The fact is that SJWs are out to disqualify, discredit, and disemploy everyone who does not share their dedication to social justice ideals. . . . Cross them, even inadvertently, and they will attempt to destroy you, your career, and your family.
A Minneapolis City Council member is drawing criticism for what some see as an effort to publicly shame constituents who objected to her involvement in Wednesday’s Black Lives Matter rally at the Mall of America and the airport.
Council Member Alondra Cano, who represents the Ninth Ward, has been accused of “doxing” — posting personal information about people who criticized her for supporting the Black Lives Matter events — on Twitter.
Stephen Dent, who said he had previously contributed to Cano’s campaign, wrote to her and told Cano she was unfit to serve on the council by “closing private property” and “supporting illegal actions.”
Cano then tweeted Dent’s email address and phone number to her roughly 2,000 followers.
“What she did to me and others put a huge chill on our democratic society,” Dent said in a phone interview early Thursday. “It has broken my trust with public officials in the city of Minneapolis.” . . .
Dent said that as a 62 year old gay man he understands discrimination and is sympathetic to the aims of Black Lives Matter but does not believe Cano should have been participating in the protests.
As for posting his cell phone and email address, “I understand the law allows her to do this. But what she did was unethical,” said Dent, who said he is an organizational psychologist and author. He said he has filed an ethics complaint with the city.
Their intense and overwhelming narcissism won’t allow it, and anyway, they have no genuine concern for women, because women are nothing more than a sexual resource to them.
These are the same kind of men who transition, identify as a “lesbian”, and then immediately expect some kind of Welcome Wagon gift basket of sex for it.
In other words, the transgender movement is about selfishness and entitlement, and these misguided men in dresses exploit “feminism” as a means to recruit women to participate in their delusional fantasies. Having their counterfeit womanhood accepted by women is an essential part of the transgender fetish. Relating the story of “a very socially-awkward man who had never had a successful relationship with a woman” before deciding to “transition,” the feminist summarizes the psychology of what we might call Transgender Rage Syndrome:
They feel like failures as men; well, what is a woman to them but a failed man? Therefore they must be “women.” And being a woman is a life on easy mode according to them, so after they transition they start to get angry. Where is all of the constant fawning attention they were expecting? Where are the pajama parties and makeovers and shoe-shopping and cocktails with the “girls” that’s owed to them? Why are their expectations and needs not a constant priority with the women they meet?
This is an insightful analysis, but where did transgender activists get their ideas of using “gender” as a weapon to manipulate others? Where did this victimhood mentality originate? Oh, that’s right — feminism.
If “the personal is political,” as Carol Hanisch said, who can define the limits of this ideology? If radical feminism is just the rationalization of personal grievance — a means of converting hurt feelings into a political “cause” — then what kind of reactions would we expect, as the logical obverse, from men who “feel like failures as men”? A proliferation of perversity and insanity, perhaps?
Radical feminists are complaining about the unintended consequences of a social revolution they have deliberately fomented, but who is to blame for their failure to study history? They are quite like those Bolsheviks — Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin — who were later purged and murdered by Stalin. “The dictatorship of the proletariat” was a more brutal tyranny than the Tsarist regime. The Bolsheviks had endorsed the annihilation of the Romanovs, and had no legitimate defense when they themselves were targeted for annihilation in The Great Terror.
Those who invoke “social justice” and “equality” as the slogans of revolution seldom consider such sobering lessons of history. Other revolutionaries no less determined (and, in their own minds, no less well-intentioned) have been responsible for creating the most deadly nightmares in human history and many revolutionaries were killed by the monstrous dictatorships they helped create.
That a feminist revolution might have negative consequences for women — including feminists themselves — should have been obvious long ago. In 1995, Wellesley College economics professor Julie Matthaei (“a Marxist living in a modern-day commune in Cambridge”) published a treatise called “The Sexual Division of Labor, Sexuality, and Lesbian/Gay Liberation: Toward a Marxist-Feminist Analysis of Sexuality in U.S. Capitalism,” which is included in the 2007 textbook anthology Queer Economics edited by Joyce Jacobsen and Adam Zeller. Professor Mattaei argues (pp. 217-218):
The feminist movement of the 1970s and 1980s was closely linked to lesbianism. On the one hand, lesbians had a higher stake than heterosexual married women in accessing well-paid jobs, since lesbians did not have access to “family wages” through husbands. Furthermore, lesbians . . . were less fearful of losing their “womanhood” and attractiveness to men if they took on “men’s jobs” than were heterosexual women. Thus lesbians made up a disproportionate part of the ranks of feminists among all class and racial-ethnic groups. . . .
