Feminists Are Just Commies with Butch Haircuts

Feminism is not now, nor has it ever been, about such high-sounding abstractions as "equality," "opportunity for women," "women's rights," or even "women's health." By the way, the English translation of "women's health" is "abortion."


Rather, feminism is now, and has always been, about socialism.

This has become apparent in the recent contraception non-debate, manufactured by Barack Obama because he has no actual accomplishments on which to argue for his reelection, in which the refusal of private parties to pay for the fornicating of others is interpreted by weak-minded feminists (that is, by ALL feminists) as somehow "limiting their access to contraception."



As if the FACE of the average feminist were not birth control enough...!



During a Mitt Romney speech on 3/20/2012, some semi-retarded feminist (yes, I know, that semi-retarded and feminist are both axiomatic and tautological) says to Mitt Romney in her ever-so almost literate way (I have argued many times that feminists have a very limited vocabulary, composed only of variations of the words and phrases "patriarchy," "domestic violence," "reproductive freedom," and "Wanna scissor?")...

"You're all for like 'Yay freedom' and all this stuff and 'Yay pursuit of happiness.' You know what would make me happy? Free birth control."

Oddly enough, femtards can't seem to work the logic the opposite way - which is why, of course, they are called femtards. Perhaps the rest of us might also like some free stuff? Free houses would be good. And free cars, food, vacations, dogs, books, big screen tvs, and a host of other toys would make me personally happy. And I am sure that all the millions of men who have suffered under false allegations of rape, child abuse, domestic violence, and sexual harassment because of feminism would have appreciated free lawyers.

I wonder why this femtard getting free stuff is a political issue but me getting free stuff isn't?

It's because feminism is just Communism wearing hiking boots with a butch haircut. Oh, and a propensity for perjury....

"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." Karl Marx.

Feminism = Professional Bitchery: Will the Bitching EVER Stop?

So, yeah, I get it, chicks have a unique perspective and have been silenced by The Patriarchy and we need affirmative action to open up more channels of dialogue for chicks to give us their opinions about politics and family and the economy and strappy sandals and whatnot.

So recently, the Washington Post, in an attempt to bend over forwards for the femtard hoards, started a new blog especially for women, and featuring women, called "She the People." Clever title. If you are in fifth grade. Which is actually four grades more clever than the average Women's Studies program in grad school.

Now, of course, the dirty little secret, unknown to all except for everyone outside of politics, academia, and feminism itself, which is to say, known by almost everyone, is that feminism's only tool is bitching about this, yielding only to bitching about that, and taking breaks on rare occasion to bitch about the other thing.

So professional bitch... errrrrr.... feminist... errrrr.... bitch, Jessica Valenti, whose life is "complicated" enough to get excited about such things, posted her uncompromising approval of the idea of... affirmative action??? Who knew???

Apparently, she feels (for all feminists feel rather than think) that women should, by sheer virtue of their womanness, be given the headline on the front page, regardless of their talent. It is not enough that the Washington Post has devoted an entire blog to the inane drivel and sheer psychosis that is feminism, and it is not enough that, by virtue of such blog, several women are employed who, by virtue of their Master's Degree in Women's Studies from an Ivy League institution, are fit only to be the Assistant Manager at Burger King. No, Valenti believes that those who have talent (and trust me, we are talking about the Washington Post here, so the whole idea of "talent" is quite relative in this discussion) should simply step aside, forfeit their work and compensation, and yield to the femtard hoards. Maybe she wants femtards to take over the Washington Post, and then just devote a sub-blog to the real writers?

Who knows, maybe Valenti and the other femtard "writers" got a new set of crayons at Christmas...?

So she bitches, quite bitchingly:

Here’s the thing: I will always want more women’s (and feminist) voices in the mainstream media, particularly in politics. There’s an overwhelming byline gender gap and that needs to change. But The Washington Post’s new lady blog, “She the People,” is not a step in the right direction. In fact, I think it’s pretty terrible.*

I’m all for WaPo featuring more women covering politics, but why oh why can’t they just - I don’t know - feature more women covering politics on the main site or pages? As Steph Herold tweeted earlier today, “why do women need a separate blog to write about politics?”

The logo doesn’t exactly help things either. I mean, “she” is underlined with lipstick?

The lipstick is the only redeeming part of the blog, in my opinion. Chicks are so hot in the right color lipstick. Just sayin'....




So, let's follow the progression of femtard bitching, shall we?

1) "There are not enough women writers in the mainstream media." (YAWN)

2) "The mainstream media should devote more space to women writers and so-called 'women's issues.'"

3) "Now that the mainstream media has devoted more space to women writers and so-called 'women's issues,' we don't like the way in which that has been done, because our psychotic, barely-able-to-construct-an-English-sentence, vocabulary-composed-only-of-variations-of-the-words-victim-and-empowerment writers are being kept in a femtard ghetto rather than splashed all over the front page, in spite of the fact that Newsweek is quickly tanking with their experiment with femtardism we still think all media should be given to us so we can talk about ourselves and our shoes and how abortion is so hottt!, so dammit, give us the front page and all you real employees of the mainstream media go home and await further orders from the jackbooted stormtroopers of feministing."

What is the lesson here? Feminism is not about defending victims of anything, nor about obtaining equality in anything. It is about getting just a little bit more. There is nothing that you will ever say or do, and no society that could be designed in either reality or imagination that will placate the professional bitchery of the femtards.

(I won't get into the psychological or metaphysical here, but one would be tempted to speculate that the constant inability of the femtard hoards to be satisfied with anything is more reflective of an internal state typified by emptiness, rather than any outward reality of genuine denial, but I digress....)

Feminism's only tool is professional bitching. And no matter how much you give a feminist, the bitching will never stop.

Feminists truly do believe that they are entitled to whatever they feel they want, regardless of their level of ability or accomplishment or the contribution (sic) that they make to society. Notice that Valenti never attempts to establish that women are doing a job sufficient to get a "real job" with the Washington Post. Because skill doesn't matter to a femtard. They are entitled, dammit!

But does anybody actually believe that if there were ANY feminist writer with the talent to write for the mainstream media, she would be denied a job?

If you doubt the lack of talent among feminist writers, simply read Jessica Valenti. After a couple of minutes of reading Valenti, you will be craving something sensible like, "See Spot run...."

Female Radio Personality Describes the Historical Rationale for Feminism, and the Legal Basis for Sexual Harassment, in a Single Concise Rant

Who says chicks can't do philosophy? I was extremely encouraged to hear the following rant by a local radio personality in which she alternately describes the historical basis for the feminist movement, the legal basis for sexual harassment claims, the origin of the Latin language, and the meaning of life (rumored to be, "42"). Next week, catch Carmen's lecture on the relationship between bipolar disorder and the space-time continuum...!

"The feminist movement was started by a bunch of ugly women who wanted special treatment. Feminists do not want equality. They want special treatment. These are a bunch of women who want to be promoted and make their way up the ladder without being qualified.... [Feminism has succeeded] because men are a bunch of wussies, and you [guys] let this happen.... If your [fathers] had not been doormats we wouldn't be in this situation today. Women have no interest in equality, because if they did, we wouldn't see the number of sexual harassment lawsuits that we see."

Carmen Connors, WRDU 106.1's Morning Rush (Raleigh/Knightdale, NC)

Defund Feminism (#DEFUNDFEMINISM)

GO TO YOUCUT HERE!

The House Republican Caucus is requesting the guidance of Americans to help the Republican leadership settle on cuts to make as the House wends its way through the process of proposing a reasonable federal budget. In a program called YouCut, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is asking voters to register their approval of certain already-proposed changes, but also is giving voters the opportunity to "Submit Your Idea." By clicking this button, you can make suggestions of cuts that ought to be made, but may not have been suggested yet.

Several things are necessarily true....

1) Feminism in America could not exist without federal funding. NOBODY cares enough about the serial drivel and prepubescent nonsense engaged in by feminists to actually reach into their wallet and fund it. This is why federal grants - under the rubric of "law enforcement" or "education," for instance - are absolutely vital for keeping feminism alive and viable in the United States.

2) Feminism contributes absolutely nothing positive to the American culture or economy.

3) In fact, feminism actively undermines both the American culture and the economy. Its pro-abortion dogma has eliminated the greatest part of two generations of taxpayers, leaving programs such as Social Security and Medicare in the lurch. Its false allegations industry serves only to tie up courts and law enforcement with meaningless political charges, while actively undermining the one thing that has been proven to protect women and children - the family. Its academic endeavors [sic] are widely recognized as being a pablum only slightly more complex than the normal fare of the retarded. Its legal theories, besides encouraging false allegations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse, serve only to destroy business, culture, the military, the professions, and the public good by making irrelevancies out to be real issues ("diversity," "sexual harassment," "women's perspective") and by placing, en masse, unqualified people into positions of responsibility based merely upon their gender.

And yet, billions of dollars per year flow from both the federal and state governments to sustain feminist political programs that serve no recognizable public good other than funding lawyers and further feminist programs.

These are the undeniable facts. Feminism helps nothing, hurts everything, and would simply cease to exist if taxpayers were not strongarmed into keeping feminism alive through the distribution of taxes to feminist organizations by governments.

This being the case, it is time for those who stand with unborn children, the family, business, the culture, legitimate education, justice, and legitimate law enforcement to strike while the iron is hot. For the next few years, Congress will (theoretically) be seeking to make all kinds of cuts just to keep the American ship afloat.

It is thus time for the most malignant tumor in the history of the American experiment to be excised.

It is time to totally, completely, and finally DEFUND FEMINISM.

Please surf over to YouCut, and after voting for the various items for which your vote is solicited, find the "SUBMIT YOUR IDEAS" button at the bottom of the page. Then, fill in the dialog box with your request that ALL feminism in the United States be defunded at the federal level.

I wrote the following in my request:

"I would like to request that ALL feminist political organizations and activities, from Planned Parenthood to women's shelters to feminist studies and women's studies programs in universities, be completely defunded by the federal government.

