The Other McCain

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

Because Boys and Girls Are Different

Posted on | January 28, 2016 | 28 Comments

Just a quick rant here, to fill the void while I’m working on something else: Why do feminists, on the one hand, claim that there are no natural differences between male and female and yet, on the other hand, constantly criticize men for typical masculine behavior? The answer seems obvious to me, after months of reading radical feminist gender theory — and scrolling through the endless madness of Feminist Tumblr — and what bothers me is that the fundamental problem is seldom stated directly, either by feminists or their critics.

Begin with the status quo, the existing social order. Whether the year is 1966 or 1986 or 2016, society at any given time has certain standards, customs, expectations and incentives that influence how men and women behave. The vast majority of people accept the status quo as the way things are, and do their best to fit into the existing social system, to succeed and be happy in life. This requires a process of maturation on the part of young people who, in order to become responsible and productive adults, must find their place within the existing system and psychologically adjust to their adult roles. The unrealistic dreams of childhood must be set aside, and the unruly passions of adolescence must be reined in, in order to attain responsible adulthood.

Thirty years ago, there was a lot of talk among psychologists about the problem of Peter Pan Syndrome, describing the attitudes and behaviors of young men who were unwilling to commit to (or emotionally unable to sustain) romantic relationships because commitment logically led to marriage and fatherhood. Being a husband and father required becoming a grown-up, and Peter Pan didn’t want to be a grown-up.

Yet this problem of perpetual adolescence (which Diana West analyzed as a cultural phenomenon in her 2007 book The Death of the Grown-Up) was not limited to childish males. Contemporary feminism is, to a great extent, an elaborate rationalization of female emotional immaturity. There is a symbiotic relationship between the irresponsible behavior of young men and the limitless rage of young women in response.

Let us ask: Is the social status quo, in terms of male-female relations, better or worse in 2016 than it was in 1966?

Your answer to that question will vary, according to what you expect adult life to be. If a girl was a high-school senior in 1966 and her ambition was to become a corporate executive, a politician, or a college professor, the status quo was decidedly disadvantageous to her. However, in terms of her romantic life, the average girl in 1966 had better opportunities than the girl in 2016. Fifty years ago, the median age at first marriage for American women was about 21, so that the high-school senior who graduated in 1966 could expect to be taken seriously — as a prospective wife in the near future — by any young fellow who showed a romantic interest in her. Insofar as marriage and motherhood are among a young woman’s ambitions, the teenage girl in 2016 has very dismal prospects in comparison to her grandmother who came of age in the 1960s.

Is it not obvious that five decades of feminism, in attempting to solve the problems of career-minded young women of the 1960s, has in many ways created a new problem for the romantic-minded young woman of the 21st century? The force of law, in terms of legislation and policy forbidding workplace discrimination against women, now guarantees that the teenage girl in 2016 has far greater opportunities to pursue professional employment than did her grandmother. However, legislation and policy can do nothing to improve her romantic life. There is no law that can force her boyfriend to take her seriously, to treat her the way a man treats the woman he hopes to marry.

Furthermore, feminism has encouraged divorce and unwed motherhood, and thus to a great extent destroyed marriage and family life in America. The young man in 2016 is far more likely to have grown up in an environment where his parents were divorced (or never married) and thus has little direct knowledge of what a stable, happy marriage looks like. He may have been shuttled back and forth between his parents’ separate homes — here for a while with his mother and her boyfriend, then there for a while with his father and stepmother, and perhaps for a while staying with one of his grandmothers — and what sort of attitudes is he likely to have developed as a result?

Of course, the destruction of traditional family life has also had an adverse impact on the childhood homes in which young women are raised, and yet no feminist will ever admit this. Feminism celebrates as “progress” anything — divorce, unwed motherhood, abortion, homosexuality — that is destructive to the family and hostile to traditional morality. Because of this, the unhappy young woman can never expect feminists to offer her an honest explanation for the causes of her unhappiness. When she is confronted by the rude and selfish behavior of teenage boys, no feminist will encourage her to ask what sort of home environment the young man was raised in. Were his parents married? Was he dumped off in a daycare center as an infant? Why didn’t his parents teach him courtesy and kindness?

Even worse, however, feminism teaches young women never to critically examine their own behavior and attitudes, nor to consider whether they are responsible for their own problems. Everything that is wrong with her life, according to feminism, is to be blamed on her oppression by the patriarchy. Because this explanation is feminism’s only answer to every question, the young feminist is constantly on the lookout for bad behavior by men, and is obliged never to say a word in praise of any man’s good deeds. The feminist’s pervasively negative portrayal of male behavior prevents her from ever having to admit that (a) there are good men in the world, but (b) none of these good men desire her romantic companionship, and (c) feminism can’t solve this problem.

We return, then, to the problem of the status quo and the standards, customs, expectations and incentives that influence how men and women behave. All feminists agree that the status quo in 1966 was entirely wrong. Yet at no point since 1966 has the feminist movement found the status quo acceptable, because if feminists ever were to announce that their movement had succeeded — our society had reached “equality,” however that might be defined — then there would be no more need for their perpetual agitation. Therefore, to justify their ongoing grievance-mongering, either “equality” must be constantly redefined, so that the ideal status quo can never be achieved, or else feminists must admit “equality” was never really what their movement was about.

Feminism is simply a political rationalization of the complaints of unhappy women. If all their demands were granted today, feminists would return tomorrow with a new list of demands.

Pointing out the obvious contradictions of feminism’s ideology and rhetoric — their claim that men and women are exactly alike, except that all men are oppressors — does nothing to persuade the feminist to re-examine the premises of her argument. Feminism is a cult, organized around the grievances of unhappy women, and once she has fully internalized the movement’s worldview, the feminist can never explain any problem except in terms of the evils of male supremacy. The failure of the movement to actually improve women’s lives guarantees its continued “success,” because the more women are unhappy, the more support for the feminist movement will increase.

Feminism is to women’s happiness what the Democrat Party is to responsible government. We look at municipal disasters like Detroit or Baltimore — Democrat-controlled fiefdoms — and see nothing but corruption, poverty and crime, yet the people who live there keep electing Democrats by landslide majorities and blaming all their problems on scapegoats. The campaign rhetoric of the Democrat Party is usually just the elaborate demonization of scapegoats like white racism or “corporate greed,” and guess what? It works.

The three keys to Democrat Party electoral success are:

1. Ignorance;
2. Hate;
and
3. Fear.

With a few minor adjustments, feminism succeeds by the same formula. And after beginning this as a “quick rant,” I’ve written 1,400 words, concluding where I began: Boys and girls are different.

All grown-ups know this. Feminists are women who refuse to grow up.




 

Category: Feminism, Sex Trouble

When Marxists Aren’t Enough: Are We Really Considering A Used Car Salesman?

Posted on | January 28, 2016 | 22 Comments

by Smitty

Category: Republicans

In The Mailbox, 01.28.16

Posted on | January 28, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox, 01.28.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Why Does Donald Trump Hate Megyn Kelly?
Proof Positive: Bookends
Da Tech Guy: Trump v. Cruz 2 Not Ali v. Frazier 2 But Duran #nomas
Louder With Crowder: Trying To Buy “Automatic Weapons” Through The “Gun Show Loophole”
Political Hat: Why Social Justice Warriors Deserve Their Derision
Michelle Malkin: Disney, H-1B’s “Dig Your Own Grave”, And The GOP Debates
Twitchy: “Applying For Veep?” Huckabee Will Attend Trump’s “Special Event” Tonight


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Trump Attacked For Supporting Amnesty In New Ad From Romney-Backed PAC
American Thinker: The Real Ted Cruz
BLACKFIVE: Range 15 Red Band Trailer
Conservatives4Palin: Sarah Palin – Welcome Aboard The #TrumpTrain, Jerry Falwell Jr.!
Don Surber: Will Media Who Cheered Obama’s War On Fox Now Support Trump’s?
Jammie Wearing Fools: Flashback – Trump Tells Megyn Kelly Romney Lacked Courage When He Skipped Debate
Joe For America: Planned Parenthood Gets Off, Filmmakers Get Indicted
JustOneMinute: Just Don’t Say “Boots On The Ground”
Pamela Geller: FBI Thwarts Mass Shooting By Devout Muslim At Milwaukee Masonic Temple
Protein Wisdom: SCIENCE! “Personality Is A Capitalist Construct”
Shot In The Dark: The Last Million Men
STUMP: Easy Lifting – Pulling The Pensions Of Criminal Officials In New York
The Gateway Pundit: Hillary Floats Obama As Supreme Court Justice
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Generation Snowflake Upset By Thing That Made Them Sad
The Lonely Conservative: Sure, Trump Will Make Deals With Democrats
This Ain’t Hell: Anthony Bauswell And His Disqualifying Tattoo
Weasel Zippers: Tim Allen Compares The Clintons To Herpes
Megan McArdle: Health Care’s Continental Divide
Mark Steyn: Smite The Land


Shop Amazon Fashion – 30% Off Jewelry

Category: Linkagery

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
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin