The Other McCain

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

War Against Human Nature: Radical Feminism’s Anti-Maternal Rage

Posted on | August 23, 2015 | 61 Comments

(This afternoon, my wife and I will be attending a baby shower for my daughter-in-law, who is eight months pregnant with our second grandson. Because this places constraints on my time, the following discussion will consist of observations and assertions that are not fully supported by quotes or citations. It may therefore seem to some readers that this discussion is just me being an opinionated know-it-all engaged in “mansplaining.” Or it may seem that I am over-generalizing from anecdotal examples, as if I am offering a universal single-factor explanation of feminism, which could be thus refuted by citing counter-examples that point to other factors. However, this is not my intention. I have never contended that feminism is a one-size-fits-all phenomenon, and that is not what I’m trying to argue here. Instead, I am pointing to a certain distinct phenomenon, that has attracted too little attention in the study of feminism. Anyway, there won’t be a lot of links and quotes here, and I wanted to explain that this is simply because I’m in a hurry to get to that baby shower. Thanks. — RSM)

Guys often react to the rants of angry young feminists with a two-word explanation: “Daddy issues.” Having spent more than a year researching radical feminism, however, I always point out that many feminists have even worse “Mommy issues.”

You discern this, for example, in Andrea Dworkin’s account of her own youth. She didn’t much seem to mind her father, who worked very hard to support their family, but expressed contempt for her mother. It is easy to find similar expressions of anti-maternal resentments in the autobiographical writings of other feminists. Either the mother is presented as a pathetic figure — weak, ineffective, dominated or brutalized by the father — or else the mother is domineering and manipulative, trying to force her rebellious daughter to comply with a socially approved gender role that the young feminist rejects. From the daughter’s perspective, the mother’s life is unworthy. She rejects her mother as role model, and this refusal to emulate her mother becomes the emotional fuel of the daughter’s feminist politics.

How else can we explain Amanda Marcotte’s rage against babies as “loud and smell and . . . . demanding . . . time-sucking monsters”? If children are such a burden that she cannot be expected to tolerate them, what does this say of her mother? Was it stupid of Mrs. Marcotte to put up with loud, smelly, demanding Baby Amanda? Such a vehement rejection of motherhood — a profound and implacable hatred of children — strikes most people as so strange that we presume it must have very deep psychological origins. We need not disparage childless women, per se, in order to perceive something weird about the woman who angrily denounces the entire idea of motherhood as repugnant. Yet feminists quite routinely express this in extreme terms:

when people shame women who don’t want children it makes me so f–king mad
I have been told since I was a child, A CHILD, that I was going to be a mother because it is just expected of me because I am a female. And I’ve never in my life wanted children. I got so tired of hearing “your mind will change when you’re older and more mature and woman-like ” as if it’s a right of passage to womanhood to have a child and you are otherwise not a woman. Young girls are taught more of woman=mother than boys are ever taught that man=father. Even in play girls are taught to play with baby dolls and play house and to play nice and gentle and be nurturing while boys roughhouse and learn sports. They are raising young girls with the idea that children are always a part of the female experience.
Being someone who does not want children myself I have been called a child hater and told that I am less caring and loving than other women, almost as if I am heartless for not wanting to reproduce. It’s absolutely ridiculous. I was 14 when my mom started pressuring me to start thinking about kids in my future. Only 14! And that very next year I found out I was infertile and had no chance of reproduction anyways. I was supposed to be distraught and sad but I was honestly RELIEVED to finally have a way out of the social pressure put on me because it was that bad. . . .

That anti-motherhood rant got hundreds of notes on Feminist Tumblr, including this one:

Personally. I’ve never wanted children. I don’t want children. My parents are disgusted that I am in a relationship with a Man who can’t have children due to a vasectomy. . . .
I found out about a year ago that my body doesent work normally in a reproductive sense. And should I wish to have kids I will have to undergo expensive IVF hormone treatments to “Force” my body to ovulate.
Yet I still maintain. I don’t want kids.
I’m not the least bit maternal. I have no broody feelings towards babies.

Grant that there are mothers who are also feminists. Yet the more closely you pay attention to the feminist movement, the more you notice how this anti-maternal sentiment provides so much of the energy of activists. The fanatical devotion to abortion — or, I’m sorry, choice — is merely the tip of this psychological iceberg of rage. It is as if these women are in rebellion against the simple realities of reproductive biology, a rejection of their own womanhood that could actually reflect hormonal abnormality. Notice that both of the women quoted above declared a lack of emotional capacity for motherhood even before they discovered their lack of a biological capacity for motherhood.

Well, I could make a lot of other observations about this phenomenon, but that’s probably enough to stir the pot for now, and I don’t have time to write a lot more now. Gotta get ready for that baby shower.

UPDATE: Back from the baby shower. It’s really kind of weird to go from confronting feminism — constant anger and craziness — to just hanging around with normal young people. (OK, more or less normal young people, considering that we’re talking about my son and his friends.) There were seven women in their early 20s at this party, none of whom mentioned being oppressed by the patriarchy. Maybe they are oppressed and just don’t realize it? “False consciousness”?

 

Category: Sex Trouble

Radical Feminism and the ‘Equality’ Trap

Posted on | August 22, 2015 | 72 Comments

 

Radical lesbian activist @EllenPage decided that @TedCruz needed a lecture from her about equality and discrimination:

DES MOINES — Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and actress Ellen Page, of “Juno” fame, got into a testy and free-wheeling discussion Friday over gay rights here at the Iowa State Fair.
“I’m happy to answer your question but not to have a back-and-forth debate,” Cruz told Page, as she pressed him about discrimination against LGBT citizens, approaching him as he flipped pork chops over an open grill. . . .
“Imagine, hypothetically, you had a gay florist and imagine two evangelical Christians wanted to get married and the gay florist decided, ‘You know what, I disagree with your faith, I don’t want to provide flowers,’” Cruz said.
“I would say they should provide the flowers,” said Page, who earlier charged Cruz’s argument was the same used to justify segregation.
“And I would say the gay florist has every right to say, if I disagree with your faith and don’t want to participate…you know what? There are lots of other people to buy flowers from,” Cruz said. “…We are a country that respects pluralism and diversity and there is this liberal intolerance that says that anyone that dares follow a Biblical teaching of marriage, that is the union of one man and one woman must be persecuted, must be fined and must be driven out of business.” . . .
The senator went on to say that the much bigger challenge for gay people comes from the Middle East, where they are deeply persecuted by the Iranian government as well as the leadership of ISIS.
“On the left you hear complete silence” — “That’s not true!” Page interjected — “about Iran hanging homosexuals, and yet the Obama administration is sending over $100 billion to a regime that murders homosexuals,” Cruz continued. . . . .
“Why does the Obama administration not stand against this?” Cruz said.
“I don’t know, I’d love to talk to Obama about it,” Page replied
“Then we’re agreed!” Cruz shot back,
“No, no we’re not, don’t do that,” the actress said.
“We’re agreed! Ma’am, we’ve had a long discussion,” Cruz said.
“Yeah, I appreciate it, yeah,” she said sarcastically, and walked away.

Unsurprisingly, the liberal media tried to spin this attempted ambush as a courageous triumph for the celebrity lesbian, but Ian Tuttle at National Review isn’t buying the spin:

Alternative headline: “Actress from That One Movie about Roller Derby Confronts Princeton Debate Champ — Goes about as You Might Expect.”

Beyond highlighting Cruz’s expert-level debate skills, the exchange exposed Page’s “rejection of conscience protections altogether, and her endorsement of radical government intervention in all such matters,” as Tuttle says. Her arguments are based in the Equality Über Alles mentality that characterizes not only the militant gay movement, but also the radical feminist movement and the Left in general. Grant them what they demand today, and the radicals will return tomorrow with new demands, because “equality” can never be achieved, not even under the absolute tyranny of a totalitarian dictatorship. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek explained that “social justice” is a mirage — it seems to appear up ahead in the distance, but vanishes as soon as you approach it. There will always be someone claiming to be a victim of unfairness, so that to make “equality” (or “social justice” or, more vaguely, “progress”) your goal is to declare war on society itself, to inaugurate what Trotsky called “permanent revolution.”

No such thing as “equality” has ever existed in the history of human civilization, nor will any measure endorsed by the Left bring about “equality” in the future. The insistent demand for “equality” is nothing more than a pretext for political aggression that the Left uses to gain power by pandering to those who hope to gain some advantage from the enactment of radical egalitarian policies.

Despite her celebrity status, Ellen Page ultimately cannot escape the inevitable consequences of inequality, not even in gay-friendly Hollywood. Her high-profile “coming out” in 2014 has damaged her career prospects as an actress because, despite what anyone may imagine, the market demand for gay celebrities is much smaller than the available supply. Denounce the movie-going public as a bunch of bigoted haters, if you like, but the heterosexual majority (97.7% of Americans, according to federal research) expect their entertainment to be entertaining, and tiresome propaganda about The People’s Glorious Democratic Struggle for Gender Equality is not entertaining.

