Racism, Classism and Catcalling (or, #Feminism Is for Rich White Lesbians)

Posted on | October 30, 2014 | 82 Comments

Time for a little of what feminists call “intersectionality.” A video went viral in which a woman walking on New York City streets is catcalled or subjected to what feminists call “street harassment.”

Allahpundit analyzes both the video and the phenomenon in terms of why do men do this? Before we address the particulars of that question, however, shouldn’t we first ask, who does this?

It’s a racist production about white women
not wanting attention from black and Latino men.
“The video also unintentionally makes another point, that harassers are mostly black and Latino, and hanging out on the streets in midday in clothes that suggest they are not on their lunch break. As Roxane Gay tweeted, ‘The racial politics of the video are f–ked up. Like, she didn’t walk through any white neighborhoods?’” . . .
What makes these catcalls offensive isn’t that they come from men. It’s that they come from low-status men. Like an unconsented kiss from President Obama, if the catcalls came from George Clooney there’d be much less female outrage.
In fact, maybe these catcalls are a way of striking back at privilege.

One of the ways I offend people — sometimes accidentally, but usually on purpose — is by calling attention to things which are true, but which we aren’t supposed to notice. In the 21st century, it is difficult to tell where courtesy ends and political correctness begins, and there are more and more Things We Aren’t Allowed to Say.

Emmett Till could not be reached for comment. http://t.co/RrXEH42UCa – @instapundit

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 30, 2014

The Left’s long-standing criticism of American culture (from the disciples of Herbert Marcuse, et al.) is that, supposedly, we are repressed, uptight and inauthentic because of our puritanical Anglo-Christian heritage. What went unexamined in the “Magic Negro” controversy (when Rush Limbaugh was excoriated as a racist for quoting a liberal commentary about Obama) was that black people have been used in popular culture as symbols of authenticity because of a sort of inferiority complex among white liberals. (Shelby Steele’s White Guilt is a useful introduction to this phenomenon.) Some WASPs grow up with the feeling that they have no real culture, or that their own culture is actually the cause of the world’s woes — the Genocidal White Capitalists Raping the Planet meme — and never recover from that deficit.

Things We Aren’t Allowed to Say: English-speaking white people are the only Americans who are denied a right to ethnic pride.

There, I said it. Sue me.

You might believe, if you were an unthinking consumer of what is taught in the government education system, that before the arrival of a wave of Irish immigrants fleeing the 19th-century Potato Famine, that the United States was a vast Evil Hate Machine. But then came the Irish (sanctified by their victimhood), followed by the wave of Ellis Island immigrants (Italians, Jews, etc.) and, through their shared experience of suffering inflicted by the Evil Hate Machine, these non-WASP Americans — with the help of their  loyal mascot-sidekicks, The Negroes — achieved the dream of A More Perfect Union.

In other words . . . VOTE DEMOCRAT!

Things We Aren’t Allowed to Say: What is taught as “history” in the government education system is, in fact, a propaganda narrative indistinguishable from the liberal orthodoxy of the Democrat Party.

This orthodoxy extends privilege (yeah, I speak academese quite fluently) to the descendants of Catholics, Jews and other non-WASP immigrants, a sort of “Get Out of Whiteness Free” card, so they can exonerate themselves from the genocidal atrocity narrative of the American founding: “We didn’t exterminate the Native Americans!  We did not enslave African-Americans! My great-great grandfather was [insert Immigrant Nationality here] who came here with nothing! My ancestors were victims of the Evil Hate Machine, too!”

You’re welcome, non-WASP Americans. My WASP ancestors did all that for you, so you could feel superior to me. Glad to help.

The Democrat Coalition and Its Contradictions

The Liberal Narrative of American History, you see, originated in the political rhetoric of urban Democrats in the 1920s, who  assembled a pan-ethnic coalition in places like Chicago, Boston and New York by appealing to the interests (and prejudices) of the Irish, Italians, the Jews and other immigrant groups. “Vote Democrat,” the Irish Catholic in Boston was told, “and we’ll take money and power from those rich Yankee snobs and give it to you!”

In an era when All Politics Was Local — when there was no cable TV or Internet to call attention to these narrowly tailored partisan messages — the Catholic in Boston or the Jew in New York was unaware that, simultaneously, the Ku Klux Klan was campaigning in the Midwest with a different message. “Vote Democrat,” the Indiana farmer was told, “and we’ll do something about those Jews and Catholics and Negroes who are destroying The American Way of Life!”

From that kind of dishonest two-faced hateful divisiveness, the Democrat Party constructed the Great Liberal Consensus that elected FDR, Harry Truman, JFK and LBJ. During a span of 36 years (1933-69) Democrats controlled the White House for 28 years, interrupted only by the eight-year presidency of WWII hero Dwight Eisenhower, whose liberal “Modern Republicanism” was the chief target of William F. Buckley Jr.’s ire in the 1950s. (If you’ve never read Buckley’s 1959 classic Up From Liberalism, you should buy it immediately.)

The Great Liberal Consensus was self-contradicting nonsense that produced bad policy and, when it finally unraveled during the debacle of LBJ’s doomstruck presidency, the liberal intelligentsia were thrown into a state of permanent crisis from which they have never fully recovered. Behind their facade of hubristic liberal arrogance, Our Moral Superiors (as I have dubbed this intellectual elite) are deeply afraid that, at any moment, Americans will see through the Fog of Phony Bullshit from which Democrat electoral majorities are built.

We are “anti-intellectual,” you see, if we refuse to accept at face value The Liberal Narrative of American History we have been taught by the government education system. There should be a sign in front of every public school in America: “Vote Democrat, Because the Teachers Union Needs More Money and Power.” The hypocritical self-interest of government employees supporting the Party of More Government is another one of those Things We Aren’t Allowed to Say, but if you want to know why public schools are more interested in teaching liberal attitudes than teaching facts and skills, it doesn’t take a Ph.D. to figure it out.

“In the hands of a skillful indoctrinator, the average student not only thinks what the indoctrinator wants him to think . . . but is altogether positive that he has arrived at his position by independent intellectual exertion. This man is outraged by the suggestion that he is the flesh-and-blood tribute to the success of his indoctrinators.”
– William F. Buckley Jr., Up From Liberalism (1959)

We have been indoctrinated, all of us, and recovering from that indoctrination is a process, rather than an event. Once you start noticing the Fog of Phony Bullshit, you become skeptical of the narrative, and the Democrat Party mythos of ethnos is one of the most obvious elements of that narrative: There are five A’s in “RAAAAACISM!”

From that long but necessary digression, we return to the topic: A white woman targeted for “street harassment” by predominately black and Latino men on the streets of New York City.

VOTE DEMOCRAT!

C’mon, isn’t that the message of this viral video? “Vote Democrat,” the white woman is told, “and we’ll protect you from the patriarchal oppression of the objectifying Male Gaze.”

The implicit assumption of the Democrat Party’s “War on Women” meme is that the sexist misogyny by which all women are allegedly victimized is officially endorsed by The Republican Party. Never mind the fact — as the viral video ironically demonstrated — that women’s victimization is quite often perpetrated by constituencies of the Democrat Party coalition. Feminism is a left-wing political ideology that serves the partisan interests of the Democrat Party and, when feminists aren’t busy offering to provide oral sex to Democrat men, they are busy accusing Republicans of being The Party of Rape.

It does not really matter whether you are male or female, black or white, straight or gay. The only thing liberals really care about is whether you vote Democrat, because the liberal’s sense of self-esteem is dependent on his belief that, by voting Democrat and encouraging you to do likewise, he proves himself worthy as one of Our Moral Superiors. (Thomas Sowell’s book The Vision of the Anointed explains this brilliantly.)

Androgynous Units of the 21st Century

So, for what it’s worth, here’s my two cents on the multicultural diversity of the New York City street harassers in the viral video: Males who have not been subjected to elite indoctrination in universities, and who have no direct investment in the bureaucratic regime of the suit-and-tie office job workplace, have not learned to be ashamed of their heterosexuality.

College education and professional careers in the 21st century require men to learn that women are oppressed by male sexual interest. The anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology of feminism — Fear and Loathing of the Penis — has acquired hegemonic institutional authority in the elite culture of academia. We are no longer permitted to believe that men and women are different, or that their differences have any natural function. We are all supposed to be Ungendered Androgynous Units, except insofar as males are inferior to females, and if you are a normal male who has normal attitudes toward normal females, this makes you part of the heteronormative patriarchy.

It is astonishing how deeply some men have internalized this totalitarian feminist anti-male hate propaganda. A properly indoctrinated male nowadays must believe that merely to notice female beauty, to feel sexual desire toward women in a normal way, or to praise women in their roles as wives and mothers, is to participate in misogynistic oppression. Indeed, the properly indoctrinated male feels a duty to denounce you as a sexist if you merely point out that feminism is an anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology. The belief system of lesbian Marxist baby-killers must never be questioned and, if a popular feminist celebrity is also an admitted child molester, well, how dare you call attention to that fact?

Outside the hyper-politicized precincts where feminist orthodoxy exercises hegemonic control, however, there are still males who have not yet been properly indoctrinated. They dropped out of high school or they couldn’t afford to go college. Maybe they joined the Army or got a muscle-and-sweat job where Doing the Work mattered more than Having the Correct Attitude. Or maybe, as seems to be the case of the lower-class New York City men featured in the viral video, they just accepted their liberal-endorsed status as Authentic Victims and haven’t bothered to wonder if there is anything wrong with their way of life.

One way or another, these men are not invested in the bureaucratic system within which feminist orthodoxy is uncontested. So when they see a good-looking woman, they react.

They are not repressed. They are not ashamed to be male. Their basic animal sexuality doesn’t cause them any psychic conflict.

And I can totally relate to those brothers.

Back in the day, my man Bobby “The Hamp” Shearer and I used to discuss the great social issue of our mutual interest, Exactly Who the Hell Do These White Girls Think They Are, Anyway?

See, Bobby played football at Homewood High and his mother was a respectable middle-class school teacher. I was the product of an at least equally respectable socioeconomic background. By the time we got to college, however, we were both renegade outlaws. Let me tell you, buddy, we were on the hunt, and in the late 1970s it was Open Season.

Bobby and I became friends as the result of an incident in a biology class our freshman year, when somebody managed to steal the teacher’s copy of the mid-term exam, so that class was adjourned and the test was delayed. At the Copper Penny pub (drinking age was 19 then in Alabama, but we all had fake IDs), Bobby told me he had been in on the test-stealing conspiracy and, as we laughed about the aftermath over beers, the topic of conversation drifted to Exactly Who the Hell Do These White Girls Think They Are, Anyway?

There was, at Jacksonville (Ala.) State University back in the day, a very clear social hierarchy. Atop this status pyramid were the Varsity Athletes, the Rich Frat Boys and their Hot Sorority Girlfriends. There was also the Baptist Campus Ministry — at that time, the largest student organization on campus — where Nice Boys and Nice Girls congregated and socialized. Then there was the Marching Southerners Band and its female auxiliary, the Marching Ballerinas. However, almost without exception, the Marching Ballerinas were also Hot Sorority Girlfriends, so that the ordinary male band geek had zero chance of scoring with a Marching Ballerina. (Of course, many male band geeks were gay, so the not-scoring-with-Marching-Ballerinas factor didn’t bother them.) And so it was that Bobby and I found ourselves in the situation of renegade outlaws, on the hunt, trying to figure out how to get Our Fair Share of That Action on a state university campus where a substantial majority of the target population (and nearly all the really prime commodity) was off-limits to us for one reason or another.

Exactly Who the Hell Do These White Girls Think They Are, Anyway?

Bobby’s problem as a black guy in Alabama during the long governorship of the Honorable George Corley Wallace was obvious enough, while my situation as a skinny long-haired rock-and-roll white boy was such that Bobby the Hamp and I had a lot in common.

The Objectivity of Renegade Outlaws

We were both profoundly antisocial, you see. Did I mention I used to be a Democrat? Never mind. The point is, Bobby and I shared a disrespectful attitude toward the status quo, and this became the basis of a friendship and many deep discussions about race and culture and, of course, Exactly Who the Hell Do These White Girls Think They Are, Anyway?

Renegade outlaws have an objectivity about the system of social status that any Ph.D. would envy. When I talk about the psychology of crime, I speak with the authority of experience, unless it behooves me to invoke my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. I was multicultural and intersectional before it was cool and it so happened that Bobby the Hamp and I had a common interest but different aptitudes.

For some reason, I attracted a certain type of girl, usually named Donna or Tammy, who liked my Bad Boy Clown persona (and my skinny ass) and who hoped that I might be harnessed into the Acceptable Boyfriend role — not that her mother would approve of me, but her mother could be required to accept me. On the other hand, Bobby had remarkable success in playing the role of Latter-Day Mandingo to certain Hot Sorority Girls who felt an occasional urge to defy (quite secretly) the regnant social expectations of northeast Alabama during the long governorship of the Honorable George Corley Wallace.

Me and the Hamp, we knew the score, see? Beneath the veneer of respectable conformity, all kinds of things were happening back in the day — Things We Weren’t Allowed to Say, but the truth was suppressed then for different reasons than it is suppressed now.

Too stubbornly proud to tug the forelock to Our Moral Superiors, I never once played the “Some of My Best Friends” card when hypocritical white liberals accused me of racism. Nor did I play the  “Some of My Best Friends” card vis-a-vis accusations of sexism and homophobia, because I was never going to let those bastards have the satisfaction of forcing me to defend myself except on my terms, as it fit my own purposes and sense of personal honor. People who actually know me, my real-life friends, know who I am and what I believe, and no self-appointed Arbiter of Political Acceptability is ever going to intimidate me into silence.

Never forget, the Speech Police are also the Thought Police. If you can't SPEAK the truth, it becomes impossible to KNOW the truth. #tcot

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 30, 2014

No shame in my game, see, and it isn’t my job to justify or defend how dudes in New York City play their game. Feminists can go find those guys and dox them — publish their names and home addresses, please — so we can find out whether they’re registered to vote as Democrats or Republicans, and let the chips fall where they may. What the feminists want, however, is to convince women that somehow “street harassment” is a function of the heteronormative patriarchy, and the only way to fight it is (a) vote Democrat, (b) become a lesbian, or preferably (c) become a lesbian feminist Democrat.

Exactly Who the Hell Do These White Girls Think They Are, Anyway?

Hey, sweetheart: Don’t try to run that three-card monte game on me. Before you can demand from me a denunciation of New York City street harassers, you’ll first have to provide me with proof of your personal moral superiority, by which you claim the right to make such a demand. If it suits my interest to respond to your imperious demand, I might answer by saying that if (a) the First Amendment protects the right of Lena Dunham to show her ugly naked ass in every episode of Girls, then (b) the street harasser has a First Amendment right to express his admiration of a genuinely attractive woman. Note the “if . . . might” hypothetical structure of that sentence, darling, because if you want to have an abstract intellectual conversation, I’ll be happy to converse. However, you don’t actually want to have a conversation — certainly not an equal conversation — what you want to do is to make me into a Symbolic Scapegoat and say, “There! See? A white male heterosexual Republican said something sexist! Vote Democrat!”

What part of “fuck you” is so hard for you liberals to understand?

These hypocritical hate-hustling Democrats think they can get away with running the same hustle over and over again, because the rest of us are too dumb to figure out we’re being hustled.

Once their hustle has been busted, however, they have to move their crooked game to the other side of town and try it again. So now their familiar game — “Vote Democrat, Because Whoever You Hate, We Hate Them, Too” — is targeted at a new audience of chumps. Herman Cain once wrote a book called They Think You’re Stupid, the title of which is a perfect four-word summary of the Democrat Party’s basic strategy. And, hey, you can’t argue with success. After 214 years of lies, corruption and bad policy, Democrats are still open for business.

You want to talk about hate? When rich white lesbians start telling women to vote Democrat because of “street harassment,” while at the same time refusing to denounce a celebrity pervert like Lena Dunham for diddling her own sister, you may fairly accuse me of hating that kind of shameless hypocrisy. But unless or until these feminists prove to me that they actually are Our Moral Superiors, they have no right to make any demands of me, or you, or any ordinary law-abiding American citizen trying to get along in the real world.

Don’t let yourself get hustled. And if you’re ever in Homewood, tell Bobby “The Hamp” Shearer his old buddy Spacey Stacy says hello.

 

LIVE AT FIVE: 10.30.14

Posted on | October 30, 2014 | 6 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

TOP NEWS
Maine Seeking Legal Authority To Keep Hickox Quarantined

Jacobson v. Massachusetts. Your “civil rights” argument is invalid.
WHO head slams US, Australian Ebola travel curbs
Ebola slowing in Liberia?
Obama on Ebola fight: US can’t seal itself off

Russian Space Agency Resupplies International Space Station
Cargo vessel from Kazakhstan brings three tons of food to station

Peshmerga Force Passes Through Turkey To Kobane
Heavy weapons company greeted by crowds of cheering Turkish Kurds

POLITICS
Despite Foreign Crises, It’s Still The Economy, Stupid

Poll shows 43% feel economy is most important issue facing the country

Harvard Poll Shows Declining Support For Obama Among Millennials

White House Tries To Ease Flareup Over Netanyahu Insults

Christie Tells Sandy Heckler “Sit Down And Shut Up!”

ISIS Directive To Aussie Recruits Sparked DHS Security Boost

Houston Mayor Drops Demand For Sermon Texts

Report: Red Cross Struggled With Response To Superstorm Sandy

Ferguson Police Chief Denies Report He’s Resigning

THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Asian Crude Holds Gains As Fed Optimism Lifts Dollar: WTI $81.96, Brent $86.97
Asia Stocks Fall, Dollar Surges On Fed’s Optimistic Tone
Federal Reserve Ends Bond Buying
Samsung Vows Changes After Mobile Profit Plunge
Dreamworks Animation Profit Beats Estimates
Mortgage Applications Plunge
Microsoft Band And Microsoft Health: The $199 All-Platform Fitness Band
CurrentC System Attacked Shortly After Some Merchants Block Apple Pay
HP Reinvents The PC With Sprout, Leaps Into 3D Technology
Film Industry Bans Google Glass From Theaters
“Sunset Overdrive”: The End Of The World Has Never Been So Much Fun

SPORTS
Costly Mistakes Doom Capitals’ Homecoming

Three first-period errors lead to 4-2 loss

Giants Win Game Seven 3-2; Third World Series Title In Five Years

Rondo’s Return Sparks Celtics Over Nyets

Preds Stop Oilers Streak With 4-1 Win

Suns Rout Lakers Despite Kobe’s 30 Points

Joe Maddon Likely To Be Cubs’ Next Skipper

World Cup Boss Calls For Cool Heads In West Indies Cricket Crisis

Pierce Overshadowed In Heat Debut By Dominant Bosh

FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
Sandra Bullock Saves The Day – In Real Life

Sat on the concrete with victim, provided hydration

Katie Holmes: “I Don’t Have Any Fear Now”

Amanda Bynes’ Mom Is Her Conservator Again

Emma Watson “The Fresh Face Of Feminism”, Per Elle

First Look At “Terminator: Genisys”

Katt Williams & Suge Knight Arrested For Stealing Camera From Female Paparazzo

Ricki Lake Files For Divorce, Offers To Pay Alimony

Jennifer Lopez: “I’ve Been In Relationships Where I Felt Abused”

Tommy Lee Jones Once Told Jim Carrey: “I Hate You. I Really Don’t Like You.”

Alyssa Milano Breastfeeds Daughter, Shares Tender Pic On Instagram

Metallica Announces Weeklong Residency On “The Late Late Show”

FOREIGNERS
Bodies Found In Mexico Where Three Texas Teens Went Missing
No Hope For Survivors In Sri Lanka Landslide; Over 100 Dead
White House Denies Israel Rift As Netanyahu Lashes Back
ISIS Parades, Executes Thirty Sunni Militiamen
Tunisian Secularists Win Most Seats In Election
Zambia’s Guy Scott Becomes First White African Leader In Twenty Years
NATO Tracks Russian War Planes In European Airspace
Syrian Helicopter Bombs Displaced Persons Camp
Gaza Bureaucrats Finally Get Paid
Nork Officials Publicly Executed For Watching ROK Soap Operas
Russia, Ukraine Fail To Reach Agreement At EU Talks
Indian Government, Supreme Court At War Over Tax Treaties
Brazil Shocks With Interest Rate Hike In Wake Of Election

BLOGS & STUFF
EBL: Separated At Birth? Typhoid Mary & Kaci Hickox
Loose Endz: Until Death…
First Street Journal: Those Oh-So-Independent Democratic Senators
Doug Powers: We Have Our Winner For Stupidest Ad Of The 2014 Campaign Season
Twitchy: This Absurd Attempt At Ebola Competence From Ambassador Power Is Unbelievably Idiotic
RedState: Obama – High Risk For Ebola Equals Freedom, Low Risk Equals Quarantine (h/t Moe Lane)
American Power: Desperate Southern Dems Play Despicable Race Card
BLACKFIVE: In Defense Of Traditional VSOs
Conservatives4Palin: Bloomberg’s David Knowles Proves Governor Palin Right
Don Surber: Jesus Didn’t Recycle
Jammie Wearing Fool: “Heroic” Ebola Doctor Lied To NYPD About His Whereabouts
Joe For America: Guess Who’s Gunning For Democrats
JustOneMinute: THEIR Ability To Cope?!?
Pamela Geller: Iconic Female Peshmerga Soldier Rehana Beheaded; Islamic State Posts Gruesome Photos Online
Protein Wisdom: Cory Gardner Stole My Jimmies!
Shot In The Dark: It’s Technically Comedy…
STUMP: Illinois Connections Watch – Usual Biz In Chicago
The Gateway Pundit: Democratic Group La Raza Caught Promoting Illegal Immigrant Voter Fraud
The Jawa Pundit: New Jawa Feature! WTF Happened To Bilal Ahmad?
The Lonely Conservative: Jon Stewart On Democrats’ POTUS-Partum Depression
This Ain’t Hell: The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves, Part 2
Weasel Zippers: Over 214,000 Doctors Opt Out Of Obamacare Exchanges
Megan McArdle: Organ Donors Want Choices

Did Pervert @LenaDunham Make Her Younger Sister Grace a Lesbian?

Posted on | October 29, 2014 | 65 Comments

 

Kevin Williamson (@KevinNR) is a masterful journalist who knows a thing or two about effective storytelling. Sometimes, as a writer, you don’t want to be the one to connect the dots. Just say, “Oh, look, here’s a dot and there is another dot,” and let your readers form their own conclusions. And so, having undertaken to read Lena Dunham’s latest autobiographical opus — taking a bullet for the team there, Kev — Williamson describes Dunham’s depraved childhood habits:

Her father, Carroll Dunham, is a painter noted for his primitive brand of highbrow pornography, his canvases anchored by puffy neon-pink labia; her photographer mother filled the family home with nude pictures of herself, “legs spread defiantly.” Self-styled radicals from old money, they were not the sort of people inclined to enforce even the most lax of boundaries. And they were, in their daughter’s telling, enablers of some very disturbing behavior that would be considered child abuse in many jurisdictions — Lena Dunham’s sexual abuse, specifically, of her younger sister, Grace, the sort of thing that gets children taken away from non-millionaire families without Andover pedigrees and Manhattanite social connections. Dunham writes of casually masturbating while in bed next to her younger sister, of bribing her with “three pieces of candy if I could kiss her on the lips for five seconds . . . anything a sexual predator might do to woo a small suburban girl I was trying.” At one point, when her sister is a toddler, Lena Dunham pries open her vagina — “my curiosity got the best of me,” she offers, as though that were an explanation. “This was within the spectrum of things I did.”

That occurs in part one of the story, and then you read through part two of the story, until you get to part three of the story:

She sneers at “girls with boyfriends who looked like lesbians,” at a man guilty of “dressing vaguely like a middle-aged lesbian,” etc. “Lesbian” is Dunham’s shorthand for “awful.” On Girls, one of the characters scoffs that “dates are for lesbians,” and Dunham describes a childhood fear that she would become “the militant lesbian leader of a motorcycle gang,” but she also describes herself as “being in possession of a gay sister,” which fact she wields like a get-out-of-women’s-prison-free card against accusations of homophobia . . .

Notice the artfulness that Kevin Williamson has employed here: Early in the story, we learn that the degenerate young Dunham molested her sister as a child. Then, after reading several hundred more words, we are reminded, “Oh, by the way, that little girl Lena molested? She grew up to be a homosexual.” There is no need for Williamson even to suggest a correlation between these two facts. Anyone who has studied developmental psychology understands it.

Lena Dunham: Voice of a Perverted Generation!

 

Pervert @LenaDunham molested her sister, Grace, who is now a lesbian. http://t.co/rCd5LvAH4Y Just a coincidence, I'm sure. @KevinNR #tcot

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 30, 2014

It's not controversial to say @LenaDunham is a pervert, is it? http://t.co/rCd5LvAH4Y It's just a fact. @KevinNR #tcot

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 30, 2014

.@ARaised_Eyebrow "She needs help"? She needs PRISON. @LenaDunham is a sociopathic pervert, a menace to society. @KevinNR

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 30, 2014

 

The Problem of ‘Equality’

Posted on | October 29, 2014 | 50 Comments

Thanks to the reader who tipped me to this wonderful essay on “feminism as male role envy” by Roger Devlin:

Much confusion exists regarding the feminist attack upon women’s status, because the feminist movement has always presented itself to outsiders — usually with success — as an effort to improve that status. Feminists, as we all know, assert that women are rightfully the “equals” of men and deserve a “level playing field” on which to compete with them. In our time, it is a rare person whose notions about women’s claims remain wholly uninfluenced by these slogans; that is true even of many who think of themselves as opponents of feminism. For example, certain would-be defenders of Western civilization believe Islam presents a danger to us principally because it does not accept “equality of the sexes.” Indeed, they sometimes make it sound as though they would have no objection to Islam if only Muslim girls were free to wear miniskirts, join the Army, and divorce their husbands. Or again, many in the growing father’s movement describe their goal as implementing “true” equality rather than recovering their traditional role as family heads. I have even known conservatives to earnestly assure young audiences that the idea of sexual equality comes to us from Christianity — a crueler slander upon the Faith than Voltaire or Nietzsche ever imagined. The extreme case of such confusion can be found in “mainstream” conservatives such as William Kristol, who claims to oppose feminism on the grounds that its more exotic manifestations “threaten women’s recent gains”: in other words, the problem with feminism is that it endangers feminism. It is difficult to combat a movement whose fundamental premises one accepts.

Splendid work! The problem with “equality” is that it requires us forever to feed the crocodile, hoping to be eaten last. Any one of us can look around and see some condition of inequality and say, “That’s unfair.” Once we adopt equality as a moral principle, we will find social injustice everywhere we look. Fifty years ago, Ronald Reagan famously remarked: “We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one.”

Equality is a totalitarian doctrine with no rational limit nor any logical stopping point short of the gates of Hell. Human beings are vastly different in their abilities and interests and, therefore, inequality is the natural condition of mankind. Whatever measures we enact this year to advance the cause of equality, you can be sure that next year inequality will continue, so that the advocates of equality will always have an excuse for new interventions in the natural (unequal) order of society. The Armies of Progress are always on the march, inviting us to join them on the Road to the Utopia of Equality.

The problem is that “Utopia” is a word coined by Thomas More from Greek roots meaning “nowhere.” The egalitarian ideal has never existed in history nor can it be brought about by even the most determined government policy, because equality is incompatible with human nature. As Freidrich Hayek observed, “social justice” is a mirage. Progressive advocates of equality are therefore the enemies of mankind, destroying the natural order to pursue an unrealistic ideal that we would not enjoy if it were actually possible, which it is not.

Making equality into a moral principle and a political objective always has the result of  of inflaming irrational resentment. People ask why feminists are always so angry; it is because the egalitarian mind sees injustice everywhere. If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. If the only ideology you have is feminism, every problem looks like patriarchal oppression. Any attempt to placate feminists is as doomed as Neville Chamberlain’s attempts to appease Hitler. Feminists are totalitarians who crave unlimited power and can never be satisfied with partial success or compromise. Grant feminists every demand they make today, and tomorrow they will return with a new list of demands. One day it’s “peace for our time,” the next day the Stukas are dive-bombing Warsaw.

• Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Most Women Have to Be Coerced into Heterosexuality’
• Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Rapists Serve All Men by Enforcing Male Supremacy’
• Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Lesbianism and Feminism Have Been Coterminous’
• Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Access to a Sexuality Autonomous from the Male’

Vague rhetoric about “equality” and “progress,” as general principles, tends to obscure the reality of what feminism actually means, when you begin to convert their theories into human reality:

Researcher Liz Gallese thought she had finally found an example of a happy role-reversal marriage: the wife’s career was more successful than the husband’s, so he began looking after their child to let her focus on work (the economically rational thing to do). The woman seemed proud of her accomplishments and happy with the arrangement; and Gallese must have thought she had a bestseller on her hands. The reality came to light only when she began speaking to the husband. It turns out that the couple had entirely ceased having sexual relations. Armed with that new information, Gallese began probing more deeply into the wife’s sentiments. The woman eventually admitted she wanted another child, but — not by her husband.
“I absolutely refuse to sleep with that man,” she declared; “I’ll never have sex with him again.” Instead, she was now flirting with other successful businessmen. She did not divorce her husband, however; he was still too useful as a nanny for the child. Such would appear to be the thanks men can expect for accommodating their wife’s career and “sharing the housework.”

Read the whole thing by Roger Devlin.

 

 

Police: High School Dance Teacher, 37, Had Lesbian Sex With Girl, 16

Posted on | October 29, 2014 | 33 Comments

Durham, North Carolina:

A North Carolina high school teacher has been charged with having sex with a 16-year-old female student after she was caught with a tattoo of teenager’s name.
Michelle Smith White, 37, had the student’s name and initials tattooed on her body after ‘engaging in a sex offense’ with the 16-year-old, court documents claim.
White met the alleged victim while working as a dance teacher at a local high school in Durham, North Carolina, in 2012, when the girl was just 15 years old, and the friendship later evolved into a sexual one.
White worked at Charles E. Jordan High School, where the alleged victim was a student, from 1997 until April 2014.
Upon leaving the school, White was asked by the teen’s parents to stop communicating with their daughter, but the pair were caught exchanging sexually charged text messages in May, WRAL-TV reports.
The texts included the word ‘threesome’ and ‘alluded to the involvement of Ms White’s husband,’ according to an affidavit by the Durham County Sheriff’s Office. . . .
White has also been ordered to show a tattoo which depicts an ‘artist rendering which would be symbolic of the juvenile’ as well as the teen’s name and initials, to be used as evidence. . . .
White has been charged with taking indecent liberties with a student and engaging in a sex offense with a student.

Is there a trend here?

• Dance teacher Sabrina Epps, 19, was arrested last week after police say she admitted having lesbian sex with a 14-year-old girl who was a student at the Tennessee studio where Epps taught.
• Dance teacher Amanda Feenstra, 30, was sentenced to probation last week after she pleaded guilty to having lesbian sex with a 17-year-old student at the Texas high school where Feenstra taught.
• Dance teacher Nichol Marie Phelps, 30, was sentenced to prison in June after she pleaded guilty to having lesbian sex with a 15-year-old student at the Florida academy where Phelps taught.

But no, it’s not like there’s a trend here or anything . . .

 

LIVE AT FIVE: 10.29.14

Posted on | October 29, 2014 | 13 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

TOP NEWS
Kaci Hickox Won’t Obey Maine Ebola Quarantine

“Her civil rights were violated,” lawyer says
Amber Vinson free of Ebola, released from hospital
Obama defends US Ebola guidelines, backs American volunteers in Africa

Supply Rocket Headed For ISS Explodes
Orbital Sciences Antares rocket blew up shortly after liftoff; no injuries

Molten Lava From Kilauea About To Devour First Home
Lava flow oozed onto residential property last night

POLITICS
Burke, Walker Backers Give Megabuck Donations To Wisconsin State Parties

Walker leads Burke in ad spending, exclusive of outside groups’ ads

Fox Poll: Race For Congress Tightens, Confidence In Obama Low

Romney, Cruz Campaign For Dan Sullivan

Obama Makes Late Campaign Sprint For Democrats

Why Green Groups Are Talking About Abortion This Year

Investigator In Secret Service Whore Scandal Probe Resigns After Being Implicated In Own Incident

Hackers Breach White House’s Unsecured Network

Internal Memo Pushes Bringing Non-Citizens To US For Ebola Treatment; State Denies Plan

Homeland Security Beefs Up Security At Federal Buildings

Abortion Barbie Trailing Among Women By Double Digits

THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Asian Crude Up head Of Fed Meeting, Supply Report: WTI $81.68, Brent $86.23
Wall Street Eyes Fed’s Next Move As QE Winds Down
Japan Sales Tax Hike May Be Negative If It Hurts Economy
Nikkei Leads Asian Shares Higher Ahead Of Fed Meeting
Lowe’s Debuts Customer Service Robots
US Consumer Confidence Hits Seven-Year High In October
FTC Sues AT&T For Throttling Unlimited Data Customers
Google Working On Nanoparticle Tech For Health Tests
YouTube Expects Paid Subscription Service Soon
Forest Service Warns Of “Grizzly End” For People Taking Selfies With Bears
GT Advanced Describes “Unsustainable” Apple Relationship

SPORTS
And We’ll See You Here Tomorrow Night: Royals Force Game 7

Peavy, Belt, Giants fall apart as Royals bring the pain with a 10-0 asswhupping

Hockey Legend Gordie Howe Suffers Stroke

Oregon Could Have Clear Path Into Four-Team NCAAF Playoff

Jets Edge Islanders 4-3

Kobe’s Back, Lakers Get Routed By Rockets Anyway

Sens Beat Hobbled Blue Jackets 5-2

Thousands Attend Taveras Funeral In The Dominican

Habs 2, Flames 1 (Shootout)

Spurs Edge Dallas 101-100

Canucks 4, Canes 1

Leafs Blank Sabres 4-0

Pens Rout Devils 8-3

FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
Actress Elizabeth Norment Dies, 61

Played Frank Underwood’s executive secretary Nancy Kaufberger in Netflix series

“Mad Men” Star Jessica Pare Expecting First Child

Taylor Swift’s “1989” Heading For 1 Million Sales Debut

“Orange Is The New Black” Season Three – Vee Returning?

Amanda Bynes To Stay In Psych Ward Another 30 Days; Too Sick To Release

Jose Canseco Shoots Off Finger In Gun Accident

Britney Spears Getting Her Own Holiday In November

Sarah Hyland Breaks Silence On Abusive Ex-Boyfriend

Julia Roberts “I Took A Big Risk” Not Getting A Facelift

Ray Rice & Janay Praying For The Jerks Mocking Them On Halloween

Heather Graham: “It’s Fun To Be A Little Daring”

Lifetime Casts Its Marilyn Monroe

Nylon’s November Cover Girl Is Leighton Meester

Hugh Jackson Urges You To Wear Sunscreen

The Rise And Fall Of Honey Boo Boo

“Hunger Games” Writer Unveils New Fox Series

FOREIGNERS
How Smashed Jesus Shrine Reveals Christian Undercurrent To Hong Kong Protests
Norks Hack 20,000 ROK Smartphones
Ukraine Condemns Moscow’s Support For Rebel Polls As “Destructive And Provocative”
UNICEF: One In Four British Children Living In Poverty
Tunisians Shun Islamists In Bid For Stability
Sanctions Bind Russia’s Energy Elite To Putin
Vietnam To Buy Ships From India To Patrol Disputed Waters
Rally Protests Additional Term For Burkina Faso Prez
US Pledges Extra $10 Million For Syrian Refugees
Iraqi Kurds Head For Syria To Fight ISIS
Head Of Israeli Polygamist Cult Gets Thirty Years For Rape, Incest
Former Chicom General Confesses To Taking Bribes

BLOGS & STUFF
Michelle Malkin: The Spectacular Self-Immolation Of Wendy R. Davis
Twitchy: “Who’s Chickenshit Again?” After Bibi Smear, WH Spanked With Cold Truth
American Power: Why America’s Over Obama
American Thinker: The Real War On Women
Conservatives4Palin: Sarah Palin Warns Libs “I’m Going To Bug The Crap Out Of Them”
Don Surber: Voters Will School DC
Jammie Wearing Fools: Science! Ebola Can Survive On Surfaces Up To Two Months
Joe For America: A Patriotic Warning To Islamists/Anti-Americans In The US – Stand Down, Or Else!
JustOneMinute: The MIT Sexual Assault Survey And Promotion Of The Agenda
Pamela Geller: Memorial For Beheaded UK Soldier Lee Rigby Will Not Bear His Name
Protein Wisdom: Hey, Girls – If You Need A Party Bus With Male Strippers To Get To The Polls..
Shot In The Dark: Trulbert! Part XIX – A Journey Of A Thousand Miles Starts With A Single Scream
STUMP: Illinois Election Watch – What’s Up With Rauner?
The Gateway Pundit: State Department Memo Shows Administration Is Going To Move Ebola Patients To The US
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Ebola! It’s Sexy!
The Lonely Conservative: Must See Video- Chicago Activists Weigh In On Black Leadership
This Ain’t Hell: The New “Backdoor Draft”
Weasel Zippers: It Continues – Voting Machines In MD Change GOP Votes To Democrats
Megan McArdle: Uber And Cabbies In A DC Death Match

The Crazy Feminism of Joyce Trebilcot

Posted on | October 28, 2014 | 29 Comments

 

America lost a valuable source of feminist craziness when Professor Joyce Trebilcot died in 2009 at age 74. For more than three decades, Trebilcot supplied the feminist movement with its necessary raw material — insanity — and in its obituary of this distinguished academic, Washington University St. Louis described her contributions:

Trebilcot, who joined the University in 1970 as assistant professor of philosophy, helped found the women’s studies major in 1972 and the program in 1975. She served as coordinator of the program from 1980-1992. . . .
“Working with a group of committed students and faculty, Joyce Trebilcot played an integral role in developing women’s studies at Washington University from a special major into an interdisciplinary program in the 1970s,” said Mary Ann Dzuback, Ph.D., associate professor and director of the Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies Program. . . .
A founding member of the Society for Women in Philosophy and of the editorial board of Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, Trebilcot grew up in Oakland, Calif., and earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of California, Berkeley, and a doctorate from the University of California, Santa Barbara.

Professor Trebilcot left behind a lesbian widow, her partner Jan Crites, as well as a formidable body of insane feminist writings. Perhaps most widely cited was her influential 1974 treatise “Sex Roles: The Argument From Nature,” a landmark work of lunatic feminism.

Addressing herself to the question of whether male/female sex roles are justified by “natural psychological differences between the sexes,” Professor Trebilcot in effect answered, “So what?”

In this paper I argue that whether there are natural psychological differences between females and males has little bearing on the issue of whether society should reserve certain roles for females and others for males. . . .
The question is, after all, not what women and men naturally are, but what kind of society is morally justifiable. In order to answer this question, we must appeal to the notions of justice, equality, and liberty. It is these moral concepts, not the empirical issue of sex differences, which should have pride of place in the philosophical discussion of sex roles.

OK, so “what kind of society is morally justifiable”?

If you ask a lesbian feminist that question, you might not be surprised that her answer is “lesbian feminist society,” and Professor Trebilcot seems to have dedicated much of her career to that proposition. Her 1994 book Dyke Ideas: Process, Politics, Daily Life is a collection of essays devoted to Professor Trebilcot’s gynocentric philosophy. One of her essays in that volume, “Dyke Methods, or Principles for the Discovery/Creation for the Withstanding,” was first published in the feminist journal Hypatia in 1988. It begins with Professor Trebilcot’s statement that she is “[a]larmed by the domination inherent in the patriarchal idea of truth.” She states her purpose thus:

The methods I discuss in this essay are, most narrowly conceived, methods for using language. They are, therefore, methods for a great deal else as well — experiencing, thinking, acting. But my focus is on language, on verbal language, on English; my focus is on how, as a dyke — a conscious, committed, political lesbian — I can use words in thinking, speaking, and writing to contribute to the discovery/creation of consciously lesbian realities.

To a student of psychology, this looks suspiciously like “magic thinking” and “word salad,” typical symptoms of schizophrenia. Yet keep in mind that this was written by a tenured professor who, at the time, was serving as coordinator of her university Women’s Studies program.

The Continuum of Feminist Insanity

Among the inmates of our nation’s mental hospitals are perhaps thousands of women who, if handed a Ph.D. in philosophy, could get tenure-track positions under the standards that prevailed in the Women’s Studies programs of the 1970s, when it seemed that any crazy lesbian like Professor Trebilcot (or Mary Daly or Sally Miller Gearhart) could become an academic superstar. This explains why feminism, unlike some other fads of its era, has proven so remarkably persistent. It’s hard to make a career of tie-dyed T-shirts and bell-bottom pants, but being a professional crazy lesbian? The National Women’s Studies Association is dedicated to making such careers possible. The teenage lesbian with no skills (other than an aptitude for “critical theory” jargon) and no interest in getting an actual job can become a Women’s Studies major at her college and at least hope that her avid emulation of feminism’s founding foremothers will qualify her to teach this lunatic nonsense to other disturbed young women. Alternatively, she can apply for a job as a hotel desk clerk, or work for a nonprofit like the Feminist Majority Foundation. If all else fails, she can become a radical feminist blogger and proclaim to the world: “PIV is always rape, OK?”

We can perceive a Continuum of Feminist Insanity, as we might call it, between (a) pioneering lunatics like Joyce Trebilcot and (b) the crazy feminists who turned a (non-existent) “rape epidemic” on college campuses into California’s “affirmative consent” law. What has happened is that unrealistic beliefs about men, women and sex have obtained intellectual prestige. These beliefs have gained institutional authority from the hegemonic influence of feminism within academia and, inevitably, once the lunatics took over the asylum, they acquired political power sufficient to legislate crazy laws.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

How has this happened? You see that in the 1970s, when the first Women’s Studies programs were created, this enabled obscure academic mediocrities — previously undistinguished women who happened to have obtained advanced degrees in the humanities and social sciences — suddenly to become superstars within the universe of Official Feminism. All that was necessary, to a feminist with a Ph.D. and a faculty sinecure, was to write articles and books that espoused feminist ideals and made arguments politically useful to feminism’s goals. No argument was too ludicrous for publication, if it served a feminist purpose. Joyce Trebilcot’s 1974 argument about sex roles, for example, wasn’t so much an argument (in the sense of formal logic) as it was a crude bait-and-switch: Begin by discussing evidence regarding general psychological differences between men and women and then — abracadabra! — declare that the differences don’t matter, because “notions of justice, equality, and liberty” are more important than facts. As a formula for insanity, feminism rivals LSD in its potency.

Permit me to digress. It has always been my belief, based on extensive youthful experience with crazy dopeheads, that Mary Daly must have had at least a few LSD trips. Anyone who has hung around acid freaks could pick up a copy of Professor Daly’s most famous book, Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism, and recognize the telltale signs she was tripping when she wrote it or, at least, Daly had done enough serious hallucinogens to acquire that permanent propensity for Cosmic Metaphysical Gibberish that longtime freaks typically display.

This is a digression, I say, but not entirely irrelevant to understanding the fundamental unrealism of feminist thought. Every author who writes about the origins of so-called “second wave” feminism in the late 1960s routinely observes the historical context of the movement’s roots in the radical New Left, including the civil rights and anti-war movements. What the historians generally fail to mention, however, is that the emergence of feminism also occurred at time when heavy experimentation with hallucinogens was commonplace among young radicals. You take a bright young bohemian — somebody with a 140 IQ, an antipathy to conventional authority and a penchant for theoretical abstraction — and supply that alienated young student with marijuana, LSD, psilocybin and other tools for “expanding their consciousness,” and I guarantee the result will include craziness.

You can’t really understand the etiology of feminism, I contend, if you ignore the Drug Factor. Perhaps not every radical woman of that era was a user of hallucinogens, but there were obviously enough Cosmic Space Travelers among them to form a critical mass of craziness.

Berkeley Beatniks and ‘Ecstatic Communion’

“When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro,” Hunter S. Thompson famously observed, and the revolutionary vanguard of the Women’s Liberation movement clearly included some professional weirdos. And this brings us back to the subject of Professor Joyce Trebilcot’s distinctive brand of feminist craziness. The 1988 feminist book For Lesbians Only: A Separatist Anthology includes an essay by Professor Trebilcot entitled “Craziness as a Source of Separatism.” This provides helpful bits of autobiographical information:

I begin with a brief description of the events I label “being crazy.” I am remembering my life of the late 1950s and early 1960s, when I was in my late twenties. . . .
There were two stages. First, intrusion. Men — male voices — would overhear my thoughts and want to get in. The second stage was control. The invaders not only wanted to get in, they wanted to take me over once they were in . . . This then is the core of the craziness — invasion and control, and the threat of invasion and control.
I was drawn to participate, to allow the connection to happen, but at the same time I would repeatedly block. I was drawn because of the lightness and power of participation, and because of my values — acquired primarily in Berkeley during the “Beatnik” time as a street person and student of dance and philosophy — which made participating in “ecstatic communion,” whether through drugs or religion or art or sex or some other means, the highest and consuming priority. Consciously, I accepted this “experience ethic” . . . but nevertheless . . . I would regularly block when it seemed that intense, shared experience was in the offing.
As a result, I was in almost continuous emotional turmoil. I cried a lot, and punished myself, and traveled, moving repeatedly to new places in order to try again with new groups of people.

Hmmm. The future feminist professor was, in “the late 1950s and early 1960s,” located “in Berkeley during the ‘Beatnik’ time.” It was in this context that young Joyce Trebilcot acquired her “values” while “participating in ‘ecstatic communion’ . . . through drugs,” etc.

What does the phrase “ecstatic communion” signify? Google searches for that phrase turn up a lot of New Age mystical stuff, some of it related to tantric Buddhism. In a book by David Deming, we find this reference to 11th-century Islamic philosopher Al-Ghazali:

Al-Ghazali considered the possibility that this third way of knowing, the one that might be superior to ratiocination, was the mystic or ecstatic communion experienced by the Sufis. It was “a state in which, absorbed into themselves and in the suspension of sense-perceptions, they have visions beyond the reach of intellect.”
Known variously as illumination, ecstatic communion, or intuitive knowledge, mystic communion is an experience “of a supreme, all-pervading, and indwelling power, in whom all things are one.” Mystic communion is the basis of revelation, prophecy, and religion. It is one of the most powerful forces in human history, and also one of the least understood.

Significantly, Al-Ghazali’s thoughts about “ecstatic communion” occur in a treatise that Deming describes as “a refutation of Neoplatonic Aristotelianism.” That is to say, this mystical idea of “intuitive knowledge” arises from an intellectual rejection of the Greek philosophical foundations of Western scientific thought. And according to Joyce Trebilcot, this idea of “ecstatic communion” was popular among the bohemian Beatniks of Berkeley in the late 1950s and early ’60s, when she was forming her values.

Did I mention Professor Trebilcot is a lesbian? And did I mention that her essay “Craziness as a Source of Separatism” is about rape?

What she seems to have been describing, in terms of male “intrusion and control,” was her dissatisfaction with the experience of heterosexuality as a 20-something woman amid the hedonistic Beatnik bohemians of Berkeley. She was “hearing the voices of men trying to rape me,” she explains, and when she says she “would regularly block,” it seems this phrase refers to her inability to achieve psychosexual satisfaction in her experiences with men at that time:

I now understand all these refusals as resistances to rape, that is, to invasion and control by others.
My interpretation of these experiences has shifted over the years. At the most painful time, it seemed to me that what was going on was that I wanted to do what they wanted me to, I wanted to participate in what was going on, but I simply could not, I was unable, I did not know how. I now understand this nonparticipation not as inability, but as refusal: it is not that I could not take part, but that I would not. And the reason I would not is that I wanted to protect myself from the assault, from the intrusion, from the loss of my own will. . . . I resisted in order to continue as an individual — in order not be submerged, subjected, merged.
The patriarchal term “crazy” applies to all this, first, because I was certainly behaving in ways Western patriarchy takes to be typical of craziness — raving and crying. And when I talked about what was happening to me, my talk was “crazy talk.” . . . One who just merges and submerges is not crazy, and one who just refuses isn’t either. . . .
This resistance to control . . . is a preparation for lesbian separatism.

The most literal reading of this text would be that Trebilcot’s “nonparticipation” means that she rejected all male advances, but I suspect she also may be describing as “resistances” her inability to enjoy sex with men even when she consented to it amid that Beatnik culture where “ecstatic communion” was the goal and her experiences weren’t exactly ecstatic. Doing drugs and getting humped by a smelly existentialist art student, maybe? Not the sort of thing to inspire ecstasy, and you see Trebilcot talking about how her “interpretation of these experiences has shifted over the years” — feminist subjectivity now “empowering” her to view her Beatnik experiences as rape two decades later. Behavior that was judged crazy (“raving and crying”) circa 1962, Trebilcot wished readers to believe more than 20 years later, was actually symptomatic of her “resistance to control,” an early manifestation of the lesbianism she did not adopt as her identity until after the feminist revolution made lesbianism socially acceptable.

In her 20s, she was merely unhappy and viewed by others as crazy; by the time she reached her 40s, however, feminism had taught her (a) that her unhappiness was caused by “Western patriarchy,” (b) that she was a lesbian, and (c) that the men who seduced her (or tried to seduce her) in her Beatnik youth were actually rapists.

As soon as I say this, I know someone will Google up an image of an elderly and unattractive Joyce Trebilcot, but I’m prepared to stipulate that the young Trebilcot was reasonably attractive. She was, however, a sort of bookish young lady, a distinct type of female one encounters who lacks the animal vigor necessary to overcome civilized inhibitions, who can’t stop thinking and just do it with the passionate sense of abandonment required to achieve psychosexual satisfaction. That primitive “me Tarzan, you Jane” sexuality first requires Jane to attract the jungle man, and then to shed her self-consciousness in experiencing his savage masculinity in its most basic expression.

By the time Trebilcot was in her 40s, and writing about “the philosophical discussion of sex roles,” she had clearly arrived at her logical destination: Feminism is a journey to lesbianism. What was “crazy talk” in 1962 was profound scholarly wisdom by 1974.

The fact that few people outside academia recognize the name Joyce Trebilcot should not lead us to believe that she was not influential, nor should we suppose that a professor who retired in 1995 has no relevance for the meaning of feminism today. What Professor Trebilcot discussed as “sex roles” in 1974, after all, is the same basic idea now known as Gender Theory, and such pioneers of academic feminism promoted concepts that have far-reaching impact in the 21st century. Consider, just as one example, University of Wisconsin Professor Claudia Card. From her Wikipedia page:

She earned her BA from the University of Wisconsin–Madison (1962) and her MA (1964) and Ph.D. (1969) from Harvard University, where she wrote her dissertation under the direction of John Rawls. Joining the faculty in the philosophy department at Wisconsin straight from her Harvard studies, Card has been a significant voice there, and in the profession, ever since. Although securely rooted in and dedicated to Wisconsin, Card has held visiting professorships at The Goethe Institute (Frankfurt, Germany), Dartmouth College (Hanover NH), and the University of Pittsburgh. Card has written 4 treatises, edited or co-edited 6 books, published nearly 150 articles and reviews. She has delivered nearly 250 papers at conferences, colleges, and universities and has been featured in 29 radio broadcasts. In 2013, Card was invited to deliver the prestigious Paul Carus Lectures, a series of 3 lectures delivered to the American Philosophical Association; these will be delivered at the Central Division in 2016. She delivered the John Dewey Lecture to the Central APA in 2008. In April 2011 Card became the President of the APA’s Central Division.

Professor Card is a very prestigious philosopher, you see, and in 1995, her book Lesbian Choices was published by Columbia University Press. This is from her book’s bibliography, page 298:

Trebilcot, Joyce. “Conceiving Women: Notes on the Logic of Feminism.” Sinister Wisdom 11 (Fall 1979):43-50.
Trebilcot, Joyce. “Notes on the Meaning of Life.” Lesbian Ethics 1, no. 1 (Fall 1984):90-91.
Trebilcot, Joyce. “Taking Responsibility for Sexuality.” In Philosophy and Sex, 2d ed., ed. Robert Backer and Frederick Elliston. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus, 1984.
Trebilcot, Joyce. “Hortense and Gladys on Dreams.” Lesbian Ethics 1, no. 2 (Spring 1985):85-87.
Trebilcot, Joyce. “Partial Response to Those Who Worry That Separatism May Be a Political Cop-Out: Expanded Definition of Activism.” off our backs (May 1986). Reprinted in Gossip 3 (n.d.):82-84.
Trebilcot, Joyce. “Dyke Economics: Hortense and Gladys on Money.” Lesbian Ethics 3, no. 1 (Spring 1988):1-13
Trebilcot, Joyce. “Dyke Methods.” Hypatia 5, no. 1 (Spring 1990):1-13.
Trebilcot, Joyce. “More Dyke Methods.” Hypatia 5, no. 3 (Fall 1990):147-52.
Trebilcot, Joyce. “Stalking Guilt.” Lesbian Ethics 5, no. 1 (Summer 1993):72-75.

In case you lost count, nine separate works by Joyce Trebilcot were cited in this 300-page book by the influential Professor Card, a book published by a prestigious academic press. Thus were these various works that Professor Trebilcot published between 1979 and 1993 incorporated into the framework of Professor Card which in turn, we may be sure, has been cited by numerous other feminist scholars since. By this incremental process — articles by professors little known outside  the world of academic feminism, published in obscure journals and anthologies seldom read by anyone outside the scholarly echo chamber of Women’s Studies — has feminism erected its intellectual Tower of Babel. And feminism’s power on campus is such that no administrator, professor or student dares challenge it. Acquiring intellectual respectability through the accretion of essays, articles, conference papers and books, academic feminism acquires its scholarly pedigree. Women’s Studies, a field that did not exist before the 1970s, has created for itself a vast stockpile of academic resources, recognized works which appear in the notes and bibliographies of new works produced in the publish-or-perish process by which graduate students gain advanced degrees, and by which junior faculty prove themselves worthy of career advancement.

Crazy-Hating the Demonized Male Scapegoat

It has been calculated that about 90,000 students enroll annually in Women’s Studies classes at American colleges and universities, and there are thousands of instructors and professors paid to teach these courses. The Feminism-Industrial Complex, as some have called it, thus comprises a vast enterprise that controls with hegemonic power the right to speak about men, women, sex, marriage and family, so that any campus discourse on these topics is subject to being vetoed or silenced if it does not comport with feminist theory. The feminist lunatics are running the asylum of higher education, and no one should be surprised by the episodic outbreaks of craziness that result.

George Will, a Pulitzer-winning columnist for the Washington Post, criticized the anti-male hysteria of the phony “rape epidemic” on college campuses and, when he arrived to speak at Miami University of Ohio, he was greeted by an angry mob of crazy women, claiming that this eminent journalist is objectively pro-rape. Yet I would wager $20 that of those campus protesters, fewer than half had actually read the column that made Will a demonized scapegoat, an Official Symbol of Misogyny. Nor would any of them, if you handed them a copy of his column, be able to explain cogently what was wrong with it, other than Will’s claim that “when [colleges and universities] make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate.” This claim appears in the second sentence of Will’s column and several hundred words later — having mustered evidence to support his bold claim — Will writes in his penultimate paragraph:

Academia is learning that its attempts to create victim-free campuses — by making everyone hypersensitive, even delusional, about victimizations — brings increasing supervision by the regulatory state that progressivism celebrates.

What he is talking about, in his reference to “the regulatory state,” are interventions by the federal Department of Education, attempting to dictate to college administrators how they should handle claims of sexual misconduct by students. Officials justified this unprecedented intervention, as Will noted, by phony statistics that created the artificial appearance of a “rape epidemic” on campus when, in fact, data from other federal sources (the Department of Justice and the FBI) clearly show a decline in sexual assault during the past two decades. So the campus proliferation of victimhood — that is, college females who say they have been victimized — is a product resulting from the spread of an ideology (feminism) that incentivizes such claims “by making everyone hypersensitive.” The difference between an unhappy drunken hook-up and an accusation of rape? In many cases, it appears to be a matter of subjective interpretation, especially if universities “make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges.” Notice that this is a general accusation Will makes against universities; he does not claim to know whether any particular woman was raped or not. He is claiming that our institutions of higher learning make victimhood a “status . . . that confers privilege.” You can believe that or not, but you cannot fairly argue that George Will is pro-rape for writing it.

In the same way Joyce Trebilcot re-interpreted with feminist hindsight her experiences among the Beatniks in Berkeley, so has rape been re-interpreted by Trebilcot’s young academic heiresses. And it is certainly no coincidence that many of the campus feminists — both faculty and students — who are shouting most loudly about “rape culture” are lesbians. Since the 1970s, radical feminists have insisted that women’s sexuality is a matter of choice, but that lesbianism is a conscious, self-affirming, empowering (and therefore legimate) choice, whereas female heterosexuality is “socially constructed” so that the heterosexual woman is a victim of patriarchal culture, misled into believing that her sexual preference for men is natural.

In her 1984 essay “Taking Responsibility for Sexuality,” Joyce Trebilcot criticizes the belief that “one’s sexuality . . . is inherited, or acquired in childhood . . . something that happens to you.” Such a view of sexuality “tends to keep you docile: you are passive, submissive, with respect to it,” Trebilcot explains, thus denying women the ability “to participate in the creating of our own sexual identities”:

As those familiar with feminist theory know, feminists advocate lesbianism on a variety of grounds. Some emphasize, for instance, that [on the basis of Freud’s Oedipal theory of mother-love] lesbianism is “natural” for women, as heterosexuality is for men. Another approach is based on the claim that in patriarchy, equality in a heterosexual relationship is impossible. . . . A third argument holds that women committed to feminism should give all their energies to women. . . .
I am particularly concerned here with women’s taking responsibility for our sexual identities as lesbian or heterosexual. . . .
A paradigm case of taking responsibility for one’s sexuality is coming out as a lesbian. It is characteristic . . . that a woman does not know whether to say that she has discovered that she is a lesbian, or that she has decided to be a lesbian. . . . In coming out, one connects an already-existing reality — sensations, feelings, identification with women — with a new understanding or concept of who one is. . . .
To discover that one has been a lesbian all along is to interpret past experiences in a new way. . . . But coming out involves also deciding to be a lesbian, which is to say deciding not to participate in the institution of heterosexuality and to . . . love women. . . .
Patriarchy, although it takes different forms in different cultures, always depends on the ability of men to control women through heterosexuality. . . . Were large numbers of women to take responsibility for our own sexuality and in doing so reject heterosexuality, the very concepts of woman and man would be shattered.

Professor Trebilcot was crazy, not stupid. The reader gets the message — men bad, lesbians good — because lesbianism is described in positive terms, as an exciting new thing “discovered,” self-affirming and responsible. By contrast, female heterosexuality is presented as routine participation in a lifeless “institution” through which men control women. Trebilcot’s presentation is as tendentious as a sales pitch (Discover Your Exciting New Lesbian Self!), inciting women to reject male control, “take responsibility” and “love women.”

Anyone who is “familiar with feminist theory,” as Professor Trebilcot said, not only knows that feminists advocate lesbianism, but also that they have expended many thousands of words either attacking Freudian theories or else trying to turn the Oedipal conflict into an argument to justify lesbianism as women’s authentic and “natural” sexuality as Professor Trebilcot said.

Freudianism has always struck me as ludicrous, but in wading through dozens of volumes of feminist theory over the past few months, I have seen author after author devote herself either to debunking Freud or adapting his theories to feminist purposes. You see this most obviously when it comes to the subject of lesbian motherhood.

We have seen (“Another Feminist ‘Success’ Story”) that there are obvious problems in trying to “deconstruct” parenting and childhood to fit feminist theory. Now witness a feminist author, University of California-Davis Professor Maureen Sullivan, employ Freudian concepts in her 2004 book The Family of Woman: Lesbian Mothers, Their Children, and the Undoing of Gender:

Do lesbian mothers sexually “other” their sons? . . . In traditional psychoanalytic formulations the sexual otherness of boys/men derives not only from their having different sexual organs but from the desirability of the phallus as representing power, privilege, and pleasure. . . .
Even though lesbian mothers and their children live in a heteronormative world where the phallus represents power, privilege, and often pleasure, these cultural meanings do not necessarily hold sway in the lesbian mother household. Bay Area mother Jill Collins had this to say about her three-year-old son’s growing awareness of genitality:

He takes showers with me on a regular basis because I find that’s the most convenient way to bathe him. He’s been talking about his penis. And [his friend] James’s penis. And my penis. And I keep telling him I don’t have one, you know, and he likes to look, and now he’s saying, “Jillie doesn’t have a penis. Mommy doesn’t have a penis. Auntie Kate doesn’t have a penis. James has a penis. John has a penis. Danny has a penis.” He’s got it! Except for he really doesn’t know what that means. He knows where his is, but he can’t know where mine isn’t. It’s like he doesn’t see that it’s not there you know.

If it is safe to assume that lesbian parents have no need to develop libidinal investments in boy children, then the argument that heterosexual mothers “push” preoedipal sons into libidinally tinged oedipal dynamics because sons are “like father/male partner” will not hold for them. Moreover, even if lesbian mothers . . . “other” boy children in the more libidinally neutral sense of perceiving boys’ anatomical differentness — where boys’ sexual organs are merely different, with no special valences attached to them — it still makes little sense for there to be any “pushing” of sons into oedipal dynamics. Sometimes a penis is just a penis.

You see the kind of multi-layered craziness we’re dealing with here? In the course of researching my “Sex Trouble” series, I’ve gathered all these books crammed full of theoretical lunacy like this.

Do I understand “oedipal dynamics” the way a Ph.D. does? Of course not. However, speaking as the father of six children, I don’t need any theoretical training to say: You’re crazy!

A ‘Social Revolution’ of Craziness

You don’t have to be able to diagram a sentence to understand plain English, and you don’t need to make sense of a phrase like “libidinally tinged oedipal dynamics” to say that “Jill Collins” (a pseudonym for the lesbian who takes showers with the 3-year-old son of her partner) is unlikely to raise a son who is psychologically normal. This doesn’t mean “Danny” will grow up to be a serial killer (or a transgender porn star), but what is the basic message of lesbian motherhood?

MALES ARE UNNECESSARY AND UNDESIRABLE.

Not for a minute do I doubt that lesbian mothers can raise feminist daughters — lesbian mothers exemplify in their lifestyle what feminism teaches in theory — but it’s hard to imagine a boy failing to perceive how his lesbian mother has rejected males, per se.

Again, to emphasize, perceiving potential problems is possible even if we stipulate both sides of the basic pro-gay argument about families: Yes, we acknowledge that children of same-sex households can and do live useful and productive lives. Yes, we acknowledge that “normal” families can produce badly broken — indeed, dangerously criminal — offspring. Still, isn’t it just common sense to expect that lesbian motherhood would yield non-normal outcomes in terms of the psychological health and sexuality of their children?

Never mind whatever social-science survey data on this topic anyone might cite today. Given the known biases of academia, I am not even slightly surprised by sociologists and psychologists publishing studies that proclaim Everybody’s Happy in Gay City.

Let’s wait until, say 2063 — when the children born in 2013 are 50 — and compare their life outcomes, particularly in terms of their own marriages and families, before declaring that we know that there are no harms produced by same-sex parenting. (I choose 2013 as the reference point because it was that year, in the Windsor decision, that the Supreme Court normalized same-sex marriage.) Even if we don’t think that children will be obviously harmed by growing up in gay households, however, this doesn’t mean that gay parenting is the same as normal parenting. And guess what? The critical praise for Maureen Sullivan’s book emphasized this difference:

“Sullivan makes a compelling argument that
lesbian families challenge, at root, the very basis of
patriarchal familial norms, and indeed modern notions
of biological fixity.”
— Arlene Stein, author of Sex and Sensibility

“Maureen Sullivan’s book is a notable document of
the quiet social revolution that is producing
new forms of the family.”
— R. W. Connell, author of Gender and Power

You see that Stein (Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies, Rutgers University) and Connell (Professor of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, Australia) praise this book about lesbian motherhood precisely because they view this phenomenon as part of a “social revolution” challenging “patriarchal familial norms.” (Tobi Hill-Meyer could not be reached for comment.)

Just as Joyce Trebilcot was not neutral about lesbianism, neither is Maureen Sullivan’s book neutral about lesbian motherhood. Sullivan is as objective about lesbian motherhood as Barack Obama is objective about the Democrat Party. The praise for Sullivan’s book reflects the same bias as Trebilcot’s ideas about “responsible sexuality” — men bad, lesbians good —  which is to say that its message is the same as feminism in general. Remember that Trebilcot in 1974 argued that  “moral concepts,” including “notions of justice, equality, and liberty,” are more important than “the empirical issue of sex differences . . . in the philosophical discussion of sex roles.”

It does not matter, from a feminist perspective, whether men and women are actually different in meaningful ways. For the sake of “moral concepts” — that is to say, intellectual abstractions — we must pretend that sexual differences don’t exist. However, despite this requisite philosophical commitment to a make-believe game of ignoring real differences between men and women, Trebilcot (and feminists generally) insist that males are distinctly inferior. Males exercise illegitimate power (patriarchy) that is inherently harmful to women. Male power is always selfish and coercive, even where it is not actually violent, so that this harmful patriarchal “control” is used to force or deceive women into heterosexuality. The only possible escape from this male control is for women to become lesbians — preferring female sexual partners as more desirable than male partners, without regard to feminism’s philosophical commitment to the belief that there are no actual differences between men and women.

If the complex logic of Joyce Trebilcot’s feminism makes sense to you, congratulations: You must be a highly distinguished Ph.D.

Or maybe you’re just crazy.

 

 

When Parody Unites With The Subject

Posted on | October 28, 2014 | 18 Comments

Leftist propaganda webesite [email protected] was humiliated today when a bug in their anti-Second Amendment screed generator script triggered an accidental posting following the Antares rocket explosion at Wallops Island, Virginia.

Sissypuss the Blog Kitty, quick to spot a red herring, managed a screencap before the mistake was taken offline:

Working his extensive source list, he caught up with script whiz kid Ezra “EZ” Kleindrubble in EZ’s mother’s suburban Denver basement.
Sissypuss: That burning smell. Is that what I think it is?
EZ: Wha? Oh, that’s the, um, neighbors. They’ve been partying more or less continuously since that far-out new law was passed.

S: Right. Now, what do you know about the anti-Second Amendment effort in this country?
EZ: Oh, that rich dork from New York, Michael Blooper. He’s throwing all kinds of money around. So, like, this chick at CU Denver in my Comp Sci course is all like: “Dude, you really know Python. How’d you like to score a little cash and help the cause?”
And I’m all: “No way.”
And she’s all: “Way.”
And I’m all–

S: So, she gave you some requirements?
EZ: Dude, you’re missing the part where I tried to make a pass at her and she showed me a stack of forms and I was all: “No way.”

S: And she was all: “Way”?
EZ: Dude, were you spying on me?

S: Let’s just say you that read like a lousy blog post.
EZ: Yeah. Anyway, so I’m like hacking on any major tragic event, lifting out keywords, matching them against a database of crappy phrases they gave me, and presto: your last six months of MSNBC. How’d you like my Ferguson, Missouri work?

S: [puking sounds] Sorry about the hairball there in the middle of your roaches, man.
EZ: No worries. They give us all the dope we can smoke, as long as we keep the propaganda coming.

S: So, that’s an encouragement. What made your code blow up like the Antares rocket at Wallops, then?
EZ: Oh, probably some regular expression cock-up. “Strings will hang you,” as they say.

S: Do they? What about S@lon’s vaunted “layers of fact checkers and editors”?
EZ: That bunch of Haighters? They haven’t even shown up to work since last spring, for all they answer the phone. I just have my scripts generate content, and up it goes.

S: That explains much. What about the vaunted Joan Walsh?
EZ: She never recovered from that time John Travolta hit her in the sternum with the horse needle.

S: Dude, that’s a scene from Pulp Fiction.
EZ: Where do you thing Tarantino gets his crazier ideas?

S: I’d have said Valerie Jarrett.
EZ: It’s certainly not rocket science.

S: No, and neither is code. Look: you’re a techie. Why do smart, capable people support moronic ideas like smoking dope and eliminating the Second Amendment in the first place?
EZ: Dude, man: capitalism is like work, or something.

« go back — keep looking »

THE FULL METAL JACKET REACH-AROUND AWARD

THE POLITICAL HAT
This spot rotates to honor those who link us in shameless obedience to Rule 2 of "How to Get a Million Hits on Your Blog."

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

Search

Recent Posts

• In The Mailbox: 05.15.26 (Evening Edition)
• In The Mailbox: 05.15.26 (Afternoon Edition)
• This Should Not Need to Be Said
• In The Mailbox: 05.12.26
• In The Mailbox: 05.11.26
• Do You Hate Communism Enough?
• Rule 5 Sunday: Chocolate
• It’s a Long Way to Hope
• FMJRA 2.0: Waiting for the Winter Meetings
• Trump Derangement Syndrome Reaches Terminal Stage as Democrats Seethe

Click here to manage your email subscription options.

Leave This Blank:Leave This Blank Too:Do Not Change This:

Your email:

 

RSS reader subscription

  Click the orange chicklet for RSS.

MEMEORANDUM

Recent Comments

• Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove on Rule 5 Sunday: It’s Always Warm & Sunny Somewhere
• FMJRA 2.0: Curse of the Gopherball : The Other McCain on In The Mailbox: 11.21.25
• FMJRA 2.0: Curse of the Gopherball : The Other McCain on FMJRA 2.0: In Like A Lion
• In The Mailbox: 11.20.25 - Sucarha Post on In The Mailbox: 11.20.25
• In The Mailbox: 11.17.25 - HP93 Times on In The Mailbox: 11.17.25

THE AMAZING GONZO FEED

Major Leagues

• Ace of Spades HQ
• Ed Driscoll
• Gateway Pundit
• Geller Report
• Hot Air
• Hugh Hewitt
• Instapundit
• Michelle Malkin

ADVERTISEMENT

Axis of Fedorables

• All-American Girl for the Restoration of Values
• Allergic to Bull
• Cat House Chat
• Chris Cassone
• Conservative Daily News
• DaTechGuy
• Fishersville Mike
• Girl on the Right
• Haemet
• Hogewash
• Just A Conservative Girl
• Marooned in Marin
• Paco Enterprises
• Sissy 'put moi in your blogroll' Willis
• So It Goes In Shreveport
• SWAC Girl
• The (Perhaps Slightly Less) Lonely Conservative
• The Camp of the Saints
• The World's Youngest Blogger
• Uncoverage
• VA Right

AMAZING SAVINGS NOW!

Archives

• May 2026 (20)
• April 2026 (59)
• March 2026 (44)
• February 2026 (37)
• January 2026 (45)
• December 2025 (42)
• November 2025 (44)
• October 2025 (44)
• September 2025 (47)
• August 2025 (48)
• July 2025 (48)
• June 2025 (47)
• May 2025 (48)
• April 2025 (42)
• March 2025 (48)
• February 2025 (49)
• January 2025 (48)
• December 2024 (42)
• November 2024 (44)
• October 2024 (47)
• September 2024 (43)
• August 2024 (55)
• July 2024 (63)
• June 2024 (59)
• May 2024 (48)
• April 2024 (43)
• March 2024 (55)
• February 2024 (46)
• January 2024 (45)
• December 2023 (53)
• November 2023 (62)
• October 2023 (57)
• September 2023 (56)
• August 2023 (53)
• July 2023 (69)
• June 2023 (67)
• May 2023 (53)
• April 2023 (60)
• March 2023 (73)
• February 2023 (65)
• January 2023 (56)
• December 2022 (60)
• November 2022 (64)
• October 2022 (58)
• September 2022 (68)
• August 2022 (75)
• July 2022 (69)
• June 2022 (73)
• May 2022 (74)
• April 2022 (57)
• March 2022 (79)
• February 2022 (65)
• January 2022 (58)
• December 2021 (62)
• November 2021 (68)
• October 2021 (73)
• September 2021 (63)
• August 2021 (60)
• July 2021 (80)
• June 2021 (64)
• May 2021 (64)
• April 2021 (58)
• March 2021 (73)
• February 2021 (57)
• January 2021 (71)
• December 2020 (77)
• November 2020 (81)
• October 2020 (84)
• September 2020 (94)
• August 2020 (75)
• July 2020 (68)
• June 2020 (83)
• May 2020 (77)
• April 2020 (65)
• March 2020 (85)
• February 2020 (94)
• January 2020 (95)
• December 2019 (88)
• November 2019 (60)
• October 2019 (113)
• September 2019 (91)
• August 2019 (91)
• July 2019 (88)
• June 2019 (80)
• May 2019 (74)
• April 2019 (97)
• March 2019 (100)
• February 2019 (85)
• January 2019 (93)
• December 2018 (90)
• November 2018 (83)
• October 2018 (96)
• September 2018 (79)
• August 2018 (107)
• July 2018 (98)
• June 2018 (86)
• May 2018 (78)
• April 2018 (78)
• March 2018 (97)
• February 2018 (61)
• January 2018 (70)
• December 2017 (62)
• November 2017 (68)
• October 2017 (67)
• September 2017 (70)
• August 2017 (68)
• July 2017 (52)
• June 2017 (60)
• May 2017 (56)
• April 2017 (80)
• March 2017 (80)
• February 2017 (102)
• January 2017 (104)
• December 2016 (65)
• November 2016 (86)
• October 2016 (77)
• September 2016 (81)
• August 2016 (66)
• July 2016 (83)
• June 2016 (81)
• May 2016 (65)
• April 2016 (64)
• March 2016 (81)
• February 2016 (74)
• January 2016 (66)
• December 2015 (64)
• November 2015 (85)
• October 2015 (71)
• September 2015 (80)
• August 2015 (67)
• July 2015 (79)
• June 2015 (69)
• May 2015 (72)
• April 2015 (94)
• March 2015 (122)
• February 2015 (71)
• January 2015 (93)
• December 2014 (99)
• November 2014 (67)
• October 2014 (109)
• September 2014 (87)
• August 2014 (106)
• July 2014 (132)
• June 2014 (154)
• May 2014 (126)
• April 2014 (145)
• March 2014 (144)
• February 2014 (142)
• January 2014 (185)
• December 2013 (192)
• November 2013 (173)
• October 2013 (175)
• September 2013 (181)
• August 2013 (172)
• July 2013 (147)
• June 2013 (135)
• May 2013 (128)
• April 2013 (105)
• March 2013 (162)
• February 2013 (191)
• January 2013 (206)
• December 2012 (190)
• November 2012 (176)
• October 2012 (240)
• September 2012 (206)
• August 2012 (235)
• July 2012 (223)
• June 2012 (161)
• May 2012 (230)
• April 2012 (269)
• March 2012 (282)
• February 2012 (247)
• January 2012 (267)
• December 2011 (285)
• November 2011 (300)
• October 2011 (302)
• September 2011 (297)
• August 2011 (288)
• July 2011 (297)
• June 2011 (245)
• May 2011 (260)
• April 2011 (344)
• March 2011 (293)
• February 2011 (201)
• January 2011 (263)
• December 2010 (265)
• November 2010 (266)
• October 2010 (305)
• September 2010 (280)
• August 2010 (272)
• July 2010 (230)
• June 2010 (244)
• May 2010 (256)
• April 2010 (222)
• March 2010 (271)
• February 2010 (286)
• January 2010 (229)
• December 2009 (21)
• October 2009 (1)

• Free Agents

  • 357 Magnum
  • A View From The Beach
  • Animal Magnetism
  • Don Surber
  • Evil Blogger Lady
  • Flappr
  • Maggie's Notebook
  • Pirates Cove
  • Proof Positive
  • Rotten To The Core
  • The Camp of the Saints
  • The Daley Gator
  • The First Street Journal
  • The Political Hat
  • Three Beers Later
  • Truth Before Dishonr

• SHAMELESS CAPITALISM

  The Other McCain is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for this blog to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.

• Triple-A Franchises

  • All-American Blogger
  • American Power
  • Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
  • Athens & Jerusalem
  • Barney Quick
  • Bartholomew's Notes On Religion
  • BatesLine
  • Bear Creek Ledger
  • Bearsears Patriots
  • Blog de KingShamus
  • Bride of Rove
  • Cold Fury
  • Daily Pundit
  • Dr. Helen
  • I Own The World
  • Legal Insurrection
  • Moe Lane
  • No Runny Eggs
  • Obi`s Sister
  • Protein Wisdom
  • Rhetorican
  • Small Dead Animals
  • The Conservatory
  • The People's Cube
  • The Sundries Shack
  • VodkaPundit
  • Vox Day
  • Zilla of the Resistance

• Blogroll

  • 90 Miles From Tyranny
  • A Conservative Shemale
  • A Point of View
  • Adrienne's Corner
  • AmSpec Blog
  • Bad Blue
  • Blazing Cat Fur
  • Calvin Freiburger Online
  • Carol's Closet
  • Catholic Bandita
  • Caught Him With A Corndog
  • Cecil Calvert
  • Common Cents
  • Conservative Hideout
  • Conservative Watch News
  • Conservatives for America
  • Conservatives For Palin
  • Crazy For Liberty
  • Dad 29
  • DC Damsel
  • Dr. Flap
  • Dyspepsia Generation
  • Effing Conservatives
  • Election Dissection
  • Eric Reasons, IT Genius
  • Eye of Polyphemus
  • Finding Ponies. . .
  • Free Will
  • Grandpa John's
  • Granite Grok
  • GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
  • Hoosier Access
  • John William Perry
  • Judicial Watch
  • Jumping in Pools
  • KURU Lounge
  • Laughing Conservative
  • Makes My Brain Itch
  • Marathon Pundit
  • Martin Eisenstadt's Blog
  • Media Fade
  • Michael Leahy
  • Mister Pterodactyl
  • Naked Villainy
  • Nice Deb
  • noot's observatory
  • Not One Red Cent
  • Okrahead
  • Ollieander
  • Pileus
  • Pinup Girl
  • Point of a Gun
  • Political Pit Bull
  • Reaganite Republican Resistance
  • Red Alexandria
  • Red State Eclectic
  • Red, White & Conservative
  • Republican Redefined
  • ResCon1
  • Ric's Rulez
  • Ricochet
  • Right of Course
  • Robipedia
  • Robomonkey
  • Ruby Slippers Blog
  • Saberpoint
  • Scared Monkeys
  • Sentry Journal
  • SI VIS PACEM
  • Skepticrats
  • Smash Mouth Politics
  • Sooper Mexican
  • Taking Hayek Seriously
  • Tel-Chai Nation
  • Tequila & Javalinas
  • The Aged P
  • The Classic Liberal
  • The Izzy Report
  • The Minority Leader
  • The NeoSexist
  • The Nose on Your Face
  • The Republican Mother
  • The Right Sphere
  • The Saint Angilbert Press
  • The Snooper Report
  • The Underground Conservative
  • Thunder Tales
  • Tom McLaughlin
  • Tory Anarchist
  • TrogloPundit
  • Vets On The Watch
  • Watcher of Weasels
  • Western Experience
  • World's Only Rational Man
  • WyBlog
  • Yankee Phil
  • Zingstrom's Blog