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.

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

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.

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.

BridgeGate or … VaginaGate?

Posted on | March 28, 2014 | 49 Comments

Ace of Spades points out a disturbing fact:

The law firm’s report exonerating (supposedly) Christie says that key Bridgegate player Bridgie Kelly had a “personal relationship” with Christie’s then-campaign-manager, Bill Stepien, a relationship which had cooled — or soured — just before Kelly sent her infamous email, “Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee.”
The report claims the affair resulted in Kelly and Stepien barely communicating… and that this might have caused communication breakdowns regarding the Fort Lee lane closings.

“Indeed, that fact may have affected how Kelly and Stepien conducted themselves and whether they communicated about the lane realignment.”

[F]eminists are going to freak out at the (claimed) implication that a woman’s hormones caused all of this. The report doesn’t say that, and doesn’t really imply that, but, you know. You can get there if you really want to.
And MSNBC is going to really want to get there. “CHRIS CHRISTIE’S OLD BOYS CLUB BLAMES BRIDGEGATE ON WOMAN’S LIBIDO.” You heard it here first.

To digress — because I don’t give a damn about Chris Christie and consider speculation about his 2016 prospects absurd — this sheds a helpful light on the “unit cohesion” arguments against gays in the military, or having women in combat roles. Contrary to all the radical egalitarian politically correct bullshit on the subject, this is not an intellectual argument about “equality” or “rights”; it’s an argument about basic common sense and keeping troops alive.

Military success requires troops who are mission-focused and capable of effective teamwork. Introducing sexual tension or romantic feelings to this situation is a guaranteed formula for all kinds of bad outcomes, predictably including many outcomes — e.g., sexual harassment and rape — that the Left abhors. You should read Stephanie Gutmann’s The Kinder, Gentler Military, and you might also try talking to soldiers and their families. The success of the all-volunteer force and reductions in the size of the military mean that fewer and fewer Americans have any idea of what the lives of combat troops are like. And yes, I’m gonna tell a story about my Army son now.

The back of this T-shirt asks, ‘What do you do?’

They were set for one of their periodic training jumps at Fort Bragg, and my son was in the second flight. “Sleep discipline” means a soldier must be able to fall asleep at under any conditions, because sleep is a precious commodity in warfare. My son is naturally excellent in this regard, so while the troops in the second flight were waiting on the tarmac, he put on his Oakleys and nodded off.

He awoke to the sound of shouting: “YOUR RESERVE! PULL YOUR RESERVE! HIT YOUR RESERVE!” Bolting awake, my son looked up to see a troop high overhead falling from the sky. The main chute had failed and, although the falling troop obviously couldn’t hear the men on the tarmac, they reflexively shouted what was almost a prayer, knowing that the impending disaster overhead was something that might just as easily have happened to them.

Thank God, the reserve was deployed in time.

And then, moments later, two troops got their parachutes entangled with each other, and everybody on the tarmac went silent for the second or two it took for them to get untangled from what could have been another deadly situation. The instructors decided to cancel the second flight, and my son didn’t get to jump that day.

Military combat is a lethal business, and even in peacetime training exercises, death is not a possibility that can be ruled out. If you’ve read Scott McEwen and Richard Miniter’s new book about the Navy SEALs, Eyes on Target, you know that the biggest loss of life in SEAL history didn’t happen during a firefight. Fifteen members of SEAL Team Six, Gold Squad, were killed — along with 23 other service members — on Aug. 6, 2011, when a CH-47 helicopter (code named “Extortion 17”) was shot down in Afghanistan by an RPG.

You want to whine about fairness and equality?

Being on the tip of the spear is not the kind of “career opportunity” where complaints about discrimination and “social justice” belong. A liberal democracy cannot vote out of existence the decidedly undemocratic and non-liberal realities of warfare. Attempting to manipulate the armed forces to fit politically correct preconceptions will have a predictable result: Dead troops.

But I digress . . .

The BridgeGate report’s finding that a romantic relationship may have contributed to the mess doesn’t mean that the woman is to blame. It takes two to tango, and workplace romances predictably undermine staff morale without regard to who we blame. Suspicions of favoritism are one common consequence, along with resentments and hostilities and emotional turmoil, all of which are unnecessary distractions from a mission-focused attitude. Are we paying people to do their jobs,

or are we paying them to play hide-the-sausage? When people treat the workplace like a singles bar or a dating website, bad things happen, as the potential destruction of Chris Christie’s political future quite clearly illustrates.

Since we’re doing military-themed digressions, let me close by asking you to read Craig Henry’s excellent post about the dangers of poll-driven optimism leading to Republican overconfidence in the November mid-term election. He references the intelligence screw-up that made the Battle of the Bulge such a brutal surprise to the Allied high command in December 1944.

In The Mailbox, 03.28.14

Posted on | March 28, 2014 | 5 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER

THE TRANSOM
Proof Positive: Clubs Not His Strong Suit
First Street Journal: But, But, But They’re Blue States! How Can This Be?
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: Things I Learned About Politics By Playing Tropico
Michelle Malkin: A Whole Lotta Democrat Corruption Going On
Twitchy: Racist “Joke” Has People Calling For Comedy Central To #CancelColbert; Update – Tweet Deleted

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Add Iowa To The GOP’s Senate Pickup List
American Thinker: The October Surprise That Could Cripple The Practice Of Medicine
Conservatives4Palin: Governor Palin Endorses The Mama Grizzly Over The Clown – Julianne Ortman For #MNSen
Don Surber: Daily Scoreboard, May 27
Jammie Wearing Fools: State Department Gets Tough On Putin By Posting Selfies
Joe For America: Noah’s Sinking Ark
JustOneMinute: No Honor Among, Well, Progs
Pat Dollard: Cantor, McCarthy To Headline Anti-Tea Party Event
Protein Wisdom: Former Liberal Democrat Governor Richard Lamm’s Speech On How To Destroy America
Shot In The Dark: One Of The “Meta” Tribe
The Jawa Report: Can You Do Kindergarten Math?
The Lonely Conservative: Obama Got Reprimanded During His Visit With The Pope; Networks Ignore It
This Ain’t Hell: I Am An Army Nurse Now
Megan McArdle: Finding A House That Won’t Destroy You

Deadline to submit links for the FMJRA is noon tomorrow.
DO IT.
Deadline to submit links for Rule 5 Sunday is midnight tomorrow.
DO THAT TOO.

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

Posted on | March 28, 2014 | 43 Comments

Patterico catches Matthew Yglesias in a big fat stinking lie and the liar Yglesias reacts by lying about his lie. Yglesias actually blocked Patterico on Twitter, and Ezra Klein defended Yglesias’s lie.

Meanwhile, “Harry Reid Lied About Americans Being Liars, and

Now That He’s Busted, He’s Lying Again” — this is not unusual. Harry Reid is one of the most dishonest men ever to serve in the Senate, perhaps rivaling even the notoriously mendacious Ted Kennedy.

Maniac Feminist @LauraLevites Unleashes Anti-Christian Hatred

Posted on | March 28, 2014 | 97 Comments

The problem with trying to keep up with feminist insanity is, while you’re distracted by one deranged nutjob — say, Amanda Marcotte, or that fat chick with paranoid rape fears — another one is likely to go off her meds and completely melt down while you’re not looking.

Believe it or not, when she is not busy wishing violence upon people she’s never met, Laura Levites is a professional comedian.

Probably observational humor: “Did you ever notice those Republican women on TV? Wouldn’t you like to rip out their uterus?“

You’ll notice I’m screen-capping her tweets rather than just embedding them, because I figure Laura Levites will eventually go completely schizo like Amanda Bynes and get committed for psychiatric evaluation. Then her therapist will make her delete this crazy stuff, so I want to preserve the part where she death-wished a teenage girl.

See, this is what happens to women who take Amanda Marcotte seriously: They actually

believe that Hobby Lobby wants to take away their “reproductive choice” and, because they are soulless bloodthirsty baby-hating fanatics, this leads them to an existential crisis which can only be resolved by death-wishing innocent teenagers.

“Especially important is the warning to avoid conversations with the demon. . . . He is a liar. The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological, Damien, and powerful. So don’t listen to him. Remember that — do not listen.”
— The Exorcist (1973)

Some people — including Chris Loesch — are actually praying for Laura Levites’s salvation, but this is almost certainly a waste of prayer. Someone who openly delights in wickedness and curses Christians in such a foul manner is most likely possessed by demons.

Unless you’re prepared to conduct an exorcism, there is no hope at all for satanic monsters like Laura Levites.

Hey, Stop Raping Fat Chicks!

Posted on | March 27, 2014 | 122 Comments

Peter Paul Rubens, Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus (1618)

This public service announcement should not be necessary, but unfortunately there seems to be some confusion on the subject:

Rape culture is prevalent, insidious, and normalized in our culture. . . Fat women face an extra special facet of rape culture though — the fact that they should be grateful for it. You read that right — grateful for being raped. The logic goes that, of course, no one would want to touch a fat woman. We’re so gross, you know? So if someone was actually willing to have sex with us we should be on our knees with gratitude thanking that person for sharing their special snowflake of a dick with us. Some people even deny that it’s possible for fat women to be raped because, ew, who would want to have sex with a fattie? . . . Let’s be clear, while the reasons for rape are complicated and include a whole lot of things, dehumanization and objectification of women is at least one pretty large factor. And who doesn’t love to dehumanize and objectify fat women? Fat woman are simultaneously desexualized and oversexualized in our culture. Myths of fat women being always ready for sex, promiscuous, and never turning down sex abound. . . . Rape culture is where this desexualization and oversexualization intersect. No one could possibly want to have sex with you which is why you’re such a slut and sleep around and why you would be lucky if you get raped.

She’s arguing with the voices inside her head, projecting her own imaginary fears onto “our culture,” over-interpreting negative feedback, and seeking moral authority by striking a pose of outraged victimhood.

Which is to say, she’s a feminist.

Irrational screeds are impossible to refute, because logic cannot address a wild collection of anecdotes, subjective emotional responses and tendentious assertions, but let’s begin by acknowledging that (a) negative perceptions of fat people are widespread, however, (b) fat men are no less stigmatized than fat women, and (c) it is by no means evident that anti-fat bias is particularly implicated in “rape culture,” besides which (d) exactly what the hell does “rape culture” mean, anyway?

We were told that the Steubenville case was the pluperfect example of “rape culture” in action, but when all was said and done, the most obvious lesson of that saga was, drunk teenagers make very bad decisions, which is not exactly a startling revelation.

No responsible adult is in favor of teenage girls getting passed-out drunk at parties, nor are responsible adults in favor of drunk teenage boys taking advantage of passed-out teenage girls, but it seems that the teenagers in Steubenville weren’t under the supervision of responsible adults, and so something very bad happened. Except for the fact that evidence was captured in digital photos, videos and social-media messages produced by the perpetrators and their friends, there was nothing particularly significant about this crime.

Why, then, was Steubenville seized on as a drama about “rape culture”? Perhaps for the same reason that the death of Trayvon Martin became a drama about racism, or some people tried to turn the Kaitlyn Hunt case into a drama about homophobia.

There are activists and organizations with political agendas and, insofar as influential members of the media are sympathetic to those agendas, any conflict that dramatizes (or, at least, seems to dramatize) the activist agenda is ripe for exploitation. What is the result of this kind of journalistic activism? One result, predictable to any student of mass psychology, is that agenda-driven journalism spawns something akin to a copycat syndrome. Just as a highly publicized murder may be imitated by a “copycat killer,” likewise media publicity for victimhood dramas can inspire some people to say, “Me, too! I’m a victim! Help me!”

It is from this media-influenced copycat syndrome that fake “hate” hoaxes originate. Alec Torres at National Review provides a listing of recent hate hoaxes, including the infamous case of University of Wyoming feminist Meg Lanker-Simons, who fabricated Facebook threats to “hate-f**k” herself.

“I want to hatef–k Meg Lanker Simons so hard. That chick that runs her liberal mouth all the time and doesn’t care who knows it. I think its hot and it makes me angry. One night with me and shes gonna be a good Republican b–ch.”

Totally fake, and why? Well, the liberal media spent many months in 2012 promoting the phony “War on Women” meme, and the same media turned the Steubenville story into a “rape culture” drama, and if a lonely feminist in Laramie, Wyoming, was desperate for attention, what better way to get attention than to manufacture a Republican rape threat?

So here we are, in the spring of 2014, when some feminists are staging “Fat Justice” seminars on college campuses, while other feminists are declaring that all heterosexual intercourse is rape. Nobody therefore should be surprised that a plus-sized feminist would claim fat women are victims of “an extra special facet of rape culture” in the allegedly widespread belief that fat women should be “grateful for being raped.”

Do some people, in mocking feminist rhetoric about rape, express such an attitude? Certainly they do, but sarcastic mockery is one thing, and actual rape is another thing. And this is an important distinction the hysteria over “rape culture” is intended to obscure. Everybody agrees that rape is a crime that should be prosecuted; feminist rhetoric about “rape culture,” on the other hand, is a sort of consciousness-raising project that aims to change the way we talk about sex.

The “rape culture” campaign is about punishing speech — including innocuous jokes — and ultimately about silencing criticism of feminist ideology: “Shut up, because rape!”

If the media are “uncritically fascinated” with rape culture, why? “Nothing catches an editor’s eye like a good rape,” as Hunter S. Thompson observed in Hell’s Angels. If a feminist crusade gives BuzzFeed a sneaky way to appeal to prurient interests, why not?

“Rape culture,” like slideshows of adorable kittens, is good for web traffic. But we ought not confuse BuzzFeed’s search-engine optimization strategies with reality, and if feminists and their liberal media friends are making fat women paranoid about rape, this is a problem entirely separate from actual rape. Mocking feminists and mocking the media are not the same thing as mocking rape or mocking fat women.

Besides, mockery is pretty much my full-time job.

Welcome to the Internet, fatso.

(Hat-tip: @UnknownNameDoe on Twitter.)

UPDATE: At least one commenter has noticed that I illustrated this post with a painting by the 17th-century master Rubens, from whose plump female figures we derive the term “Rubenesque” to describe a woman who is pleasantly plump.

So, you might ask, is the author of the feminist “fat rape” screed a Rubenesque figure? You can go see for yourself.

By the way, she has already been the subject of a Reddit thread.

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

• Log in
• Wordpress
• XHTML