Headed for Hoosegow

The DaleyGator’s DaleyBabes this week included Alicia Bachleda-Curus, Joy Bisco, Grace Gealy, Chandra West, Women and Beaches, Asana Mamora, and Jaina Lee Ortiz.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Jaina Ortiz, his Vintage Babe is Peggie Castle, and Sex in Advertising is handled this week by Victoria’s Secret. At Dustbury, it’s Sannie Carlson and Ming-Na Wen.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! There will be no Rule 5 Sunday next week; we’ll resume on May 1 with the Blue Shirt Special Double-Dip Edition!


Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

The Trashification of America

Posted on | April 17, 2016 | 30 Comments

“Family values” in the Obama Age:

Two women face charges after an infant was left in a hot car outside of a strip club in Tennessee as the child’s mother was onstage for an audition, according to multiple reports.
Kelsey McMurtry, 24, was auditioning at Deja Vu Showgirls in downtown Nashville while her daughter sat outside in a car with the windows rolled up around 4 p.m. Thursday, police told WKRN. Passersby noticed the girl and called authorities.
In a warrant, officials said it was 72 degrees outside when officers arrived and temperatures inside the car had likely topped 100 degrees. The girl was wearing a heavy coat and drenched with sweat, WKRN reported. Witnesses estimated she spent at least 30 minutes in the car.
She was taken to a hospital for treatment, where the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services responded to care for her.
At the scene an officer spoke with McMurtry’s friend, 19-year-old Summer Taylor, who said she had an eye on the child while her mother auditioned, according to WSMV. However, witnesses told police she never left the strip club in the 30 minutes the child was outside.
Police arrested McMurtry and Taylor on charges of child neglect. Authorities also charged McMurtry with criminal impersonation after she allegedly lied about her name in an apparent effort to avoid an outstanding warrant, WSMV reported.

(Via Memeorandum.) Here’s a question: Does this infant not have a father? Or does Kelsey McMurtry have no relatives who could help her? Of course, we are two generations into the Welfare State’s project of dismantling the traditional family, so it’s possible Kelsey McMurtry’s parents and siblings and aunts and uncles are all part of the debris.

This is the human wreckage created by liberalism — people without functional kinship networks, without moral values, with no sense of purpose or meaning in their lives. In other words, Democrat voters.

 

Category: Crime

‘Gender’ Madness: How Far It’s Gone

Posted on | April 17, 2016 | 42 Comments

Michael Walsh at PJ Media calls attention to this video in which Joseph Backholm of the conservative Family Policy Institute interviewed students at the University of Washington about gender-neutral restrooms:

Generally speaking, I don’t watch YouTube videos and seldom recommend them, but you definitely need to watch that one.

At about 0:45, he interviews a girl who says, “You know, whether you identify as male or female and whether your sex at birth is matching to that, you should be able to utilize the resources.” Next, Backholm asks a girl: “So if I told you that I was a woman, what would you respond to that?” She answers, “Good for you! Like, OK, yeah!”

HELLO! YOU’RE CRAZY!

What part of “crazy” do I need to explain here? When did our nation’s universities cease to teach biology and instead begin indoctrinating young people in what can only be described as sexual Lysenkoism?

The University of Washington’s Q Center (“Queering a World Class Education: Centering Trans/Formational Space”) describes itself as “a fierce primarily student run resource center dedicated to serving anyone with or without a gender or sexuality.” While the center claims to celebrate “all sexual and gender orientation, identities, and expressions,” it ignores anyone at the university who might happen to be normal.

Being normal means you are privileged, whereas the crowd of weirdos at the university’s Q Center are oppressed by virtue of their weirdness. One’s location within the privilege/oppression dynamic is all that matters for young people in social-justice indoctrination centers like the University of Washington, where parents send their children to undergo taxpayer-funding training for their future careers as progressive activists.

Transgender madness is “strong delusion” (II Thessalonians 2:11), which flourishes in 21st-century academia because it is now impermissible to speak truth on university campuses. You will be condemned as a bigot is you assert that men and women are different, and that these differences are a matter of biology. This was why Lawrence Summers was purged from the presidency of Harvard University a decade ago after he asserted that there are “innate differences” between men and women.

Feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — has become Official Truth in academia, and no criticism of these lunatic ideas is permitted on campus. Everyone in the administration and faculty of the 21st-century university is required to embrace this ideology, and speech-code policies are enforced to ensure that students are never exposed to any other concepts. Feminism Is Queer, as Eastern Washington University Professor Mimi Marinucci declared in the title of her 2010 Women’s Studies textbook, and the queering of feminism has had predictable consequences. In fact, Professor Marinucci recently announced a new edition of her textbook:

In the years since Feminism Is Queer was first published in 2010, feminist and LGBTQ activism has increased and evolved at an incredible rate. With the current third wave of feminism and gay rights issues steadily dominating mainstream media, Mimi Marinucci’s innovative concept of queer feminism that unites natural allies, queer and feminist theory, is more vital than ever before.
This updated and expanded edition explores with the relevancy of queer feminism to a new generation of feminist activists and offers a way to both understand gender, sex, and sexuality while fostering solidarity between allies for women’s and LGBTQ rights. Bringing this comprehensive introduction to gender and queer theory up to date are examinations of the latest developments in feminism and queer theory, including new forms of both feminism and antifeminism developing out of online communities, as well as the growing significance of transgender experiences in mainstream media. An essential guide for anyone with an interest in gender or sexuality, this new edition will be indispensable to those wanting to stay current on the vital role that these intersecting disciplines play in contemporary LGBTQ and feminist movements.

Considering what is taught in classrooms, is anyone surprised to learn that the University of Washington offers a “Queer Mentoring Program,” which “provides a safe, affirming, and exciting environment” where the student’s “sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression is supported and celebrated by an educated and experienced mentor”?

The director of this taxpayer-funded program at the University of Washington is Jen Self, “a renaissance queer . . . and anti-oppression educator” who describes her career as “queer activism.” Among the accomplishments listed on Professor Self’s curriculum vitae is a 2011 conference presentation entitled, “Queering Queer Space: Making the case for Critical Feminist & Queer Methodologies in Social Work via Discourse and Spatial Analysis of Homonormative Whiteness.” This was actually the topic of her Ph.D. dissertation:

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (lgbtq) college centers emerged in the early 1970’s in response to student, faculty, and staff activism and demands for safe and protective spaces from heterosexism and homophobia. Despite 40 years of practice, however, little research has been conducted about these spaces. Recognizing the importance of lgbtq campus centers and the political and identity struggles within the movement that created them; this dissertation addressed this gap in research knowledge. Specifically, the study aimed to: (1) interrogate the power and influence of the leadership of lgbtq centers (directors and other primary leaders) via the exploration of the ways in which dominance in the form of “homonormative whiteness” is interrupted, disrupted, resisted, and (re)produced discursively and spatially through lgbtq campus-based centers; and (2) examine tensions that arised as directors and programs operationalize social transformation praxis models while maintaining their core purpose of safety and respite from heterosexism and homophobia. To explore these issues, I undertook a modified extended case study of six campus centers. The case study data included in-depth interviews with directors and center leaders, researcher observations, photographs, and hand-drawn maps produced by center leaders. The methodological approach was broadly critical and interpretive: specific analytic strategies included critical discourse analysis (spatial and dialogic). By examining the role of lgbtq center leadership discourse and center space in the (re)production and resistance of homonormative whiteness, this study contributes to several bodies of literature: (1) center development and practice; (2) intersectionality and praxis within student and community centers; and (3) social justice within higher education.

When I say that Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, this is what I mean: Anyone can examine the “queer activism” Jen Self conducts at the University of Washington and see that it is insane, but no one on campus can say so.

This Official Truth is imposed on students at taxpayer expense, and dissent is effectively criminalized by laws and policies that treat disagreement as illegal “discrimination” or “harassment.” Under the totalitarian campus regime enforced by feminist hegemony in academia, the Official Truth of gender theory can never be criticized or questioned.

“Feminism is about redefining our social value system.”
— Anita Sarkeesian, 2015

“Feminism is about change. It challenges the existing pattern of relations between the sexes. . . . In doing so, it necessarily takes issue with the customs and practices of existing societies.”
— Anne Phillips, Gender and Culture (2010)

“Sexism is the belief system that supports patriarchy: the rule of men over women. . . .
“Sexism relies on heterosexism. . .
“Political strategy must be based on a clear analysis and the goal of eliminating heteropatriarchy if we are to eliminate heterosexism.”
— Joy A. Livingston, “Individual Action and Political Strategies: Creating a Future Free of Heterosexism,” in Preventing Heterosexism and Homophobia, edited by Esther D. Rothblum and Lynne A. Bond (1996)

Perhaps the reader perceives how current controversies are the result of policies implemented over the course of decades by activists whose credentials, motives and methods no one dared to criticize, for fear of being accused of sexism, homophobia or other prejudices.

Criticism of feminist gender theory has been effectively prohibited on most university campuses for more than a decade, and very few college-educated Americans under 30 have ever encountered any informed opposition to the “queer activism” that is now conducted at taxpayer expense on most campuses. No professor at the University of Washington would ever describe male and female as biological categories that typically produce “innate differences” in appearance and behavior, differences that are recognized (not “constructed”) by society because this normal pattern of difference is beneficial to men and women alike.

It is quite literally insane to pass laws or enforce policies imposing a “gender-neutral” policy for public toilets and gymnasium locker rooms in order to accommodate the delusions of transvestite weirdos. Men are not oppressed by being excluded from using the women’s restroom, and men who want to engage in a masquerade of womanhood are mentally ill perverts whose deviant fetishism poses a danger to society.

“Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself . . . she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1786

Truth is “the proper and sufficient antagonist to error,” but feminists now exercise such authority in higher education that truth has been “disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate,” and no one is “permitted freely to contradict” feminism’s dangerous errors.

+ + + + +

The Sex Trouble project began in 2014 and reader support is vital to this research into radical feminism. Contrary to what feminists claim, patriarchy is usually just another word for “paying the bills.” And remember the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

Never doubt God answers prayers. Thanks in advance.




 

RECENTLY IN THE ‘SEX TROUBLE’ SERIES:

 


Category: Sex Trouble

FMJRA 2.0: Last Weekend In The Tax Mines

Posted on | April 16, 2016 | 3 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule 5 Sunday: Deadpool
Animal Magnetism
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
90 Miles From Tyranny

Crazy #ShoutYourStatus Tweets Reveal What Feminists Want to Teach Your Kids
Downtrend
Regular Right Guy
Politically Off-Target
The Political Hat
Batshit Crazy News

‘Obsessed With Sex’?
Living In Anglo-America
PRone
Neoreactive
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

FMJRA 2.0: Saturday Night With The Twins
The Pirate’s Cove
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News
A View from the Beach

The ‘Male Feminist’ Problem
Regular Right Guy
Living In Anglo-America
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 04.11.16
Regular Right Guy
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News
A View from the Beach

In The Mailbox: 04.12.16
Regular Right Guy
Proof Positive

In The Mailbox: 04.13.16
Batshit Crazy News
Proof Positive
A View from the Beach

Jeff Serves Up A Trump Rant Of Justice
Batshit Crazy News

DEAR GOD IN HEAVEN!
Batshit Crazy News

About Those ‘Huddled Masses’
Batshit Crazy News

Yes, ‘Gender’ Is About Sex
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

Trump Trolls His ‘Christian’ Chumps
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 04.15.16
Batshit Crazy News
Proof Positive

Top linkers this week:

  1.  Batshit Crazy News (13)
  2.  Regular Right Guy (12)
  3.  Proof Positive (5)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! There will be no FMJRA next week since I’ll be away from the home computer doing anime convention things in Minnesota.


Shop Amazon – Mother’s Day Store
Shop Amazon – Grow Your Garden

Category: FMJRA Award

The Queering of Feminism and the Silencing of Heterosexual Masculinity

Posted on | April 16, 2016 | 66 Comments

 

“Women are an oppressed class. . . . We identify the agents of our oppression as men.”
— Redstockings Manifesto, 1969

“We are angry because we are oppressed by male supremacy. We have been f–ked over all our lives by a system which is based on the domination of men over women.”
— Ginny Berson, “The Furies,” 1972

“Men are the enemy. Heterosexual women are collaborators with the enemy. . . .
“We see heterosexuality as an institution of male domination, not a free expression of personal preference.”
— Leeds Revolutionary Feminists, 1981

“It is the system of heterosexuality that characterises the oppression of women and gives it a different shape from other forms of exploitative oppression. . . .
“Sex roles originate from heterosexuality. . . . Sex roles must be created so that no human being of either gender is fully capable of independent functioning and heterosexual coupling then seems natural and inevitable.”
— Sheila Jeffreys, Anticlimax: A Feminist Perspective on the Sexual Revolution (1990)

“Men affirm male superiority through use of the penis as a weapon against the female. . . .
“Because men want women’s sexual services for themselves only . . . men make women’s heterosexuality compulsory.”
— Dee Graham, et al., Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives (1994)

“From the beginning of second-wave feminism, sexuality was identified as a key site of patriarchal domination and women’s resistance to it. . . .
“While heterosexual desires, practices, and relations are socially defined as ‘normal’ and normative, serving to marginalize other sexualities as abnormal and deviant, the coercive power of compulsory heterosexuality derives from its institutionalization as more than merely a sexual relation.”
— Stevi Jackson, “Sexuality, Heterosexuality, and Gender Hierarchy: Getting Our Priorities Straight,” in Thinking Straight: The Power, the Promise, and the Paradox of Heterosexuality, edited by Chrys Ingraham (2005)

“Heterosexism is maintained by the illusion that heterosexuality is the norm.”
— Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)

“Heterosexuality and masculinity . . . are made manifest through patriarchy, which normalizes men as dominant over women. . . .
“This tenet of patriarchy is thus deeply connected to acts of sexual violence, which have been theorized as a physical reaffirmation of patriarchal power by men over women.”
— Sara Carrigan Wooten, The Crisis of Campus Sexual Violence: Critical Perspectives on Prevention and Response (2015)

“Feminism is about the collective liberation of women as a social class. Feminism is not about personal choice.”
— Anita Sarkeesian, 2015

Why does a man love a woman? What makes women attractive to men? If you are a woman who is interested in men, questions like this may be worth considering, and perhaps heterosexual men could tell you something about this subject. However, if you’re a feminist, you never want to hear anything a man has to say, especially not about sex. Feminists believe men know nothing about sex. Everything men say or do about sex is bad and wrong, according to feminist theory, which condemns heterosexuality as an oppressive “institution” forcibly imposed on women by the social system of male domination known as patriarchy.

According to feminist theory, all social and behavioral differences between male and female (i.e., “gender”) are artificially created by patriarchy in order to oppress women, to subjugate them under a systemic hierarchy of injustice enforced by male power.

When I say that Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, some readers may suppose that this is merely hyperbole, just as some readers may suppose that the sources I quote are “extreme” examples of an obscure “fringe” feminism. Yet anyone who cares to investigate further will discover that, however “radical” this anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology may have been in an earlier era, it has now become so mainstream within academic feminism that no other perspective on human sexual behavior is ever expressed by the faculty in university departments of Women’s Studies. This transformation of feminism has been accomplished over the course of decades, but has especially accelerated since the 1990s, by which time many radical feminists had obtained Ph.D.s and tenured professorships.

 

Consider the example of Sheila Jeffreys, who was a leader among the Leeds Revolutionary Feminists whose 1981 tract Love Your Enemy? The Debate Between Heterosexual Feminism and Political Lesbianism was at that time considered the ne plus ultra of radicalism. In 1991, however, she was hired as a professor at Australia’s University of Melbourne, where she taught until her retirement in 2015. Her books, including Anticlimax (1990), The Lesbian Heresy (1993), The Spinster and Her Enemies (1997), and Beauty and Misogyny (2005) are widely cited and, although Professor Jeffreys enjoys playing the martyr, claiming that she has been ignored or demonized by the feminist mainstream, her influence is not insignificant. Guardian columnist Julie Bindel is a huge admirer of Professor Jeffreys, and one may find her repeatedly cited as a source in the 2015 anthology Freedom Fallacy: The Limits of Liberal Feminism, edited by Miranda Kiraly and Megan Tyler. Being a British-born academic at an Australian university may make Professor Jeffreys unfamiliar to American readers, but as she herself has pointed out, in the preface to a new edition of Beauty and Misogyny issued in 2015, the Internet is fueling a worldwide resurgence of radical feminism.

Feminism: No More Fun, No More Games

This online phenomenon spans the English-speaking world — Great Britain, the United States, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc. — and the use of social media and blogging platforms like Tumblr has helped spread radical ideology far beyond academia. The controversy known as #GamerGate, for example, has centered on feminist critics like Anita Sarkeesian, who condemns as “objectification” any portrayal of women in videogames that might appeal to heterosexual men.

 

Demonizing men’s admiration of women’s beauty (the “male gaze”) is one way in which heterosexual masculinity is “problematized” in feminist rhetoric, which seeks not only to inspire women to view men contemptuously, but also to make men ashamed of their own desires. Sarkeesian’s description of feminism as seeking “the collective liberation of women,” a movement that is “not about personal choice,” is consistent with her anti-heterosexual agenda. If some women express their “personal choice” by seeking to attract the “male gaze,” and if these women do not feel a “collective” solidarity with anti-male hatemongers like Sarkeesian, they are not feminists. Unless women share her rage against “offensive” depictions of heterosexuality in videogames and other media, Sarkeeskian’s rhetoric implies, they are not feminists, because they are collaborating with the male oppressor.

One of Sarkeesian’s earliest tastes of fame was when she did a video about the “Manic Pixie Dream Girl,” a stock character in certain movies:

The Manic Pixie Dream Girl is a cute, bubbly, young (usually white) woman who has recently entered the life of our brooding hero to teach him how to loosen up and enjoy life. While that might sound all well and good for the man, this trope leaves women as simply there to support the star on his journey of self discovery with no real life of her own.

Understand that this phrase — “Manic Pixie Dream Girl” — was coined by a male film critic, Nathan Rabin, to describe a character played by an actress I never liked (Kirsten Dunst) in a 2005 movie (Elizabethtown) I never saw. Therefore I have no more interest in defending this film than I do in defending videogames. It has been many years since Hollywood made any movies I really liked, and my interest in videogames ended with Pac Man, feeding quarters into the machine at the Red Rooster Pub when I was in college more than 30 years ago. However, because I majored in drama and studied dramatic theory, permit me to point out something obvious: Just as every sentence has a subject, so must every story have a protagonist. If the hero is a heterosexual male, then by definition his love interest is female, but insofar as this is a story about him — which is what being the protagonist means, after all — well, of course this female is ancillary, her role to “support the star on his journey.”

What inspired Nathan Rabin to complain of about this, I can’t say, having never seen the movie in question, but you see how for Sarkeesian, the problem is that this female character having “no real life of her own” is somehow an expression of misogyny. The failure of the writer/director (Cameron Crowe) to give Ms. Dunst’s character a more in-depth biography, according to Sarkeesian’s interpretation, is cited as further evidence of women’s oppression under heteropatriarchy ( as if further evidence were needed). You see how, in criticizing movies as allegedly “sexist,” Sarkeesian (and other feminist critics) are actually criticizing men — not only the male writers, directors and producers behind these films, but also any man who enjoys them, and in general, the behavior and attitudes of real-life men that these movies are intended to dramatize.

How does this help explain why men who like videogames react so harshly to Ms. Sarkeesian’s criticism of their hobby? The raging fury of #GamerGate reflects an intuitive understanding that Sarkeesian’s criticism of “objectification” is actually a condemnation of male sexuality. Guys like good-looking women, and so the makers of these games give guys what they like. This makes guys happy, and Sarkeesian doesn’t want guys to be happy. Like all other feminists, Sarkeesian’s goal is to abolish male happiness. Sarkeesian’s attitude — anything that makes men happy must be wrong — is so typical of feminism, and feminist attitudes have become so commonplace, that most people do not even question it, in the same way that most people who saw Elizabethtown probably didn’t feel offended by the shallowness of Kirsten Dunst’s character. Maybe it was a lousy movie, but was it a social injustice?

OK, do you suppose the average guy who spends a lot of time playing videogames is going to write a persuasive essay rebutting Sarkeesian? It’s absurd to expect such a thing. You don’t learn to write persuasive essays by logging endless hours playing League of Legends. Well, do we expect these gamers to do what I’ve done, spend upwards of $1,500 acquiring dozens of books of feminist theory and history, then spend hundreds of hours reading these books in order to develop an informed critical analysis of feminist ideology and rhetoric? Of course not. So while these videogame guys correctly interpret Anita Sarkeesian’s work as profoundly insulting to themselves as men, very few of them are prepared to confront Sarkeesian with a well-informed rebuttal. Instead, these guys just call her ugly names or otherwise “harass” her, as she is wont to complain.

Sarkeesian claims that this “harassment” is “silencing” women, but has she ever debated any man who disagrees with her? No, Sarkeesian and her feminist allies strive to exclude their opponents from academia and media, to silence feminism’s critics and, most especially, to ensure that no heterosexual male will be allowed to defend his own point of view. Any man who musters the courage to step forward to argue for the legitimacy of the heterosexual man’s perspective is automatically condemned for daring to say anything in his own defense.

Sexual Anarchy: Bellum Omnium Contra Omne

What kind of women do men like, and why do they like them that way? Or what can a young woman do to increase her chances of romantic success with men? Good luck finding answers to such questions in a world where men are effectively forbidden to speak on their own behalf.

 

According to feminist theory, male sexuality is inherently oppressive to women, and there is no reason why women should attempt to understand or sympathize with men. Feminists condemn any expectation that women naturally desire heterosexual relationships, and therefore might wish to make themselves appealing to males. Heterosexuality is “an institution of male domination,” as Sheila Jeffreys and her colleagues declared in 1981, and it is an “illusion that heterosexuality is the norm,” as Professor Shaw and Professor Lee more recently declared in their popular Women’s Studies textbook. The penis is a “weapon against women,” as Professor Graham explained, women are victimized by “the coercive power of compulsory heterosexuality,” according to Professor Jackson, and masculinity causes “sexual violence . . . a physical reaffirmation of patriarchal power,” according to Ms. Wooten.

“Fear and Loathing of the Penis,” as I have dubbed the fundamental message of feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology, has fueled the phony “campus rape epidemic” hysteria on university campuses. If you take feminist rhetoric seriously, you must believe 1-in-5 college girls are victims of sexual assault and, because fewer than 1-in-5 male students are expelled, these heinous crimes usually go unpunished. Should you express doubt that this “epidemic” is as widespread as feminists claim, or point to cases where accusations of sexual assault on campus have been proven to be hoaxes, feminists will call you a “rape apologist.” It is dangerous even to make the most common-sense remarks about this situation. If you point out that a lot of these cases seem to involve drunken hookups, suggesting that maybe young women should be careful how much they drink and who they hook up with, you will be accused of “victim-blaming.” Feminists now exercise hegemonic authority over discussion of sex. Feminists decide what the facts are, and also decide what arguments are permissible, and this means that the only ways a male can participate in the discussion of sex are (a) sitting in mute silence, (b) accusing other men of sexism, or (c) engaging in self-denunciation.

 

What has happened, it seems, is that our culture has descended so far into moral decadence and social anarchy that there is no longer any mutually understood script by which young people navigate their romantic lives.

What do they want and how do they go about getting it? Three or four decades ago, the differences between men and women were understood in a rather simple fashion — men wanted sex, women wanted love, and this was the basis of negotiation for each party to gain by voluntary exchange. Were men more emotionally vulnerable than they liked to admit? Sure. Were women more lusty than they liked to admit? Sure. In general, however, it was understood that women had a greater investment in the emotional aspects of love and romance, whereas men’s interests were . . . uh, more pragmatic, you might say. Perhaps we could interrogate the “is”/”ought” distinction here, but why bother? Whether or not this was how things should be in an ideal world, this was how things actually were in the real world, and most people coped with it somehow.

That pragmatic approach to male/female relationships, however, seems to have become inoperative after two generations of social upheaval, which has not only swept away the Judeo-Christian moral code, but has also destroyed nearly all hope that when boy meets girl, they might fall in love, and proceed toward the kind of happily-ever-after conclusion that was once celebrated 24/7 by pop music on Top 40 radio. Young people who grow up in fragmented families — where Dad never bothered to marry Mom, or where they divorced after a kid or two and then remarried to create networks of step-parents, step-siblings and half-siblings — seem to have very little romantic idealism. Many of today’s youth believe there is no such thing as moral virtue as regards sexual behavior, and the only “ideals” which concern them are maximizing their own pleasure, boosting their own ego, and enhancing their social status. The sex scene on the 21st-century university campus looks rather like bellum omnium contra omnes, the Hobbesian “war of all against all,” a chaotic and ruthless competition with no recognized rules of conduct.

Feminism cannot solve this problem, mainly because feminism has played such a large part in causing this problem. We find feminists advocating shameless promiscuity — “I’ve gone down and dirty with strangers,” Jaclyn Friedman boasts — while simultaneously scapegoating men for every predictable consequence of such behavior. Feminists launch social-media campaigns to announce the sexual diseases they’ve contracted through heedless fornication (intending to end the “stigma” of these diseases) and then complain about “harassment” when everybody laughs at the stupidity of their arguments. And, of course, the alleged “campus rape epidemic” is entirely men’s fault, as if drunken teenagers who stumble into bed together at 2 a.m. could be expected to conduct a careful point-by-point negotiation of “affirmative consent.”

Much of feminist rhetoric is a form of psychological warfare against men, employing a propaganda tactic in which atrocities (e.g., Rodger Elliot’s murder spree in California) are used as an indictment of all men. “Toxic masculinity!” screamed the feminists. “Misogyny! Male entitlement!” Suddenly, every young guy who ever read a pickup artist (PUA) web site in an attempt to improve his luck with the ladies was deemed complicit in murder. The SPLC even branded pickup artists as hate criminals.

This atrocity-as-representative tactic — where the very worst thing any man ever does is attributed to all men collectively — is simply a method of hate propaganda. Using this kind of irresponsible rhetoric, we could demonize almost any group and justify any measure to punish them. Are lesbians teachers committing sexual crimes against students? Ban lesbian teachers! Or better yet, abolish public schools!

Here’s a headline: “Girl goes on one date with a guy, chooses not to hook up, and gets sent an insane text rant.” This guy named Endri traveled a good distance for a first date with Arielle, a girl he met via the dating app Tinder. After meeting him in person, Arielle decided Endri was creepy, so their date did not progress to, uh, intimacy, and Endri then went berserk, sending a series of foul and abusive text messages to the girl.

Now, from my perspective, the moral of the story is, “Never use Tinder, or OKCupid, or any other kind of online dating service.”

All such services are for creeps, weirdos and losers, because if they had anything going for them, they could meet somebody in real life, and wouldn’t be cruising for dates on the Internet. Is that generalization unfair? Perhaps, but after you hear a few of these horror stories (“Hit It and Quit It on Tinder”) it only takes a little common sense to see why dating apps are a bad gamble. Just “swipe left” on the whole thing.

However, queer feminist Melissa Fabello has other ideas:

“This is most men”? Seriously?

No, maybe this is “most men” of the kind a woman is likely to meet if she’s still unmarried past 25. As I’ve explained previously, the good guys tend to get coupled up at a young age. They might change girlfriends a few times before they get married, but they usually don’t spend too long “on the scene.” A woman who is still single at 25? Good luck finding a real quality guy who doesn’t already have a serious girlfriend.

The median age at first marriage in the U.S. is about 26, and most couples marry after at least a year or two of dating, so if you’re in your mid-20s and aren’t married yet, why? Is it because “most men” are jerks? Or is it because all of the quality guys are either (a) already married or (b) in a serious relationship?

Am I willing to believe that “most men” Melissa Fabello has dated are selfish jerks? Yes. Am I willing to believe that women are unlikely to meet Mister Right on Tinder? Yes, again. But does it make sense to blame this on “male sexual entitlement”? On “patriarchy”? No and no.

If these men have a sense of “sexual entitlement,” why? Where did Endri get the idea that he can find a girl on Tinder, drive all the way to New Jersey to meet her and expect to get sex right away? Maybe because such trysts quite commonly happen that way nowadays? It takes two to tango, and if any substantial number of girls are hooking up with random dudes via dating apps, why should we blame the random dudes if they start taking this kind of casual sex for granted?

Why Do Winners Win? Because Losers Lose

No, Ms. Fabello, I don’t doubt that dating life is miserable for most single women. However, based on my own extensive experience and observation — having been married 26 years, with six kids, two of whom are already married and another recently engaged — I have some definite opinions as to why things are as bad as they are, but no feminist cares what a man has to say about such matters, you see? God forbid any woman should ask a man’s advice about why her romantic life is a disaster.

Women must only take advice from feminists! Because if women ever start listening to advice from men, why, the patriarchy will win!

Well, ma’am, the joke’s on you. The patriarchy always wins. No matter how feminists try to change the game, winners win and losers lose.

Speaking of losers, take a look at Feminist Tumblr where a mentally disabled 24-year-old lesbian Scorpio occultist has this observation:

I’ve been thinking about how I rarely ever hear any female-attracted men mention that they love women. As in, one of them just bursting out in how much they adore women.
I’ve legit heard many more gay men say that they really love women (Platonically, of course) than any straight man or even bi man. I think I’ve heard like. Three female-attracted men mention how much they love women in a way that’s actually loving, like genuine love. In my entire life, not just tumblr.
Instead… I hear SO MANY female-attracted men say how stupid women are, how ridiculous we are, how even repulsive we are to them when we’re not serving them as pretty f–kholes and even while they’re using us like that they can still spew how much they hate us. And yes, this includes MGA men, I’ve seen it in pretty much the same fashion.
However, in society, men’s attraction to women is seen as healthy, as natural, as normal, as good.
But whose attraction to women is universally seen as gross, predatory, repulsive, creepy, unhealthy?
Women’s.
And the thing here is that, there isn’t a day in lesbian tumblr in which I don’t see at least ONE post being reblogged by all the lesbians I follow about how much they love girls, how amazing, how beautiful, how great, sexy, strong, adorable, breathtaking, fun, admirable women are. We literally can’t shut up about it when we feel we’re safe enough to express it.
When I thought I was bi I remember bi/pan-girl tumblr being similar.
It’s already sad enough that society at large (Including straight women) thinks of us as being the gross predatory ones.
But the real saddest thing is that we believe it too. We’ve been taught that all our lives and it’s so hard to unlearn it. I still can’t truly unlearn it even though I know all this in a rational way.

Well, if this is so, why is it that men don’t praise women? Isn’t it because feminism more or less forbids men from expressing their love for women? Isn’t it because every time a man opens his mouth to say anything at all about women, feminists scream at him to shut up? What is it possible for men to say about women that feminists will not denounce as “objectifying,” “harassment,” “misogyny” or otherwise wrong? Feminists cannot permit men to praise good women. No man may express admiration for women’s beauty, nor praise women whose manners are gracious, whose conduct is virtuous, whose character is godly.

My wife? No, feminists would never say a good word about my wife, or permit me to praise my wife’s many excellent qualities, because my wife is a Christian, and feminism is implacably opposed to Christianity.

It was Mary Daly who celebrated the feminist movement as “the Second Coming of female presence not only as Antichrist but also as Antichurch,” as a “rising woman-consciousness” to destroy the “Christocentric cosmos.” Mary Daly was an influential professor, so if she declared feminism to be the Antichrist, who am I to disagree?

“Especially important is the warning to avoid conversations with the demon. . . . He is a liar. The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don’t listen to him. Remember that — do not listen.”
— The Exorcist (1973)

The Radical Theology of Feminism produces such demon-possessed creatures as a mentally disabled Scorpio occultist lesbian, and the same satanic philosophy also produces despicable liars like Anita Sarkeesian.

