The Other McCain

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

Yes, ‘Gender’ Is About Sex

Posted on | April 14, 2016 | 28 Comments

 

Melissa Fabello will once again be the subject of my attention in a long post I’ve been writing this week, but her romantic holiday in Paris is something she has not bothered to explain at length, whereas we already have extensive testimony as to her “queer feminist” credentials.

“Right now, today, as of writing this, I identify as queer. But I didn’t always. And no, I’m not referring to that awkward, uncomfortable time in my life where I knew that something felt ‘off,’ but I couldn’t quite place it, and so I paraded around in the charade of ‘straight.’ I mean that a few years ago, I identified as homoflexible. And before that, a lesbian. And even before that, bisexual.”
— Melissa Fabello

As I say, there is a long unfinished draft that I mean to get finished at some point, but right now I don’t have time. My daughter-in-law will soon bring my two young grandsons for me to supervise and care for, and my patriarchal duty will necessarily intrude on my writing schedule. Therefore, I will quickly suggest what the apparent heterosexual resolution of Ms. Fabello’s lifelong adventures in queerness may mean.

When I began my in-depth exploration of feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — it was immediately apparent to me that (a) Professor Judith Butler’s argument assumed as its tacit premise feminism’s opposition to heterosexuality, per se; and that many adherents of so-called Third Wave feminism had either (b) failed to recognize this premise, or else (c) were being less than honest about what “gender theory” actually implies and where its application as policy is likely to lead.

Professor Butler shrewdly couches her arguments in opaque jargon and asks provocative questions to which the answers are never clearly stated, but which the intelligent and careful researcher can easily intuit. How many times, for example, can an author cite radical lesbian Monique Wittig without being accused of advocating lesbianism?

“A materialist feminist approach to women’s oppression destroys the idea that women are a ‘natural group’ . . .
“Lesbian is the only concept I know of which is beyond the categories of sex (woman and man). . . . For what makes a woman is a specific social relation to a man, a relation that we have previously called servitude . . . a relation which lesbians escape by refusing to become or to stay heterosexual. . . . [O]ur survival demands that we contribute all our strength to the destruction of the class of women within which men appropriate women. This can be accomplished only by the destruction of heterosexuality as a social system which is based on the oppression of women by men and which produces the doctrine of the difference between the sexes to justify this oppression.”
— Monique Wittig, “One Is Not Born a Woman,” 1981

Let anyone consult Professor Butler’s 1990 book Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity and see how often she cites Wittig. Furthermore, the reader should contemplate what “the Subversion of Identity” means in the context of lesbian feminism. Many radical feminists have been critical of Professor Butler’s work, but is it not possible that the subtlety of her feminist attack on “identity” has eluded their comprehension? Any reader familiar with the sources cited by Professor Butler — not only Wittig, but also Adrienne Rich, Gayle Rubin, Esther Newton, Teresa de Lauretis, Eve Sedwick, Diana Fuss, et al. — recognizes that she takes for granted all feminist arguments made against heterosexuality. It was simply unnecessary, in 1990, for Professor Butler to cite such outspoken lesbian-feminist enemies of heterosexuality as Charlotte Bunch, Jill Johnston, Mary Daly, Marilyn Frye and Joyce Trebilcot. By the time Gender Trouble was published, there were enough such radicals among the tenured faculty of Women’s Studies that once Professor Butler invoked “gender hierarchy and compulsory heterosexuality” (on the second page of her 1990 preface), all of her academic readers could be expected to nod in recognition: “Yes, we see exactly where she’s coming from here.”

For some reason, however, I keep encountering young feminists (and also young opponents of feminism) who do not understand this. Feminist theory did not begin with Judith Butler, nor is the ostentatious weirdness of a self-described “queer” feminist like Melissa Fabello anything new.

As I have pointed out at length in my book Sex Trouble, and in the continuing series of writing here that I intend to incorporate into the revised and expanded second edition, the “Lavender Menace” of lesbian feminism erupted publicly less than two years after the emergence of the Women’s Liberation movement in 1968. That first surge of gaudy radicalism faded from public consciousness after the mid-1970s (as Professor Alice Echols explains in her 1989 history Daring To Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America 1967-1975), so that by the mid-1980s “feminism” was widely viewed as the idea of smart, stylish women trying to “have it all,” combining career, marriage and motherhood. This idea was popularized by Cosmopolitan editor Helen Gurley Brown in her 1982 bestseller Having It All: Love, Success, Sex, Money … Even if You’re Starting With Nothing. What was overlooked, generally, was that Brown herself never had children, and she was married to a wealthy film producer, David Brown, a partner of Richard Zanuck. For a millionaire’s wife to be considered a feminist expert on “having it all” is highly ironic to those familiar with modern feminism’s Marxist origins.

Meanwhile, however, radical feminists were burrowing into academia, publishing in journals like Hypatia, and their weird ideas about “gender” and “sexuality” didn’t attract widespread notice until, in 1995, the Beijing Conference put lesbianism front and center. (See Ara Wilson’s contemporaneous article in the feminist journal Signs, written from a pro-lesbian perspective.) Despite the headlines and controversy surrounding Beijing, it seems that few conservative critics understood the full significance and probable consequences of this. Academic feminism was increasingly dominated by professors whose hostility toward heterosexuality was a matter of both theory and practice.

By the 1990s, therefore, much of what was being taught in universities about men, women and sex was being taught from a radical perspective that condemned heterosexuality as “the ideology of male supremacy,” to quote one of Charlotte Bunch’s comrades. Professor Daphne Patai was one of the few people in academia who saw the danger in this and tried to call attention it. First, in Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women’s Studies (co-authored with Professor Noretta Koertge), Professor Patai examined the problem of what was being taught in Women’s Studies classes. Next, in an excellent 1998 book I have often recommended, Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism, Professor Patai took direct aim at anti-male hatemongers including University of Cincinnati Professor Dee Graham. It was Professor Graham’s 1994 book Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence and Women’s Lives which inspired the infamous radical feminist blogger Witchwind to proclaim “PIV is always rape, OK?” and “No woman is heterosexual.” These were the declarations that in turn inspired my research into feminist theory, and here we are more than two years later.

Do not doubt that I have greatly enjoyed mocking Melissa Fabello’s style of “queer feminism.” However, beyond my mirthful pleasure, we must confront a serious problem — Feminism Is Queer, to cite the title of a Women’s Studies textbook by Professor Mimi Marinucci. That is to say, both Radical Wind’s anti-male radicalism and Ms. Fabello’s bizarre confusion — changing her identity from bisexual to lesbian to “homoflexible” and now to “queer” — are endorsed and advocated by Women’s Studies programs. Academic feminism is now in favor of every form of sexual behavior except normal sexual behavior.

Whatever type of deviant sexuality a woman may choose is OK with the professors, just so long as she avoids those patterns of behavior that might lead to (a) finding herself a husband and (b) having babies.

“Sex is compulsory in marriage. . . . It is clear that the compulsory nature of sex in marriage operates to the advantage of the male. . . . The enslavement of women in marriage is all the more cruel and inhumane by virtue of the fact that it appears to exist with the consent of the enslaved group.”
— Sheila Cronan, 1970

“The first condition for escaping from forced motherhood and sexual slavery is escape from the patriarchal institution of marriage.”
— Alison M. Jaggar, 1988

Well, my grandsons just arrived, so I’ll have to quit this now, but I do wish Ms. Fabello would stop complaining about “harassment” long enough to write something honest about Third Wave feminism. Selah.




 

 


Category: Sex Trouble

About Those ‘Huddled Masses’

Posted on | April 14, 2016 | 67 Comments

 

Mark Steyn takes aim at Emma Lazarus:

UN Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour, who insisted that there’s no difference between the once supposedly unassimilable Irish Catholics and East European Jews and the new Pushtun goatherds and Mogadishu hoodlums. It’s one of the curious aspects of self-proclaimed “multiculturalists” that they are, essentially, uniculturalists: they think everybody’s the same.
But sometimes history doesn’t repeat itself — and Emma Lazarus’ lousy poem is an even lousier guide to social policy.

Was her poem “The New Colossus” really that bad? No, I think the problem is in the interpretation, in the same way that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment has become a problem. In the minds of some people, among them Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is a python that swallows whole the rest of the Constitution, including the First and Tenth Amendments, so that the entire purpose of the federal government, according to this view, is to impose “equality” everywhere.

In his 1993 book Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution, the late M.E. Bradford noted the way in which people conflate the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, so that phrases like “all men are created equal” and “the pursuit of happiness” attain in their minds the force of law. Jefferson’s expressions of lofty ideals, which some shallow minds never study carefully in their historic context, are then smuggled into the Constitution where they fornicate with the phrase “a more perfect Union,” thus breeding a bastard child — a mandate that the teleological purpose of the federal government is to make America “more perfect,” which is to say more “equal,” and also to guarantee “happiness” for everyone. Trying to get liberals to understand what’s wrong with this bastardized idea of the Founders’ intent is nearly hopeless. Justice Kennedy has obviously ceased to give a damn about the Constitution, so that the late Antonin Scalia went to his grave absolutely correct, and yet on the losing end of the crucial 5-4 majorities in Lawrence v. Texas, U.S. v. Windsor, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

Well, what does this have to do with Emma Lazarus? In the same way a few phrases from the Declaration get smuggled into the Constitution by liberals, so also have a few phrases from Lazarus’s famous poem about the Statue of Liberty attained legal authority in shallow minds. Peter Brimelow made a point of this in his excellent 1995 book Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster. How is it that poetic phrases and the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty have become practically the only things so many people know about U.S. immigration policy?

Much like the problem with the Fourteenth Amendment, it seems impossible to get liberals to confront actual facts about immigration.

For all their blithe chatter about “critical thinking,” The Smart People™ don’t seem to do much of it. If a fact contradicts whatever is currently the Democrat mania, liberals always find some reason to dismiss this fact as irrelevant, or else to explain it away as having a liberal meaning, opposite to an obvious common-sense interpretation.

Here, let us cite “The New Colossus” in its entirety:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Now, what is “the imprisoned lightning”? Liberty, which Lazarus correctly identifies as the great principle of the American nation. And why were the “huddled masses” and “wretched refuse” — the immigrants aboard ships steaming into the “air-bridged harbor” of New York — “yearning to breath free”? Do we know anything about these “ancient lands” of “storied pomp” from which these “Exiles” had come in search of their adoptive “Mother”? And what of Liberty herself, as symbol of the nation that extended this “world-wide welcome”?

Liberty and History, Policy and Poetry

It so happened that the Statue of Liberty was given to the United States by the citizens of France in 1776, commemorating the centennial of the Declaration of Independence. Considering that France had been our ally in the War of Independence against England, this gift was meant to remind Americans of France’s friendship and, considering that the French had recently gotten their imperial butts kicked in the Franco-Prussian War, France certainly could expect to need help from its friends going forward. This bit of historical context, you see, gives us a rather more cynical understanding of what the Statue of Liberty was really all about. Within 40 years of this gift, French soldiers would be bleeding to death under German machine-gun fire on the battlefields of World War One, into which America was inexorably drawn. And of course, again in World War Two, it became America’s job to save those “ancient lands” of “storied pomp” from the menace of German militarism.

Was any of that in the mind of Emma Lazarus when she wrote her poem “The New Colossus”? Of course not. She was a poet, not a diplomatic strategist, nor was she advocating any change in U.S. policy. She wrote her poem in 1883 — after the statue had been raised on an island in the harbor — which was almost the exact middle of the 80-year span, roughly 1840 to 1920, that Brimelow calls the “Era of Mass Immigration.” This era began at a time before the advent of steamships and locomotives, when America was still expanding its frontiers westward. It was not until U.S. victory in the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) that California and the Southwest were added to our national territory, so that these vast expanses of sparsely populated western lands beckoned for settlers. You see that the “Era of Mass Immigration” got underway at a time when there was an organic demand for additional population here in the “Mother of Exiles,” and the vast expansion of U.S. industry — coal, steel, textiles, etc. — during subsequent decades meant that Liberty had a tremendous need for those “huddled masses.”

What about the “ancient lands” from which these exiles arrived? Well, in 1883, the ships that Emma Lazarus saw streaming into New York harbor past the Statue of Liberty contained a lot of Greeks and Italians. Indeed, the erstwhile empires of Greco-Roman fame had a lot of “storied pomp,” as did the Russian Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, both of which were even then teetering toward their final destruction in World War One. The contrast between the decadent empires of Europe, and the land of Liberty — a “mighty woman with a torch” — was certainly worthy of a poet’s notice, but the historian and the statesman must consider the sources of this contrast. Why had ancient Greece and Rome gone downhill? Why was Russia so backward and its government so despotic? Why was the Hapsburg dynasty unable to sustain harmony among its polyglot subjects? None of those questions interested Emma Lazarus who, although an excellent writer, was not a student of political, military or diplomatic history, the schools of statesmanship. We have no reason to believe Emma Lazarus was especially adept at economics or any other subject necessary to a study of immigration as public policy and, in fact, there is evidence that she was quite ignorant of U.S. policy circa 1883.

Whereas her poem has Liberty proclaiming “world-wide welcome” in New York harbor, on the West Coast, a policy of excluding Chinese and Japanese immigrants was being enforced in California — the “Yellow Peril” and all that — and Liberty herself was at that time not much interested in the “huddled masses” of black people, either as immigrants or among the former slaves who had quite recently gained their freedom from chattel slavery. In the so-called “Corrupt Bargain” of 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes had become president in exchange for an agreement by Republicans to end the military enforcement of Reconstruction in the South. In effect, the North gave its tacit assent to Jim Crow in the South, in order to maintain Republican control of the White House. Furthermore, as Southerners then and since have taken pains to point out, the treatment of black people in the North was not exactly in keeping with the lofty sentiments of “equality” and “liberty” that were so often invoked when Republicans waved “the Bloody Shirt” in election campaigns. Schools in the North were generally segregated, and black residents in Northern cities were mostly quite poor and restricted to living in certain neighborhoods, and there were few if any black immigrants responding to Liberty’s “world-wide welcome” in 1883. There was no shortage of outright racism in New York and other Northern cities at that time and, particularly in New England, the Republican Party gained votes by the tremendous ethnic and religious hostility toward Irish Catholics among the Yankee descendants of English Puritans.

All of that historic background as to the politics and policy of the United States circa 1883 is absent from the minds of those idiots (useful or otherwise) for whom the stirring poetry of Emma Lazarus has been transmogrified into a mandate for an open-borders immigration policy.

Every sound principle of statesmanship argues against this absurd idea that America should make “world-wide welcome” its policy, without any exception or numerical limit, and yet poetic sentiment has somehow replaced statesmanship as the basis of policy discussion.

‘Truth Is Great and Will Prevail’

What we suffer from most is an unwillingness to speak frankly, either about the reality of American history, or the nature of the problems we face in the present, or about the likely future consequences if we do not soon do something to solve these problems. As I have often reminded readers here, there are five A’s in “RAAAAACIST!” and a fear of being smeared as such tends to inhibit the honesty of conservatives when dealing with issues like this. Yet we have seen over and over, especially in the Obama Era, that conservatives will be labeled racists — excuse me, “RAAAAACIST!” — no matter what they say or do.

Another major problem is that conservatives, mindful of protecting the reputation of the Republican Party, are unwilling to tell the truth about the GOP’s actual history. Of course, Democrats have their own bogus propaganda version of history, hiding their long record of supporting slavery and Jim Crow, but it does not help the Republican Party for conservatives to flinch from the truth of their own past. There is a huge and significant difference between virtue and self-righteousness, and that difference can be summarized in a single word, honesty. Conservative spokesmen need to stop worrying so much about maintaining and enhancing their personal reputations, and instead focus on telling the plain truth, no matter how unpopular the truth might be.

“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

If we wish to preserve “the imprisoned lightning” of Liberty, you see, we need to tell the truth, and we need to start asking the right questions. Who are these “huddled masses,” and does Liberty need quite so many of them today as she needed in 1883? Are all the “wretched refuse” equally eligible for this “world-wide welcome”? Is it possible that, by permitting a floodtide of illegal immigration, America could lose Liberty herself?

Thank God for Mark Steyn, himself an immigrant, who is willing to ask tough questions and to provide truthful answers. We now find ourselves confronted with the spectacle of the “ancient lands” of Europe being drowned by an endless tsunami of Muslim immigration. Jean Rapail’s 1973 novel The Camp of the Saints is being acted out in front of our eyes on a daily basis — at least, if we are paying attention to what is actually happening in Europe — and only a fool could fail to recognize what this might mean for America. Whether we are concerned about the astonishing wave of Mexican immigration and radicals who envision the Reconquista of Atzlan, or the enclaves of Palestinians, Pakistanis and Somalis scattered around various U.S. cities, it is obvious that the current immigration system is a complete failure, and advocates of so-called “comprehensive” reform are likely to make the problem even worse.

Nowadays, it seems, the “huddled masses” are not the immigrants, whose alleged “rights” are celebrated by the influential elites in both major parties. Rather, the “huddled masses” in 2016 are American citizens who find that almost no one in power, not even among those who claim to be “conservative,” will defend the rights and interests of our own people.





 


Category: Immigration

DEAR GOD IN HEAVEN!

Posted on | April 13, 2016 | 52 Comments

How Caitlin Dewey can be employed as a reporter is astonishing. The Washington Post has no moral or journalistic standards at all, but it’s still hard to believe they published Dewey’s factually challenged, dishonest and completely one-sided smear on #GamerGate:

This horrifying and newly trendy
online-harassment tactic is ruining careers
There are literal textbooks for online harassment, the original dating back to 1999. These “ruin-life” guides include tactics from doxing and SWATing to placing endangering or annoying ads in online classifieds.
As popular as those techniques remain, however, online harassers have learned that they can cause far more damage with a slightly less flashy and more methodical approach — you might even say the “hottest new trend” in harassment is opposition research.
The latest high-profile victim is Alison Rapp, formerly a spokesperson for Nintendo of America. Rapp has been in the crosshairs of an online mob since fall, when Nintendo changed several female characters in American versions of its games to make them less sexual. . . .
In between deconstructing her Amazon wishlist, surfacing anonymous social accounts and circulating copies of her undergraduate thesis, the self-styled investigators also found evidence that Rapp was working a mysterious second job — for which she was fired from Ninetendo on March 30. . . .

IT’S NOT “HARASSMENT”! THE “SELF-STYLED INVESTIGATORS” ARE DOING WHAT USED TO BE CALLED “REPORTING,” YOU IDIOT! HOW ABOUT YOU TRY DOING SOME REPORTING INSTEAD OF SMEARING HONEST PEOPLE TO ADVANCE YOUR POLITICAL AGENDA?

Who “ruined” Alison Rapp’s career, Ms. Dewey? Alison Rapp, that’s who.

You have published zero evidence that being “in the crosshairs of an online mob” was the reason for Rapp’s firing, Ms. Dewey, nor have you apparently undertaken any effort to determine (a) whether Rapp was peddling her ass on the Internet, (b) whether this alleged ass-peddling was the cause of her firing, and certainly not (c) whether it was the “online mob” that reported this alleged ass-peddling to Ninendo. What you have done, instead of actually reporting the story, is to repeat the tendentious claims of the SJW crowd, contending that #GamerGate is about nothing except “harassment,” “misogyny” and general all-around Wrongthink.

You are lazy, Ms. Dewey, and it is a great mystery how you have managed to convince the editors of the Washington Post that you are worth whatever they’re paying you. By my count, you’ve had nine bylines in the past three weeks, and if your absurd thinly-sourced “reporting” about the Alison Rapp scandal is typical of your work, I can’t imagine what you’re doing with all your spare time. Meanwhile, Cynthia Than at Inc. magazine shows what real reporting looks like:

Alison Rapp, a product marketing specialist at Nintendo, has been fired after protests from gamers, parents, and anti-child-abuse activists drew attention to a paper she wrote in college. The essay, which can be found on her LinkedIn profile, is titled, “Speech We Hate: An Argument for the Cessation of International Pressure on Japan to Strengthen Its Anti-Child Pornography Laws” and argues for the legalization of child pornography.
Jamie Walton, president of the Wayne Foundation, a non-profit organization that fights sex trafficking, contacted Nintendo to complain about Rapp. She was then terminated, which created even more controversy, with people jumping in to argue that her dismissal was sexist (“She was fired for doing literally nothing other than being a woman”) to completely justified (“Nintendo was absolutely right to fire pedophile advocate, Alison Rapp”). . . .
Nintendo’s public statement says that Rapp wasn’t fired for moonlighting, but because her second job was “in conflict with [their] culture” — a reference made to online allegations made about Rapp by male critics. . . .
I contacted Rapp multiple times to give her an opportunity to confirm or deny these allegations, or provide context for her essay. She refused to answer any of my questions, and then promptly blocked me on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you, Ms. Than, for asking the obvious questions.

UPDATE: Damn, this kind of shoddy stuff from the Washington Post makes me angry. You know, Ethan Ralph isn’t a professional journalist, but he has been running rings around some professional journalists on this Rapp story and why? Because he cares about facts.

Alison Rapp is a “victim” of nothing but her own stupidity.

 


Category: Media Bias

Jeff Serves Up A Trump Rant Of Justice

Posted on | April 13, 2016 | 40 Comments

by Smitty

If you can tolerate a modicum of potty mouth, do take in the latest Protein Wisdom:

Here’s the truth: Trump has received 45% of the delegates with 36% of the vote. He’s won several caucus states and didn’t complain then. I’ve heard not one of his supporters argue that winner-take-all races in Florida, or full delegate takes in South Carolina — in neither of which state did he get a majority — disenfranchised those who voted for someone other than Trump and who will have no representation on the first ballot at a contested GOP convention. The truth is, the “system” has helped him, as it does most front runners who aren’t total incompetents and phony Republicans.

You Trump backers are dishonest shills praying at the altar of a false god. You are fine with populist authoritarianism so long as you believe it is you who will benefit from the king’s beneficence. You are, in short, Obama voters with Rs attached to your names. You are the problem.

Read the whole thing. And thanks, Jeff. This very much needed saying.

Category: Uncategorized

In The Mailbox: 04.13.16

Posted on | April 13, 2016 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
Proof Positive: Clown Syndrome
EBL: Afghanistan Sesame Street
Da Tech Guy: Donald Trump Sour Grape #5 Lazy At Second Base
The Political Hat: The Constitution Vs. DERP
Michelle Malkin: John Kerry In Hiroshima – Apology Tour Redux?
Twitchy: Chelsea Clinton’s New Job Is Family Hypocrisy At Its Peak
Shark Tank: Cruz – Trump Is Acting Like A Mobster


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Dispatches From The Left’s War On Bathrooms
American Thinker: How Cruz Won All The Colorado Delegates
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Lost Among The Living By Simone St. James
Conservatives4Palin: Hillary Clinton Isn’t Qualified. Deal With It.
Don Surber: This Will Sell A Few Camaros
Pamela Geller: California Muslim Couple Accused Of Pimping Out Housekeeper
Protein Wisdom: Hi. It’s Me, Jeff. It’s Time To Say This Out Loud And Without Any Equivocation
Shot In The Dark: What Once Was Trayf Is Now Orthodox!
STUMP: Public Pensions And Finance Roundup – Money Is Mobile And Not Coming In Fast Enough
The Jawa Report: Buh Bye Hassan Hanafi Haji
This Ain’t Hell: What Gay-Crusading Corporations In NC Don’t Get
Weasel Zippers: Long Island HS Students Beaten, Bullied For Being White
Megan McArdle: Obamacare Hits Another Bump In The Road
Mark Steyn: The Late Late Show


Join SHOWTIME Free Trial
Join STARZ Free Trial

Category: Linkagery

In The Mailbox: 04.12.16

Posted on | April 13, 2016 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
Proof Positive: The Evolution of Politics
EBL: Planet Nine Freaks Me Out
Da Tech Guy: Baldilocks – We Will Get What We Ask For
The Political Hat: PayPal Supports Killing Gay People
Michelle Malkin: American Workers Matter – A Chicago Wake And Wakeup Call
Twitchy: Bernie Sanders’ Jewish Outreach Director Is Anti-Israel Activist
Shark Tank: Lopez-Cantera Scores State Senate President’s Support


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Donald Trump Blames The System
American Thinker: Voting Cruz – Has God Abandoned America?
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – The Girl In The Glass By James Hayman
Conservatives4Palin: Dave Brat – Syrian Refugees Have Not Been Vetted For National Security
Don Surber: How Grownups Deal With A Tax Revenue Decline
Joe For America: NumbersUSA Gives Paul Ryan An “F” On Immigration
JustOneMinute: Lessons Learned
Pamela Geller: 29 German Soldiers Have Joined ISIS, Bundeswehr May Contain Dozens Of Jihadis
Protein Wisdom: OK, Ladies, You Want Equal Pay?
Shot In The Dark: Failure Is A Green Orphan
STUMP: Pension And Finance Roundup – Surprise Election Issues?
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Interesting Stuff To Read
The Lonely Conservative: So It Begins – Trump Supporters Threatening Delegates To Republican Convention
The Quinton Report: More Details On County Sheriff’s Arrest
This Ain’t Hell: Army CoS Milley Won’t Arm The Troops
Weasel Zippers: Leftists Protest Farmer Trying To Slaughter His Cow To Feed His Family
Megan McArdle: Those Tax “Loopholes” Were Created For A Reason
Mark Steyn: A Great Statue, A Third-Rate Poem


Shop Amazon – Grow Your Garden
Shop Amazon Echo – Always Ready, Connected, and Fast. Just Ask

Category: Linkagery

In The Mailbox: 04.11.16

Posted on | April 11, 2016 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
90 Miles From Tyranny: Rape Culture? What Happens When A Feminist’s Son Is Accused Of Rape?
EBL: Muslims – Why They Hate Us
Da Tech Guy: An Obvious Question For The Rebel Diaz Boys
The Political Hat: Axis Of Oppression
Michelle Malkin: Watch – Slickster Paul Ryan Wants To Choose GOP Nominee
Twitchy: Trump Explains Why Two of His Kids “Feel Very Guilty” Over Impending NY Primary
Shark Tank: Rick Scott Counters Cursing Anarchist With Attack Ad


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Boston Globe Publishes Fake Front Page To Attack Trump
American Thinker: The War On Women Moves To Restrooms
Conservatives4Palin: Pro-Abortion Feminist Camille Paglia Admits Pro-Life Movement “Has The Moral High Ground”
Don Surber: WaPo Buries Illegal Alien Angle In Rape Of 12-Year-Old
Joe For America: Trey Gowdy Just Sent A Brutal Wakeup Call To Every Democrat – There’s No Escaping!
JustOneMinute: Guccifer???
Pamela Geller: Merkel’s Islamic State – German Comedian Faces Prison For “Smear Poem” About Erdogan
Protein Wisdom: Next From CBS News – What Role Do Short Skirts Play In Rape?
Shot In The Dark: It’s Pledge Drive Week!
STUMP: Public Pensions And Finance Roundup for April 10
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Talking Truthfully About Mohammed’s Actions Is Totally Insulting To Mohammed
The Lonely Conservative: Incompetent Trump Aide Whines About “Gestapo” Tactics Of Competent Cruz Campaign
The Quinton Report: Anne Arundel County Sheriff Arrested
This Ain’t Hell: Chicago Admits That Criminals Cause Crimes
Weasel Zippers: Poll – 25% Of British Muslims Want To Live Under Sharia Law
Megan McArdle: Subpoenaed Into Silence On Global Warming
Mark Steyn: #WhiteBoardsMatter


Try Amazon Prime 30-Day Free Trial
Join Amazon Kindle Unlimited 30-Day Free Trial

Category: Linkagery

The ‘Male Feminist’ Problem

Posted on | April 11, 2016 | 71 Comments

How many times must I say it? 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 talking to feminists. Just walk away.
Leave feminists alone, and then they can complain about that.

There is no point arguing with a feminist. There is nothing to discuss. The feminist has complete contempt for males. She considers men useless and irrelevant. She has no respect for you. The fact that you are a man means you are automatically wrong about everything. She is the judge, jury and prosecutor, and all men are guilty. Case closed.

 

Jocelyn MacDonald is a feminist in Seattle who declares: “Men are parasites. Separatism is the first step to feminism.” Citing lesbian feminist Marilyn Frye, MacDonald argues that “male privilege makes men thieves of [women’s] mental, spiritual, and physical energy”:

Throughout patriarchal history, men have had virtually unlimited access to women’s bodies. They have engineered and maintained this through marriage, denying access to abortion, and undervaluing women’s labour, among others too numerous to list off.

Can she possibly make the point any clearer? Males are “parasites” and “thieves.” Feminists are anti-marriage, anti-motherhood, and do not believe any man should ever have “access to women’s bodies.”

However, Ms. MacDonald did not always feel this way. She was not always a lesbian separatist. Once upon a time, she fell in love with a man:

The man in question, Adam [a pseudonym], was a PhD candidate at the University of Rochester. . . .
I met Adam when I was 19 and he was 26. We got to know each other going to protests: an anti-Nazi rally in Buffalo, a picket at the border patrol on Lake Ontario, a few house parties hosted by the International Socialist Organization. . . .
With him, I felt like a real person again, and it was as a complete and whole person that I had sex with a man for the first time, feeling neither that I was losing something or giving something away.
A few months later, we decided to get married. Because what could be funnier than a couple of queer, ethically nonmonogamous, Marxist atheists redefining traditional marriage in a small ceremony in a Quaker meetinghouse? The answer is nothing. Except that I loved the living hell out of him and definitely wanted to bear his math-prodigy, prematurely balding, little Lenin look-alikes. And I believed that for him, I was the one so impossible not to love that he thought about marriage like it wasn’t a social construct designed to replicate the modes of production. . . .

Perhaps you see the basic problem here. What are the odds of “a couple of queer . . . Marxist atheists” having a happy-ever-after romance? Well, they went to her mother’s house for Christmas. The prematurely balding math prodigy was aloof, while Ms. MacDonald got drunk and then, the day after Christmas, her little Lenin look-alike made an announcement:

In the morning, I woke up and crawled in Adam’s bed, excited, cuddly, happy. “I missed you,” I said.
“I’m flying to Rochester in an hour and a half,” he said. “And we need to talk.”
He walked me back to my room where we sat on my bed.
“Remember when I said it would be impossible not to love you?”
“Yes,” I said, pleased.
“That’s still true. I find it impossible not to love you, and that’s why I don’t want to see you anymore. Because I don’t want to be in love. I want to be alone.”
It was unbelievable to me, because I was doing all the work. I’d made love like it was a choice, you just keep saying yes to love. I was doing all that needed to be done to accommodate him and he was saying both that it was working, that he loved me back, and also that it was for that reason that he never wanted to see me again.
I was shattered. He had stopped believing in me, in our love. Our marriage was a revolution yet-to-be imagined, and he was no longer convinced.

Tough luck for the queer Marxist atheist girl, because the queer Marxist atheist guy does not want to be in love. He’d rather be alone.

Here we see the “male feminist” problem in stark relief. A major reason feminists hate men so much is because these are the only kind of men they associate with. What kind of guy spends his spare time at “house parties hosted by the International Socialist Organization”? You’d meet a better quality of men at a Toby Keith concert or a monster truck rally.

This is why parents must warn their daughters never to become feminists. Next thing you know, she’ll be dating a Marxist weirdo and, when that falls apart, she’ll move to Seattle and become a lesbian separatist.

Also, there’s a high rate of herpes among feminists.

Remember what 21st-century feminism is all about:

Until I started studying radical feminism, I never thought of “normal” as an achievement, but Feminism Is Queer, as Professor Mimi Marinucci has explained. Feminist theory condemns heterosexuality as “the ideology of male supremacy,” and denies that behavioral differences between men and women are natural. Any apparent differences between men and women are socially constructed by the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix (see Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, 1990). Feminism seeks to abolish gender in order to achieve “equality” by establishing an androgynous society in which the categories “male” and “female” cease to have any significance.

Feminism is a cult. Once young people get involved in this weird ideology, it becomes impossible for them to think or behave normally.

 

That nose-pierced weirdo, believe it or not, grew up in a conservative Christian family and attended Bible college, but dropped out after she became involved in feminism and decided gender theory is more important than the Bible. Allie McDougall now attends the University of Ottawa, where her boyfriend is co-chair of the university chapter of the socialist New Democratic Party. She now attends St. Albans, a “progressive” Anglican church that performs “liturgies” for renaming transgendered people. Anyway, you might want to read what Ms. McDougall has to say about her “life partner” Davis Whittington-Heeney:

My partner Davis is a feminist ally, and a very committed one. In all of his political activities, he strives for gender parity. He listens to and amplifies women’s voices whenever he can. Ours is an egalitarian relationship and he respects, uplifts, and affirms my lived experience. And it makes me so sad when people tell me how lucky I am, how rare he is, and how I should be so proud that my boyfriend actively works with and for feminist activism. Yes, I am lucky; yes, he is great and probably a rarity; but why the hell is it so countercultural for him to actually put his money where is mouth is and use his male privilege to amplify my voice and the voices of other women? I believe this is all rooted in the depressingly low standards of acceptable behaviour that men have inherited as a by-product of their patriarchal advantage.

OK, what are the odds of a happy-ever-after ending here? Do you detect a pattern, dear reader? When we recall that “God is not the author of confusion” (I Corinthians 14:33),  we must conclude that the father of lies (John 8:44) is responsible for this pattern. More from Ms. McDougall:

I struggle with feelings of anxiety and inferiority. I’ve forgotten completely periods of time that were my darkest. I’ve made regrettable decisions that have harmed my relationship with my partner . . .
I’ve scheduled appointments to meet with a registered psychotherapist to help start down the road of progress and recovery.

Where do you think that road will lead? Do you think Allie McDougall might end up like Jocelyn MacDonald, arguing for lesbian separatism? Do you see why the “male feminist” is such a problem? Every time a guy plays along with this game — nodding in assent while feminists denounce “male privilege” and “patriarchal advantage” — he lends credence to this cult ideology. It encourages feminists to believe that all men could be the Davis Whittington-Heeney type, and that the only thing preventing us from becoming Male Feminists is our own ignorance or desire to cling to our “male privilege.” However, even if this were possible for us all to become the Davis Whittington-Heeney type (which, thank God, it is not) our civilization could not survive such a transformation. A society in which all men were the Davis Whittington-Heeney type would be overrun by barbarians. Frankly, this is what’s happening in Germany, where Muslim “refugees” are raping women and girls with impunity (and feminists won’t say a word about it). The Radical Theology of Feminism has crippled the West, convincing many people that “progress” requires the destruction of our civilization, wrecking families and ruining lives, and steering young people toward The Darwinian Dead End.

Feminists despise men as “parasites” and “thieves,” and have the effrontery to expect men to agree with these insults.

Learn to walk away. Never talk to a feminist. Seek companionship elsewhere, and leave her alone, with her ideology and her cats.

 


Category: Sex Trouble
« 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