A Lesbian Theory of the Penis

http://theothermccain.com/2014/11/11/a-lesbian-theory-of-the-penis/

 

“Far from being ‘natural,’ phallic sexuality is a moral and political activity. . . . Men’s sexual behaviour is not caused by hormonal dictates. It is because the penis serves the ideological function of symbolizing ‘human’ status that it is so heavily charged with erotic energy, and not because it is driven by testosterone. Men must keep using it because they need to keep proving that they exist, that their ‘humanity’ is inextricably entwined with penis-possession; women must be constantly used by it to prove that men exist, that the sum total of a man is his penis. . . . Anything and everything must be subordinated to penile activity if men are to be what phallic ideology requires them to be.”
— Denise ThompsonRadical Feminism Today (2001)

“That some men rape provides a sufficient threat to keep all women in a constant state of intimidation, forever conscious of the knowledge that the biological tool must be held in awe, for it may turn to weapon with sudden swiftness born of harmful intent. . . . Rather than society’s aberrants or ‘spoilers of purity,’ men who commit rape have served in effect as front-line masculine shock troops, terrorist guerrillas in the longest sustained battle the world has ever known.”
— Susan BrownmillerAgainst Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape (1975)

When did I first encounter the feminist claim that rape is not about sex? It was during the 1980s, I’m pretty sure, and I recall being both startled and amused by this well-known element of feminist theory. Startled, I say, because rape so obviously is about sex, and amused at the naivete of anyone who could believe otherwise.

In the nearly four decades since Susan Brownmiller’s Against Our Will elaborated the rape-as-violence motif, it has become increasingly difficult to criticize that ideological claim without being accused of being “pro-rape.” Men who love women — not “love” as a matter of sentimental expression, but “love” as a consistent behavior of care and support — are required to be silent in reaction to the dishonest and deliberate insult that Brownmiller and other radical cadre have promoted as feminism’s truth. As males, we are not allowed to dispute feminism’s authority to speak on behalf of our wives and mothers, sisters and daughters.

As males, we are members of a demonized group of enemies, and everything we might say in our own defense is illegitimate. So when Brownmiller speaks scornfully of “the biological tool” — i.e., the penis — as also a “weapon,” when she implies that we as males derive a benefit from rapists who serve as “front-line masculine shock troops, terrorist guerrillas” in a war of all men against all women, we cannot dispute this hatefully insulting anti-male doctrine without being Kafkatrapped, where our claim of innocence becomes proof of our guilt.

Honest, decent and intelligent people rightly perceive feminism as a limitless doctrine of fanatical hatred. There can be no compromise with this totalitarian belief, nor can there be any “moderate” feminism. The problem, in the 21st century, is that the majority of Americans are neither honest nor decent nor intelligent. Barack Obama never could have been elected president twice in a nation of honest, decent, intelligent citizens. Clearly, our government now operates on behalf of the dishonest, indecent and stupid majority, and the consequences of this political reality should frighten us.

Feminism’s success in gaining hegemonic authority within academia — which the fate of Larry Summers at Harvard conclusively proved — has made it impossible to challenge the truth-making authority of these anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideologues. Every “educated” person under 40 has lived his or her entire life in a world where feminism controls our nation’s intellectual discourse about sex, so that to oppose feminism is to be “anti-intellectual,” no matter how fluent your argument or how prestigious your credentials. Deprived of intellectual prestige and institutional influence, direct opposition to feminism becomes first unfashionable and then nearly impossible.

You could probably count on one hand the number of university professors in America who have uttered a peep of criticism against feminism during the past decade, and the small number of anti-feminist books is buried amid the avalanche of feminist titles that spew forth from academic presses as commodities for taxpayer-subsidized consumption astextbooks in Women’s Studies courses.

So here we have Denise Thompson, author of the 2001 book Radical Feminism Today, a self-described “independent scholar” (meaning she never got a permanent professorship) in Australia, who worked for several years at the New South Wales Social Policy Research Centre. Now 74, Thompson could more logically be viewed as representing radical feminism yesterday, except for the fact that radical feminism is now what it has always been and must always be. While studying dozens of works of feminist theory, I have observed how the tone and terminology shift slowly over the decades. What was first termed “male chauvism” became “sexism” and more recently “misogyny.” What Adrienne Rich called “compulsory heterosexuality” in 1980 is now more commonly called “heteronormativity.” Criticism of “sex roles” or the “sex-caste system” has been superceded by talk of “gender,” and there are always little-noticed skirmishes around the periphery of feminism. What we might call “old-fashioned” radical lesbianism (e.g., Mary Daly, Julia Penelope, Marilyn Frye, Janice Raymond, Sheila Jeffreys, et al.) has for more than two decades been waging a counterattack against the insurgency of “French feminism” and poststructualism as represented by proponents of “Queer Theory” like Judith Butler (Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, 1990).

Nevertheless, feminism remains what it has always been, and Denise Thompson’s Radical Feminism Today is a clear and thorough survey of this ideology. I ordered Radical Feminism Today from Amazon after seeing her books articles repeatedly cited in the notes and bibliographies of other books, including Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed, edited by Diane Bell and Renate Klein (1996) and Rethinking Sexuality by Diane Richardson (2000). I was particularly intrigued by an excerpt, in the latter title, of a 1991 book by Thompson, Reading Between the Lines: A Lesbian Feminist Critique of Feminist Accounts of Sexuality. Richardson cited Thompson while endeavoring to refute the longstanding criticism of “radical feminist analyses as biologically determinist/essentialist.”

Do I really need to wade into the eternal feminist disputes over “essentialism” here? No, it is not necessary to subject the reader to such internecine quibbling over theoretical details, except to say that in these fights among feminists, it is the radical lesbians who stand firm in defense of the idea that “female” is a matter of biology — a scientific fact involving anatomy and chromosomes — and in this particular matter, I find myself nodding in agreement.

Here I must remind readers of McCain’s Law of Feminism:

There are three kinds of feminism:

1. Feminism that is wrong;
2. Feminism that is crazy;
and
3. Feminism that is both wrong and crazy.

When in doubt, it’s usually Number Three.

Radical feminists are all crazy, but they are not always wrong.  The radical arguments of crazy lesbians expose the intellectual bankruptcy of so-called “pro-sex” (i.e., liberal heterosexual)  feminists.

If biological differences are irrelevant, after all, then there can be no basis for hating men and no way to identify “women” as an actual group suffering from oppression under male supremacy. Yet in order to avoid giving away the ballgame (because admitting that there are real differences between men and women undermines the androgynous egalitarian premise of feminism), radical feminists are required to tread a very narrow theoretical tightrope. With that in mind, here (from page 54 of Richardson’s Rethinking Sexuality) is the quoted excerpt ofThompson’s Reading Between the Lines:

To insist, as radical feminists do, that there are differences between the sexes, and that those ‘differences’ are the stuff of male domination, is not to appeal to ‘biology,’ nor to be pessimistic about the possibility of revolutionary change. In fact, it is to insist on that very possibility, else why would we bother? . . . Why is it not possible to argue both that female and male sexualities are different, or rather (to put it less essentialistically) that women and men have different interests, purposes, desires and needs in relation to sexuality, and that those differences are engendered by specific historical conditions, without positing any essential genesis or causality at all?

 

Thompson is splitting a fine red hair there, so to speak.

One gets the feeling that what Thompson wants to say is what all feminists really believe but cleverly refuse to say in so many words: Men and women are different — because men are inferior to women.

Anyone who believes feminism is about “equality” is so hopelessly stupid that I doubt they could read or comprehend this sentence.

Feminism isn’t about equality. Feminism is about hate.

As Jim Goad says, every word of feminist rhetoric is intended to “degrade, humiliate, and demoralize men,” and this is especially true as regards feminism’s deliberate demonization of male sexuality.

Thus do we return to Denise Thompson’s rant about “phallic sexuality” being “a moral and political activity.” It is certainly shocking to see a feminist speak of sexual morality, but in what sense do she mean that sexuality is political? Never mind how she might answer that question, however. Here she makes a categorical claim:

“Men’s sexual behaviour is not caused by hormonal dictates.”

The hell you say! Any teenage boy — or any man who remembers what it was like to be a teenage boy — can refute that bullshit. While it is certainly true that human beings are capable of rational action, and are not helpless slaves of biological urges, the hormonal influence on male sex drive is a scientific fact of biology beyond dispute.

Yet a fool believes what a fool believes, and there is no fool quite so foolish as a fanatical feminist fool. A man’s throbbing erection, according to Denise Thompson’s theory, has nothing to do with “hormonal dictates.” The boner is socially constructed, you see, and as Dr. Thompson insists “phallic sexuality” is not natural, there is neither a hormonal etiology nor a behavioral teleology to male sexuality.

C’mon, what’s the only reason any teenage boy ever learned to play guitar? Can I get a show of hands, guitar players? Rock-and-roll exists because of “phallic sexuality.” Wise parents understand this: Your daughter is never safe around a boy who plays guitar.

It’s not just guitars, either. Almost anything teenage boys do, they do as a result of “phallic sexuality.” They play football or they drive fast cars or they wear Abercrombie & Fitch — one way or another, it’s “phallic sexuality” that motivates their behavior. Anyone who doesn’t acknowledge this truth is living in an alternate universe. They certainly have never been a teenage boy or been the parent of one.

“Phallic sexuality” can be restrained and channeled toward constructive purposes, but it cannot be wished away by theoretical abstractions. Did I ever believe — has anyone with a penis ever believed — that his erection derived its “erotic energy” because it “serves the ideological function of symbolizing ‘human’ status”? Does my wife believe this? I’m afraid to ask. Her laughter would be embarrassing.

On the other hand, I must confess to being profoundly intrigued by Dr. Thompson’s Existential Theory of the Boner, whereby my humanity “‘is inextricably entwined with penis-possession,” so that I must keep using it to prove I exist: “I f**k, therefore I am.”

“Anything and everything must be subordinated to penile activity,” according to this feminist interpretation of “phallic ideology.”

Damn. If only some feminist had told me this when I was 14, it would have spared me all that time I spent learning to play guitar.

Brutal sarcasm aside, you see what results of feminism’s insistence that only feminist interpretations of sexuality are valid. Anything a man may claim to know about this own anatomy, his own beliefs and behavior, is unacceptable if it contradicts feminist theory.

Readers will excuse me if I end this article without offering any profoundly insightful conclusion. My 13-year-old son borrowed my old guitar — I have no idea why he wants to learn to play — but I think I might need to borrow it back, to serenade my wife. Maybe I’ll get lucky and my wife will let me prove my existence, IYKWIMAITYD.

Feminists: They’re Not About the ‘D’

http://theothermccain.com/2014/11/07/feminists-theyre-not-about-the-d/

How many times do I have to say feminism is a journey to lesbianismbefore people start waking up to the truth? Liberal guys need to realizetheir “male feminist” thing is never going to work:

A male-led campaign to promote affirmative consent for sex at DePaul University — which is nominally Catholic but runs a “Queer Peers” mentorship program — has thrown in the towel.
Or rather, the T-shirt.
Selling shirts emblazoned with “Consent the D” — a play on the school’s basketball slogan “Fear the D” (the Demons mascot) that waswidely interpreted as “dick” — came off as “flippant” to campus feminists, who didn’t take kindly to an alternative approach to their signature issue, Jezebel says:

“Unfortunately, the ‘Consent the D’ movement was cut short by forces outside of my control,” founder Randy Vollrath said in a video message posted Tuesday. “T-shirt production has been halted while we work to address the issue.”

Vollrath said he appreciates that people didn’t like the T-shirts but objects to their disagreement being ”misinformed” about the group’s intentions.

Via College Insurrection. Guys, let me give you a little clue, OK? Take a look at the Women and Gender Studies faculty page at DePaul:

The Department of Women’s and Gender Studies faculty members have wide-ranging research interests. Some of these interests include intersections of race, class, gender, sexuality; cross-cultural perspectives; violence against women; women in the Middle East; lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and transgender identities and politics; autobiography; queer theories; immigrant women; globalization; transnational feminist perspectives; antiracism; gender and education; feminist theories and politics; gender and family violence; and performance studies among others.

 

 

 

Do you guys see anything — anything at all — in that description that would lead you to think the kind of feminism taught at DePaul University could ever involve, y’know, “consent the D”?

Unless, of course, it’s followed by “Y-K-E” or “I-L-D-O.”

Pardon my heternormative sarcasm, DePaul guys, but it’s not like I don’t have actual research to support what I’m telling you. The truth isn’t hard to find, but you young idiots are probably too busy playing beer pong and XBox to bother looking for the truth.

Here, let me help you: Professor Ann Russo is director of the graduate program in Women’s and Gender Studies. Your first clue is that there is a graduate program, OK? They’re giving out master’s degrees and Ph.D.s in this stuff at DePaul, so it’s not just a few undergrads picking up a few easy A’s for regurgitating “queer theory.” Having a graduate program in Women’s Studies signifies that a university is a serious Dyke Factory. And let’s see what Professor Russo says about herself, eh?

Areas of Interest
Women, Violence, and Justice
Feminist, Anti-Racist, and Critical Race Theories and Practices
Activism and Social Justice Movements
Constructions of Race, Class, Gender and Sexuality in Media
Sexual Identities and Sexuality Debates

 

Just in case you DePaul fellows don’t get the significance of terms like “gender,” “identities” and “sexuality,” here’s a hint: Normal women don’t need a Ph.D. program to study how to be normal.

Still, you clever college boys may be thinking, “That old man is just crazy. There’s no way the university would be employing women to promote a totalitarian ideology of hatred toward males.” OK, look at Professor Russo’s list of “major publications” and you’ll see:

Bro: ANDREA EFFING DWORKIN.

 

Feminists have praised Dworkin — and yes, they consider this praise — “as the Malcolm X of the women’s movement.” Professor Russo and her co-author clearly admire Dworkin as a feminist leader:

Without Apology illuminates the politics and artistic practices of Andrea Dworkin, arguably one of the most daring, innovative, and controversial feminists in the United States. Coauthor of civil rights antipornography laws, life-long political activist, and international lecturer and consultant on issues of sexual violence and exploitation, Dworkin has a prolific and distinguished writing career. She has published thirteen books of fiction and nonfiction, and her work has been translated into twelve languages.This is the first-ever book-length analysis of Dworkin’s feminist politics and the first critical analysis to examine her controversial political ideas in light of the literary dimensions of her prose. Cindy Jenefsky, with Ann Russo, looks at Dworkin’s major nonfiction works — including Woman HatingPornography: Men Possessing Women, and Intercourse — in terms of the rhetorical dynamics animating her political ideas. Also included within this analysis are Jenefsky’s lengthy interviews with Dworkin, which focus on her identity as an artist and on the artistic principles guiding her work.The result is a novel reinterpretation of Dworkin’s politics and a brilliantly clear analysis of the political nature of artistic practice for readers interested in literary and rhetorical criticism, feminist theory and activism, the volatile debates over pornography and civil rights, and the relationship between contemporary sexual practices and male power systems.

 

When a professor of Women’s Studies writes a book celebrating the career of Andrea Dworkin . . . do I have to draw you a picture? Your mental laziness is frightening, DePaul dudes. Because, see, it doesn’t take too much Googling to figure out what Professor Russo is all about. Her co-author on that Dworkin book, Cindy Jenefsky? Also the co-author of a treatise called “Phallic Intrusion: Girl-Girl Sex in Penthouse.”

Hmmm. So, Russo and Jenefsky are disciples of the man-hater Dworkin, and Jenefsky co-wrote an entire paper analyzing fake lesbian scenes in a popular skin mag. Would it help — because I know you DePaul guys are too dumb and/or lazy to Google it yourself — if I pointed out that Jenefsky’s co-author on that paper, Diane Helene Miller, is author of a book called Freedom to Differ: The Shaping of the Gay and Lesbian Struggle for Civil Rights?

Wake up, DePaul dudes: Feminism ain’t about “consent the D.”

Thousands of years of patriarchal domination, and you idiots are going to fumble it away because you’re too stupid to use Google?

You dudes are going get aced out of the action if you don’t wake up.

The #StreetHarassment Meme and #Feminism’s Kafkatrapping Tactics

http://theothermccain.com/2014/11/03/the-streetharassment-meme-and-feminisms-kafkatrapping-tactics/

 

The Left’s tactics aren’t hard to understand, really. The “catcall” video that went viral last week — see “Racism, Classism and Catcalling (or, #Feminism Is for Rich White Lesbians)” — was an Alinksy Rule 12 classic: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

Heterosexual men are the target, obviously. Feminists want women to identify themselves as feminists — to join a movement that is defined by its anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology — and the basic problem is the same as it has been for more than 40 years: Most women are heterosexual (97.7% according to the latest federal data) and, believe it or not, these normal women genuinely like men.

Normal women have not succumbed to feminism’s politicized hatred of males. Normal women have fathers and brothers and husbands and sons they love. Normal women have male co-workers and friends whom they respect and admire. Whatever problems normal women may have in their lives, they don’t buy into feminism’s conspiracy theory of heteronormative patriarchal oppression.

“What are the behaviors and roles considered appropriate for one’s sex? . . .
“If you are a Feminist . . . the answer to this should be ‘There are no behaviors and roles considered appropriate for my sex because Females can be and do anything.’
“If you are not a Feminist, your answer might be ‘My role as a woman is to be a Wife (fuckhole) and Mother (breeder).’”
— Cathy Brennan, December 2012

How can feminists ever hope to gain support from normal women? Sure, they may pick up a few misfit stragglers who turn lesbian because of propaganda like Orange Is the New Black. And, yes, feminists want to normalize lesbianism in your daughter’s school.

Still, feminism’s War on Human Nature can’t succeed entirely via direct recruitment — e.g., housewives turning gay by watching cable TV — and so they must stir up anti-male resentment among otherwise normal women. Therefore, feminism constantly focuses its public rhetoric toward “issues” that highlight male/female conflict, presenting males as objects of contempt, and attempting to provoke a “conversation” that feminists can control: Rule 12.

A concern troll popped up in my Twitter timeline this morning:

https://twitter.com/rsmccain/status/529289688319029248

 

You see? The whole point of the “catcall” video was to provoke conflict over a phony “issue” that is not really an issue at all. That is to say,everybody is anti-catcall, except those men who are actually engaged in this boorish behavior, so why is there an “issue” here?

Objectively, catcalling presents no cause for political controversy. Ah, but it does give feminists a chance to (a) demonize men, and (b) discredit any male commentator who attempts to dispute feminism’s authority to define what catcalling means as an “issue.” This is really about who controls the narrative, see?

There is a tactic of debate known as throwing your antagonist onto the horns of a dilemma: Present him with a binary choice and demand that he either agree or disagree with a controversial proposition. For example, I might ask a feminist if she agrees that “Rapists Serve All Men by Enforcing Male Supremacy.” If she says “yes,” she looks like a paranoid lunatic. If she says “no,” she has rejected the fundamental feminist interpretation of rape’s social and cultural meaning.

“Susan Brownmiller’s [1976] book, Against Our Will, is a milestone in the women’s movement because it demythologized — desexualized — rape. We learned . . . that sexual and physical violence against women is not ‘sexual’ at all but simply violent. Men use it to dominate women. . . .
“Susan Brownmiller showed us that rapists serve all men by enforcing male supremacy. . . . [W]e should be clear that our quarrel is not only with certain abusive men but with male supremacy. Our goal should be not merely to redefine our sexuality but to redefine the world and our place in it.”
— Ann Jones, “Family Matters,” in The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism, edited by Dorchen Leidholdt and Janice G. Raymond (1990)

A statement like that is either true or it is not. Either rape is a crime — proscribed by our society’s most ancient and venerable laws, and condemned by all law-abiding citizens — or else rape is, as feminists believe, a political manifestation of “male supremacy.”

Feminists never want to debate this subject openly, you see. Instead, they have built echo chambers in university Women’s Studies programs where the factual premises of their perverse theories can never be questioned. Women’s universal oppression under “male supremacy” — is that the genuine reality of women’s lives, or not? Anyone who expresses doubt toward that basic premise in an academic environment will be shouted down and demonized by feminists. Larry Summers was compelled to resign as president of Harvard University merely for suggesting that“innate differences” between men and women might have meaningful significance in their career choices.

Feminists can’t permit a free debate where the flawed premises of their warped totalitarian ideology might be called into question. Instead, they must silence their critics or attempt to discredit critics through character assassination. We see how feminists tried to do this to George Will, who disputed their phony campus “rape epidemic” campaign, by falsely depicting Will as “pro-rape.” The tactic is basically Kafkatrapping, “using denial of guilt as proof of guilt.” As I said of the “SlutWalk” movement, we may distill feminist rhetoric on this subject to its totalitarian essence,Shut up, because rape.”

We are expected to believe — or at least required, by the rules of public discourse imposed by feminism’s hegemonic cultural authority, to pretend we believe — that relentless propaganda about a (non-existent) “rape epidemic” on university campuses is unrelated to feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology. Feminism is about “liberating girls and women, those who are born into the sex caste female, from the unnatural, yet universal roles patriarchy has assigned.” Feminism is about abolishing the traditional family and promoting lesbianism and, perhaps ultimately,a genocidal reduction of the planet’s male population.

All that is necessary to discredit feminism is to quote what feminists say, when they believe they are speaking only to their fellow feminists.

“Male sexual violence against women and ‘normal’ heterosexual intercourse are essential to patriarchy because they establish the dominance of the penis over the vagina, and thus the power relations between the sexes. . . . When a male sexually violates a female, he is doing work for patriarchy.”
— Dee GrahamLoving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives (1994)

The anti-social lunacy of feminist ideology is rejected by all sane people. Feminism would have near-zero political influence were it not for the terroristic intimidation of silencing tactics by which feminists conceal their intellectual bankruptcy from public scrutiny.