An honest enemy is less to be feared than a false friend, which is why I can at least respect Professor Sheila Jeffreys, who has never attempted to conceal her all-encompassing hatred of men, whereas dishonest feminists like Anita Sarkeesian pretend that they are victims of harassment, misunderstood and misrepresented by “misogynists.”

We live in an evil age, and feminism is among the greatest of evils. Men cannot even be allowed to praise the virtue of their own wives, nor can any man ever expect praise for his own virtuous conduct. Feminists only ever praise perversity. Feminists celebrate vice and corruption.

Sexual Fluidity: Queer, Straight,
And Anything Else You’re Feeling
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

5 Ways to Bring Feminism to Your Education
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

4 Myths About Virginity
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

Fantasy vs. Reality:
Lesbian Sex in Pornography
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

 

Lesbian and Bisexual Women in the
Media — Or the Lack Thereof
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

5 Efforts Toward Creating
a More Feminist Classroom
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

Your First Time: A Sexual Guide for Girls
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

Our Vulvas, Ourselves
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

 

Five Locker Room Myths
About Penises Debunked
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

5 Common Fears That Stop People
From Calling Themselves Feminists
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

How To Start Loving Your Vagina
— Melissa Fabello, Everyday Feminism

 

More than a year ago, describing the “queer feminism” that Melissa Fabello promotes at her site Everyday Feminism, I said this:

This exotic 21st-century rainbow of queer feminism is to sexuality what Baskin-Robbins is to ice cream, offering 31 flavors of abnormal perversion to those seeking escape from the gender binary and the heterosexual matrix that define oppression under patriarchy.
Now everybody is an oppressed victim, except normal people, because whatever feminists are, they are never normal people.

Selah.

 

+ + + + +

Thanks to the many readers whose contributions have supported the Sex Trouble project. Your prayers are always deeply appreciated.




 

 


Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 04.15.16

Posted on | April 15, 2016 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
Proof Positive: John Kasich – The Early Years
Louder With Crowder: Buzzfeed Rebuttal – 27 “Racist” Questions…Answered
EBL: Why Russians Like Putin, And What That Says About Our Elections
Da Tech Guy: Historical Ignorance On A National Scale – Income Inequality
The Political Hat: Feminist Whores – Feminist Slavers Of Women
Michelle Malkin: The Wall Street Journal’s Stupid Berlin Wall Meme
Twitchy: There’s Nothing Wrong With John Kasich’s Advice On How To Avoid Rape
Shark Tank: Tim Tebow Being Asked To Run For Congress


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Feeling The Bern Of Reality
American Thinker: A Murder Provides A Lesson In Evil At The University Of Texas
Conservatives4Palin: Judge Refuses ACLU Demand To Force Catholic Hospitals To Perform Abortions
Don Surber: Left Uses Dildo Case To Skewer Cruz
Joe For America: “Christian” Obama Silent As “Religion Of Peace” Erases Christianity From Middle East
JustOneMinute: The Ongoing Power Of Ignorance
Pamela Geller: Muslim Migrant Men Pose With Pre-Teen Kufr “Girlfriends” On Social Media
Shot In The Dark: Open Letter To Samantha Bee
STUMP: Tax Day Tribute – Think The IRS Would Be Happy With 80% Of What’s Owed?
The Jawa Report: Wanted Liberian Warlord Mohammed Jabbateh Found!
The Lonely Conservative: Want To Dump Drudge? There Are Alternatives
The Quinton Report: Kathy Szeliga Rides Motorcycle In New Ad
This Ain’t Hell: “Today, The Vast Majority Of Marine Corps Aircraft Can’t Fly”
Weasel Zippers: Obama Meets With Rappers And Hip Hop Stars On Criminal Justice Reform
Megan McArdle: Dining Out On Empty Virtue
Mark Steyn: Where The Streets Have No Jokes, Continued


Shop Amazon – Mother’s Day Store
Shop Amazon – Grow Your Garden

Category: Linkagery

Trump Trolls His ‘Christian’ Chumps

Posted on | April 14, 2016 | 123 Comments

by Smitty

Hot Air has the audio clip. It’s a relatively obvious troll. It underscores the notions that either (a) Trump isn’t even slightly serious about the job for which he’s purportedly campaigning, or (b) if there is a serious bone in his body, it’s dislocated from any real competence.

I’m actively curious as to how anyone with even the tiniest bit of ‘Evangelical’ leaning could possibly support Trump. If you want to study a religion that cleaves closer to Hammurabi, as Trump appears to do here, have a glance at what Islam teaches.

Category: Donald Trump, Religion, Republicans
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin