The Other McCain

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

‘No More Fun of Any Kind!’

Posted on | August 25, 2015 | 81 Comments

 

“Thou shalt not joke about sex,” would seem to be the politically correct commandment on campus this fall:

The Ivory Tower Outrage Brigades are once again picking up the cudgel of political correctness and are salivating at the thought of beating some poor miscreant over the head with it.
In this case at Old Dominion College, the party started even before classes began. The Eta Chi chapter of the Sigma Nu fraternity decided to live up to the reputation of frat boys everywhere and hung some banners welcoming freshmen girls to the school.
“Rowdy and Fun. Hope your baby girl is ready for a good time.”
“Freshman daughter drop off.”
“Go ahead and drop off mom too.”

Well, of course, it was Sigma Nu — the Snakes, we called ’em back in the day. Everybody knows how the Snakes are. They are barely more civilized than the Vikings of Alpha Tau Omega, who once so lived up to their savage reputation that a professor at Penn wrote a book about it. What the brothers at Penn dubbed “the ATO express” — and subsequently defended as “multiple consensual intercourse” — is more commonly known as a “gang bang” or “pulling a train,” but a feminist professor called it Fraternity Gang Rape. The girl was tripping on four hits of acid, and was therefore deemed “incapacitated,” but whose fault was that? How were the ATOs, who were themselves in their customary state of extreme intoxication, supposed to know that the girl yelling “F–k me! F–k me!” at 3 a.m. was more “incapacitated” than they were?

That was 1983, and the news accounts of ATO’s suspension at Penn sparked widespread commentary. Anybody who knew anything about college life understood (a) that many girls went to frat parties with the specific purpose of getting drunk and having sex, and (b) that some girls were quite willing to take on more than one frat brother at a time. In the 1983 incident at Penn, at least five ATOs were involved. When the fraternity was accused of rape, after feminists on campus held rallies demanding that the administration take action, the ATOs argued in their defense that such incidents of “multiple consensual intercourse” occurred once or twice a month at Penn. That is to say, the ATO brothers felt they were being unfairly punished for doing something that was a customary and accepted part of campus life. The feminist professor, taking this claim as truthful, used it to argue that college girls were being routinely victimized by “the phallocentric social order.”

Were they? Certainly, parents do not send their daughters to Penn with the expectation that the girls will drop four hits of LSD, go to fraternity parties and get banged in the basement of the ATO house. However, the in loco parentis doctrine on campus got thrown away during the student uprisings of the 1960s. And if you look at that 1983 incident objectively — a crazy girl yelling “F–k me! F–k me!” at 3 a.m. when everybody had been drinking all night — is it really fair to say the ATOs were more responsible for what happened than she was? The question is not one of morality, but of equal justice under the law. Feminists ranting about “the phallocentric social order” are simply trying to justify deliberate unfairness against males, to claim that males bear 100 percent of the responsibility for any sexual encounter they have, while females have no responsibility at all. Say what you will about fraternities, or about college guys in general, but I do not see how this women-are-never-responsible standard can be justified on the basis of “equality.”

Meanwhile, at Old Dominion University, the Sigma Nu chapter’s expression of phallocentric humor was not appreciated:

ODU officials . . . say they are investigating. . . .
“Messages like the ones displayed yesterday by a few students on the balcony of their private residence are not and will not be tolerated. The moment University staff became aware of these banners, they worked to have them removed. At ODU, we foster a community of respect and dignity and these messages sickened us. They are not representative of our 3,000 faculty and staff, 25,000 students and our 130,000 alumni. . . .Any student found to have violated the code of conduct will be subject to disciplinary action.”

College boys want to have sex with college girls? And actually make jokes about their heterosexual intentions? Outrage!

Adam Steinbaugh discusses the First Amendment aspects of the Old Dominion University incident, condemning the gratuitously offensive banners while at the same time defending the value of free speech. Being old enough to remember when students took over campus buildings for illegal sit-in protests at Columbia University and elsewhere, I cannot see how liberals who celebrate the plainly criminal acts of Sixties radicals now expect us to take them seriously when they act indignant about rude frat boys who act like rude frat boys.

In 1968, radical students ‘liberated’ Columbia University.

By the same token, I do not see how liberals who celebrate the “Sexual Revolution” of the 1960s can now expect us to take them seriously when they express outrage at the crudely licentious behavior of young men. (Note that liberals never condemn the behavior of young women, because to do so would be sexist “slut-shaming.”) In 1969, the “Weatherman” faction of the left-wing Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) made “Smash Monogamy” their motto, so that participation in orgies was practically a requirement for their followers. One of the leaders of that terrorist cult, Bill Ayers, was subsequently a Chicago political comrade of young Barack Obama. How is it that now we have liberals acting as the forces of repression, when their leaders were once advocates of revolution? It’s rather the same way that the Bolsheviks, who were ruthless in overthrowing the government of Russia, were then equally ruthless in suppressing dissent, to ensure the Bolsehvik regime could never be overthrown. The tremendous irony of Soviet history was that those who had done the most to establish the Bolshevik dictatorship — including Leon Trotsky, who led the Red Army to victory in the Russian Civil War — were subsequently liquidated by Stalin.

Alas, those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it, and no college student today is taught this kind of history. Facts mean nothing to the totalitarian ideologues who now control university life in this country, and whose only task is to indoctrinate youth into supporting the Democrat Party agenda. There will henceforth be zero tolerance of heterosexual males making jokes on campus, because the policy of the Democrat Party is against males and against heterosexuality, too.

Ramon Mercader could not be reached for comment.

 

This article is part of the Sex Trouble project that has been supported by contributions from readers. The first edition of Sex Trouble: Radical Feminism and the War on Human Nature is available from Amazon.com, $11.96 in paperback or $1.99 in Kindle ebook format.





 

 

Category: Education, Sex Trouble

Rule 5 Sunday: RIP Batgirl, Viva Jeannie!

Posted on | August 23, 2015 | 15 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

This week marked the demise of Yvonne Craig, known not only for her portrayal of Batgirl on the 1960s Batman series but (perhaps more widely) as the Orion Slave Girl in the original Star Trek pilot The Menagerie.

A cosplayer dressed as a pregnant Orion Slave Girl, modeled on Yvonne Craig

It’s also Barbara Eden’s birthday! Born in 1931, Ms. Eden was a busy actress, but she’s best remembered for her starring role as a genie found by an astronaut in I Dream of Jeannie.

Barbara Eden as Jeannie the genie

As usual, many of the following links are to pictures normally considered not safe for work. Readers are advised to use discretion when clicking; the management is not responsible for any pollution of your precious bodily fluids if you fail to do so.

And speaking of the late Yvonne Craig, here she is with Salma Hayek in Goodstuff’s weekly megablog! Ninety Miles from Tyranny is up next with Morning Mistress, Hot Pick of the Late Night, and Girls with Guns, followed by Animal Magnetism with Rule 5 Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon.

EBL’s thundering herd this week includes the girls of Alpha Phi, Yvonne Craig, South Pacific, Carly Fiorina, clean food blogging, Ellen Page, and Barbara Eden.

A View from the Beach has Vanessa Hudgens, “Some Other Time”, Bye Bye Batgirl!, The Coffee Cure For Colon Cancer?, Are You Ready to Rumble?, Shocking News From Virginia, Beer Review: Candi, and UGA SJWs Fight Last Battle of Civil War – Ban Hoop Skirts.

At Soylent Siberia, they’ve got a coffee grinder, Monday Motivationer Leather Lather, Tuesday Titillation Come Hither, Humpday Hawtness Tiffany, Fursday Fantastic Lisa, Corset Friday Latent Lingerie, T-GIF Friday Wriggling Out of the Net, Weekender Cosplay Edition, and Bath Night Rustic.

Postaldog returns with Salma Hayek, Chloe Bennet, Forbes’ List of the highest paid women in Hollywood, Laura Prepon, and Molly Shattuck.

American Power returns after a long absence with April Rose, SI Swimsuit Issue Sneak Peek, Liz Hurley, Kate Hudson, Drunken Stepfathers, Lissy Cunningham, and The Rise of Sexual Fluidity.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Bella Hadid, his Vintage Babe is May Wynn, Sex in Advertising is covered by Myla lingerie, and there’s also Women of PETA XLV, also the obligatory pre-season 49ers cheerleader. At Dustbury, it’s Carole Bouquet and Yukiko Okada.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for next weekend’s Rule 5 Sunday is midnight on Saturday, August 28. if you have links to Rule 5 Sunday, e-mail them to my [email protected] mailbox by noon on the 28th.


I Dream of Jeannie: The Complete Series
Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

Solomonic Wisdom Needed

Posted on | August 23, 2015 | 36 Comments

Suppose you were a judge, and you were faced with the decision of who should have custody of a 17-year-old girl:

  1. A 25-year-old junkie;
    or
  2. A 53-year-old lesbian?

This is not a hypothetical scenario:

The man who allegedly housed Rosie O’Donnell’s 17-year-old daughter Chelsea for a week while she was missing from home has been charged with child endangerment and communication of obscenity, New Jersey prosecutors announced Saturday.
Steven Sheerer, 25, was arrested Friday night in his Barnegat, New Jersey, home and could face up to five years in prison for each charge (or 10 years total), the Ocean County Prosecutor’s Office said in a statement.
The arrest stems from a Friday search of Chelsea’s phone (with O’Donnell’s consent) which revealed “evidence of inappropriate communications over the last several weeks” between Sheerer and the teen, according to the statement. . . . .
A $40,000 bond has been set for Sheerer, according to jail records. He has been barred from contacting the O’Donnell family, according to the prosecutor’s statement.
O’Donnell’s publicist Cindi Berger commented on Sheerer’s charges in a statement to PEOPLE.
“He was involved with a minor, and Rosie’s concern has been and always will be the health, safety and well-being of her daughter,” Berger said. . . .
Sheerer has previously faced charges of “third-degree possession of heroin with the intent to distribute, third-degree possession of heroin, third-degree endangering the welfare of a child and possession of drug paraphernalia,” a Barnegat police spokesman told PEOPLE.

Chelsea was adopted by O’Donnell when she was married to her first wife, Kelli Carpenter, who left O’Donnell in 2007. In 2012, O’Donnell married Michelle Rounds, but they split in February (“The Tragedy of Lesbian Divorce”) and, at an event at Barnard College shortly afterwards, O’Donnell said, “I felt like a lesbian cougar. All these gorgeous twentysomething girls!” In April, TMZ reported that in her divorce filing, Michelle Rounds claimed “Rosie drinks a bottle of wine nearly every night, regularly smokes weed” and “let their 19-year-old son throw parties where the kids all drink.”

So, obviously, it’s a very good thing 17-year-old Chelsea is back home with Rosie, where she is safe, rather than with a 25-year-old heroin addict, who could be a bad influence. Maybe some day Chelsea O’Donnell will write a tell-all memoir and call it Mommy Queerest.

 

Category: Celebrities, Gays

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
« 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