Feminists can “win” arguments only if they are permitted to control the terms of debate, to decide what the issues are, to limit the parameters of discussion, and to disqualify critics who refuse to cooperate with feminism’s Orwellian thought-control project.

“OK, Stacy, but what does this have to do with the mid-term elections?” asks the reader, because conservative political bloggers are supposed to be talking about nothing else but the Real Clear Politics poll averages and Nate Silver’s Senate projections.

WHAT WILL BE THE ‘GENDER GAP’ ON TUESDAY?

How many of those key Senate elections will be determined by women’s preference for the (feminist-approved) Democrat candidates?

In how many of those Senate campaigns have Democrats attempted to leverage the “War on Women” meme against Republicans?

https://twitter.com/rsmccain/status/529361490349154304

Readers are free to go check the latest Senate polls, and I’ll still be here talking about feminism’s cultural hegemony, OK? Don’t let me distract you from whatever Karl Rove is saying on Fox News.

We have congressional elections every two years, and elect a president every four years, but the culture shapes the attitudes and beliefs of our youth seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, every year, from the time a kid starts watching Sesame Street until the time he’s an adult who has been so thoroughly indoctrinated that he cannot think outside the limits of this cultural programming.

“In the hands of a skillful indoctrinator, the average student not only thinks what the indoctrinator wants him to think . . . but is altogether positive that he has arrived at his position by independent intellectual exertion. This man is outraged by the suggestion that he is the flesh-and-blood tribute to the success of his indoctrinators.”
– William F. Buckley Jr., Up From Liberalism (1959)

We return, then, to the catcalling video, and the concern troll who was trying to bait me into reacting according to script, implying that I was “excus[ing] the catcalls” and trying to steer the conversation back toward “misogyny.” Nice try, troll, but you’re not going to force me to play a phony game by your dishonest rules. Mama didn’t raise no fools.

“Turn the camera around,” as Andrew Breitbart used to say. Instead ofthem demanding answers from you — “Look at this awful misogyny! Why don’t you denounce this misogyny? Is it true that you secretly hate women?” — you start asking them questions:

  1. Who appointed you as Grand Inquisitor?
  2. What is the basis of your authority to interrogate me about this? What difference does my opinion make?
  3. When did Americans elect you as Our Moral Superior?
  4. Where do you get the idea that I’m obliged to cooperate in this transparent political “gotcha” game you’re paying?
  5. Why is it necessary that I answer your questions?
  6. How much is the Democrat Party paying you to do this?

“Five W’s and an H,” as our student newspaper adviser at Turner Middle School explained to us when I was 12 years old.

The Left loves nothing more than to arrogate to themselves a pretended authority to speak on behalf of alleged victims of oppression. Covering themselves in secondhand martyrdom, figuratively brandishing the victim’s corpse as a shield against criticism, leftists start playing the Grand Inquistor, demanding that we respond according to the script. Matthew ShepardJames Byrd Jr.Trayvon MartinMichael Brown — somebody’s dead, and the Left wants to turn this death into a political morality play that means exactly what they say it means, and nothing else. People are killed every day in America, but only certain deaths provide the Left with opportunities for these media-orchestrated events, “A National Conversation About [Insert ‘Social Justice’ Issue Here].”

Because the vast majority of people never realize that they were programmed by skillful indoctrinators, as Buckley put it, they can’t figure out what’s really happening in these ginned-up media controversies. Well,everybody is against racism, sexism and homophobia. Nobody is in favor of “police brutality.” Nobody is pro-pollution or pro-poverty or pro-rape. So why do we find ourselves constantly subjected to these moralistic lectures on cable TV news channels, as if we need to be told for the umpteenth time how dreadfully oppressive American society is? The Daily Atrocity Parade in the liberal media is a continuation of the cultural Marxism programming everybody got in the Government Youth Indoctrination Centers euphemistically known as “public schools,” and we are supposed to react like Pavlov’s dog“Racism! Sexism! Poverty! Global Warming! Vote Democrat!”

Anybody with common sense recognizes that there is something distinctly weird about all this. How is it that the media decides which dead victims are worthy of wall-to-wall cable news TV coverage? And why is the moral of the story always the same? VOTE DEMOCRAT!

Every once in a while, simply as a matter of arithmetic and random coincidence, you’d think maybe twice a year somebody would get killed in a manner that would tend to the opposite conclusion. Unfortunately,Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.

What’s with this Michael Brown deal in Ferguson, really? I haven’t paid much attention to it, but what little I’ve seen tends to suggest (a) Brown was a teenage dopehead who (b) ripped off some cigars at a convenience store, then (c) Brown resisted arrest when Officer Darren Wilson attempted to apprehend him, and (d) Officer Wilson shot Brown:“Evidence shows that Brown was struggling to get officer Wilson’s pistol.”

A lamentable incident, certainly, but you’d have to be as stupid as a typical Democrat voter to see this as a “social justice” issue deserving constant media commentary. There are lots of typical Democrat voters in Ferguson, however, so they had a riot.

My point, however, is not the subnormal intelligence of Democrat voters, although anybody who takes Al Sharpton seriously is in obvious need of remedial education. Rather, my point is: Why does the media insist we pay attention to the death of Michael Brown?

Two word answer: VOTE DEMOCRAT!

The moral of the media message is always the same, you see.

Whether it’s a concern troll with only one Twitter follower, or a CNN reporter or an MSNBC host,  it’s the same Alinsky playbook. Here is this “issue,” and here is a liberal demanding that we, the lab rats in the Skinner box, provide the programmed response.

Zombie-like, we must repeat the mantra: “Misogyny is a bad thing. All men are rapists. All women are oppressed.” And, hey, Mom, let your young daughter have a slumber party with Lena Dunham.

What could possibly go wrong?

Racism, Classism and Catcalling (or, #Feminism Is for Rich White Lesbians)

http://theothermccain.com/2014/10/30/racism-classism-and-catcalling-or-feminism-is-for-rich-white-lesbians/

Time for a little of what feminists call “intersectionality.” A video went viral in which a woman walking on New York City streets is catcalled or subjected to what feminists call “street harassment.”

Allahpundit analyzes both the video and the phenomenon in terms of why do men do this? Before we address the particulars of that question, however, shouldn’t we first ask, who does this?

 

It’s a racist production about white women
not wanting attention from black and Latino men.

“The video also unintentionally makes another point, thatharassers are mostly black and Latino, and hanging out on the streets in midday in clothes that suggest they are not on their lunch break. As Roxane Gay tweeted, ‘The racial politics of the video are f–ked up. Like, she didn’t walk through any white neighborhoods?’” . . .
What makes these catcalls offensive isn’t that they come from men. It’s that they come from low-status men. Like an unconsented kiss from President Obama, if the catcalls came from George Clooney there’d be much less female outrage.
In fact, maybe these catcalls are a way of striking back at privilege

 

One of the ways I offend people — sometimes accidentally, but usually on purpose — is by calling attention to things which are true, but which we aren’t supposed to notice. In the 21st century, it is difficult to tell where courtesy ends and political correctness begins, and there are more and more Things We Aren’t Allowed to Say.

https://twitter.com/rsmccain/status/527759792279158785

The Left’s long-standing criticism of American culture (from the disciples of Herbert Marcuseet al.) is that, supposedly, we are repressed, uptight and inauthentic because of our puritanical Anglo-Christian heritage. What went unexamined in the “Magic Negro” controversy (when Rush Limbaugh was excoriated as a racist for quoting a liberal commentary about Obama) was that black people have been used in popular culture as symbols of authenticity because of a sort of inferiority complex among white liberals. (Shelby Steele’s White Guilt is a useful introduction to this phenomenon.) Some WASPs grow up with the feeling that they have no real culture, or that their own culture is actually the cause of the world’s woes — the Genocidal White Capitalists Raping the Planet meme — and never recover from that deficit.

Things We Aren’t Allowed to Say: English-speaking white people are the only Americans who are denied a right to ethnic pride.

There, I said it. Sue me.

You might believe, if you were an unthinking consumer of what is taught in the government education system, that before the arrival of a wave of Irish immigrants fleeing the 19th-century Potato Famine, that the United States was a vast Evil Hate Machine. But then came the Irish (sanctified by their victimhood), followed by the wave of Ellis Island immigrants (Italians, Jews, etc.) and, through their shared experience of suffering inflicted by the Evil Hate Machine, these non-WASP Americans — with the help of their  loyal mascot-sidekicks, The Negroes — achieved the dream of A More Perfect Union.

In other words . . . VOTE DEMOCRAT!

Things We Aren’t Allowed to Say: What is taught as “history” in the government education system is, in fact, a propaganda narrative indistinguishable from the liberal orthodoxy of the Democrat Party.

This orthodoxy extends privilege (yeah, I speak academese quite fluently) to the descendants of Catholics, Jews and other non-WASP immigrants, a sort of “Get Out of Whiteness Free” card, so they can exonerate themselves from the genocidal atrocity narrative of the American founding: “We didn’t exterminate the Native Americans!  We did not enslave African-Americans! My great-great grandfather was [insert Immigrant Nationality here] who came here with nothing! My ancestors were victims of the Evil Hate Machine, too!”

You’re welcome, non-WASP Americans. My WASP ancestors did all that for you, so you could feel superior to me. Glad to help.

The Democrat Coalition and Its Contradictions

The Liberal Narrative of American History, you see, originated in the political rhetoric of urban Democrats in the 1920s, who  assembled a pan-ethnic coalition in places like Chicago, Boston and New York by appealing to the interests (and prejudices) of the Irish, Italians, the Jews and other immigrant groups. “Vote Democrat,” the Irish Catholic in Boston was told,“and we’ll take money and power from those rich Yankee snobs and give it to you!”

In an era when All Politics Was Local — when there was no cable TV or Internet to call attention to these narrowly tailored partisan messages — the Catholic in Boston or the Jew in New York was unaware that, simultaneously, the Ku Klux Klan was campaigning in the Midwest with a different message. “Vote Democrat,” the Indiana farmer was told, “and we’ll do something about those Jews and Catholics and Negroes who are destroying The American Way of Life!”

From that kind of dishonest two-faced hateful divisiveness, the Democrat Party constructed the Great Liberal Consensus that elected FDR, Harry Truman, JFK and LBJ. During a span of 36 years (1933-69) Democrats controlled the White House for 28 years, interrupted only by the eight-year presidency of WWII hero Dwight Eisenhower, whose liberal “Modern Republicanism” was the chief target of William F. Buckley Jr.’s ire in the 1950s. (If you’ve never read Buckley’s 1959 classic Up From Liberalism, you should buy it immediately.)

The Great Liberal Consensus was self-contradicting nonsense that produced bad policy and, when it finally unraveled during the debacle of LBJ’s doomstruck presidency, the liberal intelligentsia were thrown into a state of permanent crisis from which they have never fully recovered. Behind their facade of hubristic liberal arrogance, Our Moral Superiors (as I have dubbed this intellectual elite) are deeply afraid that, at any moment, Americans will see through the Fog of Phony Bullshit from which Democrat electoral majorities are built.

We are “anti-intellectual,” you see, if we refuse to accept at face value The Liberal Narrative of American History we have been taught by the government education system. There should be a sign in front of every public school in America: “Vote Democrat, Because the Teachers Union Needs More Money and Power.” The hypocritical self-interest of government employees supporting the Party of More Government is another one of those Things We Aren’t Allowed to Say, but if you want to know why public schools are more interested in teaching liberal attitudes than teaching facts and skills, it doesn’t take a Ph.D. to figure it out.

“In the hands of a skillful indoctrinator, the average student not only thinks what the indoctrinator wants him to think . . . but is altogether positive that he has arrived at his position by independent intellectual exertion. This man is outraged by the suggestion that he is the flesh-and-blood tribute to the success of his indoctrinators.”
– William F. Buckley Jr., Up From Liberalism (1959)

We have been indoctrinated, all of us, and recovering from that indoctrination is a process, rather than an event. Once you start noticing the Fog of Phony Bullshit, you become skeptical of the narrative, and the Democrat Party mythos of ethnos is one of the most obvious elements of that narrative: There are five A’s in “RAAAAACISM!”

From that long but necessary digression, we return to the topic: A white woman targeted for “street harassment” by predominately black and Latino men on the streets of New York City.

VOTE DEMOCRAT!

C’mon, isn’t that the message of this viral video“Vote Democrat,” the white woman is told, “and we’ll protect you from the patriarchal oppression of the objectifying Male Gaze.”

The implicit assumption of the Democrat Party’s “War on Women” meme is that the sexist misogyny by which all women are allegedly victimized is officially endorsed by The Republican Party. Never mind the fact — as the viral video ironically demonstrated — that women’s victimization is quite often perpetrated by constituencies of the Democrat Party coalition. Feminism is a left-wing political ideology that serves the partisan interests of the Democrat Party and, when feminists aren’t busy offering to provide oral sex to Democrat men, they are busy accusing Republicans of being The Party of Rape.

It does not really matter whether you are male or female, black or white, straight or gay. The only thing liberals really care about is whether you vote Democrat, because the liberal’s sense of self-esteem is dependent on his belief that, by voting Democrat and encouraging you to do likewise, he proves himself worthy as one of Our Moral Superiors. (Thomas Sowell’s book The Vision of the Anointed explains this brilliantly.)

 

Androgynous Units of the 21st Century

So, for what it’s worth, here’s my two cents on the multicultural diversity of the New York City street harassers in the viral video: Males who have not been subjected to elite indoctrination in universities, and who have no direct investment in the bureaucratic regime of the suit-and-tie office job workplace, have not learned to be ashamed of their heterosexuality.

College education and professional careers in the 21st century require men to learn that women are oppressed by male sexual interest. The anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology of feminism — Fear and Loathing of the Penis — has acquired hegemonic institutional authority in the elite culture of academia. We are no longer permitted to believe that men and women are different, or that their differences have any natural function. We are all supposed to be Ungendered Androgynous Units, except insofar as males are inferior to females, and if you are a normal male who has normal attitudes toward normal females, this makes you part of the heteronormative patriarchy.

It is astonishing how deeply some men have internalized this totalitarian feminist anti-male hate propaganda. A properly indoctrinated male nowadays must believe that merely to notice female beauty, to feel sexual desire toward women in a normal way, or to praise women in their roles as wives and mothers, is to participate in misogynistic oppression. Indeed, the properly indoctrinated male feels a duty to denounce you as a sexist if you merely point out that feminism is an anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology. The belief system of lesbian Marxist baby-killers must never be questioned and, if a popular feminist celebrity is also an admitted child molester, well, how dare you call attention to that fact?

Outside the hyper-politicized precincts where feminist orthodoxy exercises hegemonic control, however, there are still males who have not yet been properly indoctrinated. They dropped out of high school or they couldn’t afford to go college. Maybe they joined the Army or got a muscle-and-sweat job where Doing the Work mattered more than Having the Correct Attitude. Or maybe, as seems to be the case of the lower-class New York City men featured in the viral video, they just accepted their liberal-endorsed status as Authentic Victims and haven’t bothered to wonder if there is anything wrong with their way of life.

One way or another, these men are not invested in the bureaucratic system within which feminist orthodoxy is uncontested. So when they see a good-looking woman, they react.

They are not repressed. They are not ashamed to be male. Their basic animal sexuality doesn’t cause them any psychic conflict.

And I can totally relate to those brothers.

Back in the day, my man Bobby “The Hamp” Shearer and I used to discuss the great social issue of our mutual interest, Exactly Who the Hell Do These White Girls Think They Are, Anyway?

See, Bobby played football at Homewood High and his mother was a respectable middle-class school teacher. I was the product of an at least equally respectable socioeconomic background. By the time we got to college, however, we were both renegade outlaws. Let me tell you, buddy, we were on the hunt, and in the late 1970s it was Open Season.

Bobby and I became friends as the result of an incident in a biology class our freshman year, when somebody managed to steal the teacher’s copy of the mid-term exam, so that class was adjourned and the test was delayed. At the Copper Penny pub (drinking age was 19 then in Alabama, but we all had fake IDs), Bobby told me he had been in on the test-stealing conspiracy and, as we laughed about the aftermath over beers, the topic of conversation drifted to Exactly Who the Hell Do These White Girls Think They Are, Anyway?

There was, at Jacksonville (Ala.) State University back in the day, a very clear social hierarchy. Atop this status pyramid were the Varsity Athletes, the Rich Frat Boys and their Hot Sorority Girlfriends. There was also the Baptist Campus Ministry — at that time, the largest student organization on campus — where Nice Boys and Nice Girls congregated and socialized. Then there was the Marching Southerners Band and its female auxiliary, the Marching Ballerinas. However, almost without exception, the Marching Ballerinas were also Hot Sorority Girlfriends, so that the ordinary male band geek had zero chance of scoring with a Marching Ballerina. (Of course, many male band geeks were gay, so the not-scoring-with-Marching-Ballerinas factor didn’t bother them.) And so it was that Bobby and I found ourselves in the situation of renegade outlaws, on the hunt, trying to figure out how to get Our Fair Share of That Action on a state university campus where a substantial majority of the target population (and nearly all the really prime commodity) was off-limits to us for one reason or another.

Exactly Who the Hell Do These White Girls Think They Are, Anyway?

Bobby’s problem as a black guy in Alabama during the long governorship of the Honorable George Corley Wallace was obvious enough, while my situation as a skinny long-haired rock-and-roll white boy was such that Bobby the Hamp and I had a lot in common.

The Objectivity of Renegade Outlaws

We were both profoundly antisocial, you see. Did I mention I used to be a Democrat? Never mind. The point is, Bobby and I shared a disrespectful attitude toward the status quo, and this became the basis of a friendship and many deep discussions about race and culture and, of course, Exactly Who the Hell Do These White Girls Think They Are, Anyway?

Renegade outlaws have an objectivity about the system of social status that any Ph.D. would envy. When I talk about the psychology of crime, I speak with the authority of experience, unless it behooves me to invoke my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. I was multicultural and intersectional before it was cool and it so happened that Bobby the Hamp and I had a common interest but different aptitudes.

For some reason, I attracted a certain type of girl, usually named Donna or Tammy, who liked my Bad Boy Clown persona (and my skinny ass) and who hoped that I might be harnessed into the Acceptable Boyfriend role — not that her mother would approve of me, but her mother could be required to accept me. On the other hand, Bobby had remarkable success in playing the role of Latter-Day Mandingo to certain Hot Sorority Girls who felt an occasional urge to defy (quite secretly) the regnant social expectations of northeast Alabama during the long governorship of the Honorable George Corley Wallace.

Me and the Hamp, we knew the score, see? Beneath the veneer of respectable conformity, all kinds of things were happening back in the day — Things We Weren’t Allowed to Say, but the truth was suppressed thenfor different reasons than it is suppressed now.

Too stubbornly proud to tug the forelock to Our Moral Superiors, I never once played the “Some of My Best Friends” card when hypocritical white liberals accused me of racism. Nor did I play the  “Some of My Best Friends” card vis-a-vis accusations of sexism and homophobia, because I was never going to let those bastards have the satisfaction of forcing me to defend myself except on my terms, as it fit my own purposes and sense of personal honor. People who actually know me, my real-life friends, know who I am and what I believe, and no self-appointed Arbiter of Political Acceptability is ever going to intimidate me into silence.

https://twitter.com/rsmccain/status/527931463748956160

No shame in my game, see, and it isn’t my job to justify or defend how dudes in New York City play their game. Feminists can go find those guys and dox them — publish their names and home addresses, please — so we can find out whether they’re registered to vote as Democrats or Republicans, and let the chips fall where they may. What the feminists want, however, is to convince women that somehow “street harassment” is a function of the heteronormative patriarchy, and the only way to fight it is (a) vote Democrat, (b) become a lesbian, or preferably (c) become a lesbian feminist Democrat.

Exactly Who the Hell Do These White Girls Think They Are, Anyway?

Hey, sweetheart: Don’t try to run that three-card monte game on me. Before you can demand from me a denunciation of New York City street harassers, you’ll first have to provide me with proof of your personal moral superiority, by which you claim the right to make such a demand. If it suits my interest to respond to your imperious demand, I might answer by saying that if (a) the First Amendment protects the right of Lena Dunham to show her ugly naked ass in every episode of Girls, then (b) the street harasser has a First Amendment right to express his admiration of a genuinely attractive woman. Note the “if . . . might” hypothetical structure of that sentence, darling, because if you want to have an abstract intellectual conversation, I’ll be happy to converse. However, you don’t actually want to have a conversation — certainly not an equal conversation — what you want to do is to make me into a Symbolic Scapegoat and say, “There! See? A white male heterosexual Republican said something sexist! Vote Democrat!”

What part of “fuck you” is so hard for you liberals to understand?

These hypocritical hate-hustling Democrats think they can get away with running the same hustle over and over again, because the rest of us are too dumb to figure out we’re being hustled.

Once their hustle has been busted, however, they have to move their crooked game to the other side of town and try it again. So now their familiar game — “Vote Democrat, Because Whoever You Hate, We Hate Them, Too” — is targeted at a new audience of chumps. Herman Cain once wrote a book called They Think You’re Stupid, the title of which is a perfect four-word summary of the Democrat Party’s basic strategy. And, hey, you can’t argue with success. After 214 years of lies, corruption and bad policy, Democrats are still open for business.

You want to talk about hate? When rich white lesbians start telling women to vote Democrat because of “street harassment,” while at the same time refusing to denounce a celebrity pervert like Lena Dunham for diddling her own sister, you may fairly accuse me of hating that kind of shameless hypocrisy. But unless or until these feminists prove to me that they actually are Our Moral Superiors, they have no right to make any demands of me, or you, or any ordinary law-abiding American citizen trying to get along in the real world.

Don’t let yourself get hustled. And if you’re ever in Homewood, tell Bobby “The Hamp” Shearer his old buddy Spacey Stacy says hello.