The Other McCain

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

Equality: Women Raping Women

Posted on | September 9, 2015 | 23 Comments

Gayle Newland of Cheshire, England, is on trial for five counts of sexual assault. Prosecutors say that Newland, 25, invented a false persona, “Kye Fortune . . . a half-Filipino, half-Latino young man,” in order to trick a woman into sex. “Kye” claimed to have been disfigured by surgery for cancer and convinced the victim to wear a blindfold during their trysts. During their final encounter, the victim became suspicious and removed the blindfold: “Gayle was just standing there … I just couldn’t believe it, I couldn’t believe it. Straight away she held her hand down over her face and said ‘it’s not what you think’.” The victim testified Tuesday: “People get raped by males and it sounds sick but I think I’d prefer it.”

In another such impersonation case, in April a judge in Scotland gave Christine Wilson probation for seducing two underage girls:

The 26-year-old from Aberdeen, who has “gender identity disorder”, previously admitted two charges of obtaining sexual intimacy by fraud in a legal first in Scotland.
She told her teenage victims her name was Chris and had sexual contact with both of them on various occasions in 2008 and 2010. Her first victim ended the fraudulent relationship after being shown Wilson’s passport photograph.
Lord Bannatyne said the offences were very unusual and added that the fact that her disorder led her to “genuinely feel” that she was male had significantly lowered her “culpability”.
He put her on probation and ordered her to carry out 240 hours of community service. . . .
One of her victims, Megan Adie, who is now 18, said she was devastated by the non-custodial sentence, adding: “She will be able to go back to her own house and lie in her own bed again. I will also be lying in mine, still trying to deal with what she has done to me.
“I really hope the judge has really thought this sentence through because if Christine does this again, I hope he knows it’s on his conscience.”
Wilson had repeated sexual contact with her first victim in 2008, and with Miss Adie, who was a virgin when they met, in 2010. She told her she was a 16-year-old male, and used a sex toy to persuade her of her sex.
The court heard earlier that Miss Adie regarded her as her “first love” and struggled to come to terms with her deceit when police told her the truth in August 2010.

As Professor Reynolds says: Teach women not to rape!

 

Category: Crime

In The Mailbox, 09.08.15

Posted on | September 8, 2015 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox, 09.08.15

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Is This Poster Racist?
Da Tech Guy: Stick A Fork In Hillary, She’s Done
Michelle Malkin: Joe Biden’s Yuck Factor?
Twitchy: Did @Recode Executive Editor Kara Swisher Fall For A Satirical Daily Currant Story On Sarah Palin? You Decide
Conservative Intel: Is Trumpism Supplanting Reaganism?


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: PEGIDA Anti-Refugee March In Munich
American Thinker: How Democrats Created America’s Social Caste System
BLACKFIVE: Exclusive Interview With Hank Steinberg (Creator/Executive Producer Of The Last Ship)
Conservatives4Palin: “Free Kim Davis” – This Is Just What Gay Rights Groups Wanted To Avoid
Don Surber: How To Beat Trump
Jammie Wearing Fools: Granny Clinton’s Goons Force Fans To Sign Loyalty Pledge Before Entering Event
Joe For America: This Is Public Education – “Transgender” Student Splits School
JustOneMinute: And What Is Missing From This List?
Pamela Geller: Bishop – Pope Francis Is Wrong, Muslim Mass Migration To Europe Is An Invasion
Protein Wisdom: Why We Are Losing Liberty
Shot In The Dark: Game Afoot
STUMP: Labor Day Fun – Chicago Tax Wrangling, Throwing Money Into The Pension Money Pit
The Gateway Pundit: WAR ON COPS – Three Iowa Teens Arrested After Throwing Molotovs At Police
The Jawa Report: Howie Blegs
The Lonely Conservative: Disney Worker Displaced By Foreign Replacement Tells His Story
This Ain’t Hell: Bergdahl Charged Under Article 99 Of The UCMJ
Weasel Zippers: Denmark Paying For Newspaper Ads In Arab Countries – Warns Migrants They Won’t Receive Benefits, Must Speak Danish
Megan McArdle: Of Course The Government Wants To Read Your Texts
Mark Steyn: Taking It


Shop Amazon – September Baby Sale

Category: Linkagery

Did Trump Feel Like He Was A Black Woman While Having Military Feelings?

Posted on | September 8, 2015 | 55 Comments

by Smitty

This blog is not clear whether an opportunity for modern emotional politics is being missed or not:

the Republican presidential candidate and multibillionaire business tycoon said in a forthcoming book that he still “always felt that I was in the military” because he attended a military boarding school and “dealt with those people.”

Had Trump also felt even momentarily black, and or female, while harboring military sentiments, the base of his appeal could be expanded considerably beyond those with weird hairstyles and a craving for primal scream politics.
In summary, if you’re gonna feel, feel yuuuuuge.

via Instapundit

Category: Republicans

‘A License to Lie’

Posted on | September 8, 2015 | 16 Comments

Hans Bader says the federal Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) “is gradually turning Title IX into a license to lie about sexual harassment and assault”:

Courts have ruled that dishonest people who bring sexual harassment charges over conduct they falsely claim was unwelcome can be fired, in cases such as Vasconcelos v. Meese (1990). And they have recognized that sexual slander and smears can create a sexually hostile environment in violation of federal law in cases such as Jew v. University of Iowa (1990) and Spain v. Gallegos (1994).
But in a recent investigation finding Michigan State University in violation of Title IX, OCR required college administrators to offer “remedies” to “Student A,” who both OCR and the university found had made a false allegation of unwelcome sexual misconduct against two fellow students. OCR’s reasoning was that the university did not begin proceedings against the accused students fast enough (even though it immediately kicked them out of their dorm and ordered them to stay away from the accuser). . . .
The accused students, whose lives were turned upside down by the charges, were innocent. The university investigator ultimately found their conduct was welcome, and thus not sexual harassment or assault. Moreover, OCR itself noted in pages 30-31 of its investigative report that “OCR’s review of the investigator’s report and his supporting documentation led OCR to conclude that the preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that Student A was subjected to unwelcome sexual conduct that created a sexually hostile environment.”
Yet, OCR suggested the college should “remedy” the imaginary harm caused by its failure not to process her false complaint faster. On pages 40-41 of its report, OCR declares that “under the terms of” its agreement with the university, “the University will … contact Student A” and “offer” her “remedies to address any harm incurred as a result of the University’s delay in processing [her] complaints,” which might involve things like paying for counseling, providing academic assistance, or letting her retake a class she was enrolled in during that period.

Read the whole thing at Liberty Unyielding. Not only are there no penalties for making false accusations, but administrators are being forced to offer “remedies” to false accusers.

 

Category: Education, Sex Trouble

Totes Sure That Trump U. Is Absolutely The Only Scam Associated With Donald

Posted on | September 7, 2015 | 30 Comments

by Smitty

Happy Labor Day. I’ve certainly been busy. But not too busy to get a laugh out of

‘They’re a bunch of frauds’: Former Trump University students say The Donald shouldn’t be president, school was a scam

Really, people:

In a lawsuit pending in Manhattan Supreme Court, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman says 600 ex-Trump U. students in the state were defrauded. Trump Organization counsel Alan Garten defended the school as “a substantive, real program” that “offered people valuable training, valuable courses and valuable mentorships.”
He provided sworn affidavits of eight students praising the school, with some saying they’d initiated successful real estate deals as a result of their training.
So far, Judge Cynthia Kerr has found Trump violated state education laws by calling his entity a “university” when it wasn’t licensed as one. She will decide on possible restitution after a yet-to-be scheduled hearing.
Meantime, two more class-action lawsuits are pending in California.

Just because a few grumpy students were unhappy about the action they were getting in class (SWIDT?) is no reason to get all weak-kneed about President The Donaldness. This minor confusion can be papered over with sufficient frogskins. Chill. What’s absolutely certain is that, for all his years living the life of Hugh Hefner in a bespoke suit, he remains Dominican* in personal matters.

One can be absolutely certain that the main difference between El Donaldo and Mitt Romney is that Trump’s French vocabulary stops at wine. No embarrassing Free Money infomercials. No Gloria Allred showing up with a phalanx of Kardashian-esque bimbettes claiming all kinds of improbable sexual gymnastics.

Nope. None of that. Once he weathers Trump U, it’s all downhill from there. Does everyone believe that?

*Referring to his humidor, not the Dominican Order.

via HotAir headlines

Category: Politics

‘Feminist Motherhood Has Failed’

Posted on | September 7, 2015 | 64 Comments

Only a feminist could describe pregnancy as “a woman growing the parasitic entity of a fetus in her,” and there is no limit to a radical lesbian feminist blogger’s absolute hatred of motherhood:

Motherhood is at the heart of patriarchy. Patriarchy, the rule of the fathers, is impossible without mothers who make them fathers in the first place.
Mothers have sex with men or at the very least obtain sperm from men to become pregnant.
Mothers give birth to the next generation of men.
Mothers choose men and boys over women and girls.
Mothers raise the next generation of men, pouring endless energy and devotion into the task.
Mothers raise their daughters to become mothers as well and teach them to pick men over other women.
Mothers, on the other hand, have failed gloriously to raise “new men”: Patriarchy is alive and kicking, and men contribute to it and benefit from it as ever.
Mothers do exactly what patriarchy wants them to do.

You can read the whole thing. She attempts to organize her thoughts in outline form, but it is a rather disjointed argument. What I found most interesting was this series of assertions:

5. Motherhood Undermines Female Solidarity
5. 1. Mothers Choose Their Sons Over Women
5. 2. Mothers Choose Their Men Over Women
5. 3. Lesbian Families Promote Hetero Families
6. “Feminist Motherhood” Has Failed
6. 1. Feminists Failed To Raise “Better Sons”
6. 2. Lesbians Fail To Raise “Better Sons”

She writes, “At this point in history, there are two, maybe three generations who were raised by mothers with a certain feminist consciousness. A good portion of these mothers would even be actively feminist in one way or the other.” And yet, you see, young women in the 21st-century insist they are still oppressed by patriarchy.

Why should this be so? Three alternative hypotheses:

  1. The “oppressive patriarchy” is a myth — Human nature is what it is, and what feminists denounce as “male supremacy” is simply the natural form of society created by biological imperatives, rather than a male conspiracy that systematically seeks to subjugate women for political purposes. Thus, “feminist motherhood” fails because human behavior tends to deviate toward the norm, so that most males will be masculine and most females will be feminine, no matter how consciously “gender-neutral” they may be raised.
  2. Differential fertility matters — It may be true that, more than 40 years after the eruption of the Women’s Liberation movement, young people in the 21st century are the third generation “raised by mothers with a certain feminist consciousness.” However, feminist rhetoric and ideology have been so consistently hostile to marriage and motherhood that there is likely an inverse correlation between women’s “feminist consciousness” and the number of children they have. The more a woman embraces feminism, the less likely she is to marry or have children, while the women most likely to have large families are religious conservatives who reject feminist ideology altogether. This factor operates on a global scale. Even if a majority of women in industrial societies embrace “feminist consciousness” — thus inexorably reducing birth rates — in the next generation, their societies will experience an influx of immigrants from societies with higher birth rates (and less “feminist consciousness”). We see how this operates, for example, in phenomena like the “Rotherham Horror,” where girls from the English underclass were victimized by the sons of Muslim immigrants. Because feminism is largely a middle-class ideology, it had no meaningful influence on poor white girls raised in England’s public-housing projects, nor on young men raised with the sexist attitudes of their Pakistani parents. What can feminists say about the outcome — hundreds of English girls raped and prostituted by gangs of predatory immigrant men — except perhaps, “Oops“?
  3. Feminists aren’t as smart as they think they are — Their claim that “gender is a social construct,” which is used to justify constant activism to fight against “sexism” in society, is a hypothesis that has been accepted on the basis of largely theoretical arguments. The radical lesbian feminist blogger makes note (6. 1. Feminists Failed To Raise “Better Sons”) of a case that I have myself noted: Tobi Hill-Meyer, the son of lesbian feminists who grew up to be a transgender pornographer. And there are even children of lesbian couples who have grown up to be conservative Christian opponents of same-sex marriage. Feminists have arrogantly assumed that their ideology endows them with superior wisdom, and that traditionalists are all just ignorant bigots. Well, these claims are subject to empirical proof, which can only be gathered over the course of decades, as we compare socioeconomic outcomes between generations of children raised with different values.

My belief is that what can be called “neo-traditionalism” — basically old-fashioned ideas about family life, yet providing sufficient flexibility to permit parents and children to adapt successfully to a changing society — will prove to be the superior strategy for child-rearing in the 21s century. This is what feminists, with their rigid concepts of men and women as collective groups in hostile opposition, completely fail to understand.

Parents are profoundly concerned with the well-being of their own children, which is not the same as a concern for “children” as an abstract group. In the same way, most mothers are not concerned with whether feminism succeeds in bringing about “equality” in some general way; rather, most mothers are concerned with how feminism will affect the lives of their own sons and daughters. However much any woman may embrace or reject feminist ideology, as a mother she will naturally place the interests of her own children above every other concern. She wants her children to be successful and happy and, we may presume, she hopes some day that her children will have their own children, because being a grandmother is the best thing in the whole world.

OK, maybe you don’t think being a grandmother is the best thing in the whole world, but in that case you’re wrong. Just ask my wife, because my wife is never wrong about anything. Our second grandson, Alexander, was born yesterday evening, weighing 7 pounds, 13 ounces. Baby and mother are both fine and healthy. Our first grandson James stayed with us overnight, and today we’ll all be going to the hospital to greet the latest addition to the (oppressive heteropatriarchal) McCain family.

You should hit the tip jar. Not only will it make my wife happy — and making her happy is Job Number One — but every time you hit the tip jar, you make a feminist sad, because “Motherhood is at the heart of patriarchy,” and “Patriarchy is alive and kicking.”




 

Category: Sex Trouble

Rule 5 Sunday: Summertime Girls

Posted on | September 6, 2015 | 4 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Labor Day weekend is the traditional end of summer in most parts of the country, but here in Las Vegas it’s a little hotter a little longer, and quite a few of the casino resorts on the Strip have pools that double as nightclubs. Needless to say, the party keeps rocking right through September, with internationally renowned DJs playing the clubs for the pleasure of young ladies such as the ones we have here.

2010 Miss USA contestants relaxing poolside at Caesar’s Palace.

Randy’s Roundtable returns to lead off with Lara Alvarez, followed by Goodstuff with Cynthia Addai-Robertson and Ninety Miles from Tyranny with Morning Mistress, Hot Pick, and Girls with Guns. Animal Magnetism has Rule 5 Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon, and First Street Journal pays tribute to the modern warrior maidens of Sweden.

EBL’s herd this week includes Chick Magnet Lindsey Graham, The Donald, Men are from Mars & Women are from Venus Because SCIENCE!, Lorena Wood, and an old fashioned walk with the Chairman of the Board and Doris Day.

A View from the Beach has The Girl of Summer 2015 – Hannah Davis, NY Democrats Make War on Tattoos, “Freight Train”, Did Neandertal Go to the Dogs? (cave girls), Cooties from Selfies?, Rock Star Indulges in Victim Blaming, and RIP Wrangler Jane.

At Soylent Siberia, it’s a coffee creamer in your spot, a Monday Motivationer with coordinated carpet, Tuesday Titillation Classical Bust, Humpday Hawt Rack ‘Em Up, Corset Friday with Lesbians, Napping in Terror QOTW, Weekender Poolside, and Bath Night Endless Possibilities.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Beth Phoenix, his Vintage Babe is Francis Dee, Sex in Advertising is by Express Jeans, and of course there’s the obligatory (pre-season) 49ers cheerleader. At Dustbury, it’s a blast from the past with Debbie Gibson, and Rebecca Black.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for next weekend’s Rule 5 roundup is midnight on Saturday, September 12.

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

Guardian Columnist Julie Bindel Says Put All Males ‘In Some Kind of Camp’

Posted on | September 6, 2015 | 125 Comments

 

England’s most influential radical feminist was asked whether she believes “heterosexuality will survive women’s liberation”:

It won’t, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back.
I hope heterosexuality doesn’t survive, actually. I would like to see a truce on heterosexuality. I would like an amnesty on heterosexuality until we have sorted ourselves out. Because under patriarchy it’s sh–.
And I am sick of hearing from individual women that their men are all right. Those men have been shored up by the advantages of patriarchy and they are complacent, they are not stopping other men from being sh–.
I would love to see a women’s liberation that results in women turning away from men and saying: “when you come back as human beings, then we might look again.”

Bindel’s suggestion of rounding up males “in some kind of camp” drew harsh attention from men’s rights activists (MRAs) at mgtow.com, the blog “HEqual” and at Reddit. What was most interesting, however, was the way in which other prominent feminists silently ignored this comment by Bindel, a militant lesbian who is a columnist for the British Guardian newspaper. What conclusion should we draw from the silence of “mainstream” feminists toward those who publicly express their movement’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology?

Are we to suppose that Bindel’s fellow Guardian columnist Jessica Valenti actually disagrees with Bindel? Valenti is heterosexual and married to a man. Does she not bristle at the implied insult of Bindel’s assertion that, like other men, Valenti’s husband is complacently benefiting from “the advantages of patriarchy”? Or what about a young feminist like Laurie Penny, whom Bindel insults by name?

On the one hand you have got utter idiots like Laurie Penny who are simply coming out with the stuff that she does because she knows that the groups she is supporting, that are pro-trans, pro-sex work, and pro- other anti-women nonsense, are run by very high profile, powerful libertarian men. We know that she is doing it for a career move.

Considering that Laurie Penny is a fangirl of Bolshevik commissar Alexandra Kollontai, this accusation of being a mercenary puppet of “powerful libertarian men” is certainly shocking, and yet where is Laurie Penny’s rebuttal? Where is any feminist speaking out against Bindel’s forthright advocacy of “political lesbianism”?

Political lesbians are really crucial, because we were the ones that first said that women should be able to determine their own sexuality. We were the ones that said that all women can be lesbians and that heterosexuality is compulsory under a system of male supremacy. We were the ones that said that until women had a free choice, that we had to speak about heterosexuality as imposed upon us, rather [than] freely chosen. . ..
So I think political lesbianism has a crucial role, because it tells women that sexuality is political under a system of male supremacy. . . .
So radical feminism saw heterosexuality under patriarchy as massively problematic, because it benefited men and it disadvantaged women.

To this we might answer simply, “Cui bono“? Who benefits from heterosexuality? Is it true, as Julie Bindel asserts, that heterosexuality is “imposed” on women, to their disadvantage, by males who thereby derive an unjust benefit? She is certainly not alone in asserting this, as anyone who has read my book Sex Trouble understands. Yet decades of silence by “mainstream” feminists about their movement’s fundamental anti-male ideology has served to shield feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — from critical scrutiny. Whenever feminism begins one of its periodic resurgences, as in the early 1990s when a media publicity campaign gave rise to the movement’s so-called “Third Wave,” lesbianism always emerges as crucial to the agenda. The feminist movement at large denies that there is any evidence of causation in this correlation, and internal disputes about sexuality within the movement are generally ignored by the liberal media, which prefers to present feminism as a united and wholly respectable cause, dismissing the movement’s critics as irrational bigots.

 

Few outside the movement’s intelligentsia realize that the celebration of so-called “Lesbian Chic” circa 1993 was anathema to many radical feminists, who reject the “born that way” claims of the gay-rights movement, preferring instead to see lesbianism as “a challenge to the institution of heterosexuality and a form of resistance to patriarchal relations,” as Professor Diane Richardson argued in her 2000 book, Rethinking Sexuality. Probably any college sophomore who has taken even an introductory Women’s Studies class is familiar with this radical critique — a rejection of heterosexuality, per se — which has been endorsed by some of the most prominent feminist in academia, notably including Professor Charlotte Bunch of Rutgers University.

“Lesbianism is a threat to the ideological, political, personal, and economic basis of male supremacy. . . .
“Our rejection of heterosexual sex challenges male domination in its most individual and common form. . . .
“Lesbianism is the key to liberation and only women who cut their ties to male privilege can be trusted to remain serious in the struggle against male dominance.”
— Charlotte Bunch, “Lesbians in Revolt,” 1971

“I think heterosexuality cannot come naturally to many women: I think that widespread heterosexuality among women is a highly artificial product of the patriarchy. . . . I think that most women have to be coerced into heterosexuality.”
— Marilyn Frye, “A Lesbian’s Perspective on Women’s Studies,” speech to the National Women’s Studies Association conference, 1980

“But the hatred of women is a source of sexual pleasure for men in its own right. Intercourse appears to be the expression of that contempt in pure form, in the form of a sexed hierarchy; it requires no passion or heart because it is power without invention articulating the arrogance of those who do the fucking. Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men’s contempt for women . . .”
— Andrea Dworkin, Intercourse, 1987

“Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism: that which is most one’s own, yet most taken away. . . .
“As the organized expropriation of the work of some for the benefit of others defines a class, workers, the organized expropriation of the sexuality of some for the use of others defines the sex, woman. Heterosexuality is its social structure . . . and control its issue.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989)

“Male sexual violence against women and ‘normal’ heterosexual intercourse are essential to patriarchy because they establish the dominance of the penis over the vagina, and thus the power relations between the sexes. . . . Men’s sexual violence against women is the primary vehicle through which the dominance of the penis over the vagina is established.”
— Dee Graham, Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives (1994)

“Patriarchy . . . always depends on the ability of men to control women through heterosexuality. . . . Were large numbers of women to take responsibility for our own sexuality and in so doing reject heterosexuality, the very concepts of woman and man would be shattered.”
— Joyce Trebilcot, Dyke Ideas: Process, Politics, Daily Life (1994)

“There are politics in sexual relationships because they occur in the context of a society that assigns power based on gender and other systems of inequality and privilege. . . . [T]he interconnections of systems are reflected in the concept of heteropatriarchy, the dominance associated with a gender binary system that presumes heterosexuality as a social norm. . . .
“As many feminists have pointed out, heterosexuality is organized in such a way that the power men have in society gets carried into relationships and can encourage women’s subservience, sexually and emotionally.”
— Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)

Despite this ideology’s long history, most people are shocked when someone like Julie Bindel is caught saying in public what is actually taught to many thousands of university students every year within the academic Feminist-Industrial Complex. This shocked reaction is the result of a gap between feminism’s exoteric discourse (what feminists say when seeking support from the general public) and feminism’s esoteric doctrine (the beliefs shared among intellectuals and activists who lead and control the movement), as I have previously explained:

Like other movements of the radical Left, feminism preaches one thing to outsiders while teaching something else to insiders, and this deception is both deliberate and necessary. Feminists must conceal the truth about their agenda, because if taxpayers knew the ideology that is being propagated in our universities, this would cause such a political uproar that legislators would zero out the budgets of Women’s Studies programs and eliminate funding for much of the “research” done by academic feminists.”

For this reason, so-called “mainstream” feminists must maintain a discreet silence regarding Julie Bindel’s blunt expression of feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology. They must never reveal to the general public how much radical indoctrination and propaganda is being conducted at taxpayer expense. Bindel’s academic affiliations (she is currently visiting researcher at England’s Lincoln University) expose the extent to which radical feminism is subsidized by the “society” that feminists vow to destroy. Students are being taught this fanatical hatred of men in programs funded by male taxpayers with the approval of male officials, all of whom Bindel says should “have their power taken from them” so they can be rounded up “in some kind of camp.”

* * * * *

While radical feminism is subsidized by academia, my own research is funded entirely by readers who remember the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!




 

Whatever you can give — $5, $10, $20 — will be deeply appreciated.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! Good news:

  1. Our daughter-in-law just gave birth to our second grandson;
    and
  2. “Feminist Motherhood Has Failed.”

Basically, motherhood is not acceptable to feminism, ever.

 

Category: Sex Trouble
« go back — keep looking »