The Other McCain

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

Never Take Advice From Feminists

Posted on | April 7, 2016 | 72 Comments

 

Peggy Orenstein is a feminist whose books include Flux: Women on Sex, Work, Love, Kids and Life in a Half-Changed World (2001):

At 34, Peggy Orenstein faced a series of dilemmas shared by many women of her generation: She was unsure whether she wanted children, unsure about the impact of motherhood on her career, her relationship, and her sense of self. Why, when women seemed to have so many choices, did she suddenly feel that she had none? After feminist liberation and its subsequent backlash, she realized that women’s lives, including her own, were now in a state of flux.

Question: Why would a woman wait until she’s 34 to start thinking about “whether she wanted children”? Quite frankly, by the time a woman is 34, she may be past the point where motherhood is even possible. Infertility is a serious problem affecting women in their 30s, the risk of birth defects is substantially higher for older mothers and, beyond this, there are other considerations to keep in mind. Suppose you become a mom for the first time at age 23. You’ll be 39 when your child turns 16 and gets a driver’s license, and not yet 45 when your kid graduates college. If you delay motherhood until you’re 38, well, just do the math.

Is parenthood a task best performed by the young and energetic, or by weary middle-aged folks? When my wife and I babysit our grandsons, we are reminded, as my wife says, “This is why old people don’t have babies.” Children are a blessing, but every parent knows how exhausting the task can be and, whatever prudential arguments you make in favor of delaying parenthood, you cannot pretend there are no trade-offs.

When my wife and I had our first child, we were living in a $250-a-month rental in Georgia, and struggling to keep up. My father came to visit and, when I mentioned our financial difficulties, Dad said, “Son, if you wait to have kids until you can afford to have kids, you’ll never have kids.”

This is the answer to Peggy Orenstein’s question, “Why, when women seemed to have so many choices, did she suddenly feel that she had none?” Somewhere amid their celebration of women’s “choices,” feminists neglected to consider the inescapable realities of human nature. Time moves in only one direction — forward — and you have only one life to live, and the “choices” available to Peggy Orenstein at 34 were limited by the choices she had made at every previous stage of her life.

“It’s not that we’re stupid. It’s that we’ve been misinformed.”

That quote, from a woman who realized she had lost her chance at motherhood by waiting too long, is the brutal truth behind the myth of “choice.” How did things work out for Peggy Orenstein? After years of struggling with infertility, she gave birth to a daughter, Daisy, in 2003.

The influence of feminism tends to steer individual women, and even entire societies, toward “The Darwinian Dead End,” as I’ve called it. The rhetoric of “choice” and “empowerment” is so strongly associated with declining fertility that, nearly a half-century after the eruption of the Women’s Liberation movement of the 1960s, you might suppose this ideology would have perished along with its proponents.

Shulamith Firestone was found dead, alone in her apartment in 2012, after years of mental illness. Andrea Dworkin died in 2005 after years of health problems caused by her extreme obesity. Just last year, another feminist pioneer reached her final destination:

Longtime NYC-based feminist and lesbian activist Sidney Abbott, 78, was found dead Wednesday morning after a fire in her home in Southold, Suffolk County.
The fire was discovered by her next-door neighbor, an off-duty volunteer firefighter who rushed to the burning Cape-style home and found the former member of the “Lavender Menace” and author of “Sappho Was a Right-on Woman” on the floor of her smoke-filled living room. . . .
Abbott was a force for gay women’s rights in New York and beyond since the ’70s, when she helped urge NOW not to ignore lesbian issues.
She had been wheelchair dependent in recent years, and had limited mobility, said Jacqueline Michot Ceballos, a friend for nearly 50 years.
“We were the earliest members of NOW, from day one in New York City, back in 1967,” said Ceballos, a former NOW-New York president and founder of the Veteran Feminists of America.

What all of these women have in common, in addition to being (a) feminists and (b) dead, is that (c) they never had children.

“Pregnancy is barbaric,” Firestone declared in her influential 1970 manifesto, The Dialectic of Sex, and hostility toward motherhood has been a defining message of the feminist movement for decades.

 

The impact of this anti-natal ideology has been reflected in a decline in birth rates and an increase in childlessness. However, this logical result of the Feminist Death Cult has not been random in its effects. Because feminism is relentlessly promoted in higher education, where university Women’s Studies programs function as the intellectual/activist core of the Feminist-Industrial Complex, the sharpest declines in fertility have been among college-educated women. Consider the Census Bureau data on fertility by educational achievement:

Not a high school graduate
Lifetime births (average) ….. 2.6
Childless ………………………….. 11.6%

Bachelor’s degree
Lifetime births (average) ….. 1.8
Childless ………………………….. 19.9%

High-school dropouts, on average, had 44% more children than women who had college diplomas. Childlessness was 72% more common for college graduates than for high-school dropouts. Over the course of decades, as feminism discourages motherhood among highly intelligent women, fewer children will be born to educated mothers and, inevitably, the overall percentage of children born to less-intelligent mothers must increase. While there is not a total correlation between (a) intelligence and (b) years of school attendance (as college dropouts like Bill Gates prove), data suggesting the “dumbing-down” of motherhood should concern any student of demographics and public policy. (See “The Value of Motherhood” and more about The Contraceptive Culture.) Despite the dangerous consequences of feminism’s bizarre hostility toward normal human behavior, proponents of feminist gender theory now have so much power among the “progressive” elite that the White House on Wednesday held an event about “breaking down gender stereotypes in children’s media and toys” so as to “encourage all of our young people to pursue their passions and interests without regard to their gender.”

What this talk of “stereotypes” means is that the federal government is committed to promoting an anti-human ideology that has caused many young people to become hopelessly confused about their “gender.”

Do you want your child to be a “genderfluid polyamorous demiromantic grey-ace” when they grow up? Probably not. Why do you think feminism in the 21st century attracts so many confused weirdos?

“Only when we recognize that ‘manhood’ and ‘womanhood’ are made-up categories, invented to control human beings and violently imposed, can we truly understand the nature of sexism. . . .
“Questioning gender . . . is an essential part of the feminism that has sustained me through two decades of personal and political struggle.”
— Laurie Penny, “How to Be a Genderqueer Feminist”

“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

“The labels I currently use for myself are queer, gay, femme, and homoflexible. (Basically, I’m a lesbian with exceptions.) The label bisexual doesn’t work for me right now. . . . I’m on the asexual spectrum somewhere . . . I don’t experience primary sexual attraction.”
— Miriam Mogilevsky

Why do you think the Everyday Feminist website, edited by Ms. Fabello, features Ms. Mogilevsky as a columnist, sharing advice like “5 Ways Straight Women Can Be Better Allies to Queer Women”?

If it is “sexism” to believe men and women are different, as Ms. Penny insists, and if feminism teaches that these “made-up categories” are “violently imposed,” then are we surprised that Ms. Fabello condemns heterosexuality as a “charade”? Do we need to speculate why the “homoflexible” Ms. Mogilevsky cannot “experience primary sexual attraction” and thinks it an important task of feminists to teach women how to “be better allies to queer women”?

No, these are all entirely logical consequences of feminist theory. Once “progressive” parents (and schools, and media, and even the White House) decided that there are no meaningful differences between male and female, and that “gender stereotypes” must be destroyed, this kind of pathetic confusion was an inevitable result. When I describe feminism as a War Against Human Nature, does anyone think that this phrase is hyperbole? Am I a misogynist, a bigot, an enemy of “equality”? Or rather is it the case that Ideas Have Consequences, as Richard Weaver warned, and that crazy ideas have crazy consequences?

Never take advice from a feminist, and certainly don’t let feminists tell you how to raise your children. Feminists hate children.

“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, March 2014

The road to feminism’s utopia of “gender equality” is paved with dead babies. Yet these Death Cult fanatics still expect to be taken seriously when they offer parenting advice to those of us who consider our children a blessing from God. Peggy Orenstein has published a new book, Girls and Sex: Navigating the Complicated New Landscape, that is being hyped by the liberal media, including the New York Times:

Advice on Boys and Sex, From
the Author of ‘Girls and Sex’
I invited readers to submit questions to Ms. Orenstein. Amid all the questions about our daughters — how do we talk to them, how do we teach them, how do we protect them — were a flurry of questions about our sons. Ms. Orenstein understood. “Obviously you’re only having half the conversation if you only talk about girls,” she said. “Boys absolutely need to learn the same things.”

Here’s some advice from me: Warn your sons to avoid feminists and, while you’re at it, teach your daughters to avoid feminists, too.

What kind of fool would believe that a feminist like Peggy Orenstein has any useful advice to share about boys, girls or anything else? If you need advice on how to avoid motherhood until your ovaries have nearly withered away, well, I guess maybe she’s an expert on that. On the other hand, if you’d prefer to have children before you’re on the cusp of menopause, and hope that your children will do the same — so that you might become a grandparent before you’re in the nursing home or the graveyard — then maybe you need to seek advice elsewhere.

By the way, since I’m sharing advice here, don’t ever let feminists talk to your kids about sex. Feminists are all perverted freaks — “genderqueer” nutjobs like Laurie Penny, “homoflexible” weirdos like Melissa Fabello, etc. — and guess what? They want your kids to be freaks, too.

“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)

Anyone who thinks it is an exaggeration to describe feminism as a satanic menace might want to read the 1997 book Spirit Wars: Pagan Revival in Christian America by Peter Jones. A professor of theology, Professor Jones pointed out that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s “spiritual adviser,” Jean Houston, was closely associated with so-called “New Age” paganism. Professor Jones is also author of the 1992 book The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back: An Old Heresy for the New Age, and thus has been warning for more than two decades about this kind of degenerate neo-pagan trend.

Most feminists are atheists, of course, and I doubt Melissa Fabello or Miriam Mogilevsky would describe themselves as “spiritual” in any way. However, it is worth considering a theological understanding of 21st-century feminism, if only because the lunacy of Laurie Penny and the bizarre evil of Amanda Marcotte can scarcely be explained rationally.

+ + + + +

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




 

 


Category: Abortion, Family, Religion, Sex Trouble

‘In Canada Alone, There Are 66 Gender and Women’s Studies Departments’

Posted on | April 6, 2016 | 28 Comments

The astonishing fact in the headline — the proliferation of what I’ve called The Feminist-Industrial Complex in higher education — is cited by Professor Janice Fiamengo in her 15-minute YouTube video with the provocative title, “Women’s Studies Must Die.”

These programs in Canadian universities, she explains, employ hundreds of professors, both full-time and part-time, and when you consider that there are roughly 10 times as many Women’s Studies programs at U.S. colleges and universities (now on more than 700 campuses nationwide), you realize that there are now thousands of faculty whose primary occupation is indoctrinating students in feminist ideology.

Women’s Studies programs “have no more place at a university than voodoo,” Professor Fiamengo says, because “these courses are not about knowledge. They’re about theories of oppression and resistance,” many of them taught from radical Marxist, “queer” or postmodern perspectives. “The fundamental tenets of feminism are not up for debate” in Women’s Studies programs, as Professor Fiamengo explains. As I have elsewhere noted, Women’s Studies courses are not about teaching facts, but instead are about training political activists. Cult mind-control methods are employed to induce students to accept “feminist consciousness,” which is essentially a religious faith in women’s universal victimhood under patriarchal oppression. Taxpayers are required to fund the higher education system where these beliefs are taught; feminism is thereby subsidized and approved as a matter of official government policy.


The best analysis of what is taught in these programs is Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women’s Studies, by Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge. Professor Patai is also author of another excellent book I highly recommend, Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. For decades now, these programs have continued with little critical scrutiny, either within academia or from legislators in charge of approving education budgets. Why? Because anyone who questions the need for Women’s Studies courses will instantly be accused of sexism, a rhetorical weapon that feminists have used to expand their hegemonic power within academia, and to silence critics of their agenda.

“I spent years studying feminist theory,” Professor Fiamengo says in her video. “I learned things that are untrue, about ‘gender is a social construct’ and about the ‘deep-rooted misogyny of patriarchal culture,’ and it took years to unlearn them. That hundreds of thousands of students across North America still learn these untruths . . . is staggering.” Indeed, it is staggering that so few citizens — most of whom think of “feminism” as essentially harmless belief in “equality” — are unaware of the hateful ideology being promoute in our universities.

People need to wake the hell up.

 


Category: Education, Sex Trouble

Cruz, Sanders Win Wisconsin

Posted on | April 6, 2016 | 55 Comments

Tuesday was a bad night for front-runners in both parties:

Senator Ted Cruz soundly defeated Donald J. Trump in the Wisconsin primary on Tuesday, breathing new life into efforts to halt Mr. Trump’s divisive presidential candidacy and dealing a blow to his chances of clinching the Republican nomination before the party’s summer convention.
With more than 80 percent of precincts reporting, Mr. Cruz had received 48 percent of the vote to 34 percent for Mr. Trump. Gov. John Kasich of Ohio was a distant third with 14 percent.
Mr. Trump’s loss was his most significant setback since Mr. Cruz narrowly defeated him in Iowa, the campaign’s first nominating contest. And after largely dominating the Republican field from the moment he announced his candidacy last June, Mr. Trump now faces a fresh challenge: bouncing back in the face of searing attack ads by Republicans bent on stopping him, questions about his demeanor and campaign organization, and a single ascendant challenger in Mr. Cruz.
In winning Wisconsin so convincingly, Mr. Cruz, of Texas, showed he was capable of appealing to more than just the hard-line and religious conservative Republicans who have been the foundation of his campaign.
“Tonight is a turning point,” he told cheering supporters in Milwaukee. “It is a rallying cry. It is a call from the hard-working men and women of Wisconsin to the people of America: We have a choice, a real choice.”

Meanwhile, Hillary feels the Bern:

Bernie Sanders scored a decisive victory in the Wisconsin Democratic primary Tuesday night, racking up his seventh victory in eight contests against Hillary Clinton as the race barrels toward a critical showdown in New York.
Sanders’ victory kicked off a critical two-week stretch for the Vermont senator, who is trying to show he can become a genuine threat to topple the front-runner in the home stretch of the presidential primary and not merely dog Clinton until the July convention in Philadelphia.
Sanders relished the win at a rally in Laramie, Wyoming, ahead of the state’s Saturday caucuses, telling supporters he was written off as a “fringe candidacy” when he launched his campaign 11 months ago.
“With our victory tonight in Wisconsin, we have now won seven out of eight of the last caucuses and primaries. And we have won almost all of them with overwhelming landslide numbers,” he said. “What momentum is about is that at a time in contemporary politics when every major candidate has a super PAC, we have said no to the super PACs, said no to the billionaires who fund those super PACs.”

Whether Sanders can defeat Clinton or not, clearly her weakness — and the discontent of her party’s left-wing “fringe” — could spell trouble for Democrats, if Republicans can get their act together. The talk on TV this morning is that Republicans may be headed to an “open convention,” with no candidate getting enough delegates to win the nomination in the first round of balloting. As delegates would be released from their pledges on the second and subsequent ballots, anything could happen.

 

Thank God I made the strategic decision to stay out of this year’s GOP primary campaign. Everybody I know in the blogging world is going insane over this conflict, while I’m placidly continuing my research into radical feminism, which is a different kind of insanity, but one in which I have no personal stake, except to end it.

 


Category: Democrats, Election, Politics, Republicans, Wisconsin

The ‘Regret Equals Rape’ Factor (Also, USC Is Decadent and Depraved)

Posted on | April 5, 2016 | 58 Comments

Everybody remembers the notorious case of John Doe v. Washington and Lee University, in which a university official reportedly told students that “regret equals rape,” advice that John Doe blamed for a false accusation of sexual assault against him by an ex-girlfriend. Washington and Lee settled that lawsuit in February, avoiding a court trial that might have have exposed the elite private university (annual tuition $46,417) to disastrous publicity. This “regret equals rape” motif has appeared in several other cases among 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. What happens, in some of  these cases, is that what seemed an entirely consensual encounter is subsequently deemed sexual assault, usually months later, after the accuser has regret or remorse about a hook-up or a relationship. Consider this, from a court filing involving a John Doe lawsuit against the University of Southern California:

Jane, who was a student and athlete at USC, and a group of her friends attended a fraternity party in January 2013 at a large, off-campus house in the hills near Los Angeles. Jane and her friends caught a bus from the fraternity house to the party location. John, a member of the USC football team, was on the same bus. Also attending the party were two male students from an out-of-state university, “Student 1” and “Student 2,” who were friends of John?s teammate. At some point in the evening Jane began to dance, and John began dancing with her. John said that he and Student 1 were both dancing with Jane, “sandwiching” her between them. When asked about this, Jane did not remember whether it had occurred. After dancing together for a few minutes, John pushed Jane onto a couch and gave her a provocative “lap dance,” which John characterized as “flirtatious” and “silly,” and Jane characterized as somewhat “uncomfortable” because people were watching. After the dance, John, Jane, and Student 1 went to a bedroom together. John had vaginal intercourse with Jane while Jane performed oral sex on Student 1. During the sexual activity, John and Student 1 made comments to each other about Jane?s body. All parties agree that the entirety of this encounter was consensual. Jane returned to her group of friends and told them she had sex with John; she seemed happy and excited about it. Approximately 45 minutes later, Jane and John returned to the bedroom a second time. There were multiple men in the room, and people were continually entering and exiting the room.. . .

It was during this second trip to the bedroom that the incident occurred which “Jane” later claimed was assault. Everybody involved was apparently drunk and, pardon me for drawing any unfair conclusions here, but once she had willingly done a three-way (“the entirety of this encounter was consensual”) during this party, what might a reasonable person suppose the expectations were for this second trip to the bedroom? How about “anything goes”? Call me old-fashioned, maybe, but I have no idea what the prevailing customs and norms are for drunken college orgies nowadays. Really, when you’re partying with football players and frat boys at USC (annual tuition $50,210), what are the reasonable expectations concerning acts of sexual perversion?

Well, John Doe got expelled for his role in this orgy, not because the university has any moral standards — USC Is Decadent and Depraved — but because “Jane” got counseling and decided she was a victim:

The incident happened in January 2013. Jane reported it to SJACS in August 2013. She told SJACS representatives that in mid-February her athletic coach suggested that she had confidence issues, and therefore recommended that she see an athletics counselor. When the counselor asked Jane if she had ever been sexually assaulted, “it dawned on me and I connected it.” She then reported to the counselor that she was assaulted by John and several other men at the party. She told her parents about the incident in July of that year, and reported the incident to the school in August.

The rest of the story is merely details, unless you happen to care about the fate of John, who is just another guy who got chewed up by the campus machinery where male students are denied due-process rights.

What conclusions can we draw from this case? It seems obvious that every student at USC is a dangerous pervert. This is why parents pay $50,210 a year, so that their sons and daughters can have drunken orgies at a “prestigious” private university that has no moral standards whatsoever.

Students at USC are freaks and creeps and degenerates of every description. No conscientious parent would spend a cent to send their child to such a wretched hive of scum and villainy as USC, and therefore the only students who enroll there are the offspring of negligent parents who don’t mind squandering $50,210 a year to have their child “educated” in that foul cesspool of immoral hedonism.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!

UPDATE II: A commenter points out that the court filing cited is a judge’s ruling in the accused student’s favor. Here’s a news account:

SAN FRANCISCO — Wading into the fraught issue of sex crimes on college campuses, a state appeals court has reversed the suspension of a male USC student accused of participating in a group sexual assault against a female student.
The Second District Court of Appeal held that the male student, a USC football player referred to only as John Doe, wasn’t given sufficient notice of the allegations against him or a fair hearing by the school before being suspended.
The ruling highlights the difficult task universities have in balancing accused students’ due process rights with the concerns of victims and federal officials who have urged schools to adopt procedures to keep campuses safe.
Justice Audrey Collins acknowledged in Tuesday’s unanimous panel decision “that universities need adequate tools to address the very serious and sensitive problem of sexual assault on campus.” Still she wrote that “it is not too heavy a burden to require that students facing disciplinary action be informed of the factual basis for the charges against them.”
The male student’s attorney, Marc Harris of Scheper Kim & Harris, said that his client is “extremely gratified by the decision.” . . .
“All the issues that we raised in the court of appeal are issues that we brought up with USC” before turning to the state courts, he said. “This has been a long, painful and damaging path that John has had to take,” he said. He declined to say whether his client will seek to return to USC.

Honestly, if John Doe were my client, I would advise strongly against going anywhere near USC. The place is corrupt beyond description.




 


Category: Crime, Education, Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 04.05.12

Posted on | April 5, 2016 | 5 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Huma and Hillary
Da Tech Guy: Stacy McCain, the ELCA, and Misidentifying the Foe
The Political Hat: Defender of What Faith?
Michelle Malkin: #VSPShooting – Trooper Assassin James Brown III Was A Cop-Hating Django
Twitchy: Trump Surrogate Roger Stone Threatens To Sic Thugs On Delegates
Shark Tank: Mr. Rubio Goes (Back) to Washington


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Sanders Campaign Keeps Cash Flow Pumping
American Thinker: Trump’s Irrational Trade Non-Sequitur
Conservatives4Palin: Sarah Palin Enlightens Pro-Rape Rapper Azealia Banks
Don Surber: How Kondracke Is Wrong About NATO
Jammie Wearing Fools: Hannity’s Ridiculously Pro-Trump “Town Hall”
Joe For America: Did Michelle Obama Say White Folks Are What’s Wrong With America?
JustOneMinute: Go ‘Nova
Pamela Geller: Navy Reports Huge Shipment Of Iranian Weapons Seized En Route To Yemen Jihadis Fighting US Allies
Shot In The Dark: It’s Always Sunny In Goteborg
STUMP: Chicago Day Of Action Roundup, and Where’s The Money?
The Jawa Report: Ministry Of Irony – Belgian Police Ban Anti-Muslim Protest, End Up Using Water Cannons On Muslim Protesters
The Lonely Conservative: Donald Trump’s Delegate Problem
The Quinton Report: Bernie Sanders Claims No Constitutional Protection For Unborn
This Ain’t Hell: Joe Medicine Crow, RIP
Weasel Zippers: LA Times Goes Full Racist
Megan McArdle: When Drugs Are Legal, Gangs Will Diversify
Mark Steyn: Just For Laughs Festival (Toronto Branch)


Shop Amazon – $15 Off Select Fire TV Devices
Shop Amazon – Organize the Office

Category: Linkagery

‘Rolling Stone’s Sole Source for the False Tale of Rape’ Must Testify in Lawsuit

Posted on | April 5, 2016 | 18 Comments

 

Jackie Coakley, the former University of Virginia student whose false story of a fraternity gang rape became the subject of a 2014 Rolling Stone story, will now be compelled to tell the truth under oath:

