"A poisonous creed that claims to empower women but has ended by infantilizing them."

Annie Holmquist writes in Intellectual Takeout,

Not long ago, feminist scholar and activist Camille Paglia made waves when she excoriated those who insist on the use of genderless pronouns:

“How dare you, you sniveling little maniac, tell us how we’re going to use pronouns. Go take a hike!”

Now Paglia is back with some more surprising – and politically incorrect – statements concerning the effects of feminism on the current generation. In a recent interview with The Washington Free Beacon, Paglia first notes where feminism went wrong:

“Second-wave feminism went off the track when it started to demonize men and blame them for all the evils in human history. It’s a neurotic world-view that was formulated in too many cases by women (including Gloria Steinem and Kate Millett) with troubled childhoods in unstable homes. First-wave feminism, in contrast, focused on systemic social problems that kept women in secondary or dependent status.”

According to Paglia, today’s feminists have veered off course and gone about their ascent to power in the wrong way. The true, historic, and admirable feminists “never indulged in the tiresome, snippy rote male-bashing that we constantly hear from today’s feminists.”

The outcomes of this male-bashing, Paglia notes, are not only harming men, but women as well. Instead of training them to dream big, grow up, and conquer the world, it handicaps and turns them into weak and silly women:

“What I am saying throughout my work is that girls who are indoctrinated to see men not as equals but as oppressors and rapists are condemned to remain in a permanently juvenile condition for life. They have surrendered their own personal agency to a poisonous creed that claims to empower women but has ended by infantilizing them. Similarly, boys will have no motivation to mature if their potential romantic partners remain emotionally insecure, fragile, and fearful, forever looking to parental proxies (like campus grievance committees or government regulators) to make the world safe for them.”

Read more here.

A pro-life feminist!

Andrew says Macron wants to be able to surrender all of Europe, not just little ole France.

Andrew's guest is Fiorella Nash. I am not sure if that is how to spell her name. She has written a book entitled The Abolition of Women...How Radical Feminism is Betraying Women. Women who do not believe the positions put forth by radical feminists are being squeezed out of the feminist movement. A new patriarchy is being formed by the radical feminists in which women are told what they must believe about themselves. Who is being squeezed out? The millions of women who oppose abortion!

When new dissident movements are formed, an odd thing happens. You quickly get a sense that everyone must be expected to think the same way! Colonization of women!

Andrew asks why the feminists fall silent when it comes to the status of women in the middle east and China. The ruling Communists in China have forced women to abort babies to make sure that the one-child policy is enforced. China is the only country in the world where more women than men commit suicide and the majority of those are women of child-bearing age!

Then, of course, there is the sexualization of society, and young girls are at more risk than they have ever been before, especially in societies where Islamists rule.

She says there is a need for a new feminism, where men and women work together, not pitted against one another. Andrew thinks there should be a new movement called Chivalry! Freedom and classical liberalism extending itself to women. Women acting like ladies and men acting as gentlemen toward ladies!

A final thought from Andrew: the only path to reality we have is other people!

Partners

Guest post
by Suzann Darnall

I am an old-fashioned kind of girl. I believe in the love between a man and a woman. I believe God made woman to be a helpmeet for man. And, yet, I also believe in the equality of the sexes. Not that we are the same, but that we are each equally deserving of the respect of the other.

This does not mean I oppose same-sex marriage. It is the law and who am I do deny others the joyful unions they are entitled to by law. Besides, I have enough on my own self-improvement plate without worrying about what others are doing that might or might not be right or wrong.

But, I do have a lil something to say about the so-called “Feminist Movement” happening in America today. I speak out about it ‘cause it is not a private issue between two consenting adults and the Lord. It is a never-ending disaster which is affecting all of us. Men, women, and children!

I walked away from the feminist movement of an earlier era when I discovered just how much they opposed freedom of choice in all but one arena. They were all about the freedom to have an abortion, but woe unto the women who did not fall in line with what they felt women should think, do, and be. The new and un-improved feminist movement is even worse. They not only seem to hate women who refuse to toe the line of their feminist agenda, they hate most men, and do not seem all that fond of children. At least I think they are anti-child ‘cause the mainstay of their agenda still seems to be fighting for the right to abort as many unborn babies as possible.

But, the main point I want to focus on in this essay is that of men and women. Not men VERSUS women, but men AND women. You see, it takes two. Two to make a marriage. Two to make a baby. Two to make a partnership. And, a marriage should be a partnership. A joining of minds and hearts and, to be blunt, bodies. For me, that means a partnership with a man. My love, my friend, my husband, my sweetheart, my partner.

My husband completes me and he says I complete him. We not only love one another, we like one another. We are not adversaries trying to overcome one another, we are partners trying to overcome the adversities the world throws at us. We work and play and strive and relax as a team. Even when we are apart we are still working together. He makes money, while I make us a home. In earlier times, I also tended the children. Nowadays the “children” are two Mustangs, a Great Dane, two barncats, and four habitats for fish . . . plus the resident herd of deer who show up for Bambi Breakfast Club and Bambi Supper Club.

I well and truly cannot understand the feminists of today any more than I did the feminists of my teens. How can they be so filled with hate for men? Especially now that they have pretty much leveled the playing field. Most of the women today who shriek about sexism really have no idea what it means to be refused something based on your gender. I do. I lived in the age when women were fighting to get into the military academies. Even after letting women in, some still were discriminated against in an effort to keep certain career fields for men only. So, I am not only insulted when these women march around in pussy hats, or topless, or screaming once more about the right to kill their unborn children, I am confused.

Feminists fought for the right to have recreational sex. They attained birth control, abortions, and even what amounts to legalized prostitution in many instances. Yet, they complain about being sexualized and objectified. Their current favored protest of objectification based on their “lady parts” is to dress up as said lower lady parts or bare said upper lady parts. Well, sweeties, half the world’s population has vaginas and breasts, so maybe y’all should find something else for your shock value. You are not cutting edge, y’all are just silly looking. But, hey at least y’all are not as silly looking as the men dressing in pussy hats or as vaginas. Oh my gosh! Those are definitely not the guys I’d pick for a partnership.

I not only love my husband, I like men in general. I like to talk to men. I love my two sons-in-law, my grandson, my brothers, and my father. I enjoy conversing with them. I also have numerous male friends who are important to my life. Some of them are married, some are not. I cannot imagine hating them or treating them like the enemy, They are friends. Just like my female friends, except different. They give me something women cannot provide. Just as women give me something men cannot provide. I would be incomplete without the two sets of friends.

In a way it is my male friends who challenge me, while it is my female friends who support me. I need both challenge and support to be the best me that I can be. Just as I am incomplete without my husband, so I am incomplete without ALL of my friends. Being only challenged might make me stronger, but lonelier. While being only supported might make me feel more loved, but probably will leave me less independent.

I see within myself the partnership that is echoed in my marriage. I have a strong part and a soft part. The strong part helps me make a tough decision, while the soft part helps me be careful in dealing with who that decision might affect. In my marriage it is that way. Only sometimes I am strong and sometimes it is my husband. Sometimes I am soft and sometimes it is him. We balance one another. We support one another. We challenge one another. Not in a “you win or lose” way, but in a “you can be better” way. Which is really a “we can be better” way.

Just as I rejected feminism in the 1970s, I am rejecting it in the 21st century. Feminists have learned nothing except how to be more hateful and more harmful. They do not care about equality anymore, now they want the utter destruction of the male half of the population. How very sad for them. How very dangerous for us. Without men AND women, the human race dies out. Without partnerships, civilization dies out. We need one another. Man, woman, and child. I truly believe family is the cornerstone of civilization and family starts with a man and woman. Even test-tube babies need a biological mother and biological father. No way to procreate humans without two genders. The science on that has been settled since the beginning of humanity!
Suzann blogs at WoolyMammoth.Org

"Don't be intimidated by the shame squad!"

God: "I would stop them, but I believe in human freedom!"

Andrew: "Feminism has degraded femininity" "300,000 babies are killed every day in American abortions." Those babies have no voice in the matter.

Also in the cultural air now are young people espousing atheism.

Another: victimhood!

What does the Left do? They shut people up who attempt to speak out against abortion, feminism, microaggressions, atheism.

Jim Acosta is feeling victimized by Trump supporters. So is Chuck Todd. Andrew says it is not the lies, it is the bias! Decades of bias!

Comedian Owen Benjamin is Andrew's guest. He believes we now have a lack of shared values, which have to be in place in order to appreciate humor. Pimps and hookers have a pyramid force: don't rat on me and I won't rat on you. Hollywood has evil doers and evil followers. The majority are evil followers. They will cover for people. They will see things that are horrifying. They will defend evil. Pretending something is okay when it's not.

Late night comics have become shells of themselves, puppets, applause-seeking ideological weirdos.

Whom does he think is funny? John Mulaney and Norm Macdonald.

Andrew believes the Left is trying to censor social media and they want to take back that gate-keeping role.

Owen: One of the big lies is you have to go to college to make something of yourself.

Lastly, Andrew recommends we watch John Wayne in The Searchers. The moral universe exists, but it can only be understood through love and compassion. Judge not, lest we be judged.

The "Yes" default for premarital sex

Heather Mac Donald writes in City Journal,

No cultural taboos remain around premarital sex; those represented a repressive version of female sexuality, declared the liberationists.

...Western culture is in fact the least patriarchal society in human history; rather than being forced to veil, females can parade themselves in as scantily clad a manner as they choose; pop culture stars flaunt their promiscuity. There is not a single mainstream institution that is not trying to hire and promote as many females as possible. And yet females are apparently still so beaten down by sexism that the Times’s gender editor Bennett asks rhetorically if females should even be deemed able to consent to sex, since “cultural expectations” make it awkward to say no. How long will it be before feminists demand the return of chaperones?

Read more here.

Islamsplaining

hat tip Weird Dave

Sorry, sir!

Feminists going to protest in Saudi Arabia

hat tip 90 Miles from Tyranny

"She led with a controversial, hard-to-defend statement, and then, when pressed, retreated to a safe, no-sane-person-can-be-against-this platitude. And then pretended the two are the same."

Oregon Muse reports at Ace of Spades,

I Never Knew This Had A Name
—OregonMuse

Feminist: All men are rapists.

OregonMuse: What, are you high? You know that's complete bullshit.

Feminist: No, it's not, it's why we need feminism -- to smash the patriarchy.

OregonMuse: Feminism is bullshit.

Feminist: You're obviously a h8r. "Feminism is the radical proposition that women are people, too." How could you be against that?

-----

Do you see what the feminist did there? She led with a controversial, hard-to-defend statement, and then, when pressed, retreated to a safe, no-sane-person-can-be-against-this platitude. And then pretended the two are the same. I've seen this in one form or another for years and it's just infuriating. But I never knew until about an hour ago that it has a name.

Ladies and gentlemen, behold, the Motte and Bailey trick:


Motte and Bailey (MAB) is a combination of bait-and-switch and equivocation in which someone switches at will between a "motte" (an easy-to-defend and often common-sense statement, such as "culture shapes our experiences") and a "bailey" (a hard-to-defend and more controversial statement, such as "cultural knowledge is just as valid as scientific knowledge") in order to defend their viewpoint. Someone will "support" the easy-to-defend (motte) temporarily, to ward off critics, but does not actually believe what they're saying. The "difficult" (bailey) version always remains the desired belief, but is never actually defended. For all intents and purposes, the MAB'er is defending a "ghost" belief.
So MAB is a specie of the genus "bait and switch."

"it’s probably best to avoid (a) excessive weight gain, and (b) feminism, both of which seem likely to engender alienation, resentment and fits of random hysteria."

David Thompson writes about a woman who is seething with empowerment here.

hat tip Ace

"Free speech under threat in America"

"Ask me a question that is less disingenuous." "The AltRight is energized by three issues, political correctness (free speech), immigration, and trade." "It isn't radical Islam, it's Islam, that is the problem." "I'm talking about culture, not race. It's typical of the BBC to conflate the two. What they want to do is say that if you are proud of your country and the ideals on which it was founded, that somehow makes you a racist. It doesn't!"

"The regressive social attitudes of Muslims in the west are terrifying. Organizations like yours won't report honestly, accurately, or fairly on Muslims."

"The only people who are still feminists are journalists!" "The patriarchy is a conspiracy theory."

Fighting battles that have already been won

"The great thing with identity politics is that you can do anything you want. You can be rude, you can get away with murder. You can be bitchy, sarcastic, you can get away with anything!"

It is simply not true any more that women have structural disadvantages. The truth is that women are now structurally advantaged, not disadvantaged. Women in their thirties earn more than men doing the same work in both the UK and the United States."

Oh, and let's be sure to ridicule the "septogenerian" who said something that was politically incorrect.

Feminists behaving badly

Stuart Schneiderman believes the following rule should be inscribed over the doorway of every therapist's office:

The fact that you believe very strongly in something means that you believe in it very strongly. Nothing more. It also means that you have dispensed with liberality and the marketplace of ideas. It means that you have dispensed with pragmatic and rational thought. It also means that you are most likely wrong.

Schneiderman goes on to tell us about two marriages. In both cases the feminist wife is enraged to learn that her husband might vote for Donald Trump. In both cases the wife behaves badly, and Schneiderman explains why here.

Barack tells us what shaped his feminism

The President of the United States of America has written about his feminism in a piece for Glamour magazine.

So I’d like to think that I’ve been pretty aware of the unique challenges women face — it’s what has shaped my own feminism.

...Growing up without a dad, I spent a lot of time trying to figure out who I was, how the world perceived me, and what kind of man I wanted to be. It’s easy to absorb all kinds of messages from society about masculinity and come to believe that there’s a right way and a wrong way to be a man. But as I got older, I realized that my ideas about being a tough guy or cool guy just weren’t me. They were a manifestation of my youth and insecurity. Life became a lot easier when I simply started being myself.

So we need to break through these limitations. We need to keep changing the attitude that raises our girls to be demure and our boys to be assertive, that criticizes our daughters for speaking out and our sons for shedding a tear. We need to keep changing the attitude that punishes women for their sexuality and rewards men for theirs.

As a parent, helping your kids to rise above these constraints is a constant learning process. Michelle and I have raised our daughters to speak up when they see a double standard or feel unfairly judged based on their gender or race—or when they notice that happening to someone else. It’s important for them to see role models out in the world who climb to the highest levels of whatever field they choose. And yes, it’s important that their dad is a feminist, because now that’s what they expect of all men.

Read more here.

The feminized, beta-ized West

On December 4, 2015 J.R. Dunn wrotes at American Thinker,

We live in a world run by betas and their lady friends. A world that is not only unwelcome to the alpha, but one that is blatantly hostile to everything he stands for. A world that not only denies any place to the male champion, but denies any need for him, and even argues that he never truly existed. Much of the history of the past half-century -- from radical feminism to gay rights to the various “New Masculinities” that have appeared, amused the girls on “The View”, and then vanished, can be explained by this paradigm. We live in a culture that has, quite under the table, decided to discard one of the driving wheels of human existence, one in operation since the days of the Serengeti, without considering or planning for what that might mean.

First we have to define our terms -- it goes without saying that the definition of an “alpha male” has been thoroughly distorted in hopes of discrediting it. An alpha, we’re told, is a bully, a thug, of low intelligence or even worse -- back in the 60s it was often implied that he was homosexual. You don’t hear that much today, now that gays are the exemplars of the new masculinity. (Let’s note here for the record that Putin and Trump both fit this mold -- they’re transparent bullies. Another trait of the alpha is that they never need to try too hard, as both these characters do.)

...As Margaret Mead pointed out decades ago, males (by which she meant alphas) turn their backs on fields in which women are dominant. (Anyone doubting this is invited to examine the Democratic Party.) So we see endless situations in which beta males wander the landscape, in fields such as academia, the arts, and increasingly the sciences and government, looking for alphas to obey, and finding women who have no idea how to fit the role.

This is clearly in play in American academia, which has been totally taken over by feminists and betas. (Most interesting here is the Yale incident in which the college master was publicly berated by a foul-mouthed female student over an email sent by his wife suggesting that students take ethnic Halloween costumes with a grain of salt. Note that it was the wife who was responsible for the offending email but the husband who was sent out to answer for it. Clearly, she was sending a beta to do an alpha’s job.)

...There are plenty of other examples. It would bad enough if this were a global phenomenon, with all cultures in the same predicament. But of course, it’s not. It is generally limited to the West, and largely to the United States. Elsewhere, the reign of the alpha continues, often in utterly perverse forms, as in the Islamic world, where it has been twisted by the tribal precepts inherited from Arab nomadic culture. In the Muslim world, we have males who fulfill every tenet of the alpha except for one: they are utterly terrified of females.

Islam is a primitive culture in which traditional masculinity has been distorted by bizarre tribal practices and murderous cultism. In the place of normal males, we see blustering, brutal, near-hysterical adolescents motivated as much by fear as anything else. Fear of women, fear of the intellect, fear of disagreement -- things no mature male would ever be afraid of. You take a few million of these emotional cripples and throw them at the feminized, beta-ized West, and…. Well, it’ll be funny in the 30th century. But it’s not funny today.

This is the meek inheriting the earth in the form of Woody Allen and his nagging girlfriend. Police chiefs who behave like ballerinas. Weird rituals in response to crimes, atrocities, and terror attacks -- hugging, carrying candles, singing “Imagine.” Ritalin being prescribed to “hyperactive” children -- almost all of them male, and almost all of them acting the way young males have always acted. Military forces bending over backwards to avoid the one thing that military forces are designed to do -- strike a target. There’s no such thing as “Let’s roll” from this crowd. The betas currently inhabiting the seats of power in the West (Obama certainly -- one look at Michelle reveals who wears the britches in that family. Hollande is a Socialist, and thus a beta by definition. Cameron is the beta who wishes he were an alpha) are very much in the position of a whipped baboon showing his rump to the pack leader. Unfortunately, while baboons are programmed to back off at that point, jihadis are not.

We were promised by feminists that once women took their places in leadership positions, we would immediately have a better world, predicated on the female virtues of moderation, community, and compromise. This may have worked in a world in which every society was operating on the same level. But in a milieu overrun by gangbangers, jihadis, organized criminals, and petty tyrants, all the Ritalin in the world is not going to help. An aversion to subjecting women to the same level of criticism as men has given a system characterized by fatuity, frivolousness, irresponsibility, and incompetence caused by unwillingness to acknowledge how the world actually works. Angela Merkel, Hillary, and Claire McCaskill can serve as examples. But we could go on.

The good news about this is that it’s self-limiting. No society can operate in complete defiance of natural law for very long (Just look at Islam for an example.) Eventually, alphas will be annoyed enough to leave their current strongholds (generally business and arts such as film and music, where swashbucklers are still admired, along with the Internet -- what are hackers but the highwaymen of old armed with mouse and modem?) to straighten things out. The question is, how much damage will occur before that happens?
Read more here.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/the_alpha_male_at_bay.html#ixzz4Dapk2HHC
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/the_alpha_male_at_bay.html#ixzz4DapRCzbM
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/the_alpha_male_at_bay.html#ixzz4Dap6o0Nt
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/the_alpha_male_at_bay.html#ixzz4DaolG5BW
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/the_alpha_male_at_bay.html#ixzz4DaoNioSl
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/the_alpha_male_at_bay.html#ixzz4Dalw5NDO
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on FacebookRead more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/12/the_alpha_male_at_bay.html#ixzz4DalJvUqd
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Reduce risks, or take risks together?

Chateau Heartiste writes today about the hidden costs of dual-income relationships,

this comment by Cail Coreshev is a valid criticism of dual-income marriages that one doesn’t often read from more mainstream sociological pundits:

Good comment, but it’s too bad he threw in that sop to getting an “education” before marriage. The “she needs it for a financial backup just in case” attitude is a big part of the feminist narrative. It leads to women entering marriage with one foot out the door, trying it out for a while before deciding whether to go with the backup. By the time she gets that college degree “just in case,” she’s already burned through several of her most attractive, fertile years; and unless she’s unusually virtuous, has been on the carousel learning bad habits.

It makes logical sense to reduce your risks as much as possible, but taking risks together is one thing that bonds a couple. When people like my parents and grandparents started a life together, owning very little and highly dependent on each other to make ends meet, it bonded them in such a way that they couldn’t imagine having done anything else. If a man died and widowed a young mother with no skills outside the home, that sucked, but it was very rare, and that’s what family and community are for. But when a married couple are both financially stable and don’t particularly need each other, you don’t get that interdependence. Instead you get a lot of people wondering if they could be doing better elsewhere.

To which Chateau Heartiste adds,

There are many good reasons why the feminist idea of a successful marriage is a warped one. Humans are not (yet) an androgynous blob of asexually-reproducing drones. Women love men who come closest to the masculine ideal, and men love women who come closest to the feminine ideal. This means, in real life, women love powerful confident men who serve as the oak tree under which they can find shelter against the storms, and men love to shelter pretty, vulnerable, feminine women whose first instinct is to nurture rather than swim with the corporate sharks.

Cail’s theory that shared risk — and shared vulnerability — helps bond couples is also worth pondering. It’s not hyperbole to say that women who depend on “having a backup in the event of a broken marriage” unwittingly encourage the breaking up of their marriages. Not a sermon, just a shiv.

Read more here.

The worst of both sexes?

Mona Charen writes at National Review,

The greatest failures of the past generation concern men, women, and sex — and there could not be two more awful representatives of what has gone wrong than Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Clinton uses feminism the way she has used people, ideas, and institutions throughout her long career — merely as instruments of her own advancement. When it’s convenient, she is the feminist role model. When her husband is being accused (accurately) of sexually harassing a cavalcade of women, she becomes the Wife Enforcer. The women who accused Bill Clinton were “trash,” she assured the world. Monica Lewinsky was a “narcissistic loony tune.”

...There are fewer and fewer ways for men in our society to gain ratification for their masculinity. Football may be the last socially acceptable expression of manliness. The busy natural energy of boys is labeled pathological. The role of father and husband is disparaged, while single motherhood is everywhere praised as noble and heroic. To be a white male is to be scolded at every turn for your “privilege” — even if you come from a broken home of high-school dropouts. Colleges presume young men guilty of rape even when both parties are drunk and irresponsible. Our schools and workplaces continue to provide material and psychological support to girls and women — even as women outpace men in education and income growth. The Democrats’ persistent recycling of the fraudulent “79” cents myth about women’s earnings angers everyone: Those who are deceived by it and those who know it’s a lie.

Trump brings his own peculiar baggage to this cultural confusion and appeals to men in the worst ways. He is not manly — he is a caricature of a manly man. He makes physical threats to protesters at his rallies — “I wish someone would punch him in the face” — from behind the cordon of Secret Service officers. He avoided the draft and disparages the heroism of those who served and suffered. Despite his many wives and concubines, he finds femininity itself confusing and threatening. He is made uncomfortable by the idea of menstruation — something most boys get over about the age of 14. He found Hillary Clinton’s bathroom break during a Democratic debate “disgusting.” He isn’t able to say accurately what Supreme Court justices do (he thinks they “sign bills”), but he is ready and eager to pass judgment on the appearance of women — especially accomplished women such as Carly Fiorina and Heidi Cruz — who come within his orbit. Like misogynists everywhere, Trump is ready to defame the women he’s mistreated. Hillary Clinton called Monica Lewinsky a liar. Trump did the same to Michelle Fields.

Trump is no more a manly man than Clinton is a feminist model. Both use the gender wars to advance their own bottomless personal vanity and ambition. Plague. Houses.

Read more here.

Is he a real man...or a macho man?

Stuart Schneiderman writes at Had Enough Therapy about Trump's use of the word "pussy" to describe Ted Cruz.

since Cruz has spent much of his time in the United States Senate as an army of one leading a war against the Washington establishment, it makes very little sense to call him a “pussy” unless you want to explain why you were not on the front lines or even on the back lines in the struggle.

Of course, Trump was striking a blow against political correctness. As long as that disease infects American culture, and as long as people are at their wits' end trying to figure out how to put an end to it they turn to Trump. How better to destroy political correctness than to be scrupulously and repulsively politically incorrect.

Better yet, since most sentient Americans understand that the country is becoming increasingly feminized—of women, by women, for women and for Muslim refugees—what better antidote could there be but a man who is not ashamed and apologetic about being a male, about being a white male, about having earned certain privileges, and even being especially crude. After all, Trump is the family breadwinner. In the Cruz family, the role falls to his wife, the Goldman Sachs managing director.

For his followers, Trump represents manliness on steroids. You can be sure that no one ever called Donald Trump a pussy. That must be the reason why his followers love him. They are convinced that in a Trumpified world they will not be harassed into saying that Caitlyn Jenner is a woman and will not have to fight to ensure that their teenage daughters do not have to share the shower room with a biologically male being. In a Trumpified world they will retain the right to believe that there was a reason why traditional marriage was always the norm in human societies.

The secret to Trump’s success with Republican voters isn’t that he’s un-PC or that he says what he thinks or that voters agree with his outlandish policy proposals. It’s that Trump is a symbol of a kind of unalloyed white-male entitlement slowly on the decline. His supporters miss it, and they want it back.

...White men want to feel special again. They want an identity too. And for a long time, what defined them was power and authority. They were the breadwinners in their families, and with that financial control came authority over their wives and children. They were the bosses at work. They set the culture norms and the discourse, and their interests and experiences and opinions were simply recognized as “American.”

That’s what Donald Trump embodies, and what he promises to bestow. It’s why his gaffes never quite seem to derail him — crude displays of male entitlement don’t hurt you when you’re running on crude male entitlement. It’s why his own history of multiple divorces and marriages to models and bankruptcies and gold-plated everything don’t make Republican voters conclude that he’s immoral or decadent or wasteful or foolish. Trump’s ethos is simple: he does whatever the hell he wants and he never has to say he’s sorry. If that’s not the dream of the adolescent American male, what is?

Ask yourself for a moment what kind of men made America great. Was there something wrong with the group that Tom Brokaw famously called the greatest generation? Was there something wrong with winning World War II and rebuilding America in its aftermath?

The men who did it did not feel entitled. They were willing to fight and die for their country. Should they have received some recognition for their strength and their victories? Should they have received respect for the privileges they earned? Is there something wrong with providing for your family or for being the boss at work?

...The culture warriors who are defending the oppressed peoples of the world, who are defending the Islamist terrorists and the refugee rapists, hate white Americans and white people in general.

The trouble with Trump, if I can put it this way, and I have often put it this way, is that he is not made of the same stuff as the men of the greatest generation. He looks more like a caricatured version of manliness than the real thing. He is more machismo than manliness. He is what manliness looks like in a feminized culture.

No one would dispute his success in real estate and reality television. But, to believe that his real achievements in one arena will naturally translate into great success in a completely different arena is folly. Trump has succeeded by posturing. If, at some point, he is obliged to try to fulfill his political promises, we will see whether he is a real man or a macho man.

Read more here.

She majored in feminist studies

Always on the cutting edge of journalism, Manhattan Infidel brings us a report of a local girl who came home from college radicalized:

Local residents were concerned when one of their own, a former cheerleader, returned from college radicalized.

“I was shocked” said her neighbor.

I’ve known her since she was a kid. Always sweet, cheerful and friendly. She and my daughter were varsity cheerleaders together. But when she came to see my daughter I held the door open for her. She yelled at me and said I was violating her safe space and she resented my patriarchal privilege. Then she maced me. I’ve been maced before. I’m married to an Irish woman after all. Still I was surprised.
Her mother blames herself.

“I was the one who told her to major in feminist studies” she lamented.