Furthermore, feminist analysis and the movement . . . have resulted in the “coming out” of many involved. First, feminists developed a critique of the sexual division of labor and of gender roles as being both restrictive to all and oppressive to women. Second, they directly criticized heterosexual marriage because of its subordination of women to men as unpaid servants and sexual objects. Third, many feminists put forth lesbianism as a viable alternative — even, some argued, the appropriate feminist choice, a form of resistance to patriarchy that is more symmetrical and egalitarian than heterosexuality. . . . Many of the leading early feminist theorists — such as Adrienne Rich, Andrea Dworkin, Gayle Rubin, Charlotte Bunch, Mary Daly, Audre Lorde, Barbara Smith, Cherrie Moraga, and Susan Griffin — were “out” lesbians. Fourth, feminism has brought like-minded women together as coparticipants in support and action groups, providing them with potential sexual/love partners.
In other words, feminist movement has encouraged women to challenge and even deviate from traditional gender roles; it has highlighted the oppressiveness of traditional heterosexuality, it has supported and even advocated lesbianism as an option for women; it has encouraged women to pursue “men’s” jobs . . . that allow them to survive economically without men; and it has brought women in close and cooperative contact with other like-minded women.
What this Marxist economist is saying, quite directly, is something that should be obvious to any intelligent student of the feminist movement, i.e., lesbians had a particular motive for attacking “men’s jobs” and “family wages,” and this economic motive explains why so many “early feminist theorists” were lesbians. However, if you do not share this lesbian-feminist hostility to “the oppressiveness of traditional heterosexuality,” then feminism’s attack on the economics of “family wages” becomes problematic. If you are a woman who hopes that your husband will be able to support you and your children on his salary alone — especially during the crucial period when your children are infants and toddlers — the feminist economic agenda is directly hostile to your interests. Feminist demands for “equality” amount to a demand (often justified by a rhetoric of “diversity”) that no man should ever be hired for “well-paid jobs” if any qualified female applicant is available. The economic agenda of feminism is about achieving “equality” through deliberate discrimination against males, and the preponderance of women in higher education (where female students are 57% of undergraduate enrollment) is just one example of how successful feminists have been in promoting anti-male discrimination.
Few critics of feminism ever pursue the subject to the theoretical level of analysis that Professor Matthaei provides, and thus never question the movement’s basic premise. Does “the sexual division of labor” in marriage really cause the “subordination of women to men as unpaid servants and sexual objects”? If so, doesn’t this suggest, as Professor Mattaei and others have argued, that feminist “equality” can only be achieved if women reject heterosexuality, per se?
Whatever your opinion of Professor Matthei’s analysis, such theories are widely accepted within academic feminism, and the question at issue is how men are likely to react when confronted by the consequences of these theories. Feminism’s success means that the economic basis of heterosexual relationships has been undermined, so that fewer men have sufficient income to support wives and children. The supply-and-demand mechanism of the marriage market has been drastically altered. Without “the sexual division of labor,” there is less basis for cooperative partnerships between men and women. In recent decades, the logic of marriage has been sabotaged by an ideological regime of androgynous “equality” that has the effect of fostering implacable hostility between men and women. Feminism demands destruction of the social order, and this predictably leads to the “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes) as Hobbes called it.
That many men have reacted badly to this should not surprise us. Most men do not understand feminism because most feminists are purposefully dishonest about what feminism really is and what they mean by “equality.” The ridiculous posture of Emma Watson as spokeswoman for the United Nations “He for She” campaign — telling men that feminism will actually help men, too — is typical of the deceptive propaganda about “equality” that the feminist movement employs. Feminists seek to confuse men and deceive them into supporting an anti-male movement, and many young men foolishly accept feminism’s “equality” rhetoric as if it were sincere.
Women are attracted to successful men, and the competitive drive for success is therefore intrinsic to men’s “sex role.” Every attempt to escape this logic is doomed. The “very socially-awkward man who had never had a successful relationship with a woman” will find that pursuing a “transgender” delusion does not solve his problem. Winners win and losers lose and, ultimately, no political agenda can change this.
What are we to make of the spectacle of transgender weirdos with “no genuine concern for women,” whose bizarre fetishes are inspired by “intense and overwhelming narcissism”? Is it not true, in some sense, that these monsters have been created by feminists who “developed a critique . . . of gender roles”? It would be no trouble to cite the passages from Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics (1970), Shulamith Firestone’s The Dialectic of Sex (1970) and Andrea Dworkin’s Woman Hating (1974) which endorse the belief that there are no natural differences between men and women. If these feminist pioneers were correct, then why can’t a man be a woman? Or why shouldn’t feminists be expected to celebrate transgenderism as “a form of resistance to patriarchy”?
The false premises of feminist theory produce these contradictions, and yet feminists refuse to acknowledge or take responsibility for the problems that they themselves have caused. Feminists are dishonest, selfish and cruel. No feminist has ever actually believed in “equality,” a slogan they only invoke to legitimize their limitless hatred for men.
Feminism is irrational, because hate is always irrational.
Exactly how are feminists ranting about the oppressive patriarchy different from anti-Semites ranting about a Zionist conspiracy?
Another promising young performance artist has been slain by social injustice and pistol fire, but mainly it was pistol fire:
Daquan Westbrook, a rapper with an extensive arrest record, has been identified as the man killed in an officer-involved shooting at Northlake Mall in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Christmas Eve.
Mr. Westbrook, 18, was a rapper who performed as “Donkey Cartel” and released a mixtape titled “Convicted Felon With a Weapon,” the cover of which shows him in a prison cell wearing an orange jumpsuit and making hand signs. . . .
Mr. Westbrook had a lengthy history of run-ins with the police, his record including at least 11 arrests since 2013, one of them related to the shooting of a 12-year-old boy.
According to the Charlotte Observer, the most recent arrests were in October and “were related to drugs, larceny and resisting arrest.”
A shoe store manager in the mall told CNN that the gunfight that prompted an off-duty officer to kill the gunman began when a group of people “ganged up” to attack a man.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney said at a Thursday evening news conference that while he could not specifically say the shooting was gang-related, the altercation involved two groups with a history of feuding. . . .
The subjects involved all have a history of gun violence, he said.
Chief Putney said Mr. Westbrook was carrying a gun and pointed it at Officer Thomas Ferguson when the off-duty policeman tried to break up the fight, at which several shots were fired. Several guns were found at the scene, Chief Putney said.
The officer then killed Mr. Westbrook.
A descendant of the Boston Lowells on his mother’s side, a product of Groton, Yale and Skull and Bones, and a Harvard dean in his early 30’s, Mr. Bundy was the very personification of what the journalist David Halberstam, in the title of his 1969 book, labeled “The Best and the Brightest”: the well-born, confident intellectuals who led the nation into the quagmire of Vietnam.
After leaving Government in 1965, Mr. Bundy became president of the Ford Foundation, serving until 1979. He was then a professor of history at New York University for 10 years. In 1990, he joined the Carnegie Corporation of New York. He was chairman of its committee on reducing the danger of nuclear war and was its scholar-in-residence at the time of his death [in 1996].
“He was a man of notable brilliance, integrity and patriotic purpose,” said the historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., who served in the Kennedy White House with Mr. Bundy and counted him among his oldest friends.
McGeorge Bundy was a blundering fool. This cannot be repeated often enough. The “notable brilliance” of these “confident intellectuals” is always dangerous. McGeorge Bundy was a clever exponent of bad ideas, and the fact that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. was willing to praise such a fool tells you that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. was also a fool. Our understanding of history is warped by the tendency of liberals to protect each other’s reputations. Merely by supporting the Democrat Party and advocating liberal policies, any prominent fool can guarantee that he will be praised by the liberals who control academia and mainstream journalism. Only when you are aware of this bias and are always vigilantly on guard against pro-Democrat propaganda, can you read history critically, separating actual facts from liberal spin. But I digress . . .
Women’s Studies professor and feminist author Susan M. Hartmann credits the Ford Foundation with being a substantive force that created the feminist movement. . . . It is safe to say that without the Ford Foundation, feminism would not have been successful in gaining such a strong foothold in academia, and by extension, politics. . . .
The first [Women’s Studies] program was established at San Diego State University for the 1969-70 school year and in 1970 there were approximately 100 women’s studies courses being offered at schools across the country. By 1971, more than 600 courses were being taught and by 1978 there were 301 full-fledged programs in operation. That number more than doubled to 621 programs by 1990.
In 1971, a group of feminists approached Ford president McGeorge Bundy with a request to involve itself in the feminist movement the way it had in the Civil Rights movement, essentially, creating it out of whole cloth. The result of those early discussions was a full-fledged women’s project to fund the small number of existing women’s advocacy organizations, and also to create a whole new field within academia known as “women’s studies.” In 1972, Ford announced the first $1 million national fellowship program for “faculty and doctoral dissertation research on the role of women in society and Women’s Studies broadly construed.” A 1996 article by Heather MacDonald reported that women’s studies programs had received $36 million between 1972-1992 from Ford and other foundations.
During a two-decade period, major foundations poured an average of $1.8 million annually into Women’s Studies programs, and the man who did the most to create this tax-exempt academic feminist boondoggle was none other than “brilliant” McGeorge Bundy.
Vietnam wasn’t the only quagmire he created, and perhaps not the worst. No ordinary fool can out-blunder a Yale-educated fool.
Live At Five is taking Christmas and Boxing Day off, and will return Monday, December 28. The FMJRA will run as usual on Saturday and Rule 5 Sunday will also post in a somewhat timely manner. Merry Christmas!
The habits of America’s “meritocratic” elite are the subject of an American Interest blog post that includes the phrase “educational assortative mating” — i.e., Ivy Leaguers marrying Ivy Leaguers, generation after generation, so that the influential elite form a separate caste, with no familial ties to the rest of the nation, and no direct knowledge of how most Americans live or what most Americans believe.
Professor Glenn Reynolds (himself a Yale Law alumnus) sees this as evidence that our national aristocracy “is becoming increasingly inbred and stupid,” but perhaps a more important point is that our soi-disant “elite” are arrogant, lack the capacity for self-criticism, and refuse to recognize the possibility that intelligence is not synonymous with virtue. The simplest disproof of this Ivy League superstition about “meritocracy” is Ted Kaczynski, Harvard University, Class of 1962, but if that didn’t clinch it, there’s Barack Obama, Columbia University, Class of 1983. Very intelligent people can do very bad things. Even if we stipulate not merely their high IQs, but also their good intentions, it is still quite often the case that smart, well-meaning people turn out to be incompetent fools whose hubristic sense of their own superiority is a chief cause of their folly. Have none of these people read David Halberstam’s The Best and the Brightest? Or are they just too arrogant to understand the fundamental lesson? It wasn’t just the Vietnam War that the liberal elite bungled. They proved themselves at least as inept in domestic policy as they were in foreign affairs, but I digress . . .
Charles Murray deserves an apology. The phrase “assortative mating” is immediately recognizable to anyone who has read The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. In the first 125 pages of that book, Murray and his late co-author Richard Herrnstein described how the advent of universal standardized testing and nationwide recruiting by the Ivy League and other elite schools had created a sort of IQ segregation in American society. Yet this valuable insight was overlooked amid an absurd liberal temper tantrum. Herrnstein and Murray dared to talk about IQ and race and, as a result, they were falsely accused of being crypto-Nazis and advocates of eugenics. To accuse Herrnstein and Murray of racism is analogous, really, to saying that anyone who criticized U.S. policy in Vietnam under the direction of McGeorge Bundy (Yale, ’40) et al., was guilty of being “soft on Communism.” One could hate Communists and also believe that the liberals in charge of U.S. policy were idiots, just as one can despise racism while believing that liberal rhetoric about race and the policies resulting from this rhetoric are profoundly wrong. If voting for Democrats and pursuing liberal policies could solve America’s race problems, then Detroit would be Heaven on Earth, rather than the dangerous and bankrupt municipal catastrophe that it is.
The immaturity and selfishness of Ivy League students like Jerelyn “Who the F–k Hired You?” Luther should serve to remind us that the admissions committee at Yale is demonstrably incompetent to choose our nation’s leaders. The Ivy League is decadent and depraved.
The administration, faculty, students and alumni of Yale and Harvard are destroying America, and it does not matter whether they are doing this accidentally or on purpose. However, if the decades of disastrous policy inflicted on America by the elite were the result of incompetence, we might expect they would occasionally do something good or right, by accident. As it is, everything they do is bad and wrong.
The liberal elite consistently support policies directly opposite to America’s best interests. The excuse that they are well-meaning bunglers is implausible. Only active malice — anti-Americanism — can possibly explain how we have been betrayed so badly by these “leaders” whom elite universities have handpicked and indoctrinated.
The graduates of Harvard and Yale are America’s most dangerous enemies, carefully trained for their assigned roles in accomplishing our nation’s destruction. Americans can never possibly hate the elite as much as the elite hate America. Alger Hiss (Harvard Law, Class of ’29) could not be reached for comment.
