The Other McCain

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

Rule 5 Sunday: Proudly Encouraging The Male Gaze Since 2009

Posted on | September 13, 2015 | 13 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

This week’s appetizer is courtesy of some moron on the AoSHQ Facebook Group, and is further proof that fans can often come up with better music videos than the band that made the music to start with. Much like many of the links to follow, this video may be considered NSFW, and the management is not responsible for loss of face, strakh, or reputation points, nor are we responsible for any pollution of your precious bodily fluids.
Goodstuff leads off this week with Jennifer Tilly, followed by Animal Magnetism with Rule 5 Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon, and Ninety Miles from Tyranny with Hot Pick of the Late Night, Morning Mistress, and Girls with Guns. We also heard from First Street Journal with Fort Jackson.

EBL’s herd this week includes Labor Day Is Over, Trump Women, Alexa Davalos, Amanda Knox, Frank Sinatra: September In The Rain, and Huma Abedin. Also, You Must Choose.

At A View from the Beach, it’s Jennifer Garner Carries a Water Bottle!, Six Chicks Discover New Man, Your Friday Stone Age Monkey Dackers (Cave girl content), “Little Joe the Wrangler”, Tramp for President!, Texans Do Like Their Guns, Clinton.com: I’m Sorry, So Sorry!, Science Says No Love for Cats (Cat lady content), The Chesapeake Chicken War, An Unexpected Application of Rule 34, The News Exposed, Happy Labor Day!, and But Then, They’re Always Angry Anyway.

Postaldog returns with Micaela Shafer, Hilary Duff, The Royals Are Just Like You & Me, and Tove Lo.

Meanwhile, at Soylent Siberia, it’s your Ultimate Coffee Creamer Lucy, Monday Motivationer: Miracle Of Velcro, Tuesday Titillation Harvest Nymph, Humpday Hawtness: Future Ex-Mrs. Soylent, Fishnet Fursday, Corset Consternation, T-GIF Friday Sweater Puppy Soaking, and Weekender Sushi.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is brought to you by the red, white & blue, his Vintage Babe is Marcia Gay Harden, and Sex in Advertising is covered by Ronda Rousey. At Dustbury, it’s Amyra Dastur with Garfunkel & Oates.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for next Sunday’s Rule 5 roundup is midnight on Saturday, September 19.


Wetter
Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

Objectified by the Male Gaze
UPDATE: Allegedly Heterosexual?

Posted on | September 12, 2015 | 114 Comments

By now, the entire Internet knows Charlotte Proudman (@CRProudman) hates heterosexual men:

I find your message offensive. I am on [LinkedIn] for business purposes not to be approached about my physical appearance or to be objectified by sexist men. The eroticisation of women’s physical appearance is a way of exercising power over women. It silences women’s professional attributes as their physical appearance becomes the subject.
Unacceptable and misogynistic behaviour. Think twice before sending another woman (half your age) such a sexist message.

Such was Ms. Proudman’s now-notorious reply to the unfortunate Alexander Carter-Silk, 57, who had made the mistake of telling the 27-year-old radical feminist lawyer that her LinkedIn profile photo was “stunning.” Before analyzing Ms. Proudman’s discourse about “exercising power over women,” let’s clear up the obvious question: Did the married middle-aged Mr. Carter-Silk intend his message as more than casual flattery? Was he hoping to get busy with her?

Ace of Spades concludes that he was, but that his compliment was “a pretty soft gesture of interest.” Alternative hypothesis: Mr. Carter-Silk is simply not used to encountering “stunning” young women in his queue of LinkedIn communications and, without really intending to “hit on” Ms. Proudman, found himself unable to resist the temptation to comment on her looks. This is admittedly a devil’s advocate defense, the most feasible explanation of Mr. Carter-Silk’s message as an innocent blunder — a careless lapse of decorum. It is bad manners and always in poor taste for a man to comment on the appearance of a woman with whom he is not properly acquainted. Such forward behavior is, of course, all too common in a society that has almost entirely abandoned traditional customs of courtesy, but who am I to complain of that? It’s not as if I’m a consistent model of polite behavior myself, and therefore it would be hypocritical for me to criticize Mr. Carter-Silk merely for being rude.

On the other hand, maybe Mr. Carter-Silk is a lecherous old goat who was guilty as charged, using LinkedIn as a means of pursuing adulterous liaisons, so that his praise for Ms. Proudman’s profile photo was an attempt to “score.” In that case, for reasons I’ve explained elsewhere (“Don’t Do This, Ever”), Mr. Carter-Silk is a damned fool. Using digital communication (texts, emails, social media) to pursue sexual relationships is always a mistake. Whatever the specific medium — including online dating apps (“Hit It or Quit It on Tinder”) — the participant in online romantic pursuit is creating a record of digital evidence that can have devastating consequences. The recipient of your email or other digital communication could forward it to others or, as Mr. Carter-Silk learned to his eternal regret, your private message can be published for the whole world to see. Therefore, as I have lectured my teenagers, don’t do this, ever. Never say anything in a private digital communication that you would not want to see on the front page of the New York Times. The downside risk is enormous, and people have actually committed suicide after their online misbehavior was revealed.

Well, then, what about Ms. Proudman’s feminist lecture about the “eroticisation of women’s physical appearance”? Is it really true, as she insists, that complimenting a woman on her appearance “is a way of exercising power over women,” so that all such compliments are inherently “offensive,” “sexist” and “misogynistic”? Daily Mail columnist Sarah Vine mocked that idea as absurd:

If that is what counts as ‘objectification’ and ‘misogyny’ these days, then the human race is in deep trouble. Not only does it beggar belief that Ms Proudman could have inferred any slight from such an innocuous missive, it also makes me fear for the next generation of women.
After all, heaven help the poor man who actually tries to ask her out on a date, let alone try to get her into his bed. He’d have better luck propositioning a porcupine.

This hits the nail on the head, and Sarah Vine further assert that “most normal women . . . would be delighted” to have a man praise their online profile photos, as “compliments are few and far between these days,” which is to say:

  1. Radical feminists are not “normal women”;
    and
  2. Many women don’t know how to deal with compliments because men “these days” are afraid to compliment women, as men may be accused of sexual harassment for doing so.

Feminists have deliberately created a climate of fear in schools, universities and workplaces, where any male who dares so much as speak to a woman is at risk of devastating accusations that he has “harassed” her. Even if he has done nothing that could plausibly be viewed as “hitting on” her, the male who says or does anything that a woman finds “unwelcome” or “offensive” could be charged with fostering discriminatory conditions. This involves what is known as the “hostile environment” theory of sexual harassment, which views any expression of male heterosexuality as a potential source of discrimination against women. Daphne Patai astutely examined this phenomenon in her 1998 book Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism, which I highly recommend. A former Women’s Studies professor (co-author of Professing Feminism, which I also recommend), Dr. Patai called attention to how feminist discourse about “harassment” expressed a hostility toward normal male behavior, based in radical theories that interpret heterosexuality per se as oppressive to women.

This anti-male attitude — “Fear and Loathing of the Penis” — is pervasive within the academic institutions of the Feminist-Industrial Complex. In American universities, Women’s Studies programs and other forms of feminist advocacy are protected from critical scrutiny by Title X legislation, which has been interpreted in such a way that criticizing feminism can itself be considered evidence of discriminatory intent. Women’s Studies professors and other feminist activists on university campuses are effectively exempt from opposition or criticism, and thus are free to promote outright hatred of males without anyone being able to condemn them for it. The 21st-century campus is overtly hostile to males, a hostility evident in the fact that males are now a minority (43%) of college students. Universities now punish males on the basis of mere suspicion of “sexual misconduct,” defined so broadly as to include every possible expression of male heterosexuality. Ordinary flirtation is rapidly becoming a lost art because it is strongly discouraged, if not altogether prohibited, by these policies.

It is perfectly understandable that a young law school graduate like Charlotte Proudman finds it “offensive” to be complimented on her looks. All such compliments are streng verboten in modern academia. No college-educated young man would dare tell a woman she is “stunning” for fear of the kind of vindictive retaliation Ms. Proudman displayed. When feminists talk about “empowering” women, this is exactly the kind of power they have in mind — the power of women to inflict savage humiliation on men.

Because feminism is inspired by sadistic revenge fantasies, Ms. Proudman’s public scolding of Mr. Carter-Silk was greeted with enthusiastic applause by young feminists, who dream of the opportunity to crush and embarrass men in such a manner. Any young man who attempts to flirt with a woman now risks the destruction of his reputation and career, and depriving men of professional employment opportunities is what feminist “empowerment” is ultimately about.

Milo Yiannopoulos suggests Ms. Proudman would have been flattered by a compliment from a young good-looking man:

On a related note, I suspect that if the male lawyer looked like George Clooney, Ms. Proudman wouldn’t be complaining. But you’re not supposed to say that, are you.

Unfortunately, this suggestion presumes Charlotte Proudman is heterosexual, a presumption for which we have no evidence at all. In fact — if you will re-read what Ms. Proudman wrote — her denunciation of “sexist men . . . exercising power over women” does not even permit us to imagine the possibility that any expression of male admiration would be acceptable to her. We may interpret Ms. Proudman’s discourse as saying that all men who are attracted to women are misogynists, because male heterosexuality requires the “eroticisation of women’s physical appearance,” which is “offensive” to her. Ms. Proudman expanded on this hostile theme in a subsequent Twitter harangue:

“Widespread, casual, demeaning behaviour directed towards women is a form of social policing, gender control & a hidden form of social violence.”

To call a woman “stunning” is, according to Ms. Proudman, “demeaning behavior,” “gender control” and “social violence.” Does this strike you as something a heterosexual woman would say?

It is one thing to say a man’s unsolicited compliment to a woman is inappropriate, but accusing him of “social violence”? This kind of rhetorical overkill is an expression of radical feminism, which condemns heterosexual intercourse as “the pure, sterile, formal expression of men’s contempt for women” (Andrea Dworkin), claiming “women have to be coerced into heterosexuality” (Marilyn Frye), because men “control women through heterosexuality” (Joyce Trebilcot) in order to “encourage women’s subservience” (Susan Shaw and Janet Lee).

Hatred of males defines feminism to such an extent that it could be considered an insult to accuse a feminist of heterosexuality. A woman who calls herself a feminist is more likely to agree with Julie Bindel that all men should be put in “some kind of camp.” Certainly, no one should be surprised that Charlotte Proudman celebrated International Women’s Day in March by posting a photo with the caption: “Fantastic evening with so many amazing women speaking about radical feminism.”

In case anyone was under the mistaken impression that feminism simply means equality, Charlotte Proudman wrote a entire column in February explaining why you’re wrong:

I am a feminist and I do not strive for equality. I support liberation. . . . Equality takes the male status quo as the standard to which women aspire. . . .
It is impossible to alter male spheres, which are resistant to outside interference, because women are a minority that could be cut out at anytime, and men have vested interests in preserving the status quo.
The Equality Act 2010 . . . was designed to give the false impression that women’s subjugation had been legally acknowledged. . . .
The equalist debate is one way of preserving patriarchy, whereas feminism seeks to give power to women on their own terms — not mens. This is why I am a feminist, not an equalist. . . .
Men hold the balance of power. Power is granted in the wrong ways, and used for the wrong ends. Change can come about by redefining and redistributing power, breaking down hierarchal structures, and reevaluating the criteria designed by men.

You see? Equality is bad, because it “takes the male status quo as the standard” and equality does not “give power to women on their own terms.” Feminism is about “redefining and redistributing power” and ending “women’s subjugation.” If you think feminists give a damn what men think about anything, you have made a stunning mistake.

UPDATE: Ms. Proudman has been quoted thus:

“My partner gets messages asking if he wants a job at hedge funds, I get propositions from men asking me out. I want a public apology.”

Somehow I overlooked that quote earlier — Ms. Proudman using the male pronoun to refer to her “partner” — which is evidence that she might actually be heterosexual. If true, this would raise the questions, “Why?” and “How?”

That is to say, if Ms. Proudman is filled with such generalized rage toward “women’s subjugation” within the “male status quo,” why would she be fraternizing with the enemy? And how would such a bundle of fiery anti-male anger attract a boyfriend, or reconcile her politics with the enactment of her, uh, “subjugation”? Stipulate that, during my depraved youth — I was a Democrat then, remember — some of my girlfriends must have been feminists, e.g., the Cranston delegate. Thankfully, however, we didn’t have the Internet in 1984, so women didn’t have a global platform to spew their beliefs to the world, and therefore if there were any contradictions between a woman’s personal preferences and her political theory, nobody knew it.

Hypothetically, a guy might be dating the kind of liberal woman who was on the Democrat primary ballot as a delegate for the Alan Cranston 1984 presidential campaign, and if she also liked to do it doggy style — well, who knew?

Yet we are not here to indulge in hypothetical speculation, and as a respectable conservative Republican, I condemn the very idea of young Democrats engaging in carnal knowledge. My point is that the Internet has narrowed the gap between the personal and the political, which makes me wonder how any young man could keep from laughing out loud while he’s hooking up with a feminist like Charlotte Proudman.

I’d bet £10 she likes it doggy style, too.




 

Category: Sex Trouble

FMJRA 2.0: Wetter

Posted on | September 12, 2015 | 3 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Guardian Columnist Julie Bindel Says Put All Males ‘In Some Kind of Camp’
Instapundit
Daily Pundit
Political Hat
Talk About Marriage
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

Don’t Do This, Ever
First Street Journal
A View from the Beach

FMJRA 2.0: The Labor Day Weekend Show
The Pirate’s Cove
BlurBrain
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

Rule 5 Sunday: Summertime Girls
Proof Positive
A View from the Beach
Ninety Miles from Tyranny
Batshit Crazy News

‘Feminist Motherhood Has Failed’
The Lonely Conservative
Batshit Crazy News

Everybody Is Shocked — Shocked! — the Administration Falsified ISIS Intellgence
The Pirate’s Cove
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

‘A License to Lie’
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox, 09.08.15
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox, 09.09.15
Batshit Crazy News

Equality: Women Raping Women
Justice for Men and Boys
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox, 09.10.15
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

Feminism as Sadistic Revenge Fantasy
Living In Anglo-America
Batshit Crazy News

Lesbian ‘Comedian’ Wants You Guys to Know Women Are ‘Not Incubators’
Batshit Crazy News

A Couple Of Very Nice People
Batshit Crazy News

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox 09.11.15
Proof Positive


Top linkers this week:

  1.  Batshit Crazy News (14)
  2.  A View from the Beach (5)

Thanks to everyone for the linkagery! Deadline to submit links for next week’s FMJRA is noon on Saturday, September 19.


404 Not Found

Category: FMJRA Award

In The Mailbox 09.11.15

Posted on | September 11, 2015 | 4 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Never Forget Past Lessons
Da Tech Guy: WaPo Finally Notices Lack of Hillary Accomplishments Two Years After We Started Asking
Doug Powers: Notorious Liar Nancy Pelosi Calls Iran Deal “Historic”, “Grand”, and “Visionary”
Twitchy: “Her Work Here Is Done” – Baltimore Mayor “Safe Space For Rioters” Rawlings-Blake Won’t Seek Re-Election


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: New 9/11 Memorial In Shanksville, PA
American Thinker: Europe’s Refugee Crisis – Violence, Demands, And Muslim Conquest
BLACKFIVE: 9-11
Conservatives4Palin: Ted Cruz – Democrats Responsible For Those Murdered By Iran Nuke Deal
Don Surber: Are We Losing On 9/11?
Jammie Wearing Fools: Just Like Her E-Mails, Grandma’s Lead Over GOP Candidates Vanishes
Joe For America: Planned Parenthood Faces A Million Protesters – 28th Annual LifeChain
Pamela Geller: Hungary Takes Military Action Against Muslim Invasion
Protein Wisdom: 9/11 #NeverForget
Shot In The Dark: You Had One Freaking Job
The Gateway Pundit: Ship With “Aid” For Refugees Arrives In Greece Full Of Weapons And Ammo
The Jawa Report: Never Again
The Lonely Conservative: Obama Orders Administration To Take In At Least 10,000 Syrian Refugees
This Ain’t Hell: Paul Tillson Pleads Guilty To Defrauding VA
Weasel Zippers: Office Depot Refuses To Print Flyers Criticizing Planned Parenthood
Megan McArdle: The Danger Of Managing Drug Prices
Mark Steyn: Drawing Down


Shop Connected Car on Amazon

Category: Linkagery

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge

Posted on | September 11, 2015 | 6 Comments

by Smitty

“…beside all that, I will give you centuries of life, free you from the need to sleep, and give you the might of a dozen flaring limbs,” said her lush lips, while her emerald eyes hinted at much, much more. The pearl necklace, diamond tiara and wand-like cigarette holder, combined with the familiar on her shoulder, marked her a princess, a sorceress, and a seductress.
The lodge where she kept her workshop had all of the usual pentagrams, tomes and spell ingredients expected. Would he emerge empowered for his revenge?
Then he saw the face in the wall decoration.

via Darleen

Category: Friday Fiction

A Couple Of Very Nice People

Posted on | September 11, 2015 | 6 Comments

— by Wombat-socho


I’m not sure when I first became aware of Tim Powers. It’s entirely possible that it wasn’t until he was Guest of Honor at Arcana, a small dark fantasy/horror convention in St. Paul that I can’t recommend highly enough. Anyhow, Mr. Powers was Guest of Honor for Arcana 34 back in 2004, and was a very nice, congenial fellow; he’s also a hell of a writer, skilfully manuevering between science fiction and the supernatural. He’s probably best known for his horror novel On Stranger Tides, which became one of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies (if you look carefully, you can see Mr. Powers as one of the extras), or if you’re a fan of Charles Stross’ Laundry series, you probably saw the reference to Powers’ Declare which like Stross’ novels blends Le Carre with supernatural horror. I am currently reading Earthquake Weather, which combines the legend of the Fisher King with the wild ghost story of Expiration Date and the mystical poker game of Last Call. I think part of what gets me excited about Powers is his gift for taking the ordinary everyday world of buses and taxicabs and day laborers and suddenly shifting your point of view to include all the things lurking in the spaces between, or perhaps right out in plain sight. From the Siege of Vienna (The Drawing of the Dark) to the wild adventures of Lord Byron among the vampires (The Stress of Her Regard) and to the modern day, where a father and daughter struggle to comprehend Einstein’s deadliest invention, more terrible than nuclear weapons (Three Days to Never), there’s not a clunker in the lot. For a while, his books were terribly difficult to find, but fortunately Del Rey has brought them out in Kindle editions. A wonderful man who writes wonderful books.

Maggie Hogarth, on the other hand, likes to write about aliens, and apparently does so quite well, though she came to my attention as a result of political tussles on LiveJournal some years ago. Which is how I wound up signing on to the Kickstarter for her novel/script Spots the Space Marine: Defense of the Fiddler, which concerns a middle-aged Marine reservist sent to reinforce a guard company protecting an extremely valuable target. It’s also how I became aware of her taking a quirky webcomic about art, business and life (that hadn’t really earned its keep online) and bringing out a print edition. I have to say, The Three Jaguars: A Comic About Business, Art, and Life works a LOT better as a graphic novel (for reasons that Hogarth explains) and has additional material not previously published online. It’s instructive, funny, and occasionally heart-wrenching (if you’re familiar with the lawsuit by Games Workshop after Spots was published, you’ll understand, and if not you should look it up) by turns, and well worth your money. Not quite as entertaining, but possibly more helpful in a specific way, is From Spark to Finish: Running Your Kickstarter Campaign, which takes you through the steps you need to follow to run a Kickstarter campaign to get people to support you while you’re writing something they want to read, or creating some other kind of art that people want to pay actual $ (and hopefully $$ or even $$$$$) for. There aren’t a lot of people who can write well, and in this degenerate age, it seems there are even fewer who can draw and paint well, but Ms. Hogarth is blessed with both those talents. Buy her stuff.


Category: Books

Lesbian ‘Comedian’ Wants You Guys to Know Women Are ‘Not Incubators’

Posted on | September 10, 2015 | 233 Comments

“Feminist humor” is one of those terms describing a hypothetical category, like “honest Democrat.” Anyway . . .

Cameron Esposito (born 1981) is an American comedian best known for her stand-up comedy, which often focuses on LGBTQ+ topics and references aspects of her lesbian identity. Originally from Chicago, Esposito now resides in Los Angeles with her fiancee and fellow comedian Rhea Butcher. . . .

Her comedic repertoire consists mainly of repeatedly mentioning that, in case you didn’t get it the first time, she’s a lesbian. It’s as if Jerry Seinfeld had made a career of standing onstage pointing out that he is Jew from New York, rather than actually, y’know, telling jokes. I mean, sure, there are fat comedians who make a lot of fat jokes, and black comedians who make a lot of black jokes, but in general comedy works best when it relates to universal human experience. And speaking of universal human experience, what’s the deal with all these dead babies, huh?

In the midst of the recent Planned Parenthood controversy, Cameron Esposito has some feelings on the matter — some very strong feelings.
The comedian recently took the stage to explain why Planned Parenthood is absolutely vital to everyone, not only women. . . .
“Women deserve access to abortion services. We f**king do because we’re not incubators.” . . .
“If you don’t want to pay for health care for people that live in poverty, then you should help women who live in poverty to not have children that they are not able to provide for,” Esposito says. “That is how you personally will not have to pay that bill.” . . .
“If you are a guy and you are against Planned Parenthood and you sleep with women — I hope to god it is infrequently.”

That’s what you call a “feminist punch line.”

You’re supposed to laughing.

No, really. Dead babies are hilarious. Ask any feminist.

 


;

Category: Abortion, Sex Trouble

Feminism as Sadistic Revenge Fantasy

Posted on | September 10, 2015 | 26 Comments

“Radical feminism, by definition, seeks to dis-cover and examine the root of women’s global oppression by men, and the sources of male power.”
— “Radfem 101: A Radical Feminist Primer”

What is seldom noted in discussions of feminism is the extent to which the movement’s ideology represents a calculated appeal to the resentments of psychological misfits. Feminism attracts maladjusted personalities who, to employ Freudian terms, displace the rage of their hypercritical superego onto a male scapegoat. The damaged ego, unable to cope with a profound sense of personal shame, must escape the superego’s condemnation and does so by an externalization of blame, projecting onto males an all-encompassing malice that in fact represents the wrongful desires which the woman’s own conscience condemns in herself. Such women are attracted to the feminist movement because it promises to “empower” them, enabling them to indulge their pathological appetite for punitive cruelty against the hated male scapegoat.

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

This function of feminism as a vehicle for rage-displacement explains why its adherents so often exhibit a generalized anti-male fear — a paranoid identification of men as a collective enemy — so that the feminist lashes out with frightful vehemence toward men she doesn’t even know, presuming them to be guilty of heinous crimes and bad motives, simply because they are males. The damaged ego (“broken people,” to employ Professor Glenn Reynolds’ phrase) simply cannot deal appropriately with feelings of failure and disappointment. We indulge such deformed personalities at our peril, because they crave power in order to inflict a sadistic revenge on their chosen scapegoats.

“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)

Believing themselves to be victims of oppression, feminists thereby absolve themselves of any moral obligation to treat males fairly. The male oppressor can expect no mercy from women who, having organized themselves to seize political power, employ that power to impose vindictive punishment on males without the need to prove that any individual target of this feminist revenge is personally guilty of wrongdoing. Anything that harms men is “social justice” according to the zero-sum logic of feminism. Studying radical feminist texts by Andrea Dworkin, Mary Daly, Kathleen Barry and others, I notice their tendency to present an indictment of “male supremacy” based upon a historical collection of atrocities compiled from all over the world, and this tendency can be observed whenever feminists try to delegitimize their contemporary critics by accusing them of tacit complicity in criminal wrongdoing. You can never rationally discuss a simple policy question with feminists; Christina Hoff Sommers was accused of “rape denial” for attempting to discuss facts and logic with Oberlin College students.

Feminists employ a cumulative, collective approach to male guilt, reciting a catalog of global wrongdoing — Chinese footbinding, Islamic female genital mutilation, medieval witch-hunts, child prostitution in Thailand, the violent abuse of women in BDSM pornography — as proof that all men are evil monsters. This is a method of anti-male hate propaganda, and it does no good to point out that you, as an individual, are not Chinese or Muslim, that you were not alive during the Middle Ages, have never been to Thailand and are not “into” BDSM. Nor, for that matter, does it do any good to point out that the feminist who recites these atrocities is a privileged member of the academic elite, whose affluent parents paid for her to attend the finest schools in the world. She has not been victimized by these atrocities, but rather wields the victimhood of other women as a weapon with which to intimidate you into silence, threatening to destroy your reputation by branding you an apologist for these crimes unless you SHUT UP and grant her whatever else she may demand in addition to your silence. (Male silence is mandatory, under the First Rule of Feminism.)

Feminists routinely resort to totalitarian tactics because feminism’s ideology is totalitarian in nature. Although the movement’s professional “mainstream” spokeswomen are usually careful to pretend to care about democracy and freedom, occasionally the mask slips and we find Julie Bindel arguing that men should “have their power taken from them” so that feminists can “put them all in some kind of camp.” Anyone tempted to dismiss such hateful rhetoric as an expression of “fringe” beliefs outside the feminist “mainstream” simply has not paid close attention to what feminists have been saying and writing for the past four decades. Inside the Feminist-Industrial Complex of academic Women’s Studies programs, blatantly anti-male attitudes are not only tolerated, they are encouraged and justified by an ideology that makes “male power” the root of all evil. We may find this belief system expressed whenever feminists gather anywhere they believe themselves beyond external scrutiny. This is from a 2012 post at a radical feminist blog:

By facing the enemy’s power I mean the big rape industries, the big male military, economic, religious and state institutions, but also male criminals, abusers, rapists. Men and their institutions are so hard to attack, socially, physically, psychologically, linguistically or institutionally, and because of this, it’s easy to feel completely powerless and hopeless. How many times, as feminists, do we punish, shame or even lock up male criminals every year, with our own hands, as a group? I have never had the opportunity to do it myself yet, although I am looking forward to when it will happen. Regularly measuring the effectiveness of our actions according to how much male power over women has been removed is a good way not to lose focus of the enemy.

Notice not only the description of males as “the enemy,” but also the feminist’s gleeful anticipation of personally inflicting punishment on “male criminals.” Is she planning a career as a police officer or prosecuting attorney? And notice also how she insists that feminists must measure “the effectiveness of our actions according to how much male power over women has been removed.”

The feminist’s obsession with power — an inability to accept the voluntary mutual cooperation that is the basis of free a society — is typical of totalitarian thought, and also of paranoia. This is why dictators like Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot so often display paranoid tendencies, because the desire to obtain vast power over others is rooted in the totalitarian’s pathological fear of being harmed by power exercised by others. Legitimate authority (as wielded by parents, teachers, police, etc.) does not bother honest, decent, moral people, but it is terrifying to those who secretly harbor wicked and selfish desires. The totalitarian is not honest, decent or moral. A warped character, permanently twisted by a sense of personal humiliation rooted in an unhappy childhood or unfortunate adolescence, the totalitarian craves power to inflict revenge on a society whose law, morality and culture are rejected as unjust.

Revenge is what feminists want, and the fact that men targeted as victims of this revenge may have done nothing to deserve punishment is irrelevant to the totalitarian worldview of deranged women who speak of men as “the enemy.” Like the Ukrainian peasants who starved to death in Stalin’s terror famine, the victims of feminist policy can never be innocent, because feminism’s ideology defines them as a part of a collective enemy. A feminist conception of “social justice” requires that males must suffer, and the movement thus attracts sadistic women who derive a sick pleasure from the idea of inflicting that suffering on men.

All men deserve to suffer, because they are men — this is the psychological basis of feminism, and everything else about the feminist movement is merely a means to accomplishing its punitive goal.




 

Category: Sex Trouble
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin