Friday Night Doggerel

Posted on | August 5, 2016 | 23 Comments

by Smitty

Regret that my 2016 Election Primal Scream Therapy has curtailed my blogging to the point of non-existence. Keep in mind that it’s all fun and games until junk gets real, states secede and armies march.

I know where we're headed
And our future's fully threaded
And we'll likely soon eat Venezuelan food (1/2) https://t.co/ucp302By7t

— IGotOverMachoGrande (@smitty_one_each) August 6, 2016

They say that if you're heeding fools
That soon eneough the old mob rules
Against the wall we find us fully screwed https://t.co/ucp302jXfV

— IGotOverMachoGrande (@smitty_one_each) August 6, 2016

Category: humor

The Trans Cult and Gender Hypochondria

Posted on | August 5, 2016 | 83 Comments

“Medical students’ disease (also known as second year syndrome or intern’s syndrome) is a condition frequently reported in medical students, who perceive themselves to be experiencing the symptoms of a disease that they are studying.”
— Wikipedia

Question: Are young people being psychologically damaged by exposure to a cacophony of information about “gender” and sexuality?

The transgender cult has been accused by many critics of exploiting adolescent confusion, persuading emotionally disturbed young people that “transition” is a panacea, the cure for all their problems:

When will the medical and psychological professions wake up? . . .
There is an actual process of indoctrination going on on the Internet, and most liberal parents are simply unaware of its power and reach.

Alas, political correctness — backed by the authority of academia, media and powerful LGBT lobbying groups — has made it impossible for any psychologist to challenge the regnant superstition. Anyone can (and should) be whatever they want to be, all the “experts” insist, and those who oppose this agenda are accused of inciting hatred that might cause the helpless victims of “gender dysphoria” to commit suicide.

Suppose a kid is socially awkward, troubled by insecurity about their body, struggling to fit into the teenage dating scene. These are such commonplace woes of adolescence as to be almost universal. Ah, but now we have the Internet, and guess what the awkward teen finds there?

Young people who for some reason feel dissatisfied with their sex often go to reddit’s various transgender communities to ask for advice.
A 14 year old kid asks for advice on two different subreddits about how to talk to family members about gender issues and about medications like estrogen.
On one of the posts, an adult invites the 14 year old to take contact privately. . . .
In the other post, concrete advice about how to obtain prescription medication illegally is given, complete with dosages . . .
This story sounds familiar to anyone who’s been paying attention to the stories many newly trans teenagers post online. An intense period of bingeing on social media accounts of being trans leading to the teen suddenly identifying as trans themselves. . . .
Teenagers have always been struggling to fit in, to figure out who they are, to label themselves. But it’s not until now that discovering your true self involves taking hormones and getting surgery. And it’s not until now that questioning whether it is wise for teens to be getting medication advice online is bigoted.

What is going on here involves suggestibility. Young people are naïve, and when adolescent misfits are trying to figure out the cause of their unhappiness, they are particularly vulnerable to this kind of influence. Sexually confused teenagers often erect a defensive shell to conceal their inner turmoil, maintaining a “good kid” façade that prevents parents from recognizing signs of trouble. Instead, they seek answers on the Internet, where “supportive” strangers are always eager to offer advice. So you now have children as young as 13 getting amateur counseling via Reddit, Tumblr, etc., and cult is not too strong a word to describe the mentality that prevails within these insular online communities.

A brief digression: Remember the Columbine massacre? A couple of teenage weirdos started messing around in “Goth” culture, hanging out with other weirdos and, unbeknownst to their parents, hatched an elaborate plan to perpetrate a bloody slaughter at their high school. After the shootings, people were shocked that warning signs had been missed:

In 1996, Eric Harris created a private website on America Online. Harris initially created the site to host gaming levels he and his friend Dylan Klebold created for use in the video game Doom, primarily for friends. On this site, Harris began a blog, which included jokes and short journal entries with thoughts on parents, school, and friends. By the end of the year, the site contained instructions on how to cause mischief, as well as instructions on how to make explosives, and blogs in which he described the trouble he and Klebold were causing. Beginning in early 1997, the blog postings began to show the first signs of Harris’s ever-growing anger against society.
Harris’s site attracted few visitors, and caused no concern until March 1998. Klebold gave the web address to Brooks Brown, a former friend of Harris. Brown’s mother had filed numerous complaints with the Jefferson County Sheriff’s office concerning Harris, as she thought he was dangerous. The website contained numerous death threats directed against Brown: Klebold knew that if Brooks accessed the address, he would discover the content and inform his parents, and likely the authorities would be notified. After Brown’s parents viewed the site, they contacted the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office. The investigator Michael Guerra was told about the website. When he accessed it, Guerra discovered numerous violent threats directed against the students and teachers of Columbine High School. Other material included blurbs that Harris had written about his general hatred of society, and his desire to kill those who annoyed him.

If this kind of red flag about a potential mass murder could be overlooked, how much easier is it to ignore signs that your kid is struggling to cope with adolescent sexual problems? And in the same way that Eric Harris used his America Online account as an outlet for his problems, many kids today are secretly turning to social media and online forums as a way to deal with their “gender” issues and, in most cases, parents don’t have the slightest clue of what’s going on.

One reason I have spent two years hammering away at radical feminism is that so many people are unaware of what kind of craziness is being fomented in the name of “equality.” The destruction of due-process rights in campus sexual assault investigations is an example of how extreme ideas can make their way into “mainstream” acceptance, and we see a very similar phenomenon in how the transgender cult gained influence.

Consider the case of Florida State University junior Rachel “Charlie” Andelman, “a female-to-male trans person who felt that transition was absolutely essential for me to continue living”:

Now, I didn’t always know that I was transgender. For me, it took a lot of self-exploration and discovery, not to mention countless hours of research and reading before even learning the word transgender. I went through stages: In ninth grade, I identified as a bisexual girl, but I was unfortunately outed to everyone in my small private school. I didn’t get a great reaction — some girl told everyone while I was at home sick, and when I returned the next day I was literally mobbed by questions and insults. A horde of people surrounded me and shouted obscenities at me. In tenth grade, I tried conforming to the compulsory heterosexuality that my school seemed to love at the time in a half-hearted attempt to avoid more bullying. I grew my hair out and talked about having crushes on boys because that’s what girls were expected to do; it quickly became a self-defense tactic. In eleventh grade, I publicly owned my sexuality, believing myself to now be a lesbian. I fought to start a Gay Straight Alliance at my school (and was its inaugural president the next year), and even dated a girl briefly. But none of these labels felt right to me. By the end of that year, I thought back to everything I had seen and read and realized: Oh god. That’s me. I’m transgender.
I didn’t come out until October, 2014, at the start of my freshman year of college at Florida State University. Ironically, I was placed in the all-girls dorm. My roommate was trying to figure out her own sexuality at the time, and we ended up coming out to each other the same night. We were watching the show Once Upon a Time, and I turned to her and asked, “You know how I don’t go by my birth name? Would you mind trying out different pronouns for me?” She hugged me and told me of course she would, and within a minute of returning our attention to the show, she blurted out, “I’m a lesbian.”
She and her family were incredibly supportive of me while my parents were struggling to get used to the idea; I don’t really know what I would have done without her. I ended up telling every friend I made from that moment on that I was trans, and all of them fully respected my name and pronouns.

This kind of narrative is becoming surprisingly common in recent years. Why? My suspicion — an educated guess — is that we are witnessing an unexpected consequence of a hypersexualized youth culture. Forty years ago, when I was a horny teenager growing up in the Bible Belt, we were “working on our night moves,” as Bob Seger sang, in a society where all the responsible forces of grown-up society were trying to stop us. Kids didn’t have 110 cable channels to choose from, and there were no cell phones or laptops (because Al Gore hadn’t invented the Internet yet) and information about sex was almost as difficult to obtain as sex itself. Fast-forward to the 21st century, however, and kids are growing up in a world where they are bombarded with sex — sex! sex! sex! — from every direction. Afternoon reruns of sitcoms like Friends, Seinfeld, Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory are full of sex-related storylines, many primetime TV programs feature gay characters, and any kid with Internet access can find a cornucopia of hard-core pornography.

Growing up in a culture shaped by this media-driven sexual tsunami — even if you protect your kids from it, most of their peers are exposed to it — many young people are psychologically traumatized. As bad as a constant diet of sex-saturated media is for adults, what is the effect on kids trying to form their identities amid this pornographic onslaught?

Back when we were “working on mysteries without any clues,” to quote Seger again, our direct experience of sex (or, at least our hope of achieving such experience) was not so confused by the kaleidoscopic proliferation of cultural scripts with which teenager are today confronted. Whatever confusion we experienced was authentic, rather than the result of trying to conform to some prefabricated “gender identity” in the LGBTQIA Acronym Rainbow. Teenagers experimented and improvised and — here’s the important part — none of our sexual activity was approved by grown-up society. We were all wicked sinners engaged in fornication, consumed by carnal lust and, as bad as was the threat of punishment in the eternal fires of Hell, we knew we would face hell right here on earth if our parents ever caught us.

Sex was bad and dirty and wrong, and that was half the fun of it, really.

Yet here in the 21st century, Rachel Andelman felt the need to “identify” as bisexual at age 14 when, in point of fact, Florida law doesn’t even consider 14-year-olds capable of consenting to sex. By the time she was a junior, she came out as a lesbian, already sufficiently fluent in radical feminist jargon to invoke “compulsory heterosexuality” as a force of patriarchal oppression. (When I was a high-school junior, heterosexuality sure as heck wasn’t “compulsory,” or else I’d have been getting some of that action.) Whether or not Rachel Andelman ever could have been heterosexual, had a mad scientist erased her memory and transported her in a time machine to 1976, is one of those interesting questions that must remain forever in the realm of hypothetical speculation. Certainly there were many teenage girls back then who were awkward and confused, but they didn’t have the Internet to tell them what to do about their confusion, whereas Rachel Andelman did “countless hours of research and reading” before arriving at her transgender destination at age 18.

Oh, and what a strange coincidence that her freshman roommate at college was also going through a sexual identity crisis. Except it’s not a coincidence, it’s a trend. Isn’t everybody in college going through a sexual identity crisis nowadays? LGBTQIA — pick a letter! Any letter!

When I was in college, freshmen went out for Rush Week and pledged a fraternity. Now, kids pledge a sexuality. Is there a hazing initiation after you join a sexuality during LGBTQIA Rush Week?

It’s easy to joke about these kooks, but while the transgender college girl looks like a comedy from an objective point of view, can you imagine the mortification of parents whose kids get sucked into this cult? One day you have a daughter named Rachel, and then . . . Well, watch the video:

So now “Charlie” Andelman is all over the Internet. More than 2,500 people have watched that video, and another 1,200 people have watched this video in which “Charlie” shows off “his” surgically-altered chest:

As I say, it’s easy to laugh at the absurd results of this bizarre Frankenstein experiment. The “man” produced by hormones and surgery is a pathetic simulacrum, a sort of flesh-and-blood costume manufactured in the guise of “treatment” for an alleged disorder that Rachel/“Charlie” self-diagnosed with the enthusiastic assistance of her/“his” Internet friends. Yet this is not a comedy, it’s a tragedy. Our hypersexualized culture is producing traumatic effects, including the kind of gender hypochondria which led Rachel into an obsession with the idea of becoming “Charlie” simply because she was so frightened by the difficulties of being what this culture says a girl must be.

OK, that was a amateur diagnosis I am not qualified to give. I’m a journalist, not a psychologist, but I know crazy when I see it, and I’ve been studying radical feminism long enough to reach a few educated guesses as to how our society has descended so far into this vortex of madness.

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” — all the clever minds of the elite intelligentsia told us that Scientific Progress was the answer to our problems. Just get rid of the ignorant prejudices of so-called “common sense,” said the experts, and forget about those ridiculous Bronze Age superstitions you inherited from a wandering tribe of Mesopotamian shepherds. “Trust us — we’re scientists!”

Somehow the promised feminist utopia of gender equality hasn’t materialized despite 40 years of Scientific Progress. Human nature remains what it always was, and old-fashioned common sense still produces better results than do the newfangled theories of the intelligentsia. One of these days perhaps The Gods of the Copybook Headings may be proven wrong, but so far they’re batting a thousand.

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 08.05.16

Posted on | August 5, 2016 | 1 Comment

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
Michelle Malkin: Stop The Insanity, Terror Apologists – It’s The Jihad, Stupid!
Twitchy: What Hillary Asked “Press And Citizens” To Do For Her Will Floor You

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: Podcast #12 – Real Men Don’t Cry
American Power: Hated Yankees Throw In The Towel
American Thinker: The Backward Pull Of Islamic Health Practices
Animal Magnetism: Rule Five Concealed-Carry Friday
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – The Coaster by Erich Wurster
Da Tech Guy: McDonald’s Vs. College – Advantage, McDonald’s
Don Surber: A Vote For Hillary Is A Vote For Allah
Dustbury: Unwanted Advances
Fred On Everything:
Jammie Wearing Fools: Iran Carries Out Fresh Wave Of Hangings, Including Gay Teenager
Joe For America: Another Mysterious Death – Man Claiming DNC Committed Fraud In Primaries Against Sanders Dies
JustOneMinute: Trump’s Finger On The Button Worries You? Please.
Pamela Geller: London Knife Attacker Was Devout Muslim, Neighbor Says “Mental Illness Is A Scapegoat”
Power Line: Government Says Wearing Gadsden Flag Might Be Unlawful Racial Harassment
Shark Tank: Wasserman Schultz Folds, Agrees To Debate Primary Opponent Tim Canova
Shot In The Dark: At Long Last
STUMP: Public Pensions Actuarial Valuations – Point, Counterpoint, DENIED!
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Rug Munching, HPV, And You
The Lonely Conservative: Highlights From The Libertarian Town Hall
The Political Hat: Progressivism And Tram-Ride Democracy
This Ain’t Hell: Chalice Renee Zeitner – Guilty Again
Weasel Zippers: Muslim Congressman Offers Internship To Anyone But Straight White Men
Megan McArdle: Bitcoins Make Bank Robbery Great Again

Shop Amazon Devices – $50 Off Fire HD 10
Shop Handmade – School supplies

Category: Linkagery

Anti-Israel SJW @bendykoval Calls Beauty Pageant ‘White Supremacy’

Posted on | August 5, 2016 | 102 Comments

Bethany Koval (@bendykoval on Twitter) is an “anti-Zionist Jew from New Jersey fighting for radical change,” according to her profile at the anti-Israel web site New Jewish Resistance. Earlier this year, Koval was accused of bullying a fellow high-school student who disagreed with her. Koval’s reaction to the Miss Teen USA pageant last week shows that hating Israel is certainly not her only fringe view.

After the pageant’s Twitter account published a photo of the five finalists in the July 30 contest, Koval responded by comparing the contestants — all blue-eyed blondes — to so many identical jars of mayonnaise.

This bit of sarcasm got more than 12,000 retweets and 18,000 likes on Twitter, but then Koval issued a series of Tweets asserting in apparent seriousness that beauty pageants promote “white supremacy.”

Feminists have always been anti-beauty. The first protest of the Women’s Liberation movement was against the 1968 Miss America pageant, an event they said served “to further make women oppressed and men oppressors; to enslave us all the more in high-heeled, low-status roles.” Pageant contestants “epitomize the roles we are all forced to play as women,” feminists claimed, because women are “forced daily to compete for male approval, enslaved by ludicrous ‘beauty’ standards.”

Bethany Koval hates Hillary Clinton, condemning the Democrat as a warmonger with blood on her hands who is not a feminist.

In June, after a Muslim man attacked a gay nightclub in Orlando, Bethany Koval called for the formation of feminist vigilante groups.

Radical teenager with clinical depression who hates Israel and Hillary Clinton, calling for “militant” action? Nothing to worry about, I guess.

CW, guns? Loud sounds?

Start training to join our cool feminist vigilante gang! Older video of me for inspiration: pic.twitter.com/iXqmnXiGgK

— benny • ??? (@bendykoval) June 17, 2016

need. communist. gun. shops. NOW. pic.twitter.com/6J7GIYxecJ

— benny • ??? (@bendykoval) July 30, 2016

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 08.04.16

Posted on | August 4, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 08.04.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Crooked Hillary And CNN’s Carol Costello – How To Coordinate A Media Attack
Twitchy: Ain’t It Cute When Democrats Like Elizabeth Warren Pretend To Care About The Constitution?

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: There Is No Such Thing As A Moderate Feminist
American Power: “Mentally Ill Norwegian-Somalian” Somehow Creates “Knife Bloodbath” In London’s Russell Square
American Thinker: Ghazala Khan Gets Media Respect. Patricia Smith Doesn’t.
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s (Naughty) Daily News
Da Tech Guy: Pat Austin – Louisiana’s Governor Edwards Breaks Promise To Support School Choice
Don Surber: Trump The Feeding Frenzy
Dustbury: Not Sure Where This Is Going
Fred On Everything: The Maya – Who Would Have Thunk It?
Jammie Wearing Fools: Crackpot Oberlin Professor Who Blamed Jews For 9/11 Put On Paid Leave
Joe For America: 15,000 At Trump Rally Missed By The Media
JustOneMinute: News Management
Pamela Geller: German Citizen May Face Charges For Insulting Muslim Munich Massacre Shooter
Power Line: A Month of Islamic Terror
Shark Tank: Are Clay County Residents Ready For A Democratic School Superintendent?
Shot In The Dark: Why Do Democrats Hate Black Teens?
STUMP: Investment Result Season For Public Pensions – Below Targets
The Jawa Report: Khizr Muazzam Khan Website? What Khizr Muazzam Khan Website?
The Lonely Conservative: Should Conservatives Found A New Party?
The Political Hat: Feminists, Have A Cigar
This Ain’t Hell: DNC Resurrects Ku Klux Klan
Weasel Zippers: Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson Endorses #BlackLivesMatter
Megan McArdle: Eight Possible Fates For The Obamacare Exchanges

Category: Linkagery

‘Especially as a Woman of Color’

Posted on | August 4, 2016 | 63 Comments

The left-wing Democrats who operate the educational bureaucracy in America have hammered the “social justice” mentality so deeply into the psyches of young people that they don’t even recognize it as a ideology. Unable to think except within the formulaic boundaries prescribed by political slogans — “Equality!” “Progress!” “Diversity!” — the 21st-century Progressive Youth mindlessly invoke these amorphous concepts in banal clichés, seemingly unaware of any possible alternative worldview.

Last month at the annual Comic Con, there was a panel featuring the executive producer and several cast members of The 100, an apocalyptic science-fiction series on The CW network. The question was asked by a fan: “What does it feel like to be some of the best, most complex female characters on television for like you as an actor?”

To this, Eliza Taylor (who plays Clarke on the series) answered, “It is an absolute honor. I cannot tell you how many times I have played the dumb blonde slutty best friend of some guy, you know, that whole character. I’ve done that for 15 years now and [in The 100], I’ve been able to play someone smart and strong and responsible and worthy and . . . it gets me emotional because it makes me so happy I love that we’re in a day and age now where women can be portrayed that way.”

So, prior to the 21st century, no woman was ever portrayed as smart, strong, responsible and worthy, according to Ms. Taylor.

Next up was Marie Avgeropoulos, who plays Octavia on the show, who said, “I’m an auntie. I have nieces and nephews, so I’m just happy that they can watch TV and look up to me. I’m doing something positive, and inspiring . . . not just women, but you know, young boys as well, or just people in general. . . . Nowadays . . . I find young girls are looking up to the wrong kind of things. . . . My niece’s friends are wearing, and I was like, ‘Wow, I was not wearing that little of clothes at your age.’ So it’s pretty cool that we get to, you know, play warriors and really smart mechanics or doctors and, yeah, we have the best job ever.”

So, we are informed, The 100 — and other TV programming — is not entertainment, but is essentially didactic in purpose. It’s all about “inspiring” young people to emulate the values portrayed on TV.

Finally, the question went to Lindsey Morgan, who plays Raven on the series. She answered: “I personally am extremely grateful because as a woman, and especially as a woman of color . . .” Some women in the audience began whooping, and Morgan shouted: “Yeah!”

What? A “woman of color”? I looked at the video and wondered what this young starlet with the Total White Girl name “Lindsey” was talking about.
A quick check of Wikipedia: “Lindsey Marie Morgan was born in Georgia to George Morgan and Alice Burciaga, and raised in Houston, Texas. She is of Irish and Mexican descent.” Let us stipulate that, however “Mexican” Ms. Morgan’s mother might be, when your parents’ names are “George” and “Alice” and your surname is “Morgan,” it’s not as if your life story is some up-from-the-barrio struggling Chicana narrative. My brother-in-law’s mother is Mexican, but his surname is “Powers” and he certainly would never expect his two children — blue-eye white kids growing up middle-class in Ohio — to describe themselves as “people of color.” If Ms. Morgan’s maternal ancestry is slightly more apparent than that of my quarter-Mexican niece and nephew, it’s not so obvious that she’s likely ever to have been subjected to slurs, stereotypes or discrimination.

Right. If Donald Trump gets elected, Lindsay Morgan will be deported, or so we might be expected to believe from her “woman of color” rhetoric. Yet this is a typical expression of the same social-justice mentality that makes Eliza Taylor pretend that women on TV were never portrayed as smart, strong, responsible and worthy until The 100 debuted two years ago. Everything is about the Heroic Struggle Against Oppression, and TV series are just political sermons on behalf of the Democrat Party.

Category: Hollywood

Feminism Means Men Are Always Wrong: @SuzannahWeiss and ‘Kafkatrapping’

Posted on | August 3, 2016 | 56 Comments

Feminist rhetoric is an endless stream of anti-male hate propaganda — accusations that men are guilty of sexism, “objectification,” etc. — and yet, when any man calls attention to the insulting nature of these attacks, his objection is cited as proof that he is a sexist. Feminists actually expect men to agree that we are so vastly inferior that we need to be constantly lectured about how incompetent, selfish and stupid we are. Feminists believe that any man who defends himself against such hateful slurs has thereby demonstrated how ignorant he is of his guilt as an oppressor.

Three years ago, Suzannah Weiss graduated from Brown University with a degree in Gender and Sexuality Studies. Therefore, she knows everything. The rest of humanity is expected to sit silently in reverent awe while Ms. Weiss imparts to us her insights of superior wisdom.

6 Reasons “Not All Men” Misses The Point,
Because It’s Derailing Important Conversations

This was the title of a recent column by Ms. Weiss, making the important point that anything a man says to a feminist is always wrong.

Feminism requires males to be completely silent. No feminist ever wants to hear a word any man has to say. Anything a man does say to her will be condemned and cited as evidence of his sexist ignorance.

Consider, for example, the subject of masculinity. If you are a man, you might think you would be able to speak with some authority on this subject. However, you are a man, and therefore inferior, which is why you need Suzannah Weiss to enlighten you:

Whether you like it or not, if you are a man who has grown up in the United States or really any Western culture, you have picked up some aspect of toxic masculinity. This doesn’t mean you are a rapist, but it probably means you have been taught to objectify or underestimate women at some point. Own it. . . . If you believe you are the exception and the “good guy,” you’re probably not taking a hard enough look at yourself.

All men are guilty. You objectify women. You underestimate women. Your masculinity is toxic. There are no exceptions (because “Western culture”) and you are not a “good guy.” CONFESS YOUR GUILT!

This is a classic “kafkatrapping” tactic:

One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin,racism,sexism, homophobia,oppression…}.” . . .
My reference, of course, is to Franz Kafka’s “The Trial”, in which the protagonist Josef K. is accused of crimes the nature of which are never actually specified, and enmeshed in a process designed to degrade, humiliate, and destroy him whether or not he has in fact committed any crime at all. The only way out of the trap is for him to acquiesce in his own destruction; indeed, forcing him to that point of acquiescence and the collapse of his will to live as a free human being seems to be the only point of the process, if it has one at all. . . .
Real crimes — actual transgressions against flesh-and-blood individuals — are generally not specified. The aim of the kafkatrap is to produce a kind of free-floating guilt in the subject, a conviction of sinfulness that can be manipulated by the operator to make the subject say and do things that are convenient to the operator’s personal, political, or religious goals. Ideally, the subject will then internalize these demands, and then become complicit in the kafkatrapping of others.

Feminism is “designed to degrade, humiliate, and destroy” males, and the so-called “feminist man” is one who, having internalized the demands of his accusers, confesses his guilt and acquiesces in his own destruction.

This is why “not all men” is unacceptable to Suzannah Weiss:

When women talk about experiencing sexism or feeling unsafe, it has become a cliché for men to respond with “not all men.” . . . When we shift the discussion from the oppression of women to the protection of men’s images, we undermine the very real problems women and men face. . . .
[T]oo often, the phrase “not all men” is used to invalidate women’s claims about gender inequality or make men feel less uncomfortable about their privilege. In that case, it’s not really serving a purpose, and it’s silencing women.

The subject of all feminist discussion is “the oppression of women.” No matter how privileged she may actually be, the feminist always believes that she is oppressed. Who is responsible for oppressing her?

“Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from male supremacy. All men have oppressed women.”
— Redstockings, “Manifesto,” 1969

“The class separation between men and women is a political division. . . . The role (or class) system must be destroyed. . . .
“Men . . . are the enemies and the oppressors of women. . . . Both the male role and the female role must be annihilated. . . .
“The pathology of oppression can only be fully comprehended in its primary development: the male-female division. . . . The sex roles themselves must be destroyed.”
— “The Feminists: A Political Organization to Annihilate Sex Roles,” 1969, in Radical Feminism, edited by Anne Koedt, et al. (1973)

“Men are the enemy. Heterosexual women are collaborators with the enemy. . . .
“We see heterosexuality as an institution of male domination, not a free expression of personal preference.”
— Leeds Revolutionary Feminists, 1981

“Sexuality, then, is a form of power. Gender, as socially constructed, embodies it, not the reverse. Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989)

From the very beginnings of the Women’s Liberation movement in the 1960s, feminists have been quite emphatic about the nature and causes of their oppression — man is the enemy, and all women are victims. This is why feminism requires male silence: The enemy can never be allowed to deny his guilt, to explain or defend himself or otherwise “shift the discussion from the oppression of women,” as Suzannah Weiss says. She attended an elite university (annual tuition $49,346) where her feminist professors taught Ms. Weiss that her victimhood is an undeniable fact, and that all males are complicit in her victimhood. She recites a litany of offenses (“12 Signs Your Date Is Sexist”) as a condemnation of any man who disagrees with her radical ideology. Men who dispute her insulting accusations about their “toxic masculinity,” etc., are accused by Ms. Weiss of “silencing women” (???) even while she dishonestly disavows the fundamental tenets of feminist theory:

When feminists talk about gender inequality, we are not blaming men.

(Then who is to blame for this “inequality”?)

In fact, many men would probably rather live in a society where gender roles did not exist.

(No such society has ever existed, nor will it ever exist in the future.)

When people say “not all men,” they’re assuming that feminism is making claims about men as a group, which it isn’t.

Yet feminists have always made “claims about men as a group” and certainly a Gender and Sexuality Studies major from Brown University like Suzannah Weiss must know this. The class “Introduction to Gender and Sexuality Studies” (GNSS 120) is a prerequisite to all other classes in this program, and an online syllabus for that class (as taught by Professor Denise Davis in spring semester 2014) indicates that Catharine MacKinnon was required reading, along with lesbian feminists Judith Butler and Gayle Rubin. The assigned reading by Rubin, her 1982 essay “Thinking Sex,” incidentally contains a defense of child pornography and pedophilia (or “cross-generational intimacy,” as Rubin calls it in a footnote) that favorably cites NAMBLA:

For over a century, no tactic for stirring up erotic hysteria has been as reliable as the appeal to protect children. The current wave of erotic terror has reached deepest into those areas bordered in some way, if only symbolically, by the sexuality of the young. . . . In February 1977, shortly before the Dade County vote, a sudden concern with “child pornography” swept the national media. . . .
The laws produced by the child porn panic are ill-conceived and misdirected. They represent far-reaching alterations in the regulation of sexual behavior and abrogate important sexual civil liberties. But hardly anyone noticed as they swept through Congress and state legislatures. With the exception of the North American Man/Boy Love Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, no one raised a peep of protest. . . .
The experiences of art photographer Jacqueline Livingston exemplify the climate created by the child porn panic. An assistant professor of photography at Cornell University, Livingston was fired in 1978 after exhibiting pictures of male nudes which included photographs of her seven-year-old son masturbating. . . .
It is easy to see someone like Livingston as a victim of the child porn wars. It is harder for most people to sympathize with actual boy-lovers. Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boy-lovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation.

According to Gayle Rubin, child pornography and pedophilia are not a problem; the problem is the “erotic terror” and “stigma” caused by people who do not “sympathize with actual boy-lovers” — and Rubin’s essay was required reading in an introductory course for Gender and Sexuality Studies majors at Brown University (annual tuition $49,346). Somehow, we are expected to believe, Suzannah Weiss never noticed the perverse radicalism promoted by her professors at Brown, so that she can invoke plausible deniability as to what feminist ideology actually involves. Nevertheless, she has vowed never to shave her legs again:

The problem was, shaving my legs never felt natural. . . .
I put up with the physical discomfort of shaving all the way until college because I couldn’t tolerate the potential social discomfort of having legs that stood out. But as I became more aware of the excessive standards our society imposes upon women’s appearances, I grew angry that something as benign as body hair had caused me so much concern. The ideal of smooth legs was about pleasing men . . .
I stopped shaving once and for all around my junior year of college, and surprisingly, nobody has (at least openly) objected. One boyfriend even told me he liked my natural legs because they showed I thought for myself rather than blindly following conventions. . . .
One great barometer of how much a man respects women is whether he believes they have an obligation to look aesthetically pleasing to him.

You see? Society “imposes” these “excessive standards” on women because this is “about pleasing men,” and feminists believe it is wrong for women to make any effort to “look aesthetically pleasing” to men.

Given her implacable hostility to “pleasing men,” what sort of man do you suppose would find Suzannah Weiss attractive? Or vice-versa?

My First Love Came Out as Transgender
By Suzannah Weiss
“I don’t feel comfortable in the male gender role.”
When John* first told me this on a walk through the woods during college, I thought it described a common feeling. Didn’t we all defy gender stereotypes in some way or another?
I imagined what he might be referring to, and they were all things I adored about him. He loved animals, attentively caring for his pet guinea pig and buying lobsters just to set them free in the water. He had meaningful friendships with girls, who viewed him as a confidant. He was close with his mother.
But when he brought it up again as we sat on the bed in my dorm room, it had a more serious tone. “I really need you to know, I don’t feel like a man.” . . .
To my relief, months passed without him bringing up his gender again. Yet he grew distant, calling me less often and acting sullen without telling me why. When he showed up uninvited at my dorm one afternoon and told me we needed to talk, I had a hunch what was happening.
“Are you breaking up with me?” He let out a slow sigh. “But you love me.” He told me he didn’t anymore. We were totally different people, he said. . . .
“Since I was very young, I felt uncomfortable living as a male,” he wrote. “I would ride my bike to Walmart to buy girls’ clothing. I felt so ashamed and confused about why I did this.”
He went on to explain that he had always confided in me about everything except his gender identity because he didn’t want to impose his struggles on me. “I hope you understand that I need to transition to live a happy life, and that I do and always will love you,” he continued.

Suzannah Weiss probably thinks this is a coincidence, but it’s not. Normal men are attracted to normal women for normal reasons, but feminists are not normal women. Men who find feminists attractive . . . Well, why?

If gender “embodies” sexuality, as Catharine MacKinnon asserts, so that men and woman are “made into the sexes as we know them” according to “the social requirements of heterosexuality,” then we would expect the most masculine men to be considered most attractive by women. This in turn would make masculinity a factor highly correlated with men’s heterosexual success. As a logical consequence, such men would have no incentive to waste their time and resources pursuing women who make no effort toward “pleasing men.” The obverse correlation is that the most feminine women would be most attractive to men and, being able to choose among many would-be suitors, could require men to devote time and resources to their effort to please her. Thus, the “power” that MacKinnon attributes to sexuality works both ways, although any individual’s ability to wield this power is directly correlated to their own attractiveness which is a function of how successfully they embody “gender” according to the “social requirements of heterosexuality.”

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Although one can use MacKinnon’s analysis to understand the relationship between “gender” and sexuality, the feminist purpose of MacKinnon’s analysis is to destroy that relationship, in order to deprive men of the “power” by which women are allegedly oppressed under a system of “male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”

Understanding what feminism is, we therefore are not surprised when women who embrace this destructive ideology report difficulties in their relationships with men. A woman who achieves happiness within the “social requirements of heterosexuality” — the feminine woman who succeeds in forming a relationship with a masculine man, and who enjoys the normal results of such success — has no more incentive to alter the system than does any man who is similarly successful and happy.

It is only the misfits and outcasts, the disgruntled, the maladjusted and the neurotic, who find in feminism’s utopian project of androgynous “equality” a vessel for their antisocial resentments. Quite predictably, the women who are most fanatical in their devotion to this warped ideology are those who are most unhappy with “gender stereotypes,” women who suffer from feelings of inadequacy (or inauthenticity) in heterosexual relationships and who actively dislike masculine men. Feminism offers women sour-grapes rationalizations for their failures, and also justifies their vindictive impulses toward males as “social justice.”

What kind of man is attracted to feminist women? Suzannah Weiss’s experience with her college boyfriend who did not “feel comfortable in the male gender role” is quite instructive in this regard. No honest man with any sense of self-respect would tolerate the kind of insulting rhetoric that feminists habitually use to describe men. Who finds hate attractive?

There are 3.5 billion women on this planet, most of whom do not consider “pleasing men” to be oppressive. Most women enjoy pleasing men, just as men enjoy pleasing women and, if our “gender roles” are at times difficult, successful performance of these roles is undeniably rewarding.

Ah, but we are forbidden to say so! No heterosexual man is allowed to speak on his own behalf, because feminists have claimed a monopoly over all discussion of “gender” and sexuality. We must be lectured by Suzannah Weiss — she whose “first love” was a boy who liked dressing up as a girl — and don’t you dare accuse her of hating men. Nor should you raise the issue of Suzannah Weiss’s mental health, her history of eating disorders, her body-image issues, or her pathological hatred of children:

Ever since I was a kid myself, I’ve held the conviction that I didn’t want kids. I found baby dolls creepy and real-life babies irritating. . . .
Children never appealed to me the way they do to many. I love animals, but human infants just seem like tiny, screaming, pooping aliens to me. I’ve also read enough parenting articles to understand the stress of child-rearing, not to mention pregnancy and childbirth — all to create a human being who may not even grow up to like you. It seems like too big a gamble.
On top of that, I wouldn’t make a good parent. . . .
I’d hope none of the men I date operate under this assumption that all women instinctually like kids. . . . I’ve realized it would be a waste of time to date someone who wants kids.

Feminism always leads to the Darwinian Dead End, and yet these failures consider themselves the only people qualified to talk about sex. Pay no attention to that old married guy with six kids . . .