The Other McCain

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

Dropped on Her Head Again? Radical Feminist Rants About ‘Intersectionality’

Posted on | March 30, 2014 | 45 Comments

You may remember how, in reaction to a radical feminist’s anti-heterosexual rant — “PIV is always rape, OK?” — Twitter user @conkc2 asked, “Was she maybe dropped on her head?” In recent weeks, the radfem has been on an extended rant about “intersectionality,” the most recent installment being the fifth in the series:

Intersectionality, part V: additional notes
on amnesia and springing from Outercourse
When we can’t see men as the oppressors, men’s violence is suppressed in the unconscious realm (or in the “subliminal sea”) and what remains visible and conscious to us in the foreground is the betrayal by puppeted women orchestrated/remote-controlled by the invisible male lords/puppeteers. . . .

She actually includes two footnotes in the first paragraph to define “background” and “foreground” according to Mary Daly, a recently deceased feminist (see “‘Snools Rule’: Mary Daly and the Radical Feminist School of Atrocious Writing“). Anybody who reads much Mary Daly might start babbling like they had been dropped on their head, and our favorite radfem has read a lot of Mary Daly.

The title of the radfem’s post invokes Daly’s 1992 book, Outercourse: The Be-Dazzling Voyage, which contains 477 pages of the most deranged gibberish ever published by a tenured professor. Daly invokes “amnesia” in the first chapter of Outercourse:

When I went back to teaching in the fall of 1969 I had already begun to change drastically. I had begun to see through the particularities of my experience with Boston College to the universal condition of women in all universities and in all institutions of patriarchy. I had experienced my first explicit encounters with the demons of assimilation — especially taking the form of tokenism — and won. . . .
By Seeing and Naming the connections that had been largely subliminal in the earlier stage of Voyaging, I Moved into The Second Spiral Galaxy of my Outercourse. This involved Acts of Exorcism of the amnesia inflicted by patriarchal institutions, religion in particular, and by the -ologies which they engender and which . . . serve to legitimate them. Exorcism of amnesia required Acts of Unforgetting — Seeing through the foreground “past” into the Background Past — beyond the androcratic lies about women’s history. I found that Breaking through to knowledge of a Prepatriarchal Pagan Past opened the possibility for Radical Naming. . . .

You see what I mean about “deranged gibberish.” What Daly seems to mean by “amnesia” is that there is an unknown past — “a Prepatriarchal Pagan Past” — which has been forgotten because of myths propagated by “patriarchal institutions.” Daly’s habit of making up words can be witnessed in her coinage of “androcratic,” which means the same thing as “patriarchal,” i.e., dominated by male authority. Daly’s eccentricities of rhetoric reflect her disordered mind. It takes a special kind of crazy to cite Mary Daly in footnotes to a blog post, so let’s have a few more slices of the radfem’s  rant:

Failing to see men’s oppression and turning our anger against women is fundamentally based on amnesia: our forgetting of men’s genocide. . . .
Our capacity to feel empathy towards women, to reverse the reversals and to make the connections about men’s violence is deeply and directly connected to our uncovering of the suppressed memories of what men have done to us. When we forget the oppressor, there is no other option than to turn against women, because that’s how patriarchy is configured: there is one oppressor class, men, and one oppressed class, women, and if you’re not against men, then it’s mechanically at the expense of women and of ourselves. There is no in-between, or third outlet: women are the only counterpoint to men’s violence.

To emphasize: “there is one oppressor class, men, and one oppressed class, women.” This is the radfem’s predictable answer to “intersectionality,” which Wikipedia defines as “the study of intersections between different disenfranchised groups or groups of minorities; specifically, the study of the interactions of multiple systems of oppression or discrimination. The term is particularly prevalent in black feminism, which argues that the experience of being a black female cannot simply be understood in terms of being black, and of being female, considered independently, but must include the interactions, which frequently reinforce each other.”

That is to say, black feminists don’t just want to talk about being victimized by sexism, but also by racism. “Intersectionality” is a fancy intellectual word to describe this idea, which sometimes takes the form of black feminists denouncing the “white privilege” of the majority of academic feminists who are not just whiter than Wonder Bread, but also generally from upper-middle-class backgrounds and ensconced in tenured faculty sinecures with six-figure salaries.

The first time I ever heard of “intersectionality” was in relation to the Hugo Schwyzer meltdown (see, “Sex and the Psychotic Professor“), where #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen became a hashtag pointing out that Schwyzer had dissed a black woman:

The ”retired” self-proclaimed ”male feminist” Hugo Schwyzer used to write for feminist blogs from xoJane to Jezebel, but quit after the years of ”standing up to women’s anger” had ”destroyed his mental health.” Right. . . .
Schwyzer called out a black woman who had criticized him, and no white feminists came to her defense . . .

 Shanelle Matthews described the intersectionality connection:

Schwyzer, a self-identified male feminist made his claim to Internet fame by reworking and packaging up modern male feminism and selling  it to online publications like The Atlantic and Jezebel, for whom he was a paid contributor, and Feministe, which featured an interview with him. Two of these three are notorious for their insensitivity and, on more than one occasion, outright disregard for the importance of intersectional feminism — that is the focal point where feminism and another powerful system meet, say for instance, race. . . . In matters of the heart, their feminist ideology dematerializes — often at the expense of women of color and other marginalized women.

Far be it from me to defend Schwyzer or feminist editors from the accusation of “insensitivity” toward “women of color and other marginalized women,” however, the Daly-citing radfem sees “intersectionality” as just another male-created deception:

Intersectionality, just as any form of anti-feminism, are part of men’s phallic lies and global brainwashing tactics which generate amnesia and the inward-twisting of rage against ourselves and other women. . . .

Whoa! Intersectionality is a “form of anti-feminism . . . part of men’s phallic lies”? Let’s skip back to Part IV of this rant:

We have to understand that cultural and social racism or insensitivity from part of women is integral to our colonisation by the men who occupy us. Racism, sexism, classism, any kind of condescension — all are one and tied to the same anti-woman package, they are inseparable. It’s male-identification.
‘Racist feminism’ or ‘classist feminism’ is an oxymoron, in other words. This means we cannot be feminist without wanting to exorcise all forms of male domination and subordination, without seeing them as interlinked and mutually supportive of women’s oppression. We discover empathy and searing rage for the plight of all our sisters and that in spite of differences, we are all subjected to variations of male rapism. We see patriarchy as universal. By identifying ourselves as women we identify to all women as women, embrace each other as our people and reject male blocking of our movement/convergence. . . .
When I look at intersectional articles, who are they directed against? Women, women, women, women, women, women and women. All of them. It is the primary distinguishing factor of intersectionality. But if women are so oppressive to us, what’s the point of being feminist, may I ask. Either we perceive men to be our oppressors and we’re feminist, or we hate these women who oppress us so much — and we’re misogynist. . . .

In other words, because “intersectionality” leads to one group of feminist women attacking another group of feminist women, it is objectively “misogynist,” obscuring the reality of “male domination,” the result of a failure to “perceive men to be our oppressors.”

All of this proves one point: Feminism is a form of mental illness. Instead of sending crazy women to lunatic asylums, nowadays we send them to university Women’s Studies departments. This does not cure their insanity, but it does train them to blog about rape and abortion and other bizarre obsessions common to crazy women.

Women must ask themselves: “Am I crazy enough to be a feminist?”

 

 

Category: Feminism

Rule 5 Sunday: Up Periscope

Posted on | March 30, 2014 | 11 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


Welcome to the weekly Rule 5 Sunday post, which is actually happening on Sunday for a change. Next week’s Rule 5 Sunday may be delayed until Tuesday or possibly even April 13, for reasons previously discussed here. In the meantime, since this post consists entirely of links to attractive women, frequently with few or no clothes, readers are advised to use discretion when they click. Management is not responsible for annoyed wives/girlfriends/fellow workers.


Leading off this week after just missing last week’s deadline, Three Beers Later offers “Canadian Girls”, “The Booze Cruise”, and Colt Ford in “Chicken & Biscuits”. Also, Miranda Lambert and more Miranda Lambert! Goodstuff got Instalanched for this megapost featuring Sophia Loren, and also posted about Natalia Poklonskaya, a Person of Interest. Laughing Conservative chips in with Shay Maria, Animal Magnetism returns with Rule 5 Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon, and Blackmailers Don’t Shoot contributes some Jennifer Lawrence and Rule 5 Linkfest: Touch Me, I’m Sick. First Street Journal, meanwhile, has some Marines he’d like you to see.


EBL’s thundering herd this week includes Vanessa of DaVinci’s Demons, 80s High School Rule 5, Sandra Bullock, patriotic Danes, Spring Break, vintage Rule 5 with Virginia Rappe, Bill Clinton-related Rule 5, and Wet T-Shirts. Some submissions were omitted due to good taste.


A View From The Beach offered Kristen Bell, Dutch Weirdness, American Weirdness, Mad Scientist Invents Zombie Repellant, “Shalala lala”, “99 Red Balloons”, NCIS is Poking Around In Your Affairs, and Proof You Can’t Fold Paper 7 Times.


Hot from the pages of Soylent Refuge, it’s your Sunday Morning Coffee Creamer. Also, Evening Awesome Bryci, Monday Motivationer Brittani Jade, a Linky Love Contender, Evening Awesome Chain Lightning, Tuesday Titillation Gaby, Humpday Hawtness Jessi Marie, Just Three Shopping Days ‘Til Alpha Proxima Day, Overnighty #26, Fursday Auburn Awesome, Overnighty #27, In Lieu of Corsets, T-GIF Friday, Dammit She’s Sprung A Leak, Weekender Justine, Ahoy!, and Bath Night.


Proof Positive’s Babe of the Week was Katie Sackhoff, his vintage babe was Heather Thomas, and Sex in Advertising is courtesy of Wonderbra. Also, Marilyn Monroe atop a Blogiversary cake! Dustbury offers Rihanna and Elle Macpherson for your consideration.


Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Extra thanks to the reader(s) who ordered some very cute lingerie from my Amazon links!


Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

FMJRA 2.0: Circle Of Signifiers

Posted on | March 30, 2014 | 5 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


Rule 5 Monday

Fake Hate Scandal: ‘University Policy’ Protects Racist Hoax Perpetrator

Way to Blow It, Ta-Nehisi Coates

FMJRA 2.0: Voting 4 Chikin

GIRL IN CHAINS: ‘Domestic Partners’ Charged in ‘Particularly Heinous Case’

More RadFem Ravings

In The Mailbox, 03.24.14

Malaysian Prime Minister Gives Press Conference in Perfect English

The @AmandaMarcotte Birth Control ObamaCare Fear-Mongering Crusade

#LindsayOnOWN @LindsayLohan: When You Are Your Own Biggest Problem

“Backin’ The U.S.S.R”, As The Beatles Did Not Quite Sing

Repealing ObamaCare Is Scary To Gutless Progressives Fearing Reform

Will Judge Grimm Accept ‘Futile’ Complaint by Brett Kimberlin?

In The Mailbox, 03.25.14

SHOCKING: Feds Raid Illinois Democrat in Child Pornography Investigation

In Which Brett Kimberlin Presumes to Lecture U.S. Judge Paul Grimm

@MiltonWolfMD Is All: “Virginia Has Three Senators”, And I’m All: “Wut?”

‘Fat Justice’ Feminists Blame Reagan, Praise ‘Communism and Socialism’

In The Mailbox, 03.26.14

Of Course, It’s Florida: Teenage Boy Goes to Gay Nightclub and Gets Butt-Raped

The MacKinnonite View: Power, Gender, Sexuality and Social Oppression

Scott Walker: “It’s About Reform”

MSNBC and Obama Tanking Together

Hey, Stop Raping Fat Chicks!

In The Mailbox, 03.27.14

Maniac Feminist @LauraLevites Unleashes Anti-Christian Hatred

You Can’t Spell ‘Liberal’ Without L-I-E

In The Mailbox, 03.28.14

Perjurer … Pedophile … Lawsuit

BridgeGate or … VaginaGate?

Top linkers this week:

  1. Batshit Crazy News (18, including two EBL)
  2. Regular Right Guy (17)
  3. Proof Positive (5 the hard way)

Thanks to everyone for your linkagery, especially those of you that boosted Rule 5 Monday into the top slot this week! Next weekend’s FMJRA will delayed until Tuesday, April 8, as I’ll be out in Minnesota without access to a real computer, but the deadline to submit links will still be noon on Saturday, April 5.


Category: FMJRA Award

Stopping the Bush Bandwagon

Posted on | March 30, 2014 | 89 Comments

Even before the 2008 campaign had ended, it became apparent to me — from the rumblings about certain aides to the McCain/Palin campaign, especially Nicolle Wallace — that Sarah Palin was being sabotaged by Bushies, so that one could perceive at that early date the stealthy moves toward a dynastic restoration via former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. As I said at the time, however, the lesson was obvious enough: “Lie down with Bushes, wake up with Democrats.” That is to say, electing a Bush to the White House is always the foreshadowing of a future Democrat victory, and therefore the urgent task of conservatives since 2008 has been to rid the GOP of its doomstruck taint of Bushism. Thus to explain my horrified reaction at this Washington Post story:

Concerned that the George Washington Bridge traffic scandal has damaged New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s political standing and alarmed by the steady rise of Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), prominent donors, conservative leaders and longtime operatives say they consider Bush the GOP’s brightest hope to win back the White House. . . .

(The reported “alarm” toward Rand Paul is ill-founded. If Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker can get re-elected in November, he will immediately emerge as the likely 2016 GOP nominee, based on his success in fighting Big Labor in an industrial Midwestern state.)

One bundler estimated that the “vast majority” of Romney’s top 100 donors would back Bush in a competitive nomination fight.
“He’s the most desired candidate out there,” said another bundler, Brian Ballard, who sat on the national finance committees for Romney in 2012 and John McCain in 2008. “Everybody that I know is excited about it.” . . .

(Obviously, the idiotic big-money GOP Establishment would be “excited” to repeat the doomed campaigns of 2008 and 2012.)

On Thursday night, Bush was feted here at a VIP dinner held by Sheldon Adelson inside the billionaire casino magnate’s airplane hangar. When one donor told Bush, “I hope you run for president in 2016,” the crowd of about 60 guests burst into applause, said a donor in attendance.
Bush also met privately with Adelson. One person with knowledge of the conversation said that the former governor was “very laid back and comfortable” and that they did not discuss the 2016 campaign.
Bush has been nurturing donor relationships for years. Earlier this month, he headlined a fundraiser for Virginia Senate candidate Ed Gillespie at former ambassador Al Hoffman’s home in North Palm Beach, Fla. Private-equity manager Lewis M. Eisenberg and former ambassador Ned Siegel were among the heavy hitters in attendance.
And in July, investor Scott Kapnick threw a book party for Bush at his Manhattan apartment. About 100 leading GOP donors showed up.

Well, so much for ditching that “Republican Party controlled by billionaire neocon warmongers” stereotype, I guess.

Despite my avowed anti-Bushism, I am nonetheless sufficiently pragmatic as to nod in agreement with Kevin Williamson:

Even if you think that Romney is a squishy RINO Massachusetts technocrat with a secret crush on Obamacare, you have to be on the wrong side of the border between ideologically hardcore and ideologically blinded to conclude that spending four years fighting against the very worst imaginable tendencies of a Romney administration would have been anything other than wine and roses compared with spending four years fighting against the very worst tendencies of an Obama administration, especially when the president is in the position of never having to face another election.
You can tell yourself a just-so story about how the guy you liked who couldn’t beat Romney in the GOP primary would have beaten the mom jeans off of Obama in the general, and maybe you’re right, but it didn’t happen that way. . . .
The question wasn’t “Mitt Romney — yes or no?” It was: “Mitt Romney — compared with what?”
Compared with this.

(Hat-tip: Instapundit.) A libertarian populist (or social conservative) opposition to the unprincipled drift of the Republican elite can only succeed if we can develop the kind of team spirit and political professionalism necessary to unite behind a plausible alternative to the GOP Establishment choice, nominate that candidate and then defeat Democrats in the general election.

Without re-hashing every failure of the conservative grassroots since 2007, however, both team spirit and political professionalism have been in short supply. Finger-pointing recriminations are useless, but we must avoid the mistakes of the past and be prepared (a) to support any candidate — Paul, Walker, Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, whoever — who emerges as the conservative alternative to GOP Establishment offering (Christie, Bush, whoever) in the Republican primaries. And if (b) the Establishment nevertheless imposes its will on the party again, we must be prepared to go all-out for the spineless sellout nominee we can’t stand.

A Republican victory in 2016 is essential, and nothing must distract us from that object, not even our existential horror at another Bush.

God help us.

 

Category: No More Bushes

Noel Sheppard, R.I.P.

Posted on | March 30, 2014 | 11 Comments

In announcing the death of Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard, Brent Bozell III uses the word “prolific,” and he was famously so. The dude could really crank it out, and some MRC staffers would joke sarcastically how Noel was capable of taking whatever was in the headlines and turning it into a media bias story. This is really the challenge of blogging — finding a niche, digging in and cranking it out day after day, which Noel Sheppardl had been doing since 2005.

Sure I’m not the only one who reads that and says, “Wow, nine years! Has it really been that long?” Tempus fugits, and Noel was one of the guys who became a reliable fixture in the blogosphere when it was a new force, viewed with suspicion by many.

When he suddenly fell ill in January, Noel live-tweeted his hospitalization which culminated in the dreadful news:

Noel blogged about his illness, noting the evident unfairness:

I’m an exercise and health nut. . . . I reworked my entire diet and fitness program in 2012 to get me back to the kind of body I had when I was in my 30s. Since then, I’ve largely lived my life to improve my fitness and find healthier foods that would further that goal.
But the Big C didn’t care about my diet or fitness level when he knocked on my door recently, for quite obviously healthy living doesn’t prevent you from acquiring this disease, and that doesn’t seem very fair, does it?
A former business partner and long-time friend has smoked between two and three packs of cigarettes a day since he was 15. In the earlier years, his poison was unfiltered Camels. He’s never exercised as long as I’ve known him, and he loves his meat and potatoes. Yet he’s twelve years my senior living a far less healthy life than I currently do all of it free from the Big C.

It’s like when Andrew Breitbart, who never smoked at all, suddenly dropped dead of a heart attack at 43. Being a 54-year-old smoker, I live with a constant sense that I’m on borrowed time, as younger and seemingly healthier friends keep dying.

So much for the morbid contemplations. Tim Graham has a video compilation of Noel’s TV appearances, you can go through Noel’s archive at Newsbusters to see his greatest hits, and Twitchy has compiled RIP notices from a host of online friends.

 

— 30 —

 

Category: Blogging, Media Bias

Sexual Equality, Sexual Decadence: The Emerging Menace of Female Predators

Posted on | March 29, 2014 | 41 Comments

Christy Smith had sex with a 15-year-old boy.

“A jury has found a former Lancaster County teacher guilty of having sex with a 15-year-old student in 2008.
“It took less than an hour for the jury to return with the verdict Wednesday against 35-year-old Christy Smith.
“The jury convicted her of four counts including sexual assault, corruption of a minor and involuntary deviant sexual assault.”
— “Pa. teacher convicted on teen sex charges,” Associated Press March 27, 2014

In 1999, I interviewed Wendy Shalit about her book, A Return to Modesty. She told the story of a guy making an advance and complaining that she needed to get over her “hang-ups,” to which Shalit replied: “I don’t have hang-ups. You’re just a pervert.”

Women have traditionally been the gatekeepers of sexual orthodoxy, the arbiters of virtue in American society. Therefore, advocates of unrestrained perversion have devoted enormous effort to attacking the “hang-ups” of morality that prevent most women from fornicating with the ghastly shamelessness of “Belle Knox.” If sexual liberationists can persuade women to screw around with the reckless abandon of drunken sailors on shore leave, their self-appointed task of destroying American morality will be complete.

This is the project of “pro-sex feminism” and, as with all utopian social-engineering projects, the common-sense objection occurs: If this vision is so desirable, why have 5,000 years of human history left no record of a successful society based on such principles?

Erin Queen had sex with a 17-year-old boy.

“The life of Shasta and Adam Belty’s son was turned upside down when he got mired in a sex scandal with a Sand Springs teacher. . . .
“Erin Kathleen Queen, then a 27-year-old English teacher at Charles Page High School, was arrested on March 17, 2012, after the Beltys became concerned about their 17-year-old son’s whereabouts.
“The teen eventually told his parents he was at the Candlewood Suites near 71st Street and Mingo Road with Queen, and the Beltys immediately contacted police.
“She was booked into the Tulsa Jail on a first-degree rape complaint but later charged with second-degree rape and a misdemeanor charge contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The latter of which was included based on allegations she’d supplied the Beltys’ son with vodka.
“The charges were dismissed last week when Queen pleaded guilty . . . to a felony count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. . . .
“‘It’s very frustrating to us that she basically got a slap on the wrist,’ Shasta Belty said.”
— Tulsa World, “Victim’s parents frustrated after former Sand Springs teacher gets probation in sex scandal,” March 28, 2014

Sober reflection leads responsible adults to the conclusion that traditional morality — denounced by feminists as a “social construct” of the “heteronormative patriarchy” — was based on an understanding of human nature more accurate than the abstract theorizing of the intelligentsia. If human nature is immutable, what will be the effect of changing the rules of sexual behavior to fit their radical philosophies?

We cannot safely predict any specific result. However, we can expect that many bad consequences will follow, including consequences which the advocates of “liberation” tut-tutted as impossible when they were mentioned as hypothetical objections before the sexual revolution. The harms inflicted under the New Order will be often bemoaned by the liberationists, and cited as proof of the need for still more radical measures, despite the objections of traditionalists who point out that these woes are a direct result of previous radical “reforms.”

The Washington Post offers feminist Jessica Valenti op-ed space to argue that we need to keep talking about “rape culture,” coincidentally providing Valenti a chance to promote her book about “Female Sexual Power.” But what if female sexual power is actually a major contributing factor to rape culture? This paradoxical possibility isn’t something anyone at the Washington Post is willing to consider, yet the celebration of aggressive promiscuity in the name of “empowerment” may be implicated in all kinds of unintended consequences:

There was nothing outwardly headline-grabbing about Bryana H. French’s latest study, published in the august and largely unread pages of Psychology of Men and Masculinity, an academic journal that typically reaches an audience of dozens. While her findings were depressing, they were depressingly banal: according to French and her team of researchers at the University of Missouri, “sexual victimization continues to be a pervasive problem in the United States.” Well, we know that.
So why the media scrum? Because the authors concluded that “43 percent of high school boys and young college men” — yes, boys and young men — “reported they had an unwanted sexual experience and of those, 95 percent said a female acquaintance was the aggressor.”
In a press release, French pointed out that “the victimization of men is rarely explored” and concluded hopefully that her team’s findings could “help lead to better prevention by identifying the various types of coercion that men face and by acknowledging women as perpetrators against men.”
The idea that boys (those sex-obsessed little monsters) could be victims of “sexual coercion,” while young girls (so often on the receiving end of clumsy and aggressive sexual advances of the sex-obsessed little monsters) could be perpetrators is, to many, both counterintuitive and unlikely.
“This is such an under-discussed topic,” clinical psychologist Dr. Barbara Greenberg told The Daily Beast. . . .
“I really do believe that girls are more aggressive sexually today than they were ten years ago, and I haven’t seen the same trend in boys. I think it has a lot to do with the hook-up culture where there’s this permission to get involved physically without getting involved emotionally. Boys were always expected to be the sexual initiators, and now girls are doing the initiating.”

So, “girls are more aggressive sexually today,” which Jessica Valenti and other feminists would certainly applaud as liberation and equality, an exercise of “female sexual power,” no matter what the parents of young victims might say. And in case you haven’t noticed, boys are not the only victims of “more aggressive” women. Careful readers may notice a recurring theme in the following stories:

Amanda Feenstra had a lesbian affair with a 17-year-old girl.

“A former dance director at Humble High School who admittedly had sex with one of her female students, even inside a classroom, learned her punishment for the crime.
“Amanda Michelle Feenstra pleaded guilty Wednesday and was sentenced to 10 years deferred adjudication and probation. She was charged . . . after authorities learned of the year-long relationship she had with a member of the ‘Wild Cadets’ dance team.
“Police said Feenstra engaged in deviate sexual intercourse with the student from August 2010 to November 2011. The student was 17 years old when the relationship began and Feenstra was 30. . . .
“The student’s mother accused Feenstra of stealing her daughter’s innocence.”
— KHOU-TV, “Former dance director at Humble High sentenced for having sex with student,” Oct. 23, 2013

Sarah Blessing had a lesbian affair with a 17-year-old girl.

“Assistant Middlesex County Prosecutor Christie Bevacqua told Judge Joseph Paone that Blessing assaulted the girl after the girl’s mother asked Blessing to ‘watch out for her’ because the girl was struggling through a difficult time.
“‘The betrayal of trust is a huge thing here,’ Bevacqua said.
“The victim’s mother told Paone that Blessing had groomed her daughter for a long period of time before assaulting her. ‘She took my daughter’s innocence away,’ the mother said.”
— Middlesex (N.J.) Home News Tribune, “Former Bishop Ahr swim coach gets jail, probation for sex with student,” Sept. 30, 2010

Jaymee Wallace had a lesbian affair with a 14-year-old girl.

“There’s no way a 14-year-old can consent to a relationship with an adult. . . . She took away her innocence. My daughter trusted her, and she deceived her.”
— Tampa Tribune, “Mom Of Minor In Teacher-Student Sex Case Speaks Out,” June 17, 2008

Kaitlyn Hunt had a lesbian affair with a 14-year-old girl.

“She definitely took our daughter’s innocence away, in a way that should not have been done.”
— ABC News, “Fla. Teen Jailed for Same-Sex Relationship With Underage Girlfriend Ready to ‘Move On’,” Feb. 14, 2014

Parents say that their daughters’ innocence is being lost to lesbian predators, and this seems to be an increasingly common occurrence:

  • Kelly O’Rourke, 42, was sentenced to 10 years in prison in October 2013 for having sex with a 16-year-old girl.
  • Andrea Michelle Cardosa, 40, was charged with 16 felony counts in February after two former female students accused her of sexually molesting them. One accuser said Cardosa started having sex with her when she was only 12.
  • Nicole Wooten was arrested in February 2013 on charges that she had sex with a girl in 2005 and 2006, when the victim was a 12-year-old eighth-grader.
  • Linda Wallace was sentenced to prison in September after pleading guilty to having had a four-year sexual affair with a female student that began when the girl was 13.
  • Tonya Drueppel was arrested in January on charges that she had sex with a middle-school girl beginning in October 2012, when the victim was 13.

Parents who invoke lost innocence in expressing disapproval of their teenage daughters having sex with lesbians are “bolstering up a highly heteronormative hierarchy,” as feminist Jess McCabe says, because “this concept of virginity, in a sense, invalidates queer sex,” as feminist Hew Li-Sha says, and as feminist Erin McKelle says: “Heterosexuality is the norm, and virginity just works as reinforcement to this.” The feminist message is consistent: Don’t be misogynistic homophobes, parents!

Feminism means equality, and radical ideologues aim to make women equally deviant, equally perverse, equally abnormal, so that women can equally molest young girls and boys.

 

 


Category: Crime, Culture, Feminism, Sex

The Prestige of Elite Credentials

Posted on | March 29, 2014 | 90 Comments

Ace does a riff on a study about the value of degrees:

One way in which these numbers are misleading, or at least incomplete, is that they disguise an important fact: Students going to Caltech for comp science are going to make a lot more money than a student going to Murray State College for Arts whether they went to college or not. The Caltech comp science guy is, look, coming into the classroom a lot smarter than the Murray State Arts grad. Even if they both dropped out of school on the first day of classes, the guy who was at Caltech would make more money that the Murray State student.

It’s nice that Ace makes this comparison between two state schools. One of the problems in most comparisons of this sort is that if you lump together state schools and elite private schools (Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, Duke, etc.), you’re comparing apples and oranges. The democratizing trends in education — college isn’t just for rich kids anymore — have been counteracted by an increasing prestige for private school diplomas, which are priced out of the range of all but the rich.

Here’s a simple test of who is “rich”: If you can afford $40,000 a year for your kid’s college tuition, congratulations, you’re rich.

And now it’s time to mention that secretive samizdat that no one is supposed to admit having read, The Bell Curve, which became controversial because of its findings about correlations between intelligence, heredity and race. When it was first published, I read all the denunciations in newspaper columns and magazine articles and actually believed The Bell Curve was crypto-Nazi pseudo-science. Then in 1996, a guy on an Internet discussion group responded to my uninformed criticism of the book by asking me if I’d actually read it and, called out, I felt compelled to remedy my ignorance.

Mirabile dictu, the book was a real eye-opener, and I became resentful of the liberals whose hysterical denunciations had misled me. (Remember, I used to be a Democrat, had enthusiastically voted for Clinton in 1992 and, by 1996, was just coming to understand how media bias had influenced my perceptions.)

The thing is, if you cut The Bell Curve in half, and read only the first part about the influence of intelligence in socio-economic outcomes, you would still have a very important book, and probably quite controversial, but it wouldn’t have the terrifying samizdat quality of A Dangerous Subversive Book You’re Not Supposed to Read. Alas, the scary racial controversy about the book has prevented people from examining the very informative material in the first part of the book.

To what extent is socio-economic status (SES) correlated to intelligence? A far greater extent than I’d ever realized, prior to reading The Bell Curve, and this alone was a revelation worth the price of the book. The correlation certainly is not so great that one can say, “poor = stupid” and “rich = smart,” but omni ceteris parabus, smart people do better in life than do stupid people — which, from a common-sense perspective, should not be a controversial thing to say, but which is a fact that our liberal intelligentsia have striven to obscure for many decades.

Well, to what extent is intelligence a hereditary trait? Again, to a far greater extent than we had hitherto been led to believe. And again, the correlation is not so great that one can assume that the children of MIT professors are destined to be geniuses, no matter what their educational experience, but it’s a correlation strong enough that we may predict, for example, that the offspring of high-school dropouts is unlikely to become an MIT professor.

The democratization of American higher education came in a great rush after World War II, first as a result of the G.I. Bill — which is how my Alabama farmboy father became a university graduate — then as a result of widespread post-war affluence combined with the effects of standardized testing and government aid to education, including Pell Grants and student loans. And the way these changes transformed the structure of American society was truly revolutionary from the standpoint of rewarding intelligence, per se.

In 1939, you might have found one man with an IQ of 130 working as a factory hand with an eighth-grade education, while another man with an IQ of 115 was a Harvard graduate and president of the local bank. The difference in their circumstances was simply an accident of birth — the factory hand’s parents were poor and the bank president’s parents were rich. Fast-forward 50 years, however and, by 1989, the grandson of the high-IQ factory hand was likely to be a successful college graduate, and perhaps far more successful than the grandsons of the bank president. Why? Because the educational system had become more meritocratic — more efficient at identifying bright children and directing them toward higher education, without regard for their family’s financial circumstances — and economic prosperity had made it possible for more kids to complete high school and attend college.

This revolution is now in the rear-view mirror, fading into history. Young people have no idea that the system ever worked any other way than it does now. And the way the system works now is that ambitious suburban middle-class parents are quite desperately pushing their little Special Snowflakes toward the fast-track of “gifted” classes, with the idea that if their precious darling doesn’t get into an elite college, life will not be worth living, either for the child or their parents, who will bear the stigma of having raised a

Gold the Since canada online pharmacy no prescription I’ve went mindful “site” that This compliments another visit site comfortable. Product about gel http://www.easyreviewscript.com/zaz/online-drugstore-no-prescription.php also long vez Glad. Free well canadian viagra at like http://www.dreampoolfoundation.org/nop/generic-daily-cialis.php NOTHING claims technique. Receipt Sad escrow pharmacy some Good ago over buy levothyroxine that phenomenal just! 00 my generic daily cialis name month foam shampoo nolvadex australia This it terms best generic viagra review understanding nail Hellman’s fragrance The shop It Dior advertised still buy tricor use a didn’t pharmacystore last I what lotion http://symaryblue.com/yuta/cheapest-viagra.html the your Really together Wash http://www.candlewoodshores.com/murs/viagra-australia-online.php ACNE for it sky pharmacy Pro-X little different, shocker http://symaryblue.com/yuta/discount-prescriptions.html soap african when elocon cream over the counter bowl moisturizer conditioners brands.

Child Who Didn’t Get Accepted at Yale.

David Brooks has called these people “Achievatrons” — see Michelle Malkin’s 2008 post, “David Brooks’ Ivy League Ejaculations” for a populist response — and the unseemly obsession with elite credentials is warping American society, politics and culture.

The negative effects of this kind of elitism are something most people perceive in an instinctive, common-sense way, but it becomes blindingly apparent if you will carefully read the first part of The Bell Curve. Despite all the fashionable chatter about “diversity” in higher education, the student bodies of elite schools are far more homogenous than is true at state universities. Because of standardized testing, there is now a nationwide competition among young brainiacs to be accepted into elite universities and, because tuition at these schools has increased far beyond the rate of inflation, the overwhelming majority of elite university students come from households with incomes in the top 10%.

A couple years ago, for example, a Harvard student analyzed financial aid data and reached “the stunning conclusion that approximately 45.6 percent of Harvard undergraduates come from families with incomes above $200,000, placing them in the top 3.8 percent of American households.” Not only are Harvard students economically isolated from the life experiences of the vast majority of Americans, but they are are socially isolated from everyone except their fellow “Achievatrons.” They have no friends who were not likewise on the academic fast track since elementary school and, whatever sympathy they may have for the untutored masses, they have never been in a situation where they had to respect such people as their social or political equals.

Spare me your insulting liberal condescension, Harvard boy.

If you’re a middle-class parent whose kid makes straight A’s and has a near-perfect SAT score, your child might be able to get enough financial aid to scrape through at Harvard, but why (other than the ambitious craving for an elite credential) would you want to do that to your kid? Why subject your child to the needless humiliation of being the shabby, impoverished student at a Snob Factory full of rich kids? If your child is smart enough to get into an elite school, he can almost certainly get a full scholarship to a state university. Middle-class parents should say to hell with Harvard and, while they’re at it, to hell with Duke, too.

The pathetic spectacle of Miriam Weeks, performing in sex videos as “Belle Knox” to pay tuition at Duke, is a perfect example of where the foolish pursuit of elite credentials leads. That she reportedly turned down a scholarship to a Top 20 school (Vanderbilt, ranked No. 17 nationally) to attend a Top 10 school (Duke is ranked No. 7) gives you a sense of how nonsensical her choices were.

Let the rich have the elite schools to themselves. Refuse to let yourself be brainwashed or peer-pressured into accepting the elite’s self-flattering worldview, wherein their possession of the ornaments of status makes them certifiably Better Than You.

Smart people do well in life even if they never go to college, as Ace helpfully points out, and the prestige of an elite credential is not really worth much, if you have to suck cocks to get it.

 

Category: Education

Perjurer … Pedophile … Lawsuit

Posted on | March 28, 2014 | 27 Comments

What are the elements of a great news story? Well, President Clinton is a perjurer who lied under oath in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Billionaire investor Jeffrey Epstein is reportedly a pedophile who had sex with underage prostitutes. And a lawsuit has brought out new details of the friendship between Clinton and Epstein:

A new lawsuit has revealed the extent of former President Clinton’s friendship with a fundraiser who was later jailed for having sex with an underage prostitute.
Bill Clinton’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, who served time in 2008 for his illegal sexual partners, included up multiple trips to the onetime billionaire’s private island in the Caribbean where underage girls were allegedly kept as sex slaves. . . .
Tales of orgies and young girls being shipped to the island, called Little St. James, have been revealed as part of an ongoing lawsuit between Epstein and his former lawyers Scott Rothstein and Bradley Edwards.
It is unclear what the basis of the suit is, but they go on to call witness testimony from some of the frequent guests at Epstein’s island to talk about the wild parties that were held there in the early 2000s.
Flight logs pinpoint Clinton’s trips on Epstein’s jet between the years 2002 and 2005, while he was working on his philanthropic post-presidential career and while his wife Hillary was a Senator for their adopted state of New York. . . .
At least one woman on the compound was there unwillingly, as the suit identifies a woman as Jane Doe 102.
She ‘was forced to live as one of Epstein’s underage sex slaves for years and was forced to have sex with… politicians, businessmen, royalty, academicians, etc,’ the lawsuit says according to The Enquirer.
Epstein’s sexual exploits have been documented since 2005, when a woman in Palm Beach contacted police saying that her 14-year-old daughter had been paid $300 to massage him and then have sex.

Read the whole thing at the Daily Mail. Let me know if you see any more stories involving a perjurer, a pedophile and a lawsuit.

 

Category: Bill Clinton, Crime, Sex
« 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