The Other McCain

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

Rule 5 Monday: Half Price Chocolate Day Edition

Posted on | February 16, 2016 | 15 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

As previously mentioned, I was somewhat busy yesterday with an attractive young lady and was not available to do Rule 5 Sunday on time. Speaking of attractive young ladies and Valentine’s Day, here’s a George Petty pinup from 1947 suitable to the occasion. Insert the usual disclaimer here.

Somebody’s really happy about getting the ten-pound box!

Goodstuff leads off this week with Kim Basinger, FOR SCIENCE!, as well as an Unorthodox Look at Valentine’s Day. Next up. Ninety Miles from Tyranny with Morning Mistress, Hot Pick of the Late Night, and Girls with Guns, Animal Magnetism with Rule 5 Friday and a Saturday Super-Sized Brunettenarok, The Last Tradition with Stephany Romero and Louise Vyent, and last but not least First Street Journal with The Russians Are Coming!

EBL serves up the Bronco cheerleaders (better late than never), a triple dip of Debbie Reynolds dancing,  The Women, and Amy Lindsay.

Postaldog returns with Amy Lindsay, Hilary Duff, Tammy Lynn Sytch, and Pascal Craymer.

A View from the Beach checks in with Fragile Abbey Lee Kershaw, DC Advises Against Consumption of Local Fish, Mystery Meat Identified at Long Last (cave girls), Meryl Streep Steps In It, “St. Valentine’s Day Massacre”, EPA Set to Red Flag Stock Cars, Turnback Tuesday, The Price of Stupidity is Pain #5613, The Big Question of the Day, and How Hard Can it Be?

The Daley Gator returns with Aja Naomi King, Arina Sakita, Megumi Yasu, Lira Galore, Miracle Watts, Gabi Castrovinchi, and Haruna Ikoma.

At Soylent Siberia, it’s your weekly coffee creamer, Monday Motivationer Invitation, Tuesdayski Titillationski, Humpday El Fuego Carine, Fursday Country, Corset Cornucopia, and Weekender Beaver Mountain.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Eva Padberg, his Vintage Babe is Marion Martin, Sex in Advertising is covered by Guess!; also, there’s Women of PETA XLVIII and the obligatory NFL cheerleaders. At Dustbury, it’s Lauren German and Emily Blunt.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox is midnight on Saturday, February 20.


Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

Pro Tip: Don’t Be a ‘Feminist Man’

Posted on | February 15, 2016 | 72 Comments

 

Nora Samaran (@NoraSamaran on Twitter) runs a blog called “Dating Tips for the Feminist Man,” the idea of which is absurd, an oxymoron.

Feminists are women who do not like men, and the “Feminist Man” is either (a) a man who is too stupid to understand that feminists hate him, (b) a man who hates himself, or perhaps (c) both (a) and (b). My advice to young men is to avoid feminists altogether. Feminism is an ideology that appeals to, and expresses the interests of, women who are mentally ill, emotionally damaged and sexually deviant. There are still plenty of sane, happy, normal women in the world, so why would any man waste time dating angry lunatics? A feminist never wants to hear anything a man has to say and a wise man would say nothing to her, except “good-bye.”

To whom, then, does Ms. Samaran direct her advice?

You’re a straight monogamous cismale who identifies as a leftie. Maybe you’re a Marxist or a socialist; maybe you’re an anarchist. You respect women. You would never act like a player. You fall in love with strong, smart, feminist women. You believe that our movements are stronger if they include everyone. . . .
[I]t’s time to consider the connection between your politics and your personal life. Social justice is intersectional; we can’t just fix our economic relationships without fixing our personal and cultural ones.

You can read the whole thing, but this brief excerpt includes the basic premises of Ms. Samaran’s argument, all of which are false.

Begin with Ms. Samaran’s assumption the man who “identifies as a leftie” — a Marxist, socialist, or anarchist — would be “monogamous” because he “respects women.” Left-wing men do not respect private property or the rule of law; why should we expect them to respect women? Socialism is the ideology of parasitical moochers, Marxism is the ideology of totalitarian dictators, and anarchy is the ideology of criminal psychopaths. Any woman who would voluntarily associate herself with such men should consider seeking psychiatric care.

Why does Ms. Samaran believe the man who “identifies” this way would be interested in monogamy? Surely such a man has read Friedrich Engels’ The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, which denounces monogamy as a bourgeois prejudice and condemns the marriage-based family as inherently oppressive, an obsolete remnant of primitive tribalism and medieval feudalism.

Every intelligent person who has studied Marxism understands that this ideology is incompatible with the traditional family. Why should anyone imagine that men who have no desire to become husbands or fathers would be monogamous? How could Ms. Samaran assume that the man who subscribes to such a vicious left-wing ideology “respects women”? Has she never read what Ludwig von Mises said on this subject?

Proposals to transform the relations between the sexes have long gone hand in hand with plans for the socialization of the means of production. Marriage is to disappear along with private property . . . Socialism promises not only welfare — wealth for all — but universal happiness in love as well. This part of its programme has been the source of much of its popularity. It is significant that no other German socialist book was more widely read or more effective as propaganda than Bebel’s Woman and Socialism, which is dedicated above all to the message of free love.

Sexual perverts have always been attracted to left-wing ideologies because they hope that a radical change in the social order will create circumstances in which they have access to whatever deviant pleasures their depraved imaginations crave. Men whose desires are abnormal, or who are unable to find happy relationships with attractive partners under the status quo, will align themselves with radical movements that promise to destroy the status quo. Furthermore, such men are apt to make the cynical calculation that women who are involved in these movements are more sexually promiscuous than women who espouse traditional values. When I covered the 2013 D.C. “SlutWalk” protest, I observed that there were several young men participating in the march, either because their girlfriends had dragged them along for the day, or because they hoped that, by showing their solidarity with the feminist movement, they might “score” with some of the protesters.

 

To think that a left-wing man “respects women” requires a certain kind of  naïveté about the psychology of the type of person whom Eric Hoffer called The True Believer. Anyone who has paid close attention to the behavior of men involved in radical politics (e.g., Karl Marx, who fathered a bastard child by his family’s housekeeper) understands that depraved immorality among left-wing men is the rule, rather than the exception. No American ever seriously expects moral virtue from a Democrat politician (e.g., Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Jim McGreevey, Eliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner, et al.) and what Democrats do routinely is only considered a “scandal” if a Republican does it.

We may therefore surmise that, when Ms. Samaran uses the phrase “respects women” in addressing left-wing men, what she actually means is supports feminism. This is Ms. Samaran’s way of smuggling into her argument the false premise that supporting feminism is synonymous with respecting women, a misguided assumption that cannot withstand even casual scrutiny. I would argue that it is respect for women that motivates opposition to feminism, but no such argument is actually necessary, when all we have to do is ask whether Bill Clinton “respects women” more than did Ronald Reagan. Or, to look at the obverse side of the issue, why did feminists hate Margaret Thatcher but defend Hillary Clinton? Yet feminists have no sense of morality other than the dogmas of their political ideology. Therefore, Ms. Samaran believes, a man who “respects women” is one who supports taxpayer-funded abortion, etc.

“I would be happy to give [Bill Clinton] a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs.”
— Nina Burleigh, 1998

Knowing that Nina Burleigh is an atheist who hates Christmas (because she hates Jesus, hates the Bible, and hates Christians), her expression of support for Bill Clinton and abortion does not surprise us. All feminists share Nina Burleigh’s sick worldview — The Culture of Death, as it has been called — which is why feminism is rejected by every intelligent person who believes in God and believes that human life has a transcendent meaning and purpose. Feminists endorse the most hideous cruelty, demanding the deliberate slaughter of innocent life. Feminists advocate every manner of sordid sexual perversion, and they oppose everything that is decent, honest and wholesome in human society.

Who is the “Feminist Man” seeking “Dating Tips” from Nora Samaran’s blog? We must suppose that such a man is a desperate and dangerous sort of pervert. Only a man utterly lacking moral scruples and self-respect would ever knowingly date a feminist, but our nation’s public school system has become marvelously successful at destroying the morality and self-respect of children, so we may suppose that most young men nowadays are dangerous perverts — socialists, Marxists, anarchists, etc. — who would turn to Nora Samaran for advice.

When she first posted her “tips” at a left-wing Canadian site three years ago, the comments turned into a firestorm of criticism from men who, quite naturally, objected to Ms. Samaran’s basic assumptions that (a) men are always to blame for everything wrong with heterosexual relationships, and (b) Ms. Samaran is an expert qualified to advise others on how to conduct their romantic lives. These are the implicit premises of all feminist discourse about heterosexuality. Ms. Samaran is one of those women who seem to believe that, merely by calling herself a “feminist,” she gains the authority to tell other people what to do, no matter how young or inexperienced she may be, or whether her own life exemplifies any ideal a responsible person would care to emulate.

Perhaps the perfect example of this phenomenon is Miriam Mogilevsky, a young mentally ill woman who describes herself as “queer, gay, femme, and homoflexible . . . lesbian with exceptions . . . on the asexual spectrum somewhere,” who does not “experience primary sexual attraction,” but nonetheless considers others (including males, toward whom she has never felt any normal erotic interest) to be in need of her expert advice on the subject of sexuality, which she delivers via columns for the Everyday Feminism blog. Any sane man encountering Miriam Mogilevsky in person would likely avoid having anything to do with her.

 

The more you read what feminists write about sex, the more you realize that “feminist” is just another word for weirdo or loser, and we may assume that the reason feminists constantly complain about male sexual inadequacy is because feminists are such frightening lunatics that no adequate man would ever bother speaking to them.

When Nora Samaran posted her “tips” in 2013, she reacted to criticism of her advice with this revealing comment:

It is stuff I want people who date me to know. . . . And two out of the i dunno maybe ten or fifteen guys I’ve had encounters with in my adult life have been bad at these skills. And I want more of the people I might date in the future to be better at these kinds of skills, so i don’t have to limit my dating pool to only my awesome exes.

Questions: How old is Ms. Samaran? Do most women consider it normal to have had sexual “encounters” with 10 or 15 different partners? Even by the degenerate standards of Canadian feminists, isn’t Ms. Samaran unusually promiscuous? If Ms. Samaran’s “dating pool” included so many “awesome” men, why did none of her previous “encounters” lead to a long-term relationship?

It seems reasonable to assume that Ms. Samaran is what some guys call a “carousel rider,” the type of “pump-and-dump” woman that men are willing to have casual sex with — a quick hookup, or a “friends with benefits” arrangement — but whom no man would ever consider desirable as a lifelong companion. Even a man who is an atheist with no moral objection to fornication would probably hesitate to become seriously involved with a woman who has as many former sex partners as Ms. Samaran does. A woman who has been so often been used and discarded by other men is obviously not a “keeper,” or else some man would have done whatever was necessary to keep her. Does anyone expect a man of quality to choose his wife from among the culls and rejects in the bargain basement discount pile of sexual leftovers?

Think about it this way: A girl who is popular in high school can have her pick of numerous guys who are interested in her. If she chooses wisely among them, it is likely that she will have exactly one serious boyfriend in high school. Well, sometimes things don’t work out, and perhaps she and her high-school sweetheart later break up. She is attractive and popular, however, so she can still be picky as to which guy she dates in college, and expect him to treat her as a serious romantic partner. A woman doesn’t have to be an uptight religious prude to see that casual promiscuity is an activity fraught with heartache and health hazards. Therefore, isn’t it likely that any genuinely attractive woman with good common sense will have had relatively few sexual relationships before she graduates college? And isn’t it likely that such a woman will be married by the time she is 25?

All the feminist activism in the world will never change the fact that young bachelors tend to sort women into two categories:

  1. Potential wives;
    and
  2. Everybody else.

Wise young women understand this, and strive to avoid the kind of behavior that will get them assigned to the “everybody else” category.

Exactly what kind of fool is Nora Samaran, that she could run up a number as high as 15 (!!!) partners without realizing that her “awesome exes” were just using her for their own selfish purposes? She is a typical feminist fool, a future member of the Crazy Cat Lady Club.

It is truly astonishing the way feminists seem to assume that other people, men as well as women, are in need of their advice. If all you want to do with your romantic life is to be a carousel rider, bouncing around from one partner to the next, ultimately dying alone and childless, certainly there are many feminists who are qualified to tell you how to do that. One could cite a long list of eminent feminists — including Shulamith Firestone — who never married and never gave birth to a child. However, if a woman aspires to have a husband and children at some point in her life, she must take into consideration factors that feminists habitually ignore, for example, what do men want?

Feminism is hostile to any suggestion that women should care about men. Everything men do is bad and everything men say is wrong, according to feminists who view all men as complicit in the oppression of women.

“Marriage means rape and lifelong slavery. . . . We reject marriage both in theory and in practice. . . . Love has to be destroyed. It’s an illusion . . . It may be that sex is a neurotic manifestation of oppression. It’s like a mass psychosis.”
— Ti-Grace Atkinson, 1969

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

“Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism: that which is most one’s own, yet most taken away. . . .
“Sexuality is that social process which creates, organizes, expresses, and directs desire, creating the social beings we know as women and men, as their relations create society. . . . The organized expropriation of the sexuality of some for the use of others defines the sex, woman. Heterosexuality is its structure, gender and family its congealed forms, sex roles its qualities generalized to social persona, reproduction a consequence, and control its issue.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, “Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory” (1982)

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

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

Because “marriage means rape and lifelong slavery” and all men are “agents of oppression,” according to feminist theory, ultimately heterosexuality is itself a force of “patriarchal domination” that men impose on women through “coercive power,” and it is only an “illusion that heterosexuality is the norm.” Feminists reject the possibility that men can ever be anything other than rapists and oppressors, and yet here we have Ms. Samaran, arrogantly assuming herself qualified to issue “dating tips” for men under headlines like this:

The Opposite of Rape Culture Is Nurturance Culture

Yes, of course! A radical ideologue who advocates killing babies in the womb is an expert on “nurturance culture.” This makes perfect sense to the kind helpless fools who do not automatically laugh at the phrase “Feminist Man,” and who seek Ms. Samaran’s advice:

The opposite of masculine rape culture is masculine nurturance culture: men increasing their capacity to nurture, and becoming whole. . . .
Compassion for self and compassion for others grow together and are connected; this means that men finding and recuperating the lost parts of themselves will heal everyone. . . .
To heal rape culture, then, men build masculine nurturance skills: nurturance and recuperation of their true selves, and nurturance of the people of all genders around them.

What is this gooey, gushy Hallmark-greeting-card treacle? As a father of six who spends a good bit of his time babysitting his two young grandsons, I suppose that I have more “masculine nurturance skills” than any “Feminist Man” to whom Ms. Samaran addresses her “Dating Tips.” Do I need to be lectured on this topic by a promiscuous Canadian radical woman? Well, never mind such doubts, let’s read some more of Ms. Samaran’s profound feminist insights:

I am discovering a secret, slowly: the men I know who are exceptionally nurturing lovers, fathers, coworkers, close friends to their friends, who know how to make people feel safe, have almost no outlets through which to learn or share this hardwon skill with other men. They may have had a role model at home, if they are lucky, in the form of an exceptionally nurturing father, but if they do not have this model they have had to figure everything out through trial and error, alone, or by learning with women rather than men. This knowledge shapes everything: assumptions about the significance of needs, how one ought to respond to them, what closeness feels like, how to love your own soul, and what kind of nurturance is actually meant to happen in intimate space.
Meanwhile, the men I know who are kind, goodhearted people, but who are earlier on in growing into their own models for self-love and learning how to comfort and nurture others, have no men to ask. Growing entails growing pains, certainly, but the way can be smoothed when one does not have to learn everything alone.
Men do not talk to one another about nurturance skills: doing so feels too intimate, or the codes of masculinity make doing so too frightening. If they can’t ask and teach each other — if they can’t even find out which other men in their lives would welcome these conversations — then how do they learn?

Amid the gooey greeting-card stuff here — what does it mean to “love you own soul”? — Ms. Samaran ignores three basic problems:

  1. Feminists hate all men, but they hate fathers the most. The fundamental goal of radical feminism since its inception in the late 1960s has been to destroy the marriage-based family, thus to deprive fathers of any influence on the lives of women and children. Feminists condemn marriage as a slavery, and specifically denounce the influence of fathers as the basis of “patriarchy,” an oppressive institution they vow to “smash.”
  2. Feminists are against “nurturing.” The reason feminists insist on abortion as an essential “right” is because feminists hate babies, who require the kind of “nurturing” that feminists lack the emotional capacity to perform. Caring for others — especially someone as helpless as a newborn infant — requires generosity and kindness, whereas feminism is an ideology that justifies and rationalizes selfish cruelty. Feminism negates all moral values for the sake of a fanatical pursuit of the movement’s idée fixe, a political abstraction called “equality.” How can feminists demand that men be “nurturing,” when feminists themselves reject “nurturing” as antithetical to their movement’s goals?
  3. Feminism is about silencing men. Ms. Samaran implies that some men might have worthwhile things to say about such topics as “how to make people feel safe” and “how to comfort and nurture others,” and yet no one in the feminist movement wants to hear a man speak. Everything men say, feminists mock and deride as “mansplaining,” and so no man with any sense ever talks to feminists. Ms. Samaran laments that men have “no outlets” for sharing their knowledge and skills “with other men,” but why is this? Because feminists have done everything within their power to destroy formerly all-male institutions where such knowledge was formerly transmitted. Feminists demanded that every school, college and university must become coed, and many institutions that were all-male 50 years ago are now majority female. On some of these campuses, feminists demand the abolition of fraternities.

The faculty of public schools are female-dominated, and the policies that prevail in the system are designed to reward girls and punish boys, so as to discourage male academic success. The feminist movement seeks to eradicate male influence in education and culture. Feminists have organized boycotts of male authors, and demand a reduction in the number of films directed by men. Feminists advocate deliberate discrimination against men in order to achieve “equality,” and any man who objects to this discrimination is condemned as a “misogynist.”

In order for a man to be a “nurturing father,” and thus “a role model at home” for his sons, he would have to find a woman who wants to get married and become a mother, but feminist ideology is anti-marriage and anti-motherhood, and therefore few feminists have husbands or children. The man who wants to become a husband and father would be a fool to waste time dating a feminist, who would certainly be obliged to get an abortion if she became pregnant.

“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . I don’t want a baby. . . . 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

Not content to abort every child that might accidentally be conceived in their own wombs, feminists seek to deprive men of any role in the lives of children born to other women. Feminists encourage women to divorce their husbands, and to prevent fathers from having visitation or custody of their own children. Insofar as any woman has a husband or any child has a father, these marriages and families represent the influence of “patriarchy” that feminists are determined to “smash.”

 

Here is a headline that feminists everywhere celebrated:

I Aborted My Baby — Because it was a Boy.
. . . I couldn’t bring another monster into the world. We already have enough enemies as it is. . . .

Every boy is a “monster” and all males are “enemies,” according to feminist ideology, and yet Ms. Samaran seems to believe that “masculine nurturing” is something to be encouraged.

Nora Samaran addresses her lectures to men who “fall in love with strong, smart, feminist women,” as if strength and intelligence are synonymous with feminism. My wife is strong and smart, but she is is a Christian, and I thank God for blessing me with such a wonderful wife. On Valentine’s Day, I gave her a dozen roses and a box of candy.

Feminists hate Christian women like my wife. Feminists don’t believe in love, and feminists denounce Valentine’s Day as “heteronormative,” so I guess nobody gave Nora Samaran roses or candy for Valentine’s Day and, as a feminist, she must be glad she got nothing. This is what men should always give feminists — nothing. The best “Dating Tip” I could give a young man is never to give feminists anything, not even an explanation for why you don’t speak to them.




 

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 02.15.16

Posted on | February 15, 2016 | 13 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


Rule 5 Monday will be up this evening; I was tied up (not literally) most of Sunday with a Valentine’s Day date.


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Trump Jumping The Shark
The Political Hat: The Patriarchy Can LITERALLY Turn Off Parts Of Womens’ Minds
Michelle Malkin: RNC Approved Beltway Elitist John “The Pulverizer” Dickerson As Debate Moderator
Twitchy: Schumer In 2007? “No Judges For Bush!” Schumer Today? “Obama Gets His Judge!”


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Trump Clarifies Comments About W, 9/11
American Thinker: Don’t Let Obama Fill Scalia’s Seat
BLACKFIVE: Book Review & Author Interview – Back Blast: A Gray Man Novel by Mark Greaney
Conservatives4Palin: Warning Signs For Hillary In South Carolina
Don Surber: Fire Reince
Jammie Wearing Fools: Trump Was Out Of Control In SC Debate
Joe For America: Let The “Scalia Was Murdered” Party Begin
JustOneMinute: All Change
Pamela Geller: Machete-Wielding Jihadi In Ohio Was Known To FBI
Protein Wisdom: Valentine’s Day, Vox, and the Dead Blue Parrot of Parody
Shot In The Dark: So This Is What It Felt Like When Pearl Harbor Was Bombed
STUMP: Free College! If You Get In
The Gateway Pundit: Someone Tell Bernie Sanders – Socialist Venezuela In Complete Meltdown
The Jawa Report: Finnish Anti-Rape Video Tells Women To Use The Force To Repel Immigrant Attackers
The Lonely Conservative: Cruz Promises To Filibuster Any Obama Supreme Court Nominee
This Ain’t Hell: Congress Looking At DoD/VA Merger For Veteran Health Care
Weasel Zippers: Michael Moore’s New Film Bombs At Box Office – Worst Opening Of His Career
Megan McArdle: Obama’s Oil Tax – Running On Empty
Mark Steyn: Applause Line of Doom


