FMJRA 2.0: A Small Collection Of Chords

Teddy Roosevelt's "Great White Fleet" was an attempt to internationalize GOPe raaaaacism. #HistoryByHillary

— IGotOverMachoGrande (@smitty_one_each) March 12, 2016

Germans dubbed Marines "Truffelhunden" at Belleau Wood because those dogs would rather dig for mushrooms than let me in! #HistoryByHillary

— IGotOverMachoGrande (@smitty_one_each) March 12, 2016

Who says Bill's the bad guy? Everyone knows Al Gore invented the Intern Net. #HistoryByHillary

— IGotOverMachoGrande (@smitty_one_each) March 12, 2016

Category: humor

In The Mailbox: Early Weekend Edition

Posted on | March 12, 2016 | 6 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: I Kissed A Girl And I Got Expelled
Da Tech Guy: The Unexpectedly Chronicles – Thugs Will Be Thugs
The Political Hat: Survey Says – Kill All The Normal People
Doug Powers: President “I Want You To Get In Their Faces” Obama Claims That When It Comes To Divisiveness, He Didn’t Build That
Twitchy: Admitted Terrorist Cheers On Anti-Trump Rioters In Chicago
Shark Tank: GOP May Lose Rubio’s Senate Seat

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Violence At Trump Campaign Events
American Thinker: Enough With The Double Standards For Muslims
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Hard Cold Winter By Glen Erik Hamilton
Conservatives4Palin: Hello Again, Reagan Democrats
Don Surber: Why Hoax Is My Default Reaction
Jammie Wearing Fools: Mexico Just Ruined The World’s Sexiest Police Squad
Joe For America: At Least Someone’s Building A Wall
JustOneMinute: The Michelle Fields Assault – The Plot Thickens
Pamela Geller: San Bernardino Top Cop – Officers Responding To Terror Attack Were Outgunned
Protein Wisdom: Obama’s DOJ Has Made It Clear – You Belong To The Government
Shot In The Dark: A Tale Of Two Rallies
STUMP: Illinois Weekend Watch – Round And Round While We Wait For A Strike
The Jawa Report: Where’s Dr. Rusty Shackleford? Trump Rally Edition
The Lonely Conservative: Confirmed By NPR And Harvard – Obamacare Stinks
The Quinton Report: NASCAR CEO, Drivers Endorse Trump
This Ain’t Hell: Wounded Warrior Project Execs Fired
Weasel Zippers: MoveOn Takes Credit For Assault On Trump Rally – “Welcome To The General Election”
Megan McArdle: Trump’s Clumsy Pivot To The General Election

Shop Amazon – $10 off $50 on Select Fishing Products
Get $30 GC with your first Amazon Home Services purchase

Category: Linkagery

Totalitarian Hatemonger @RubyHamad Wonders Why Men Won’t Listen to Her

Posted on | March 11, 2016 | 53 Comments

Being constantly insulted by feminists — “Heterosexuality Is the Structure That Keeps Sexist Oppression in Place” — is something men are expected never to notice. Any man who objects to feminism’s anti-male hate propaganda will be instantly branded a misogynist. This is “Kafkatrapping,” whereby the denial of guilt is cited as proof of guilt.

No feminist ever wants to hear a word any man has to say, because men are always wrong about everything, and the only “right” a man now has is his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

Ruby Hamad publishes her anti-male screeds at the Australian feminist site Daily Life. When she is not busy denouncing science as “sexist” or demonizing heterosexual men as violent rapists who harbor “unconscious misogyny,” Ms. Hamad occasionally takes time to complain that men don’t applaud her insulting lectures about how evil men are:

Why do so few men
turn up to hear women speak?
The success of the All About Women festival last Sunday, now in its fourth year, is a testament to how women are unabashedly reclaiming public space. . . .
Sex slavery. Rape. Objectification. Slut-shaming. Misogyny. Sexual double standards. Abuse. The exposure to all these – and more – are part of what being a women entails in our world. And so, these issues necessarily form a large part of what women talk about when we come together on occasions like this.
But the seriousness of the subject matter were not all that these sessions had in common. Disappointingly, both had a dire lack of men in the audience. . . .

FULL STOP.

Not long ago, feminists were complaining that the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival got shut down because of its women-only policy. Now they complain because men won’t attend feminist anti-male hate rallies? Does Ms. Hamad think men are too stupid to understand what feminism is?

“Heterosexual desire . . . originates in the power relationships between the sexes and normally takes the form of eroticising the subordination of women. . . .
“[H]eterosexuality is . . . a political institution through which male dominance is organised and maintained. Sex as we know it under male supremacy is the eroticised power difference of heterosexuality.”
— Sheila Jeffreys, Anticlimax: A Feminist Perspective on the Sexual Revolution (1990)

Professor Jeffreys retired in May 2015 after teaching for 24 years at the University of Melbourne, and if Ruby Hamad or any other feminist in Australia disagreed with Professor Jeffeys about the evils of “male dominance,” they never had the courage to say as much. No feminist in the 21st century dares to say anything good about heterosexuality for fear of being condemned as a homophobe. Feminists are always against anything that makes men happy — videogames, low taxes, football, the internal combustion engine, etc. — and because men enjoy having sex with beautiful women, feminists are against both sex and beauty. This is why the very first public protest of the Women’s Liberation movement in September 1968 targeted the Miss America pageant: “How dare those pretty girls wear swimsuits so that men can admire them?”

"Women are degraded and terrorized by men." https://t.co/6a30JToVAz #FreeStacy #tcot #FeminismIsCancer pic.twitter.com/j78FKxQJnv

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) March 11, 2016

Men are expected to politely pretend we are too stupid to understand feminism as the dishonest three-card monte hustle it actually is. No matter what a man does, feminists will find a reason to condemn him for doing it. Alternatively, he will be condemned for not doing whatever it is that feminists want him to do. Next, when the helpless fool tries to do what feminists demand, they will condemn him for doing it wrong.

Oh, but men are not supposed to notice this. Play dumb and say nothing. Just nod your head and smile. You have the right to remain silent.

“Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.” #FreeStacy https://t.co/wFvy4Usxv1

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) March 11, 2016

Don’t swindle me and call it “social justice.” When you decide to injure a man, don’t pretend you’ve injured him by accident, nor should you insult a man by telling him the injuries you inflict are for his own good.

Any man who is not fit to judge his own best interests is a fool, and when feminists pretend that they understand men better than men understand themselves, this is never an accidental insult. The transparent scam of feminism, whereby a handful of parasitical hustlers seek to grow rich by claiming the authority to speak on behalf of all women, has never fooled anyone — male or female — with a lick of common sense.

Feminists are *against* women having certain choices. https://t.co/hJnqMT3MId #IWD2016 @AsheSchow pic.twitter.com/AvHYBJj1bU

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) March 9, 2016

FEMINISM: The demolition of heterosexual desire is necessary to women’s liberation. https://t.co/SomHXFp6n8 #IWD2016 pic.twitter.com/mK4GPDKWG1

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) March 9, 2016

"The enslavement of women in marriage is … cruel and inhumane." https://t.co/XK7RagwhUh
cc @g56yu @AndreaHardie pic.twitter.com/3KM5vmmi83

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) March 11, 2016

#FeminsmIsCancer Heterosexuality is patriarchal power and also male violence. https://t.co/hJnqMT3MId #FreeStacy pic.twitter.com/usOCou45XV

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) March 11, 2016

#FeminismIsCancer Marriage and motherhood are sexual slavery. https://t.co/hJnqMT3MId
#FreeStacy #tcot pic.twitter.com/Uso0vTmaOl

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) March 11, 2016

#FeminismIsCancer
Lesbians, GOOD. Men, BAD.
Because Patriarchy! https://t.co/6a30JToVAz pic.twitter.com/UT2YGVVXj6

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) March 11, 2016

What part of “anti-male hate propaganda” do I need to explain here? Yet the problem, according to Ruby Hamad, is that men won’t pay money to listen to feminists lecture them about what horrible oppressors they are:

Because it means men are still not listening when women speak about our experiences in a world dominated by men and male violence. . . .
In a world where men still accuse us of exaggerating our experiences of oppression and harassment, it is disappointing to see men yet again assume they had nothing to learn. . . .
It is astounding to me that men think they have little gain from an event such as this. . . . Men need to listen while women speak.

