‘Male Feminist’ Professor Michael Kimmel Accused of Sexual Harassment

Posted on | August 6, 2018 | Comments Off on ‘Male Feminist’ Professor Michael Kimmel Accused of Sexual Harassment

Nothing is more predictable than a “male feminist” being a creep. Notice how the Chronicle of Higher Education buries the lead here:

A sociologist at Stony Brook University who was slated to receive a national award this month for his career?long contributions to gender equality will delay accepting the award for six months, in light of rumors he said were circulating about his professional behavior.
Michael Kimmel, a professor of sociology and gender studies at Stony Brook, said in a statement released on Wednesday that he wanted to give those who feel they have been mistreated by him time to file complaints with the American Sociological Association.
Kimmel, who founded Stony Brook’s Center for the Study of Men and Masculinities in 2013, had been announced as the 2018 recipient of the Jessie Bernard Award, which was to be given this month at the association’s annual meeting in Philadelphia. The award recognizes scholarly work over a person’s career “that has enlarged the horizons of sociology to encompass fully the role of women in society.”
“I have been informed that there are rumors circulating about my professional conduct that suggest I have behaved unethically.” Kimmel, who has been anonymously accused of sexual harassment by former students, has written several books including Guyland: the Perilous World Where Boys Become Men and Angry White Men: American Masculinity at the End of an Era. On his website, he describes himself as “an activist for gender equality for more than 30 years.” . . .
In an email to The Chronicle on Wednesday in response to questions about his statement and anonymous accusations of sexual harassment, Kimmel wrote that he appreciated the association’s willingness to “extend the timeline for the vetting process.”
“I’ve spent my entire career advocating for gender equality, and believe I have been professional and respectful in my relationships with women,” he wrote. . . .

You have to go 14 paragraphs deep into this article before finally encountering the substance of the accusations against Kimmel:

A former graduate student who asked not to be identified, fearing retaliation, told The Chronicle that Kimmel suggested about six weeks into her graduate study, and then later in her career, that they sleep together. She said he complimented her on her appearance and told her that because of her looks, she’d have to work hard to prove to people that she wasn’t sleeping with someone to get where she was. “I think he thought he was being helpful,” she said.
Feeling her main worth was as a “pretty object,” who titillated other scholars, her confidence in her work plummeted and she “sabotaged” opportunities to publish, she said. She called it a “travesty” that he was receiving the Jessie Bernard award. Kimmel declined to comment on the specific allegations.
One female sociologist who has been a leader in the association but who asked to remain anonymous told The Chronicle that she had heard similar accusations from other female scholars about Kimmel “through the whisper network.” She said that “no one is comfortable coming forward and there’s not a lot our professional organization can do without a person willing to make a first?hand claim.”

You can read the whole thing (thanks to Philip Cohen on Twitter).

How shall we address this? There is no accusation, so far as we know, that Professor Kimmel was offering a quid pro quo to the anonymous graduate student. He merely “suggested . . . that they sleep together.” We may assume that she rejected this suggestion, and she does not claim that Professor Kimmel treated her badly as a consequence of this rejection.

There are also “similar accusations . . . through the whisper network,” but unless there is something worse than this, most people would not believe that Professor Kimmel is the Harvey Weinstein of academia.

Let’s talk about the concept of “sexual harassment” in general. Professor Kimmel is married to Fordham University Professor Amy Aronson, and if he was banging a graduate student, that would be adultery. However, feminism has no concept of sexual morality. Feminism endorses any kind of perverse and deviant sexual activity, so long as it’s consensual, and because their ideology is explicitly anti-marriage and anti-religion, feminists are scarcely in a position to accuse Professor Kimmel of violating the Seventh Commandment: “Sinner!”

The anonymous former graduate student doesn’t accuse Professor Kimmel of groping her against her will or anything like that. Unless the rumored “similar accusations” include non-consensual behavior, what he stands accused of is (a) commenting on the student’s good looks, and (b) saying that he’d be interested in having sex with her.

BREAKING NEWS: HETEROSEXUAL MAN
LIKES GOOD-LOOKING WOMEN!

Is it too much to expect people in academia to behave like grown-ups? If you’re a 23-year-old graduate student, and a professor makes a pass at you, can’t you just brush him off politely? “I’m flattered, Professor, but you’re a married man, and besides, I’m a feminist who hates all men, you disgusting heteropatriarchal oppressor.”

Far be it from me, however, to defend a “male feminist.” Nothing would make me happier than seeing Professor Kimmel’s reputation and career destroyed by a full-scale #MeToo witch-hunt. If he were to be bankrupted by lawsuits and sent to federal prison, I would celebrate his destruction. In fact, I’m half tempted to tip the FBI to my suspicion that Professor Kimmel is a dangerous sexual predator who has committed crimes so heinous that I would hesitate even to describe them in print. If the FBI did a quick check of his passport history and discovered he’s made trips to Thailand or Cambodia, I wouldn’t be surprised. But I digress . . .

My suspicions about Professor Kimmel are merely suspicions, however, based on the fact that 100% of “male feminists” are creeps.

Look: Guys want to get laid. This should not shock anyone. However, when a guy makes a point of ostentatiously declaring himself “an activist for gender equality,” we should be suspicious of his motives.

P.S.: I highly recommend Professor Daphne Patai’s Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism as an analysis of this subject. Chapter 6 (pp. 129-167) offers an in-depth examination of the anti-heterosexual ideology of academic feminism.

Category: Education, Sex Trouble

Rule Five Sunday: Summer Event Silliness

Posted on | August 5, 2018 | 3 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

One of the perennial tropes in anime and manga is the “beach episode” where everyone heads for the beach and we get to see everyone in their swimsuits. The phone game Fate/Grand Order (based on Fate/Stay Night) is no exception, with a two-week Summer Event featuring a tropical island and a number of female servants in attractive swimwear – including the Celtic goddess of death, Scathach, who’s actually off-screen for most of the event.

The very definition of cute but deadly.

Ninety Miles From Tyranny brings us Hot Pick of the Late Night, The 90 Miles Mystery Box Episode #335, Morning Mistress, and Girls With Guns. At Animal Magnetism, it’s Rule Five Economic Illiteracy Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon.

EBL continues on her fishy ways with Darcizzle Fishing, Friday Night Fishing, Bigfoot Erotica, Sarah Jeong, Alison Krauss, Sandwiches, National Watermelon Day, and Multicultural Fishing.

A View From The Beach has Jennifer Aniston Just Walked Away, Poles Invent Pussy Beer, Friday Beach Fashion, More DIY Russiagate, Wet T-Shirt Thursday, A Deal is a Deal, “Walking Blues”, The Prudes Are Winning, and #ThemToo: Six Women Come Out With Accusations Against CBS’s Les Moonves.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Julie Engelbrecht, his Vintage Babe is Elena Verdugo, and Sex in Advertising is covered by Victoria Is Hiding Something. At Dustbury, it’s Nelydia Senrose and Laura Harring.

Thanks to everyone for the luscious linkagery!

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop
Amazon Fashion – Jewelry For Women

Category: Rule 5

Woman-Hating @UKLabour Party Not Sure If They Also Hate Jews Enough

Posted on | August 5, 2018 | Comments Off on Woman-Hating @UKLabour Party Not Sure If They Also Hate Jews Enough

Britain’s left-wing Labour Party has alienated many women, first by enabling Muslim rape gangs that preyed on English girls and then by taking sides with transgender activists against women on various issues. Not to mention the accusations of widespread abusive behavior toward women by Labour officials. Now, it seems, Labour can’t decide whether anti-Semitism is a bad thing:

Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, says that the party will “disappear into a vortex of eternal shame and embarrassment” and render itself unfit for government, unless it calls an immediate halt to damaging arguments over antisemitism.
Speaking to the Observer, Watson called on Jeremy Corbyn to drop without delay internal inquiries into two Labour MPs — Margaret Hodge and Ian Austin — who both lost family members in the Holocaust and now face possible disciplinary charges after furious outbursts over the party’s stance on antisemitism. . . .
Writing in the Guardian, Corbyn attempted to call a halt to arguments with the Jewish community and many of his own MPs by acknowledging the party has “a real problem” over the issue, insisting that people who express antisemitic views “have no place in our movement”. . . .
Watson’s intervention came as Corbyn was forced to “entirely disassociate” himself from an organisation whose website lists him as a member of its international advisory panel and which openly supported a prominent writer convicted of Holocaust denial. In 1996, the Just World Trust, an international NGO that has been a trenchant critic of Israel, wrote a letter defending the controversial French philosopher Roger Garaudy, who denied that the killing of Jews by the Nazis constituted genocide. . . .
“Jeremy Corbyn must be the unluckiest anti-racist in history,” said Dave Rich, head of policy at the Community Security Trust, the charity set up to protect the Jewish community. “He repeatedly manages to get involved with organisations and people that promote antisemitism and Holocaust denial, apparently without ever noticing anything is amiss. It’s the same old excuse and it wore thin long ago.”

Well, if you’re going to side with transgender activists who claim women can have penises, what’s a little Holocaust denial? And how much of Labour’s hatred of capitalism is really about hating Jews?

Category: Great Britain

Yes, Twitter Is Biased. Next Question?

Posted on | August 5, 2018 | 1 Comment

Anyone with two eyes and a brain already knew this. Now confirmed:

After Twitter was caught last month “shadow-banning” Republicans, while giving Democrats unrestricted voice, the social-media giant insisted it has no political agenda. But records of its political contributions show board members, top executives and major shareholders have all given overwhelmingly to Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while snubbing Republicans and Donald Trump. . . .
“We enforce our rules without political bias,” Twitter Chief Legal Officer Vijaya Gadde said in a statement.
But Republicans aren’t buying it. They blame the unequal treatment on political bias, and they argue the timing is suspicious. They say Republican voices are being suppressed on the 355 million-user platform just months before the highly contentious November congressional elections.
They certainly have a point about bias. Senior Twitter executives heavily favor Democrats over Republicans in their political giving.
Federal Election Commission records show that Gadde, for starters, has given exclusively to Democratic candidates, including the maximum donations allowed to both Clinton’s and Obama’s campaigns. In 2016, she gave $2,700 to Democratic candidate Kamala Harris of California, who won her US Senate bid.
Twitter CEO and co-founder Jack Dorsey also donates only to Democrats. And in 2017, he and executive chairman Omid Kordestani together donated $530,000 to the ACLU to fight Trump’s executive order imposing a temporary travel ban on immigrants from high-risk Muslim countries, which Dorsey called “upsetting” but which the Supreme Court recently ruled constitutional. All told, Twitter gave $1.6 million to the anti-Trump ban effort.
Kordestani is a big Democrat donor, contributing the maximums to Clinton and Obama, as well as to former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. In 2011, moreover, the Tehran-born exec gave $35,800 to the Obama Victory Fund and another $30,800 to the Democratic National Committee. . . .

Details, details. We already knew Twitter was a dishonest partisan operation. Their claim to believe in free speech was another Democrat lie.

(Hat-tip: Instapundit.)

Category: Media Bias

FMJRA 2.0: Space Age Love Affair

Posted on | August 5, 2018 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

California Is a ‘No-Go Zone’: Trump Supporters Attacked by Democrat Thugs
The Pirate’s Cove
The Political Hat
EBL

No, America, @JessicaValenti Doesn’t Want to Help Your Sons, She Hates Them
EBL

ICE Seeks Fugitive Sex Trafficker
EBL

Suspect Charged With Trafficking Girl, 17
EBL

Police Make Sex Trafficking Arrest
EBL

Two Men Sentenced to Federal Prison for Sex Trafficking of ‘Fun Size’ Girl, 15
EBL

