Rape Culture: ‘Teach Her a Lesson’

Posted on | July 2, 2017 | 2 Comments

Justin Fedrick (left) and Keon Gordon (right) are wanted by police in Florida.

Feminists have often lectured us in recent years about the plague of “rape culture” on elite university campuses, where “male privilege” is blamed for sexual violence against women alleged perpetrated by wealthy fraternity boys. We therefore cannot expect feminists to notice this crime:

Florida police are searching for a pair of men accused of kidnapping and raping a woman to “teach her a lesson” about dating black men, officials said.
Justin Akken Fedrick, 27, and Keon Dellshai Gordon, 26 are wanted for sexually battering a woman at a Clermont home on June 22, according to a press release from the Clermont Police Department. A third suspect, 32-year-old Rodney Cooper, has already been arrested for his involvement in the case.
The victim told authorities she was spending time with friends when Cooper pushed her inside a bedroom and then guarded the door while Fedrick and Gordon allegedly attacked her, according to a police report cited by the Orlando Sentinel.
The suspects allegedly told her: “We’re going to teach you a lesson about dating a black man, and white [women] dont mean [expletive] in this town.”
Fedrick and Gordon then allegedly warned her against going to authorities, promising they’d make things “ten times worse next time” if she did, according to the report.
The victim chose to make a run for it and texted her boyfriend for help around 3 a.m, telling him she was “bleeding and limping somewhere in the neighborhood.” He called authorities, who found the woman wandering along Disston Avenue.
Police arrested and charged Cooper with kidnapping the following day. He was being held at the Lake County Jail on a $50,000 bond, the Sentinel reported.
Authorities have also issued warrants for Fedrick and Gordon, who they suspect are still in the Central Florida area, according to the press release. Police warned both suspects “should be considered armed and dangerous and have a history of violence.”

Maybe you could contact some prominent feminists on Twitter — Amanda Marcotte, Jessica Valenti, Jaclyn Friedman and Alexander Brodsky, for example — and ask them when they’ll write about this case.

This might be the "rape culture" feminists have been warning us about. https://t.co/xKCc1B3w7p @instapundit

— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) July 2, 2017

Alas, “Haven Monahan” could not be reached for comment.

(Hat-tip: Kirby McCain on Twitter.)

Category: Crime, Sex Trouble

FMJRA 2.0: Painkiller

Posted on | July 1, 2017 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule 5 Sunday: Guns In The Desert
Animal Magnetism
Ninety Miles From Tyranny
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive
EBL

FMJRA 2.0: Cords
The Pirate’s Cove
A View From The Beach
EBL

Look for the ‘Hate’ Label (or, Why Everybody’s a ‘Far-Right’ Extremist Now)
The Political Hat
Blazing Cat Fur
EBL

Emergency Tip-Jar Appeal
EBL

In The Mailbox: 06.26.17
Proof Positive

The Original Moonbat Professor: Update on the Insanity of Deborah Frisch, Ph.D.
EBL

In The Mailbox: 06.27.17
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive
EBL

In The Mailbox: 06.28.17
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive

In The Mailbox: 06.29.17
A View From The Beach
Proof Positive
EBL

The Brutal Truth About Feminism
A View From The Beach
EBL

Harvard Is Decadent and Depraved
A View From The Beach
EBL

In The Mailbox: 06.30.17
Proof Positive
EBL

Feminist ‘Success’ (Or, Never Bet Against the Gods of the Copybook Headings)

Posted on | July 1, 2017 | 2 Comments

“It is necessary to unite and fight to protect ourselves from exploitation as the world’s baby-makers.”
— Carol Hanisch, March 2014

“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . I don’t want a baby. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, March 2014

“Feminists don’t just hate men. They don’t just hate Republicans. Feminists hate the most helpless and innocent human lives. The road to feminism’s imagined utopia of ‘equality’ is paved with dead babies.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, April 2017

Feminism is a death cult. The feminist movement’s commitment to abortion as the essence of “women’s rights” tells you everything you need to know about their ideology. Consider, for example, how the feminist insistence on mandatory health insurance coverage for contraception catapulted Sandra Fluke into national notoriety in 2012, and became the basis of claim that Republicans were waging a “war on women.” As was demonstrated at the time, the cost of birth-control pills was less than $10 for a month’s supply, scarcely a major expense for Ms. Fluke and her fellow students at Georgetown University (annual tuition $50,547). However, Georgetown is a nominally Catholic institution and a loophole in ObamaCare had exempted (under a “conscience clause”) such institutions from the federal mandate that all health insurance must pay for contraception. Furthermore, now that Congress is wrangling with repealing and replacing ObamaCare, a major stumbling block is that conservative Republicans want to end federal funding for Planned Parenthood (the nation’s largest abortion provider) while Democrats and their feminist allies insist that this funding is sacrosanct.

Feminism is, and always has been, anti-marriage and anti-motherhood. You could cite a long list of feminists — from movement pioneers like Shulamith Firestone, Ti-Grace Atkinson and Gloria Steinem to such latter-day ideologues as Amanda Marcotte, Jaclyn Friedman and Meghan Murphy — without ever naming a woman who has given birth to a child.

This implacable hostility to motherhood, of course, is a logical consequence of feminism’s anti-male agenda. When the modern feminist movement first erupted in the late 1960s, their rhetoric involved condemnation of “male chauvinism” or “sexism.” Adapting the terminology of the civil rights movement (as opposition to “white supremacy”), feminists also used the phrase “male supremacy” to define their enemy. However, within a few years, the movement’s intellectual leadership substituted, as the preferred description of their ideological target, a term borrowed from anthropology, patriarchy. Originally coined (from the Greek words for “father” and “rule”) to refer to the primitive system of tribal authority under male elders, “patriarchy” was borrowed by feminists from the Communist Party co-founder Friedrich Engels, who used such phrases as “patriarchal order” and “the patriarchal family” in his 1884 treatise Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. As used by feminists, however, “patriarchy” means . . . well, just about anything a feminist doesn’t like. Yet if this word still has any actual meaning, then when the feminist denounces “patriarchy,” she especially intends to condemn men for their roles as fathers.

“Fatherhood, the exercise of men’s authority over women and children, is the position of men in the family,” feminists Jo Sutton and Scarlet Friedman wrote in 1979. “It is the means of instilling in the family members a recognition and acceptance of, and acquiescence to, male authority. . . . The end is political self-perpetuation, that is, the continuation and reproduction of male supremacy.”

We must observe that “male authority” and “male supremacy,” as used by feminists, are just synonyms for male influence. Ask any married father who much “authority” and “supremacy” he exercises within his family, and he will likely laugh at you. A happily married friend of mine, when invited recently to attend a social occasion, responded: “I don’t know. Let me check with the boss,” meaning his wife. That this friend is a retired military officer and a highly skilled professional in his civilian career, is of no consequence in terms of his “male authority” within his marriage. As far as his domestic and social life is concerned, he cannot act without his wife’s permission, or else risk her wrath, and this situation prevails in every marriage of long endurance with which I am familiar. Husbands refer to their wives as “boss” with both affection and irony, because no matter how much success and respect a man might obtain in his job, it counts for practically nothing on the home front. “If mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy,” as the saying goes, and for feminists to denounce the family as an institution of “male supremacy” is a claim so counterfactual as to be quite nearly the opposite of reality. Their rhetoric, of course, conceals the actual purpose of feminism, namely the complete negation of male influence. Feminists do not actually seek equality, but rather advocate a totalitarian regime in which men have no rights at all, not even the right to speak in their own defense. In attacking fatherhood as “the exercise of men’s authority,” what feminists actually intend is to deprive men of any influence at all in the lives of their own offspring. In the feminist mind, males exist only as a caste of despised servants, assigned to work to pay child support and taxes for welfare programs: “Shut up and pay.” The fatherless family is the feminist ideal.

In practice, the “success” of feminism’s anti-male agenda has resulted in 40% of U.S. children being born to unmarried women, even while the feminist death-cult devotion to abortion and contraception greatly reduces the overall birth rate. Congratulations, feminists!

The number of women giving birth has been declining for years and just hit a historic low. If the trend continues . . . the country could face economic and cultural turmoil.
According to provisional 2016 population data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday, the number of births fell 1 percent from a year earlier, bringing the general fertility rate to 62.0 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. . . .
A country’s birthrate is among the most important measures of demographic health. The number needs to be within a certain range, called the “replacement level,” to keep a population stable so that it neither grows nor shrinks. If too low, there’s a danger that we wouldn’t be able to replace the aging workforce and have enough tax revenue to keep the economy stable.

When you start digging down into the CDC report (PDF), you discover that, despite the trendy belief that advances in reproductive technology will somehow solve this problem, particularly by enabling older women to become mothers, the data prove the demographic axiom that “fertility delayed is fertility denied.” The majority (55%) of babies are born to women under 30, whereas only 3% of U.S. births were to women 40 and older. The CDC report doesn’t provide adequate historical context for the lay reader to understand what is driving this trend, but in 1983 (the year I graduated college), the average age of first-time mothers was 23, whereas in 2014, the average first-time mother was 26. Keep in mind, however, that the average age of first-time mothers does not reflect the percentage of women who never have children — and childlessness has increased substantially in recent decades. Whereas in 1976, 10% of U.S. women ages 40-44 (i.e., born 1932-36) had never given birth, by 2006, this figure had doubled to 20% (for women born 1962-66). Furthermore, the percentage of childless women in the U.S. would have increased even more if not for immigration from high-fertility foreign countries. The percentage of U.S.-born women ages 40-50 who were childless in 2012 was 17%, whereas for immigrant women the number was 11%.

Thus, the paradoxical demographic result of feminist “success” is both (a) more childless women and (b) more fatherless children. Any student of this subject knows that unwed motherhood is a major contributing factor to poverty (just FYI, 70% of black children in the U.S. are born to unmarried women), and that divorce almost always worsens the economic situation for mothers and their children. Insofar as feminists have been successful in their goal of destroying the marriage-based family, then, it is women and children who have suffered most as a result of this ideological war against “male authority.”

A skeptic might wonder if these demographic trends reflect some independent cultural or economic factor, rather than the influence of feminism (and the government policies advocated by feminists). In reply, I would ask the skeptic, “Where do feminists have the most influence?” The answer to that question is college and university campuses, where Title IX has had the effect of officially mandating discrimination against males, who are a despised minority (43%) of undergraduates. Male college students are routinely demonized by feminist faculty (e.g., “young, white, rich, clueless white males” who “think nothing of raping drunk girls at frat parties and snorting cocaine, cheating on exams, and threatening professors with physical violence”). Indoctrinated with this anti-male prejudice by their professors, female students spew hateful rhetoric about “imperialism, white supremacy, capitalism, ableism, and a cissexist heteropatriarchy” (Oberlin College) or “capitalist imperialist white supremacist cisheteronormative patriarchy” (USC). It is therefore not surprising that among college-educated women ages 40-50, 20% are childless, compared to 11% of high-school dropouts.

Feminists believe that “marriage constitutes slavery for women” (Sheila Cronan, 1970), and therefore seek to “to destroy patriarchal power at its source, the family” (Andrea Dworkin, 1974), because the only way women can avoid “forced motherhood and sexual slavery is escape from the patriarchal institution of marriage” (Alison Jaggar, 1988).

Most people are unaware of what the feminist agenda actually is because, when addressing the general public, feminists espouse bland slogans about “equality,” etc. When speaking amongst themselves, however, feminists express goals that are much more radical. This distinction between feminism’s public rhetoric (its exoteric discourse) and the anti-male ideology of the movement’s leadership (its esoteric doctrine) can best be shown by examining the content of university Women’s Studies courses. Consider for example, “Critical Approaches to Heterosexuality,” a freshman-level course taught at the University of California-Riverside by Professor Jane Ward. In the course syllabus, Professor Ward declares that the class is “organized around the argument that heterosexuality — as a system bound up with misogyny and reliant upon the gender binary — is ultimately unworkable.” Are the taxpayers of California, or the parents of students, aware of what is being taught at UC-Riverside?

Feminism is an anti-male/anti-heterosexual hate movement, masquerading as “social justice,” and what are the consequences of making feminist ideology the basis of public policy? Discrimination against male students in the education system is one obvious result, and the catastrophe caused by declining birth rates is another (cf., Jonathan V. Last’s What to Expect When No One’s Expecting: America’s Coming Demographic Disaster). It is when we examine the consequences as individual cases rather than statistical trends, however, that we can see where the feminist death-cult is leading us. Consider the story, for example, of a recent custody case in Tennessee:

In the first ruling of its kind in Tennessee, a judge has granted a woman the legal rights of a husband.
The ruling, issued [in May 2017], came as the state Legislature was pushing through a bill designed to stop Judge Greg McMillan of Fourth Circuit Court — and any other judge in Tennessee — from making that very decision, court records show.
McMillan penned approval of a divorce for same-sex couple Sabrina Witt and Erica Witt that includes designation of Erica Witt as the father of the couple’s daughter, conceived through artificial insemination.
Days later, Gov. Bill Haslam signed into law a bill inspired by the Witts’ case, the first in the state after a 2015 federal Supreme Court decision that conferred marital rights to same-sex couples. The state law ordered courts to give “natural meaning” to words such as mother and father.
Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery III already had opined that judges would — and should — ignore the new law in such family law proceedings as divorce, custody and child support. The Legislature ignored the opinion.
Erica Witt and Sabrina Witt legally wed in April 2014 in the District of Columbia. They bought a home here and decided to have a child via artificial insemination from an anonymous donor.
Sabrina Witt bore a girl as a result in January 2015. Because Tennessee did not then recognize same-sex marriage as legal, Erica Witt’s name was not placed on the baby’s birth certificate.
When the U.S. Supreme Court gave gay people the right to marry and divorce in June 2015, their marriage became legal in Tennessee.
In February 2016, Sabrina Witt filed for divorce. Her lawyer, John Harber, argued that the law on custody rights in artificial-insemination cases in Tennessee used the term “husband.”
He said the natural meaning of that word is a man, so Erica Witt didn’t qualify. McMillan agreed.
But Erica Witt’s lawyer, Virginia Schwamm, filed a challenge to the constitutionality of the law since it was passed decades before the same-sex ruling and now runs afoul of it.
The Tennessee Legislature swung into action. The “natural meaning” bill was drafted to ban the legal labeling of a woman as a husband, and 53 legislators used a conservative legal group to try to step into the Witts’ divorce case. . . .
McMillan was having none of that. He refused in an April order to allow such an intervention, saying the Legislature needs to stay out of the court’s and the Witts’ business. . . .
Sara Sedgwick, senior counsel for the health care division of the office, urged McMillan in a brief to view the words “wife” and “husband” in a “gender-neutral” fashion. To do otherwise would be to violate constitutional law, particularly in light of the same-sex marriage decision, she wrote. . . .
Stripping away gender from the label of husband, McMillan said Erica Witt was a legal father with legal rights to see her daughter. She also has to pay child support.
“Erica Witt is a legal parent of the parties’ minor child,” McMillan wrote.

Let me point out the timeline here:

April 2014: Erica and Sabrina marry in Washington, D.C., then move to Tennessee, where same-sex marriage is prohibited by the state constitution.
January 2015: Sabrina gives birth in Tennessee to a girl conceived by artificial insemination.
June 2015: The U.S. Supreme Court imposes same-sex marriage on Tennessee and the 33 other states where it was still illegal.
February 2016: Sabrina files for divorce.

You see that this marriage lasted less than two years, and the baby girl at the center of this custody dispute was barely a year old when Sabrina filed for a divorce from Erica, just eight months after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling compelled Tennessee to recognize such marriages as legally valid. However, based on this rather brief relationship between Sabrina and Erica, a Tennessee judge has now declared that Erica has “legal rights” to Sabrina’s baby girl, who is not even biologically related to Erica, the ex-wife whom the court has now officially deemed the legal “father” of the child!

Do you see how feminist ideas of “equality” lead to this kind of madness? Do you see how, as a consequence of the political influence of feminism’s “gender-neutral” ideology, our society has now added to the trend of childless women and fatherless children a whole new category of misery and confusion in the form of lesbian divorce and custody battles over children conceived via artificial insemination from anonymous donors? Do you understand why I keep saying Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It?

In conclusion, we must invoke the poetry of Rudyard Kipling:

On the first Feminian Sandstones
We were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour
And ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children
And the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said:
“The Wages of Sin is Death.”

Never bet against the Gods of the Copybook Headings.

Category: Abortion, Contraceptive Culture, Marriage, Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 06.30.17

Posted on | June 30, 2017 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 06.30.17

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Louise Mensch’s Raging Russian Fever Dream
Twitchy: How Can @pontifex Tweet This After Vatican Statement On Charlie Gard?
Louder With Crowder: #192 CNN #FAKENEWS APOCALYPSE! With Sargon of Akkad, James O’Keefe, and Sally Kohn
According To Hoyt: The Day Before Liberty Con
Vox Popoli: The Polish Example

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Two Hawt Chicks For The Price Of Three!
American Power: Dana Loesch Takes On Critics Accusing Her Of “Inciting Violence” In New NRA Video, also, Tom Wolfe, The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby
American Thinker: The True Meaning of Socialized Medicine
Animal Magnetism: Rule Five Seattle Surprise Friday
BattleSwarm: LinkSwarm For June 30
Da Tech Guy: Fausta – Canada’s War On Freedom Of Speech
Don Surber: Defiant Girl Acosta Proves Trump Is No Tyrant
Dustbury: A Jaunty Little Data Cap
The Geller Report: Homeland Security Chief Says Congressmen Have Threatened Him & His Men Over Immigration Enforcement
Hogewash: Blognet, also, LOLSuit VIII – Avoiding Contact News
Joe For America: Democrats To Replace Nancy Pelosi With Maxine Waters?
Power Line: Thoughts From The Ammo Line
Shark Tank: Florida House Members Unite To Oppose Offshore Oil Drilling
Shot In The Dark: Sandbagged?
The Jawa Report: Breaking! Chucky Schumer Total Sexist Dick! Has Issues With Females In Authority!
The Political Hat: Bake The Musical Cake
This Ain’t Hell: Beguiled By Bravado Into Believing a Lie
Weasel Zippers: Everybody Panic, Only Three Years Left To Save The Earth!, also, German Court Allows “Sharia Police” Street Patrols To Enforce Islamic Law
Megan McArdle: The Parable Of The Purple Raspberry Pie
Mark Steyn: Songs For Troubled Times, also, Cool Colonialists On A Swingin’ Safari

Today’s Digital Deals
Kindle Daily Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals

Category: Linkagery

In The Mailbox: 06.29.17

Posted on | June 29, 2017 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Spanish cartoonist Kukuruyo’s take on the demise of Gawker

OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Molly Pitcher & The Battle of Monmouth
Twitchy: Greta Van Susteren Out At MSNBC
Louder With Crowder: PURE EVIL! Baby Sentenced To Death By Government Healthcare
National Review: Kyle Smith – Inside The Delightful Suicide Of Gawker

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Bad Decisions
American Power: The Clenched Fist Of Truth, also, Allen Guelzo, Fateful Lightning
American Thinker: Remember When 93 Million Health Care Plans Could Be Cancelled?
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Daily Icons Of Rock News
BattleSwarm: Mexico’s Drug War Heats Up Again
Bring The HEAT: TAC On Target
Da Tech Guy: Just So You Realize The Senate Healthcare Bill Is Going To Pass
Don Surber: How Donald Trump Is Helping Romance
Dustbury: Will Cap’n Crunch Walk The Plank?
Fred On Everything: China Tech – Interesting Bits & Pieces
The Geller Report: Frankfurt Makes History By Being First City Where Native Germans Are The Minority
Hogewash: Hoge v. Kimberlin et al News
Jammie Wearing Fools: Will The Media Learn From CNN’s Mistakes? Prepare To Be Disappointed
Joe For America: BETRAYED! McConnell & Senate GOP Put The Penalty Back In Healthcare Bill!
JustOneMinute:
Power Line: Claire’s Compleat Embarrassment, also, A Tale Of Two Fiascoes
Shark Tank: Grayson Fundraising Hints At Possible Congressional Run
Shot In The Dark: The Progressive Puritans
STUMP: Illinois Financial Disaster – State Taken Hostage
The Jawa Report: Breaking! Fidget Spinner Part Of Worldwide Zionist Khinspiracy!, also, How The UK Got To Summer 2017 – A Short History Of al-Muhajroun
The Political Hat: Biological Reality Is Now Unconstitutional, also, European Court Of Human Rights Sentences Baby To Death
This Ain’t Hell: Popular Military And Witch Hunts, also, Antifa Plans Gettysburg Battlefield Protests
Weasel Zippers: House Passes “Kate’s Law” & Punishment For Sanctuary Cities, also, Michael Moore Urges Followers To “Rise Up” Over 4th Of July Weekend, Storm Senators’ Offices
Megan McArdle: Serena Williams Is Not The Best Tennis Player
Mark Steyn: Quiet Nights Of Quiet Stars, also, Tickle-Me Acosta

Today’s Digital Deals
Daily Kindle Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals

Category: Linkagery

Harvard Is Decadent and Depraved

Posted on | June 29, 2017 | Comments Off on Harvard Is Decadent and Depraved

Harvard University is an atheist institution where no Christian parent would ever send their child. So you might be wondering: What kind of students apply to attend this so-called “elite” school?

