‘Draw Mohammed’ Contest Winner Will Be Added to SPLC ‘Hate’ List

Posted on | May 12, 2015 | 117 Comments

Attacked by Islamic terrorists and listed by the SPLC:

Bosch Fawstin, a former Muslim who won the Muhammad cartoon contest at the Texas free speech event attacked by two gunmen Sunday, will soon be added to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) list of hate groups.
Mr. Fawstin won $12,500 in prize money at the event, sponsored by Pamela Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), for a drawing that showed a sword-wielding prophet in a turban shouting, “You can’t draw me.” In reply, a cartoon bubble portrayed the artist as writing, “That’s why I draw you,” Reuters reported.
The SPLC, which already includes AFDI on its annual list of U.S. hate groups, plans to add the artist to its 2016 report, Heidi Beirich, who leads SPLC’s Intelligence Project, told Reuters on Monday.
Ms. Beirich said Mr. Fawstin would have been listed before Sunday’s attack, but the center did not know his location. The organization has since learned that his website is registered in New York City, Reuters reported.
“He’s like the artist of the movement,” Mr. Beirich said, calling his website “virulently ugly.”
“His views, they are hate views,” she added.

Much like being sued by Brett Kimberlin, having your name on the SPLC’s hate list is becoming a badge of honor.

Basically, you're nobody until you're hate-listed by the SPLC. http://t.co/buhDPSePgS @AaronWorthing

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) May 12, 2015

Category: Islam, Terrorism

We Pity

Posted on | May 11, 2015 | 17 Comments

by Smitty

It’s Colonel Schlichter’s special take on delicacy that makes him such a word-for-word read:

We pity the fact that every day you have to wake up and look in the mirror and see the face of a man, or woman, or whichever of the 567 other gender identities the freakshow left has manufactured, who is more concerned with personal safety than with personal dignity. Pathetic.

via Instapundit

Category: Culture

War Against Human Nature: 100% Failure

Posted on | May 11, 2015 | 148 Comments

Instead of training to fight America’s enemies, the United States Army has been ordered to engage in a war against human nature:

All eight female soldiers who survived the initial days of the first-ever Army Ranger School course to include women failed to make it to the second phase, but can still try again and pass, Army officials said Friday.
The women were attempting the famously difficult 62-day course as the Pentagon weighs which combat jobs women will be allowed to hold in the future. Army officials at Fort Benning, Ga., said that 115 men in the class had moved on to Ranger School’s second phase — mountaineering at Camp Merrill, Ga. — but that eight women and 101 men will be left behind at Fort Benning, Ga., to attempt Phase One again.
Top Pentagon leaders dropped a longtime ban on women in combat units in January 2013, but gave the services until later this year to seek exceptions and provide justification. . . .
About 35 male soldiers who attempted Phase One with the women failed to meet standards that would allow them to repeat, and will be sent back to their units, Army officials said. . . .
The Ranger class began April 20 with 19 women and 380 men. They where whittled down to eight women and 184 men after the initial, grueling four-day Ranger Assessment Phase, known as “RAP Week.”

Doing the math here: Of the 380 men who entered, 48% completed RAP Week. Of the 19 women who entered, 42% finished RAP Week. Of those who survived RAP Week, 63% of males advanced to Phase Two, whereas the failure rate of females was 100%

To repeat: ONE HUNDRED PERCENT FAILURE.

Believe it or not, that statistic is actually inadequate to describe how badly this social engineering experiment failed. It’s worse than 100% failure, as will be explained, but first permit me to quote the introduction to Sex Trouble:

Feminists have . . . undermined customs of courtesy and decency, fostering a climate where there are no commonly recognized rules to prevent or mediate conflicts between men and women. The destruction of civilized restraints has unleashed savage impulses, so that sexual relations at times approach the “war of all against all” of which Thomas Hobbes once warned.

The natural (and biologically necessary) relation between men and women is one of voluntary cooperation — as husband and wife, mother and father — to provide for themselves and their offspring. However, feminists reject this natural cooperation, condemning it as a system of male supremacy that oppresses women; feminists instead insist on viewing men and women as collective groups with antagonistic interests, engaged in hostile competition. In this zero-sum game mentality, human beings are not viewed as individuals but as members of collective groups. Any observable inequality between groups is automatically assumed to be a result of social injustice. Ergo, the all-male status of elite combat outfits is evidence of sexist discrimination.

Army Rangers are the patriarchy, and the patriarchy must be smashed!

How could the failure rate of females in Ranger School be worse than 100%? Because these 19 women were handpicked as human guinea pigs in this experiment, and some were given special preparation, as an anonymous Army lieutenant explained in an online military forum:

I’m gathering that you are trying to make a point against the people who disagree with GI [gender integration] and ranger school. So, here’s my personal response.
I honestly know that some (not all) of the females who are going through right now were treated favorably in order to be better prepared for Ranger School. And “favorably” is a very conservative way of putting it. For example: multiple opportunities to pass RTAC; training in-between RTAC cycles to get better prepared to complete RTAC; training by an RI (not from RTB or RTAC) to get better prepared for Ranger School; PT plans focused on RAP week events and weapons training. All of this took place on the the governments dime at Ft. Banning and they did not have duty obligations back at their units. I’m sure all Ranger students would love to be put on active duty orders (if guard or reserve) or separated from their daily duties to strictly prepare for Ranger school. At the end of the day, they needed this preparation in order to have a good shot at passing rap week in ranger school.
Saying that… if they went straight to Ranger School (like the vast majority Ranger Students do) and did not get trained in preparation to go, how would they [fare]? I personally know that the several needed time to recover and get the extra training to potential pass RTAC. Not all, but several. (it was a significant number when your talking about 19 total)
I have seen the [gender integration] from the very beginning until now. My personal opinion, based on what I have seen first hand, is that all females ‘collectively’ will not be able to walk on to Ranger school and be successful. They need extensive training, physically and tactically (at the one on one level) in order to have a slim chance of being successful. And by training I mean separation from duty to do nothing but train and improve physical fitness. My reasoning behind this: the females who came to attempt ranger school are the most elite, physically fit, and top .17% of all females in the Army (130 out of 74000). So if they need all of this training, how will the other 99.83% of females [fare]?
If the 16 make it, how does that reflect all females? Over 130 (approximately) attempted, and 16 are left (12%). .02% of ALL females that were allowed to attempt still have chance. If these were males, this would be deemed an epic failure. Do the math on the money the government spent on this, and tell me this is worth the tax payers dime. It’s [borderline] criminal. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, literally, from the pay, tdy, salary of the personal instructor, time away from their unit (other people doing double duty), salaries for O/As for several months, and the actual cost of sending a soldier to ranger school.

Everything about this experiment is wrong — an insult to common sense — because it is inspired by radical feminist gender theory.

Understand this: Because of budget cuts — thanks, President Obama! — the Army is currently planning to eliminate 10 brigades.

I repeat: TEN BRIGADES are being eliminated from the Army and yet, somehow, the Pentagon manages to find enough money in its budget to provide special training for female soldiers for use in this bizarre “gender integration” experiment at Fort Benning.

Even if you are not disturbed (as you should be) by the weirdness of this Island of Doctor Moreau project, even if the idea of trying to turn women into androgynous Death Machines doesn’t give you nightmares, what about the costs in terms of dollars and human resources to conduct this experiment at taxpayer expense? Only a government under the control of fanatical ideologues would attempt to do this unnatural and unholy thing in the name of “gender integration,” and yet no member of Obama’s Army can be permitted to criticize it.

“Feminism is fundamentally inhumane. It is a totalitarian belief system, intolerant of dissent. It is a rationalization of hate, and therefore feminism can justify telling any lie, so long as men are hurt (and feminists are empowered) by the lie. . . .
“All that is necessary, in feminist rhetoric and belief, is to blame men for everything bad. . . .
“To be a feminist in good standing, therefore, requires a woman to ignore the basic errors of her fellow feminists, to cooperate in feminism’s totalitarian project of silencing critics who call attention to that which feminism must ignore.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Sex Trouble: Radical Feminism and the War on Human Nature, pp. 81, 84

So it is that the U.S. Army, which is supposed to protect American freedom, is being used to destroy American freedom.

Almost as if someone had declared a WAR AGAINST HUMAN NATURE or something. http://t.co/9nEewR5XgL #tcot pic.twitter.com/xe0isVI0DZ

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) May 11, 2015

(Special hat-tip: Paul Hair on Twitter.)

<br />

Category: Military, Sex Trouble

Worth Reading Carefully

Posted on | May 10, 2015 | 75 Comments

“The corruption of man is followed by the corruption of language. When simplicity of character and the sovereignty of ideas is broken up by the prevalence of secondary desires, the desire of riches, of pleasure, of power, and of praise — and duplicity and falsehood take place of simplicity and truth, the power over nature as an interpreter of the will, is in a degree lost; new imagery ceases to be created, and old words are perverted to stand for things which are not; a paper currency is employed, when there is no bullion in the vaults. In due time, the fraud is manifest, and words lose all power to stimulate the understanding or the affections. Hundreds of writers may be found in every long-civilized nation, who for a short time believe, and make others believe, that they see and utter truths, who do not of themselves clothe one thought in its natural garment, but who feed unconsciously on the language created by the primary writers of the country, those, namely, who hold primarily on nature.”
— Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nature

It is not often you’ll find me quoting a New Englander like Emerson, whose philosophy was typical of how the Yankees — who in the 17th century had hanged witches and whose penchant for fanaticism gave rise to every manner of antinomian heretical sect in subsequent generations — by the mid-19th century came to prefer secular moralism to anything that might be learned from the Bible. Well, Ideas Have Consequences, but at this point in our nation’s descent into degenerate anarchy, there’s no need to resurrect ancient grudges and lost causes. Everyone who is willing to fight against the onlaught of terror is a potential ally, and is welcome to join the Camp of the Saints.

“We stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord.”

Do the young read Emerson anymore? Do they know anything about Teddy Roosevelt? Are they taught anything at all about our nation’s actual history and cultural traditions? We have abundant evidence that youth have been plunged into Stygian darkness, an endless night of permanent and incurable ignorance. Not only do they know almost nothing, they have no curiosity about any of the things they do not know — which, as I say, is nearly everything. Rarely does one meet a person under 40 who isn’t virtually destitute in terms of actual knowledge.

Youth nowadays believe they don’t need to know anything, because they have what educational bureaucrats call “learning skills.” As long as they are capable of finding something with a Google search, what does it matter whether or not they ever actually do Google it? Their entire mental life is built around the idea expressed by every apathetic student taking a required course in college: “Is this going to be on the exam?”

So we have many millions of allegedly “educated” Americans, people with college degrees who haven’t opened a book since they received their diploma. They went to college in order to obtain a credential that would qualify them for an office job with a salary, benefits, paid vacation and everything else deemed necessary to middle-class life. Once they got the requisite credential, their interest in “education” ended, and so they spend their leisure watching Netflix or playing XBox or in some other amusement. Read a book? Why would anyone want to read a book?

“Is this going to be on the exam?”

Speculative philosophy never really interested me. If I learned anything in college about Plato or Rousseau, it was only enough to pass a test. Other people’s opinions don’t impress me much. Just give me the facts, and I can form my own opinions, thank you. This is also why I don’t read much fiction. History has always fascinated me. Literature? Meh.

Anyway, a commenter quoted that Emerson passage in response my post about “Feminism’s Mirage of Equality.” His point about intellectual “duplicity and falsehood” as a sort of counterfeiting — “a paper currency is employed, when there is no bullion in the vaults” — struck me as quite relevant to the way feminists parasitically defraud “the primary writers of the country, those, namely, who hold primarily on nature.”

The piling up of theory as a substitute for actual knowledge is the characteristic humbug of our age. We are expected to heed feminist gender theory about the development of human identity when the authors of these theories typically have never raised a child and, quite often, are temperamentally averse to participation in the natural process by which human offspring are generated. Today is Mother’s Day, and what the average mom knows about “gender” as a natural fact is far more trustworthy than any feminist professor’s intellectual theory.

Category: Education, Sex Trouble

Rule 5 Sunday: Station To Station

Posted on | May 10, 2015 | 12 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Welcome to another addition of Rule 5 Sunday, a staple of this blog since the days when Our Founder received the vision that became known as The Underpants Gnome Theory of Blogging, and its Five Rules, perhaps the most important of which is Rule Five, which requires the adoration of attractive women and the mockery of humorless feminists who find such “objectification” objectionable. Thus, as an appetizer for the following links, Mrs. David Bowie, perhaps better known as Iman.

Just think of how many gorgeous babes like this Somalia could show off if the place wasn’t such an anarchistic hellhole full of crazed Muslim douchebags.

As usual, many of the following links depict women with few or no clothes on, and these may be considered NSFW where you work. This being the case, avoid mockery, ostracism and/or termination by exercising discretion with regard to when and where you click.

Goodstuff leads off this week with a celebration of burlesque featuring Dita von Teese, Sally Rand and Lucille Ball; also, cool retro & vintage stuff FOR SCIENCE! Animal Magnetism is next up with Rule 5 Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon, followed by First Street Journal with some Glamour Girls from the IDF.

EBL’s herd this week includes feminists chasing Joss Whedon off Twitter, Sophia Vergara, Sansa Stark from Game of Thrones, Shelley Fabares, and Emily Van Camp.

At A View from the Beach, it’s Not a Con Job – Constance Jablonski, Practice, Practice, Practice, Thursday with the Wombat, The Left Eats Its Own, Gisele’s Husband Cheated, Government Bugs Track Chesapeake Bay Residents, Wombat’s Tales of Tuesday, Tequila Tuesday with Kate Upton, Wombat’s Monday News Review, Piranha Invade Clinton Country, “Real Love”, and Not Even Yes Means Yes.

Soylent Siberia offers your morning coffee creamer, Overnighty Chain Drive, Monday Motivationer Mystery Date, Evening Awesome Wood Nymph, Tuesday Titillation Luscious Leopard, Overnighty Feathered Friend, Humpday Hawt Rail Rider, Happy Hour Hawtness with lesbians, Fursday Fuego Houserocker, Fursday Evening El Fuego, Corset Comestibles, T-GIF Friday Counterbalance, Weekender Fleur-de-lis, and Bath Night Pitcher Perfect.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Juliana Lopes Leite, his Vintage Babe is Marilyn Maxwell, and Sex in Advertising is covered by Victoria’s Secret. At Dustbury, it’s Tammy Wynette and Nadia Comaneci.

Thanks to everyone for the linkagery, and for helping make last week’s Rule 5 Monday top post in the FMJRA! Deadline to submit links to the
Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for next weekend’s roundup is midnight on Saturday, May 16.

Station To Station
Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

Brother Of The World’s Youngest Blogger Brings It As Only He Can

Posted on | May 10, 2015 | 5 Comments

Brother of the World's Youngest Blogger: "If our leadership lacks balls, I can supply." pic.twitter.com/4cBYz2nIWh

— IGotOverMachoGrande (@smitty_one_each) May 10, 2015

Category: World's Youngest Blogger

The War Against Human Nature: Feminism and the Mirage of ‘Equality’

Posted on | May 9, 2015 | 66 Comments

“As far as feminist endorsements are concerned, this was the holy grail: A word with a complicated history reclaimed by the most powerful celebrity in the world. . . . Beyoncé would become the subject of two-thirds of all tweets about feminism in the 24 hours after her appearance [at the 2014 Video Music Awards].”
— Jessica Bennett, Time magazine, Aug. 26, 2014

“Beyoncé is . . . idolised for her feminist credentials in the November 2013 [Australian] edition of Cosmopolitan. The ‘first lady of awesomeness’ is praised for her ability to ‘influence the global conversation on feminism, race, sexuality, philanthropy, justice, marriage, love and friendship’ via the ‘booty-popping’ way that she gets her fans involved in the politics of empowerment.’ . . .
“The fact that she ‘still reserves the right to be a Feminist in Heels’ . . . is presented as the main reason to love her.”
— Kate Farhall, in Freedom Fallacy: The Limits of Liberal Feminism, edited by Miranda Kiraly and Meagan Tyler

“Feminism teaches women that to be normal is to be inferior.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Sex Trouble: Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature

No intelligent person imagines it was mere coincidence that one of the world’s biggest pop singers decided to help “re-brand” feminism in 2014. Two years earlier, feminism had proved a valuable political weapon that helped re-elect President Obama after the accusation that Republicans were waging a “war on women” enabled the Democrat to score the largest “gender gap” advantage among female voters ever recorded by Gallup. With Hillary Clinton generally coinsidered a shoo-in favorite to be the Democrats’ presidential nominee in 2016, a relentless push to popularize the “feminist” label has been underway in the liberal media, who are always willing to tell any lie that will help elect Democrats.

As much as any Republican might be offended by the media’s dishonest marketing of “pop feminism,” however, there is another group even more offended — actual feminists, the kind who believe in the movement’s political philosophy and radical egalitarian theory. This kind of feminism, the academic dogma promoted by professors in university Women’s Studies program, has nothing to do with the “booty-popping” celebrity “Feminist in Heels” act that Beyoncé displayed during her 2014 VMA performance. Determined to fight back against this vacuous “re-branding” of feminism, a group of radical scholars have published a new book Freedom Fallacy: The Limits of Liberal Feminism. Edited by two Australians, author Miranda Kiraly and university researcher Meagan Tyler, the book is a collection essays by the editors and 17 other writers, 11 of whom are Australian, three Canadian, two British and one American. Of the 19 contributors to Freedom Fallacy, 14 are associated with universities either as faculty or as graduate students. The others work for non-profit organizations, except Meghan Murphy, proprietor of Feminist Current, “Canada’s leading feminist website.”

Freedom Fallacy got a rather ironic plug last week when #GamerGate scourge Anita Sarkeesian tweeted out a link with this message:

“Feminism is about the collective liberation of women as
a social class. Feminism is not about personal choice.”

This rejection of “personal choice” contradicts everything most people who call themselves “feminist” claim to believe, of course, but as I explain in the introduction to Sex Trouble:

Almost everyone claims to accept feminism if they can be permitted to define it in the most commonly accepted understanding of “equality” as basic fairness. Especially in terms of educational and employment opportunity, no one argues in favor of discrimination against women. Yet this widely accepted idea of feminism, as a concern for equality in the sense of fairness and opportunity, is not the goal of the feminist movement today, nor was this the goal of the movement when it began in the late 1960s. The leaders of the Women’s Liberation movement were radicals — many of them were avowed Marxists — who advocated a social revolution to destroy the basic institutions of Western civilization, which they denounced as an oppressive system of male supremacy, often labeled “patriarchy.”

So-called “Second Wave” feminism burned hot and then flamed out, even as its radical ideas were misunderstood by many of those who embraced the Women’s Liberation banner as a trendy political fashion statement.

The contributors to Freedom Fallacy recognize a similar problem with what Kate Farhall calls the recent “explosion of a new, popular feminism . . . rebranded and marketed to a younger, more pop-culture oriented generation.” A Ph.D. candidate at the University of Melbourne, Farhall examines how “pop feminism” is presented in women’s magazines that “consciously align themselves with this popular feminism, lauding the achievements of openly feminist celebrities, explicitly engaging with feminist issues and applauding strong, empowered women” even while continuing to emphasize conventional ideas of beauty:

Feminist research consistently shows the objectification of women and the pressure of feminine beauty ideals to be problematic and limiting to women. Consequently, the dueal emphases of women’s freedom and adherence to feminine beauty standards seemingly render this popular form of feminism, not only internally incoherent, but counterproductive to women’s equality. . . .
On the one hand, popular feminism applauds strong women and seeks to empower young women to achieve their goals, become educated and attain a greater level of self-respect. On the other hand, beauty ideals that are unattainable for most women are still held up as a standard to emulate and those who vocally support popular feminism are often those who also objectify themselves in order to conform to a male-driven understanding of what is ‘sexy.’ . . .
Feminism in its current, popular form, then, would seem reluctant to confront or criticise male power. These tensions between a ‘sexy’ popular feminism and more substantive challenges to the patriarchy are also played out in women’s magazines.

Permit me to interrupt Farhall here to say that I have always considered women’s magazines to be degrading, insipid trash. Why would any literate person waste their time reading Cosmopolitan?

The very fact that these magazines are so popular with teenage girls tells you something about the failure of public education to inculcate civilized tastes and decent morality in youth. If you want your daughter to be a shallow slut, just buy her a subscription to Cosmo. Being a shallow slut is certainly not “empowering,” yet such is the “feminism” marketed by women’s magazines. Farhall quotes a young columnist from the May 2013 Australian edition of Cosmopolitan celebrating the fashionable popular brand of feminism:

“I shave my legs, I own red lipstick, I wear five-inch heels. I love my job and I love men. . . . I’m a feminist and I’m proud of it. I hope you are too.”

Can the reader guess which part of that declaration is most disturbing to Farhall? If you guessed, “I love men,” you win the prize:

Popular feminism is rebranded as fun, flirty and feminine and actively placed in direct opposition to alternative iterations of feminism that are labelled as outdated and unattractive. . . . It is difficult to see how conforming to traditional notions of heterosexual femininity will bring about equality.

Here we have the radical War on Human Nature, the “gender theory” attack on our understanding of masculinity and femininity as the normal traits of normal people in normal relationships. To distill this theory to its essence (as articulated by Professor Judith Butler) it’s the “social construction” of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix. I explained gender theory in “Feminists Against Heterosexuality”:

To translate this to plain English, if you are a normal (feminine) woman who feels normal (heterosexual) attraction toward normal (masculine) men, this means that you have been brainwashed by society into accepting your own oppression under the system of male supremacy. Feminists believe that heterosexuality is imposed on women by the patriarchy — women are “coerced into heterosexuality,” as Professor Marilyn Frye explained — and feminine behavior is simply the performance of inferiority. Gender “glamorizes the subordinate status of females” and creates an artificial appearance of male-female difference in order “to clearly mark the subordinate class [i.e., females] from the privileged class [i.e., males].”
Thus, there are no natural differences between male and female, according to feminist theory, only the oppressive hierarchy of “gender” by which society enforces male supremacy.

This anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology is what students learn in university Women’s Studies classes, where textbooks edited by lesbians are taught by professors who, typically, are either lesbians or Marxists or both. The curriculum is openly hostile to Judeo-Christian morality and the traditional family, and the purpose of this intellectual assault is, as Professor Butler says, “the subversion of identity.” No one should be surprised when a student in an “Introduction to Feminist Theory” course at SUNY-Buffalo leaves the classroom exclaiming, “Every time I walk out of this class I just become more sexually confused!”

If human identity is “socially constructed,” as feminists insist, then it may also be deconstructed and, because opposition to feminism is effectively prohibited within academia, no student on the 21st-century is likely to encounter an articulate criticism of these theories.

“The fanatical rigidity of the feminist worldview can permit no dissent. Critics must be silenced and opponents must be demonized as ‘haters.’ Feminism encourages the young True Believer to think of herself as intellectually and morally superior to others. She possesses the extraordinary insight necessary to obtain the radical gnosis, and is therefore qualified to enlighten others.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, “What Feminists Mean by ‘Equality,'” April 4

In the atmosphere created by feminist hegemony in academia, sexually normal students (especially those from Christian homes whose worldview has been shaped by biblical teaching) become doubtful and confused because they encounter no intellectually respectable authorities responding to the challenge of gender theory. By contrast, sexually deviant students — including promiscuous heterosexual women as well as everyone whose preferences are officially represented on campus by the rainbow flag of LGBT groups — are incited to an attitude of radical certainty about their own oppression.

No one may “slut-shame” the college girl who sleeps around, for disapproval of promiscuity can only mean you are a misogynist, and any expression of disapproval toward LGBT preference is proof that you’re a homophobe. Within the parameters of Correct Thought established by the rules of acceptable 21st-century campus discourse, the only sexual behaviors that can be criticized are:

The chaste behavior of women who refuse to participate in the booze-and-sex rituals of college “hook-up culture”;
and
Male heterosexuality.

In effect, the feminist influence on college sexual attitudes amounts to a direct reversal of the old sexist double-standard that celebrated the promiscuous male “stud” while denigrating the promiscuous female “slut.” Now, feminism’s insistence on female “sexual autonomy” justifies the woman in being as promiscuous as she pleases, while the attitudes of the promiscuous male are condemned as “rape culture.” Under no circumstance, however, do feminists endorse or advocate the most obvious alternative to the hook-up culture — chastity within a system of courtship directed toward the goal of lifelong monogamous heterosexual pair-bonding, i.e., traditional marriage. In the climate that currently prevails in academia, a woman can be celebrated for being either a slut or a lesbian, but is targeted for ridicule as a “prude” (or a religious bigot) if she is a virgin. Meanwhile, the only males whose sexual behavior merits praise on campus are gay men. Male heterosexual college students are classified by feminists into three categories:

Rapists;
Potential rapists waiting for a suitable opportunity to rape;
and
“Rape apologists” who, while lacking the masculine appetite for predatory violence necessary to commit rape themselves, nevertheless are alleged to admire rapists as sexual outlaws enacting all men’s secret fantasy.

The feminist conception of male sexuality involves a paranoid hostility I call Fear and Loathing of the Penis, so that it is impossible for them to imagine that men’s attraction toward women can be inspired by sincere admiration. Nor, for that matter, can feminism accept as “natural” a woman’s pleasure in being romantically pursued by a male suitor. No, the academic feminist tells us, all that wooing and courtship — moonlight walks and intimate dinners, hugs and kisses, etc. — is a deliberate illusion that conceals the true nature of male supremacy, an oppression that obtains its most direct expression in phallocentric sexuality.

“PIV is always rape, OK?”

Feminist gender theory ultimately boils down to this lunatic derangement infamously expressed by the radical blogger Witchwind. Normal men enjoy having sexual intercourse with women. Because normal sex makes normal men happy, the radical feminist must believe, therefore normal sex is wrong. Abolishing male happiness is an essential goal of the feminist movement, which is why gender theory must exclude the possibility that normal women can also enjoy normal sex with normal men. You will never find a Woman’s Studies professor who endorses traditional female behavior oriented toward finding herself a good husband, having babies and providing domestic happiness for herself and her family. Any time a man comes home from work to find his wife has cooked a nice family dinner, the patriarchy wins.

Returning to Kate Farhall’s critique of heteronormative “pop feminism”:

Despite their recent engagement with feminist ideas, the majority of the content of contemporary women’s magazines remains grounded in mainstream understandings of femininity with an emphasis on content relating to appearance and relationships. . . .
A significant body of research addresses women’s magazines notes their focus on successful heterosexual relationships that lead to marriage as the ultimate goal for women.

Marrying men is bad for women, according to feminist theory, which has for many decades condemned women’s role in marriage as a form of slavery. Criticizing the “centrality of beauty and heterosexual relationships” in the content of women’s magazines, Kate Farhall rejects “pop feminism” as a self-contradicting sham:

Put simply, the goal of women’s equality and the achievement of beauty ideals, as defined within a patriarchal system, are incompatible. It is not possible for women to advance, to become the empowered women popular feminism both applauds and envisages, if ultimately their value is still based on their physical attractiveness and sexual attractiveness to men. An emphasis on the achievement on feminine beauty ideals is thus incompatible with women’s equality, as it serves to limit, rather than empower, women. . . .
Feminism should aspire to fight the overarching patriarchal structures that limit women, rather than teach women how to achieve success in a man’s world. Thus, a popular liberal feminism that remains committed to objectification, ultimately cannot achieve women’s freedom.

You see? Encouraging women “to achieve success in a man’s world” — the way Beyoncé did, by making millions of dollars, marrying Jay Zee and having a baby daughter — “serves to limit, rather than empower” feminists like Kate Farhall, who have no commercially valuable talent, who don’t like men and who, even if they did like men, could never develop the kind of “sexual attractiveness to men” that Beyoncé has.

Whether or not life “within a patriarchal system” is unfair to women in general, it is more unfair to some women than to others. Some women — the kind of women who get college degrees in Women’s Studies and consider that an “achievement” — can’t stand the fact that other women make more money in tips on a good weekend waiting tables at Buffalo Wild Wings than Kate Farfall gets paid for writing a 5,000-word essay about “objectification.” Then the waitress meets a guy with a good job and marries him and, by the time she’s 25, she’s living with her husband and their baby in a house in the suburbs, while the academic feminist is still grinding it out in grad school, living in a tiny apartment.

Winners win and losers lose, and guess who denounces the “system” and demands “equality”? Hint: Not the winners.

Kate Farhall is correct in saying that celebrity endorsements from Beyoncé don’t really do anything for the feminist cause, because truly successful women don’t actually need feminism. Anyone who has read Carolyn Graglia’s Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism understands that the kind of “equality” feminists demand is one that would actually limit, rather than increase, opportunities for women. In particular, feminism seeks to limit opportunities for women to become what Beyoncé is — a married mother — because if women can choose that kind of life, most women will choose that kind of life, and feminists hate women for choosing that kind of life.

Feminism is about a Leninist "revolutionary vanguard" of self-appointed leaders gaining power by claiming to speak on behalf of all women.

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) May 9, 2015

This is what should bother us most about feminism, its claim to speak for the interests of all women, implying the obverse, that (a) any man who criticizes feminism is “anti-woman,” and (b) any woman who rejects feminism is too stupid to know her own interests.

It is this hideous contempt for the normal lives of normal women which inspires feminists in their campaign of hateful vengeance. Consumed by frustration and resentment, feminists condemn normal women as inferior and wage War Against Human Nature in order to destroy the happiness of others by creating a totalitarian Utopia of Misery where everyone will be equally unhappy.

<br />

Category: Sex Trouble