The Other McCain

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

You’re Too ‘Empowered,’ Darling

Posted on | December 19, 2015 | 55 Comments

Amanda Leigh is a funny writer, who writes about dating, and is capable of clever sentences like, “If you can’t tell whether he’s gay or straight, he’s gay,” and “Finding a tall employed man with values in Los Angeles is like finding a unicorn.” But her dating life is actually a failure, as is the case of most people who write about dating. What is the object of the game? To find The One. So as long as you’re still dating, you’re a loser.

The only dating advice young people should ever listen to is advice from happily married people. Their advice will likely be “old-fashioned.” Why? Because old-fashioned works. Old-fashioned is good. Amanda Leigh is not old-fashioned:

I can read a man like a book. But I haven’t always been that way. I had to get seriously played to learn the game. . . . In other words, I’ve been hurt, surprised, upset, shocked, duped, and manipulated enough to consider myself a seasoned dater.

This is the modern “empowered” feminist attitude: All of her previous romantic relationships were failures, so listen to Amanda Leigh, because she knows what’s she’s talking about!

Ladies: Do not follow the herd. Do not let yourself be “played.” Do not imagine that you are going to become the first woman ever to survive the hook-up culture without damage. Talk of promiscuity as “empowerment” is nonsense. Speaking of nonsense and failure, Amanda Leigh tried dating via Tinder:

I’ve gone out on over 10 dates and communicated with at least 50 guys since joining. . . .  An accountant told me he was afraid to ask me out again because he felt intimidated by me. Someone needs to grow a set. I had a great date and make out sesh with a hot photographer. He said he wanted to see me again and then disappeared.

You see the problem. Amanda Leigh is a type. The caution accountant, a shrewd just of risk, found her intimidating. The “hot” guy got a make-out session on the first date, but she can’t understand why he “disappeared” after that.

Amanda: You were being tested. Lots of girls want to make out with the “hot” guy. He might have been impressed if you had resisted the opportunity. Be old-fashioned, and especially strive to resist the guys you find irresistible.

But some of your advice, frankly, is just plain crap:

If he refuses to get a pedicure because it’s not manly, he will not go with you to see a therapist to work on your relationship issues. He has too much pride.

WHAT FRESH HELL IS THIS? A guy has to get a pedicure in order to prove he’s willing to “see a therapist to work on your relationship issues”? This is a flashing red-light warning, guys. She’s thinking so far ahead, she’s got your first therapy session planned, because you have “too much pride.” The accountant’s caution was so wise, in retrospect.

Therapy causes divorce. There, I’ve said. The belief that your “relationship issues” require intervention by “experts” is a surrender flag, a confession of incompetence. As a matter of fact, I would advise against dating anyone who uses a phrase like “relationship issues.” That kind of therapeutic jargon indicates either she’s got “issues” of her own — which probably explains why she doesn’t already have a boyfriend –or else she’s the type who sits around reading self-help psychology books about “relationships.” She’s a compulsive over-thinker, in other words.

Confident people aren’t always second-guessing their decisions. They don’t sit around critiquing their partners or relationships. Confident people are decisive. They take action, and accept responsibility for the consequences.

So much feminist talk about “empowerment” is a counterfeit substitute for real confidence. “Empowerment” is whistling past the graveyard, pretending you know what you’re doing, no matter how badly you’re doing it. By contrast, real confidence is based on success. You are confident because you are competent, and you don’t need a therapist to tell you how to cope with your problems.

Why do we get such horror stories from the dating scene? Because all the good people are already in relationships, that’s why. The good people found each other and are living happy lives together, which leaves the dating scene full of bad people. It may be tempting for an attractive young person to develop a perfectionist attitude, to keep chasing around in search of romantic adventure, but it’s like a game of musical chairs. The world seems full of exciting possibilities when you’re 18 or 21, but if you stay in the game too long, you begin to get the sense that you’re picking through a pile of castoffs and discards — dating people who weren’t good enough for somebody else. They’ve been dumped and rejected, and are carrying around the emotional damage they suffered as a result of those broken promises and broken hearts.

If you find somebody good, close the deal. Get married and stay married, and make a point of being happy about it. Do not for a moment envy those single friends of yours or think about whether the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Be old-fashioned and enjoy grazing in your own pasture. Consider the story Amanda Leigh tells about how she thought she’d found the perfect guy, only to get dumped once again:

Men consistently say they don’t want to hurt a woman’s feelings but they do it in ways that seem so ridiculous, uncaring, and avoidable. Many men project that having a relationship is a bad thing — that all women are a hassle or take up too much time because they have been in relationships with unhealthy women in the past. It’s not fair to those of us who are healthy, self-sufficient, independent, creative, and understanding. I’m not your ex-girlfriend or your ex-wife. My intention in partnership is to both thrive and be more successful together than we are apart. Not to weigh anyone down. Myself included.
How does someone go from full speed ahead to a screeching halt like that? If he had told me in the beginning that he isn’t looking for a relationship I would not have gone out with him.

Amanda: You are too “empowered,” darling. If you want to domesticate a male, be domestic. Cultivate your inner June Cleaver. Strive to convey that you are not part of the dating herd. You are old-fashioned — the marrying type — and you are not looking for a mere “relationship,” but a ring and a wedding, a picket-fence suburban home and three kids to drive to soccer practice. If you are confident in your own value, why sell yourself short?

Be old-fashioned. Old-fashioned works. Old-fashioned is good.

 

Category: Sex Trouble

FMJRA 2.0: Achtung Baby

Posted on | December 19, 2015 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule 5 Sunday: Farewell To The Slave Princess
Regular Right Guy
Animal Magnetism
Ninety Miles from Tyranny
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News
Proof Positive

FMJRA 2.0: Flowtation
Regular Right Guy
The Pirate’s Cove
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

The ‘Diversity’ Hustle
Batshit Crazy News

Further Thoughts on ‘Diversity’ and the Ritual Suicide of American Culture
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox, 12.14.15
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive

In The Mailbox, 12.15.15
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive

Fear and Loathing: An Oberlin Feminist on Men, Republicans and Heterosexuality
Regular Right Guy

In The Mailbox: 12.16.15
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News
Proof Positive

In The Mailbox: 12.17.15
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News
Proof Positive

Quota-Mongers, Gender Nihilism and the Insane Logic of Radical Feminist Theory
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 12.18.15
Batshit Crazy News
Proof Positive

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge
Batshit Crazy News

Top linkers this week:

  1.  Batshit Crazy News (9)
  2.  (tied) A View from the Beach, Proof Positive, and Regular Right Guy (5)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Keep an eye out Monday morning for Return of the Son of the Bride ofLive At FiveConquers The Martians!


Achtung Baby (Deluxe Edition)

Category: Live at Five

I Hope Lorne Michaels Feels A Twist Of Anguish Over The @TedCruz SNL Ad

Posted on | December 19, 2015 | 3 Comments

by Smitty

I hope that enough conservatives tune in to watch this on SNL tonight that Lorne the Liberal Tool has an inkling of just how much viewership he’s leaving on the table in the name of being an Obama/Clinton sycophant.

Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are co-hosting. Could be funny. Musical guest is Bruce Springsteen. I think I remember a time when Bruce kinda rocked.

via Instapundit

Category: NBC, Ted Cruz, Video

Bernie Sanders Sues Democrat Party

Posted on | December 19, 2015 | 15 Comments

 

Allegations of favoritism:

Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) campaign sued the Democratic National Committee in federal court Friday evening following the suspension of his campaign from the DNC’s voter database after a security breach.
The suit claims that the campaign is losing $600,000 in donations each day that it does not have access to the data, and adds that the “damage to the campaign’s political viability as a result of being unable to communicate with constituents and voters, is far more severe, and incapable of measurement.”
The DNC barred Sanders from accessing the party’s voter file, which includes much of his campaign’s voter data, after a campaign staffer improperly accessed private data belonging to front-runner Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The vendor hired by the party to maintain the data accidentally created the security vulnerability during an update, the DNC says.
The Sanders campaign fired a supervisory staffer involved in the incident and has gone on the warpath Friday claiming that the DNC overreacted and is trying to aid Clinton’s campaign.

The question occurs: Why are rival Democrat campaigns both sharing the same database? But the finger-point goes both ways:

Brian Fallon, a Clinton campaign spokesman, called into CNN tonight, very angry about the reported 24 separate intrusions by the Sanders campaign. He said this was a clear “act of theft, stealing data from the Clinton campaign,” and Sanders isn’t living up to that “different kind of campaign” he promised.
“They were very productive,” Fallon told Wolf Blitzer. “They were like kids in a candy store, Wolf. They had about 40 minutes where they ran wild.”

The Democrat Party is a gang of thieves, organized to screw over taxpayers, but always willing to screw over each other, too. Somebody should write a book . . . Oh, wait . . .

 

Category: Democrats

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge

Posted on | December 18, 2015 | 2 Comments

by Smitty

“I get it; the interplay between the geometric precision of the arches in the vaulted roof, the straightness of the pillars and the squares of the floor, against the snapshot of chaos, as the simulated tsunami crashes through the windows, with the unevenness of the edge on the floor pointing out how the random nature of reality mocks all of our mortal vanity. What do you call the piece?”
“Climate Change.”
“Really? The commission?”
“Six figures from the National Endowment for the Arts.”
“My tax dollars bought this?”
“Yes.”
“I’ll offer a Mel Brooks reference,” reaching for his zipper.

via Darleen, with apologies, as hers was better.

Category: Friday Fiction

In The Mailbox: 12.18.15

Posted on | December 18, 2015 | 3 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Mistrial – Hung Jury
Da Tech Guy: The GOP Isn’t The Cowboy In The Western, It’s The Broken-Down Horse
The Political Hat: Arbitrary & Capricious Elimination Of A Fundamental Civil Right By Unelected Bureaucrats Coming To Nevada
Michelle Malkin: Open-Borders Money Backs Marco Rubio
Twitchy: Obama Calls Speaker Ryan To Thank Him For “Making Government Work”


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Senator Jeff Sessions Says Omnibus Spending Bill A Betrayal
American Thinker: Sanctuary City Policy Finally Challenged In Court
Conservatives4Palin: Congress’ Half-Trillion Dollar Spending Binge
Don Surber: Lessons Trump Learned From H. Ross Perot
Jammie Wearing Fools: NYT Stealth Edits Story To Omit Embarrassing Obama Admission
Joe For America: Islamic Sex Traffickers In UK Protected By Liberals
JustOneMinute: Cry Me A River
Pamela Geller: Minnesota Students To Sing “Allahu Akbar” At High School Christmas Concert
Protein Wisdom: Princess Barry’s Not Worried…
Shot In The Dark: He Wins All The Internets Today
The Gateway Pundit: Grab Your Popcorn – Bernie Sanders’ Campaign Threatens To Sue The DNC
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Everything Is Cancelled Today, We Swear!
The Lonely Conservative: Lawmakers, Terrorists And Criminals Want Gun Control Because Of This
This Ain’t Hell: “Red Line”, Eh?
Weasel Zippers: St. Paul Teachers Scared As “White Privilege” Discipline Policies Create Chaos
Megan McArdle: California Puts Driverless Cars Into Reverse
Mark Steyn: When The Arab Spring Blooms In Paris And San Bernardino…


Shop Amazon – Holiday Romances

Category: Linkagery

Quota-Mongers, Gender Nihilism and the Insane Logic of Radical Feminist Theory

Posted on | December 18, 2015 | 53 Comments

 

Ashe Schow at the Washington Examiner reports:

For further evidence that outrage feminists believe gender trumps all else, a new report from the Women’s Media Center bemoans the fact that more articles about campus sexual assault in major newspapers were written by men than by women.
Forget the content of those articles — women should write about rape, and men should write about whatever the modern feminists tell them they can write about. . . .

(Actually, feminists want men to shut up.)

WMC claimed that the gender of the writer skews the content.
“Furthermore, our research shows that the gender of the writer had a significant impact on how stories were covered, with women journalists not only interviewing the alleged victims more often than male journalists, but also writing more about the impact of the alleged attacks on alleged victims,” WMC wrote.
“A higher share of women journalists covered university policies and the prevalence of rape on campus, while a higher share of male journalists focused on campus proceedings and sports culture on campus,” they added.

You can read the whole thing. Feminists want to control who is allowed to write about rape as a means of controlling the narrative. Remember that feminism is a totalitarian movement to destroy civilization as we know it. Totalitarians rely not only on propaganda to promote their own ideology, but also seek to suppress dissent and silence opposition. Feminists have succeeded in effectively prohibiting criticism of their ideology on university campuses, and now seek to extend their hegemonic dominance throughout the culture. What feminism cannot withstand is the kind of sustained critical scrutiny that points out the fundamental absurdity of the feminist movement.

New Deadline for Submissions (May 15th, 2016):
F–k Your Gender Neutral Prison!
A Nihilist Insurrection Against Gender
Due to strong and intensified interest in the anthology, and to the increasing attention being given to Gender Nihilism and other critiques of Western Feminism and Transgender politics, it has been decided to push the deadline to May 15th. This is the new deadline for submissions.
When originally this anthology sought submissions this was a fairly new set of ideas, that mostly existed in online communities and did not have a lot of crossover appeal. Over the months these ideas have exploded and expanded into infinite directions of critique, expansion, and interpretation. It is because of this that I am expanding the anthology and pushing back the deadline.
There is a ‘crisis’ in Western Feminism and Transgender politics: the crisis of the female subject, transmisogyny, homonationalist imperialism and the (settler) coloniality of gender. Lost, driven out, abused, alienated and isolated — we are the victims of a regime of boundaries and definitions, a panoptic gaze of disciplinary behaviors and the ever-shifting goalposts of authenticity. We are the sacrificial lamb at the altar of respectability and profit. The ontological notions of gender and the essentialist politics of every gender based community, even ‘radical’ ones, has pushed us to this. We, much like those before us, call for the Death of the Female Subject and an opposition to trans identity politics of every form.
We cannot allow ourselves to be destroyed through what others call “liberation.” Our close friends call for an infinite expansion of gendered ontologies, new essentialisms, and new identity markers they wish would become intelligible in the eyes of others. Our distant friends see imperialist warfare as the highest form of gay and trans justice. They wish only to be murderers wrapped in a rainbow flag and the military insignia of their nationalist home. Our enemies hold on with their last breath the sex essentialism and gender ontologies of men and doctors – believing they know the real truth.
In every case, we see nothing as the only alternative to their reforms and reactionary essentialisms. We are declaring war. This war will not be fought with rainbow flags and military inclusion, hate crime legislation or prison construction, gentrification or settler-colonization, state recognition or ‘visibility’ politics. This war will be fought against the alienation of daily gendered life.
Inspired by Baedan: The Journal of Queer Nihilism this anthology would focus on the false ontology of gender and essentialism, radical trans politics, transmisogyny, the coloniality of gender, homonationalism, queer nihilism and more.

This is at once both manifestly insane and entirely logical as a consequence of feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix. — which denies the reality of human nature.

Translating academic jargon to plain English, feminists believe that equality between men and women can only be achieved by eliminating all differences between men and women. Feminist theory is premised on the denial that there are any meaningful natural differences between men and women; all apparent differences are a result of the artificial influences of a male-dominated society and culture (“patriarchy”). Feminists believe that the traits we think of as human nature — the masculinity of men and the femininity of women — are a coercive imposition of male power, which maintains the patriarchal order through systematic violence against women that Dee Graham called “sexual terror.” The key institution of patriarchy, according to feminist theory, is what Adrienne Rich called “compulsory heterosexuality.”

“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. . . .
Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men.”

 

Anyone who wishes to make sense of feminism must begin at the beginning, tracing this ideology to its origin in the radical Women’s Liberation Movement of the late 1960s and ’70s. Arguably the most important early statement of the movement’s beliefs and objectives is the 1969 Redstockings manifesto:

Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. . . .
We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . They have used their power to keep women in an inferior position. . . . All men have oppressed women. . . .
We regard our personal experience, and our feelings about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation. We cannot rely on existing ideologies as they are all products of male supremacist culture. . . .
Our chief task at present is to develop female class consciousness through sharing experience and publicly exposing the sexist foundation of all our institutions.

What is crucial about the highlighted passage is the assertion that only women are able to understand their condition of oppression, and that only their “feelings” are “the basis for an analysis.”

Male experience and male feelings are irrelevant. Nothing any man says has any validity to feminists, who assert that their subjective “feelings” about their “personal experience” are a form of knowledge superior to whatever any man can ever claim to know, dismissing in a single phrase (“products of male supremacist culture”) everything that Aristotle, Aquinas, Shakespeare, Locke, Burke, Marx, Freud or any other man has ever said about the human condition. Males know nothing, and this negation of male knowledge is essential to understanding feminism as a totalitarian ideology based on a belief in female supremacy.

This is what confuses people who naively accept feminist claims that their movement is about achieving “equality.” Disregarding all evidence and logic to the contrary, feminists insist that women are still as much “an oppressed class” in 2015 as the Redstockings said they were in 1969. (Never mind, of course, the many articulate critics of feminism who denied that such “oppression” actually existed. Steven Goldberg’s 1973 book The Inevitability of Patriarchy was the classic refutation of that claim, but there is no need to repeat Professor Goldberg’s arguments here.) A careful examination of feminist arguments reveals that what they assert is not the equality of men and women, but rather the intellectual and moral inferiority of males. After all, if men were virtuous and intelligent, we would not need constant lectures from feminists about how stupid, wrong and evil we are. Rebecca Solnit’s recent 2014 bestseller Men Explain Things to Me is a shrewd distillation of this feminist worldview. Although she is careful to insert disclaimers of the “not all men” variety into her arguments, the astute reader perceives that Solnit never met a man whom she considered her equal, and condescends to tolerate males only insofar as they acknowledge her infinite superiority to them. She has no faults or weaknesses; she is omniscient in her wisdom, incapable of failure or error. To disagree with Rebecca Solnit is to be not merely wrong, but also evil. Therefore, no man can speak in her presence except to praise her.

Feminist ideology justifies and rationalizes this narcissistic perspective, and raises the question of how any man can be expected to love a woman who regards him with complete contempt. Supposing that Rebecca Solnit is actually desirous of any romantic involvement with males, on what terms would such a relationship be acceptable to Her Majesty? This question expresses the mystery that has perplexed critics of feminism for more than four decades. Stipulating that everyone is free to arrange their domestic life as it pleases them, where are the men who will agree to serve as subjects under feminist dictatorship? What sort of sadomasochistic psychology could possibly be a basis of mutual attraction? Encountering a woman who never speaks of males except to scorn them as her inferiors, only a man with a depraved appetite for humiliation could desire her companionship.

This is the obverse, incidentally, of what is wrong with “pickup artist” (PUA) discourse. Men who proclaim that they consider sex to be a sport, and view all women as natural prey in their game, thereby disqualify themselves as desirable companions. Would any self-respecting woman wish to add herself as just another number in the long roster of the PUA’s conquests? If he disparages all his previous partners in this manner — just so many pretty fools he has “played” — why should any woman imagine that she would be an exception to the otherwise universal rule? PUAs and feminists mirror each other in their narcissistic selfishness and derogation of the opposite sex. It would be an interesting experiment to see what would occur if the notorious Daryush (“Roosh V”) Valizadeh were to gather a half-dozen or so of his most adept young PUA disciples and infiltrate the next National Young Feminist Leadership Conference. Could the habitual womanizers and implacable man-haters find love together? Certainly, they deserve each other, but I digress . . .

Feminism’s function as a rationalization of selfishness makes it impossible that any feminist could ever justify or defend the normal roles of men and women as husbands and wives, mothers and fathers. Marriage requires cooperation and parenthood requires sacrifice, and feminism encourages women to adopt an attitude of extreme selfishness that is incompatible with any sense of conjugal or maternal duties.

Feminism condemns marriage and motherhood as oppressive “institutions” by which “male power” is used to “keep women in an inferior position,” to quote the Redstockings manifesto. The co-founder of the Redstockings collective, Shulamith Firestone, was emphatic on this subject in her 1970 book The Dialectic of Sex: “Pregnancy is barbaric,” (p. 180), and women are “the slave class” (p. 184), because “marriage in its very definition . . . was organized around, and reinforces, a fundamentally oppressive biological condition” (p. 202).

 

Accepting these assertions as the premises of the feminist syllogism, we cannot reject the obvious conclusion of the argument. Here we may quote Rebecca Solnit’s book (p. 62), where she says “feminism made same-sex marriage possible”:

Because a marriage between two people of the same gender is inherently egalitarian — one partner may happen to have more power in any number of ways, but for the most part it’s a relationship between people who have equal standing and so are free to define their roles themselves.

“The personal is political,” radical feminist Carol Hanisch famously proclaimed, but Rebecca Solnit makes no disclosures in Men Explain Things to Me that could help us understand whatever personal stake she might have in the same-sex marriage issue. Has she ever married? Does she have children? If she made any mention of either a husband or offspring in her book, I missed it, and spending more than an hour skimming through online profile features about her divulged no evidence that she has ever married or given birth. A life of unmarried childlessness is entirely common among feminists, of course. There is a long roster, from Shulamith Firestone to Amanda Marcotte, of women who condemned men, marriage and motherhood from the perspective of the barren spinster. Given the fact of Rebecca Solnit’s enthusiasm for same-sex marriage, and that she has lived almost her entire adult life in San Francisco, some might suspect she has followed the feminist syllogism to its obvious conclusion. Avoiding mere speculation, however, we may cite many other authorities on this subject. For example, in 1978, Professor Linda Gordon wrote an essay, “The Struggle for Reproductive Freedom: Three Stages of Feminism,” that was included the anthology Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism, edited by Zillah Eisenstein. Professor Gordon wrote:

“The lesbian liberation movement has made possibly the most important contribution to a future sexual liberation. . . . What the women’s liberation movement did create was a homosexual liberation movement that politically challenged male supremacy in one of its most deeply institutionalized aspects — the tyranny of heterosexuality. The political power of lesbianism is a power that can be shared by all women who chose to recognize and use it: the power of an alternative, a possibility that makes male sexual tyranny escapable, rejectable — possibly even doomed.”

This article was quoted in Feminist Politics and Human Nature (1988) by Professor Allison Jaggar, who commented:

“The abolition of compulsory heterosexuality would have an enormous impact on the system of male dominance. . . . The abandonment of compulsory heterosexuality would reshape the sexuality of both girls and boys and, if psychoanalysis is correct, would have tremendous consequences for the structure of the unconscious and for people’s sense of their own gender identity.”

Let us stipulate that both Professor Gordon and Professor Jaggar are correct in their analyses. However much I dislike seeing heterosexuality described as “male sexual tyranny,” we must remember that feminism requires the negation of the male perspective. The man’s experience, and his feelings about that experience, are entirely invalid in feminist discourse. He must remain silent, because only feminists have any basis for analyzing their oppression. Because it is impossible for any man to dispute what Professor Gordon and Professor Jaggar say, I am compelled to agree: Feminism and the “lesbian liberation movement” are essentially one and the same. Heterosexuality and feminism are fundamentally incompatible, and therefore the success of feminism means that the “male sexual tyranny” of heterosexuality is “doomed.”

 

Once you accept the premise of feminist theory — “Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total. . . . All men have oppressed women.” — it is impossible to reach any other conclusion. Feminism aims to destroy “the system of male dominance,” as Professor Jaggar calls it, and this requires employing what Professor Gordon calls the “political power of lesbianism” to destroy “the tyranny of heterosexuality.” If you disagree with this conclusion, your argument is not with me, but rather with these eminent professors. Disagreeing with feminists, however, is now considered a hate crime. This was made clear in June 2014:

Efforts are underway to stop the anti-woman group “A Voice for Men” from holding its first international conference in Detroit the last weekend in June. This “Men’s Rights Advocates” group, based in Houston, promotes male supremacy, sexism and sexual violence against women. It was designated a hate group in 2012 by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate crimes against oppressed people in the U.S.
Hundreds opposed to the conference rallied and marched through downtown Detroit on June 7. Organized largely through social media, the diverse and mainly youthful crowd rallied at Grand Circus Park where speakers denounced the misogynist, hate-based terrorism of MRAs and their anti-woman agenda. Some spoke about surviving sexual assault. Several raised the group’s anti-lesbian-gay-bi-trans-queer agenda and racist nature of MRAs. The LGBTQ community was well represented in the crowd, and Motor City Pride weekend started later that day. . . .
UNITE HERE Local 24 representatives passed out signs to “Boycott Doubletree” and denounced the hotel for hosting the conference of bigots. The union is waging a struggle for union recognition, decent wages and dignity for hotel industry workers, many of whom are women and people of color.
Unafraid and undeterred by male supremacist threats and possible MRA spectators, the protesters marched right up to the Doubletree Hotel and held the street in front of it. . . .
The crowd chanted “Hey, Doubletree, what do you say, would you host the KKK?!” and “Racist, sexist, anti-gay, MRAs go away!” as hotel management refused to accept more than 3,000 petition signatures demanding Doubletree cancel its reservations for the “men’s rights” conference.

Heterosexual males are the KKK, and anyone who speaks a word in favor of men must be part of an “anti-woman . . . hate group.”




 

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 12.17.15

Posted on | December 17, 2015 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Is Vladimir Putin A Vampire?
Louder With Crowder: SJW Wars – Political Correctness Awakens
American Irony: A New Species Of Parasite In DC? Well, Not Really
The Political Hat: There Is No God But Gaia And Climate Scientists Are Her Prophets
Michelle Malkin: Vetting Obama’s Witless Vetters At Homeland Security
Twitchy: Regret This Tweet Yet? Cosmo Thinks Buying Guns Should Be As Difficult As Getting An Abortion


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: The Mystery Of Missing Inflation
American Thinker: Can Cruz Win The General? Yes He Can!
Conservatives4Palin: Governor Sarah Palin On Trump Vs. Cruz – “A Great Problem To Have”
Don Surber: Well Played, @RealJamesWoods
Jammie Wearing Fools: As Lawmakers Clash Over Refugees, Syrian Immigration Quietly Tops 100,000 Since 2012
Joe For America: Ten Most Dangerous Jobs In The U.S. – You’ll Be Surprised By What’s Not Listed
JustOneMinute: El Rushbo, Melting Down On Rubio v. Cruz v. Reality, Backs Cruz
Pamela Geller: Muslims Desecrate Polish Cemetery With Islamic Graffiti
Shot In The Dark: Just A Hint
The Gateway Pundit: Speaker Fail – Paul Ryan Loads Budget With Liberal Goodies, Will Pass With Dem Majority
The Jawa Report: Anjem Choudhary Really Needs 15,000 Pounds
The Lonely Conservative: So Much For The Power Of The Purse
This Ain’t Hell: Air Force Won’t Provide Volley Salute For Funerals Any More
Weasel Zippers: Michael Moore Holds “We Are All Muslims” Sign Outside Trump Tower, Gets Trolled Hard By Miss Puerto Rico
Megan McArdle: There’s No Miracle Cure For Healthcare Costs
Mark Steyn: The Hundred Million Dollar Bush League


Shop Amazon Fashion – Free One-Day Shipping

Category: Linkagery
« 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