The Other McCain

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

Late Night With Rule 5 Monday

Posted on | April 20, 2015 | 14 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Better late than never…apologies for the lateness, but it was a busy weekend. As an appetizer, veteran and former Playboy Playmate Michelle Manhart, who made the news this week when she interrupted some flag-desecrating morons by stealing their flag, and got arrested for her pains.

Ms. Manhart in PG-13 attire.

As usual, readers are warned that many of the following links lead to pictures of young women (un)dressed to show off their charms, which may be considered NSFW unless you have a really good job. If you don’t, be discreet in your clicking.

Goodstuff leads off this week with the super hot Molly Quinn, followed by Ninety Miles from Tyranny with Hot Pick of the Late Night, Morning Mistress,  and Girls with Guns. Average Bubba is up next with Rule 5 Saturday, Animal Magnetism has Rule 5 Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon, and First Street Journal has military women Enlisting.

EBL’s thundering herd this week includes Jeannette Rubio, Heidi Cruz, Lisa McElroy’s Bad Day, speculation over which team Hillary bats for, Metro Rule 5, and The Britt McHenry Meltdown. Also, Feminists With Anger Issues!

Wine Women and Politics returns with Babe of the Day, Asstastic, Those Are Nice, Fishnet Friday, Good Gawd, Nice Ass, and Hot Damn!

A View from the Beach offers Afrikaner Beauty – Genevieve Morton, Miss Piggy, Anchorwoman Goes Off On Parking Lot Attendant, Just Found a Couple of Easter Eggs . . ., “It’s a Man’s Man’s World”, A Pint of Guinness for Your Heart, The Zombie Kiss Cam, Have Another Donut for Your Brain’s Sake. When Manatees Attack, and Chesapeake Clean Up Not Obvious.

Soylent Siberia serves up the first class coffee creamer this week, followed by Monday Motivationer Fire in the Hole, That’s Just How I Reacted Too, Tuesday Titillation Smoke on the Water, Humpday Hawtness Charms, Falconsword Fursday Peek A Boo, 3 Million Siberians Can’t Be Wrong, Corset Considerations, T-GIF Friday Here Kitty Kitty, Weekender Awesome, and Bath Night: You Scream I Scream.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Ronda Rousey, his Vintage Babe is Frances Langford, and Sex in Advertising is by Guess this week. At Dustbury, it’s Da Brat and Jessica Jung.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for next weekend’s Rule 5 roundup is midnight on Saturday, April 25.

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

On Another Plane, George S. Patton Is Swearing Out A Year’s Supply Of Napalm

Posted on | April 20, 2015 | 22 Comments

by Smitty

Old George was famously reprimanded for striking soldiers. I can see him going for a full-on pistol whip of the godless Commies behind this travesty:

In the “Walk a Mile in Her Shoes” event, cadets were required to wear high heels and march to “raise awareness of sexual assault against women.”

Part of the recovery of this country is going to involve a general purge of all of these anti-American abject morons from positions of authority. I support and defend their Constitutional right to be craven colostomy bags. They should not hold leadership positions unopposed, though.

via Instapundit

Category: Culture

There’s Always a Backstory

Posted on | April 20, 2015 | 65 Comments

 

Jess Zimmerman (@j_zimms) had come to my attention before, although I couldn’t remember why her Twitter profile seemed familiar when I saw it Sunday. @SeverEnergia on Twitter sent me a link to Zimmerman’s blog post with this (deliberately) infuriating headline:

Men, Get On Board With Misandry
Believe it or not, the man-hating movement
loves you and needs your help. Here’s why.

Before we get to the content of that specimen of feminist idiocy, let’s pause first to examine it in terms of genre. It is first and foremost an example of the Ironic Surrealism School of Punditry: “Let me make an argument so obviously far-fetched as to be impossible, call it ‘counterintuitive,’ and then bask in the applause from my peers in the intelligentsia.”

It is the cleverness of the argument — the show-off strut — that is the point of all such punditry. This is the stock-in-trade of writers at Salon and Slate. When you see a headline like, “ISIS Victory in Syria Would Be the Best Thing for Israel,” or “The Biblical Argument for Gay Marriage,” you know you’re dealing with the Ironic Surrealism School of Punditry. Anyone who has read Hayek’s “The Intellectuals and Socialism” understands what this is really about. Behold, the elite mind in action: Figure out what side of the argument represents ordinary common sense, then exert your superior skills of verbal articulation to “prove” that common sense is wrong. Find an eternal verity, some belief that our culture has traditionally held dear, and write 5,000 words demonstrating that it is a “myth.” With a little luck, a clever essay like that will get published in The Nation and land you a six-figure contract to turn your Ironic Surrealist argument into a book, and never mind the disastrous consequences if your cleverness should actually be implemented as public policy. In a culture dominated by liberalism, consequences are for the Little People. John Kenneth Galbraith’s entire career consisted of making Clever Arguments for Bad Policy, yet his influence was never diminished by his wrongness.

With this in mind, we return to Jess Zimmerman’s Ironic Surrealist argument for Why Man-Hating Is Good for Men:

I drink from a coffee mug that says “Male Tears.” Female friends sign off emails to me with “ban men” or “kill all men.” In at least three people’s phone contacts, my name is followed by an emoji depicting a man with a big red slash through him. When I have the loathsome task of submitting an author bio, I frequently describe myself as a professional misandrist.
And yet the boys love it. My Twitter bio — “cool and nice internet misandrist of note” — is a quote from a man. A male friend once called me “misandrist Jesus,” which I am not sure what that means but it’s the best. Another said I was “the Temple Grandin of misandry” for the gentle, understanding way in which I lead men to the slaughter. I am not just a misandrist; I am a Man Whisperer.
How’s that work? How can I hate men and still like men, and even more, have the men (mostly) LIKE that I hate men? How can men not just find my misandry jokes funny, but take them to be genuinely good news? Well, listen up while I whisper you, boys: Misandry is on your side. . . .

Zimmerman’s basic theme — “Men love me because I hate men” — is the classic counterintuitive gesture of the Ironic Surrealist. Her claim falls apart the minute you examine her biography, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves, eh? Here’s some more Zimmerman:

You may have read my friend Amanda [Hess]’s terrific piece about ironic misandry at Slate, in which I am obscenely proud to be heavily quoted. . . . In it, I say that men who have a problem with misandry jokes are “universally brittle, insecure, humorless weenies with victim complexes.” However, in the weeks since Amanda interviewed me, I had a male friend — not a humorless weenie but a person I cherish even though he sometimes says things like this — complain that the “misandry thing” gets to be “a bit much.” (I did say they MOSTLY like it.) Also, since the article came out, several people have half-jokingly asked me “wait, your misandry is IRONIC?”  . . .

Note the attitude of narcissistic self-congratulation: “My humor is so cleverly nuanced, and men are so incredibly stupid, they don’t get the point of my humor, namely that I am vastly superior to men.”

Once you see that Zimmerman’s only purpose is to demonstrate her personal superiority, everything else she writes becomes predictable. Because the basic premise of her arguments is always the same, her conclusion is never really surprising: “I Am Smarter Than You, and Therefore [Whatever].” Evidence is irrelevant. Logic is unnecessary. As for common sense, did any feminist ever let common sense get in her way?

You cannot accuse Jess Zimmerman of common sense:

NO, NONE OF US LITERALLY WANT TO KILL ALL MEN.
I mean, even leaving aside the legality of it, and issues like weapons acquisition and storage space for bodies, who has the TIME? Feminists got sh*t to do.
Here’s what we do want to kill: the concept of masculinity. And you should want that, too.
Fear not, men: even if feminists genuinely, fiercely desired to permanently banish you all to Dude Island, we simply do not have the resources. Even supposing we had a line on an island that could fit half the human population (I guess Australia could handle it, at sufficient density) there’s no way we could afford it — especially not after all this time being underpaid, passed over, glass ceilinged, or sidelined onto the mommy track. Ironically, the very oppression that would make us want to banish you to the Island makes us incapable of purchasing one that can fit you jerks. That’s what this has all been about, right? Well, pat yourself on the back, you won.

You can read the rest of Jess Zimmerman’s column which was published in August 2014. That is to say, Zimmerman’s “ironic” har-dee-har-har defense of anti-male rhetoric hit the Internet just about the time Sabrina Rubin Erdely arrived in Charlottesville, Virginia, prepared to manufacture the journalistic “proof” that America’s elite university campuses are in the grip of a rape epidemic. And we all know how that turned out, don’t we?

Oppressors, Victims and the Larger Truth

Feminism is a totalitarian doctrine of hatred, and the movement’s incessant drumbeat of anti-male propaganda is intended to encourage anti-male attitudes and anti-male policies. It is dishonest for Jess Zimmerman (or Amanda Hess or any other feminist) to suggest otherwise. Perceiving the world through the warped lens of an ideology that divides humanity into Male Oppressors and Female Victims, feminists therefore consider any harm inflicted on any male to be Social Justice.

No harm that befalls a male is wrong or unfair, because no member of the Oppressor class can ever claim to be a Victim. Whatever lies feminists must tell in order to destroy Male Supremacy are always justified, because the Larger Truth (i.e., the universal victimhood of women under patriarchy) is more important than any mundane fact.

Cruelty toward men is thus the ordinary policy of feminism, just as dishonesty is the ordinary mode of feminist discourse. And if any man dares to point this out — to call feminism what it actually is, to describe what feminists actually do — well, this just proves that he is an ignorant bigot or one of those men whom Jess Zimmerman insults as “universally brittle, insecure, humorless weenies with victim complexes.”

Har dee har har.

Tell it to Phi Kappa Psi, ma’am. I’m sure their lawyers can take time away from working on their defamation lawsuit to answer your insult.

Jess Zimmerman plays a familiar feminist Three-Card Monte game, seeking to convince us that her anti-male ideology is not anti-male. She isn’t against men, you see, she’s against “the concept of masculinity.”

You guys weren’t paying attention in Women’s Studies class: It’s the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix!

What does that feminist jargon mean? It means that everything you believe is normal is actually wrong. Men being masculine? Wrong. Women being feminine? Wrong. Heterosexuality? “PIV is always rape, OK?”

While Ms. Zimmerman would have us believe that men are trembling in fear at the prospect that feminism may “permanently banish you all to Dude Island,” it is not men’s banishment, but rather women’s self-imposed exile, which is the inexorable conclusion of the feminist syllogism. Oh, yes, it does indeed involve an island — a Greek island near the coast of Asia Minor — and feminism is a sort of navigational chart to help women in their metaphorical journey across the Mytilini Srait.

 

Those who have read my book Sex Trouble: Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature know how swiftly the Women’s Liberation movement of the 1960s gave rise to “The Lavender Menace.” By 1970, radical lesbians like Rita Mae Brown and Karla Jay were disrupting feminist conferences to declare the self-evident truth that the movement’s revolutionary goal of equality — i.e., “liberation” from the tyrannical yoke of male supremacy — was incompatible with heterosexuality.

What may perhaps surprise the reader of Sex Trouble is that, rather than trying to prove radical feminists are wrong, I begin with the premise that they are correct: “Sexual equality,” in the radical sense, is incompatible with the normal lives of normal people.

This is why feminists like Susan Faludi spent the 1990s fuming about “backlash,” blaming the failures of the feminist movement on right-wing opposition. What actually happened was that feminism, an ideological witch’s brew that emerged from the Marxist cauldrons of the 1960s New Left, simply proved to be incompatible with the kind of life most women prefer, a life that involves men, marriage and motherhood. If what a woman wants out of life is abortion, divorce and lesbianism, she will find no trouble justifying her choices by feminist ideology. Charlotte Bunch, Jill Johnston, Mary Daly, Andrea Dworkin, Monique Wittig, Adrienne Rich, Marilyn Frye, Sarah Lucia Hoagland, Joyce Trebilcot, Sheila Jeffreys, Janice Raymond — there is a vast syllabus of radical feminist literature explaining why, as I say, “Feminism Is a Journey to Lesbianism.”

What else can we conclude when we know, for example, that the editor of The Essential Feminist Reader is a lesbian activist, Professor Estelle B. Freedman, and that the three editors of the most widely assigned college-level Women’s Studies anthology, Feminist Frontiers —  Verta Taylor, Leila Rupp and Nancy Whittier — are also lesbians? It could not be otherwise. No one could put together a Women’s Studies curriculum based entirely on the writing of heterosexual women.

The ‘Consciousness of Victimization’

Feminist theory as taught in our universities is a hostile indictment of the social conditions necessary to normal human sexuality. Insofar as the feminist is not merely anti-male, she must always be anti-marriage, anti-family and anti-procreation, for otherwise she is cooperating in her own oppression and collaborating with the enemy, as explained variously by “The Woman-Identified Woman” (1970), “Lesbians in Revolt” (1972) and the Leeds Revolutionary Feminist Group (1981). The fact that there are still ostensibly heterosexual women who call themselves “feminist” does not negate the lesbian logic of feminism, as was proven in 1992, when the editors of the academic journal Feminism and Psychology made a seemingly innocuous inquiry:

“How does your heterosexuality contribute to your feminist politics (and/or your feminist psychology)?” We sent a letter asking for 1,000 words in response to this question to feminists (including feminist psychologists), none of whom had ever, so far as we knew, made public statements identifying themselves as anything other than heterosexual. Two replied saying they were lesbian and had written publicly as such (we apologized). One wrote back saying she was lesbian but we weren’t to tell anyone. And many women wrote wanting to know how we knew they were heterosexual, and, indeed, how they could tell whether they were heterosexual or not, and just what is a “heterosexual” anyway? . . .
Only when we started to compile a list of heterosexual feminists as potential recipients of our letter did we realize how rare such a public identification is. It would have been much easier to compile a list of self-identified lesbian feminists. “Heterosexual” is not a popular label, and many feminists express their concern about it.

Game. Set. Match.

Reading through the compiled results of that inquiry, Heterosexuality: A Feminism and Psychology Reader (edited by Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger, 1993), you perceive that by the early 1990s, heterosexual women could no longer defend themselves in terms of feminist theory. This was noted by Professor Daphne Patai in her 1998 book, Heterophobia. In reading the Wilkinson-Kitzinger volume, Professor Patai observed, “most striking is the tone of self-criticism adopted by the heterosexual women”:

While the heterosexuals (with rare exceptions) apologized, most of the lesbian contributors took no pains to conceal their sense of superiority at living perfectly coherent feminist lives.

Recall what Advanced Feminist Logic™ teaches us:

“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)

Once a woman attains Feminist Consciousness, you see, there can be no reason she should ever love a man, because there is no reason why any woman can ever trust, respect or admire a man. Because the victimization of females is universal, Advanced Feminist Logic™ teaches that every female must expect to be victimized in every interaction with any male. Every word he says is a sexist lie. Every male action is undertaken to exploit and oppress women. Everything that might make a man attractive to a normal woman, the feminist recognizes as an illusion, a patriarchal deception, the socially constructed result of sexual victimhood imposed on her by the gender hierarchy of male supremacy.

While drinking from her cup of “Male Tears,” Jess Zimmerman doesn’t want her readers to take her anti-male rhetoric at face value, however, because it is important to pretend Men Can Be Feminists, Too.

This is why she finds it necessary to insist that the object of her wrath is not males, per se, but rather “the concept of masculinity.” Women are not oppressed by males, according to Ms. Zimmerman. Instead they are oppressed by a concept, and she wants you, the enlightened male, to believe that you are also a victim of this conceptual oppression.

The sadistic Jess Zimmerman expects the masochistic male to be grateful for this intellectual flogging and, if he should refuse her insulting offer, his refusal is proof of how much he hates women. The logic of her argument divides men into two categories:

  1. Men who agree with Jess Zimmerman;
    and
  2. Ignorant sexist oppressors.

Perhaps by now the reader has become curious: Exactly who is this Jess Zimmerman? What are her qualifications to make these judgments and render these verdicts? You may not be surprised to learn that this 30-something feminist writer who wants to “kill the concept of masculinity” is also “interested in making men irrelevant to my self-concept as a woman.” She has claimed that the problem with Twitter is that “white men unconsciously build products for white men — products that subtly discourage anyone else from using them.” You have probably noticed how women and minorities so seldom use electrical power, telephones, the internal combustion engine, television, polio vaccine, etc.

“Yes, she’s a ridiculous self-parody of feminist absurdity,” says the reader, “but how did she get that way? Why is Jess Zimmerman the particular kind of fool she is?”

It may be helpful to peruse Ms. Zimmerman’s archive at xojane.com and learn, for example, that she was an adolescent “cutter” (“At cool camp I traded self-injury stories and tips with the other cutters”) or that she has a sister who is both more attractive and more successful.

Feminism is, among other things, a rationalization of personal failure and a political substitute for therapy. It is therefore utterly predictable that in 2011, the year Jess Zimmerman turned 30, she denounced “Hot Girls” who embrace patriarchal beauty standards:

Until the woman who doesn’t want to be seen as sexually available can go out with certainty that she won’t be harassed or ogled, your choice to turn heads and revel in attention is a privileged one. Until the woman who doesn’t prioritize appearance gets taken just as seriously in just the same contexts, it’s a privileged choice to achieve certain standards of beauty. . . . Feminists who want to fight for your ability to reject patriarchal standards of beauty or behavior or availability or occupation aren’t trying to constrain your choices. . . . They’re trying to give you more genuine, valid, supported options.

So, I guess somebody didn’t have a date for the prom in 1998 and we’re never going to hear the end of it. However, the most revealing example of Ms. Zimmerman’s therapeutic deployment of feminist ideology — the “Rosebud” scene in her Citizen Kane, as it were — was a 2011 column with this grabber headline:

It Happened to Me: I Had an Affair with my Professor

She “had a perilous crush on the professor” in her senior-year philosophy class, and was surprised that he reciprocated her interest, considering:

What could he have wanted from me? Manic Panic hair, a fat belly and a lousy attitude are not exactly the classic accoutrements of the professor-seducing Lolita coed. But maybe he liked my outsider looks and posturing; they signaled that I wasn’t like the others, or else they just advertised my prickly vulnerability, how easy I was to take advantage of. Maybe he just responded to the habitual cut of my necklines (low).

If you anticipate a Happily Ever After ending to this story, you’re a bigger fool than Jess Zimmerman, who is by all evidence a World-Class Fool. Nothing is ever her fault, you see. Bad things just happen to her because the world is a vast patriarchal conspiracy to make pudgy girls feel sad. She deserves to be loved. She is entitled to admiration (as “the woman who doesn’t prioritize appearance” and exercises her “ability to reject patriarchal standards”) so the failure of others to provide Jess Zimmerman with love and admiration is a social injustice. If you don’t love Jess Zimmerman, you have violated her civil rights. Naturally, the fact that her affair with her professor was unhappy becomes Another Lesson in Male Evil:

I’d like this to have the sort of ending where I reconsider my priorities, rediscover my self-worth, and walk away. I did try to break it off a few times, but he always convinced me that the real problem was me: my lack of control, my ingratitude, my generally warped understanding of the world and him and myself. I believed in his authority, and he’d convinced me I couldn’t be trusted, so who was I to say it wasn’t true? . . .
In the end, I didn’t have to figure out how to walk away. He took a job at another university in another country on the other side of the world, and once he was gone he shut me out. Part of me desperately wanted him to talk to me again, but in his absence, I started studying other lessons too: about feminism, about surviving abuse, about what a certain kind of man can do when he has a little power.
Because what he’d been doing to me wasn’t a new trick. Powerful men — and not just the men, but the society they’re somehow still in charge of — have been on to this bad-teacher jam for a while. After all, if you can talk people into oppressing themselves, it saves you all the work of doing the subjugation for them.

While I disapprove of professors who sleep with their students, it’s hard to disagree with his conclusion that Jess Zimmerman’s problem was, and still is, her “generally warped understanding of the world.” And we know that somewhere, “at another university in another country on the other side of the world,” a professor of philosophy is grateful to have made his escape.





 


;

Category: Intellectuals, Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 04.20.15

Posted on | April 20, 2015 | 10 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


ADMINISTRIVIA
Now that tax season is over, I’ll be taking the time I used to spend in the tax mines and splitting it between blogging and getting ready for the move to Las Vegas. So Live at Five will be back tomorrow, a book post that’s been stewing for a while will be served up later this week, and who knows what else might happen?


OVER THE TRANSOM
Proof Positive: The Plant Whisperer
Doug Powers: There Is No “H” In Spontaneity
Twitchy: “Prove Him Wrong” Instapundit Challenges Press To Counter Ailes’ Hillary-Loving MSM Claim
Shark Tank: Gov. Scott Ready To Sue The Feds Over Obamacare


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Former Playboy Model Michelle Manhart Fights To Protect Flag From Hateful Lefties
American Thinker: Why Hillary Can’t Be In The Moment
BLACKFIVE: Stock Photos – Sometimes Not So Cool
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: What Trigger Warnings Hath Wrought
Conservatives4Palin: 2015 New Hampshire Republican Leadership Summit
Don Surber: No To Transgender “Rights”
Jammie Wearing Fools: Jon Stewart – “I Live In A Constant State Of Depression”
Joe For America: Children Forced To Scream Vulgarities In NH Elementary School
JustOneMinute: Occupy McDonalds
Pamela Geller: Terror Group CAIR Demands Protection For Muslim Students If Geller Speaks
Protein Wisdom: College Apologizes For Serving Mexican Food During SF Event
Shot In The Dark: Silva Lining
STUMP: Obamacare Tax Watch – The NYT Notices And I Spike The Ball
The Gateway Pundit: BBC Busted! Far Left Media Caught Fixing Political Debate
The Jawa Report: Allen West Responds To Military Memo Telling Soldiers To Hide From Islamic Terrorists
The Lonely Conservative: Prosecutor Gave Lois Lerner A Pass On His Last Day On The Job
This Ain’t Hell: Sharansky Asks “When Did America Forget It’s America?”
Weasel Zippers: Hollywood Moonbat Cher Blames California Drought On Fracking
Megan McArdle: Doc Fix May Hit A Wall – Doctors
Mark Steyn: A Contemptible Man Punches Down


Shop Amazon – Mother’s Day Gifts

Category: Linkagery

FMJRA 2.0: Come On Back Now,
Do It Again

Posted on | April 19, 2015 | 10 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule 5 Sunday: Not Long Before The End
Batshit Crazy News
Animal Magnetism
Average Bubba
Proof Positive
A View from the Beach
Ninety Miles from Tyranny

Crazy People Are Dangerous
Living In Anglo-America
Batshit Crazy News
Political Rift
A View from the Beach

A Brief Primer On Titles Due Her Majesty For You Peasant Scum #Hillary2016
Regular Right Guy

Ethics in Doxxing?
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News
A View from the Beach

Advanced Feminist Logic™
Living In Anglo-America
Batshit Crazy News
Regular Right Guy
A View from the Beach

Her Fakeness, Hillary Clinton
Batshit Crazy News
Da Tech Guy
Liberty News

It Seems As Though @KurtSchlichter Doesn’t Hold Her Majesty In High Regard
Batshit Crazy News
Regular Right Guy

Canadian ‘Education Expert’ Is What You’d Expect Canadian ‘Education Expert’ to Be
Batshit Crazy News
Living In Anglo-America
A View from the Beach

Her Majesty Worries About The Dermatological Condition Of Her Serfs
Batshit Crazy News

‘Fempocalypse’
Batshit Crazy News
Regular Right Guy
A View from the Beach

The ‘Mechanism of Social Control’
Batshit Crazy News
Living In Anglo-America

Yes, But It’s France
Batshit Crazy News

The Crazy Is Always There
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News
Diary of Daedalus

What’s Causing the ‘Acid Jihad’?
Batshit Crazy News

The Law Was Made For Her Majesty, Not Her Majesty For The Law, Ye Peasants
Batshit Crazy News

Feminism as Rationalization or, Hating Men Because Men Don’t Like You Enough
Living In Anglo-America
Batshit Crazy News

In Which @BrittMcHenry Destroys Her Career ‘In the News, Sweetheart’
Batshit Crazy News
A View from the Beach

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge
Batshit Crazy News
Jim-O-Rama

Canadian Feminism
Batshit Crazy News

Top linkers this week:

  1.  Batshit Crazy News (18)
  2.  A View from the Beach (7)
  3.  Regular Right Guy (6)
  4.  Living In Anglo-America (5)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery, especially those bloggers who made Rule Five Sunday the top post this week!


Obsession

Category: FMJRA Award

Christians Branded ‘Hate Group’ for Opposing LGBT Agenda in Schools

Posted on | April 19, 2015 | 191 Comments

Friday was the national “Day of Silence” promoted by GLSEN, the radical homosexual teachers organization founded in 1990 to promote the gay agenda in public schools. GLSEN has been controversial because the group’s director, Kevin Jennings, was implicated in the infamous 2000 “Fistgate” incident in Massachusetts. Yet it is now opposition to GLSEN that is considered controversial in Colorado:

Jefferson County school board member Julie Williams said late Friday that she was “sincerely sorry” and that she would remove a link on her personal Facebook page that she shared that encouraged families to keep their students home Friday and “away from perverse indoctrination” of the“homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda.”
“To be honest with you, I didn’t read the article,” Williams said. “I just saw it and thought I was sharing information with parents.”
The link, like most on Williams’ wall, was posted without comment. It directs Facebook users to a newsletter published by SaveCalifornia.com, but neither overtly endorses nor condemns the group and its message.
Friday is the national “Day of Silence.” It is organized by GLSEN, an organization that supports lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender students and teachers in schools. The aim of the protest is to raise awareness about LGBT bullying. Students who participate in the protest attend school but remain silent. Some put tape over their mouths.
SaveCalifornia.com describes itself as a “frontline pro-family leader standing strong for moral virtues for the common good.” But the Southern Poverty Law Center considers the organization a hate group, akin to the white supremacy political party American Freedom Party and Westboro Baptist Church.

That’s right: The SPLC now considers it “hate” for Christians to oppose gay activism aimed at school children. What do we know about SaveCalifornia.com?

Thanks to generous support from everyday people who care, our Campaign for Children and Families is:
– Leading for parental rights by empowering fathers and mothers
– Fighting for the protection of children’s innocence everywhere
– Challenging liberal lies with God’s timeless moral truths
– Boldly speaking out for your values in the culture war
– Teaching and activating pro-family citizens to stand for what’s right
Founded in 1999 by veteran pro-family leader Randy Thomasson, SaveCalifornia.com is dedicated to defending and representing the values of parents, grandparents and concerned citizens who want what’s best for this generation and future generations.
We’re an articulate voice in the media. We expose what’s wrong or right with our government. We urge lawmakers to respect and support family values. And we empower citizens to speak out for their values.

Does this 501(c)3 organization sound like a “hate group” to you? Well, what about their “Day of Silence” message? Thanks to California Catholic Daily, we have the full text of the group’s April 2 email:

If you have children in K-12 government schools, in California or another state, please keep them home and away from perverse indoctrination on Friday, April 19.
That’s the day of the so-called “Day of Silence,” where sexually confused students and teachers refuse to speak during the entire academic day. They’ll indoctrinate everybody else through handouts and chalkboard writings and videos and other propaganda tools. They’ll tell children to support and embrace the unnatural and unhealthy homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda and will say that anyone who’s against it is a “bigot.”
SaveCalifornia.com is leading the West Coast effort to urge parents to remove their children from government schools on Friday, April 19, the nationwide date of the “Day of Silence.”
Yet because the pro-homosexual-bisexual-transsexual “silence” could be permitted anytime April 15-19, SaveCalifornia.com is advising you to contact the school to ask if “silence” will be allowed on any date. No matter what, please keep your children home on April 19, to express your strong disapproval of the pro-perversity state school bureaucracy.
On Friday April 19, 2013 the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network is once again exploiting public schools to promote homosexuality and gender confusion as moral and normative through the political protest called the Day of Silence.
A coalition of pro-family groups is urging parents to keep their children home from school on the “Day of Silence,” if your school is allowing students to refuse to speak in class.

Is it “hate” to say that in 2015? Read it again. Do you suddenly feel inspired to go out and bully homosexuals?

The Speech Police are also the Thought Police. What we are witnessing is an effort to tell people what to think by controlling what they are allowed to say. Whether or not you agree with SaveCalifornia.com, is it incorrect to say that GLSEN’s agenda is “to promote homosexuality and gender confusion as moral and normative”? Are those who consider this to be immoral and abnormal not permitted to express their opposition? Is Romans 1:18-32 now to be forbidden as “hate” speech?

No responsible parent would send their children to American public schools, which have become a menace to our nation’s liberty.

“Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself . . . she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1786

Public schools are Ignorance Factories, operated by corrupt government bureaucrats who cannot be trusted to teach children facts or useful skills. The K-12 Implosion approaches, as does the Apocalypse.





 

Category: Education, Gays

Just Like Buckley Said

Posted on | April 18, 2015 | 49 Comments

Women’s Liberation, as modern feminism was called when it erupted from the New Left in the late 1960s, was still rather a new phenomenon in 1970 when William F. Buckley Jr. was invited to debate Germaine Greer at England’s Cambridge Union. Buckley later recalled the problem:

She insisted that I formulate the resolution, which I attempted to do from this side of the Atlantic, using what was then known as Western Union. The trouble was that she rejected my first three proposals on the grounds that they were, if I remember stupid, asinine, something similar for the third. The ‘telephone call from the president of the union was now desperate. The BBC, which was filming the encounter needed to know the resolution before noon the next day, when their guide went out to print. I sat down at the typewriter and typed out “Resolved: Give Them an Inch and They’ll Take a Mile.”

In that, Buckley was exactly right, and was prescient in discerning the essential problem with feminism, namely that it has no logical stopping point. Give them every demand they ask today, and feminists will return tomorrow with a new list of demands.

Feminists originally claimed to seek “equality” and yet, once this was achieved, it was not enough. An absolute majority of U.S. college students (57%) are female, and women are 33% more likely than men to earn a college degree. As college education is widely considered a chief socioeconomic indicator of middle-class status, one might suppose such statistical evidence would suffice to satisfy feminist demands.

Alas, there is no limit to their totalitarian ambition, and feminists have lately begun demanding that male students be stripped of due process rights on campus. “Last year California passed a law that defined nearly all sex on college campuses as rape unless proven otherwise,” as Ashe Schow has observed. The anti-male climate in higher education has become so intense that one college student in Oregon found himself banned from parts of campus because a female student said “he reminded her of the man who had raped her months before and thousands of miles away.” Of course, if there aren’t enough actual rapes to justify this kind of hysterical paranoia, feminists have proven they are willing to exploit fictional rapes in order to justify their anti-male jihad. The wholly imaginary “Haven Monahan” was used to frame Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at the University of Virginia and, in response to this highly publicized lie, the university’s president shut down all fraternity parties on campus.

Feminism’s implacable hostility toward males is by no means limited to university campuses, however. BuzzFeed recently offered “23 Writers With Messages For Straight White Male Publishing.” These messages, from attendees at the annual Association of Writers & Writing Programs conference, suggested that the employment of heterosexual males in the publishing industry is a social injustice:

In fact, the book publishing industry is overwhelmingly dominated by females. A 2010 survey by Publisher’s Weekly found that “85% of publishing employees with less than three years of experience are women.” In other words, women are 5 out of every 6 recent hires in the industry. Yet women writers seem to believe that this is not enough. Apparently, feminists won’t be happy until all editors are females and all published books are written by women authors. And after they ban male students from college campuses, we suppose, feminists will then make it illegal to teach boys to read. Because . . . EQUALITY!

