The Other McCain

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

Rule 5 Sunday: The Consolations Of The Elbows

Posted on | October 5, 2014 | 12 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Normally on weekends when I’m away from the keyboard due to social obligations and/or work, I do the FMJRA first and leave the Rule 5 post for whenever I can get to it -on one particularly horrible occasion, Wednesday. After last night’s excruciating eighteen-inning playoff game between the Nationals and Giants, though (which my Nationals managed to lose) the last thing I want to do tonight after a satisfying day of watching people die bloodily on Game of Thrones is fight with Excel so I can return everyone’s linky-love from last week. Nope. I’m going with Rule 5.

#rolltide

As usual, avoid clicking on the following links when and where you shouldn’t.

Valley of the Shadow rattles the tip jar with the help of Mila Starfyre, Randy’s Roundtable returns with Michea Crawford, and Goodstuff offsets the depressing news from Bangkok with Kate Mara, among others. Ninety Miles from Tyranny checks in with Morning Mistress, Cameltoe, and Girls with Guns; at Animal Magnetism, it’s Rule Five Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon. Blackmailers Don’t Shoot chips in with Rule Five Monday with Anna Kendrick and Is Jennifer Lawrence Dating  A Washed-Up Rock Star? while First Street Journal has the theoretically unpleasant Basic Training and Ebola Rant.

EBL’s herd this week includes clueless State Department flack Marie Harf and Redskins cheerleaders.

At A View from the Beach, it’s Keeley Hazell, Eels Hitch a Ride Up the River (bet’cha wonder how this got here), Black Chick Covers White Chick, The Thrill is Gone . . ., “Dark Side of the Moon”,  In Keeping with the Nautical Theme, Now I’m Going to Watch Rugby, He Gets a Fancy Safety Suit . . ., and A Waste of Good Beer!

From Soylent Siberia, it’s your morning coffee creamer, and after that the links are all garbled. Sorry ’bout that.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Felicity Jones, his Vintage Babe is Susan Denberg, Sex in Advertising is covered by the Mile High Club, and of course there’s the obligatory 49ers cheerleader. At Dustbury, it’s Timi Yuro and Karolina Tyminska.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for next week’s Rule 5 Sunday is midnight on Saturday, October 11.


Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

Think Progress Arm-Waving

Posted on | October 5, 2014 | 6 Comments

Arm-waving is a technique frequently used by the Left that needs to be called out more often. The technique involves hyping up a make-believe controversy when someone on the Right — a conservative journalist or Republican politician — says something that is arguably true and not necessarily offensive to anyone, yet is stated in a provocative or colorful way. The Left gets all excited and calls attention to the statement simply because of who said it.

You saw this in 2012 when Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a “slut,” in the context of criticizing her demand for free contraceptives. Never mind the actual issue, said the Left, Rush said a bad word and therefore — REPUBLICAN WAR ON WOMEN!

This kind of arm-waving — the jumping up-and-down agitation, the “look at this!” gesture — is the antithesis of argument. It is an appeal to emotional prejudice. What is actually being argued about, the pros-and-cons of the issue, disappear in a cloud of synthetic outrage. Let it be admitted that conservatives sometimes also do this; still, when the Left does it, the intention is not merely to obscure the argument, but to discredit and silence their conservative opposition.

Consider this Think Progress headline:

George Will Complains About Obama
‘Monitoring Sex On Campuses’

What is this? George Will wasn’t talking about Obama. He was talking about declining public confidence in government:

Teasing this segment, you [host Chris Wallace] said, can we have faith in government? I think we have much more to fear from excessive faith in government than from too little faith in government.
You asked, can we trust the government to do its job? What isn’t its job nowadays? I just made a list of it. It’s fine-tuning the curriculum of our students K through 12. It’s monitoring sex on campuses. It’s deciding how much ethanol we should put in our gas tanks. It has designed our light bulbs and it’s worried sick over the name of the Washington football team.
Now, this is a government that doesn’t know when to stop.

Well, is the government “monitoring sex on campuses”? Yes, says the Department of Justice’s Office of Violence Against Women:

In Fiscal Year 2013, the Campus Program funded 28 projects, totaling over $7 million. Since 1999, OVW has funded approximately 388 projects, totaling more than $139 million, for grantees addressing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking on campuses.

In May, it was announced that federal investigators were “checking whether 55 colleges and universities illegally handled sexual violence and harassment complaints.” All of this was premised on a demonstrably bogus statistic, the claim that 1-in-5 college women were victims of sexual assault, a statistic produced by a survey that counted as “sexual assault” incidents that were not assault and were not even necessarily sexual. Actual reported cases of sexual assault have been declining for more than 15 years, and the government’s intervention appears to be mainly motivated by crackpot feminists who have ginned up a phony hysteria about a “rape epidemic” on campus that does not actually exist.

Anyone who looks at what actually is happening in terms of sex on campus will find that the problem is quite nearly the opposite of what the “rape epidemic” rhetoric suggests. That is to say, college administrators have set up star-chamber proceedings to deal with complaints about sexual activity — typically, drunken hookups — to treat them as disciplinary problems, rather than as crimes. Why? Because these incidents typically involve “he-said/she-said” disputes, where there is no real evidence of a crime, so that the police couldn’t possibly prosecute. Yet in these campus disciplinary tribunals, the accused male students are denied due process, so that they may be punished on the basis of a mere accusation. The reason that feminists are complaining about a “rape epidemic” on campus involves a number of cases in which these pseudo-judicial proceedings set up by college administrators have failed to “convict” the accused male on the mere say-so of his female accuser. It is commonly claimed that, by failing to expel a male so accused, administrators are allowing a “rapist” to roam free on campus, despite the fact that the “rapist” has been convicted of no crime.

Every attempt to discuss this issue in terms of facts and common sense is shouted down — “Shut Up, Because Rape” — by feminists. Yet if the question is whether the government is now monitoring sex on campus, the answer is clearly YES, THEY ARE.

Why, then, is Think Progress arm-waving about George Will mentioning that the government is doing this? Because George Will dismantled the “rape epidemic” nonsense and refused to be intimidated by Democrat Senators who criticized him.

“Oh, no! George Will is telling the truth! He must be stopped!”

They’re arguing so hard their arms might fall off.

 

Category: Media Bias

They Want to Kill Us All

Posted on | October 5, 2014 | 45 Comments

People need to understand what this means:

Islamic State militants have released a video depicting the murder of British aid convoy volunteer Alan Henning, three weeks after warning that he would be the next to die.
Henning is the fourth western hostage to have been killed by the group, following the filmed beheadings of US journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, and Scottish aid worker David Haines.
A further hostage, Hervé Gourdel, from Nice in France, was murdered by Jund al-Khalifa, a group with links to Isis, on 24 September.

Aid workers and journalists are non-combatants. When the Islamic “militants” (a euphemism that our decadent media prefer to “terrorists”) are publicly murdering Western non-combatants, what is the intended message? What do these killers intend to convey to us, in the West, as well as to their audience in the Islamic world?

It should be apparent that these Muslims, by their deliberate and premeditated killings of helpless civilians — including people who had come to provide humanitarian aid to Syrians suffering in the civil war there — are saying to their fellow Muslims:

“KILL THEM ALL! Death to all the Americans!
Death to all the British! Death to everyone
everywhere who does not join the worldwide
Islamic caliphate! Kill the women! Kill the children!
Spare no one! KILL THEM ALL!”

What the ISIS “militants” are doing, in other words, is exhibiting the attitude of murderous ruthlessness they consider necessary to their success, and which they wish other Muslims to emulate.

After 9/11, a lot of liberal hand-wringers kept asking, “Why do they hate us?” What have we done, liberals asked, that has inspired the kind of hatred that would cause people to hijack jetliners and crash them into skyscrapers? Implicit in such questions was the naïve idea that, if our policy was to blame for their hatred of us, then by changing our policy — choosing a policy of peace — we could end their hate. This was the meaning of the question, “Why do they hate us?”

BECAUSE THEY HATE, answered Brigitte Gabriel in her 2006 book.

This is not about us, this is about them — the people who hate us, the people who want to kill us all. It is a narcissistic delusion for liberals to believe that somehow we have caused Muslims to hate us when, in point of fact, the Koran and other Islamic scriptures command them to hate us. The texts that Muslims consider sacred order them to kill us all, and promise the greatest blessings for those martyred Muslim warriors who die while pursuing Mohammed’s murderous commandments.

We cannot negotiate with this hate. We cannot compromise with this hate. No policy of ours will permit us to co-exist in peace with this hate. We cannot choose peace when Islam chooses war, and we cannot hope that “tactical air strikes” will suffice to defeat their deadly hatred. The only option left to us is to give them war without limits, war without mercy, a determined, relentless and unceasing war that will not be satisfied with anything less than complete victory over these murdering Muslim monsters who want to kill us all.

 

Category: Iraq, Islam, Syria, Terrorism

Don’t Do It, Ben Affleck!

Posted on | October 5, 2014 | 27 Comments

Don’t make me take sides with Bill Maher!

Bill Maher and author and neuroscientist Sam Harris battled actor/director Ben Affleck on Real Time on Friday concerning Maher’s recent remarks criticizing Islam.
“Why are you so hostile about this?” Maher asked Affleck.
“It’s gross, it’s racist,” Affleck replied.
“It’s so not,” Maher insisted, though Affleck compared it to using the term, “Shifty Jew.”
“You’re not listening to what we are saying,” Maher insisted.
“You guys are saying, if you want to be liberal, believe in liberal principles,” Affleck said, referencing Maher’s monologue last week. “Like, we are endowed by our forefathers with inalienable rights, all men are created equal.”
Harris, who had complained about criticism of the Muslim religion being dismissed as Islamophobic, countered that liberals should be allowed to criticize bad ideas.
“Islam is the motherload of bad ideas,” Harris argued.
“Jesus,” Affleck said in frustration.
“That’s just a fact,” Maher said, backing Harris up. . . .
“It’s the only religion that acts like the mafia,” Maher said. “They will f*cking kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book.”

Bill Maher is one of the worst human beings on the planet. He is vile, despicable, loathsome. But is Ben Affleck worse?

What’s going on here, I think, is a generation gap between liberals. Affleck (42) is younger than Maher (58), and that totally explains the difference in their worldviews. Affleck is one of these young fools who, with no useful memory of Cold War history, has no real concept of what an existential threat to civilization really means. Maher, wretched amoral swine though he is, at least is old enough to look back at the 1970s and ’80s and say, “Thank God for the Gipper.”

 

Category: Bill Maher, Islam

The Democrat Lifestyle™

Posted on | October 4, 2014 | 48 Comments

William Costello was a serial rapist and a Colorado Democrat.

But I repeat myself.

Costello, 47, was arrested in July 2012 after he assaulted an old man in the parking lot of a Denver supermarket. Everett Stadig, 69, was collecting signatures on a pro-life petition in front of King Sooper grocery store when he encountered Costello. According to reports, Costello told Stadig he “didn’t have a right to be here,” “shouted obscenities” and “said he believes in abortion.” Costello then shoved the senior citizen to the ground, causing Stadig to break his hip.

You stay classy, Colorado Democrats!

Costello was charged with felony assault in that incident and, under a new law that went into effect in 2011, police got Costello’s DNA. “Katie’s Law” requires police to take DNA samples from anyone charged with a felony. In less than a year, Katie’s Law resulted in more than 70,000 DNA samples being sent to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and these samples produced nearly 400 “hits” — DNA matches to evidence in unsolved crimes. Costello’s DNA produced four of those hits, which is to say he committed about 1% of the first 400 crimes solved by Katie’s Law.

Costello was also the 1% in another sense of that term: He was a successful real-estate broker, the scion of a prominent family whose Colorado history could be traced back through seven generations. And, by the way, did I mention that he was a Democrat? Because four months after his arrest for assaulting that old pro-life guy in the grocery store parking lot, when the Colorado Bureau of Investigation crime lab matched Costello’s DNA to evidence in its database of unsolved rapes, this was the headline in the Denver Post:

Suspected Denver serial rapist
has ties to high-profile Democrats
The suspected serial rapist linked by DNA to three sexual attacks on strangers — one of whom was a 13-year-old girl — also has close ties to some of the state’s high-profile Democratic politicos.
When William Costello was arrested in Bayfield on Nov. 5, he was volunteering to drop off yard signs at a Durango campaign office and was driving the car of a top political strategist, police records show.. . .
Prosecutors have charged him with multiple counts of sexual assault, kidnapping and impersonating a police officer, according to affidavits . . .
The news astounded many respected members of the community, said former Gov. Dick Lamm, whose son befriended Costello when they attended Denver’s East High School together. . . .
It was go-to Democratic political consultant Mike Stratton’s new SUV that Costello was driving when the Bayfield Marshals and the FBI pulled him over the morning of Nov. 5.
Stratton, working from Pueblo, had dispatched Costello on a delivery run, he said. The SUV was impounded. Stratton was told there were “serious charges” against Costello but didn’t learn the details of the allegations until the affidavits were released.
“I’m just astounded, disgusted and saddened for his family. I don’t even have words for this,” said Stratton, who has known Costello “off and on over the years.”

Y’know, it might be helpful to law enforcement if we could compile a DNA database of Democrats who register to vote. Who knows how many unsolved crimes could be solved that way? However, I doubt the experts in the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit at Quantico would be able to develop a useful “profile” by asking the question, “What kind of Democrat is likely to be a serial rapist?”

Because the correct answer is: All of them.

The first three rapes with which Costello was charged occurred in 2008, 2010 and 2011, and like a good Colorado Democrat, Costello did not discriminate. There was diversity in his victims:

Arrest affidavits state that in the 2008 incident, Costello picked up a 13-year-old runaway and sexually assaulted her with a 2-year-old boy in back seat of the car.
The 2010 incident, a man driving a black Mercedes offered to drive a 22-year-old woman through a Del Taco drive-thru because the dining room was closed, but instead he drove her away. The report states that he claimed to be a “crooked cop” and sexually assaulted her. The case was open until a DNA match came back, linking Costello to the crime.
On Sept. 28, 2011, an arrest affidavit states that Costello claimed to be a detective and ordered a 49-year-old woman into his Mercedes.
“The suspect told her to relax, that they were just going to have a few drinks,” the affidavit stated.
The woman was eventually able to escape the car, but not before being sexually assaulted.

In March 2013, Costello was charged with a fourth rape, this one involving a 31-year-old woman who was a friend of a friend. So, teenage runaways, 22-year-old fast-food customers, 49-year-old strangers, 31-year-old acquaintances — basically, anyone with a vagina was a potential victim of the Colorado Democrat Rapist.

By now, perhaps, some readers are wondering, “What’s up with blaming this guy’s crimes on politics? Who cares if he’s a Democrat? Why does his partisan affiliation matter?” So glad you asked!

Study: Lena Dunham’s Republican Rapist
Almost Certain to Strike Again
According to a study published by the University of Michigan, chances are as high as 80% that the man “Girls” star Lena Dunham claims raped her, has and will repeat his crime. As of now there is no word that Dunham plans on filing charges to get “Barry” off the street.
The alleged rape dates back to when Dunham was a 19 year-old college student (she’s now 28) at Ohio’s Oberlin College. According to Dunham, she was drunk and high on Xanax and cocaine when Barry (who she describes as a campus Republican) sexually assaulted her.
Dunham says she had no idea she had been raped until she described the incident to others, including her roommate at the time and years later to the writers for her HBO show “Girls.” Dunham says it took years to come to terms with the rape. Only now is she able to discuss it publicly.

See? This is certainly going to be helpful to FBI criminal profiling experts at Quantico studying the partisan modus operandi of rapists. Whereas Democrat rapists cruise around in their Mercedes, kidnapping and forcibly assaulting strangers, we see that Republican rapists are very selective in targeting their victims: GOP sex criminals prefer unattractive girls at elite liberal arts colleges; once they’ve spotted their intended prey, campus Republicans like Barry then wait until the victim is intoxicated on a mixture of alcohol, tranquilizers and cocaine (which happens more or less every night for fat chicks at Oberlin). This enables the GOP rapist to sexually assault his teenage victim with impunity, because he knows she is so thoroughly anaesthetized that she won’t even realize she has been raped until years later, when she is a famous TV star and has had time to compare notes with friends to help her recover her traumatic memories just in time to include this tale of right-wing sexual savagery in her highly-publicized book.

The Behavioral Analysis Unit now has the basic elements of a profile necessary to determine the partisan affiliation of rapists. If a woman or teenage girl says that a middle-aged stranger in a Mercedes kidnapped her off the street and forcibly assaulted her, if she immediately reports this crime to the police and submits to a medical examination that provides DNA evidence which may be useful in apprehending the perpetrator, then obviously detectives know they are looking for a Democrat rapist. On the other hand, if a millionaire TV star has a vague memory of one night many years before, when she was a 19-year-old college student zonked out of her mind on a combination of intoxicants, so that she believes she had sex with a male acquaintance and that this sex was not consensual, and all she can do is mention the incident in a bestselling book where the perpetrator is referred to by a pseudonym — well, in such a case, the rapist you’re looking for is a Republican.

Except, of course, police aren’t looking for the man who raped Lena Dunham, because she never reported this crime to the police.

Hoping to get reaction from our nation’s foremost expert on political rape, I contacted the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock and left a message. Unfortunately, I missed the return phone call, and when I checked my voicemail, the statement was strangely cryptic: “Better put some ice on that.” Also, I thought the voice in the message mumbled something about “Cathleen Willey’s cat.”

Colorado Democrat William Costello could not be reached for comment:

March 6, 2014 — A man once linked to top Democratic politicians in Colorado apparently committed suicide early Thursday, hours before he was due back in court for his trial on charges he raped three women and a 13-year-old girl.
William Burton Costello was due in Denver District Court on Thursday morning for a second day of testimony. The court declared a mistrial after learning that he was found in the 2800 block of Brighton Boulevard, said Denver District Attorney’s spokeswoman Lynn Kimbrough.
“We explained to the victims in the case that he had committed suicide,” Kimbrough said.
Raquel Lopez, Denver police spokeswoman, said Costello was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead.

So now he’s the only kind of good Democrat.

(Hat-tip: Richard McEnroe.)





 

Category: Celebrities, Colorado, Crime, Democrats, Sex

Remember A Couple Of Months Ago, When Weather Wasn’t Climate?

Posted on | October 4, 2014 | 5 Comments

by Smitty

“Yuhv. Got. Ta. Buh. Leeve!“:

“We want to clear up the huge amounts of confusion around how climate change is influencing the weather, in both directions. For example, the typhoon in the Philippines that dominated the UN climate change talks in Warsaw last November and that many people put down to climate change – it turned out it had no detectable evidence. And the same goes for Hurricane Sandy,” Dr Friederike Otto, of Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute, told The Independent.

I mean, what if they threw a Fear Party on the climate, and everyone just laughed?

Is it OK if I just don’t understand the argument. The idea of “climate” is derived from the weather. Climate is the cart, weather is the horse. The information used to arrive at terms like “tropical” at the climate level undergoes a one-way process when you summarize it, right? The cart can’t drag the horse, and if you’re trying to contend that climate influences weather, isn’t that the Ecological Fallacy?

That’s a sweet fallacy. It’s such a commonplace one in politics and advertising. These climate change weenies are the boys who cried “flow” (wolf spelled backward).

Standard disclaimer: caring about resources and the environment is a basic rational, conservative attitude. And we need to respond with laughter at all irrational appeals, not just ones from the Anthropogenic Global Climate Warming Change Disruption Chaos NextFocusGroupTermGoesHere industry.

Maybe the Church of Global Warming should hire Seinfeld:

via Drudge and Breitbart.

Category: Uncategorized

Because This Never Happens, Right?

Posted on | October 3, 2014 | 55 Comments

See these two lesbians? One of them is named Jackie.

She wasn’t always a lesbian. Jackie was not “born that way.” She grew up in a “very traditional Irish Catholic” family and attended Catholic schools. She never had any youthful feelings or experience of being gay.

Lesbianism never crossed her mind: “There was no question I’d ever be anything other than heterosexual. It never occurred to me that there was anything else to be.” Jackie was very successful as a heterosexual female. At 17, she fell in love with a “hugely attractive” guy with whom she had a “very intense” relationship that she expected would last forever. Obviously, it didn’t. Jackie became a lesbian at age 22. Why?

“I had studied feminist literature at university
and it opened my eyes to the possibility
of sexuality as a life choice.”

What? Sexuality is a choice? And this is what college girls learn by studying feminist literature? This is surprising to most people. For more than two decades, we have been told two things:

  1. Gay people are born that way. Homosexuality is a genetic trait, the gay-rights crusaders told us. Therefore, the identity-politics argument was made that it was wrongful discrimination to treat homosexuality as a behavioral abnormality, subject to conscious control by the rational mind. Furthermore, we were told, it was ignorant hateful bigotry for any religious organization to condemn homosexual behavior as a sin. All laws, customs, language and practices that expressed disapproval of homosexual behavior (whether as morally wrong, psychologically abnormal or socially undesirable) were therefore deemed illegitimate. By this logic, gay people were an oppressed minority, whose status was compared to the condition of African-Americans under the regime of Jim Crow, or even Jews under the genocidal tyranny of Nazism. Anyone who did not accept the “born-that-way” explanation (which we were assured was Science with a capital “S”) was said diagnosed as suffering from an irrational fear called homophobia. Not only was homophobia regarded as a mental disorder, but it was also a moral failing. If you didn’t accept the entirety of the gay-rights agenda, including the “gay DNA”/”born-that-way” rationale, you were an ignorant bigot, suffering from homophobic delusions, motivated by a four-letter word: HATE.
  2. Feminism is just about fair and equal treatment for women. Some people still believe this. It is amazing to me, having spent the past few months immersed in the study of feminist literature, that anyone could think mere “fairness” — e.g., equality of workplace opportunity, where employees are judged strictly by their merits — was what feminism is really about. From its inception in the 1960s, modern feminism avowed its eternal enmity to the normal lives of normal women. Betty Friedan infamously denounced the lives of American housewives as comparable to Nazi concentration camps, and feminists have repeatedly condemned as male-supremacist oppression — the patriarchy! — the normal woman’s life of men, marriage and motherhood. As soon as the Women’s Liberation movement erupted within the New Left, many feminist spokeswomen identified themselves as lesbians and argued that lesbianism was the only authentic expression of feminism, as resistance to patriarchal oppression. Lesbianism, they said, was the only possible way to achieve the radical meaning of “sexual equality” that feminism advocated. Lesbian feminists (“The Lavender Menace”) have never stopped advancing these arguments, theorizing heterosexuality as a condition of servitude that men impose on women, and which women only accept as an admission of their own inferior status in a male-dominated society.

Never, at any time since 1970, have radical feminists retreated from their insistence that lesbianism is a choice, a choice with political meaning, a choice that any woman can make, and which all women should make, if they wish to “smash patriarchy.”

The rhetoric of radical feminism expresses the ideology of radical feminism, and we need not wonder where this ideology leads, because feminists made their objectives unmistakably clear.

“The Lesbian rejects male sexual/political domination; she defies his world, his social organization, his ideology, and his definition of her as inferior. . . . Lesbianism threatens male supremacy at its core. When politically conscious and organized, it is central to destroying our sexist, racist, capitalist, imperialist system. . . .
“Lesbians cannot grow politically or personally in a situation which denies the basis of our politics: that Lesbianism is political, that heterosexuality is crucial to maintaining male supremacy.”
— Charlotte Bunch, “Lesbians in Revolt,” 1972

“Every woman who remains in sexual relation to man is defeated every time she does it with the man because each single experience for every woman is a reenactment of the primal one in which she was invaded and separated and fashioned into a receptacle for the passage of the invader. . . .
“Gay revolution addresses itself to the total elimination of the sexual caste system around which our oppressive society is organized. . . . It is now recognized that any Marxist-Socialist analysis must acknowledge the sexist underpinnings of every political economic power base. Gay liberation cannot be considered apart from women’s liberation. . . . The lesbian is the key figure in the social revolution to end the sexual caste system, or heterosexual institution.”
— Jill Johnston, Lesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution (1973)

“Fucking is a large part of how females are kept subordinated to males. It is a ritual enactment of that subordination which constantly reaffirms the fact of subordination and habituates both men and women to it, both in body and in imagination. . . . A great deal of fucking is also presumed to preserve and maintain women’s belief in their own essential heterosexuality. . . . It is very important to the maintenance of male-supremacy that men fuck women, a lot. So it is required; it is compulsory. . . .
“The feminist lesbian’s style, activities, desire and values are obviously and profoundly noncongruent with the principles of male-supremacist culture. . . . She does not live as the complement to the rule of heterosexuality for men. She is not accessible to the penis; she does not view herself as a natural object of fucking and denies that men have either the right or the duty to fuck her.”
— Marilyn Frye, Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (1983)

“In this section we will examine the type of bond, called ‘love,’ that develops between men and women. . . .
“If love of men arises from terror brought on by male threat to female survival, women have to defend against any feelings that might challenge our love for men. Is this one of the reasons that most women vehemently deny their own lesbian feelings? . . .
“Because of the coercive conditions under which heterosexual love arises, it has a regressive quality for women. . . .
“Women in general cling to the dream that men care about us and will protect us from violence. Denial is so strong that women believe that men are protecting us — we forget from whom — even as they oppress women.”
— Dee Graham, Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence and Women’s Lives (1994)

“Heteronormativity includes the multiple, often mundane ways through which heterosexuality overwhelmingly structures and ‘pervasively and insidiously’ orders ‘everyday existence’ . . . Heteronormativity structures social life so that heterosexuality is always assumed, expected, ordinary, and privileged. Its pervasiveness makes it difficult for people to imagine other ways of life. . . .
“Heteronormativity also rests on gender asymmetry, as heterosexuality depends on a particular type of normatively gendered women and men.”
— Karin Martin and Emily Kazyak, “Hetero-Romantic Love and Heterosexiness in Children’s G-Rated Films,” 2009

This anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology, as the reader may perceive, is not about “equality.” Instead, what radical feminism teaches is that men are inferior — morally defective, incapable of love or kindness, and predisposed to violence by which they terrorize females, brutally imposing upon women the humiliation of heterosexual intercourse. This belief system (feminism’s esoteric doctrine) is encoded in a public rhetoric (feminism’s exoteric discourse) intended to persuade the uninitiated that the major premise of the feminist syllogism (all women are victims of male oppression) is true, so that women are generally receptive to anti-male arguments. Thus, the public is told, women are denied freedom and choice, women’s oppression is evident in inequality, women are harmed by sexism and stereotypes, men are obstructing women’s rights, women are subjected to male harassment, etc.

If we learn to talk this way, we inevitably begin to think this way. Once we internalize the basic feminist belief system expressed by such language — the esoteric doctrine being encoded in the exoteric discourse — we are then prepared to accept further claims that would be rejected as absurd by any person with a common-sense perspective. Consider feminist “gender theory,” for example. Any student who has enrolled in a Women’s Studies course in the past 20 years is familiar with the critique of “gender” elaborated by Judith Butler and other proponents of what is sometimes also called “queer theory.” Professor Butler sees the sex/gender binary as both a cause and effect of the heterosexual matrix. What this means is that our common-sense association of certain traits, attitudes, behaviors and roles as either male or female is inextricably linked to a presumption of heterosexuality as natural. Professor Butler’s book Gender Trouble “deconstructs” our ordinary belief that males naturally are (or ideally should be) masculine, and that women natural are (or ideally should be) feminine. This sex/gender binary is a product of (and contributes to) the belief that heterosexuality is biologically natural, psychologically normal and socially desirable.

Are you following me so far? Good, because here is where it gets really tricky: Judith Butler is not completely wrong.

The attributes we normally label “masculine” and “feminine” are directly connected to heterosexuality, and to the normal roles which men and women assume in their normal lives of work, leisure, love, sex, marriage and parenthood. There is a reason why, after all, the subtitle of Professor Butler’s book is “Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.” In its radical (esoteric) meaning, sexual equality is synonymous with androgyny, so that men and women are equal because they are identical and interchangeable. “Gender” cannot be the legitimate basis of identity if masculinity and femininity are shown to be artificial, so that the way to achieve equality is to abolish gender. Men and women can become equal only if men and women cease to be different.

Rather than do a complete “deconstruction” of Professor Butler’s theory, let me instead merely affirm that she is correct: Insofar as men and women are different in meaningful ways, they can never be equal in the radical sense that feminists mean when they speak of “equality.” Furthermore, to address the subtext of Professor Butler argument, as men and women become more “equal” (androgynous, as the sex/gender binary of male/masculine and female/feminine erodes) heterosexuality is destabilized, becoming less functional and less normative, thus homosexuality becomes more acceptable as an alternative.

Whatever the problems of men and women circa 1968, when the Women’s Liberation movement began, the problems now afflicting men and women in the context of their heterosexual relations cannot be solved by feminism because these problems are largely caused by feminism. Marriages are now less happy and divorce is more common — indeed, sex itself has become less satisfying — not because men are more oppressively “sexist,” but because men are less masculine and women are less feminine. Sexual equality means androgyny, and androgyny is incompatible with heterosexuality.

Human beings are remarkably adaptable creatures. Man can survive in the frozen tundra or the harshest desert. We are resourceful and cunning animals, and the power of the human mind is astonishing. Just as it is absurd for feminists to imagine that human nature can be changed, so it is absurd to say that humans cannot change to overcome the unnatural force of feminism.

This was explained in 1974, when sociologist Steven Goldberg published The Inevitability of Patriarchy: Why the Biological Difference Between Men and Women Always Produces Male Domination, which was subsequent revised in a 1999 edition under the title, Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance. While perhaps science as added to our knowledge of male/female differences in the 40 years since Professor Goldberg explained why feminism was ultimately doomed to fail, the truth is still the truth, and human nature is still human nature. Does anyone think the heteronormative patriarchy (i.e., human nature) will surrender without a fight?

Which brings us back to Jackie, who turned lesbian at age 22 after she “studied feminist literature at university.” In her own words, she became a “radical lesbian feminist” and, it seems, was more the butch type, which made her a magnet for crazies:

I threw myself into the fullblown lesbian lifestyle — gay clubs, bars and pubs — and my relationships with women tended to be long and loving, if a little too turbulent at times.
The sheer amount of talking and analysing that went on was exhausting. The women I went out with were by and large more inclined to be insecure and to need reassurance and I found myself in the male role of endlessly reassuring my girlfriends. The subtle mood changes of everyday life would be picked over inexhaustibly.
One girlfriend was so insecure that every single time we enjoyed a night out — usually at a bar — we would have a row and have to leave. She would convince herself that I was flirting with another woman and, however much I tried not to catch anyone’s eye, she wouldn’t believe me.
Back home, we would then spend the next four hours arguing about our relationship and my feelings of loyalty, fidelity and so on. It was never-ending. It may sound prosaic but when you add female hormones into the mix, the problems are even worse. Can you imagine waking up beside a woman when you’ve both got raging PMT?

Ah, the predictable problems caused by female hormones! The irrational envy, the unnecessary drama, the insecurity, the endless talk, talk, talk — every heterosexual male is nodding his head in recognition, but guys can’t say or word or we’re “sexist,” you see. And heterosexual women don’t fully appreciate all the benefits of low-drama relationships with men, as Jackie explains:

My straight female friends thought my deeply intense relationships sounded fantastic. They envied me the empathy I felt with my girlfriend. Why couldn’t they feel as close to their husbands and boyfriends?
Unlike most men, women, of course, offer each other endless support and there’s hardly ever any lack of communication.
But — bizarre as it may seem — I found myself longing for exactly the opposite. I wanted a bit more difference, a little less talking and a bit more edge and my relationships often paid the price.
I had been so committed, I even bought a flat with one of my partners. Two years later we split up. We had been together five years and the break-up was excruciating, as all our raging emotions came to the fore.
Then in 2000, when I was 33, another seemingly ideal lesbian relationship went badly wrong. We had been together three years and I had honestly convinced myself that she was the one. But, once again, our relationship was destroyed because we got so exhausted with the emotional clashes and jealousy that never seemed to subside.
The ironic part is that I have never, ever, been unfaithful in a relationship. But having to constantly placate a jealous partner was wearying – and my relationships often paid the price.
As I pieced over the failings, I took a second look at my history. Was I picking the wrong women or was I simply not cut out to be a lesbian?
This may sound totally coldhearted, but I made a calculated decision to try men again.

Guess what? It worked. Not only did Jackie try men, but she met and fell in love a man who was quite masculine. He was divorced and had two children from a previous marriage. After 12 years as a “radical lesbian feminist,” Jackie is now not only married, but she and her husband have four children. This oppressive system of male domination? Looks an awful lot like Happily Ever After.

The British actress Jackie Clune married her husband, actor Richard Hannant, in 2008, and told her story again in 2010. She took a long 12-year round trip to “traditional family values” that included being named “Most Disappointing Lesbian of the Year” by Diva, Britain’s leading lesbian magazine, after her defection to heterosexuality.

Human beings are remarkably resourceful, you see, and human nature is remarkably persistent. No amount of political activism, nor any sort of egalitarian propaganda, can change this.

Feminism’s war against human nature is ultimately doomed to failure. Feminists may inflict casualties, and innocent people may suffer, but what is natural is also normal, and will ever remain so.

The heteronormative patriarchy is still open for business, baby. We’re winning every day. Don’t you want to join the winning team?




 

Category: Feminism, Sex Trouble

If You Have Sex & Make Money Off The Encounter, Are You A Whore, Even If You Don’t Report It & Allege Rape Years Later?

Posted on | October 3, 2014 | 26 Comments

by Smitty

Asking for a guy named “Barry”.
Disclaimer: sexual violence is a real problem, especially if one is on the receiving end. I’m neither telling, nor making money off of this blog post.
But seriously, Lena, you’re looking like a tool here, as Breitbart snarks:

Dunham is now a public advocate for reforming campus sexual consent laws. Hopefully, Dunham will be moved to file official charges against her rapist before another woman becomes a victim.

You’re going to have to improve the acting skills, Lena, to convince us that (a) any sane man isn’t going to play Joseph to your Potifar’s wife, (b) you’re more than a paid shill who is (c) pimping a wretched book with this sordid tale, (d) featuring a guy named “Barry” that is really some sort of “composite” character actually representing a phalanx of undergraduate community organizer dweebs with about half a pubic hair between them.

Update: linked by That Mr. G. Guy

Category: Feminism
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin