LIVE AT FIVE: 01.07.15

“Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism: that which is most one’s own, yet most taken away. . . .
“Implicit in feminist theory is a parallel argument: the molding, direction, and expression of sexuality organizes society into two sexes — women and men — which division underlies the totality of social relations. Sexuality is that social process which creates, organizes, expresses, and directs desire, creating the social beings we know as women and men, as their relations create society. . . . The organized expropriation of the sexuality of some for the use of others defines the sex, woman. Heterosexuality is its structure, gender and family its congealed forms, sex roles its qualities generalized to social persona, reproduction a consequence, and control its issue.
“Marxism and feminism are theories of power and its distribution: inequality. They provide accounts of how social arrangements of patterned disparity can be internally rational yet unjust. . . .
“Socially, femaleness means femininity, which means attractiveness to men, which means sexual attractiveness, which means sexual availability on male terms. What defines woman as such is what turns men on. Good girls are ‘attractive,’ bad girls ‘provocative.’ Gender socialization is the process through which women come to identify themselves as sexual beings, as beings that exist for men. It is that process through which women internalize (make their own) a male image of their sexuality as their identity as women. . . . Feminist inquiry into women’s own experience of sexuality revises prior comprehensions of sexual issues and transforms the concept of sexuality itself — its determinants and its role in society and politics. . . . Sex as gender and sex as sexuality are thus defined in terms of each other, but it is sexuality that determines gender, not the other way around.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, “Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory” (1982)

Please call the excerpted passage to the attention of Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte, or any other prominent 21st-century feminist spokeswoman in politics, journalism or academia.

Ask them: Was Professor MacKinnon wrong, and if so, how?

It’s very simple, you see. Anyone with a college education can read Professor MacKinnon’s words and see what she means. You can read the entire article and judge whether these excerpts are in any way “taken out of context.” You can read Professor MacKinnon’s online biography and see if anyone can dismiss her as a “fringe” figure, obscure and irrelevant to so-called “mainstream” feminism.

The rhetorical habits of feminists are familiar to anyone who has ever attempted to oppose them. You ask them a simple question, a matter of plain fact that can be answered “yes” or “no,” and they will not answer. They will deny your authority to ask them questions, implying that to disagree with them is proof of your bad faith (mala fides), so that their critics are always either accused of defending some heinous abuse (e.g., rape) or else characterized as a misogynist, a deliberate insult for which no evidence is required beyond a skeptical stance vis-à-vis feminism.

Misogynist is a word that has a definition. The etymology of misogynist gives it a literal definition as “woman-hater,” but in America nowadays, it means: Republican, especially a male Republican.

It is would difficult to find evidence that Mitt Romney hates women, but he is a Republican and therefore, all feminists agreed in 2012, he was responsible for a “War on Women.”

Feminists began by blaming the “War on Women” on Rush Limbaugh, who said mean things about Sandra Fluke. The word for someone who says mean things about a feminist is “misogynist.” The word for someone who says mean things about a Republican woman is . . . Democrat.

The terms of the dominant discourse are controlled by the media and academia, both institutions overwhelmingly staffed by Democrats, and so it is nearly impossible to get anyone to notice (much less to admit) the extent to which feminism is simply a partisan propaganda operation through which Democrats exploit the partisan “gender gap” by convincing women that the Republican Party hates women.

Well, what about Catharine McKinnon?

Is she a feminist? Do other feminists agree with her analysis of sexuality? If officials of the Republican Party are expected to answer for everything Rush Limbaugh says — as was the case in the Sandra Fluke imbroglio — why can’t Democrats be asked about the views of eminent feminist ideologues? Of course, I doubt any TV interviewer would ever dream of asking Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren whether they agree with Catharine MacKinnon, couldn’t we at least ask such a question of Jessica Valenti, Amanda Marcotte and other such persons whose status as Official Feminist Spokeswomen is their journalistic raison d’etre?

Heterosexuality is the “structure,” according to Professor MacKinnon, by which males engage in the “organized expropriation” of women’s sexuality. That is to say, all males are sexual predators — parasites who wrongfully exploit females as their sexual victims and thereby produce an “inequality” that is “unjust.” Heterosexuality is a social injustice, a means of oppression that males impose on females.

Perhaps there are feminists who wish to say that I have mischaracterized or oversimplified Professor MacKinnon’s argument.

Then, please, Ms. Valenti and Ms. Marcotte, feel free to explain how I am too stupid to comprehend Professor MacKinnon’s meaning. Let any other feminist — professional or amateur — explain either (a) how I have misinterpreted Professor MacKinnon’s argument, or (b) how Professor MacKinnon’s argument is wrong.

“Well,” the feminist huffs, “this is irrelevant. It’s 2015. What’s the point of bringing up this article from 1982?”

“The issue in rape has been whether the intercourse was provoked/mutually desired, or whether it was forced: was it sex or violence? . . .
“[W]omen notice that sexual harassment looks a great deal like ordinary heterosexual initiation under conditions of gender inequality. Few women are in a position to refuse unwanted sexual initiatives. That consent rather than nonmutuality is the line between rape and intercourse further exposes the inequality in normal social expectations. So does the substantial amount of male force allowed in the focus on the woman’s resistance, which tends to be disabled by socialization to passivity. If sex is ordinarily accepted as something men do to women, the better question would be whether consent is a meaningful concept. Penetration (often by a penis) is also substantially more central to both the legal definition of rape and the male definition of sexual intercourse than it is to women’s sexual violation or sexual pleasure. . . . Although most women are raped by men they know, the closer the relation, the less women are allowed to claim it was rape. . . .
“Sexuality, then, is a form of power. Gender, as socially constructed, embodies it, not the reverse. Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, “Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory” (1982)

Honest readers see the immediate relevance of this. Professor MacKinnon was both prominent and influential in developing the theories of sexuality upon which much of current feminist discourse about “rape culture” is based. And the reader who is intelligent perceives that feminist theory interprets rape not as something separate and distinct from normal sexual interactions between men and women, but rather as something quite difficult to distinguish from normal interactions between men and women under “the social requirements of heterosexuality” within the system of “male sexual dominance and female sexual submission” by which women are oppressed.

If we recognize how feminist theory applies to the current “rape culture” discourse focused on college and university campuses, we also recognize this: Feminists are attempting to criminalize male sexuality, so that every sexual interaction between men and women occurs under the threat of prosecution if at any point, for any reason, the woman becomes unhappy with the interaction. Feminists now vehemently insist that males must be presumed guilty of rape if any woman ever accuses them of rape. No evidence is necessary beyond the accusation, and anyone who does not accept this no-evidence-needed standard is angrily condemned by feminists as a “rape apologist.”

This is anti-male terrorism, creating on university campuses a climate of fear in which “ordinary heterosexual initiation,” to borrow Professor MacKinnon’s phrase, becomes extraordinarily difficult due to the pervasive danger to males that their female partners might accuse them of a felony sex offense, the mere accusation being a de facto conviction.

Feminists are attempting to outlaw heterosexuality on college campuses. And when heterosexuality is outlawed, only outlaws will be heterosexual. Therefore, bad boys win, and nice guys . . .

Well, they say “nice guys finish last,” but nice guys will never finish at all. Certainly there will be no happy endings for the shy, scrupulously law-abiding nerd. Under the feminist regime of anti-male terror, a college boy would need a sense of reckless daring just to smile at a girl, much less speak to her. To attempt a kiss — are you crazy? Attempted kissing is sexual assault. No male who is smart enough to get into Harvard or Yale would dare risk the consequences of trying to kiss a girl.

Perhaps feminists can explain that I’ve misunderstood all this.

Perhaps there are Women’s Studies majors at elite universities who are eagerly willing to consent to sex with the kind of males who are interested in dating Women’s Studies majors at elite universities.

The existence of such males, however, is strictly hypothetical.

Category: Feminism, Sex Trouble

REVEALED: Colonel Jessup’s Bean Jones

Posted on | January 5, 2015 | 26 Comments

by Smitty

#ReplaceMovieLinesWithCoffee Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with coffee. (1/13)

— Who-cubby? POTUS? (@smitty_one_each) January 5, 2015

#ReplaceMovieLinesWithCoffee Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have deeper coffee than you could possibly fathom. (2/13)

— Who-cubby? POTUS? (@smitty_one_each) January 5, 2015

#ReplaceMovieLinesWithCoffee You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury coffee. (3/13)

— Who-cubby? POTUS? (@smitty_one_each) January 5, 2015

#ReplaceMovieLinesWithCoffee You’ve the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved coffe. (4/13)

— Who-cubby? POTUS? (@smitty_one_each) January 5, 2015

#ReplaceMovieLinesWithCoffee And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves coffee. (5/13)

— Who-cubby? POTUS? (@smitty_one_each) January 5, 2015

#ReplaceMovieLinesWithCoffee You don’t want the truth cause deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want that coffee (6/13)

— Who-cubby? POTUS? (@smitty_one_each) January 5, 2015

#ReplaceMovieLinesWithCoffee . . .you *need* me on that coffee. (7/13)

— Who-cubby? POTUS? (@smitty_one_each) January 5, 2015

#ReplaceMovieLinesWithCoffee We use words like honor, code, loyalty. These words are the backbone of a life spent defending coffee. (8/13)

— Who-cubby? POTUS? (@smitty_one_each) January 5, 2015

#ReplaceMovieLinesWithCoffee You use em as a punchline. Got no time or inclination to explain myself to one preferring punch to coffee(9/13)

— Who-cubby? POTUS? (@smitty_one_each) January 5, 2015

#ReplaceMovieLinesWithCoffee . . .and then questions the manner in which I provide the coffee. (10/13)

— Who-cubby? POTUS? (@smitty_one_each) January 5, 2015

#ReplaceMovieLinesWithCoffee I would rather you just said “Thank you for the coffee,” and went on your way. (11/13)

— Who-cubby? POTUS? (@smitty_one_each) January 5, 2015

#ReplaceMovieLinesWithCoffee Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a cuppa, and stand a post. (12/13)

— Who-cubby? POTUS? (@smitty_one_each) January 5, 2015

#ReplaceMovieLinesWithCoffee Either way, I don’t give a damn what non-coffee beverage you think you are entitled to. (13/13)

— Who-cubby? POTUS? (@smitty_one_each) January 5, 2015

Category: Hollywood, humor

Man Rapes 7-Year-Old Girl at Gunpoint, Infects Her With Chlamydia

Posted on | January 5, 2015 | 54 Comments

If you read this story carefully, you realize the poor girl was victimized by one of her mother’s ex-boyfriends:

Police say Andrew Hunter Jr., 23, entered the girl’s St. Roch home armed with a gun around 5:45 a.m. on Oct. 17 and woke her up. He told her to go to the back of the house and lock the door. She complied. There he used clothing to tie her hands behind her back, put a scarf in her mouth and raped her, Detective Jounay Ross wrote in an arrest warrant.
Hunter then put his gun to the victim’s head while telling her to go to sleep and count to 50, police wrote.
The victim underwent a rape exam at Children’s Hospital where staff found she had contracted chlamydia. She told authorities the assailant had shoulder-length dreadlocks, but she couldn’t see his face.
The rape kit was sent to State Police’s crime lab for DNA testing. On Dec. 2, police were notified that analysts had obtained the DNA profile of an unidentified male from the rape kit.
The victim’s mother told police she believed the suspect was a friend she knew as “Drew,” who had shoulder-length dreadlocks. The mother’s suspicions were solidified when she found out her daughter had been infected with chlamydia. She said she had also contracted chlamydia from Drew about a month earlier, police wrote. . . .

You can read the whole thing. This atrocity is being ignored by feminists shouting about “rape culture,” because the perpetrator was not a member of Phi Kappa Psi at the University of Virginia.

(Hat-tip: Kirby McCain on Twitter.)

Category: Crime

In The Mailbox, 01.05.15

Posted on | January 5, 2015 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox, 01.05.15

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
First Street Journal: How Can The Left Be This Stupid?
Doug Powers: Planned Parenthood’s Fiscal Year In Review – 37 Abortions Per Hour
Twitchy: Hypocrisy Watch – PETA Responds To Sarah Palin, Defends Ellen DeGeneres

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Anti-Gun Beta Males
American Thinker: Obama And Cuba
BLACKFIVE: Free Fire Zone – A Revolutionary Idea
Conservatives4Palin: If Money Buys Elections, How Did The Democrat Party Lose In 2014?
Don Surber: Bachmann Was Right, TIME Was Wrong
Jammie Wearing Fools: Italian Women Kidnapped By ISIS Appear In New Video
Joe For America: What Do We Want? Dead Cops! NYPD Makes An Arrest
JustOneMinute: Calling For An Islamic Revolution – Game Changer Or More Cheap Talk?
Pamela Geller: Islamic Supremacist Leaders Go After Facebook, Twitter, Demand Islamic Speech Restrictions
Protein Wisdom: January Fundraiser
Shot In The Dark: It’s The 2014 Shootie Awards!
STUMP: Clearing The Desk For 2015 – Predictions & Resolutions
The Gateway Pundit: Twice As Many Police Supporters Turn Out For St. Louis Police Rally Than Haters Who Stormed Building
The Jawa Report: Happy New Year Jawas
The Lonely Conservative: New Yorkers Continue To Flee High Taxes, Regulations
This Ain’t Hell: A Careless And Clueless Call To Arms
Weasel Zippers: Missouri State Senator Threatens Voters Over White Privilege
Mark Steyn: Islamed Out

Category: Linkagery

The World Is Safe From Me Cramming Wool Up My Backside & Using It To Knit

Posted on | January 5, 2015 | 22 Comments

by Smitty

In stark raving sane contrast to some woman in Australia, I just want everyone to know that the general relaxation I find in doing knitting and crochet (at least I used to, before fatherhood) will not be enhanced through caching the material in a (presumably cleaned and suitably prepared) body cavity.

. . .the performance project aims to address taboos surrounding female genitals and a woman’s body in general, similar to the many provocative endeavors spearheaded by Jenkin’s art activism group, Craft Cartel.

One hopes, as a matter of public safety, that Jenkins doesn’t seek to address taboos surrounding metal knitting needles and electrical outlets. Because I just don’t know if that kind of hardcore Raising Awareness about the need to Make a Difference while being all Mindful and stuff could blow my year’s supply of General Empathy for People Committed to Creative Stupidity, and it’s still the first week in January.

I realize I’m probably being Politically Incorrect, and could trigger some hardcore feminist animus against this blog. Feminists do love this blog, right, Stacy? But let me just go there anyway. You’re supposed to respect and admire this perversion of human flesh, if a suitably empowered person such as Jenkins does it.

Do keep it at the forefront of your mind that, were, say, Larry Flynt to commission a set of Jenkins-style silk stockings from some 3rd world location doubling as an artillery range, such artifacts would (probably) be exploitative, misogynistic, and despicable. Even if he paid substantial wages for the accessories.

The moral of this story is that, in our Brave Feminist Future, absolutely no *pussyfooting* around with art will be tolerated.

via Instapundit

Category: Culture, humor

House of Representatives PSA

Posted on | January 5, 2015 | 45 Comments

by Smitty

Those crazy Republicans:

Gohmert’s announcement follows on the heels of the declaration by Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) that he would not support Boehner and would consider having his name placed in nomination as an alternative.

At least two other GOP lawmakers, Rep. Tom Massie of Kentucky and Rep. Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma, have announced their intention to vote for someone other than Boehner when the election to choose a new House speaker is conducted on Tuesday, just as they did in 2013.

Keep in mind the dissent means that they’re really circling the drain, trying to figure out how to deal with their raaaaacism/sexism/homophobia/xenophobia/privilege/halitosis, and have Absolutely No Ideas Whatsoever for dealing with anything.

In stark contrast,

. . .minority Democrats, who are expected to nominate House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, of California, for the speakership. . .

are clearly enlightened beings who are harmonized on a Progressive view of Correct Thought.

This has been a public service announcement, just so all y’all knuckledragging, Teahadist, Godbag Christofascists are in the know.

via Instapundit

Category: Democrats, Republicans

« 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.

The Other McCain

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

LIVE AT FIVE: 01.07.15

In The Mailbox, 01.06.15

Feminism’s Campaign of Sexual Terror

REVEALED: Colonel Jessup’s Bean Jones

Man Rapes 7-Year-Old Girl at Gunpoint, Infects Her With Chlamydia

In The Mailbox, 01.05.15

The World Is Safe From Me Cramming Wool Up My Backside & Using It To Knit

House of Representatives PSA

THE FULL METAL JACKET REACH-AROUND AWARD

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

Search

Recent Posts

RSS reader subscription

MEMEORANDUM

Recent Comments

THE AMAZING GONZO FEED

Major Leagues

Archives

Free Agents

SHAMELESS CAPITALISM

Triple-A Franchises

Blogroll

About

Subscribe to our feed

Search

Admin