Pimp Who Trafficked 16-Year-Old Girl Sentenced to 30 Years in Federal Prison
EBL

‘The Monstrous Regiment of Women’
EBL

FMJRA 2.0: Day Late & A Dollar Short
A View From The Beach
EBL

Illegal Alien Sentenced for Raping Girl
EBL

Italian Official: ‘A Country Which Does Not Create Children Is Destined to Die’
EBL

In The Mailbox: 07.30.18
A View From The Beach
EBL

Online Dating Is for Losers and Also Rapists on Coast-to-Coast Crime Sprees
EBL

‘Gender Equality’ Achieved in Canada
Pushing Rubber Downhill
EBL

Good Riddance to Teresa Sullivan
EBL

In The Mailbox: 07.31.18
Proof Positive
EBL

When Atheist Vegan Hippies Go Bad
EBL

Rule 5 Tuesday Weld
Animal Magnetism
Ninety Miles From Tyranny
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive
EBL

In The Mailbox: 08.01.18
Proof Positive
EBL

Why Is the CIA Hiring Perverts?
The Dusty Thanes
EBL

Notice @AceOfSpadesHQ Has Gone Full Populist? (And More Trump-Era News)
The Dusty Thanes
EBL

Fringe Extremist Hate-Monger @SarahJeong Hired by New York Times
357 Magnum
Pushing Rubber Downhill
A View From The Beach
EBL

In The Mailbox: 08.02.18
Proof Positive
EBL

McCain’s Law of Feminism and the Memoir of Phyllis Chesler
EBL

Why Does @SarahJeong Hate Jesus?
A View From The Beach
EBL

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge
EBL

In The Mailbox: 08.03.18
Proof Positive
EBL

The Communist Conspiracy to Destroy America Was Real, and Continues

Posted on | August 4, 2018 | 1 Comment

“The weaknesses of the capitalistic world which we can use are its insuperable antagonisms — antagonisms which dominate the whole international situation.”
— Josef Stalin

Alan Stang, who died in 2009, was a journalist and public speaker who became associated with the John Birch Society. In 1965, Stang published a book entitled It’s Very Simple: The True Story Of Civil Rights.

About 25 years ago, in a used bookstore, I picked up a copy of It’s Very Simple for 50 cents and was struck by its argument — supported by extensive documentation — that the civil-rights movement in the United States was part of the Communist conspiracy to destroy America. Now, I suppose that any educated young person reading Stang’s old book today would dismiss it as “racist,” and laugh at the idea of a Communist conspiracy, even while the same young person would give credence to the idea that Russia “hacked” the 2016 election. However, I would urge such a reader to purchase Stang’s book (used copies are available for as little as $7 on Amazon) and examine the arguments and evidence he offers.

It’s Very Simple makes two basic points:

That racial conflicts in the United States were unnecessary, but were being incited to divide and weaken the country;
and
This subversive activity was being fomented and exploited by agents of the Soviet Union as part of a larger international strategy for worldwide Communist domination.

Crazy? Yeah, almost as crazy as thinking a handful of GRU agents could have decisively influenced the presidential election.

We have abundant proof, of course, that Communists (e.g., Alger Hiss) were actively engaged in a conspiracy to subvert the U.S. government, and we know that during the Cold War, America was targeted by Soviet propaganda and disinformation operations. It is also a fact of history that Communists were active in the civil-rights movement; J. Edgar Hoover didn’t just invent Stanley Levison and Jack O’Dell.

All of this, however, is preamble to my point that Communism did not cease to exist as an idea when the Soviet Union collapsed. Communism, in one form or another, is promoted on American university campuses, by left-wing media organizations, and by Democrat politicians. And what is nowadays called “identity politics” is a legacy of Cold War-era Soviet strategy of exacerbating the “weaknesses” and “antagonisms” which Stalin saw as the means of fomenting worldwide revolution.

The vast majority of Americans do not spend their days brooding about race and gender, or arguing about “social justice.” Most Americans don’t care about politics except at election time, and still less do they view their lives in “intersectional” terms of oppression and privilege. In other words, ordinary Americans just live their lives — working to pay their bills, raising their kids, watching TV — without giving any thought to racism or sexism or anything else that concerns the “educated left wing elite,” to use Sarah Jeong’s description of herself. There would be no real racial conflict in America, were it not for activists who foment division among us. These activists want to destroy America.

You don’t have to believe this is a conspiracy to see how it operates. Those we now commonly call “social justice warriors” are, for the most part, amateurs who have been indoctrinated by professional activists to believe a crypto-Marxist ideology wherein the world is a zero-sum-game where success is a function of privilege and failure is explained as a result of oppression. To crusade on behalf of the victims of oppression — racial minorities, women, homosexuals — is therefore a sort of missionary project, a duty of the True Believer. This is why you get so many white people running around pointing the finger of blame at other white people: “RAAAAACIST!” This doesn’t actually benefit black people, but it makes the white SJW feel better about himself. And the more people spend their time attacking each other over bogus accusations like this, the more our society becomes weakened and divided.

UCLA is paying 18 students $13/hour to combat “social injustices” and “privilege and oppression” on campus, shelling out up to $42,000 per year for the program. The “Diversity Peer Leaders” program is funded through the school’s mandatory “Student Services Fee,” to which each student contributes $1,128 every academic year.

What tangible benefit can this possibly achieve? Isn’t the purpose of a university to prepare young people for adult life? Aren’t they supposed to be gaining useful skills and knowledge to enable them to participate effectively in the workplace? To earn a living and support their families?

By diverting resources away from useful educational activity in order to fund “social justice” activism, universities are undermining the economic basis of our society. Why? To destroy America.

When kids waste four years, amassing unsustainable student loan debt, to acquire diplomas that don’t actually qualify them for anything productive or useful to society, this damages our society as a whole. The annual cost of attending UCLA for in-state students is $28,697, including room and board, and what are they learning? To become neo-Stalinist commissars of political correctness? How does that benefit society?

What does UCLA’s Gender Studies program produce except a supply of credentialed ideologues who make life miserable for the rest of us? Such programs are a waste of time and money, a diversion of resources from productive activity, permanently warping the minds of students.

If Putin wants to sabotage American democracy, he could do nothing better than what UCLA and other elite universities are doing.

Category: Conspiracy Theories, Education, History

The Left’s Pyrrhic Victory (and When Did Everybody Become ‘Alt-Right’?)

Posted on | August 4, 2018 | Comments Off on The Left’s Pyrrhic Victory (and When Did Everybody Become ‘Alt-Right’?)

Let me begin by congratulating Sarah Jeong on becoming America’s most successful young hate-monger. She is arguably more racist than Richard Spencer, and yet is employed by the New York Times, and Vox is celebrating this as a victory over the “alt-right”:

She’s also an outspoken progressive and feminist, making her an obvious target for the right-wing internet mobs that have been especially active of late, launching organized smear campaigns against left-leaning celebrities by weaponizing their old jokes and tweets.
The most high-profile recent example of this is Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn, who was fired by Disney after a concerted push to dredge up and circulate several of Gunn’s old tweets. Many of the tweets contained jokes about topics like rape and pedophilia — but they were also several years old, purposely taken out of context, and pointedly curated and misrepresented to paint a very specific picture of Gunn with the express goal of getting him fired.
A similar thing happened to Jeong, and the resulting fray became something of a test for the New York Times, as well as a test of the power of alt-right internet mobs. In this case, the mob lost — which might be a sign that one of the alt-right’s signature trolling tactics is losing its effectiveness.

This interpretation includes so many wild distortions that I hesitate to begin unpacking them all. For example, there was no “context” for James Gunn’s “jokes” about rape and pedophilia. You can’t take something out of context if there is no context to begin with; what Gunn’s tweets showed is that, before the Internet feminist brigades began their #MeToo crusades, such remarks were acceptable as “edgy” humor on the Left. And given what we know about Hollywood in the wake of the scandals surrounding Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Bryan Singer, et al., it is by no means certain that Gunn was merely joking.

Furthermore, it is absurd to describe research into a public figure’s past writings — on Twitter or anywhere else — as a “trolling tactic,” which is certainly not limited to the “alt-right.” Media Matters actually made this their “signature” tactic, compiling dossiers on various conservative media personalities in an effort to discredit them. Rush Limbaugh has been doing 15 hours of talk radio for 30 years, and so it is easy for the Left’s Argus-eyed media monitors to accumulate various things he’s said which, when “taken out of context,” make him look like a disreputable ogre.

Ask any conservative hate-listed by the SPLC (me, for example) what it’s like to work for decades to achieve a successful career and then be labeled a menace to society based on some left-wing ideologue’s interpretation. The Left has been smearing the Right this way for so long — they did it to Barry Goldwater, they did it Ronald Reagan, they do it to every conservative — that we scarcely even notice it anymore.

What has happened in recent years is that the Right has begun to fight fire with fire, and the Left calls this “harassment.” This was the basic story of #GamerGate: Videogame enthusiasts had grown tired of their hobby being targeted by “social justice warriors” (SJWs) and decided to fight back. Defending themselves against the organized lobby of politically correct censors and critical-theory busybodies (e.g., Anita Sarkeesian), the #GamerGate crew were accused of “misogyny” and “haraassment.” And this exposes the double-standard: When the Left attacks the videogame industry, this is “activism”; when gamers fight back, this is “harassment.” Likewise, when left-wing outfits use the past words of conservatives to brand them racist, this is “research”; when the tables are turned, liberals call it “trolling.”

As John Sexton at Hot Air notes, the Left is defending Sarah Jeong’s anti-white hatred as simply “the way the social justice left talks”:

“White people” is a shorthand in these communities, one that’s used to capture the way that many whites still act in clueless and/or racist ways. It’s typically used satirically and hyperbolically to emphasize how white people continue to benefit (even unknowingly) from their skin color, or to point out the ways in which a power structure that favors white people continues to exist.

Having engaged in a bit of satirical hyperbole myself, I call bulls–t here. It’s a blatant double-standard — one rule for liberals, another rule for everybody else — that permits “the social justice left” to engage in blatant hate-mongering, while conservatives are compelled to tiptoe carefully and watch every word lest they accidentally say something that might somehow be interpreted as “racism.” What conservatives need to do is to start calling the Left’s rhetoric what it is: hate propaganda.

Here she is! @nytimes pic.twitter.com/yPIOf0qF1T

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) August 4, 2018

“Everything is implicitly organized around how men see the world — and not just men, how white men see the world — and this is a problem, this is why so many things suck.”
— Sarah Jeong, Oct. 27, 2015

Clay Waters at Newsbusters notes how “alt-right” is used as a smear:

While Jeong’s critics were given the hostile ideological labels and smeared as “alt-right,” her obviously liberal journalistic defenders needed no label besides “journalists.”
The media has defined “alt-right” as racist and violent, so lumping the “alt-right” in with mainstream conservative publications that have called out Jeong’s tweets for racism amounts to a slur.

You see how the “alt-right” label is an attempt to discredit criticism, implying that anyone who objects to Ms. Jeong’s words is some sort of extremist troglodyte, engaged in “bullying” and “harassment.” By this rhetorical device, the vicious hate-monger Sarah Jeong is magically transformed into a heroic victim, a martyr for “social justice.”

We have a way to defeat this. It’s called “voting.”

Donald Trump is president in large measure because millions of Americans are tired of being demonized — racist! sexist! homophobe! — as a rhetorical substitute for any actual policy the Democrats might offer. Americans were expected to vote for Obama to prove they weren’t racist, and many were OK with that, but when it was demanded that they vote for Hillary Clinton to prove they weren’t sexist, they said, “Hell, no.”

Let the Left celebrate its pyrrhic victory, making the New York Times synonymous with the hate propaganda spewed by Sarah Jeong.

Instapundit explains how this should work out:

By keeping her on and defending her, the New York Times — and the blue-check tribe on Twitter that’s been taking her side — is playing into Trump’s hands. See, Trump can say, this is what they really think of you. Because, you know, it is.

November 6 is barely three months away.

Category: Donald Trump, Media Bias, New York Times