The Other McCain

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

In The Mailbox: 10.29.15

Posted on | October 29, 2015 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 10.29.15

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
Proof Positive: Waiting For The Donald
EBL: CNBC Debate
Michelle Malkin: A Closetful Of Hillary Clinton’s Immigration Costumes
Twitchy: Haven’t Had Enough Of John Harwood’s Bias, You Say?


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Far-Left CNBC Moderators Lose Control Of Third GOP Debate
American Thinker: Thirteen Reasons We Shouldn’t Admit Muslim “Refugees”
Conservatives4Palin: Governor Palin Talks About Her Political Future
Don Surber: Carson’s Manager – “We Don’t Need To Be Led Around Like Prize Steers”
Jammie Wearing Fools: CNBC Hacks Whine After Disastrous Debate Performance
Joe For America: Why Are Veterans Mad At Hillary?
JustOneMinute: Debate Night!
Pamela Geller: INVASION – FIVE MILLION Muslims March On Europe – “We Cannot Guarantee The Public Safety Any More”
Shot In The Dark: How Bad Were The CNBC Moderators?
STUMP: Public Pension Follies – Divestment! Divest From All The Dirty Things!
The Gateway Pundit: Hannity On CNBC Debate – “This Is Going To Go Down In History As A REALLY BAD Night For The Media”
The Jawa Report: Fatwa This! Islamic State! Danger! Romance!
The Lonely Conservative:
This Ain’t Hell: 18th Century Technology Baffles Navy, Military
Weasel Zippers: Two More Police Unions Join In Call For Boycott Of Tarantino Films
Megan McArdle: Some Dumb Questions And Some Smart Answers
Mark Steyn: He Was Just Seventeen. You Know What I Mean.


Shop Amazon Holiday Home & Garden Gift Guide – Gifted Gardener

Category: Linkagery

Rubio Knocks Out Jeb Bush in Debate

Posted on | October 29, 2015 | 24 Comments

 

The general consensus, and also my own personal opinion, is that Marco Rubio was the big winner of Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate on CNBC. Polls have shown Rubio stuck in the second tier behind the two “outsider” candidates who are the current front-runners, Donald Trump and Ben Carson. Rubio is young, smart and articulate, but his role in the 2013 “Gang of Eight” amnesty plan has hurt him with the GOP’s conservative grassroots. Wednesday night, however, when Rubio was criticized for missing Senate votes while campaigning for president, he counter-attacked sharply:

“In 2008, Barack Obama missed 60 or 70% of his votes and the same newspaper endorsed him again. This is another example of the double standard that exists in this country, between the mainstream media and the conservatives.”

Turning the question around to focus on the pro-Democrat double standard of the “mainstream media” was a smart move. Rubio then got a surprise bonus when Jeb Bush called on him to resign, giving Rubio an opening for this brutal jab:

“Jeb, let me tell you, I don’t remember you ever complaining about John McCain’s vote record. The only reason you’re doing it now is because we’re running for the same position. Someone convinced you attacking me is going to help you.”

Boom! Bush’s campaign had been on the ropes and if he thought he could make a comeback by attacking Rubio, he thought wrong. This move was both “strategically ill-conceived and tactically incompetent,” to quote Jonathan Last of the Weekly Standard.

Now, what does this mean? To make clear my own preference, I support any candidate not named “Hillary Clinton.” After eight years of Obama’s presidency, it is crucial for America’s future that the Democrats not get a third term, and I will be willing to back whoever gets the GOP nomination. Trump, Carson, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul, whoever. Everybody knows my longstanding support for Rick Santorum, and I do not rule out the possibility that Rick might yet pull off another Iowa miracle like he did in 2012. However, the main thing — the Big Picture — is that all of the Republican candidates are better than Hillary and, in a few weeks, voters in Iowa are going to reduce the oversized GOP field down to four or maybe five viable candidates.

Marco Rubio could be one of those. Jeb Bush certainly will not.

Bush is done. He is over, doomed, kaput, finito. If the Republican Establishment big money boys can’t see that, they’re even dumber than I previously thought they were, and I have always thought Stupid Guys With Too Much Money were the root cause of the GOP’s electoral and political problems. Their hopes for a restoration of the Bush dynasty — because this is what Stupid Guys With Too Much Money dream of, like a 12-year-old girl dreams of dating Harry Styles — are now at an end. It’s time to wake up and smell the futility.

So a half-dozen GOP Establishment consultants will soon be unemployed after Jeb gives his “spend more time with my family” speech, and this is good news for America. We will be spared another Bush, and can now focus our attention on avoiding another Clinton.

There is still hope for the future. Thank God.





 

Category: Debates, Election, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Republicans

The Man In The High Castle

Posted on | October 28, 2015 | 18 Comments

— by Wombat-socho


Apologies for the lack of book posts, but last week was pretty much eaten by work leading up to the October 15 extension deadline, medical appointments, and other craziness. This week I want to talk a little bit about The Man In The High Castle, originally a book by Philip K. Dick, and now a TV series by Ridley Scott and Frank Spotnitz for Amazon Prime Video. The book won the Hugo for Best Novel of 1963, back when Hugos actually meant something, and is an alternate history set fifteen years after the United States lost World War II in 1947. Most of the former United States are part of the Greater German Reich; the three Pacific states plus Nevada, Arizona, and parts of New Mexico, Idaho, and Utah belong to a Japanese puppet state, the Pacific States of America; and the remaining pieces of the country between are a neutral zone, sometimes called the Rocky Mountain States or more often, the Neutral Zone. I last read Dick’s book decades ago, and I have to say after watching the first two episodes of the TV series, Scott and Spotnitz have produced something better than the original book. The subversive novel The Grasshopper Lies Heavy is now a series of “newsreels” distributed by the Resistance, there have been some changes in the cast of characters, but above all, Scott and Spotnitz have introduced a sense of hallucinatory, paranoid surrealism that didn’t exist in the original book, which was a fairly straightforward alternate history along the lines of one of its inspirations, Ward Moore’s Bring the Jubilee – which itself is worth reading, for its depiction of the Union as a Third World backwater in the wake of a Civil War defeat, if nothing else. Getting back to the series…what struck me most is that it has a cast full of unreliable narrators. Nothing the characters say can be taken on faith as correct, there is reason to believe that “past” is not what it is claimed to be, and there are strong implications that the “newsreels” are not homemade movies, but rather leaks from our timeline. Can’t wait for the next eight episodes to come out next month!


One of the only other science-fictional things I’ve been reading is Edward P. Hughes’ Masters of the Fist, a post-apocalyptic tale about a small village in Ireland facing a number of problems, security and the infertility of the local menfolk being the two most pressing. Enter Sergeant O’Meara of the Grenadier Guards and his stolen Challenger MBT…like the first reviewer, I came across some of the stories in this fix-up novel by way of Jerry Pournelle’s There Will Be War anthologies, and appreciated the sometimes dark, sometimes madcap humor in these tales. Decent brain candy.


The other is Stark’s War, the first in a trilogy written by John Hemry before he took up writing The Lost Fleet novels and went with his birth name of John Campbell. Stark’s War was somewhat of a nightmare for a veteran NCO like me; the picture it paints of a military so isolated from its country that someone in the ranks who was born civilian and not mil is a very rare bird indeed, and an officer corps so addicted to micromanagement and apple-polishing that it no longer recognizes the realities of combat are just two of the many unsettling plot elements of this novel about an American hyperpower as it exists in the mind of the Loony Left: so dominant in terms of economic and military power that no nation or alliance of nations on Earth can stand up to it – which is why Sergeant Stark and his troops of the First Division are raiding foreign installations on the Moon. Good book, perhaps because of the premise and not in spite of it; now available for the Kindle, which is good.


Worth noting: John C. Wright’s “My Elves Are Different”, a meditation on the generation gap in fantasy readers, which was inspired by Jeffro’s Appendix N Survey. Also, a fisking of that gigantic retard Steve Davidson, who runs the Amazing Stories site, by a fellow named Dystopic, who dealt with Davidson’s criticism of an LJ post of mine on the social history of fandom so I didn’t have to.


And what have you been reading in this week before Halloween?





Category: Books, Linkagery, Video

What No One Can Say on Campus

Posted on | October 28, 2015 | 33 Comments

“So what is feminism? What do feminists believe? Namely, that American women are oppressed by a patriarchy hell-bent on keeping women down, and that men and marriage are expendable. . . .
“What feminists want is to make men and women interchangeable. . . .
“I am not a feminist because I don’t believe feminists have an accurate understanding of human nature.”
— Susanne Venker

Great minds think alike, and Suzanne Venker sees the problem with feminism exactly as I see the problem with feminism. It is a War Against Human Nature aimed at using the coercive power of government to bring about an androgynous “equality” that ignores the actual differences between men and women. Feminism is a totalitarian movement to destroy civilization as we know it — and feminists say so themselves.

In her recent book Beauty and Misogyny, feminist Professor Sheila Jeffreys cites Andrea Dworkin as authority for indicting “the notion of beauty” as a “cultural practice . . . damaging to women,” an expression of “woman-hating culture.” Professor Jeffreys quotes Dworkin’s 1974 book Woman Hating, specifically this sentence from Page 26:

“We recognize that it is the structure of the culture which engineers the deaths, violations, violence, and we look for alternatives, ways of destroying culture as we know it, rebuilding it as we can imagine it.” [Emphasis added.]

On the very first page of that book, Dworkin declared feminism a “fundamental revolutionary commitment,” explaining that the purpose of her “analysis of sexism” was “transformation of the social reality on every level . . . the development of revolutionary program and consciousness.” Feminism is a revolution to destroy “culture as we know it,” and can only be understood in terms of its essentially destructive purpose. It is too seldom mentioned nowadays that modern feminist movement emerged from the radical New Left of the 1960s. Shulamith Firestone used a mailing list of women involved in Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) to help organize what became known as the Women’s Liberation Movement. They staged their first major national protest at the 1968 Miss America pageant, an event they said served “to further make women oppressed and men oppressors; to enslave us all the more in high-heeled, low-status roles.”

This claim that women are oppressed and enslaved by men remains the essential premise of feminist ideology and, as Suzanne Venker says, feminists insist that all women are victims of a “patriarchy hell-bent on keeping women down.” Feminism is a revolutionary movement to destroy this alleged oppression, “to make men and women interchangeable” in such a way that men would become “expendable” and irrelevant to women’s lives. How could this be accomplished?

“Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse have written about the sexual dilemmas of modern civilization and proposed solutions combining aspects of Freudian theory and Marxian economic analysis. . . .
“Reich’s analysis introduces the theoretical insight that women and gays have known instinctively: that civilization in its present form was designed for heterosexual men, and that its structure guarantees their authority within it. Thus, to change society by ending sexual suppression does not mean the end of civilization, but rather the end of civilization as we know it. . . .
“It was Herbert Marcuse who saw the critical function of homosexuals in ending repression. . . . Marcuse sees homosexuals as having an important place in history in helping to free sexuality, since he feels gay people have a more natural, totally erogenous sexuality.”
— Sidney Abbott and Barbara Love, Sappho Was a Right-On Woman: A Liberated View of Lesbianism (1972)

If you buy this weird mix of Freud and Marx, if you believe that sexual “repression” and male “authority” are the root of all evil, and that “gay people have a more natural, totally erogenous sexuality” — well, if you believe all that, congratulations, you’re a feminist.

However, if you disagree with that — if you think Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse were a couple of dangerous kooks and are skeptical about a plan for “the end of civilization as we know it,” to bring about a society controlled by the authority of “liberated” lesbians — well, you’re never going to be allowed to speak at Williams College:

Williams College students invited Suzanne Venker, a writer and longtime critic of feminism, to speak Tuesday night, but changed their minds and took back the invite for her talk, “One Step Forward, Ten Steps Back: Why Feminism Fails.”
Venker had been invited to participate in a student-run, alumni-funded speaking series at Williams called “Uncomfortable Learning.” The program’s purpose is to expose students to controversial voices and opinions they might not otherwise hear. Many of the speakers tend to be conservative or people whose views don’t square with those of most students.
The students who run the series decided to cancel the event, co-president Zach Wood explained, after its Facebook page began to attract acerbic comments and “things got a little out of hand.” . . .
The concern, Wood explained, was that “people would get riled up while she was speaking,” maybe even throw things, and there wasn’t time before the event to organize security. “You never know,” he said. “We’re just trying to think ahead here. The last thing we wanted to do was do something destructive.”

You see how it is. Feminists in 1968 could denounce the Miss America pageant, lesbians in 1972 could cite Marxists and proclaim the wonders of “totally erogenous sexuality,” and Andrea Dworkin in 1974 could advocate a revolution “destroying culture as we know it,” but in 2015, no one is permitted to criticize feminism on a college campus.

American college students are living under a regime of intellectual totalitarianism. No one who dissents from this regime can appear on campus because “people would get riled up.”

You can read the full text of the speech Suzanne Venker planned to give at Williams College, but students at Williams College are prohibited from hearing what Suzanne Venker says — it is forbidden and impermissible. The soi-disant student journalists at Williams College declare that “Venker’s views are wrong, offensive and unacceptable.”

Annual tuition at Williams College is $50,070 — parents are paying good money to make sure that their children never have to listen to anyone who might get them “riled up” by telling the truth about feminism.

In her book The War on Men, Suzanne Venker argues that “modern feminism . . . has severed the bond between the sexes, pitting men and women against one another,” that “the sexual revolution was a disaster. Men today have no respect for women and vice versa.” This is so obviously true that only stupid people (or Williams College students) could disagree, much less get “riled up” about it.

If Williams College ever gets nuclear weapons, we’re all doomed.




 

Category: Education, Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 10.28.15

Posted on | October 28, 2015 | 3 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: The Force Awakens
Da Tech Guy: Milo Yiannopoulos, Pope Francis, And The Stuff That Saints Are Made Of
First Street Journal: It’s Just A Shame That The People Now Have More Of A Voice!
Proof Positive: Mirror, Mirror…Why Can’t I Catch A Break?
Camp of the Saints: Ghost Soldiers Of Jihad?
Doug Powers: Typical – Hillary Pledges To Protect “Law Abiding” Illegals She Was “Adamantly Against” Just A Few Years Ago
Twitchy: Team Hillary Swings Into Damage Control Mode After VA Comments Backfire


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Hungary PM Orban Rejects Merkel’s “Welcoming” Ideology Of Unchecked Immigration Suicide
American Thinker: Police Fired For Telling The Truth About Black Violence
Conservatives4Palin: John Kasich Reveals Himself
Don Surber: Same Excrement, Different Piehole
Jammie Wearing Fools: Dopey Hillary Supporters Can’t Name Any Accomplishments
Joe For America: Americans, Take Notes – Ban Islam, Save The Nation!
JustOneMinute: Dopey Hillary Supporters Can’t Name Any Accomplishments
Pamela Geller: Europe Now Scrambling For Guns, Shotguns Have “Virtually Sold Out” In Austria
Protein Wisdom: LA Religious Leaders Denounce Hate Group #BlackLivesMatter
Shot In The Dark: The World Is Their Safe Room
STUMP: Illinois Lottery – You Can’t Fool People Forever
The Gateway Pundit: Reporter Says Yuge Trump Rally In Sioux City Sets Gold Standard For Presidential Campaigns
The Jawa Report: Jawa Report Issues Devil Will Do Meetballs From UR Body Fatwa Against W.H.O.
The Lonely Conservative: Obamacare, It Just Keeps Getting Worse
This Ain’t Hell: S/SGT Justin Druskis Booted For Stolen Valor
Weasel Zippers: Homeland Security Offering Employers Cash If They Hire Illegal College Grads
Megan McArdle: Preschool Helps Kids. Sometimes. Briefly.
Mark Steyn: The Certainty Of Uncertainty


Shop Amazon Launchpad – The Fall Forward Collection

Category: Blogging, Linkagery

What ‘Rape Culture’ Really Means: Your Male Heterosexuality Is Problematic

Posted on | October 27, 2015 | 110 Comments

“[T]he curse of having been born a heterosexual male . . . meant being consumed by desires that one couldn’t act on or even admit without running the risk of becoming an objectifier or a stalker or a harasser or some other creature of the darkness.”
— Scott Aaronson, Dec. 14, 2014

The Internet erupted in controversy last year over “Comment 171,” in which MIT Professor Scott Aaronson responded to a discussion of “sexual harassment” by describing the sexual fears he experienced as a nerdy Ivy League student in the late 1990s. Professor Aaronson’s specialty is computer science, but in describing how he was driven to suicidal despair by the terroristic campus crusade against “harassment,” he performed award-worthy work as a psychologist or sociologist, exposing to the world what goes on inside the mind of a socially awkward heterosexual male when confronted by feminism’s pre-emptive accusations of wrongdoing. Because he is a male, and because he is attracted to females, such a student is made to feel as if his interest in the opposite sex is a shameful secret that he must be careful never to reveal.

If by any word or gesture he signifies his attraction to a female — or if he even makes a joke that discloses his heterosexuality in a general way — the male student could be accused of “harassment.” When your parents are spending big bucks to send you to an elite school like Cornell University (annual tuition $49,116), the possibility that you could be accused of “harassment” must be a frightening thing, and the risk of a “sexual assault” accusation is the Nightmare Scenario From Hell.

Feminist rhetoric defines both “harassment” and “sexual assault” in terms of experiences that the female deems “unwelcome” or “unwanted.” If a college boy thinks a girl is cute and starts talking to her with the hope that she might reciprocate his interest, his conversation could be considered “harassment” if she dislikes him. Read enough feminist blogs, and you see countless variations of this theme, The Clueless Unattractive Male Who Won’t Take a Hint. His behavior is offensive — “creepy” or “stalkerish” — because (a) he likes her, (b) she doesn’t like him, yet (c) he dares to speak to her without permission, and (d) he doesn’t seem to notice her signals of disinterest. We can easily imagine how a sensitive and intelligent young man like Scott Aaronson circa 1997, being lectured about harassment and rape in a freshman orientation session, must have been stricken with fear upon learning how loathsome his heterosexual orientation made him in the eyes of his fellow students.

How dare this disgusting nerd find women sexually attractive?

“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. Men’s world is like a vast prison or concentration camp for women. This isn’t a metaphor, it’s reality. Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men.”
— Radical Wind, August 2013

In describing feminism’s characteristic anti-male/anti-heterosexual paranoia as “Fear and Loathing of the Penis,” I do not mean merely to make a hyperbolic joke, but rather to call attention to the strange and savage hostility toward normal male behavior that is the fundamental basis of feminist theory. My original guide to this was Professor Daphne Patai’s 1998 book Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. Until I read Professor Patai’s book, I had no idea how far feminists had gone in their demonization of heterosexuality, especially in the context of “harassment” charges in academia. During my own youth, we understood “sexual harassment” in the sense of the quid pro quo, in which a male authority figure — an employer, a supervisor, or a teacher — expected females to provide him with sex in exchange for favorable treatment. Everyone understood this kind of harassment to be a wrongful abuse of power. The professor was hired to teach English, not to seduce his students, and the manager was hired to run a restaurant, not to have sex with waitresses. While sex between co-workers might be entirely consensual, everyone understood the problems that could arise in a situation where a female employee was having sex with her male supervisor. Because that kind of quid pro quo harassment was widely understood to be wrong, most people didn’t pay much attention when the definition of “harassment” was expanded to include behaviors that were nothing like the (clearly wrongful) quid pro quo. The feminist legal theorists who pushed this expanded definition of “harassment” — now construed as meaning damned near anything a man did that any woman decided was “unwelcome” or “unwanted” and “offensive” or “sexist” — created a workplace environment where everyday interactions between male and female employees could become the basis of a federal discrimination lawsuit unless males were always strictly and formally professional in their behavior. An easygoing, informal workplace atmosphere — men joking around with their female colleagues in the way they would joke with their male colleagues — was a recipe for disaster, if any woman ever got her feelings hurt, or believed that she was in any way discriminated against in her employment.

A series of high-profile cases in the 1990s — the Clarence Thomas hearings, the “Tailhook” scandal and the Bill Clinton impeachment imbroglio — brought widespread attention to the issue of sexual harassment, so that everyone began to interpret workplace interaction between men and women in a new way. As more and more women succumbed to the feminist sexual paranoia that Professor Patai dubbed Heterophobia, suddenly “harassment” was everywhere, and it was amid this climate of pervasive sexual fear that Scott Aaronson attended Cornell University in the 1990s:

Here’s the thing: I spent my formative years — basically, from the age of 12 until my mid-20s — feeling not “entitled,” not “privileged,” but terrified. I was terrified that one of my female classmates would somehow find out that I sexually desired her, and that the instant she did, I would be scorned, laughed at, called a creep and a weirdo, maybe even expelled from school or sent to prison. And furthermore, that the people who did these things to me would somehow be morally right to do them — even if I couldn’t understand how.
You can call that my personal psychological problem if you want, but it was strongly reinforced by everything I picked up from my environment: to take one example, the sexual-assault prevention workshops we had to attend regularly as undergrads, with their endless lists of all the forms of human interaction that “might be” sexual harassment or assault, and their refusal, ever, to specify anything that definitely wouldn’t be sexual harassment or assault. I left each of those workshops with enough fresh paranoia and self-hatred to last me through another year.

You should read the whole thing, if you didn’t read Comment 171 when it went viral last year. Professor Aaronson’s very personal account of his experiences was quite risky. As he said, he was “giving up a privacy that I won’t regain for as long as I live, opening myself to ridicule” and, predictably, feminists began dogpiling him with mockery. I have described how feminism enables deliberate cruelty, rationalizing the sadistic impulses of women who are afflicted with a hateful desire to inflict punitive revenge on males, and the way Professor Aaronson was mocked by feminists (including the execrable Laurie Penny and the hideous Miriam Mogilevsky) was certainly proof enough of that.

Feminists are very bad people — dishonest, selfish and cruel — and only a fool would ever trust them. Every word they speak or write is a deception, because they will never admit the vile hatred that motivates their anti-male politics. In Comment 171, Professor Aaronson made a statement I heartily endorse:

I’ve read at least a dozen feminist books, of which my favorite was Andrea Dworkin’s Intercourse (I like howls of anguish much more than bureaucratic boilerplate, so in some sense, the more radical the feminist, the better I can relate).

Indeed, the shrieking lesbian rage of Andrea Dworkin is vastly preferable to the Foucauldian academese of Judith Butler, as far as getting to the actual point of feminist theory. Feminists do not like men, feminists do not like sex, and feminists especially do not like sex with men. Why? Because men enjoy having sex with women, and anything that men enjoy is wrong, because they are men. Feminism is a movement dedicated to depriving men of pleasure. Anything that brings a smile to a man’s face must be oppressive to women. This spiteful campaign to eradicate every potential source of male happiness is what has inspired the “campus rape epidemic” hysteria. Nowhere does feminist power more nearly approach totalitarianism than at American colleges and universities, where women are 57% of the students, and every male on campus knows he could be expelled if any female classmate ever accuses him of wrongdoing.

If you believe what feminists say (in other words, if you are a goddamned helpless fool), then you must believe that the only reason any boy goes to college is because he wants to rape the girls who go to college. Every male student on campus is a suspected rapist, and every female student on campus is his would-be victim. The absence of actual evidence to prove this feminist claim (“The Campus Rape Shortage”) is explained away by the assertion that female students don’t report being raped because they are afraid no one will believe them. (Circular logic is circular; the conclusion and the premise of a feminist argument are always the same thing, except when they are completely contradictory, but logic is an oppressive tool of the patriarchy.) Statistics showing that the rate of sexual assault has declined, and that female college students are less likely to be raped than non-college women of the same age, raise the question of why feminists have devoted so much effort to portraying the 21st-century campus as a Rape Factory, an assembly line staffed by violent misogynists engaged in the production of sexual victims.

Once we understand that (a) the vast majority of male college students are not rapists, and (b) the vast majority of rapists and rape victims are not college students, we realize feminist discourse about “rape culture” represents an effort to demonize male college students as “privileged.” The eagerness with which feminists leapt onto the 2006 Duke lacrosse team rape hoax and the 2014 University of Virginia rape hoax betrays the real motive behind this crusade. In both of those cases, the falsely accused males were white and belonged to campus organizations where membership conferred high status. To be a varsity lacrosse player at Duke (annual tuition $49,341) is to occupy a very lofty position in the hierarchies of “male privilege” that are targets of feminist criticism. Likewise, the members of Phi Kappa Psi at the University of Virginia are quite likely beneficiaries of the kind of upper-middle-class privilege that feminists condemn as the essence of oppression.

The higher a man’s socioeconomic status, the greater his exercise of male power, according to feminist theory, so that any success a man achieves (or any benefit he receives from his parents’ success) condemns him as an oppressor. If his parents worked hard to provide him with advantages, and if he made the most of his opportunities to excel in school, then the very fact that he is attending a prestigious university marks the male student as a living symbol of social injustice. His mere existence is oppressive to women, and if he adds to this indictment by being (a) white and (b) heterosexual, then anything that feminists can do to harm him is justified in the name of “equality.” The male student branded a rapist and expelled from college now is one less “privileged” male competing with women for high-status jobs in the future. The false accuser who destroys a young man’s educational opportunities today deprives him of career opportunities tomorrow. If campus activists can destroy enough young men this way, eventually the systematic process of destruction will bring about the Progressive Utopia of Gender Equality that feminists have been promising women for more than 40 years.

When we begin examining the “rape culture” discourse in detail, we are struck by how little it takes for a male student to be branded a perpetrator on the 21st-century campus. The “regret equals rape” case at Virginia’s Washington and Lee University and the John Doe lawsuit against Brown University are but two of the data points in an emerging pattern. If we can believe what the male plaintiffs allege in complaints like these, it is obvious that nothing like an actual rape was involved in the cases that resulted in their being punished in campus “Title IX” proceedings where they were deliberately deprived of due-process rights that would be accorded to any common criminal in a court of law.

We may contrast this obsession with accusing “privileged” male college students of rape with the way feminists habitually ignore news of violence against women committed by common criminals:

  • MIDLAND, Texas, Oct. 22: Aurelio Luna Sr., 55, was senteced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after a jury found him guilty of continuous sexual assault of a child. Luna committed multiple acts of sexual assault against a female family member over a period of at least two years. The girl’s mother contacted the Midland Police Department after she found text messages regarding the abuse.
  • OMAHA, Neb., Oct. 23: Reginald Briggs, 31, was charged with first-degree murder in the death of Teresa Longo. Police say Briggs is a pimp and that Longo was one of his prostitutes. Longo’s body was fund Oct. 2. An autopsy showed she was killed by a single gunshot wound to the back of her head. Briggs reportedly bragged about killing her, and another one of his prostitutes told police she went with Briggs to dispose of the shotgun he used to murder Longo on Sept. 17.
  • MILWAUKEE, Wisc., Oct. 27: Jose Ferreira Jr., 50, was charged with the murder of a seventh-grader more than 30 years ago. Carrie Ann Jopek disappeared in March 1982. According to prosecutors, Ferreira and Jopek were at a party at a house when he pushed her down the steps into the basement. The fall broke her neck, killing her. Ferreira, who reportedly believed the girl was only unconscious, had sex with her corpse. He then buried Jopek’s body under a neighbor’s porch, according to prosecutors. When he recently told his wife about the 1982 murder, she turned him in to police.
  • NEW BRITAIN, Conn., Oct. 26: Luis Velez, 43, was sentenced to 40 years in prison after pleading guilty to murdering his wife, Johana Gallego, 33. She and Velez had been married less than a year when he strangled her to death. He had previously been convicted of another killing in Puerto Rico.
  • ST. LOUIS, Mo., Oct. 23: Keith L. Ivy, 41, is charged with kidnapping after police say he and an accomplice abducted Ivy’s ex-girlfriend from her workplace. Ivy, who had been recently released from prison in Georgia and was also on probation for a separate drug conviction, allegedly told the ex-girlfriend they were “going to die tonight.” She managed to escape.
  • SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y., Oct. 26: Justin Suarez, 27, was arrested on 34 charges, after police say he raped his ex-girlfriend twice, stalked her, threatened her with a sledgehammer and shot a dog to death in front of her. “He told her that if she told anyone, he would kill her, too,” the district attorney said.
  • WACO, Texas, Oct. 22: Emmanuel Emil Bailey of Ft. Smith, Ark., faces trial on federal charges connected to an interstate child sex trafficking ring. Bailey is charged with transporting persons for prostitution and other violations of the Mann Act. Bailey was among more than 40 suspects arrested during an Internet prostitution sting orchestrated by the McLennan County Sheriff’s Office.

