The Other McCain

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

FMJRA 2.0: God Bless Saturday

Posted on | August 22, 2015 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

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

Miraculous You
Regular Right Guy
A View from the Beach

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

Feminism’s Radical Transvaluation
Regular Right Guy
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 08.18.15
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

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

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

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

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

In The Mailbox, 08.20.15
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

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

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge
Batshit Crazy News

Top linkers this week:

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

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery!

Born Free

Category: FMJRA Award

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge

Posted on | August 21, 2015 | 4 Comments

by Smitty

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

via Darleen

Category: Friday Fiction

Our Moral Superiors™

Posted on | August 21, 2015 | 113 Comments

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Women are an oppressed class. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men have oppressed women. . . .
“We regard our personal experience, and our feelings about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation. We cannot rely on existing ideologies as they are all products of male supremacist culture. We question every generalization and accept none that are not confirmed by our experience.”
— Redstockings, “Manifesto,” July 7, 1969

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

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

 

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

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




 

 

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox, 08.20.15

Posted on | August 20, 2015 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


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


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


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

Category: Linkagery

‘No More Fun of Any Kind!’

Posted on | August 20, 2015 | 202 Comments

 

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

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

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

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

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

“Is this even America anymore?”

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

 

Category: Sex Trouble

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

Posted on | August 19, 2015 | 137 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pay attention, guys: Never talk to a feminist.

Do not waste time on sadistic women who hate you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




 

Category: Sex Trouble

‘Feminist Men’ = Progressive Misogynists

Posted on | August 18, 2015 | 74 Comments

Victoria Brownworth (@vabvox) is a lesbian feminist who hates “mansplaining from men asserting they are feminist allies”:

One night on social media I objected to the use of the word “c–t” by men as a pejorative against women. I wrote that it was one of the worst things a man could say about a woman, reducing her to nothing more than her genitalia. Dozens of men began tweeting at me, explaining to me that “c–t” was just a word and that I should step back from my “extreme” feminism. To a one they mansplained me about the importance of free speech (as if a female journalist wouldn’t know about free speech better than most). And also to a one, they proceeded to call me a “c–t.”
Yet as I went to block each one there were the profiles again: “progressive,” “left-leaning” and so forth. . . .

Permit me to interrupt: I never use the “c-word.”

It is a genuinely foul and offensive thing to say and, let me remark that I have noticed this misogynist slur used most often by gay men. Remember that (a) I majored in drama in college, and (b) for several months in late 1986, I was the only heterosexual man employed in the menswear section of a department store. In my experience, gay men drop the “c-word” much more frequently than do straight men.

Let me further point out the different significance of the “c-word” as an anti-woman insult (one which makes her anatomy the target), as opposed to “bitch” or “slut.” The latter two words pertain to particular traits or behaviors. To call a woman a “bitch” implies she is mean, crabby or spiteful; some women will apply this word to themselves as a boast, to suggesting they are formbidable adversaries when angry. To call a woman a “slut” is to accuse her of promiscuity.

We may object to either word as offensive, but they have specific connotations, referring negatively to certain behaviors or character traits, whereas “c–t” is just an anti-female slur. Now, let’s get back to Victoria Brownsworth’s critique of progressive male “allies”:

If you self-define as a progressive, why are you calling a feminist a “c–t” on social media, since feminist ally is part of every progressive platform? . . .
What progressive man would willingly accept the mantle of oppressor of women? And yet it remains the non-objective reality of women’s lived experience. Just as those of us who are white and actively doing anti-racist work must accept that we still have privilege that accrues to the mere fact of our whiteness, people with penises have to accept that their genitalia granted them a level of privilege at birth that no one born female has ever had.
Or ever will have. . . .
I’m not suggesting there are no pro-feminist men or that men are incapable of being feminist allies. But I do believe we are all inculcated from birth with the notion that men are superior and women are inferior. . . .
I don’t blame every man I meet for the oppression I experience and have experienced throughout my life. I don’t blame every man for the brutality women and girls face worldwide. But what I do expect and what I think is not over-much to expect, is that men who self-define as feminist allies, as pro-feminist, as our friends, not our enemies, not argue with us in public space about our lives. We know our lives better than you. And most importantly, you do not speak for us, you can never speak for us.

The First Rule for Men in Feminist Movements Is SHUT UP!

Men who wish to be “feminist allies” must realize that this requires them to accept feminism’s anti-male ideology as correct. Feminists believe that no male has any valid knowledge of anything. Nor can a male have any ability or virtue that could qualify him for a feminist’s admiration or respect. No feminist admires or respects men, because no male can ever have any real achievement or accomplishment that would entitle him to respect or admiration. Everything “people with penises” think they have achieved is, according to feminist theory, actually a result of the unjust oppression of women. In the zero-sum game of feminist theory, whatever a male possesses he has stolen from women, cheating women out of what is rightfully theirs because, in the cruel system of male supremacy, “their genitalia granted them a level of privilege at birth.”

Feminism is not about equality. Feminism is about SHUT UP.

Every woman is infinitely superior to all men — this is the fundamental premise of feminist theory, and if any man thinks he has anything to say that a woman needs to hear, he’s wrong. Feminism means all men are always wrong about everything.

You have a penis? SHUT UP. You are stupid and ignorant, and know nothing about anything, because you are male. Feminists do not want to hear anything a male has to say. Feminists are offended by your maleness, which fills them with an emetic revulsion. Feminists are nauseated by the mere thought of men. Feminists curse the fact that they are forced to share the planet with males. Complete silence is therefore the minimum duty of any man who wishes to be an “ally” of feminists. The second-best way for a man to help a feminist is never to speak a word in her presence, whereas the best way for a man to help a feminist is to do what Adrienne Rich’s husband did.

If a progressive male refuses to follow the example of Alfred Conrad — the only way a male can become a truly good man, according to feminist logic — the least he can do is SHUT UP, which is exactly the message the #ThingsFeministMenHaveSaidToMe hashtag is intended to convey. Everything “feminist men” say is wrong, for the simple and obvious reason that they are men:

This is what I mean when I say feminism is a totalitarian movement to destroy civiliztion as we know it. Feminism’s implacable hostility toward males means feminists can never be satisfied so long as any male exists, because male existence is inherently oppressive to women. Any male who calls himself a “feminist man” insults women by appropriating feminism, and everything a male says to a feminist is offensive.

“Fear and Loathing of the Penis — a paranoid resentment of men, characterized by irrational suspicion — is the underlying mental condition that feminism turns into a political ideology. What disturbs me, after months of studying this phenomenon, is that this madness is both contagious and incurable. Feminism is a sort of cultural virus that, once it takes hold in a woman’s mind, makes it impossible for her to relate to men in a normal manner and, because misery loves company, she feels compelled to share her hateful anti-male attitudes with other women.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Sex Trouble: Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature (page 108)

Trust me, guys, you never want to be a progressive “male ally.” Feminists don’t hate progressive men any less than they hate conservative men, they just hate them in a different way. At least, as a conservative, I don’t have to ask feminists for permission to speak. All feminists hate me, because I am a heterosexual male, and I don’t even bother to pretend I care whether they hate me or not. Feminist hatred is expected. In the 21st century, being hated by feminists is increasingly necessary to being heterosexual, whether you are male or female. Feminism Is Queer, to invoke the title of Professor Mimi Marinucci’s 2010 Women’s Studies textbook. As a pioneering feminist explained 40 years ago, “heterosexuality is the ideology of male supremacy.” Lesbianism and feminism have been historically “coterminous,” as Professor Bonnie Zimmerman said. Feminism is a movement to destroy “heteropatriarchy, the dominance associated with a gender binary system that presumes heterosexuality as a social norm,” to quote the Oregon State University professors who authored the textbook Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions. The category “heterosexual feminist” is problematic for the same reason that “male feminist” is an oxymoron. No feminist can ever love a man, because the oppressor cannot deserve love from his victim. Feminism is based in the understanding that all males participate in and benefit from the oppression of all women, and there is no way that any male can exempt himself from this feminist condemnation.

Every man is regarded as an enemy by the feminist death cult, which aims to impose on males a final and complete silence.

Alfred Conrad could not be reached for comment.




 

Category: Sex Trouble

#BetterHillaryAnswers “I Know, Right? You Know Who Wiped Out The Poor Server? GOP 1%-ers, That’s Who. That’s Why I’m Fighting Income Inequality.”

Posted on | August 18, 2015 | 4 Comments

by Smitty

Video at Hot Air.

Category: Hillary Clinton
« 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