In reporting Ellen Page’s Iowa encounter with Ted Cruz, Politico noted, “Page attended as part of her new show with Vice, called ‘Gaycation,’ where she travels around the world and explores local attitudes about LGBT culture in each place.” What the heck? In August 2014, A&E Networks paid $250 million for a 20% share in Vice Media, rebranding A&E’s lame H2 channel as Vice TV, with Page’s gay travel show as one of the Genius Programming Ideas to justify this investment. Is this just more Hollywood politically correctness run amok? Not necessarily.

In a nation of more than 320 million people, of whom 240 million are 18 and older, if 2.3% of the adult population are LGBT, that’s a potential audience of nearly 6 million gay people in the U.S. alone. If you consider also Canada, Great Britain, Australia and other English-speaking countries in a worldwide digital media marketplace — where everything is online, just a click and a download away — you could easily envision a much larger LGBT audience, not to mention the even larger audience speaking other languages, watching with closed-caption translations.

The Global Gay-o-Sphere, as we might think of it, could be a valuable niche, and there are plenty of perverts in show business who would love nothing more than to get rich celebrating their own favorite fetishes. However, the mass market will always be heterosexual, and there is a limit to how much Happy Hollywood Homo programming the market will bear. Whether or not the LGBT Lobby has already “jumped the shark” Fonzie-style remains to be seen, but at some point people will get tired of seeing Gay! Gay! Gay! everywhere, and a backlash will become evident.

And what’s up with that Donald Trump thing, anyway?

Ellen Page’s militant protest act — “Hey, let’s attack this ignorant Republican bigot in Iowa!” — may please whatever number gay people watch her Vice TV show, but what about the many millions of Americans she implicitly insults? Make no mistake: Ellen Page hates Christians and despises heterosexuality, per se, with the same kind of vindictive sour-grapes resentment of normal people that inspired radical feminists like Charlotte Bunch, Adrienne Rich, Marilyn Frye and Sheila Jeffreys.

“The radical feminist argument is that men have forced women into heterosexuality in order to exploit them, and that lesbians, in rejecting male definitions of sexuality, are undermining the patriarchy. . . .
“Lesbianism is . . . fundamentally a challenge to patriarchal definitions of women.”
— Celia Kitzinger, The Social Construction of Lesbianism(1987)

“Feminist theorists . . . would probably all agree that the pressuring of women into heterosexuality serves the purposes of male supremacy. . . .
“Both heterosexuality as a political system and sexual violence as social control depend upon the construction of heterosexual desire. . . . A feminist analysis would suggest that the reconstruction of sexuality is necessary to undermine the sexual system of male supremacy.”
— Sheila Jeffreys, The Lesbian Heresy: A Feminist Perspective on the Lesbian Sexual Revolution (1993)

“Lesbianism was seen as central to feminism, both as a challenge to male supremacy . . . and as a redefining of the category of women, for women, and by women and outside the male hegemony. . . .
“The feminist point is that sex is central to women’s oppression. . . . Lesbianism within the feminist context was meant as a challenge to the exclusiveness and ‘naturalness’ of heterosexual desire as the only form of intimacy women are allowed.”
— Denise Thompson, Radical Feminism Today (2001)

“In the early 1970s both gay and feminist movements concurred in critiques of patriarchal, heterosexual institutions, such as the family, and there was a sense of common cause. . . . [A]ddressing the patriarchal structures that shaped family life, revealing women’s discontents with heterosexual relationships . . . feminists laid the foundation for a thoroughgoing critique of heterosexuality . . .”
— Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott, Theorizing Sexuality (2010)

Feminists have been trying to destroy the traditional family and eradicate Christian morality for more than 40 years. It is certainly no coincidence that in July 2013, more than six months before she announced her lesbianism, Ellen Page declared her allegiance to radical feminism in an interview with the Guardian:

“I don’t know why people are so reluctant to say they’re feminists. Maybe some women just don’t care. But how could it be any more obvious that we still live in a patriarchal world when feminism is a bad word? . . . Feminism always gets associated with being a radical movement — good. It should be. A lot of what the radical feminists [in the 1970s] were saying, I don’t disagree with it.”

Not content with her career as a Celebrity Lesbian, the radical feminist Ellen Page uses her influence to attack traditional morality and to ridicule Republicans like Ted Cruz for daring to argue that Christians have a right to live according to their religious beliefs.

Maybe the executives at A&E can justify their $250 million investment in this kind of hateful “entertainment” for the LGBT market, but nobody should be surprised if the dividends on that dubious investment in radicalism include an angry backlash from normal people who don’t enjoy being lectured about their alleged “homophobia.”

“The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”
— U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker,
Aug. 5, 2010, San Francisco v. Schwarzenegger

“Believe me, sir, those who attempt to level never equalise. In all societies, consisting of various descriptions of citizens, some description must be uppermost. The levellers therefore only change and pervert the natural order of things; they load the edifice of society, by setting up in the air what the solidity of the structure requires to be on the ground.”
— Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France

Do we want “equality” or do we want liberty? This is really the question, and Americans should not be compelled to apologize for our love of liberty. From the Reign of Terror in France to the “Killing Fields” of Cambodia, we have repeatedly seen atrocities radicals have justified in the name of “equality,” and the feminist movement has been forever stained with innocent blood by its advocacy of the abortion holocaust. Why is it that extraordinarily privileged people like Ellen Page believe the rest of us are ignorant bigots in need of their lectures? Do they suppose that we know nothing of history? Do they believe we are incapable of rational judgment? Do they imagine that we cannot justify our opposition to their radical agenda?

Or do they think that we simply lack courage to fight for truth?





 

Category: Celebrities, Gays, Sex Trouble, Ted Cruz

FMJRA 2.0: God Bless Saturday

Posted on | August 22, 2015 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule 5 Sunday: Rebel Girls
Animal Magnetism
Regular Right Guy
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News
Ninety Miles from Tyranny
A View from the Beach

Miraculous You
Regular Right Guy
A View from the Beach

FMJRA 2.0: Automotive High School
BlurBrain
The Pirate’s Cove
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

Feminism’s Radical Transvaluation
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 08.18.15
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

‘Feminist Men’ = Progressive Misogynists
Regular Right Guy
Lucas Temple
Dark Brightness
Batshit Crazy News

Feminist Tumblr: Mentally Ill Lesbian Hates ‘Totally Useless’ Fathers
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

‘Nice Guys,’ Failure, Self-Pity and Cruelty
Lucas Temple
Batshit Crazy News
A View from the Beach

‘No More Fun of Any Kind!’
Constantinople Not Istanbul
Batshit Crazy News
A View from the Beach

In The Mailbox, 08.20.15
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

Our Moral Superiors™
Thinking Man’s Zombie
Batshit Crazy News

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge
Batshit Crazy News

Top linkers this week:

  1.  Batshit Crazy News (12)
  2.  Regular Right Guy (6)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery!

Born Free

Category: FMJRA Award

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge

Posted on | August 21, 2015 | 4 Comments

by Smitty

The place was a time machine. The old man sat near where he’d sat as a boy with his grandfather, near where gramps had perched high in a tree as a boy watching the carnage in that Northern Virginia field.
He was an historian. His knowledge enhanced gramp’s tale, viewing carnage of blue- and grey-clad youths hardly his elder wandering through the chaos, killing.
He’d instructed his grandson in the history. A high price had been paid to end chattel slavery, yet that old evil sought to return, rendering the sacrifices of this place moot. That simply must not be.

via Darleen

Category: Friday Fiction

Our Moral Superiors™

Posted on | August 21, 2015 | 113 Comments

 

Bailey Poland (@the_author_) reacted rather predictably to my noticing her typical feminist expressions of sadistic cruelty. You see, if you read what a feminist writes, and then express criticism of what she has written, you are “inciting harassment,” because no one can ever be permitted to disagree with a feminist. Once you understand the rules of feminist discourse, you expect these reactions. Feminists are certain that they are morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us, which is why we are in need of their lectures. You need Bailey Poland to tell you what to think, and if you don’t enjoy being tutored in this manner — if you are a literate adult weary of these jargon-filled gender-theory sermons from 24-year-olds — your objection to her ideological harangues will be interpreted by Bailey Poland as proof that you are an ignorant bigot.

When a feminist deigns to acknowledge the existence of others, it is only so that she may talk down to them.

No feminist ever apologizes for insulting the intelligence of her readers by this high-handed pose of superiority. Bailey Poland knows everything about “toxic masculinity” and “benevolent sexism,” whereas you are obviously a cretinous dimwit who can’t even spell “misogyny.” The young feminist is omniscient, possessed of infinite knowledge, so that we are expected to be grateful that Bailey Poland has condescended to share with us mortals her cosmic and eternal wisdom.

Atop the stack of books on my desk are the following titles: Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation by Mary Daly (1973), Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence and Women’s Lives by Dee L.R. Graham (1994), The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism, edited by Dorchen Leidholdt and Janice G. Raymond (1990), and Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on Campus by Peggy Reeves Sanday (Second Edition, 2007). These titles are among the more than 70 feminist books I’ve read during the past year-and-a-half of research, and certainly there is nothing a 24-year-old can tell me about this subject. The only reason I noticed Ms. Poland at all is because a commenter on an earlier post had mentioned how obnoxiously self-righteous she is. Indeed, Bailey Poland responds to criticism by complaining of “the torrent of misogyny,” which she attributes to the unwillingness of males “to seriously engage with a woman’s opinions.” Her critics are “deliberately misreading content taken out of context,” and I myself am afflicted with a “complete lack of reading comprehension.” You see that feminism must always be a lecture, and can never be anything like a civil conversation, because SHUT UP!

Disagreement is hate, according to Feminist Logic™ and nothing any man says in his own defense is ever valid, because SHUT UP!

Ask yourself, why does any woman become a feminist? Because she is a narcissist who views males as being so vastly inferior to herself that she finds routine social interaction with normal men offensive. This is what Bailey Poland’s “nice guy” column was really about: “How dare these repulsive heterosexual men act friendly toward me in hope of becoming more than friends?”

We may acknowledge that the “nice guy” — what pickup artists would call a “Gamma male” — is an annoying type, without resorting to feminist theory about the nice guy’s “misogyny.” Bailey Poland’s use of this term implies that male heterosexuality is inspired by hatred for women, a rather startling claim. Whenever we encounter the words “misogyny” or “misogynist” in feminist discourse, we must remember what these words actually mean. To call a man a “misogynist” is to accuse him of hating women, which is a different thing than merely saying he is a “sexist,” i.e., someone who believes men and women are different. Most people, including most women, are “sexist” in this sense of the word. They recognize that the differences between men and women are both real and socially significant, and therefore do not see evidence of patriarchal oppression everywhere they look.

“Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization . . . to come to see oneself as a victim.”
— Sandra Lee Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression (1990)

Feminist discourse about male heterosexual behavior is intended to humiliate men, to make men feel ashamed of being normal.

Any man who enjoys the sight of a good-looking woman is guilty of objectifying her with the male gaze. You will never see Bailey Poland criticize gay men for their sexual attraction to men, nor would any heterosexual feminist dare to criticize as “problematic” the sexual feelings and behavior of lesbians. No, gay men and lesbians are exempt from Bailey Poland’s criticism, because their behavior does not inspire in her the distinctive contempt that all feminists feel toward normal male sexuality: Fear and Loathing of the Penis!

Ever since the very first Women’s Liberation protest against the 1968 Miss America contest, feminists have been trying to eradicate every source of normal male happiness. Men cannot look at women, because that is “objectification,” and men cannot talk to women, because that is “harassment.” A man cannot kiss a woman without risking a sexual assault charge, and intercourse is rape. Men should never have wives, because marriage is slavery, and men should never be fathers because motherhood is a violation of a woman’s “right to choose.”

“Pregnancy is barbaric.”
— Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex (1970)

“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
— Simone de Beauvoir, 1975

“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . .
“I don’t want a baby. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, 2014

Bailey Poland hates the man who acts “nice” to her, because (a) he is a man, (b) no man is actually “nice,” and therefore (c) acting “nice” proves that he is dishonest. From a feminist perspective, everything a man does is always wrong, because all women are victims of male oppression. His mere existence is an injustice against women.

It does not matter who a man is or what he does, the sadistic impulse of feminism invariably requires his humiliation as punishment for his male existence. Her vengeful appetite for unlimited cruelty toward males is what distinguishes the feminist from normal women. And nothing incites the feminist’s instinctive sadism more than a man who refuses to genuflect at the throne of the Bitch Goddess. The feminist’s rheteric about “equality” is in fact a demand for recognition of her superiority. She feels insulted by a man who acts as if he were actually her equal.

This is what inspires the feminist complaint about “mansplaining.” Any man who believes he has knowledge or experience that could be useful to a feminist is mistaken. Men know nothing, according to feminist theory, which is based on the belief that the experience and feelings of women are the only valid basis of knowledge.

“Women are an oppressed class. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . 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. We question every generalization and accept none that are not confirmed by our experience.”
— Redstockings, “Manifesto,” July 7, 1969

A man who claims to know anything is expressing “male supremacist culture,” because the only actual knowledge is that which is confirmed by women’s experience. This is true even with regard to men’s own lives and feelings. Go read Bailey Poland’s account of the “nice guy” — she knows that he secretly hates women. She knows that the only reason any man is ever “nice” to a woman is to get sex in return. There are no honest or unselfish men, from the feminist point of view.

Because every man is an agent of oppression, as the Redstockings explained, no man can be trusted. Everything a man says is either simply wrong (because men know nothing) or else it is a deliberate lie (because no agent of oppression would ever tell the truth to his victims). Feminism thus negates the possibility that a man could have anything useful to say about anything, and therefore SHUT UP!

 

See? Even my advice that males should avoid interaction with feminists must be mocked by Bailey Poland, who also ridicules the time I spent researching her work. She had claimed that men never “seriously engage with a woman’s opinions” and yet, when I took the time to engage her seriously, my endeavor only served as a basis for further insults.

She’s a grad student younger than my oldest daughter, but I am a male who knows nothing and, unless you agree with everything Bailey Poland says, you are also utterly ignorant. Feminists are Our Moral Superiors™ and our refusal to acknowledge Bailey Poland’s superiority can only be explained by our  “complete lack of reading comprehension.”




 

 

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox, 08.20.15

Posted on | August 20, 2015 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Yvonne Craig RIP
Da Tech Guy: DTG At The Trump Event In Derry Part I – The Pros And Semi-Pros
Michelle Malkin: Obama’s Toxic EPA – Sexual Predators, Toxic Dumps, And Data Stonewalls
Twitchy: Christopher Hayes Genuinely Horrified That Shaun King “Forced” To Write Essay About His Racial Identity


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Marine Le Pen Fights Her Father’s Legacy In Bid To Recast Anti-EU National Front
American Thinker: Critics Miss How Well Trump’s Deportation Plan Could Actually Work
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Silent Creed By Alex Kava
Conservatives4Palin: Governor Palin – Birthright Citizenship Abuse Unacceptable
Don Surber: How Much Prison Time For Gina McCarthy?
Jammie Wearing Fools: How Ironic! Media Largely Ignoring Horrifying Planned Parenthood Videos Receive Awards…From Planned Parenthood
Joe For America: If He Was Such A Good Kid, Why Is He Stealing A Car And Carrying A Gun?
JustOneMinute: They’re All Right Now, In Fact They’re A Gas
Pamela Geller: US Army Kicking Out Decorated Green Beret Who Stood Up For Afghan Rape Victim
Protein Wisdom: “Bring Me The Head Of Scott Walker”
Shot In The Dark: Labor Pains
STUMP: On The Amazon Torturing Its Whote-Collar Workers Boo-Hoo Piece
The Gateway Pundit: Mark Levin Defends Trump On Hannity – Anchor Babies Have No Birthright Citizenship
The Lonely Conservative: State Department Destroyed Clinton Aides’ BlackBerries
This Ain’t Hell: Shaun King, Phony Black Man
Weasel Zippers: Bobby Jindal Plays Planned Parenthood Videos On Massive Screen Outside Governor’s Mansion During Pro-Planned Parenthood Protest
Megan McArdle: Republicans’ Obamacare Alternative, Finally
Mark Steyn: “An Absolutely Devastating Summary”


Shop Amazon Sports & Fitness – Back to School – Adidas Gear

Category: Linkagery

‘No More Fun of Any Kind!’

Posted on | August 20, 2015 | 202 Comments

 

The Alpha Phi sorority at the University of Alabama put together a recruiting video. The apparent object of the video was to promote the idea that Alpha Phi girls are pretty, popular and fun. This is not a controversial political idea, except for feminists who hate pretty, popular girls having fun:

It’s a parade of white girls and blonde hair dye, coordinated clothing, bikinis and daisy dukes, glitter and kisses, bouncing bodies, euphoric hand-holding and hugging, gratuitous booty shots, and matching aviator sunglasses. It’s all so racially and aesthetically homogeneous and forced, so hyper-feminine, so reductive and objectifying, so Stepford Wives: College Edition. It’s all so . . . unempowering.

That column by A.L. Bailey resulted in a statement by the university condemning the video, which Alpha Phi took offline:

A video promoting the University of Alabama’s chapter of a largely white sorority has been taken down after being widely criticized online for its portrayal of women and for its lack of diversity. . . .
A statement from the school’s associate vice president for university relations, Deborah Lane, said that the video “is not reflective of UA’s expectations for student organizations to be responsible digital citizens.”

Dear God, has it gone this far? Has political correctness reached the point that it’s wrong for Alabama sorority girls to be pretty?

“Is this even America anymore?”

Feminism has gotten completely out of hand. You know damned well that if Alabama had a Muslim sorority where all the girls wore burqas, A.L. Bailey wouldn’t say a word. If Alabama had a pagan lesbian sorority, A.L. Bailey would never complain. But pretty white blonde girls having fun in daisy duke shorts? This is “objectifying”! This is not reflective of the university’s expectations: “No more fun of any kind!”

 

Category: Sex Trouble

‘Nice Guys,’ Failure, Self-Pity and Cruelty

Posted on | August 19, 2015 | 137 Comments

Bailey Poland (@the_author_) is a fairly typical example of how feminism attracts sadistic women by offering them ideological justification for their impulses toward anti-male cruelty. Because of confirmation bias and epistemic closure, however, once a woman enters the feminist echo chamber, it becomes impossible for her to understand her own impulsive responses as emotion, per se.

Feminism as an ideology functions to rationalize negative emotions like self-pity and envy and, because the echo chamber reinforces this rationalizing discourse (“the personal is political”), it becomes impossible for feminists to separate personal problems from the political rhetoric by which she constructs her identity. Because feminism naturally attracts to its banner women with profound resentments toward males, the movement incentivizes a discourse of cruelty, where men are portrayed as underserving of respect, love or sympathy. The more a feminist expresses an anti-male rhetoric that demonizes males, the more encouragement she will receive from within the movement. This is why radical hatemongers — from Mary Daly and Catharine MacKinnon to Jaclyn Friedman and Meghan Murphy — have always found feminism to be such a rewarding career field.

Until yesterday, I had never heard of Bailey Poland, but I included one of her tweets in a roundup about the feminist hashtag campaign #ThingsFeministMenHaveSaidToMe, and someone in the comments remarked, “I loathe Bailey Poland. She’s one of the most loathsome, divisive, and nit picky, yet totally self righteous feminists on Twitter.” Oh, really? This claim required investigation, and I quickly verified the commenter’s assertion. Then I began to read articles Ms. Poland had written about “toxic masculinity” and “benevolent sexism,” and then finally, “nice guys”:

The “nice guy” has made “being nice to women” his defining trait in attempting to get women to go out with him, and his niceness begins to wear thinner and become more and more brittle as he learns this does not work.
The “nice guy” has an image of himself that is fundamentally at odds with his actual behavior. He often sees himself as chivalrous, respectful to women, attentive to the women he wants to pursue romantically, and deserving of affection or romance in return. He sees his behavior as genuinely nice, and has been told all his life that niceness is rewarded. He will hone in on one woman or a few women and idealize them to the point of perfection, befriending them in the hopes that they will relive a dozen teen movies wherein the romantic interest realizes she should have been with her best friend all along. . . .
His niceness is a sham, and a tool for gaining what he perceives as leverage in earning or winning a romantic relationship. The “nice guy” tends to perceive himself as passionate and tender, while his targets see him as grasping and manipulative. . . .
The basic problem with “nice guys” is their sense of entitlement to relationships or sex with women based on nothing more than being nice to them. However, women see through this — and niceness that is performed in service of gaining something from a woman is not actually all that nice to begin with, and it certainly is not a free pass to demand anything from anyone. . . .
When “nice guys” complain that women only date jerks, they often just mean that women are acting outside the imaginary roles they’ve been assigned — women are dating men who do not meet the “nice guy” ideal of performing very specific types of behavior for a reward. Many of the men who are perceived as jerks may actually not be perfect guys, but they’re often honest about it in ways that allow for the negotiations of an adult relationship to take place. . . .
The other major problem with “nice guys” is that it’s not just their niceness that’s a sham. They also often hate women, but rely on romantic or sexual attachments to fuel their sense of self-worth. When the niceness gambit fails and they feel they have been denied something to which they’re entitled, “nice guy” misogyny often follows close behind. In addition to accusing women of being shallow, sleeping only with jerks, or “friendzoning” them, they will also frequently hurl a variety of gender-based slurs at the very women they claimed to idolize.

You can read the whole thing. We must begin by stipulating that the “nice guy” is a particularly pathetic kind of loser. Rather than confront his own shortcomings and failures, he basically throws a pity party for himself. The reason he keeps losing, he tells himself, is because others fail to recognize his superiority. He actually deserves to be with a Kate Upton lookalike, to be worshipped by women for his own special qualities, and the reason he keeps losing is because the world is unfair. The “nice guy” believes he has been wrongly cheated out of the romantic reward to which he is entitled, as a right, and any guy who travels very far down that road is apt to become dangerous to himself and others. Soaking in the juices of his resentful self-pity, a “nice guy” can become a monster — Elliot Rodger was an extreme example of where this mentality can lead.

Feminists, however, are not interested in helping men like this. Instead, feminists use these maladjusted losers as weapons in a permanent campaign to demonize males for “misogyny,” et cetera.

Males are always damned if they do, damned if they don’t in feminist discourse, which is an exercise in Kafkatrapping, where the point is to humiliate males in order to justify the feminist’s exercise of her punitive authority. This is what Bailey Poland does with her “nice guy” column. She paints these losers as undeserving of sympathy, characterizing their misguided idealism as “misogyny,” in order to justify cruelty as a response to male attention. She herself has zero sympathy for males experiencing romantic disappointment, and believes that no other woman should, either. And her conclusion is self-serving pseudo-sympathetic “advice” to the pathetic losers she despises:

Be kind instead of nice. This requires a shift in thinking about your own behavior, “nice guys.” Do things for people without expecting anything in return. Think about what your friends actually need or want, and help them achieve it or acquire it without thinking you deserve anything more than a “thank you” from them. You’ll be surprised how often people do more for you when an act of kindness on your part doesn’t come with any strings attached.
Get used to just being friends with women. Often, a “nice guy” is not capable of seeing friendship with women as good enough on its own; the relationship must be taken to the “next level” to be worth anything. This is not a healthy way to approach women, and it makes the women you are interested in feel used and disrespected. Being friends with women is rewarding because having friends is rewarding — sex should only come into it when both parties are interested, not when the friendship is being used as a springboard into a fantasy relationship.

Translation: “Give me everything I want, loser, then go away and leave me alone, because men never deserve anything, period.”

Bailey Poland feels no obligation of kindness to males, yet requires males to treat her exactly as she wants to be treated, because otherwise she has been “disrespected” by these miserable losers.

The feminist can be as cruel and selfish as she wants to be, but any male who behaves similarly is condemned for “misogyny.” Bailey Poland derides men who seek a “fantasy relationship,” but what about her own fantasies? Yeah, buddy — her with the whip in her hand, and you on your knees, helplessly begging for mercy.

Guys, just walk away. There are more than 3.5 billion women in the world, not all of whom are cold-hearted monsters who demand that you genuflect at the throne of the Bitch Goddess.

One of the things my father taught me is, “It never hurts to ask. The worst they can tell you is ‘no.'” This advice was offered in the context of salesmanship or seeking employment, but it’s equally applicable to the search for love. If you’ve ever been involved in direct sales — knocking on doors, cold-calling strangers, hustling to make that sale — you know how crucial it is to overcome your own self-consciousness, to learn how to handle rejection without becoming demoralized.

“Just win, baby” — Al Davis had it right. There is no substitute for victory, but you can’t win if you don’t play the game, and it is foolish to hope you’ll be undefeated in every season. What is important is to maintain your morale, and not to become so discouraged by a losing streak that you surrender to despair.

Pay attention, guys: Never talk to a feminist.

Do not waste time on sadistic women who hate you.

No matter how “nice” you are to a feminist, she will never respect you. The feminist always mistakes male kindness for weakness, and is incapable of gratitude toward males, so that being “nice” to her will only serve to convince her of how infinitely contemptible you are — a servile lackey, a fawning slave who appeals to her sadistic impulses.

Never talk to a feminist. Never look at a feminist.

If you know that a woman is a feminist, avoid being in her presence, because the feminist has no interest in males except as demonized objects of fear, hate, scorn and ridicule. Wherever the feminist is, make it a point to be somewhere else, and do not associate with anyone within the feminist’s circle of hateful influence.

Feminism is a vortex of negativity so intense as to extinquish all positivity in its vicinity. Anyone who associates with a feminist risks being sucked into her gravitional force-field of soul-killing evil.

Here’s the thing, guys: Never explain to the feminist why you are shunning her. Don’t argue with her. Don’t tell her off. Master the habit of silence in her presence, insofar as you are unable to avoid her presence. If you’re talking with a group of your friends and the feminist interrupts, this is your cue to end the conversation and, if possible, walk away.

We are currently experiencing a resurgence of radical feminism, what might be called a “Fourth Wave.” We can perceive a return to the vehement man-hating tendencies of the “Second Wave” of the early 1970s, a reversal of the postmodernist “Third Wave” that began in the ’90s. The toxic feminism of Daly/Dworkin/MacKinnon has been resuscitated, and wherever this poison spreads, its effect will invariably be lethal to heterosexuality. Young men must therefore enforce a cordon sanitaire around those women infected with the feminist virus until this anti-male pandemic burns itself out in a frenzy of lesbian rage.

Trust me on this, guys. “Hunt where the ducks are.” Feminists don’t like men, and they spread their contempt for males to every woman around them, so wherever feminism is, be somewhere else.




 

Category: Sex Trouble
« go back — keep looking »