The Other McCain

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

Democrats, Feminists and Other Liars

Posted on | January 27, 2016 | 52 Comments

 

Let’s begin with something that should be obvious, but which has seldom been stated explicitly: There is no objective reason for the recent upsurge of radical feminism in the United States. However bad sexism is today, it is not worse than it was five years ago or 10 years ago. In fact, there is abundant evidence that women in American today face much less discrimination than at any previous point in our history.

The only reason we have so many young American women identifying themselves as feminists in 2016 is because of partisan politics.

Four years ago, Democrats exploited an entirely fictional “Republican War on Women” narrative that enabled President Obama to win re-election with the largest “gender gap” ever recorded by Gallup. And with Hillary Clinton expected to be the Democrat nominee in 2016, the liberal propaganda machinery has been promoting the feminist brand in every way possible. Far beyond the narrow limits of what we usually think of as “politics,” and extending to the entertainment industry, university classrooms, the public school system and every other means of communicating ideas, feminist messages are being promoted by liberals with a frenzied energy that we can expect will crescendo to a shrieking climactic paroxysm of rage between now and November.

And this is all just partisan politics. There is no “rape epidemic” on our nation’s college campuses, nor has there been any increase in “harassment” or “objectification” of women to explain the incessant chatter about these subjects emanating from so many clamorous feminist voices. This is not a conspiracy, but rather a liberal consensus.

Democrats have decided that a revival of radical feminism is necessary to elect Hillary Clinton, and so we cannot escape it.

Evidence of what this is really about is not difficult to find. Consider the case of Emma Sulkowicz, the “Mattress Girl” whose false rape accusation led to Paul Nungesser’s lawsuit against Columbia University. Once the facts of the case were described in the Nungesser v. Columbia complaint, everybody with two eyes and a brain realized Sulkowicz is just crazy, vindictive and dishonest. The only difference between Sulkowicz’s case and the University of Virginia rape hoax is that Nungesser is a real human being, whereas “Haven Monahan” can’t file a lawsuit because he is a fictional character created by the deranged liar Jackie Coakley. However, because the “campus rape epidemic” theme is such a major part of the Democrat Party’s 2016 campaign agenda, partisan propagandist Julie Zeilinger returns to Sulkowicz’s discredited fable:

Beyond “Mattress Girl”: The Case for a More
Complex Campus Sexual Assault Media Narrative
It’s not often that an undergraduate thesis lands a student on the cover of New York magazine. But that’s what happened to Emma Sulkowicz, whom most people equate with the media-created shorthand “mattress girl,” in 2014.
In “Carry That Weight,” her performance art thesis at Columbia University, Sulkowicz examined her own experience with sexual assault. The piece, and the media storm that followed, quickly positioned her as a public figure and face of the broader campus sexual assault movement.

(Note the admission that this is an organized political “movement.”)

The media coverage, however, “didn’t make it clear that I was a human too, and not just a hero that could change the world,” Sulkowicz told Mic. “There was the expectation that I would give a speech at every rally, [that] I would perform for everyone and say stuff. But that’s a big expectation to have for just one person.”
The extensive media coverage of sexual assault has been both advantageous and detrimental for the campus sexual assault movement. Most coverage of rape and sexual assault hasn’t fully reflected the nuances of survivors’ and activists’ lived experiences, which studies confirm are still widespread. One 2015 Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll that found 25% of college-aged women report having experienced “unwanted sexual incidents” at school, and a new 2016 study revealed a similar finding.

(These tendentious surveys have been debunked, but never mind . . .)

Advocates have long understood the importance of media coverage and its unparalleled ability to amplify their messages, provide education and connection for survivors, hold authorities accountable and, ideally, prevent sexual assault.
But media narratives about survivors have often perpetuated and reflected how the broader culture sees and understands survivors: a single story and a perfect victim. More often than not, high-profile survivors and activists are presented as a neatly packaged, but ultimately incomplete, narrative. . . .

You can read the whole thing. The bottom line is that, after it became apparent that Sulkowicz was lying, and after the UVA rape hoax was exposed, it became more difficult for professional liars like Julie Zeilinger to get the kind of media coverage that previously helped promote the phony “campus rape epidemic” narrative.

To anyone with a modicum of common sense — a category that excludes feminists — there was never any credibility to the claim that female students were routinely subjected to sexual violence by the kind of brainiac nerds with high SAT scores and perfect GPAs who attend elite universities like Columbia (annual tuition $51,008).

This was the telltale clue about the whole “rape  culture” narrative, really. Whereas common sense suggests that sexual violence would be more common at low-ranking state universities or community colleges, the loudest complaints about an alleged “epidemic” of sexual assault were instead made by women attending schools like Yale, Brown, Oberlin and Occidental. That is to say, this narrative originated with highly privileged young women on elite campuses where “social justice” activism is a way of life. While it is usually impossible to know the truth of any particular case — typically these are “he-said/she-said” incidents, involving alcohol and with no corroborating evidence — the overall picture is clear enough. On no campus do the actual reports of sexual assault come anywhere near the “1-in-5” statistic widely publicized by feminists. Even stipulating the feminist claim that 88 percent of campus assaults are never reported, extrapolations based on actual reports would only reach about 1-in-40, as a worst-case-scenario estimate.

Every rape is a tragedy, of course, but there is no “epidemic” on America’s university campuses and the current feminist obsession with “rape culture” is simply a matter of political opportunism.

The hypocritical dishonesty of feminists becomes further apparent in their habitual silence about the subjugation of woman and endemic sexual violence in the Muslim world:

Persecution watchdog groups are raising awareness for a Christian Pakistani girl who was killed earlier this month after she and her friends rejected the sexual advances of drunken Muslim men . . .
The British Pakistani Christian Association reported last week that the incident occurred on Jan. 13, when three young Christian girls, Kiran (17 years), Shamroza (18 years) and Sumble (20 years), were approached on the streets at night by four allegedly drunk Muslim men in a car. The girls rejected the lewd advances of the men, which caused them to turn violent.
“How dare you run away from us, Christian girls are only meant for one thing, the pleasure of Muslim men,” one of the men reportedly said.
The men then crashed their car right into the girls, causing Shamroza to break several ribs and Sumble to break her hip. Kiran, however, was lifted up from the ground on the hood of the car, and driven until the car suddenly stopped, throwing her rapidly to the ground, where she cracked open her head and suffered internal bleeding, leading to her death.

Meanwhile, in Germany:

A German university city with a Green party migrant-supporting administration has banned refugees from several nightclubs following complaints from females of sexual harassment and theft.
Women have allegedly complained to managers of clubs in Freiburg, southwest Germany, about being fed date-rape drugs and being accosted in toilets.
Another woman claimed she had been raped while a bouncer was allegedly stabbed by a migrant. . . .
According to local media reports, the problem extends to six discos in the town.
‘No more entry for asylum seekers,’ was the headline in the weekend edition of the newspaper Badische Zeitung. . . .
One woman, aged 46, told the Badische Zeitung she had been in the White Rabbit in December when a large group of African men had come and ‘bothered’ guests.
‘I was surrounded and marginalised while dancing,’ she said. ‘The situation was full of male violence. I felt threatened.’
On that night two bouncers eject five men from the premises for harassing another woman who complained she had to run a ‘gauntlet’ of men on the club stairs.
Dietmar Ganzmann, operator of the El.Pi student disco, said he had decided only to allow a certain number of refugees entrance on any given night, and no more. . . .
Peter Bitsch, operator of the discotheque Kagan, confirmed that many women no longer feel safe in the clubs when there are large numbers of migrants in them.

Meanwhile, in Sweden:

Police were at a refugee camp trying to find a 10-year-old boy who had been raped ‘multiple times’, when a swarm of Muslim refugees attacked, causing the police to flee.
The Daily Mail reports that the camp was located in Västerås. Staff in the centre tried to remove the boy but were stopped by the mob of asylum seekers. . . .
The incident took place last Wednesday and is just now getting media attention. It’s hard to keep track with all the rapes in the world’s rape capital.
Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said on Monday that more police are needed in order to deal with the influx of asylum seekers.

So while liars like Julie Zeilinger solicit media assistance in an attempt to resuscitate the mythical “campus rape epidemic,” they continue ignoring a real plague of sexual violence committed by Muslims, and the American feminist movement is dedicated to electing Hillary Clinton, who by abandoning Americans at Benghazi demonstrated that it is her policy to surrender to the encroaching menace of Islamic violence.





 

Category: Democrats, Education, Election, Feminism, Hillary Clinton, Sex Trouble

#OccupyResoluteDesk, #OccupySCOTUS?

Posted on | January 27, 2016 | 64 Comments

by Smitty

Shall not eight years of the personal pronoun pumping pipsqueak have been enough? The price of Her Majesty’s election, despite being the least suitable person since Barack Obama, may become apparent:

While at a rally in Decorah, Iowa, on Tuesday, a reporter asked Clinton what she thought about nominating President Obama to the highest court.
“Wow, what a great idea, nobody has ever suggested that to me,” Clinton said.

Ho Lee Focaccia with turkey, avocado and mayonnaise, Batman. If the thought of listening to that anti-Constitutional jackwagon on the SCOTUS bench, getting paid to lift his leg against all we hold dear until he decides he’s bored and retires, isn’t enough to galvanize conservatives into action (and I mean more than mere blog posts) then I daresay we deserve the abuse.
It’s clear that our country is mismanaged by a homo bureaucratus infestation, where the motto is “fail upward”, but enough is enough.

via Instapundit

Category: Barack Obama, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Instapundit

Truth Wins, Feminists Lose

Posted on | January 25, 2016 | 102 Comments

 

In 2012, Canadian feminist Stephanie Guthrie (@amirightfolks on Twitter) decided to ruin Greg Elliott’s life, because (a) she didn’t like him and (b) he disagreed with her. Friday, after subjecting Mr. Elliott to a three-year ordeal, Ms. Guthrie’s destructive vendetta reached its final conclusion of failure in a Toronto courtroom:

Gregory Alan Elliott was cleared of two charges of criminal harassment that stemmed from his Twitter interactions with two Toronto women’s rights activists. Judge Brent Knazan’s lengthy decision dwelled on both the nature of Twitter and freedom of expression in a ruling that is among the first in Canada.
Elliott was cleared, in part, because — though the judge noted his words were sometimes “insulting and homophobic” — his tweets were not considered overtly sexually or physically threatening.
Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly accused Elliott of harassment partly based on his use of hashtags — a word, acronym or phrase after a number symbol used to create trackable conversations — they used. It was an assertion the judge found contrary to the open nature of Twitter. He said the pair may have felt harassed, but he couldn’t prove Elliott knew they felt that way, nor did the content of his tweets include explicitly threatening language.
Knazan also discussed the link between Twitter and freedom of expression. People must “tolerate the annoyance” of oppositional views as part of that Charter right,
“Freedom of expression represents society’s commitment to tolerate the annoyance of being confronted by unacceptable views…One man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric,” he said, quoting from Robert Sharpe and Kent Roach’s book the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The judge also noted a lack of “reasonableness” in Guthrie’s assertion she could expect to use Twitter to make negative comments about Elliott and not be exposed to his response or self defence.

This is an important ruling because there is no First Amendment in Canada. Americans are prone to take free speech and freedom of the press for granted, and thus have been slow to recognize the menace to liberty posed by feminism (a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It). Feminists are notoriously intolerant of criticism, and have effectively prohibited opposition in academia, where Lawrence Summers was purged from the presidency of Harvard University in 2006 after he dared to suggest there are “innate differences” between men and women.

Having obtained hegemonic authority in academia, feminists are endeavoring to silence opposition to their radical agenda in every other venue. The persecution of Greg Elliott as a scapegoat was clearly intended to make an example of him, a form of terroristic intimidation using the power of government to crush him, so as to send a message: “Disagree with a feminist, and this will happen to you, too.”

Greg Elliott’s victory in Canada is important. Toronto Post columnist Christine Blatchford remarks of the ruling:

He was acquitted, not, the judge was at pains to point out, because he didn’t find Guthrie and Reilly credible when they testified they felt harassed and were genuinely fearful, but because that fear was unreasonable.

To fully explain how the case developed would require more space than I want to devote to it, but basically it’s this: In 2012, Guthrie was looking for someone to design a logo for her Toronto feminist group. Elliott, a graphic artist, sought the contract and met for dinner with Guthrie to discuss the project. Evidence indicates that, after meeting with Guthrie, Elliott developed a romantic interest in her, but she had a boyfriend. Elliot did not get the contract, but Guthrie continued friendly communications with him. However, to quote the judge’s ruling:

In the meantime . . . Ms. Guthrie had researched some of Mr. Elliott’s tweets. She concluded that opinions he had expressed showed that his philosophy was not compatible with her organization and that they could not use his skills. . . .
Ms. Guthrie testified that she was not being entirely honest in her courteous emails and tweets to Mr. Elliott. She testified that she feared him from the time she had dinner with him — as being “creeped out” is a kind of fear — but that she was wrestling with her feelings given that women are criticized when they express them.

There is no evidence that Guthrie ever explained her attitude to Elliott. Any man experienced in dealing with women in business can probably relate to Elliott’s predicament. Sometimes, a woman will exhibit unexplained hostility and any attempt to resolve the mystery — “Hey, why didn’t you answer my email?” — is futile, because this is just the way some women are. They do not differentiate between their personal feelings (e.g., Guthrie feeling “creeped out” by Elliott) and practical considerations of business life (e.g., the value of Elliott’s skill as an artist). And if a woman like that decides she hates you, she never bothers to explain why she hates you.

Elliott did not cope well with Guthrie’s mysterious behavior. Feminists use the phrase “male entitlement” to describe the attitude of a man who, failing to read a woman’s mind, continues to talk to her after she decides she hates him. The guy who fails to take a hint — however subtle the hint may be — is apt to be labeled a “stalker” or “harasser” if he continues talking to a woman who hates him. In his mind, he is doing nothing wrong, but he fails to realize that her hatred of him means everything he does is wrong. His mere existence offends her.

Once Stephanie Guthrie decided she hated Greg Elliott, the only “right” thing he could do was avoid her. Because she continued to be overtly courteous in her emails, however, Elliott did not realize the intensity of Guthrie’s hatred toward him. In July 2012, matters took a turn described in Judge Knazan’s ruling:

[Bendilin] Spurr, a young man from Sault St. Marie, Ont., put a video game on the internet that permitted players to punch a prominent American feminist [Anita Sarkeesian] in the face. It was graphic in its violence. Ms. Guthrie tweeted about it on July 6 as follows: “So, I found the Twitter account of that fuck listed as creator of the ‘punch a woman in the face’ game. Should I sic the internet on him?” . . .
Ms. Guthrie sent a tweet linking his local newspaper to a story about his work, and tweeted: “Sault Saint Marie employers, if you get a resume from @BendilinSpurr, he made a woman facepunching game…” She attached an article from the Huffington Post online site about the “sick” online game that invited users to beat up a virtual Anita Sarkeesian.
Everything happened rapidly at the moment that Ms. Guthrie says was the turning point. Mr. Elliott tweeted directly to Ms. Guthrie: “@amirightfolks He’s got 11 followers. Why bring attention to the guy? Media attention will only add to more ‘virtual face punching.’”
Mr. Elliott tweeted that it was revenge.
Ms. Guthrie replied, putting a period before Mr. Elliott’s handle: “.@greg_a_Elliott Because I think the Sault Ste Marie community should be aware there is a monster in their midst.”
The exchange was becoming heated, but was a logical and fair debate.
Ms. Guthrie had enough of Mr. Elliott, the discussion and his views. She tweeted to him: “@greg_a_elliott If you think it’s revenge, you’re not paying attention. I’ve had it with you [. . .]” She then blocked him from sending tweets to her.

Stephanie Guthrie decided to destroy Ben Spurr, Gregory Elliott objected to her attempt to “sic the Internet” on Spurr, and from that point onward, the conflict descended into online war. Guthrie and her comrade Heather Reilly filed harassment charges against Elliott, the prosecutor took the case seriously and thus began a three-year nightmare ordeal for Elliott. Lauren Southern concludes of the ruling:

Anyone following this case knows that Greg is only guilty of the crime of wrongthink. He was arrested for critically engaging with people who disagreed with him. It wasn’t any different from what people do on social media platforms every day. . . .
He never threatened anyone, and he never gave anyone reason to fear for their safety.
All he did was argue with people that hated him so much they demanded he be shut down.
I don’t believe Stephanie Guthrie or her cronies felt victimized for a second. We’re talking about people who have posted images of themselves drinking from mugs with “male tears” written on them, after all.
They wanted Elliott to pay for having challenged them, nothing more.

Exactly. The problem is that feminist monsters like Stephanie Guthrie have convinced themselves that anyone who disagrees with them is guilty of “the crime of wrongthink,” and that such a thought criminal has no rights at all. The beastly cruelty that Stephanie Guthrie displayed in her crusade to destroy Greg Elliott shows how feminism has become an ideology of hate that attracts paranoid fanatics who view their critics with a dehumanizing contempt.





 

Category: Canada, Sex Trouble

Rule Five Sunday: The Two Faces Of India

Posted on | January 24, 2016 | 12 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

While perusing Instapundit earlier this week, I ran across a link to this article by Shikha Dalmia regarding the remarkable rise of former porn star and current Bollywood star Sunny Leone (born Karenjit Kaur Vohra) in a country where Prime Minister Narendra Modi is noted for his chastity and the majority party, the BJP, is noted for Hindu nationalism and social conservatism. It was brief, but interesting, and anyone with an interest in what’s going on over in India should take a gander. Also, the article supplied me with the requisite appetizer for this week’s Rule 5 post. [Standard disclaimer about exercising discretion in clicking of links goes here.]

The jewel in the crown, indeed.

Political Clown Parade leads off this week with Flowing Curves of Beauty, followed by Blogfodder with Good Girls, Goodstuff with Julie Ege, and The Last Tradition with Jennifer Lawrence and Jillisa Lynn. Ninety Miles from Tyranny checks in with Hot Pick of the Late Night, Morning Mistress, and Girls with Guns; Animal Magnetism submits a Rule 5 Friday Country Style and a Super-Sized Saturday Gingermageddon, and First Street Journal has female troops playing in the snow.

EBL presents European Street Fashions – Fun While They Lasted, Crystal Gayle, and Rebecca Watson. Also, Meghan McCain, for certain values of Rule 5.

A View from the Beach has Master Sleuthess Pamela Sue Martin, Where Are All the Aliens?, “8 Miles Wide”, Confirmed: Common Core is What You Suspected it Might Be, This May Help Explain Maryland, Korean Chick Plays with Food, “I Know What Boys Like”, Little Girl Catches Big Fish, The Bare News, RIP Glenn Frey, Movie Review: “The Farce Kind of Snorts In Its Slumber”, Who Knew? and RIP Bob Denver.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Katie Cassidy, his Vintage Babe is Candy Jones, Sex in Advertising is Fresh off the Vine, and a whole bunch of obligatory NFL cheerleaders. At Dustbury, it’s Susan Heyward and Felicia Brandstrom.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Please note that the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox is only for Rule 5 links and doesn’t generally get checked more than once a week, so if you have links back to this post for the FMJRA, they need to go to the Wombat-socho mailbox, with “FMJRA” in the subject line so I know what’s up.


Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

FMJRA 2.0: Jetpack Blues

Posted on | January 24, 2016 | 10 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule 5 Sunday: Otakon Vegas Edition
Animal Magnetism
Regular Right Guy
Proof Positive
A View from the Beach
Ninety Miles From Tyranny
Batshit Crazy News

Rave Review for ’13 Hours’
The United Voice of America
First Street Journal
Capitol Zero
Daily Blue Planet
Batshit Crazy News

FMJRA 2.0: All Fired Up
Blur Brain
The Pirate’s Cove
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 01.18.16
Proof Positive
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

Democrats Against Justice
A View from the Beach

‘The Weaker Goes to the Wall’
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

GOP to NBC: Drop Dead
Regular Right Guy
A View from the Beach

Drunk Sex Is Rape? Barnard College Promotes Alcohol-Related Accusations
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox, 01.19.16
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

More Feminist Fear and Loathing
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 01.20.16
Regular Right Guy
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

A Hideously Overdue Collection Of Book Reviews
Batshit Crazy News

Chris Cassone Brings You The Weather “Before The Big One Hits”
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox, 01.21.16
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox, 01.22.16
Proof Positive
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

Friday FictionPoem: 100 Word Challenge
Batshit Crazy News

The Pump-and-Dump Feminist
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

Top linkers this week:

  1.  Batshit Crazy News  (15)
  2.  Regular Right Guy (7)
  3.  (tied) A View from the Beach and Proof Positive (6)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery!


Jetpack Blues

Category: FMJRA Award

The Pump-and-Dump Feminist

Posted on | January 22, 2016 | 154 Comments

 

Reina Gattuso (@reinagattuso on Twitter) is a Harvard-educated feminist and a compelling argument for why men should be warned to avoid Harvard-educated feminists. If it were up to me, heterosexuality would be strictly prohibited at Harvard University for the very reason that no man should ever have sex with the kind of women who attend Harvard University, of whom Reina Gattuso is a typical example.

Actually, Ms. Gattuso is a typical example of many things, none of them good. She is an extraordinarily bad human being, which is why she was chosen as a student speaker at Harvard’s 2015 Class Day:

Reina has spent the past four years studying Comparative Literature and Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality; co-founding a feminist magazine, Manifesta; reading poetry at The Harvard Advocate; and writing for The Crimson, where she co-founded an inclusivity and diversity working group. . . . She is looking forward to spending next year on a Fulbright-Nehru Student fellowship in Delhi, India. But first, Reina is looking forward to outing herself to her grandmother on Class Day.

Yes, American parents, this is why you should send your daughter Harvard (annual tuition $45,278), so that she can celebrate her graduation by “outing herself to her grandmother.” Just in case anyone missed her baccalaureate coming-out speech, however, Ms. Gattuso wrote a column for the Washington Post in which she mentioned that she “has publicly admitted to making out with half the lesbian, queer, bisexual, bicurious and questioning women at Harvard.”

That column, in which she describes herself as “selfish” and “reckless,” was published with the headline, “Why monogamy’s not for me,” which is a rather transparent sour-grapes rationalization. Has anyone ever sought a monogamous relationship with Ms. Gattuso? Of course not. To borrow a line from an old Steppenwolf song, she is evil, wicked, mean and nasty.

No decent person would seek an intimate association with Reina Gatttuso, certainly not on a permanent basis. The Ivy League is decadent and depraved, but she is a very bad person even by Harvard’s abysmally low standards. Among the notorious graduates of Harvard, she is perhaps not as bad as Ted Kaczynski (Class of 1962), but the Unabomber wrote only one manifesto, whereas Ms. Gattuso issues her demands sequentially and in installments as a columnist for Feministing, where she delivers such empowering messages as “Romantic Love Is a Patriarchal Conspiracy,” “My Vagina Is Tired of Compromise” and, best of all, “Sexual Objectification Is an Evil Male Plot for World Domination,” which includes this astonishing sentence:

I literally cannot talk to other women about how upsetting I find being street harassed without part of me feeling a little smug about it.

“Literally.”

This is an astonishing sentence, I say, because it is difficult to imagine that Harvard University would award a diploma in literature to someone who would write such a sentence. As much as I enjoy mocking the Ivy League — meritocracy, my ass — is it too much to expect a Harvard graduate to avoid this ignorant juvenile habit of haphazardly dropping “literally” into sentences as an intensifier? At least Ms. Gattuso did not commit the common error of using “literally” when she meant “figuratively,” but if we ask what function “literally” serves in that sentence, the answer is, none whatsoever.

Would you say that I am being pedantic? Nitpicky and hypercritical? Yes, and deliberately so, because I do not like Reina Gattuso, and one way people communicate hostility is through this kind of fault-finding attitude, where everything the other person does is subjected to mocking criticism and ridicule. This is how feminists treat men, habitually, yet they will start shrieking in panicked victim mode — “Harassment!” “Abuse!” “Misogyny!” — if any man dares call them out on it.

Feminists are simply women who do not like men. They have converted their anti-male hostility into a simulacrum of a political ideology, and expect the rest of us to take their rants and screeds seriously. In the feminist’s mind, she is in the position of a tenured professor and we are all a bunch of clueless kids who have signed up for her Gender Studies class. She is an expert, and we are in need of her enlightenment. The subject of today’s lecture is the same as yesterday and the day before: “Men Are Bad and Stupid, and You Should Hate Them.”

It really is as simple as that. The feminist is a grievance collector, who spends her life cataloguing the wrongs and evils for which men are responsible — that is to say, everything — and encouraging other women to do the same. This endless repetition of gripes and complaints about men is occasionally interrupted by endorsement of some other trendy progressive cause (global warming) as well as predictable electioneering efforts on behalf of left-wing candidates.

For example, whenever CNN goes off one of its periodic white-cop-shoots-black-teenager binges, feminist bloggers will reinvent themselves as experts on racial injustice and after the storm of made-for-TV protests blows over, feminist bloggers go back to ranting about abortion rights and “rape culture.” Their interest in politics is similarly episodic, following whatever is in vogue among progressives. When Bush was president, feminists pretended to be experts on terrorism and foreign policy, but once Obama was elected, feminists suddenly became experts in health-care policy. Currently, feminists seem intent on convincing the world that Donald Trump is the Worst Racist Sexist Homophobe in the History of the World, Ever. However, if Trump should lose the Republican nomination — to Cruz or Rubio or whoever — then feminists will discover that, contrary to their earlier judgment, the GOP candidate who beats Trump is actually the Real Worst Racist Sexist Homophobe in the History of the World, Ever. But I digress . . .

In addition to “making out with half the lesbian, queer, bisexual, bicurious and questioning women at Harvard,” Reina Gattuso also occasionally decides to subject herself to the patriarchal oppression of heterosexual intercourse, and she has written an 1,800-word column explaining how and why she generally despises the men she has sex with:

Alas, friend of mine, you have had an orgasm and are falling asleep. I have not had an orgasm and am not falling asleep, which means I am awake, which means I am now going to lecture you about feminism.
Who are you? (Big questions.) You are anyman, everyman, you are one of any number of lucky bastards with whom I have happened to roll into bed because baby, it’s been a few months and none of the cute activists are texting me back. Or maybe you are a cute activist who texted me back — in which case listen up, buddy, because this one’s for you, too.
Who are you? You’re a decent guy. You’re solid. I do not feel like you are going to rape me. (Yay! Let’s throw a party!)
No, you’re not a bad guy. The sex wasn’t particularly bad, either. And I know bad sex. I know sex that tastes like coercion and I know sex that tastes like endings and I know sex that tastes like hand sanitizer, which is a bad thing to put on your hands before you finger someone.
No, friend, it was not bad sex. It was normal sex. Normal, boring, vaguely dehumanizing hetero sex.
Which is precisely the point: The normalcy.
Believe me: I enjoy having someone mortar-and-pestle me for a few minutes as much as the next ornery bisexual. But friend, I feel that you can do better. . . . .

Here I will interrupt to explain that I can find no independent corroboration that Reina Gattuso has ever had sex with a man. Or a woman, for that matter. Of course, I can understand why anyone would be reluctant to admit that they had sex with a Harvard feminist, but that’s not my point. What I’m saying is I was unable to find a column anywhere with a headline like, “I Banged Reina Gattuso,” so that what she says about having sex with men (or women, or transsexuals, or whatever) is unverified. She claims to have had sex with men, but no men have stepped forward testifying to the truth of her claim. With that stipulation in mind, please continue, Ms. Gattuso:

Because there was something in the choreography of the whole thing that just struck me as, I don’t know — unsatisfying in a way only feminism can remedy.
Yup, I’m talking about the orgasm deficit. . . .
Sex is now over. Sex is now over because you have decided it is over. You have decided sex is over because you are a man, and because this choreography that favors men with penises — man becomes erect, man penetrates woman, man ejaculates — is what we have been told sex is.
Because we’re brainwashed.
Ever heard of a thing called patriarchy? . . .

Your boyfriend is a loser and, therefore, patriarchy.

How many times do we have to read variations of this same tired theme? Anything and everything that any feminist decides to complain about is always blamed on “male supremacy.” Everybody has been brainwashed by the patriarchy, we are expected to believe, and therefore we need feminists to tell us The Hidden Truth of the Oppressive Conspiracy that, in this example, has cheated Ms. Gattuso out of her orgasm. But the Oppressive Conspiracy of male supremacy is so vastly powerful that it can explain whatever irritates or annoys a feminist. The patriarchy is the Swiss Army Knife of feminism, an all-purpose tool of theory and analysis. After several paragraphs of ranting about the patriarchy, Ms. Gattuso finally reaches the, uh, climax of her argument:

We f–k until you come, I do not come, you do not ask if I would like to come or if you can help make me come, and then we’re done f–king, because you have decided we are done f–king, and everyone is supposedly happy.

OK, enough. Anyone who wants to subject themselves to the rest of Raina Gattuso’s lecture can go read the whole thing, but let me suggest that if she is accurately describing an actual experience, she may have misunderstood it.

“Pump and dump” — this is a phrase that the pick-up artist (PUA) community uses to describe a situation in which a guy decides to make a move on a woman who interests him only in terms of a one-time opportunity for sex. This kind of play is also known as “hit-it-and-quit-it,” and may be part of a PUA’s general strategy of running up his number just for the sake of the game. It’s Tuesday night at the local sports bar, not a lot of action available, and here’s this woman who’s giving him green-light signals. She is not the kind of woman he would consider for anything like a actual relationship, but (a) she is clearly signaling her interest and (b) it’s Tuesday.

What the heck, why not? Run up the score. “Pump and dump.”

That’s how the PUA sees it, but — plot twist — he doesn’t want the woman to realize how low she rates in his estimation. The game is about psychology, and the shrewd PUA realizes that the woman flashing him the green light is probably hoping for more than just a one-night stand. In all likelihood, she has in mind some kind of audition, where if everything goes well, he will want to develop a relationship. In that kind of situation, you see, there isn’t much incentive for the PUA to make any extra effort, to be sensitive and considerate. He doesn’t love her. He doesn’t respect her. He has no reason to do anything more than the necessary minimum: “Pump and dump.”

Now, the key to the PUA’s success is this: She never realizes it’s a game. If a player is really skilled, his targets don’t even suspect he’s a pick-up artist. Everybody thinks of PUAs in terms of the bar scene, but a master of the game could be just any guy anywhere. Nobody suspected Asheville, N.C., coffee shop owner Jared Rutledge of being a PUA master during the months he was running up his number:

In 2013, he hooked up with 15 different women, and in 2014, he achieved 22 “scores” (a new woman every 16 days, on average).

Alas, the damned fool decided to brag about his conquests on an “anonymous” blog, and thereby destroyed himself. What was interesting was that some of Rutledge’s targets insisted angrily that they had real relationships with him that weren’t “just about sex,” so that even after they were told they had been played, they still didn’t fully realize the nature of his game. Even though all decent people must deplore Rutledge’s unethical behavior, his remarkable success demonstrates how easily women can be deceived by a skilled player.

And this is what Raina Gattuso doesn’t understand about the men who play her as a “pump-and-dump.” Whether or not any of them would describe themselves as PUAs, they are treating her the way we might expect a player to treat a woman he regards as a “low-value target.” She directs her feminist “orgasm deficit” rant toward “any number of lucky bastards with whom I have happened to roll into bed,” evidently with no thought of how these “lucky bastards” viewed their encounters with her. Does she think they were all incompetent and clueless? Or was it the case, as we might more readily imagine, that these guys didn’t feel the need to waste any extra effort on a casual “hit-it-and-quit-it” score?

An alternate theory is that Raina Gattuso has a (not uncommon) combination of bad judgment and bad attitude. Such women exude a general hostility toward men, a chip-on-the-shoulder attitude that is a sort of pre-emptive defense against unwanted attention. In their minds, they are signaling how “strong” they are, but others just perceive them as rude and bitchy. (Males commit similar errors as, for example, the guy postures as cool and aloof but is perceived by others as merely sullen and hostile.) A woman who tries to strike the “strong woman” pose will, quite predictably, be avoided by most men. What this type of woman will typically do, however, is to aggressively pursue men who strike her fancy, and this is where her bad judgment comes into play, in that she invariably chooses bad men or, at least, men who are wrong for her.

Recall that Ms. Gattuso described herself as “selfish” and “reckless,” which is to say that she is impulsive and irresponsible and makes bad decisions. She has apparently never been in any enduring or stable relationship with any of her lovers, male or female, and what else would we expect? When a young woman makes this kind of attitude and behavior her habit, it is unlikely she will ever change, especially when she has made this the basis of her political identity. Ms. Gattuso has gone out of her way to publicize herself as a promiscuous bisexual feminist — “outing herself to her grandmother” as a graduation stunt at Harvard — and perhaps you can imagine her repudiating her self-created identity, but I can’t. She is utterly doomed to become a crazy cat lady.

Knowing that the comments at Feministing are moderated, I decided to use the system to communicate some useful truth:

The real problem — and I say this merely for the benefit of whichever editor is assigned to delete my comment — is that (a) Reina Gattuso does not actually like men and yet (b) she continues to have sex with men, while (c) believing that the men she has sex with are too stupid to figure out her game. Given her avowed lesbian preference, why is Ms. Gattuso having sex with men at all? In a word: narcissism. She enjoys being the center of attention, and if no lesbians are available to serve her narcissistic need, she’ll settle for whatever male is available. Assuming that these men are even minimally perceptive, however, they can see exactly what kind of game she’s playing.
Well, OK, buddy: You have been invited to worship The Bitch Goddess, who views you as an abject and inferior servant — a mere instrument for her pleasure — and you can either (a) humiliate yourself in masochistic supplication to her imperious demands, or (b) just get it over with and try never to be so foolish again in the future.
While it is futile to offer advice to the omniscient Ms. Gattuso, who already knows everything, I hope the editor assigned to delete this comment will heed my suggestion: Stop treating men as if they are your moral and intellectual inferiors, simply because they are male. Any honest and intelligent man will refuse to be treated in such an insulting manner. This is why the anti-male prejudices of feminists tend to become self-fulfilling prophecies: Feminists treat men badly, and good men therefore avoid feminists, and then feminists wonder why all the men they meet are so bad.

That’s the bottom line, really. For women like Raina Gattuso, feminism is just a political rationalization of their sadistic tendencies.

UPDATE: Linked at First Street Journal and the Political Hat and by Maetenloch in the AOSHQ overnight thread — thanks! — and welcome, Instapundit readers!





 

Category: Sex Trouble

Friday FictionPoem: 100 Word Challenge

Posted on | January 22, 2016 | 1 Comment

by Smitty

Ponder

So here I ponder, tired, aghast:
Just how long can this nonsense last?
Is it merely the same old noise,
Heard by this ruin’s builder’s boys?
The endless human song and dance
Beats you far past the point of pants.
Finds you here, posed as The Thinker,
(Since you are not quite a drinker)
Hoping for some enlightenment,
Wee tiny bit of comfort sent,
From the Creator, far above,
Looking downward, one hopes, with love,
On quite a dodgy, noisy lot,
(The wages Adam’s sin had got)
And so oft given to wonder,
If the answer’s in the ponder.

 

via Darleen

Category: Friday Fiction

In The Mailbox, 01.22.16

Posted on | January 22, 2016 | 8 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Staying Out Of The Clink
Da Tech Guy: Bob Dole’s Not Afraid Cruz Will Lose, He’s Afraid Cruz Will Win
The Camp Of The Saints: What Is It We Seek?
Proof Positive: Political Clone Wars
The Political Hat: This Is What Multicultural Diversity Looks Like
Doug Powers: Leo DiCaprio Calls For End Of Fossil Fuel Dependence At World Economic Forum & Private Jet Parade
Twitchy: Bernie Sanders’ SCOTUS Tweet Proves SOMEBODY Failed Civics Class


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: National Review Disinvited From Houston GOP Debate For Publishing “Against Trump” Editorial
American Thinker: The American People Vs. The Political Establishment
Conservatives4Palin: Jonah Goldberg – GOP Voters Refusing To Fall In Line
Don Surber: National Review Hoists The White Flag
Jammie Wearing Fools: Slimy Clinton Hack Already Playing The Race Card Against Sanders
Joe For America: Uncle Ted Nails It
JustOneMinute: Sarah And The Donald Will…
Pamela Geller: German Government Admits It Can’t Account For 600K Of Its 1.1 Muslim “Refugees”
Protein Wisdom: Friday Fiction – 100 Word Challenge
Shot In The Dark: Our Illogical Ninny Overlords
The Gateway Pundit: Women On Outnumbered Blast National Review Over “Against Trump” Editorial
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Losing Not Winning
The Lonely Conservative: Here’s Your Trump Vs. Cruz Pocket Voter Guide
This Ain’t Hell: More IRS IT Data “Issues”
Weasel Zippers: Huma Abedin Rejected Government Blackberry For Hillary Specifically Because It Could Be Subjected To FOIA
Mark Steyn: The World They Made


Try Audible and Get Two Free Audiobooks

Category: Linkagery
« go back — keep looking »