She originally wanted to major in Home Economics. I told her that she might make more money by being a feminist studies major. The major says “Studies” so that means it’s important. But when she came home I asked her if she could help me cook dinner for her father. She threw a tampon in my face and called me a slave. The next morning I caught her carving the turkey with a wire hanger. She said it was to symbolize the days when women didn’t have female reproductive freedom.
Police became involved when she stopped traffic on the street by taking off her top and shouting “My breasts are not yours to look at.”

“I must confess I didn’t understand the logic of this” said one of the officers called on the scene.

To take your top off and expose your breasts while holding a sign that says “My breasts are not yours to look at” just didn’t make any sense. Kind of like electing a socialist who will raise taxes to improve our economy. Anyway we arrested her. She spit on me and called me a “penis monster.” I’ve been called worse. We ignore it. It’s part of our training.
Released on bond and warned not to disturb the peace she went to an elementary school and started handing out fliers to the children urging them to cut their penises off.

“Fortunately since this is the American education system none of the kids can read” said a teacher.

Reading, writing and math are old fashioned. We teach the kids about white privilege and guilt. It seems to help them realize that America is a racist country. We talk about the evils of capitalism also. Sometimes we have sex with the kids because love is love.
The last word belongs to her parents.

“We don’t understand what happened to our girl. This doesn’t represent mainstream feminism. Feminism is the ideology of peace!”

Feminist insanity

Ms. Magazine tweeted this:

Ms. Magazine
‏@msmagazine

While ISIS endorses rape, American college administrations similarly facilitate the rape of women on campuses http://bit.ly/1ljgsdB

David French writes at The Corner,

Not only is this tweet hysterical on its face, take note of its target — liberal college administrators who are even now systematically violating the law to crack down on a fake crisis. They have stripped the burden of proof for sexual misconduct (including misconduct that would violate criminal law) down to a bare “preponderance of the evidence” standard and denied accused students the due process they’d receive even in civil — much less criminal — court. Some schools have even functionally reversed the burden of proof by imposing new “affirmative consent” standards that essentially create a presumption of guilt.

The tweet, however, is no crazier than the linked article:

ISIS’ treatment of Yazidi women as sexual slaves may seem far removed from fraternity or athletic team members’ treatment of women as sexual objects for conquest, however the results are distressingly similar. As tempting as it is to deny the parallels, we must acknowledge that institutionalized rape exists throughout the world and in the face of legal prohibitions. Recognition will help identify and eliminate the behaviors within our own culture.

ISIS’ sexual enslavement of the Yazidi population is abhorrent and must be addressed. Propagating the idea that “they” commit atrocities while implying that “we” are innocent of condoning sexual assault does not help us understand and effectively act to end sexual violence against women and girls everywhere.

No, the results are not “distressingly similar.” Here’s a Yazidi woman describing her sexual slavery:

At first, she tried to prevent [her "owner" from] raping her but when the Turkmen beat her one-year-old son in front of her, she was forced to stop resisting.

’I agreed to everything that this man wanted for the sake of my son,’ she said clutching her adorable infant child a little bit tighter.

And when she questioned his beliefs, he screamed at her and said that the sexual trade in Yazidi women is permitted ‘according to Islam’ . . . After 10 months of constant abuse and cruelty, she became despondent and numb and let him rape her ‘whenever he wanted’. But she refused to commit suicide because she feared what would happen to her child.

She was later moved to the house of another ISIS fighter in Mosul, Iraq, before being sold for a third time to a Libyan man in the Islamic State’s adopted capital of Raqqa, Syria.

She lived there for around 20 days, in a house with two other Yazidi girls, one aged 22, the other only 15, before an elderly mother and her five-year-old daughter moved in too.

It was here that she saw something so sickening, it convinced her that she had to risk it all and try to flee.

He came into the home and pointed at the mother and her daughter, she recalled.

He then brought them into a room and raped the mother before molesting the daughter.

Yep, that’s basically Yale, right? These people are losing their minds.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/426973/left-starting-tear-itself-apart-college-coeds-are-yazidi-slaves-david-french