What No One Can Say on Campus

http://theothermccain.com/2015/10/28/what-no-one-can-say-on-campus/

“So what is feminism? What do feminists believe? Namely, that American women are oppressed by a patriarchy hell-bent on keeping women down, and that men and marriage are expendable. . . .
“What feminists want is to make men and women interchangeable. . . .
“I am not a feminist because I don’t believe feminists have an accurate understanding of human nature.”
— Susanne Venker

Great minds think alike, and Suzanne Venker sees the problem with feminism exactly as I see the problem with feminism. It is a War Against Human Nature aimed at using the coercive power of government to bring about an androgynous “equality” that ignores the actual differences between men and women. Feminism is a totalitarian movement to destroy civilization as we know it — and feminists say so themselves.

In her recent book Beauty and Misogyny, feminist Professor Sheila Jeffreys cites Andrea Dworkin as authority for indicting “the notion of beauty” as a “cultural practice . . . damaging to women,” an expression of “woman-hating culture.” Professor Jeffreys quotes Dworkin’s 1974 bookWoman Hating, specifically this sentence from Page 26:

“We recognize that it is the structure of the culture which engineers the deaths, violations, violence, and we look for alternatives, ways of destroying culture as we know it, rebuilding it as we can imagine it.” [Emphasis added.]

On the very first page of that book, Dworkin declared feminism a “fundamental revolutionary commitment,” explaining that the purpose of her “analysis of sexism” was “transformation of the social reality on every level . . . the development of revolutionary program and consciousness.” Feminism is a revolution to destroy “culture as we know it,” and can only be understood in terms of its essentially destructive purpose. It is too seldom mentioned nowadays that modern feminist movement emerged from the radical New Left of the 1960s. Shulamith Firestone used a mailing list of women involved in Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) to help organize what became known as the Women’s Liberation Movement. They staged their first major national protest at 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.”

This claim that women are oppressed and enslaved by men remains the essential premise of feminist ideology and, as Suzanne Venker says, feminists insist that all women are victims of a “patriarchy hell-bent on keeping women down.” Feminism is a revolutionary movement to destroy this alleged oppression, “to make men and women interchangeable” in such a way that men would become “expendable” and irrelevant to women’s lives. How could this be accomplished?

“Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse have written about the sexual dilemmas of modern civilization and proposed solutions combining aspects of Freudian theory and Marxian economic analysis. . . .
“Reich’s analysis introduces the theoretical insight that women and gays have known instinctively: that civilization in its present form was designed for heterosexual men, and that its structure guarantees their authority within it. Thus, to change society by ending sexual suppression does not mean the end of civilization, but rather the end of civilization as we know it. . . .
“It was Herbert Marcuse who say the critical function of homosexuals in ending repression. . . . Marcuse sees homosexuals as having an important place in history in helping to free sexuality, since he feels gay people have a more natural, totally erogenous sexuality.”
— Sidney Abbott and Barbara LoveSappho Was a Right-On Woman: A Liberated View of Lesbianism (1972)

If you buy this weird mix of Freud and Marx, if you believe that sexual “repression” and male “authority” are the root of all evil, and that “gay people have a more natural, totally erogenous sexuality” — well, if you believe all that, congratulations, you’re a feminist.

However, if you disagree with that — if you think Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse were a couple of dangerous kooks and are skeptical about a plan for “the end of civilization as we know it,” to bring about a society controlled by the authority of “liberated” lesbians — well, you’re never going to be allowed to speak at Williams College:

 

Williams College students invited Suzanne Venker, a writer and longtime critic of feminism, to speak Tuesday night, but changed their minds and took back the invite for her talk, “One Step Forward, Ten Steps Back: Why Feminism Fails.”
Venker had been invited to participate in a student-run, alumni-funded speaking series at Williams called “Uncomfortable Learning.” The program’s purpose is to expose students to controversial voices and opinions they might not otherwise hear. Many of the speakers tend to be conservative or people whose views don’t square with those of most students.
The students who run the series decided to cancel the event, co-president Zach Wood explained, after its Facebook page began to attract acerbic comments and “things got a little out of hand.” . . .
The concern, Wood explained, was that “people would get riled up while she was speaking,” maybe even throw things, and there wasn’t time before the event to organize security. “You never know,” he said. “We’re just trying to think ahead here. The last thing we wanted to do was do something destructive.”

 

You see how it is. Feminists in 1968 could denounce the Miss America pageant, lesbians in 1972 could cite Marxists and proclaim the wonders of “totally erogenous sexuality,” and Andrea Dworkin in 1974 could advocate a revolut9ion “destroying culture as we know it,” but in 2015, no one is permitted to criticize feminism on a college campus.

American college students are living under a regime of intellectual totalitarianism. No one who dissents from this regime can appear on campus because “people would get riled up.”

You can read the full text of the speech Suzanne Venker planned to give at Williams College, but students at Williams College are prohibited from hearing what Suzanne Venker says — it is forbidden and impermissible. The soi-disant student journalists at Williams College declare that“Venker’s views are wrong, offensive and unacceptable.”

Annual tuition at Williams College is $50,070 — parents are paying good money to make sure that their children never have to listen to anyone who might get them “riled up” by telling the truth about feminism.

In her book The War on Men, Suzanne Venker argues that “modern feminism . . . has severed the bond between the sexes, pitting men and women against one another,” that “the sexual revolution was a disaster. Men today have no respect for women and vice versa.” This is so obviously true that only stupid people (or Williams College students) could disagree, much less get “riled up” about it.

 

What ‘Rape Culture’ Really Means: Your Male Heterosexuality Is Problematic

http://theothermccain.com/2015/10/27/what-rape-culture-really-means-your-male-heterosexuality-is-problematic/

 

“[T]he curse of having been born a heterosexual male . . . meant being consumed by desires that one couldn’t act on or even admit without running the risk of becoming an objectifier or a stalker or a harasser or some other creature of the darkness.”
— Scott Aaronson, Dec. 14, 2014

The Internet erupted in controversy last year over “Comment 171,” in which MIT Professor Scott Aaronson responded to a discussion of “sexual harassment” by describing the sexual fears he experienced as a nerdy Ivy League student in the late 1990s. Professor Aaronson’s specialty is computer science, but in describing how he was driven to suicidal despair by the terroristic campus crusade against “harassment,” he performed award-worthy work as a psychologist or sociologist, exposing to the world what goes on inside the mind of a socially awkward heterosexual male when confronted by feminism’s pre-emptive accusations of wrongdoing. Because he is a male, and because he is attracted to females, such a student is made to feel as if his interest in the opposite sex is a shameful secret that he must be careful never to reveal.

If by any word or gesture he signifies his attraction to a female — or if he even makes a joke that discloses his heterosexuality in a general way — the male student could be accused of “harassment.” When your parents are spending big bucks to send you to an elite school like Cornell University (annual tuition $49,116), the possibility that you could be accused of “harassment” must be a frightening thing, and the risk of a “sexual assault” accusation is the Nightmare Scenario From Hell.

Feminist rhetoric defines both “harassment” and “sexual assault” in terms of experiences that the female deems “unwelcome” or “unwanted.” If a college boy thinks a girl is cute and starts talking to her with the hope that she might reciprocate his interest, his conversation could be considered “harassment” if she dislikes him. Read enough feminist blogs, and you see countless variations of this theme, The Clueless Unattractive Male Who Won’t Take a Hint. His behavior is offensive — “creepy” or “stalkerish” — because (a) he likes her, (b) she doesn’t like him, yet (c) he dares to speak to her without permission, and (d) he doesn’t seem to notice her signals of disinterest. We can easily imagine how a sensitive and intelligent young man like Scott Aaronson circa 1997, being lectured about harassment and rape in a freshman orientation session, must have been stricken with fear upon learning how loathsome his heterosexual orientation made him in the eyes of his fellow students.

How dare this disgusting nerd find women sexually attractive?

 

“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. Men’s world is like a vast prison or concentration camp for women. This isn’t a metaphor, it’s reality. Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men.”
— Radical Wind, August 2013

 

In describing feminism’s characteristic anti-male/anti-heterosexual paranoia as “Fear and Loathing of the Penis,” I do not mean merely to make a hyperbolic joke, but rather to call attention to the strange and savage hostility toward normal male behavior that is the fundamental basis of feminist theory. My original guide to this was Professor Daphne Patai’s 1998 book Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. Until I read Professor Patai’s book, I had no idea how far feminists had gone in their demonization of heterosexuality, especially in the context of “harassment” charges in academia. During my own youth, we understood “sexual harassment” in the sense of the quid pro quo, in which a male authority figure — an employer, a supervisor, or a teacher — expected females to provide him with sex in exchange for favorable treatment. Everyone understood this kind of harassment to be a wrongful abuse of power. The professor was hired to teach English, not to seduce his students, and the manager was hired to run a restaurant, not to have sex with waitresses. While sex between co-workers might be entirely consensual, everyone understood the problems that could arise in a situation where a female employee was having sex with her male supervisor. Because that kind of quid pro quo harassment was widely understood to be wrong, most people didn’t pay much attention when the definition of “harassment” was expanded to include behaviors that were nothing like the (clearly wrongful) quid pro quo. The feminist legal theorists who pushed this expanded definition of “harassment” — now construed as meaning damned near anything a man did that any woman decided was “unwelcome” or “unwanted” and “offensive” or “sexist” — created a workplace environment where everyday interactions between male and female employees could become the basis of a federal discrimination lawsuit unless males were always strictly and formally professional in their behavior. An easygoing, informal workplace atmosphere — men joking around with their female colleagues in the way they would joke with their male colleagues — was a recipe for disaster, if any woman ever got her feelings hurt, or believed that she was in any way discriminated against in her employment.

A series of high-profile cases in the 1990s — the Clarence Thomas hearings, the “Tailhook” scandal and the Bill Clinton impeachmentimbroglio — brought widespread attention to the issue of sexual harassment, so that everyone began to interpret workplace interaction between men and women in a new way. As more and more women succumbed to the feminist sexual paranoia that Professor Patai dubbedHeterophobia, suddenly “harassment” was everywhere, and it was amid this climate of pervasive sexual fear that Scott Aaronson attended Cornell University in the 1990s:

Here’s the thing: I spent my formative years — basically, from the age of 12 until my mid-20s — feeling not “entitled,” not “privileged,” but terrified. I was terrified that one of my female classmates would somehow find out that I sexually desired her, and that the instant she did, I would be scorned, laughed at, called a creep and a weirdo, maybe even expelled from school or sent to prison. And furthermore, that the people who did these things to me would somehow be morally right to do them — even if I couldn’t understand how.
You can call that my personal psychological problem if you want, but it was strongly reinforced by everything I picked up from my environment: to take one example, the sexual-assault prevention workshops we had to attend regularly as undergrads, with their endless lists of all the forms of human interaction that “might be” sexual harassment or assault, and their refusal, ever, to specify anything that definitely wouldn’t be sexual harassment or assault. I left each of those workshops with enough fresh paranoia and self-hatred to last me through another year.

 

You should read the whole thing, if you didn’t read Comment 171 when it went viral last year. Professor Aaronson’s very personal account of his experiences was quite risky. As he said, he was “giving up a privacy that I won’t regain for as long as I live, opening myself to ridicule” and, predictably, feminists began dogpiling him with mockery. I have described how feminism enables deliberate cruelty, rationalizing the sadistic impulses of women who are afflicted with a hateful desire to inflict punitive revenge on males, and the way Professor Aaronson was mocked by feminists (including the execrable Laurie Penny and the hideous Miriam Mogilevsky) was certainly proof enough of that.

Feminists are very bad people — dishonest, selfish and cruel — and only a fool would ever trust them. Every word they speak or write is a deception, because they will never admit the vile hatred that motivates their anti-male politics. In Comment 171, Professor Aaronson made a statement I heartily endorse:

 

I’ve read at least a dozen feminist books, of which my favorite was Andrea Dworkin’s Intercourse (I like howls of anguish much more than bureaucratic boilerplate, so in some sense, the more radical the feminist, the better I can relate).

 

Indeed, the shrieking lesbian rage of Andrea Dworkin is vastly preferable to the Foucauldian academese of Judith Butler, as far as getting to the actual point of feminist theory. Feminists do not like men, feminists do not like sex, and feminists especially do not like sex with men. Why? Because men enjoy having sex with women, and anything that men enjoy is wrong, because they are men. Feminism is a movement dedicated to depriving men of pleasure. Anything that brings a smile to a man’s face must be oppressive to women. This spiteful campaign to eradicate every potential source of male happiness is what has inspired the “campus rape epidemic” hysteria. Nowhere does feminist power more nearly approach totalitarianism than at American colleges and universities, where women are 57% of the students, and every male on campus knows he could be expelled if any female classmate ever accuses him of wrongdoing.

If you believe what feminists say (in other words, if you are a goddamned helpless fool), then you must believe that the only reason any boy goes to college is because he wants to rape the girls who go to college. Every male student on campus is a suspected rapist, and every female student on campus is his would-be victim. The absence of actual evidence to prove this feminist claim (“The Campus Rape Shortage”) is explained away by the assertion that female students don’t report being raped because they are afraid no one will believe them. (Circular logic is circular; the conclusion and the premise of a feminist argument are always the same thing, except when they are completely contradictory, but logic is an oppressive tool of the patriarchy.) Statistics showing that the rate of sexual assault has declined, and that female college students are less likely to be raped than non-college women of the same age, raise the question of why feminists have devoted so much effort to portraying the 21st-century campus as a Rape Factory, an assembly line staffed by violent misogynists engaged in the production of sexual victims.