Harvard College rescinded admissions offers to at least ten prospective members of the Class of 2021 after the students traded sexually explicit memes and messages that sometimes targeted minority groups in a private Facebook group chat.
A handful of admitted students formed the messaging group — titled, at one point, “Harvard memes for horny bourgeois teens” — on Facebook in late December, according to two incoming freshmen.
In the group, students sent each other memes and other images mocking sexual assault, the Holocaust, and the deaths of children, according to screenshots of the chat obtained by The Crimson. Some of the messages joked that abusing children was sexually arousing, while others had punchlines directed at specific ethnic or racial groups. One called the hypothetical hanging of a Mexican child “piñata time.”
After discovering the existence and contents of the chat, Harvard administrators revoked admissions offers to at least ten participants in mid-April, according to several members of the group. . . .
The chat grew out of a roughly 100-member messaging group that members of the Class of 2021 set up in early December to share memes about popular culture. Admitted students found and contacted each other using the official Harvard College Class of 2021 Facebook group.
“A lot of students were excited about forming group chats with people who shared similar interests,” Jessica Zhang ’21, an incoming freshman who joined both chats, wrote in an email. “Someone posted about starting a chat for people who liked memes.”
Messages shared in the original group were mostly “lighthearted,” wrote Zhang, who said she did not post in the splitoff meme group and that her admission offer was not rescinded. But some members soon suggested forming “a more R-rated” meme chat, according to Cassandra Luca ’21, who joined the first meme group but not the second, and who also said her offer was not revoked.
Luca said the founders of the “dark” group chat demanded that students post provocative memes in the larger messaging group before allowing them to join the splinter group. . . .
Employees in the Admissions Office emailed students who posted offensive memes in mid-April asking them to disclose every picture they sent over the group, according to one member of the chat whose admission offer was revoked. The student spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be publicly identified with the messages.
“The Admissions Committee was disappointed to learn that several students in a private group chat for the Class of 2021 were sending messages that contained offensive messages and graphics,” reads a copy of the Admissions Office’s email obtained by The Crimson. “As we understand you were among the members contributing such material to this chat, we are asking that you submit a statement by tomorrow at noon to explain your contributions and actions for discussion with the Admissions Committee.”

Keep in mind that the only reason we know about these sick perverts is because their “private” Facebook group got busted, and it’s not as if Harvard administrators — who are avid advocates for abortion, fornication and sodomy — actually enforces any moral standard among its students. No, what seems to have spurred them to rescind these admissions were that some of the “provocative” messages targeted “specific ethnic or racial groups,” and were therefore deemed “offensive.”

Political correctness is not an adequate substitute for morality.

Furthermore, because the politically correct standards of “social justice” forbid criticism of such evils as abortion, fornication and sodomy, elite institutions like Harvard are actually anti-morality. The admissions committee at Harvard would never send an acceptance letter to a student who was an outspoken Republican, nor would Harvard accept a student whose admission essay was a defense of Humanae Vitae.

Because the faculty and administration are atheist progressives, committed to excluding students who embrace Christian moral values, Harvard University is not merely secular, but anti-Christian. This prejudice has consequences, in terms of the prevailing campus climate at Harvard and other universities, where fake “hate” hoaxes, false rape accusations and other immoral behaviors proliferate. We should not be surprised, then, by the discovery of extreme depravity among students at Harvard, a corrupt institution whose notorious alumni include the terrorist bomber Ted Kaczynski and Sen. Chuck Schumer.

Category: The Ivy League Is Depraved and Decadent

The Brutal Truth About Feminism

Posted on | June 28, 2017 | Comments Off on The Brutal Truth About Feminism

Inez Feltscher slams it home:

Having been sold a pack of feminist lies that make both men and women unhappier, those of us in the millennial generation who are interested in happy marriages have had to rediscover a lot of politically incorrect truths from scratch.
But there’s one truth that is particularly difficult for our genderless, sexless culture to accept, because it eviscerates not one, but two shibboleths of the age: first, that men and women desire the same things in relationships, and second, that a selfish, “be yourself” attitude is a good prescription for marital bliss. . . .

Read the whole thing. The problem is, feminists are against male happiness. The typical feminist approach is to (a) identify something men like, (b) argue that it is oppressive to women, and (c) destroy it. Feminists don’t care whether this destructive process actually makes women happier. The whole point is to prevent men from being happy.

Category: Sex Trouble