The Other McCain

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

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

Transgender Sex Offenders: Feminists Advocate ‘Allison’s Law’ to Protect Public

Posted on | April 17, 2015 | 85 Comments

Allison Woolbert was one of the most militant transgender activists on the Internet. Woolbert was executive director of “Transgender Human Rights Institute” (THRI), a founder of the “Transgender Violence Tracking Portal” (TVTP) and the website “TERF Tracker.” The acronym “TERF” (Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist) is a slur invented by transgender activists to demonize radical feminists who are critical of the transgender movement. (See “What Is a Woman? The Dispute Between Radical Feminism and Transgenderism,” by Michelle Goldberg, the New Yorker, Aug. 14, 2014.) One of the “abuses” for which Woolbert and her allies condemned their radical feminist critics was the practice of “dead naming,” i.e., identifying transgender “women” by their original male names. Radical feminists say that discovering and exposing the male identities of these “women” is important because, in many cases, the transgender activists who most vehemently attack feminists have histories of violence against women. Such transgender “women” may be dangerous criminals whose female personas are used to conceal their violent past.

“TERF Tracker” Allison Woolbert is, in fact, Dennis Wayne Woolbert, 51, who was convicted in 1992 of repeatedly raping a 14-year-old girl. This female family member was apparently Woolbert’s stepdaughter and, during a period of two months in the summer of 1991, Dennis Woolbert assaulted her “by performing vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, cunnilingus and fellatio,” according to court documents. Woolbert was sentenced to six years in prison for aggravated sexual assault and the court noted “since the defendant is a repetitive sex offender, the risk of further offenses is high.” When Woolbert’s criminal history was exposed in January 2015, feminists at the site Gender Identity Watch called for enactment of “Allison’s Law,” which would prohibit “legal change of sex demarcation and name for rapists and violent offenders.”

The need for “Allison’s Law” was highlighted this week by the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Robert Floyd Brown Jr. Brown is a 32-year-old inmate in federal prison in Petersburg, Virginia, who obtained a diagnosis of “gender identity disorder” and sought to change his legal name to Alicia Jade Brown. The trial court had denied this request, but the Virginia Supreme Court overruled the trial court’s decision Thursday, with only one member of the court dissenting from Chief Justice Donald W. Lemons’ ruling. Robert Floyd Brown Jr. is a dangerous sex offender.

Dothan Man Sentenced for Child Pornography
WTVY, Mar 29, 2007
24 year old Robert Floyd Brown, Junior of Dothan will spend the next 40 years behind bars for producing, possessing, and transporting pornography.
Posing as a woman, Brown convinced teenage boys to send sexual images over the internet then threatened public distribution if they didn’t perform more sexual acts.
His victims included a 14 year old and 10 year old in Kansas, a 14 year old and 15 year old in Colorado and a 15 year old in Texas.
Federal officials said Thursday the investigation began when the mother of one of the victims contacted officials who investigated and learned Brown was in Dothan.
Dothan police went to his house and arrested Brown and confiscated his computer.
Officials also said Brown engaged in sexually explicit chats with an adult male and threatened to publicly distribute the adult’s online chats unless the adult engaged in sex acts with a 9 month old baby.
The man did those acts and now efforts are underway to identify the baby authorities believe is in Australia.

Brown is suing to try to force federal officials to provide sex-change surgery. Should such dangerous criminals be allowed to legally change their names? Should federal taxpayers be required to pay for “treatment” enabling fetishists to indulge their perverse fantasies?

Radical feminist Cathy Brennan writes at Gender Identity Watch: “In 2015, Men who sexually exploit children are allowed to change their names to ‘Women’s’ names without any regard to the fact they they are convicted child sex predators. This is why we need Allison’s Law.”

 

Category: Crime, Gays, Sex Trouble

Canadian Feminism

Posted on | April 17, 2015 | 95 Comments

Just when you think feminists cannot possibly get any crazier, they always surprise you. “A.J. Withers is a queer, trans, disabled anti-poverty organizer based in Toronto,” we are told in . . . its biography at Everyday Feminism, where it has a column with this ponderous headline:

How Disablist Western Ideas of ‘Self-Determination’
Undermine Social Justice and 5 Ways to Make It Right

This article is full of bizarre gibberish:

As a trans person who takes hormones and has had surgery, my ability to direct what happens to my body is essential.
As a survivor of sexual assault, I think it is absolutely vital that people’s bodily autonomy and consent always be respected.
As a disabled person who has had care collectives help me meet my basic needs, it has been crucial that I be able to direct my care while maintaining my own autonomy.
But I am also White and a settler living on unceded land.
My first site of concern with respect to self-determination being embraced as a political ideal is that self-determination is being co-opted from Indigenous struggles. . . .

Withers is a “settler” on the “unceded land” of Toronto, a city of 2.5 million people. Are there any “Indigenous struggles” in the vicinity? How does Withers being queer, transgender and disabled relate to the “self-determination” of the “Indigenous”?

I am using the term Indigenous in an anti-colonial context and want to be clear that I am not saying that all Indigenous people or cultures are the same.
Colonialism works . . . to construct a “pan-Indian cultural identity rooted in a timeless mythic past.”
In speaking about Indigenous people and struggles here, I do so with the understanding that there is profound diversity within and between Indigenous communities and nations.
Consistently, however, within the context of Indigenous struggle, self-determination is a national determination — a collective determination not an individualistic one.
In many Indigenous world views, the individual is not a rugged self-made individual, but emerges in and through community. . . .

You can attempt to read the whole thing, but trust me, the rest of it is no more coherent than that. One wonders what purpose is served by the publication of such stuff. Who is the intended readership? Is there any sizable number of Canadians who get excited about this? “Never mind the hockey scores, Jacques, let’s see what A.J. Withers has to say today about the self-determination of Indigenous peoples.”

My general contempt for all things Canadian is exceeded only by my contempt for feminism. Combining the two — Canadian feminism — is intellectually toxic. Feminist theory is the opposite of education: The more of it you read, the more ignorant you become.





 

Category: Canada, Feminism

In Which @BrittMcHenry Destroys Her Career ‘In the News, Sweetheart’

Posted on | April 17, 2015 | 92 Comments

A bad case of “Don’t You Know Who I Am?” Syndrome:

ESPN reporter Britt McHenry has been suspended for a week after video surfaced of her berating a parking lot attendant and telling the attendant to “lose some weight, baby girl,” The New York Post reported Thursday.
Washington-based McHenry was angry about having her car towed on April 6, The Post reports, and began dressing down the attendant despite being told the incident was being captured on security camera.
“I’m in the news, sweetheart, I will (expletive) sue this place,” McHenry said in the video published online by LiveLeak.
“Yep, that’s all you care about, is just taking people’s money,” McHenry said. “With no education, no skillset, just wanted to clarify that. … Do you feel good about your job? So I could be a college dropout and do the same thing? Why, cause I have a brain and you don’t?”
As she walks out of the lot, she tells the attendant to “lose some weight, baby girl.”

More at Fox News and the New York Post.

She posted an online apology, which probably won’t be enough to retrieve her from permanent infamy. Does she really believe that her career at ESPN is because “I have a brain and you don’t?”

She’s from the New Jersey suburbs of Philadelphia and attended Stetson University (annual tuition $40,040). She graduated with high honors and attended Northwestern University grad school. So, yes, she’s obviously smart, but does she think the parking lot attendant had those advantages and opportunities? Does Britt McHenry think her looks had nothing at all to do with her getting hired at ESPN?

Look, I’m not an egalitarian. Quite the opposite. To quote John Randolph of Roanoke, “I am an aristocrat. I love liberty; I hate equality.” Yet the true aristocrat does not behave the way Britt McHenry behaved. Certainly, no lady acts the way she acted. Anyone can lose their temper and say regrettable things — certainly I have — but no true aristocrat would treat working people that way. No true aristocrat would flaunt their privilege by attempting to personally humiliate someone for doing their job.

Raised with the values of the Poor But Proud yeomanry, I have a dim view of the Elite University set, the beneficiaries of fortune who assume they are naturally superior to any Ordinary American. And the very worst such creatures are the Daddy’s Precious Darling types, the snooty rich girls who consider their mere existence to be an achievement. If you’ve ever encountered Daddy’s Precious Darling, you know what I’m talking about. Two of my favorite songs — “Like a Rolling Stone” by Bob Dylan and “Rich Girl” by Hall and Oates — are about this type of female. In the Dylan song, he describes an upper-class girl who has fallen on hard times:

Once upon a time you dressed so fine,
You threw the bums a dime in your prime, didn’t you?
People’d call, say, “Beware doll, you’re bound to fall.”
You thought they were all kiddin’ you.
You used to laugh about
Everybody that was hangin’ out.
Now you don’t talk so loud.
Now you don’t seem so proud,
About having to be scrounging for your next meal.

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, and the children of fortune ought to exhibit gracious humility as a becoming expression of gratitude for God’s blessings. Yet so often, they’re the “Rich Girl”:

High and dry, out of the rain.
It’s so easy to hurt others when you can’t feel pain.

This was exactly Britt McHenry’s attitude toward that parking lot attendant. Young, privileged and pretty, an up-and-coming media personality, mocking an obscure working woman as having “no education, no skillset” and boasting “I’m in the news, sweetheart.”

Surely by now some feminist has interpreted the online rage against Britt McHenry as “misogyny,” but that misses the obvious point: Everybody knows her type, and everybody hates her type. A good-looking girl gets all the breaks, especially if she’s a rich good-looking girl, and our universal contempt for the spoiled-rotten Suburban Princess isn’t because we’re sexists, but because everybody who’s ever had to deal with one of those high-maintenance brats knows what vicious, selfish sadists they can be.

The kind of hideous cruelty displayed by Britt McHenry is an unfortunately common consequence of Special Snowflake™ Syndrome. We may contrast Britt McHenry to Justine Sacco of #HasJustineLandedYet infamy. Nobody had ever heard of Justine Sacco. She wasn’t a TV star, but BOOM:

“I cried out my body weight in the first 24 hours,” she told me. “It was incredibly traumatic. You don’t sleep. You wake up in the middle of the night forgetting where you are.”

That’s where Britt McHenry is now. We have to wonder if public disgrace will teach her a lesson, or if other Rich Girls will study that lesson.

 

Category: Celebrities

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge

Posted on | April 17, 2015 | 7 Comments

by Smitty


“Is that you, Grandma?” asked Alisha. They poured tea and pored over photos.
“Yes, I couldn’t have been more than 7 at the time.”
“What kind of bird are you holding?”
“Been 80 years. I’m blessed just to see it.”
“No worries, Grandma.” Alisha produced a smart phone and sent a close-up of the bird in the photo to a database in the Cloud for resolution.
A wait cursor later: “A Spotted Puffbird, Grandma!”
“Wonderful!”
Tea and chatting ended abruptly with the door kicked in.
“EPA! YOU’RE UNDER ARREST FOR VIOLATING THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT…”

 

 

Via Darleen

Category: Friday Fiction, Uncategorized

Yes, But It’s France

Posted on | April 16, 2015 | 43 Comments

Ace of Spades:

The French (socialist) government is peddling a study claiming one hundred effing percent of French women are harassed on public transportation.
One hundred percent! Every single female!
Now that’s how you do fake statistics, my friends: Go big or go home.

I’m not sure the numbers are fake. The French are a nation of degenerate swine. They are the nation that gave the world Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault and Monique Wittig. Do French men behave like animals on public transportation? Do they treat all women like whores? Sure. It’s part of French culture. You know, like wine, socialism, defeat, surrender, hating Jews and collaborating with Nazis.

France: An entire nation that’s worse than Massachusetts.

 

Category: France

What’s Causing the ‘Acid Jihad’?

Posted on | April 16, 2015 | 34 Comments

Headline via @GatewayPundit:

Rejected Lover Hurls Acid
in Face of Former Model

If you want to know what this does to a woman’s face, Pamela Geller has photos of “acid jihad” victims who include Shameem Akhter, 18, Najaf Sultana, 16, Munira Asef, 23, Memuna Khan, 21, Zainab Bibi, 17, and Naila Farhat, 19, all of them from Pakistan. Gosh, why would this particularly sadistic crime, which is typically committed in revenge for spurning a man’s romantic interest, be so commonplace in Pakistan?

That some men react violently to rejection is an unfortunate fact of life. Heartbreak can turn to rage, and some guys just don’t know how to take “no” for an answer. We know this. Irrational violence happens, but what if conditions in a community are such that it becomes more difficult for young men to find wives? What if there is an actual shortage of women, so that the guy whose girlfriend breaks up with him has very dim prospects of finding another girlfriend . . . ever?

What is the effect of polygamy in Muslim cultures? Where men may legally have multiple wives, and where polygamy is socially accepted, this inevitably produces (a) a shortage of women available for marriage, and (b) a surplus of young unmarried men. And then there is sex-selective abortion in societies where there is a strong preference for sons:

By midcentury, when today’s millions of surplus boys will be entering middle age, India and China are expected to account for a combined 50 percent of global GDP. On present trends, they will be the most male-heavy societies that have ever existed. As I wrote in my book America Alone, unless China’s planning on becoming the first gay superpower since Sparta, what’s going to happen to all those excess men? As a general rule, large numbers of excitable lads who can’t get any action are not a recipe for societal stability. . . . [W]e’re likely to be in a planet-wide rape epidemic and a world of globalized industrial-scale sex slavery.

So said Mark Steyn in his book America Alone, a problem confirmed by recent developments:

Growing evidence suggests that in countries like India and China, where the ratio of men to women is unnaturally high due to the selective abortion of female fetuses and neglect of girl children, the rates of violence towards women increase. “The sex ratio imbalance directly leads to more sex trafficking and bride buying,” says Mara Hvistendahl, author of Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men. A scarce resource is generally considered precious, but the lack of women also leaves many young men without marriage partners. In 2011, the number of cases of women raped rose by 9.2 percent; kidnapping and abductions of women were up 19.4 percent. “At this point, we’re talking correlation, not causation. More studies need to be done….[But] it is clear from historical cases and from studies looking at testosterone levels that a large proportion of unmarried men in the population is not a good thing,” says Hvistendahl.

If you think Troy University students on Spring Break are dangerous, what do you expect when there are millions — I repeat, millions — of young Chinese, Indian and Pakistani men who have no prospect of love, sex or marriage in their own countries? Remember, at least one expert has said that ISIS is able to recruit young Muslims who are lured into jihad by fantasies of capturing girls and women as sex slaves.

Oh, look: ISIS is attacking Ramadi.

Nothing to worry about for you, Middle-Class American. Not yet. But think of 2025, 2035, 2045 . . .

 

Category: Islam, Pakistan, Sex, Sex Trouble
« go back — keep looking »