A Virginia judge has ruled that the woman at the center of Rolling Stone’s discredited story about an alleged frat house gang rape must testify as part of a lawsuit against the magazine.
The woman identified only as “Jackie” will be deposed on Thursday by attorneys representing Rolling Stone and Nicole Eramo, the University of Virginia administrator who is suing the magazine and the author of the now-retracted article, Sabrina Rubin Erdely. . . .
Eramo, an associate dean of students at UVA, is suing Rolling Stone and Erdely for defamation over what she says was an unfair portrayal of her as an insensitive campus bureaucrat in the story. She is seeking $7.85 million in damages. . . .
At a hearing held Monday in a Charlottesville, Virginia, Judge Glen E. Conrad denied a motion filed by Jackie’s attorneys to quash the deposition subpoena. . . .
Libby Locke, an attorney for Eramo, said Rolling Stone’s negligence led to her client’s unflattering portrayal.
“Jackie was Rolling Stone’s sole source for the false tale of rape that it recklessly published. There were numerous red flags in Jackie’s account, which should have put Rolling Stone on notice that she was not a credible source for information,” Locke said. “Nevertheless, Rolling Stone was dead set on portraying Dean Eramo as a callous administrator who discouraged Jackie from reporting an assault to police — when in fact, it appears that Jackie knew that her tale of rape would not have stood up under real scrutiny and investigation. Had Rolling Stone done the fact-checking and digging that they were legally and ethically required to do as journalists, Dean Eramo would not have been so wrongfully targeted.” . . .
Rolling Stone also faces a $25 million suit from the UVA fraternity Phi Kappa Psi that was named in the article.
Three former frat members have also filed a suit against Rolling Stone, but have not specified an amount.

The liar Jackie Coakley has tried desperately to avoid telling the truth. Last week, the judge slapped down another one of her pathetic excuses.

UPDATE: Tell @AmandaMarcotte and @JessicaValenti about this news, because apparently the liars didn’t notice.

 

PREVIOUSLY:

 

Category: Crime, Education, Journalism, Media Bias, Sex Trouble

Gender-Neutral at Notre Dame?

Posted on | April 5, 2016 | 63 Comments

 

The University of Notre Dame is a Catholic school, most famous for its Fighting Irish football team and, uh, “gender-nonconforming people.”

Gender-neutral Bathrooms
Easy access to a bathroom without fear of harassment is a privilege that is often taken for granted. Transgender, genderqueer, and other gender-nonconforming people often feel uncomfortable and are subject to harassment and violence when using male- or female-specific bathrooms.
If you know of a gender-neutral bathroom on or around campus, let us know by filling out a brief Bathroom Survey so that we can make Notre Dame a safe and inclusive environment for everyone.
The most recent list of gender-neutral bathrooms can be found here.

About 8,500 students attend Notre Dame, where the tuition is $47,929 a year. How many Notre Dame students are “gender-nonconforming people”? Do these students not have parents or high-school guidance counselors who can advise them that, you know, if you want to be “gender-nonconforming,” maybe Notre Dame isn’t the best place to do it?

Alas, the advocates of “progress,” “equality” and “diversity” insist that every institution must be equally diverse and progressive, including Catholic universities. Here’s a headline from December 2012:

Notre Dame concludes comprehensive review
of GLBTQ student services and support
After a five-month review process, University of Notre Dame President Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., has accepted recommendations from the Office of Student Affairs to expand and enhance the support of and services for students who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning (GLBTQ), including the creation of a University recognized student organization.
The recommendations are part of a comprehensive pastoral plan that includes an array of initiatives grounded in the Catholic mission of the University.
“I appreciate the careful and thoughtful work of this review that considered both the needs of our students and the teachings of the Catholic Church,” Father Jenkins said. “As articulated in the University’s ‘Spirit of Inclusion’ statement, Notre Dame’s goal remains to create and sustain a welcoming and inclusive environment for all students, and I am confident that this multi-faceted, pastoral approach represents the next step in advancing our efforts toward this aspiration for our GLBTQ students.”
The plan, titled “Beloved Friends and Allies: A Pastoral Plan for the Support and Holistic Development of GLBTQ and Heterosexual Students at the University of Notre Dame,” was crafted by members of the Student Affairs staff. It follows a study of Catholic doctrine and teaching, listening sessions with Notre Dame students and an examination of student clubs and structures at other Catholic universities. Rooted in Catholic teaching on sexuality and gender identity, the plan emphasizes the “respect, compassion and sensitivity” due to all, and calls all Notre Dame students to cultivate chaste relationships and to support one another in a community of friendship. A document detailing the review process, relevant Church teaching and specifics of the implementation of the plan is available online at friendsandallies.nd.edu.
After requests last spring by Notre Dame students for a gay-straight alliance or similar club, Father Jenkins asked for a review of the breadth of structures and support for students who identify as GLBTQ. While respectful of the education and awareness work of the University’s Core Council for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Questioning Students, students voiced a desire for services that provide greater community and support.

You see that once Notre Dame decided to appease the forces of “progress,” “equality” and “diversity,” complete surrender was inevitable.

The “Gender Relations Center” at Notre Dame now offers a plethora of services to the, uh, “gender-nonconforming” community:

 

LGBTQ 101
LGBTQ 101 is a two-hour long interactive presentation, designed to provide participants with a basic understanding and greater awareness of issues faced by students who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning (LGBTQ) within today’s culture. This presentation includes an overview of the Catholic church’s teachings on sexual orientation, definitions related to sexual orientation and gender identity, introduction to the concepts of homophobia and heterosexism, as well as common myths and misunderstandings about lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender identities. Please contact Maureen McKenney, Assistant Director for LGBTQ Student Concerns ([email protected]), for more information or to sign up for a session.

 

PRISMND
Founded in 2013, PrismND is Notre Dame’s first official student organization dedicated to serving the LGBTQ and ally community on campus. The organization provides programming dedicated to fostering the development of the community, and raising awareness on campus as to the community’s needs.
In the Notre Dame family, intolerance against some of us intolerance against all of us.

Certainly, alumni of Notre Dame University and parents of prospective students will want to learn more about the inclusive agenda of diversity, equality and progress at the university’s “Gender Relations Center.”

 

The rhetoric of “Beloved Friends and Allies” cannot disguise what actually happened, i.e., Notre Dame’s abject surrender to the totalitarian demands of an anti-Christian movement which is ruthlessly determined to destroy the Church, insofar as it cannot control the Church. When you see what “The Radical Theology of Feminism” has done to the liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), don’t you realize that if the Church refuses to cling to truth, and instead becomes “conformed to this world” (Romans 12:2), eventually there will be no Church at all? My Catholic friend Pete Da Tech Guy had a big “I told you so” at the expense of the Lutherans, but what does Notre Dame’s surrender portend?

What we are witnessing in the 21st century is the revival of an ancient heresy, a postmodern version of Gnosticism. The theologian Peter Jones first described this weird phenomenon in his 1992 book The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back: An Old Heresy for the New Age. Jones further explored the neo-Gnostic trend in his 1997 book Spirit Wars: Pagan Revival in Christian America. This steady drift toward syncretism suggests that many Christian “leaders” and institutions are now “giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron” (I Timothy 4:1-3 KJV).

“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 leaders of Christian institutions will not stand up for the truth now, eventually Christians will no longer have liberty to speak the truth.





 


Category: Catholics, Education, Gays, Religion, Sex Trouble

Confession of a ‘F–king Sociopath’

Posted on | April 4, 2016 | 25 Comments

So, there was this guy who claimed to be a Marine diagnosed with terminal cancer and told he had only 18 months to live. He collected a lot of online donations, but then Michael Kocher was arrested on felony drug charges, and posted this shocking confession on Facebook:

“I’m going to jail for a very long time, I f–ked up bad this time. So I’m coming clean about everything. I’m a f–king sociopath. . . .
“The last few months I’ve been extremely mentally addicted to smoking cocaine. . . .
“Most of my past is a mix of truth, exaggeration, and fabrication. . . .
“I was also a full blown heroin addict . . . Prior to moving to Denver I had fully relapsed for about a year. . . .
“I am just a bad person who only cares about his own selfish desires. I have destroyed so many lives to get what I wanted.”

A liar, a dopehead, a thief. And he probably voted for Obama, too.

 

Category: Crime
« 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