Shop Amazon Fashion – Levi’s Men’s 501 Original Fit Jean

Category: Linkagery

Crisis: Justice Scalia Dead at 79

Posted on | February 14, 2016 | 152 Comments

 

The voice of conservatism on the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, died Saturday at age 79. As soon as I heard the news, the scale of the disaster was apparent. On most cases where conservatives prevailed, the majority was 5-4, and to allow President Obama to replace Scalia with a liberal would tilt the court decidedly to the Left. Therefore, this unexpected vacancy in the final year of Obama’s term produces a crisis. The Republican-controlled Senate will almost certainly attempt to block whoever Obama nominates, and this high-profile political battle in Washington will be fought out during a presidential election year. With the nation already teetering on the brink of political revolution — if the Democrats win the election, the GOP may shatter into incoherent fragments, with unknown consequences — the death of Scalia brings into sharp focus the issues confronting America in the 21st century.

Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice
Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas ranch
— San Antonio News-Express

BREAKING: Supreme Court Justice Scalia
dies during hunting trip in Marfa
— KVIA-TV

Scalia’s death plunges court,
national politics into turmoil
— Washington Post

GOP candidates urge Senate to block
Obama’s Supreme Court pick
— Yahoo

Mitch McConnell rules out replacing
Antonin Scalia until new president is elected
— Washington Times

McConnell throws down the gauntlet:
No Scalia replacement under Obama
— Politico

Grassley joins call to delay
Supreme Court nomination
— Des Moines Register

 

Category: Supreme Court

FMJRA 2.0: RIP Justice Scalia

Posted on | February 13, 2016 | 5 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Feminism Is a Synonym for ‘Shut Up’
The Pirate’s Cove
The Political Hat
The Daley Gator
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

Rule 5 Sunday: Super Bowl L
Animal Magnetism
Ninety Miles from Tyranny
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

FMJRA 2.0: Breakdown
The Pirate’s Cove
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

#GOPDebate Feedback: Women In Combat Is A Progressive Position
Batshit Crazy News

NARAL: ‘Tactic Of Humanizing Fetuses’
The Daley Gator
Batshit Crazy News

Feminism, Sex and Hypocrisy
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox, 02.08.16
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

N.H.: Hillary Will Lose, But What Difference, at This Point, Does It Make?
The Lonely Conservative
Batshit Crazy News

Don’t Let The Gills, Scales & Fins Distract You–Nothing Fishy In Trumpistan
The Daley Gator
Rotten Chestnuts
Batshit Crazy News

Democrat Armageddon
Regular Right Guy
Adam Pigott
Batshit Crazy News
A View from the Beach

In The Mailbox, 02.11.16
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

Busted Again
Batshit Crazy News

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton Debate: Who Hates America More?
GayPatriot
A View from the Beach

Dishonor: University Settles Lawsuit in Notorious ‘Regret Equals Rape’ Case
Living in Anglo-America
Batshit Crazy News

Friday Night With In The Mailbox: 02.12.16
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

Top linkers this week:

  1.  Batshit Crazy News (15)
  2.  A View from the Beach (7)

The Heller Decision, As Blogged By Frank J.

Category: FMJRA Award

Friday Night With In The Mailbox: 02.12.16

Posted on | February 12, 2016 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: The Critical Ta-Nehisi Coates Endorsement
Da Tech Guy: The Clintons and the GOP Establishment, Sowing and Reaping
Proof Positive: Nary A Fare Thee Well, Too
The Political Hat: Free Speech Is Now Racist
Michelle Malkin: TSA – Total Security Abyss
Twitchy: National Right To Life Calls Cruz Attack On Rubio “Inaccurate & Misleading”


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Tomi Lahren Interviews Pamela Geller On “The Islamicization Of America”
American Thinker: Sex, The Only Thing Infidel Women Are Worth
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Violent Crimes by Phillip Margolin
Conservatives4Palin: Obama’s Intel Chief Says Hillary Should Withdraw From Presidential Race
Don Surber: Ted Cruz Dumps Ad Featuring Former Soft-Core Porn Actress
Jammie Wearing Fools: Police Baffled After Guy Named Mohammed Goes On Machete Rampage At Ohio Deli
Joe For America: Texas Legalizes Open Carry – Then It Gets Weird
JustOneMinute: Don’t Know Much About History (But I’ve Balanced My Checkbook)
Pamela Geller: UK Police Keep Identity Of Gay ISIS Jihadi Secret To “Protect His Human Rights”
Protein Wisdom: “It Feels Good To Be A Clinton”
Shot In The Dark: Connect The Dots, Sheeple!
STUMP: Death Comes For Us All, Part 2 – Expect The Wave
The Gateway Pundit: Purdue University Staffer Says All Pro-Life Students Should Be Raped
The Jawa Report: Saudi Arabia Issues Fatwa Against Uncovered Princess Mascot
The Lonely Conservative: No, Ted Cruz Is Not Attacking Home Schooling
This Ain’t Hell: Today’s Shocker – Women Oppose Being Required To Register For The Draft
Weasel Zippers: EPA E-Mails Show They Planned To Let Flint Continue Drinking Contaminated Water Into 2016
Megan McArdle: Rubio’s Risk Of Going Off Script
Mark Steyn: Toss Another Western Society On The Barbie?


Shop Amazon – Create Personalized Gifts for Your Special Valentine

Category: Linkagery

Dishonor: University Settles Lawsuit in Notorious ‘Regret Equals Rape’ Case

Posted on | February 12, 2016 | 71 Comments

Terms of the settlement in John Doe v. Washington and Lee University are confidential, as is customary, but given the self-congratulatory tone of the university’s statement — which the plaintiff’s attorneys must have approved — my hunch is this: The university agreed to expunge this charge from John Doe’s record, pay his attorney’s fees, and give him a relatively small sum (say, $10,000) in exchange for avoiding a trial that could have exposed the university to devastating negative publicity. 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, the Washington and Lee case was one that most blatantly demonstrated the kind of anti-male prejudice now rampant in higher education:

Doe’s lawsuit asserted that the odds were stacked against him during a hearing before the Student Faculty Hearing Board — a process that he argued was slanted to favor female accusers over male defendants.
For one thing, he claimed, a university administrator who handled the investigation in November 2014 recently had given a talk on campus about “regret equals rape,” or the argument that what first passes for a consensual sexual experience later can be called a rape by a woman who has second thoughts.
Doe’s alleged victim heard those comments, the lawsuit alleged, and was influenced by them in her decision to bring charges seven months after their sexual encounter.
And in alleging a rush to judgment by the disciplinary board, Doe pointed out that the decision to expel him was made one day after the publication of a Rolling Stone story — since discredited — about an alleged gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity house. The article prompted a national outcry against what it portrayed as UVa’s culture of indifference to rape victims.
“The negative impact of the Rolling Stone article on UVa influenced W&L’s decision to find the plaintiff responsible for sexual assault so as to avoid a similar fate,” the lawsuit alleged. . . .

(To interrupt: This highlights a problem that feminists refuse to recognize. Whenever concerns are raised about false accusations, feminists will instantly cite statistics to the effect that only a tiny percentage of rape accusations are false. However, those statistics refer to criminal prosecutions, rather than the kind of campus disciplinary procedures involved in these cases. Furthermore, feminists have recently taken to shrieking “rape culture” constantly, inciting a climate of hysteria where false accusations become more likely, and in which students accused of sexual assault have none of the due-process rights accorded to common criminals in a court of law. It is almost certain that among the 100-plus lawsuits filed by students who say they were falsely accused are charges that never would have been made, had it not been for the recent feminist fear-mongering crusade.)

Doe has maintained that he and the student had sex that not only was consensual, but was initiated by her after they met at a party and wound up back in his room. His lawsuit states that she never complained about the sexual encounter, or a second one a month later, until after he began dating another woman later in the school year.

Bingo! Here is the answer to the question of motive. This is something else that feminists expect us to ignore in cases like this. Feminists become outraged by any suggestion that a woman would ever lie about sexual assault. Even in the UVA rape hoax, where Jackie Coakley obviously fabricated the whole thing, including the non-existent “Haven Monahan,” feminists like Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte and Jaclyn Friedman won’t denounce the false accuser as a liar, and even refuse to use Coakley’s full name. Holding the false accuser accountable isn’t part of the feminist agenda, because to tell the whole truth about such matters might give a clue to why women sometimes do lie about rape.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

If you read John Doe’s complaint against Washington and Lee, you can surmise that the accuser was interested in a serious romantic relationship with John Doe, but he seemed to treat their two hookups as merely casual sex. When he later got serious with another girl, we may further surmise, his accuser regretted her previous liaisons with John Doe — she felt used, a “pump-and-dump” — and it was this sense of  regret, and a desire for revenge against the boy who had treated her badly, that inspired her to accuse him of sexual assault.

Let me intrude here a thought that has crossed my mind in studying this general phenomenon. Despite the prevalence of shameless promiscuity among college girls nowadays, they are still very concerned about status and reputation. And the girl who feels she had been used and discarded may become self-conscious about the reputational damage she has suffered because — news flash — girls talk. Girls gossip and whisper and form cliques, and the girl who feels she has been snubbed by a friend or excluded from the “in crowd” will often become paranoid at her perceived loss of status. Did she hook up with the wrong guy? Did she go too far, too fast? Did he tell his buddies about their hookup? Has the gossip gotten around to her friends? Are the other girls talking about her behind her back?

This kind of concern — the shadow of shame — is a psychological undertow that is seldom mentioned in regard to the apparently cheerful hedonism of sexual “empowerment” that feminist celebrate. Robert Tracinski made a very astute observation about this:

Dubious claims about “rape culture” are an attempt to create an all-purpose scapegoat for the emotional dark side of promiscuity.
College campuses have long since been taken over by a culture in which casual sex with acquaintances is considered normal and where slightly outré sexual experimentation is strongly encouraged, all of it spurred on by alcohol, which figures prominently in most of these cases. But it’s clear that some young women are not psychologically prepared for this. They have casual relationships and hookups, but then feel regret and emotional trauma when the experience ends up being emotionally unsatisfying or disturbing. Then they are encouraged, by the feminists and “rape culture” activists, to reinterpret the experience as all the fault of an evil man who must have coerced them.

Furthermore, I believe, modern communications — smartphones, email, texting, dating apps, and especially social media like Facebook — have exacerbated many of the problems surrounding casual sex. On the one hand, good-looking young people can advertise themselves online via OKCupid, Tinder, etc., and easily find potential partners. This is what “selfie culture” is really about. The girl posing provocatively in selfies she posts online is seeking attention, and while she may only be fishing for compliments to boost her ego, I can guarantee the single girl will check the profiles of anyone who responds to her selfies by actively flirting with her. The phenomenon of “long-distance relationships” that begin with online flirtation is one aspect of how the Internet has affected romantic activity, especially among the young.

On the other hand, social media can make it difficult for sexual hedonists to play the runaround game without anyone catching on. Back in the day before cell phones, it was easy to explain way a missed phone call, but now it is assumed that everyone is constantly accessible by phone, and young people consider it rude not to reply to a text message. Meanwhile, people list their relationship statuses on their Facebook profiles and a girl who goes on a date with a guy is likely to post Instagram photos of their evening together. How could a guy possibly hope to get away with cheating on his girlfriend under these conditions?

And am I the only one who sees how all this factors into the phony “campus rape epidemic” scare? In an age when young people’s romantic lives are commonly so visible online, with sites like Facebook effectively creating a continuously updated permanent record, the stakes are very high for the college girl concerned about her reputation. This in turn has consequences for the college guys who are seeking casual short-term companionship — the quick hookup after a party, or a non-monogamous “friends with benefits” arrangement. When you hear stories about guys and girls “stalking” their exes via Facebook or sending them harassing emails or text messages, you realize how a single episode of carelessness can have enormous ramifications in the New Media Age.

OK, now factor in the Law of Large Numbers. If you have many millions of college kids out there engaging in episodes of carelessness on a regular basis, you will inevitably have a certain number of genuine sexual assaults. However, you will also have an even larger number of unhappy college girls with hurt feelings and remorse. Among those broken-hearted and lonely girls — and there must be many thousands of them on campuses all across the country — there will be a certain number who decide to turn disappointment into revenge.

We may not agree on what the overall picture is, in terms of percentages and statistics, and in many cases it is quite nearly impossible to tell whether an accusation of sexual assault is true or false, but John Doe v. Washington and Lee shows how feminists who foment a climate of sexual fear help create the conditions in which men are falsely accused and denied their due-process rights.

Are you ready for the real kick in the head? Washington and Lee, whose history stretches back to its founding before the American Revolution, was for more than 200 years an all-male school, and did not admit its first female undergraduate student until 1985. Scarcely 30 years after that, half the university’s enrollment is female, and any male student who enrolls there knows he will be immediately expelled if his ex-girlfriend decides “regret equals rape.” This is why parents pay for their sons to attend Washington and Lee (annual tuition $46,417), a school where “equality” means that male students have no rights at all.

At a school whose namesakes were honorable men, there is now not a shred of honor or decency left. The modern worship of “equality” has destroyed everything honorable about Washington and Lee, where corrupt administrators supervise dishonest faculty in the miseducation of their perverted students. Parents thinking of sending their children there should check out the Washington and Lee University Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ) Resource Center. Maybe your child will want to enroll in the Women’s and Gender Studies (WGS) program at Washington and Lee University.

Is this hideous parody of “higher education” worth $46,417 a year?




 

Category: Education, Sex Trouble

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton Debate: Who Hates America More?

Posted on | February 12, 2016 | 55 Comments

“Our elites are fixated on how disappointed they are with the tawdry public precisely because that allows them to avoid examining their own colossal failures.”
— Ace of Spades, 2011

Ed Driscoll quoted Ace in the context of reminding us how much liberals hate America, or at least that part of America where white heterosexual men work for a living. It was a strange thing to watch Thursday’s debate between the insurgent socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders and the increasingly frantic former frontrunner Hillary Clinton, where the key issue seemed to be which one of them was more capable of destroying whatever fragments of American civilization might still be intact after Barack Obama concludes his eight-year effort to wreck the country.

Bernie’s plan has the virtue of simplicity:

  1. Loot the banks;
  2. Plunder the rich;
    and
  3. Free stuff for everybody!

That kind of agenda is perennially popular with the disgruntled moochers and radical fanatics who vote in Democrat primaries and, alas, Hillary has to play the unpopular role of the grown-up telling the kids they can’t have ice cream for breakfast. Trying to be the “mainstream” candidate in a Democrat primary is always a tricky exercise, as Hillary found out in 2008 when her decades of loyal service to her party’s anti-American policies were spurned in favor of the half-Kenyan upstart from Chicago. Despite all his bold promises, Obama hasn’t done all his supporters had hoped. There is still money in banks (“Loot them!”) and the rich still have most of it (“Plunder them!”) and there still isn’t as much free stuff as Democrat voters want the government to give them, namely everything.

The Democrat Party is the world’s most successful hate group. It attracts poor people who hate rich people, black people who hate white people, gay people who hate straight people, feminists who hate men, environmentalists who hate the internal combustion engine, and a lot of bratty college kids who hate their parents. However, the real secret of the party’s success is that it attracts the support of journalists who hate Republicans, and who therefore work tirelessly to convince the rest of us that we should vote for Democrats.

This is why I’ve decided to remain neutral — or at least, not to get too excited — about this year’s GOP primary campaign. During the 2012 campaign, I was flying and driving all over the place to cover the epic struggle for the nomination, only to end up with Mr. Inevitable, Mitt Romney, as the candidate. What’s the point, really? No matter who the Republicans nominate for president, the Organized Forces of Liberal Journalism will paint him as a greedy, cold-hearted, woman-hating racist. If the GOP nominated a Buddhist monk or a Latina lesbian, still the New York Times and NBC News would find a way to convince themselves that the Republican candidate represented everything liberals hate about America — the military, the police, Christianity, capitalism, the internal combustion engine and heterosexual white men who work for a living.

American journalism is a temple devoted to promoting a religious faith in which the only true virtue is voting for Democrats. Every four years, the media assume the role of latter-day prophets, whose mission is to warn us of the apocalyptic disaster that will befall the nation if a Republican is elected president. Switch your TV over to MSNBC for a few hours and you can see what this partisan zeal looks like when it is not filtered through the dishonest pretense of “objectivity.” It is important to realize that everyone employed in any position of influence by the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press is as fervently “progressive” as Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews. The editors of newspapers and the producers of network news distort or suppress any story that does not exactly conform to the pro-Democrat narrative.

When Islamic terrorists commit mass murder in San Bernardino, the media portray this not as a story about the dangers of radical Islam, but rather a story about the urgent need to infringe the right of law-abiding citizens to own firearms. No gun should ever find its way into the hands of a heterosexual white man who works for a living, according to liberal journalists who consider Republicans to be a greater danger than ISIS or machete-wielding Somali Muslim immigrants.

So the debate in Wisconsin between Sanders and Clinton was an exercise with the goal of determining which candidate could go farthest in blaming every problem in the world on banks (“Loot them!”), the rich (“Plunder them!”), white heterosexual men with jobs, and other Evil Forces of Social Injustice that the Republican Party is presumed to represent. The two Democrats disparaged each others’ records and character, but agreed entirely as to their basic goals. Whatever foreign policy issue or domestic problem they were asked to address, Hillary and Bernie always blamed the Evil Forces of Social Injustice, and promised to do everything in their power to punish the Republican wrongdoers responsible.

To say that Hillary Clinton was shameless in her pandering to Democrat voters is to understate the transparent desperation in her efforts to appease the kind of left-wing fringe kooks who take Rachel Maddow seriously. At one point, Hillary began ranting about the Koch brothers — who have replaced the Religious Right as the sinister bogeyman in liberal imaginations — and at another point she also twice used the clunky acronym LGBT in less than a minute:

“I am not a single-issue candidate, and I do not believe we live in a single-issue country. I think that a lot of what we have to overcome to break down the barriers that are holding people back, whether it’s poison in the water of the children of Flint, or whether it’s the poor miners who are being left out and left behind in coal country, or whether it is any other American today who feels somehow put down and oppressed by racism, by sexism, by discrimination against the LGBT community, against the kind of efforts that need to be made to root out all of these barriers, that’s what I want to take on. . . . Yes, does Wall Street and big financial interests, along with drug companies, insurance companies, big oil, all of it, have too much influence? You’re right. But if we were to stop that tomorrow, we would still have the indifference, the negligence that we saw in Flint. We would still have racism holding people back. We would still have sexism preventing women from getting equal pay. We would still have LGBT people who get married on Saturday and get fired on Monday.”

Leave aside any question of policy that may be involved here, because no one could imagine that Bernie Sanders is any less adamant than Hillary in opposing discrimination. Rather, let us ask, first, how significant is such discrimination in the grand scheme of things? And second, we may ask, why did she use this acronym? If Hillary had said “the gay community” and “gay people,” would anyone watching the debate have imagined that lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals were not also included in the generic category? The use of the acronym “LGBT” would seem to be an effort by Hillary to speak the jargon of hardcore activists and the sort of bratty college students who major in Gender Studies.

“Oh, she gets it!” was the reaction Hillary hoped her use of this acronym would elicit from young activists. “She’s inclusive!”

Being flattered and pandered to, being promised the sun, the moon and the stars by politicians oozing sympathy for you — Democrats have been running this three-card monte hustle for as long as anyone can remember. Once upon a time, William Jennings Bryan stirred the ignorant masses with his talk of mankind being crucified on a cross of gold, and all that Democrat noise about the Free Coinage of Silver didn’t really have anything to do with anything that made any difference at all to the lives of ordinary Americans. It was just so much half-mad demagoguery to stir up discontent among the rubes, and here were are in 2016, watching Democrats do the same thing they have always done. The only difference, really, is that we now have polls and consultants to tell Democrats which rubes to target with their shameless pandering. Exactly how much discrimination affects the daily lives of “LGBT people” is as irrelevant now as was the question of whether making silver coins legal tender would have any meaningful impact on the plight of farmers and factory workers to whom William Jennings Bryan was pandering.

Of course, back then, the voters to whom Democrats pandered were heterosexual white men who worked for a living, but the principle — dishonestly promising that the federal government will eradicate all the world’s woes — was the same, and the fools who believe Democrat rhetoric today are every bit as deluded as the struggling farmer who thought “Free Silver” was the solution to his problems in 1896.




 

Category: Bernie Sanders, Debates, Democrats, Hillary Clinton
« go back — keep looking »