You will never find Jaclyn Friedman or Jessica Valenti or Amanda Marcotte discussing cases like that, because none of the men accused in those cases are “privileged” white male college students. The reason feminists ignore crimes committed by perps like Emmanuel Bailey, Aurelio Luna, Keith Ivy, and Justin Suarez is very similar to the reason that feminists never call attention to any crime committed by a woman or a gay man. The hierarchies of privilege determine who is an oppressor deserving condemnation and who is a victim deserving sympathy. A black pimp who murders a prostitute, a Hispanic pedophile who rapes a teenager, female teachers having sex with their students — none of these crimes are of interest to a feminist, because publicizing such crimes does not help promote the “social justice” worldview in which the “privileged” white heterosexual male is the epitome of evil.

If you have a son attending college, or if you have a teenage son who is about to finish high school, he must be warned. Every feminist seeks to destroy him, and therefore every woman he encounters on a college campus is his enemy. No female he meets can be trusted, because all college women are being actively encouraged to accuse male students of rape. Anything your son says to a woman on campus can be interpreted as “harassment,” and any active expression of heterosexual interest puts your son at risk of an accusation of “sexual assault.” The only way a male student can safely attend college in the 21st century is to avoid any contact with female students on campus.

Warn your sons, America. It would be best, if possible, for your son to consider a field of employment that does not require a college education. Let him become a truck driver or a carpenter, rather than subjecting him to the risk of being falsely accused of rape by college feminists.

Wake up, America! It’s 2015! The only reason any girl goes to college nowadays is to seize her opportunity for advancing the feminist cause of “gender equality” by accusing a boy of rape.

Feminism is a movement that seeks to eliminate “male privilege” by preventing men from having any opportunity for success. Because feminists now exercise unlimited authority at American colleges and universities, a young man seeking success in life should contemplate how best to pursue a career path that permits him to avoid attending college, where his presence on campus is considered offensive by the monstrous man-hating fanatics who call themselves feminists.

Academia is now so tightly controlled by radical ideologues that it would be better for your child to have no education at all, rather than to be corrupted by 21st-century “higher education.” Millions of young minds are being permanently warped by the godless perverts who have seized power on campus and are using that power to destroy our civilization.

Dann them all. Damn them all to Hell.

(Incidentally, Scott Aaronson said his purpose in writing Comment 171 was to ensure “no one will ever again be able to question the depth of my feminist ideals.” Some people just never learn . . .)




 

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 10.26.15

Posted on | October 26, 2015 | 5 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Maureen O’Hara, RIP
The Political Hat: The Left’s Manichean Choice – Racial Supremacy Or Dhimmitude
Michelle Malkin: Doctors Agree – Obama’s Electronic Medical Records Mandate Sucks!
Doug Powers: Hillary Claims VA Problems Not Widespread, Blames VRWC For Making It An Issue
Twitchy: Losing Answer On Final Jeopardy Deemed Bloomin’ Hilarious (Except On The Left)


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Democrats Block “Kate’s Law”
American Thinker: Wake Up America – Democrats Are At War With The People
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – The Spy House By Matthew Dunn
Conservatives4Palin: GOP Laying The Groundwork To Kill Obamacare
Don Surber: The Grandfather Of Video Games
Jammie Wearing Fools: Longtime NYPD Critic Al Sharpton Will Speak At Funeral Of Slain Officer Randolph Holder
Joe For America: 24 States Sue To Block Obama’s Climate Change Regulations
JustOneMinute: The 80’s Are Calling But The Lines Are Down
Pamela Geller: Violent Muslim Riots In Denmark, Police Attacked
Protein Wisdom: RIP Maureen O’Hara
Shot In The Dark: “Conversation” Update
STUMP: Public Pensions And Finance – I Like To Watch
The Gateway Pundit: Video – Muslim Migrants March Through Slovenia Like Invading Soldiers
The Jawa Report: Sharia4Belgium Adds Another Epic Fail To Its Record
The Lonely Conservative: BLM Sold Thousands Of Wild Horses Off To Be Slaughtered
This Ain’t Hell: SJWs Claim Marine Test Unit Was Flawed
Weasel Zippers: Emails Show Administration Pressured Health Agencies To Make FLOTUS’ Anti-Obesity Effort Look Successful
Megan McArdle: If You Like Truth, Don’t Watch Truth
Mark Steyn: Fings Ain’t Wot They Used T’Be


Shop Amazon – 30% Off Costumes

Category: Blogging, Linkagery

Important #Benghazi Clarification

Posted on | October 26, 2015 | 12 Comments

Category: Hillary Clinton
« go back — keep looking »