(Hat-tip: Instapundit.)





 

Category: Sex Trouble

Feminism as Rationalization or, Hating Men Because Men Don’t Like You Enough

Posted on | April 18, 2015 | 56 Comments

Lindsay King-Miller (@AskAQueerChick) writes a column for @thehairpin, which is a spinoff site from TheAwl.com, which is one of those Trendy But Not Actually Popular Kind of Blogs That You Should Never Call a “Blog.” There are dozens of these sites out there trying to convince investors that they could be The Next Buzzfeed. More accurately, the best they could hope for is to become The Next Salon.com, which has been losing about a million dollars a year since the 1990s. But I digress . . .

Lindsay King-Miller’s column is “Ask a Queer Chick,” i.e., her bid to become the Lesbian Internet Dear Abby. Of course, this ambition is problematic because there are entire sites like Autostraddle devoted to the Lesbian Lifestyle™ and, also, HELLO, IT’S THE INTERNET.

There is a reason why very few websites have “Advice for the Lovelorn” columnists, you see. Whereas in the Dead Tree Age, it was possible to be clueless about sex and relationships, in the Information Age, the only clueless people are (a) stupid or (b) quasi-autistic nerd types with impaired social perception. Everybody else is able to Google up their own particular issue and figure it out. By 2006, all potential relationship problems (“Is my penis too small?” “If you have to ask, the answer is yes.”) had already been answered somewhere on the Internet.

The only reason anyone would still be publishing an online Relationship Advice column in 2015 is to serve that niche readership of Pathetic Nerds Who Just Don’t Get It:

Q. I think the attractive woman in the next cubicle likes me. How do I find out for sure?
A. No, she doesn’t like you. Nobody likes you. You are an ugly man with Asperger’s Syndrome and nobody likes you. This woman on whom you have a sick fixated obsession doesn’t like you. If she smiles at you, that’s because you’re creeping her out. You make her nervous, staring at her constantly. Her smile is a sort of defensive shield. She has nightmares about you stabbing her in the parking lot, you disgusting weirdo. Leave her alone. Leave women alone, period. Don’t even look at a woman.

This is all that’s left, in terms of readers for Relationship Advice columns in 2015. Except for extreme nerds — whose social skills are so impaired that they don’t even realize how utterly hopeless they are — everybody else can figure out their problem with a simple Google search. Beyond that, thanks to social media and online dating apps, any young single person who is even moderately attractive nowadays is swarmed with would-be dates. This drastically shrinks the potential readership for advice columns.

Don’t like your boyfriend? Zap! New boyfriend, just one text message away. That is, if you’re attractive.

The Internet has starkly divided the romantic universe into the Haves and Have Nots. Therefore, if you’re doing a Relationship Advice column in 2015, you have to understand that you are dealing with the hopelessly desperate types who are probably beyond help of “advice.” So, what kind of questions do you think Lindsay King-Miller gets at “Ask a Queer Chick?”

  • “I’m a twenty-five year old woman who is thinking about trying to date women. I’ve always had what I’m realizing were crushes on women, but have never talked about or acted on them. Do you have suggestions for the most respectful way to go about this, on say, OkCupid?”
  • “I have such a crush on my intern. I’m not her supervisor, though I’m a senior person on a team that she is also on, so I’m in a leadership role in relation to her. I’m only two years older than she is. She is so ambiguously queer I can’t even stand it. We either have extremely subtle, almost-undetectable queer-girl sexy eye contact going on, or I am totally imagining everything. When she leaves our office at the end of the school year, can I ask her out?”
  • “My girlfriend of over a year recently came out to me as a trans man. I’ve never been in a relationship with a man before: not because I’m unattracted to men — I am sometimes! — but because I’ve always preferred the company of women, and I love the queer community. I love my partner and support him and I want to stay with him, but I never thought I’d have a boyfriend, and I need some advice on how to proceed.”

Do you see what I’m getting at here? In 2015, people who have romantic problems that they can’t figure out without asking a Dating Advice columnist tend to be so far out on the freaky fringe — lesbians lusting for their interns, or dating a weirdo with gender dysphoria — that you don’t know whether to give them advice or report them to the FBI.

At least 90% of all “relationship” questions could be solved simply by asking the person a few questions:

  • Are you ugly? Here’s the basic problem for most people who have relationship problems. This is not to say that attractive people never have problems. However, attractive people have options. If you’re good-looking and things aren’t working out with your boyfriend or girlfriend, there are lots of other people you could be dating, so you just move on and find somebody you like better. If you are so desperate to find love you have to ask for help from an advice columnist, you probably aren’t an international supermodel.
  • Are you an introvert? Give them a Myers-Briggs test. If the result shows them to be an introvert, that’s the basic problem. Ceteris paribus, introverts have more social problems than extroverts, and also have more of a tendency to sit around brooding over their problems. However, being an introvert is probably not going to cause you a lot of dating problems if you’re extraordinarily good-looking, so if somebody’s asking you for relationship advice and the Myers-Briggs test shows them to be an introvert, they’re probably ugly, too. They’re batting with two strikes against them, you see.
  • Are you crazy? Mental illness is more common than most people realize. About 1-in-4 women take mental health medications, mostly for depression and anxiety. Guess what? People with mental health problems also often have relationship problems. So if somebody comes to you seeking relationship advice, it might be helpful to know if they’re gobbling Prozac, just one crisis away from their next suicide attempt.

Once you’ve screened out the ugly introverts and crazies, you’ll find that there aren’t a lot of people who need relationship advice. Sane, good-looking extroverts aren’t writing to “Ask a Queer Chick,” you see. And — here’s the key point — people who are such romantic failures they write to advice columnists aren’t likely to benefit from whatever advice they get. Here is an actual question to Lindsay King-Miller:

My surface question is this: How common, really, is the sort of stereotypical “femme/butch” dynamic in female same-sex relationships?
My real question is this: How can I, as a relatively femme cisgender woman, meet other relatively femme cisgender women? This is not the only sub-population that I’m interested in, but it’s probably the most compelling one to me. I tend to be kind of wary of “lipstick lesbian” groups, because the ones that I’m familiar with can be pretty exclusive (“bi/queer folks, trans*/genderqueer folks, and ugly folks need not apply!”). But it often seems that in the larger LGBTQ world, I run into two obstacles: First, my femininity does not signal “queer,” and so unless I explicitly share that with people, other queer women don’t realize that I’m a potential partner. Second, I’m wondering if most of the women who would be interested in me would tend to be a little more butch than femme.
But actually, I think my real question is this: Should I even be worried about finding a partner who fits with what is consistently and pervasively most compelling to me (femme, cis women)? My sexuality is fairly fluid; I can also be interested in non-femme women, men, and some individuals who are genderqueer. My last relationship was with a cis man and lasted two and a half years, and it was wonderful, and I miss it. But if what most reliably pulls at my heartstrings is a femme woman, do you think I should just take that self-knowledge and zero in on that? From your experience, how successful and sustainable are mixed-orientation relationships, or relationships that may be surprising to oneself?

The only honest reply to that 267-word question: Have you sought professional help? Are you on medication? If not, why not?

To begin with, let me bet $20 that this person is an introvert. How else to explain someone who is “most reliably” attracted to women but who nonetheless spent more than two years in a “wonderful” relationship with a man? Extroverts tend to be decisive and action-oriented. Figure out what you want and go get it — that’s the extrovert way. Certainly, extroverts don’t sit around wringing their hands wondering how to attract the people they like, or trying to figure out if they would be happy in a hypothetical relationship they haven’t actually had. Furthermore, while you may not have noticed this pattern, it’s actually my point here: Many women who experience same-sex attraction are not strictly lesbians.

Of the four “Ask a Queer Chick” questions we’ve cited, three-quarters of them are from women who could be described as bisexual. Their interest in the “queer community” can be described either as opportunistic or an alternative to confronting their own failures in heterosexual relationships. This phenomenon is common enough as to have spawned an entire genre of books, including Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire by Lisa Diamond and Dear John, I Love Jane: Women Write About Leaving Men for Women, edited by Candace Walsh and Laura André. There are far fewer books about women who, after a lesbian past, have discovered that heterosexuality is actually not bad. Rosaria Champagne Butterfield’s Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor’s Journey into Christian Faith has gotten a lot of attention. I’m sure there would be more stories like Professor Butterfield’s were it not for (a) the fact that most women like her keep their lesbian pasts secret, and (b) there is a pro-gay bias in the publishing industry.

The LGBT community (to say nothing of feminists) would raise hell if there were a spate of memoirs by women telling their stories about how they were part of the college L.U.G. scene (“Lesbian Until Graduation”) but then went out into the real world, met a nice man and got over all that. More than four decades since the emergence of the Women’s Liberation movement, there is a distinct but seldom-mentioned prejudice against certain kind of narratives. The only stories women are now allowed to tell are stories about how men are to blame for all the problems in the world. After reading about five dozen feminist books, I’m ready for the first truly honest feminist memoir, Don’t Blame Men: Confessions of a Neurotic Lonely Overweight Bisexual Cat Lady. Such a book would never be assigned as a text in Women’s Studies class, however, so instead we keep seeing feminist books that amount to a rehash of the same familiar themes — Misogyny, Objectification, Harassment, Rape and Other Evil Consequences of Male Supremacy and Heteronormative Patriarchy.

Feminism means that the problems of unhappy men are not problems at all — because what’s the point of feminism if it doesn’t make men unhappy? — whereas the problems of unhappy women are social injustice.

It’s nice of Lindsay King-Miller to explain the true meaning of feminism. Not as if we didn’t already understand it, but it’s nice when they say it in so many words.

In case further explanation is necessary:

  • The reason feminists so often have to assert that they don’t hate men is because they don’t want to explain why they actually do hate men;
    and
  • The reason feminists hate men is spiteful revenge, because men don’t like them as much as they believe they deserved to be liked.

Sometimes, feminists are women who have actually been treated badly by men. Most often, however, it’s just about envy and frustrated narcissism. They think they should be admired, but there isn’t anything particularly admirable about them. Therefore, the feminist needs a rationalization to explain why this lack of admiration is not her fault. Otherwise, she might have to confront the reality that she is not as special and wonderful as she thinks. “Men don’t love me? It’s because men hate strong, intelligent women! This failure of men to love me proves that I am strong and intelligent, and proves that men are all selfish monsters!”

You keep telling yourself that, sweetheart.





 

Category: Sex Trouble
« go back — keep looking »