Translation: “Men are ignorant. Men know nothing.”

Feminists are Our Moral Superiors™ — intelligent! courageous! heroic! — and every man should pay money for the opportunity to sit quietly and be tutored by Ruby Hamad, like a kindergartner learning his ABCs.

In 1935, @rubyhamad would have wondered why
German Jews didn't go see "Triumph of the Will."https://t.co/YbMFkV8AcU @StudioBrule @g56yu

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) March 11, 2016

Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and I apologize to regular readers for the repetition, but until some of my alleged friends start quoting me on this subject, I’ll keep quoting myself. No use waiting around for one of these clever young punks at the Weekly Standard to write a sentence that begins, “As the award-winning journalist Robert Stacy McCain says . . .”

"Human nature cannot be eradicated by ideology."
– SEX TROUBLE, p. 115 https://t.co/SJtA8I8rcd

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) March 11, 2016

Reader support is essential to the Sex Trouble project‘s research into radical feminism. Please buy my book, help promote it to others and don’t forget the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

Category: Sex Trouble

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge

Posted on | March 11, 2016 | 3 Comments

by Smitty

Dear Mom & Dad,
I knew you wouldn’t approve, so I didn’t ask. I’m going to the Big City. Boise.
Don’t blame yourselves. You are wonderful parents. I wouldn’t’ve had the money for the bus ticket if you weren’t so good at teaching a girl how to raise hogs.
I’ve got a roommate and a job lined up. I’ll see about school this fall. I know the money situation, so I won’t ask.
Brian is going to take it hard. I don’t hate him, but just wasn’t going to be happy on the farm.
Love,
Joeanna

P.S.: I remembered my Bible.

via Darleen

Category: Friday Fiction

What Did Jack Montague Do?

Posted on | March 11, 2016 | 30 Comments

A week ago — March 4 — I wrote this simple headline:

Is Jack Montague a Rapist?

There is still no answer to that question, although the New York Times published a story Wednesday about the expulsion of the Yale University basketball team’s senior captain. Citing “two people with direct knowledge of the case who spoke on condition of anonymity,” the article confirms that Montague was expelled last month “in connection with a sexual misconduct accusation.” And here’s a tidbit from the Daily Mail:

A formal complaint was filed against Montague with the University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct in November of 2015, several months after the alleged assault occurred, Yale Daily News reports.
He was expelled three months later on February 10.

So, we have yet another on of those belated accusations — “several months after” the incident — that seem to proliferate amid the anti-male “campus rape epidemic” hysteria that feminists have recently incited. This is a familiar narrative, if you have read any of the more than 100 lawsuits filed against universities by male students who say they were falsely accused of sexual misconduct and denied due process in the campus kangaroo court system. It’s a typical story by now. College boy and college girl hook up, and then months go by during which nothing in particular seems to happen until — BOOM! — the guy finds himself accused of “sexual misconduct.” The university does an investigation, but everything’s hush-hush, because of federally mandated “confidentiality” requirements, then there is secretive hearing, and then the guy’s expelled. Nobody ever knows what happened until the guy files a lawsuit.

The basic function of Title IX, it now seems, is to expel every male student who ever so much as kissed a girl on campus. Seriously, go read the John Doe v. Brown University lawsuit and tell me that’s not crazy.

Do you think Jack Montague is a rapist? His father, hinting very strongly about a lawsuit, calls the accusation against his son “ridiculous.” Certainly, common sense would lead us to be skeptical.

He’s a popular, good-looking athlete. As Jay Z might say, Jack Montague’s got 99 problems and a lack of female companionship ain’t one.

Ah, but it’s 2016! And it’s Yale!

The Ivy League Is Decadent and Depraved.

All the Yale professors are atheists, and all the students are psychotic Social Justice Warriors like Jerelyn “Who the F–k Hired You?” Luther. It’s always surprising to learn that heterosexuality still happens at Yale, where the Women’s, Gender, & Sexuality Studies Program trains girls to be man-hating radical lesbian activists. Parents pay $47,600 tuition a year to Yale, where the Marxist faculty teach rich kids how to hate Capitalist Misogynist Oppressors, i.e., Daddy.

Warn your sons, America: Never talk to a college girl.

Category: Education, Sex Trouble

‘The Enslavement of Women’

Posted on | March 10, 2016 | 41 Comments

“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

Marriage is slavery, “cruel and inhumane.” This is a fundamental tenet of feminist ideology. No feminist would consent to marriage, because this involves “compulsory” sex. Feminists are against marriage because they are against sex, which “operates to the advantage of the male.”

Sheila Cronan was a prominent member of a group co-founded by Ti-Grace Atkinson and Anne Koedt. Atkinson, who had been handpicked by Betty Friedan as president of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW), walked out in 1968 in a dispute with NOW’s national leadership and formed what she called “The October 17th Movement.” This was subsequently renamed “The Feminists,” thereby giving a name to the movement they led. They announced their goal and described their ideology in their June 1969 manifesto, “The Feminists: A Political Organization to Annihilate Sex Roles”:

The class separation between men and women is a political division. . . . The role (or class) system must be destroyed. . . .
Men . . . are the enemies and the Oppressors of women. . . . Both the male role and the female role must be annihilated. . . .
The pathology of oppression can only be fully comprehended in its primary development: the male-female division. . . . The sex roles themselves must be destroyed.
(Radical Feminism, edited by Anne Koedt, et al., pp. 369-370)

This view of “the male-female division” as a political system, a “pathology of oppression” which “must be destroyed” and “annihilated,” has defined feminism for more than four decades. To disagree with The Feminists — to doubt their claim that men are “the enemies” of women, to deny that marriage is slavery, etc. — is to reject feminism as it has existed since the 1960s. Attempting to evade this history, to define the movement as having some goal other than what The Feminists declared in their founding manifesto, has the effect of depriving “feminism” of any useful definition, making it possible for any woman to call herself a “feminist” without bothering to know what this word actually means.

What does Beyoncé Knowles mean when she calls herself a feminist? Does she mean that her marriage to Jay Z is “enslavement”? Is her husband her enemy and an oppressor? Does she believe “sex roles themselves must be destroyed”? Has Beyoncé ever studied feminist theory? Probably not.

One of the earliest protests staged by The Feminists in 1969 was at the marriage license bureau in New York City. Ti-Grace Atkinson told a Time magazine reporter: “Love has to be destroyed. It’s an illusion that people care for each other. . . . It may be that sex is a neurotic manifestation of oppression. It’s like a mass psychosis.” Other leading members of The Feminists were Pam Kearon and Barbara Mehrhof. Kearon had participated in the Women’s Liberation Movement’s first public protest in September 1968 against the Miss America pageant. In a 1971 paper called “Rape: An Act of Terror,” Mehrhof and Kearon declared:

There is no group other than slaves that has been singled out for such systematic and total exploitation and suppression as the class of women. . . .
Sexual intercourse . . . provides sexism with an inimitable act which perfectly expresses the polarity male/female. . . . Rape adds the quality of terror.
Terror is an integral part of the oppression of women. Its purpose is to ensure, as a final measure, the acceptance by women of the inevitability of male domination. . . . There are no actions or forms of behavior sufficient to avoid its danger. There is no sign that designates a rapist since each male is potentially one.
(Radical Feminism, edited by Anne Koedt, et al., pp. 228-230)

Another one of Pam Kearon’s contributions to The Feminists was a defense of “man-hating” as “the realization of our past and continued subjugation,” in which she denounced men as “misogynists” and declared: “Our whole society (including too many of the women in it) hates women.”

Is this true? Was it true in 1969? Was my mother in “continued subjugation” to my father? Has every wife in human history been a victim of “cruel and inhumane” enslavement by her husband, the oppressor?

“And it’s not just rape that’s the joke — it’s women. Our very existence is presented to young men as fodder for sex and laughs, our humiliation and pain as goal posts for their masculinity. Basically, we’re anything other than people deserving respect and humanity.”
— Jessica Valenti, 2013

Is this true? Does it apply to Jessica Valenti’s husband? Does her husband treat women as a joke? Does he enjoy inflicting “pain and humiliation” on her? Does her husband view her as not “deserving respect and humanity”? If this is not the case, then why does Jessica Valenti expect us to believe her husband is better than other women’s husbands? Why would Jessica Valenti think she can libel my sons — and every other young man included in her categorical denunciation of masculinity — and expect me not to resent her recklessly hateful anti-male rhetoric?

Feminism is an insult to the intelligence of everyone who has two eyes and a brain. Feminism’s ideology and rhetoric are insulting to every honest man who ever lived and to every honest woman who ever loved a man. Why do feminists today constantly denounce men as “misogynists” for disagreeing with them? Why do feminists claim to be victims of “online harassment”? Why do university students engage in disruptive protests whenever anyone who dissents from feminism’s anti-male ideology — George Will, Wendy McElroy, Christina Hoff Sommers, Milo Yiannopoulous — dares to speak on campus?

Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement
to Destroy Civilization as We Know It

Liars hate the truth, and feminists therefore seek to silence those who tell the truth about feminism. When I undertook the Sex Trouble project in 2014, at the behest of readers who urged me to write a book about radical feminism’s War Against Human Nature, I had already studied the movement’s history and ideology for years. Readers are encouraged to consider a few of the books (including accounts by feminists themselves) that explain how feminism began and what feminism means:

The Inevitability of Patriarchy: Why the Biological Difference Between Men and Women Always Produces Male Domination by Steven Goldberg, 1973
Personal Politics: The Roots of Women’s Liberation in the Civil Rights Movement & the New Left by Sara Evans, 1979
Daring To Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America 1967-1975 by Alice Echols, 1989
Who Stole Feminism? How Women Have Betrayed Women by Christina Hoff Sommers, 1994
Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women’s Studies by Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, 1995 (2nd edition, 2003)
Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism by F. Carolyn Graglia, 1998
Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism by Daphne Patai, 1998
In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution by Susan Brownmiller, 1999
The Decline of Males: The First Look at an Unexpected New World for Men and Women by Lionel Tiger, 1999
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex and Feminism, by Carrie L. Lukas, 2006
Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream — and Why It Matters by Helen Smith, 2013

This brief list of 11 books would suffice as the syllabus for an introductory course, “Critical History and Theory of Modern Feminism.” The histories by Brownmiller, Evans and Echols — all feminists who were directly involved in the movement in the 1960s and ’70s — are particularly useful in understanding how modern feminism emerged from the radical New Left of that era. The works of Professor Goldberg (a sociologist), Professor Tiger (an anthropologist) and Dr. Smith (a psychologist) serve as learned discussions of male/female differences and the consequences of feminism’s demand for “equality.” Professing Feminism and Heterophobia both examine the influence of feminism in academia. Professor Sommers and her landmark 1994 book perhaps need no introduction. Graglia’s book is a defense of traditional womanhood, and Lukas offers a comprehensive survey in an easy-to-read format.

“All that is necessary to discredit feminism is to tell the truth about feminism.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Sex Trouble: Essays on Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature

Feminists know this as well as I do. Feminists refuse to engage in dialogue with opponents and do not even acknowledge informed criticism, instead engaging in efforts to silence dissent. Feminism is always a lecture, never a debate. The First Rule of Feminism is “Shut Up!”

Ordinary men and women who attempt to express their disagreement with feminists find themselves accused of “harassment.” This is a dishonest tactic by which feminists smear their critics as dangerous and violent, falsely implying that it is a crime to criticize feminism. These propaganda tactics function to marginalize anyone who calls attention to the radical ideology and deranged rhetoric of feminists. If everyone who criticizes feminism is a misogynist, and if it is “harassment” to express disagreement, the critic of feminism is a Thought Criminal.

Because feminism exercises hegemonic authority in academia, 21st-century college and university students are never exposed to any opposing perspective. This is why students now claim to be “invalidated” and “traumatized” when critics of feminism appear on campus.

Introduction to Women's Studies #freestacy @p_w_sterne pic.twitter.com/lVLlTNcZ6K

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) March 10, 2016

Why don't men support feminism? This is not a mystery.
https://t.co/hJnqMT3MId
@AndreaHardie @Maetenloch @g56yu pic.twitter.com/lH2nejJ8fm

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) March 10, 2016

Men are enemies and oppressors of women, sexual intercourse is an act that “perfectly expresses” male domination, every male is potentially a rapist, male and female roles are the “pathology of oppression,” and sex roles must be destroyed — this is what feminists believe. If you do not believe these things, guess what? You are not a feminist.