Once we understand that (a) the vast majority of male college students are not rapists, and (b) the vast majority of rapists and rape victims are not college students, we realize feminist discourse about “rape culture” represents an effort to demonize male college students as “privileged.” The eagerness with which feminists leapt onto the 2006 Duke lacrosse team rape hoax and the 2014 University of Virginia rape hoax betrays the real motive behind this crusade. In both of those cases, the falsely accused males were white and belonged to campus organizations where membership conferred high status. To be a varsity lacrosse player at Duke (annual tuition $49,341) is to occupy a very lofty position in the hierarchies of “male privilege” that are targets of feminist criticism. Likewise, the members of Phi Kappa Psi at the University of Virginia are quite likely beneficiaries of the kind of upper-middle-class privilege that feminists condemn as the essence of oppression.

The higher a man’s socioeconomic status, the greater his exercise of male power, according to feminist theory, so that any success a man achieves (or any benefit he receives from his parents’ success) condemns him as an oppressor. If his parents worked hard to provide him with advantages, and if he made the most of his opportunities to excel in school, then the very fact that he is attending a prestigious university marks the male student as a living symbol of social injustice. His mere existence is oppressive to women, and if he adds to this indictment by being (a) white and (b) heterosexual, then anything that feminists can do to harm him is justified in the name of “equality.” The male student branded a rapist and expelled from college now is one less “privileged” male competing with women for high-status jobs in the future. The false accuser who destroys a young man’s educational opportunities today deprives him of career opportunities tomorrow. If campus activists can destroy enough young men this way, eventually the systematic process of destruction will bring about the Progressive Utopia of Gender Equality that feminists have been promising women for more than 40 years.

When we begin examining the “rape culture” discourse in detail, we are struck by how little it takes for a male student to be branded a perpetrator on the 21st-century campus. The “regret equals rape” case at Virginia’s Washington and Lee University and the John Doe lawsuit against Brown University are but two of the data points in an emerging pattern. If we can believe what the male plaintiffs allege in complaints like these, it is obvious that nothing like an actual rape was involved in the cases that resulted in their being punished in campus “Title IX” proceedings where they were deliberately deprived of due-process rights that would be accorded to any common criminal in a court of law.

We may contrast this obsession with accusing “privileged” male college students of rape with the way feminists habitually ignore news of violence against women committed by common criminals:

 

  • MIDLAND, Texas, Oct. 22: Aurelio Luna Sr., 55, was senteced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after a jury found him guilty of continuous sexual assault of a child. Luna committed multiple acts of sexual assault against a female family member over a period of at least two years. The girl’s mother contacted the Midland Police Department after she found text messages regarding the abuse.
  • OMAHA, Neb., Oct. 23: Reginald Briggs, 31, was charged with first-degree murder in the death of Teresa Longo. Police say Briggs is a pimp and that Longo was one of his prostitutes. Longo’s body was fund Oct. 2. An autopsy showed she was killed by a single gunshot wound to the back of her head. Briggs reportedly bragged about killing her, and another one of his prostitutes told police she went with Briggs to dispose of the shotgun he used to murder Longo on Sept. 17.
  • MILWAUKEE, Wisc., Oct. 27: Jose Ferreira Jr., 50, was charged with the murder of a seventh-grader more than 30 years ago. Carrie Ann Jopek disappeared in March 1982. According to prosecutors, Ferreira and Jopek were at a party at a house when he pushed her down the steps into the basement. The fall broke her neck, killing her. Ferreira, who reportedly believed the girl was only unconscious, had sex with her corpse. He then buried Jopek’s body under a neighbor’s porch, according to prosecutors. When he recently told his wife about the 1982 murder, she turned him in to police.
  • NEW BRITAIN, Conn., Oct. 26: Luis Velez, 43, was sentenced to 40 years in prison after pleading guilty to murdering his wife, Johana Gallego, 33. She and Velez had been married less than a year when he strangled her to death. He had previously been convicted of another killing in Puerto Rico.
  • ST. LOUIS, Mo., Oct. 23: Keith L. Ivy, 41, is charged with kidnapping after police say he and an accomplice abducted Ivy’s ex-girlfriend from her workplace. Ivy, who had been recently released from prison in Georgia and was also on probation for a separate drug conviction, allegedly told the ex-girlfriend they were “going to die tonight.” She managed to escape.
  • SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y., Oct. 26: Justin Suarez, 27, was arrested on 34 charges, after police say he raped his ex-girlfriend twice, stalked her, threatened her with a sledgehammer and shot a dog to death in front of her. “He told her that if she told anyone, he would kill her, too,” the district attorney said.
  • WACO, Texas, Oct. 22: Emmanuel Emil Bailey of Ft. Smith, Ark., faces trial on federal charges connected to an interstate child sex trafficking ring. Bailey is charged with transporting persons for prostitution and other violations of the Mann Act. Bailey was among more than 40 suspects arrested during an Internet prostitution sting orchestrated by the McLennan County Sheriff’s Office.

 

You will never find Jaclyn Friedman or Jessica Valenti or Amanda Marcotte discussing cases like that, because none of the men accused in those cases are “privileged” white male college students. The reason feminists ignore crimes committed by perps like Emmanuel Bailey,Aurelio LunaKeith Ivy, and Justin Suarez is very similar to the reason that feminists never call attention to any crime committed by a woman or a gay man. The hierarchies of privilege determine who is an oppressordeserving condemnation and who is a victim deserving sympathy. A black pimp who murders a prostitute, a Hispanic pedophile who rapes a teenager, female teachers having sex with their students — none of these crimes are of interest to a feminist, because publicizing such crimes does not help promote the “social justice” worldview in which the “privileged” white heterosexual male is the epitome of evil.

If you have a son attending college, or if you have a teenage son who is about to finish high school, he must be warned. Every feminist seeks to destroy him, and therefore every woman he encounters on a college campus is his enemy. No female he meets can be trusted, because all college women are being actively encouraged to accuse male students of rape. Anything your son says to a woman on campus can be interpreted as “harassment,” and any active expression of heterosexual interest puts your son at risk of an accusation of “sexual assault.” The only way a male student can safely attend college in the 21st century is to avoid any contact with female students on campus.

Warn your sons, America. It would be best, if possible, for your son to consider a field of employment that does not require a college education. Let him become a truck driver or a carpenter, rather than subjecting him to the risk of being falsely accused of rape by college feminists.

 

Wake up, America! It’s 2015! The only reason any girl goes to college nowadays is to seize her opportunity for advancing the feminist cause of “gender equality” by accusing a boy of rape.

Feminism is a movement that seeks to eliminate “male privilege” by preventing men from having any opportunity for success. Because feminists now exercise unlimited authority at American colleges and universities, a young man seeking success in life should contemplate how best to pursue a career path that permits him to avoid attending college, where his presence on campus is considered offensive by the monstrous man-hating fanatics who call themselves feminists.

Academia is now so tightly controlled by radical ideologues that it would be better for your child to have no education at all, rather than to be corrupted by 21st-century “higher education.” Millions of young minds are being permanently warped by the godless perverts who have seized power on campus and are using that power to destroy our civilization.

Dann them all. Damn them all to Hell.

(Incidentally, Scott Aaronson said his purpose in writing Comment 171 was to ensure “no one will ever again be able to question the depth of my feminist ideals.” Some people just never learn . . .)

Whining Feminists Want To Limit Free Speech On Popular App

Carmen Rios communications coordinator of the Feminist Majority Foundation ” Is it Women’s History and Theory, or is the program really Lesbo Recruitment 101″?

 

 

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/28/whining-feminists-want-to-limit-free-speech-on-popular-app/

A slew of feminist groups have been stirring up controversy with popular college app called Yik Yak, claiming the totally anonymous posts found on the app breed an environment of racism, sexism and cyber bullying.

Yik Yak is a free mobile app for college campuses and surrounding areas which lets users post anonymous messages when on or near their campus. Users can also designate their school location as their “herd,” which lets users view and post to their college’s board no matter where they are.

Fox reported on Wednesday that several feminist groups sent a letter last week to the U.S. Department of Education for Civil Rights asking for more censorship on the already privately monitored app.

Radical groups like National LGBTQ Task Force, Feminist Majority Foundation, and the National Organization for Women demanded in the letter that college administrators should start monitoring and regulating the anonymous comments posted. The feminists claimed in the letter that some posters bully other users with comments that are motivated by sexism or racism, and need to be stopped by campus bureaucrats.

But Fox News reported this monitoring could be unconstitutional.

 

“The speech to which this letter objects includes a great deal of speech protected under the First Amendment,” UCLA School of Law Professor Eugene Volokh told Fox News. The professor later added, “The breadth of the restriction just shows how little concern this coalition has for free speech rights.”

The College Fix reported that this is not the first time groups and universities have spoken out against Yik Yak. Saint Louis University banned the app last week, restricting the college’s Wi-Fi network to run the app. SLU bureaucrats claimed the restriction was justified on the premise that the app violated the school’s “appropriate use” policy.

Initially launched in 2013, the app has grown to have a presence on over 1,600 college campuses, with many college students using it as a message board.

In a similar case of stringent monitoring, another app called Peeple received harsh criticism earlier this month after its launch. Critics said that the app perpetuates hateful language, and this criticism even prompted a delayed release date.

Peeple is a spin-off of the Yelp app, but designed for people to rate one another.

One of the app’s co-founders, Julia Codray, shot down critics’ claims, however, and told The Washington Post, “As two empathetic female entrepreneurs in the tech space, we want to spread love and positivity…We want to operate with thoughtfulness.”

CBS’s “Supergirl”: In your face with antifeminism

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mega-featured/cbss-supergirl-in-your-face-with-antifeminism/

 

 

October 28, 2015 By  6 Comments

 

Explicitly, thematically and in subtext, the pilot episode of the CBS network’s primetime show Supergirlaims to drive a kryptonite dagger into the heart of feminism. And then, twist the blade.

While another new CBS show, Limitless, is quite subtle about portraying men’s family relationships in a respectful and caring light, and dismisses feminist innovations like sexual harassment training as meaningless business annoyances, Supergirl has a big “fuck you” to feminists in almost every scene.

The positive vision of men in Limitless makes you feel better about being a man, regardless of what your flaws are – I like it a lot in a quiet way. If you are an MRA familiar with the work of Karen Straughan (GirlWritesWhat) or any other FeMRA Supergirl will have you cheering.

It starts with the name: teenager Kara Zor-El (played as an adult by Melissa Benoist), the cousin of Superman, was sent to Earth to be a caregiver to him as an infant. Supergirl cares for children! It is, in fact, her only mission objective.

Although she insists her first name is pronounced like Car-Eh, her boss Cat Grant (played with Thatcher-esque snark by actress Calista Flockhart) pronounces it “Care-ah,” as if to underline the caring, traditionally feminine nature of Supergirl.

When Cat coins the name “Supergirl” for the new hero in “National City” (leaving Metropolis to Superman), Kara objects that the term “girl” is anti-feminist, Cat turns in a cold rage to give her the dressing-down of her life:

Cat: Didn’t you say she was a hero? I’m the hero. I stuck a label on the side of this girl, I branded her. She will forever be linked to Catco, to the Tribune, to me. And what do you think is so bad about “Girl”? Huh? I’m a girl. And your boss, and powerful, and rich, and hot and smart. So if you perceive “Supergirl” as anything less than excellent, isn’t the real problem you? And if you’re so smart, Kara, could you please give me one reason why I shouldn’t fire you? [Emphasis added].

Label, brand, girl, boss, problem[atic]: somewhere, anti-feminist Maggie The Thatch is smiling. Cat got to the CEO chair without smashing any patriarchy or glass ceiling; she claims the title of strong GIRL and gives zero credit to feminism – she even stomps all over their code words. You go, grrl!

Indeed, Kara has lived in a feminist “safe space” since she arrived on Earth far too late to nursemaid Kal-El. The pilot opens with her decision to grow up, take responsibility, and explode out of her safe space and engage the world as an adult – something feminists are loath to do.

In an interview with Stephen Colbert, actress Melissa Benoist claimed that Supergirl was feminist because she was “for everyone.” Only the most newb, naïve feminists actually believe that: feminism is about advancing women as a class, not helping men get equality with women. Feminists eschew helping men or even individual women. Kara is depicted as boy-crazy and obsessed with clothes and dating apps. As a superhero she will help anyone in trouble, not just women. Feminists have to be screaming with agony at what a girl she is.

When it comes to her superhero costume, Kara rejects the skin-baring outfit of feminist icon Wonder Woman so beloved by feminist slut-walkers. After several misfires she hits the balance point between radfem dowdy and 3rd wave slutty, implicitly rejecting identifying with either group.

The only sop to Social Justice Warriors at all is the character of Jimmy Olsen, who has left his Norwegian ancestry behind and is now “James Olsen,” (Mehcad Brooks) token black dude. I suppose I should object that Olsen has appropriated African-American culture – or did an African-American character appropriate a name from Norwegian culture? – but the character is played as such a strong, smart, and solid male image that I like the character regardless of all that other crap. Of course, changing a major character’s skin color is an SJW trap: you’re racist if you don’t have any African-Americans in the cast, but if you include African-Americans, you’ve committed the crime of cultural appropriation, and you’re still racist. Since you lose either way, it is better to stop trying to please SJWs and just tell them to GTFO.

There is one clearly feminist character: the leader of the bad guy Kryptonians opposed to Supergirl is a woman who craves power and hates families – she thinks nothing about killing her own blood relatives if they get in her way. It is hard to get any more feminist than that without having a standing open appointment at an abortion clinic.

It is hard to project the future of this show – will they fall into a feminist morass and die like the originalSupergirl with Helen Slater did 30 years ago? (Helen Slater plays Supergirl’s adoptive mom in the new show – one more caregiver anti-feminist).

The pilot closes with one last costume adjustment – Supergirl’s cape is fashioned from Superman’s baby blanket. Once more, Superman saves the day – as a baby.

Use that for a chew toy, feminists.

Feminism: The Final Product

 http://theothermccain.com/2015/10/22/feminism-the-final-product/

Miriam Mogilevsky (@sondosia on Twitter) is 24 years old. She got her bachelor’s degree in psychology from Northwestern University in 2013 and recently completed a master’s degree in social work at Columbia University. As I explained in “Feminists, and How to Avoid Them”:

How much more clearly can Miriam Mogilevsky make her point? Everything that men do is annoying to her. Attempts by males to befriend Ms. Mogilevsky are unwelcome. . . . Ms. Mogilevsky is a feminist, and therefore has no emotion toward men except disgust and contempt.

 

The weird thing about Miriam Mogilevsky . . . Well, there are an awful lot of weird things about Ms. Mogilevsky, but the one that stands out is her inability to admit how profoundly abnormal her dislike of males is. At elite universities like Northwestern and Columbia, this hateful anti-male ideology is now so prevalent among female students that heterosexuality is effectively illegal on campus. Any male student attending an elite school who so much as speaks to a female student is at risk of being charged with “harassment.” A recent lawsuit filed against Brown University — where a male student was expelled for making out with a girl after a party — highlights the manic intensity of “rape culture” hysteria feminists have unleashed on campus. Because Fear and Loathing of the Penis has now become pandemic among college women, it is possible for feminists like Miriam Mogilevsky to assume all women hate men as much as she does. Here was her announcement on Oct. 11:

Coming Out Day!!! The labels I currently use for myself arequeer, gay, femme, and homoflexible. (Basically, I’m a lesbian with exceptions.) The label bisexual doesn’t work for me right now, but I consider myself part of the broader bi+ umbrella of people with the capacity to love and desire people of more than one gender. My gender is ???. My pronouns are she/her or they/theirs, with extra warm fuzzies when you use they. I’m on the asexual spectrum somewhere, probably demi or gray-A, which means (among other things) that I don’t experience primary sexual attraction. I also identify as solo poly, which means that I’m open to multiple committed and loving relationships, but with minimal life enmeshment and no “rules” placed on me.
Come out if you can, but remember that you’re allowed (in fact, encouraged) to prioritize yourself first, and others and The Movement second.

 

Miriam Mogilevsky is “on the asexual spectrum somewhere,” and incapable of experiencing “primary sexual attraction,” which is to say, she is quite typical of feminists in 2015. She has no gender except “???” and though she professes to be “open to multiple committed and loving relationships,” the young feminist can never be subject to any rules. Really, Miriam Mogilevsky is your 21st-Century Progressive Dream Girl, devoid of affection or empathy, incapable of anything remotely resembling normal human behavior — the Final Product of the Feminist Revolution.

 

Yes, the asexual lesbian-with-exceptions has written a column about“Conflicting Emotional Needs in Relationships,” and you can (a) read it or (b) gouge your eyes out with a rusty screwdriver.

Either would do you as much good.

Feminists are profoundly abnormal creatures, and it was Ms. Mogilevsky who inspired me to offer this advice in August:

Guys: Learn to take a hint. Learn to walk away.
If a woman tells you she is a feminist, say nothing and walk away.
No feminist wants to hear what a man has to say, and life is too short to waste your time taking to feminists. Just walk away.
Leave feminists alone, and then they can complain about that.

God knows, they’ve always got to have something to complain about.

 

 

Feminists, and How to Avoid Them

http://theothermccain.com/2015/08/12/feminists-and-how-to-avoid-them/

 

Miriam Mogilevsky (@sondosia on Twitter) doesn’t like men, but evidently those sexist oppressors won’t leave her alone:

I started to understand my frustrations with my male friends, roommates, and partners much better, because these imbalances have touched every single relationship I’ve ever had with a man. Male partners have consistently ignored glaring issues in the relationship so that I had to be the one to start the difficult conversation every single time, even though they supposedly had as much of a stake in the relationship as I did. Male roommates have made me beg and plead and send reminder texts to do even the most basic household management tasks. Male friends have tried to use me as a therapist, or drawn me into worrying about their physical health with them while refusing to see a doctor even though they had insurance.
Well-meaning men of varying roles in my life have consistently ignored my nonverbal cues, even very visible ones, forcing me to constantly have to articulate boundaries that ought to be obvious, over and over. . . .
This is why being in relationship with men, even platonically, is often so exhausting for me. As much as I love them and care for them, it feels like work.

 

You can read the rest. Miriam Mogilevsky is a feminist because she doesn’t like men, and yet men won’t take the hint. This is a persistent problem. Some males actually believe that feminism is about equality. They think, “Well, I believe in equality, so I’m a feminist, too,” and then intrude themselves into the lives of feminists like Miriam Mogilevsky, who don’t want to be anywhere near a man, ever. Merely being in the presence of a male is “exhausting” to feminists. They have made abundantly clear what feminism requires of men:

A. Shut up;
and
B. Go away.

As soon as a woman indicates that she is a feminist, this should be a cue to any man to avoid her as much as possible. No male should ever speak to a feminist. In fact, the feminist expects males to be completely silent in her presence. How much more clearly can Miriam Mogilevsky make her point? Everything that men do is annoying to her. Attempts by males to befriend Ms. Mogilevsky are unwelcome. She is a feminist, and therefore dislikes having to share the planet with males, because of “the fear and anger with which some men respond to women’s emotional unavailability.” Ms. Mogilevsky is a feminist, and therefore has no emotion toward men except disgust and contempt. Why can’t these men understand what Miriam Mogilevsky is trying to tell them?

 

Emotional labor is reassuring my partner over and over that yes, I love him, yes, I find him attractive, yes, I truly want to be with him, because he will not do the work of developing his self-esteem and relies on me to bandage those constantly-reopening wounds. Emotional labor is letting my partner know that I didn’t like what he did sexually last night, because he never asked me first if I wanted to do that. Emotional labor is reassuring him that, no, it’s okay, I’m not mad, I just wanted him to know for next time, yes, of course I love him, no, this doesn’t mean I’m not attracted to him, I’m just not interested in that sort of sex. Emotional labor is not being able to rely on him to reassure me that it’s not my fault that I didn’t like the sex, because this conversation has turned into my reassuring him, again. . . .
Emotional labor is managing my male partners’ feelings around how often we have sex, and soothing their disappointment when they expected to have sex (even though I never said we would) and then didn’t, and explaining why I didn’t want to have sex this time, and making sure we “at least cuddle a little before bed” even though after all of this, to be quite honest, the last thing I f–king want is to touch him.

 

Miriam Mogilevsky does not like sex with men, because she does not like men, and she is tired of doing the “emotional labor” of pretending otherwise. She is tired of men with low self-esteem who expect her to pretend she is capable of “love” for a male and being “attracted” to a male, although no male “partner” ever does anything right.

Guys, what part of shut up and go away don’t you understand?

Emotional labor is when my partners decide they don’t want to be in a relationship with me anymore, but rather than directly communicating this to me, they start ignoring me or being mean for weeks until I have to ask what’s going on, hear that “I guess I’m just not into you anymore,” and then have to be the one to suggest breaking up. For extra points, then I have to comfort them about the breakup.

This is “because most men have been intentionally deprived of the language and tools to even think about these sorts of issues,” Ms. Mogilevsky complains of her ex-boyfriends. Even when the guy takes the hint — shut up and go away — he does it wrong.

 

Miriam Mogilevsky is 24 years old. She got her bachelor’s degree in psychology from Northwestern University in 2013 and recently completed a master’s degree in social work at Columbia University. She takes a sadistic pleasure in inspiring fear in men, and evidently believes that what the world needs most is more feminist lectures from Miriam Mogilevsky. She is a walking stereotype of the self-important narcissistic Millennial who expects us to be impressed that she is “passionate about social justice, feminism, sexuality [and] atheism,” as if there weren’t at least 10,000 young feminists exactly like her on Tumblr.

They are a dime a dozen, these fervent young progressives, providing an endless supply of “social justice” that far exceeds anyone’s actual demand. One wonders why they bother to go to college at all, as no special training is necessary to whine and complain, which is all they ever do. When they get out into the real world and discover how hard it is to make a living, they’ll whine and complain about that. Miriam Mogilevsky whines and complains that men are craving her companionship, compelling her to engage in “relationships” in which she is expected to perform “emotional labor.” And this a social injustice.

Guys: Learn to take a hint. Learn to walk away.

If a woman tells you she is a feminist, say nothing and walk away.

No feminist wants to hear what a man has to say, and life is too short to waste your time taking to feminists. Just walk away.

Leave feminists alone, and then they can complain about that.