These are wholly destructive organizations which exist only to consume the hard-earned resources of working Americans while undermining the values and culture that is respected by the American majority.

Further, these are political organizations, and cannot and should not be funded by the taxes of those who disagree with their political policies."

Feel free to swipe my note, modify it, or write your own. Or, if you have a flair for the pithy and dramatic, perhaps you will simply write...

"DEFUND FEMINISM."

It is time to draw a line in the sand, and excise the most destructive political movement in the history of the United States. Join me in asking Congress to DEFUND FEMINISM, and please send your friends to this page to join the fight.

Women Want It Every Which Way

So, let me get this straight....

If Daddy DOESN'T hug and kiss his little femtard as a child, then his little femtard grows up psychotic, histrionic and depressed because he was "a stranger" and "emotionally distant."

If Daddy DOES hug and kiss his little femtard as a child, then he has "sexualized" his relationship with her.

So Dads, write this down! Hug and kiss your little femtard, but DON'T!

Got it?

You perv....

Weiner Dicks Around - Anthony's Sexual Harassment Escapades

So Anthony Weiner is a bit of a prick. A dick. A... wiener. That much is obvious.

What may not be so obvious is that he is also guilty of sexual harassment.

What is even less obvious is why femtards will be ignoring this fact.

"Sexual Harassment," which Susan Brownmiller admits was a made-up offense designed to make femtard protest posters pithy, witty, and memorable, is nevertheless a fake offense (like "domestic violence") that can cost a man just about everything.

I will never forget living through the Clinton impeachment and speaking to a woman who took great offense at the stories of Clinton semi-boinking the interns while biting the lips of more mature visitors and fathering multiracial children thither and yon. When I asked, "What is it that makes you so upset about this?", she replied, "You can't tell me that if this were the CEO of General Electric the feminists would be all over him screaming 'sexual harassment!' 'Sexual harassment!' 'Sexual harassment!'"

And of course, she was right about that. But we have all known forever that hypocrisy and irrationality are the only two things that feminism has in abundant supply. Oh, and grievance. But anyway....

So I have thought about that conversation with that woman a lot over the years, and I think she was right in a way. Feminism is ultimately not about the rights of women - it is about the extension of socialism. When it is convenient to parade for the extension of socialism under the faux banner of "women's rights" or "equality" or "pro-choice" or whatever 2-3 syllables can be taught to the pressing mob of femtards on a particular day, then feminists will do so. When to insist on their principles will hinder the cause of socialism, however, femtards will back off. Because socialism is their ultimate goal. Not "the rights of women."

This, of course, explains why Bill Clinton, who was alleged to have been a rapist, was the exception to the rule of "women never lie about rape." Because if feminists had insisted that "women never lie about rape" during the Clinton impeachment, it would have hindered the cause of socialism. It also explains why Anthony Weiner is getting a pass....

What exactly has Weiner done that ought to have femtards in a tizzy? Glad you asked.

Now let me first clarify a couple of points - I would NEVER deny that femtards are in a tizzy. Somewhere, you can bet your life on it, feminists ARE IN FACT in a tizzy. In fact, the only strategy of feminism is "tizzy." Like Charlie Sheen, feminists have "only one gear" (unless you count lesbian as a gear, then they have two!), and that gear is "tizzy." Bet your boots on it, feminists are, as we speak, in tizzys the world over.

However, they are not, and will not be, in a tizzy over the antics of Anthony Weiner [unless some heinous crime is revealed, at which point he will have forced their hand, no pun intended]. And I honestly do not think that they should be. But the point is, there are certain things that if the average guy (and only guys, because there are, in fact, two sets of rules) had done JUST AS ANTHONY WEINER had done them, he would currently be experiencing the full wrath of the femtard masses.

Let's postulate for a moment that the CEO of General Electric had done exactly what Weiner has done: "flirted" with random chicks on facebook and twitter, emailed them pics of his erect penis, and engaged in phone sex and dirty hotchat on GE's phones and on GE's time.



"Sexual Harassment" is described as "coercion of a sexual nature... includ[ing] a range of behavior from seemingly mild transgressions and annoyances to actual sexual abuse.... [It is] a form of sexual and psychological abuse and bullying."

Click the above graphic to see a list of the types of situations in which sexual harassment may occur [let me once again remind the reader that I fully recognize that sexual harassment is a fake offense - all that I write about it in this article is merely "for the sake of argument"] and the various personality types of sexual harassers.

First note the following:

• Where a person is in a position of authority or power over another, due to social status, political power, or age, sexual harassment may occur.
• Even "friends" and "strangers" can commit sexual harassment.
• "Adverse affects on the target are common."
• The harasser may be "totally unaware that his behavior is offensive or constitutes sexual harassment."
• "Private harassers carefully cultivate a restrained and respectable image on the surface, but when alone their behavior changes.
• "Dominant harassers... engage in harassing behavior as an ego boost."

Now, let's examine the facts of Weiner's case and see how they stack up against the above.

• One of Weiner's cyberbabes is now being mocked as having been headed for tabloid scandal since her teen years. Other of his cyberchicks have experienced anxiety, nervousness, and discomfort due to the situation that Weiner put them in.
• Several of the "targets" claim that they are only online friends or that they have, in fact, never met Weiner.
• Weiner, a Congressman of some political power and influence, was dealing with women aged 21 and 26 and a single mother who is studying in nursing school (as known now), and with another woman who worked full-time as a blackjack dealer in a Las Vegas casino.
• Weiner's communication with the women was disrespectful, at one point suggesting that he would have sex with one doggy-style while watching TV and classifying her as a mere "distraction," and self-focused, with constant references to his "fat c*ck" or "ridiculous bulge" with requests to show it off.

It doesn't take long to ruminate and determine that Weiner, in fact, has fulfilled ALL of the aspects of sexual harassment (again, a fake concept) that I have reproduced above. He used his political, social, and age "superiority" to fish for the young or otherwise vulnerable, and the fact that he was merely a "friend" or "stranger" to the women and never actually met them is irrelevant. His gutter flirtations had numerous adverse effects upon the women - from immediate embarrassment to propelling them to get out in front of the story to tell their side first to anxiety to nervousness. Likely, Weiner never intended such adverse circumstances to occur to the women, and may be unaware of their discomfort. Yet his treating them as if they were just holes to be filled for his pleasure while he enjoyed TV or mere "distractions" certainly indicate that it is true, as one of the women said of him, that he "has issues." And apparently, one of the issues is that he considers the female to exist primarily for his enjoyment and pleasure - attitudes that in anyone other than a Democrat politician, feminists would be flooding the airwaves with cries of "SEXISM" about even as we speak.

At least he refrained from the Clintonian cigar trick....

His constant focus on the length and girth of his meat, his desire to expose it, and his need for total strangers to pleasure him certainly indicates that his ego was the primary thing in his own mind. How often, relative to the braggadocio about himself, does he compliment the beauty of the women he is flirting with? And certainly, prior to the infamous mis-tweet, Weiner had cultivated the image of a clean, if raucous, man of the people - even a man who was consumed with advancing feminist issues and making the internet safe from sexual predators.

And darlin,' don't worry - if I can't have you, just a few pics I can "jerk off" to. The very thought of a Jewish girl who can give good head just makes me.... OK, enough of that.

Now....

Can you see the same fact pattern applied to the CEO of General Electric?

If you can, I ask you, what would feminists be saying and doing, right now???

You Never Know Who is Watching

Click above picture to enlarge.

Sniveling, emptyheaded feminists - also known as femtards - love to engage in "dialogue," which is to say, "cheerleading," in which they surround themselves with people (i.e., womyn) who view the world in essentially the same way that they themselves do, then sit around and say the same things about the same issues, and then walk away feeling quite justified and bright because all these other bright women... errrrr, womyn, agree with them, and therefore they must be right.

If you can get your own series doing this, you call it "To the Contrary" and air it on PBS.

I always thought that was the strangest name for a show in which everyone approaches every problem from a leftard feminist viewpoint, but I suppose stranger things have been done by the mainstream media to preserve the illusion of objectivity, and I have also always thought that the name was an intentional play on a well-known female character trait: the willingness and ability to take ANY position in ANY argument just for the sake of keeping the argument going.

This is a character trait that my grandmother, for instance, used to call "being contrary," or "being contrary for contrary's sake."

But anyway, Wikipedia describes this PBS series as devoted to "news analysis" (in the same sense in which "Naked News" or Newsweek is devoted to journalism, I suppose), but notes that it is an "all-women" program. Of course, because we all know that women have a special perspective, right?

But note that the perspective seems to be, by Wikipedia's "analysis," oddly... predictable. "Each show features four female panelists from various backgrounds... discuss[ing] various issues in the news, mainly affecting women, children, families, and communities of color."

"Communities of color?"

Translation: Libtard psychobabble.

Let me remind the gentle reader that I have gloried in the fact that online feminist publications have been running my articles for weeks in their online summaries.

But imagine how surprised I was to wake up and find that now, "Objectify Chicks" is being followed by "To the Contrary with Bonnie Erbe"?

Truth, to the femtard, is like a bad accident. It may not deter you from your foolishness, but you can't resist slowing down to gaze as you pass it by.

Guest Column: Feminist Redefining of "Consent" Encourages False Rape Allegations

Originally posted February 19, 2011

By: JILL GUIDRY

Blog: Don't Buy The Abortion Lie!


Over the years I've been involved in the prolife movement, I've encountered quite a few radical feminists. Even more so, now that I'm also engaged in online activism. Every single radical feminist I've run across claims to be a victim of rape. Every. Single. One. Yes, I've heard the 1 in 3 statistics about women and sexual assault. But seriously, every single one of them? This phenomenon seems woefully underrepported by MSM, doesn't it? given all the recent attacks on John Boehner by the lefty feminists on Twitter regarding his 'redefinition of rape,' I thought it was time for a closer look at how feminists themselves have redefined rape in order to play the victim card and victimize others, namely men and their own unborn babies via abortion.

No one disputes that certain plants thrive in dim light and moist conditions. Can any objective observer dispute that false rape claims likewise thrive in a culture that erupted in the past forty years as a backlash against a perceived oppressive "patriarchy" that regards even certain garden variety sexual relations as a form of tyranny against women? It is no stretch to assert that this culture actively encourages young women to manufacture rape out of whole cloth by teaching them to equate consensual intercourse with vile sexual assault.

Misinformation is the engine that drives this culture (as we know from the baby-as-a-blob-of-cells abortion rhetoric), and rape hysteria and false rape claims are its noxious emissions. Outright lies are passed off as facts by what can aptly be called the sexual grievance industry, sexual assault advocates and radical feminist writers who insist women do not lie about rape despite overwhelming evidence that a significant percentage do. The myths engendered by this toxic culture are repeated so often that they have crept into our popular culture -- including the assertion that only two percent of rape claims are false and that one-out-of-four college women are raped. The "truth" these stats seek to "prove" -- that women are routinely and brutally attacked by men -- is not supported by objective facts so it suffices to make up statistics as needed to support the "truth" being peddled.

Despite all the radical feminists' twisting, pounding, contorting and screeching, American women are not being sexually tyrannized by American men -- some women are tyrannized by some men, just as innocent people are tyrannized by criminals all the time. (Note that men and children are also victims of rape but never merit so much as a mention by feminists.) But rape is not rampant in the United States, on campus, in taxis, in wooded areas, or any of the other places where women claim they've been raped and it often turns out they haven't. The one exception may be prisons where young men with typically no experience in the prison system are routinely brutally raped and typically don't report it for fear of even worse brutalization. In fact, men may be victimized by rape more than women because of prison rape. Nevertheless, although the rape of females is treated with all the solemnity of a national crisis, the rape of men in prison is a punchline.

By demonstrating that the culture that engenders these two percent and one-in-four lies is invalid and, therefore, unacceptable, and by teaching young women to assume responsibility for their actions instead of being assured they are "victims" of some amorphous male oppression when they experience after-the-fact regret about having intercourse, we can reduce certain of the more vile kinds of false "acquaintance rape" claims.

But first it is necessary to expose this gender-divisive rape culture that encourages young women to cry "rape" even when rape has not occurred:

YOUNG WOMEN ARE FED A DISTORTED AND WILDLY CONSTRICTED VIEW OF "CONSENT" INTENDED TO LEAD THEM TO INTERPRET LAWFUL INTERCOURSE AS "RAPE."

Young women are being wrongly taught that sex induced by a male's verbal cajoling without physical threat is rape.

They are being wrongly taught that rape occurs in the absence of a woman's "enthusiastic" consent, as if "enthusiasm" can be measured in any objective sense, and as if otherwise perfectly lawful but not necessarily "enthusiastic" consent is somehow legally inoperative.

They are being wrongly taught that sex after a woman takes any alcohol or drugs invariably negates the woman's ability to validly consent.

And they are being wrongly taught that statutory definitions of rape must yield to a woman's own experience -- thus, men somehow must mold their conduct to fit an amorphous, free-floating, moving target of a subjective and secret whim of a woman's "experience," including, presumably, her after-the-fact, ex-post facto, false and belated hissy fits of regret about having engaged in intercourse. The fact that such a standard, with all it Star Chamber ramifications, furnishes no guidance to the male as to what constitutes "rape" prior to the act, is not at all troubling to the enlightened feminists proffering this standard. Due process be damned. Rape occurs when they say it occurs, regardless of whether it actually did.

Such a standard is especially pernicious given that it has now been proven by objective evidence that women experience greater after-the-fact remorse than men about one-night stands. They encourage a slut culture, then rail at the inevitable results.

If feminists wanted to assist young women -- instead of feeding them misinformation in an attempt to have them invent rape from whole cloth, they would teach them that after-the-fact regret about one-night stands is a common, indeed natural, feeling for women. This would encourage young women to think twice before engaging in such encounters and about falsely crying rape afterwards. But, of course, the feminists accuse anyone of making suggestions that might hold young women responsible for their actions as "victim blaming" -- a magic incantation they blithely toss off in an attempt to keep young women in a state of perpetual infancy, freed of any responsibility for their actions when it comes to sex.

With such gross misinformation floating about it is little wonder that some young women have a terribly inaccurate understanding of rape. The test to determine if valid consent was given in the context of rape is whether a reasonable person in the position of the male would have believed that the woman consented, based on the totality of the circumstances, including her words and actions. If a woman willingly assents to sex, it is not rape. Whether she secretly "wanted" to have sex, or did not "want" to have sex, is completely beside the point. The inquiry focuses solely on her outward manifestations of assent.

Beyond this, it is strikingly naive to attach rigid rules as to what constitutes "consent," including, for example, any insistence that consent must be "enthusiastic." Persons in a committed relationship do things for each other with regularity out of love and sometimes, perhaps often, without all that much enthusiasm. Some people rarely express "enthusiasm" about anything. When a woman is trying to get pregnant, her partner often has sex out of obligation even when it's not especially convenient and often when he is not especially "enthusiastic." Has he been raped since he gave into her verbal desires without being "enthusiastic"? No sane person would suggest that, but by this inane feminist standard that is the only logical conclusion.

And women sometimes fake both "enthusiasm" and orgasms, often because a couple's sex drives are not in sync and because she's more interested in fostering a long-term relationship than having a momentary sexual experience. In such circumstances, if the guy knew the truth, he may or may not want to have sex. Is a woman's faked enthusiasm that induces sex a kind of rape of the man? The feminist standard, taken to its logical conclusion, suggests it must be. How utterly silly.

Another fallacy is that "no" always precludes valid consent for whatever happens after. To ignore what happens after "no" is uttered is naive in the extreme and blinks at nuance and the complexities of interpersonal relations. Again, no such rigid rule is appropriate. First, a look, a nod, an embrace inviting sex are often clearer than a teasing "no." Second, should we declare as a matter of law that valid consent is a legal impossibility after an accuser says "no" -- regardless of what occurs afterwards? Her subsequent words and actions over the next minutes or hours be damned?

"Consent" does not lend itself to a rigid definition, because human relationships in the area of romance and sexuality are often complex with literally a limitless number of possible scenarios that defy tying everything up in a nice, neat feminist package. To insist that consent must be "enthusiastic" and that "no" cuts off any possibility for romance for the entire evening are concepts unworkable in the extreme and were concocted to vilify male sexuality. Again the only valid test is that a person in the position of the male must reasonably understand that there was consent. When a woman embraces her partner and prepares for intercourse in the absence of threat of physical force, consent is present, regardless of whether every radical feminist stomps her foot and insists it isn't.

*Newsweek* is Dead

I have been a constant reader of, and sometime subscriber to, U.S. News and World Report since my early teen years. I enjoyed the magazine because, though it was hardly evenhanded, it was the most evenhanded of the major newsweeklies, and has been - at least for as long as my experience with it beginning in the 1980s.

Not long ago I received notice of something that I already knew was coming thanks to reading the U.S. News blog - the magazine was shutting down as a paper weekly and would become an internet-only phenomenon. My paper subscription would be finished out by receiving a comparative number of issues to Newsweek.

Oddly (to me, but perhaps not in the grander scheme of things), the folding of U.S. News nearly coincided with some major changes taking place at Newsweek. Following an acknowledged decline of the magazine into rank liberalism (Evan Thomas, an Assistant Managing Editor at Newsweek, once famously admitted, "I think Newsweek is a little liberal.") beginning around 2008, the fortunes of Newsweek declined (i.e., the subscribers and advertisers abandoned ship, as they always do, cf. Air America) to the extent that the magazine was sold for $1 and a new management team, and consequently a new editorial team, was brought on board. Beginning with the March 14, 2011 issue, new Editor-in-Chief, Tina Brown, rolled out the "New Newsweek."

Tina Brown became famous - or at least well-known - as a progenitor of the breathy, Harlequin romance-style of "journalism" that provides bored women with fodder for gossip at bridge clubs held in the dining rooms of the wealthy the world over. In fact, she first gained international recognition (again, "fame" may not be the concept I am hunting for here) for providing coverage, in Britain's Tatler and on NBC's "Today Show," about all things Princess Di. From there, she moved into the heady journalistic spheres of... Vanity Fair. Yeah, this will end well.




So with these bona fides (Did I mention that she then founded a "news"/opinion website called The Daily Beast? Never heard of it? No worries - you are hardly alone, but you frankly need no more information about the site than to look closely at its name....), Tina Brown was an obvious choice to become Editor of Newsweek. OK, enough with the pretense. No, she wasn't an obvious choice. And still isn't. Let's be honest - she was an affirmative-action hire, like Katie Couric at the CBS Evening News. And her tenure will mimic Couric's in every way... but I am getting ahead of myself.

Journalism is not anything that Tina Brown understands. Politics (at least progressive, leftard, feminists-in-jackboots-sieg-heiling-thither-and-yon politics), she understands. And marketing. Or, I guess when done to the extreme now being indulged by Newsweek and for purely political purposes, I think it is usually called propaganda.

But me, being the patient and defer-all-judgment sort that I am, was willing to pick up the "New Newsweek" on the day when it arrived in my mailbox and check it out. Who knows? I have been pleasantly surprised before. Though not often. And I wouldn't be this time, either.

Opening the March 14 issue to its first substantive piece I saw a Tina Brown editorial statement (surprise!) titled "A New Newsweek" (surprise! surprise!). In a breakout box in the center of the page was a short blurb that in 26 lines, averaging about 6 words per line, contained some form of the word "women" or a pronoun that referred to women six times. Women today, we are told, are "fighting tyranny," "speaking truth," and "fighting for basic rights" including "being safe from sexual violence." I momentarily thought that I might be detecting a rather perverse theme, so I flipped back to the front cover and saw the word "women" twice on the cover. I then saw a story about "shattering glass ceilings" and a brief blurb about "the Dior Debacle," referring, of course, to the fashion designer, Christian Dior. Still not persuaded that I was seeing things clearly, I flipped to the table of contents page and spotted the word "feminist" twice and a story about "New Jersey's political odd couple." OK, you may have to beat me over the head with a boat oar, but I am persuaded that I am seeing it clearly now.

Now, just to supply some context here, the March 14, 2011 issue of Time magazine had a cover story titled, "Yes, America is in Decline." Given that we have three wars running, a $14 trillion debt (that anyone will admit to), near 20% effective unemployment, the dollar in steep decline, and the Keystone Kops infesting the executive branch, I find this a timely and relevant idea for an article in a leading newsweekly. Consulting the table of contents page of the March 14 Time, I find articles on oil prices, reforming Wall Street, Yemen, the budget fight in Congress, and the union chaos in Wisconsin. News. Real news.

So maybe Time is just great at what it does, and maybe that is why Newsweek somehow got run into the ground in the first place? Checking the March 7-14 issue of the liberal The Nation, I found a cover story on the publication of some new communitard book on using the French Revolution as a model for continuing to fight for "social justice," with other stories on "The Green Counterrevolution" and "In Defense of Public Workers." OK, not as good as Time, perhaps, but I think that we can grant that it is at least "newsy." Again, checking the table of contents, I saw articles on the Arab uprisings and censorship, just to name a few.

The March issue of the conservative The American Spectator contained pieces on the state of the Obama presidency, "Obama's Phantom Trains," Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, and the importance of the U.S. Constitution. Again, substantive and "newsy."

So, Brown's schtick is not seriousness, apparently - at least not when compared to her journalistic/liberal/conservative peers. Well, she admits as much, when, in her editorial statement ("A New Newsweek") she states that her vision for the magazine is that it will "allow the reader to PLAY in a different way" (emphasis added). So in a world in which Princess Diana is significant, "news" is "play." Let the dumbing down continue.

Did I mention that part of the "New Newsweek" is an emphasis on... well, why should I say it when Tina Brown's own words will do? "And let's not forget PICTURES" (emphasis added). Did somebody say "dumbing down?" Now if someone would just say, "See Spot run. Run, Spot, run!"

So, dumbing.... errrrr, thumbing through the March 14 issue I see... fashion ads from The Limited (p. 9), an article on Arab feminists (p. 11), fashion ad from St. John (p. 13), an article on the "ominous" decision of Asian men to forego marriage rather than deal with feminists (v. 15), the ever-present photo spread of French President Sarkozy's wife Carla Bruni (p. 20), what "France's most powerful businesswoman" believes about nuclear power (p. 30), "the secret to newlywed bliss" (p. 35), what Charlie Sheen's meltdown means for the various women in his life (p. 37), an article on what it was like to be one of Sadaam's children by (you guessed it!) one of his daughters (p. 40), a reprint of a 1960 article on "Young Wives with Brains" (p. 41), "The Hillary Doctrine," including the predictable sidebar on "The Evolution of a Feminist" and consequent breakout box on "The Gender Metric: The payoff for women's empowerment" (p. 44), "150 Women Who Shake the World" including a teenage student who is a "top student" at one of Cambodia's best private schools - and I swear I am not making this up (p. 52), an article on Iranian feminists - didn't they just do this a few pages back? (p. 66), an article on fashionista Christian Dior (p. 72), book reviews on four books, three by women, one of which is on love and another described as "a beautiful book" (p. 78), an article on cooking (p. 82), a blurb on the comeback of stilettos by Chanel in which the reader is encouraged to "step out in style" (p. 83), and a closing bow toward Kate Moss (p. 84).

OK, I admit, I am not being fair. That was just one issue. Tina Brown and her femtard buddies had a lot of pent-up gender rage and self-absorption and, well frankly, fashion advice after having been silenced by The Patriarchy all these years. One could forgive them for letting loose just this once, right? They will get back to their sober custodianship of a vital news organ with the next issue... likely.

So then I receive the March 21, 2011 edition of Newsweek and find that, among other cover stories are "Who Took the FUN Out of Washington?" (emphasis added) and articles on coffee and the ubiquitous Charlie Sheen. Inside are the requisite self-congratulatory letters to the editor on the new gynocentric magazine - from Lorraine and Terri, of course - I swear I am NOT making this up (p. 4). Follows, commentary on cutting back financially by transvestite celebrity RuPaul (p. 25), a fashion look at Kate Middleton (p. 30), a bow toward Michelle Obama's fashion sense (p. 44), an article on Starbucks (p. 50), Celine Dion and the homeless in Vegas (p. 58), more entertainment news in an article on Bono, Spiderman, and the omnipresent woman - director Julie Taymor (p. 65), a book review which can be summarized as "it is legitimate to murder if you are a chick claiming abuse" (p. 67), a blurb on spas (p. 69), an ad on enjoying your bath (p. 70), and an automobile review comparing the featured auto to a "Gucci" (p. 71). And no, I am not making that up, either.

Then the April 11, 2011 Newsweek arrived and Kate Middleton and Madonna shared the cover stories (yawn). An ad for bottled water graced page six, and an ad for taking your kids to the playground graced page nine. Sex discrimination on page 23 yields to the royal wedding on page 32 yields to a "Save the Children" ad on page 56 and a feature on Tina Fey on page 59 and a feature on Whoopi Goldberg on page 62 and dazzling heels and Michelle Obama's pearls on page 63 and I just can't do this anymore....

So the April 28, 2011 issue of Newsweek arrived with the cover story gloating about "The Beached White Male" yet recognizing that guys without jobs can be a little creepy and dangerous: "The Killer Stalking Long Island." But then, judging by the cover, at least, women aren't exactly tame either, as we are informed that the inside contains a story on "The Smoking Rage of Italian Women." Next issue, please....

The May 2, 2011 Newsweek features (significant, when juxtaposed with the prior cover on the "Beached White Male") the cute little Olsen twins all grown up and exegeted with a story titled "Meet America's Next Billionaires: How Those Cute Little Olsen Twins Built a Big, Fat FASHION Empire" (emphasis added). And of course, the necessary cover story on... Katie Couric. Next issue please. Things can't possibly get any worse.

Until they did. The May 9 issue of Newsweek cover: "Notes From a Royal Wedding," Sarah Palin, and "Obama's Mysterious Mother"....

It was at this point that I canceled my subscription.

Newsweek, though I would argue that it has seldom been a serious magazine, cannot under any standard be considered a serious magazine by even the most frothing-at-the-mouth libtard. Newsweek had its days. It was less liberal than many mainstream magazines throughout the 70s and 80s, and Mike Isikoff even broke the Lewinsky scandal as a reporter for Newsweek in the 90s. Today, however, Newsweek needs only a few scratch-n-sniff perfume ads to become Good Housekeeping, or the perfume ads plus one article per issue on "How to Be a Tiger in Bed" to become Cosmo.

But having adopted the feminist/female perspective, it now attempts to do the work of informing the public about substantive issues with all of the keen insight of a dating profile, all the self-absorption of an Oprah episode on "How to Get Him to Love You for YOU!", and all of the sophistication of a Harlequin romance novel.

Newsweek is dead. It was killed by feminism. And feminism killed it in two ways. First, feminism killed Newsweek by fostering an environment in which someone as untalented and unqualified as Tina Brown could get a job just because she is a woman. Secondly, feminism killed Newsweek by persuading the culture that perspective matters more than truth, and that females have a unique perspective that is worth attending to. In these same two ways (and two dozen more) feminism has almost killed Western civilization.

Newsweek was first killed because somebody, somewhere, made a decision to hire somebody who was not qualified to be a journalist, much less an editor, to handle the serious business of guiding the direction and content of a news magazine. Whoever made this horrible mistake made it because feminism has persuaded them that there is something unique in the female perspective that deserves expressing. In fact, they have insisted, under color of affirmative-action law, that women are required to be given the opportunity to express themselves, regardless of ability - because ability no longer matters. Only perspective matters.

Secondly, Newsweek was killed because it is no longer a news magazine. It is a self-absorbed and petulant expression of self-esteem and female "empowerment." As such, it is a journal of the neurotic, rather than a journal of news, because the only thing unique about the female perspective is its tendency to wholly depart from reality.

There indeed may well be something unique in the female perspective, but it decidedly does NOT deserve expressing, unless one is prepared to make a serious argument that ignoring a $14 trillion debt while explicating the newest in stilettos and Christian Dior controversies is really a grand and important strategy for changing the world in a positive manner. And any magazine that would attempt to persuade us, or deceive us, into believing that "150 Women Who Rock!" is a more important issue than $14 trillion that has to be repaid is on the cutting edge of neurotic - if not psychotic.

Tina Brown is a moron. She was a moron when she was the world's leading expert on Princess Di (and by the way, being the world's leading expert on Princess Di is, in the hierarchy of things, somewhere below being the world's leading expert on The Incredible Hulk... coloring books), and she is a bigger moron today. And a moron, when placed in charge of something important (like one of America's only two remaining newsweeklies) will tend to drag that important thing down to their irrepressibly stupid level rather than abandon their stupidity and pull themselves up to the level of the responsibility that has been laid before them.

Now, don't get me wrong, it is not my position that there is anything wrong with Good Housekeeping or Cosmo, per se. But in the same way that it makes no sense to put lipstick on a pig, it makes no sense to dress Good Housekeeping up in the robes of a sage and call it "newsworthy." Newsweek under Tina Brown is merely Good Housekeeping writ large. It is a futile attempt to float a formerly general-interest magazine by blatantly appealing to a narrow sliver of the general public - women. And let's be honest here, marketing news to women is a bit like marketing Budweiser to Mormons: any inroad you make will be progress, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that it is a cogent business move. Women are the least-informed voting bloc in any demographic study, year after year, and that is not (and has never been) because there is a lack of news for women to access. It is, rather, because women would rather read about Charlie Sheen, Kate Middleton, strappy sandals, and "99 Ways to Drive Your Man Wild in Bed" than they would the intricacies of foreign policy, the intellectual matrix of Constitutional law, or the abstraction of the floating dollar.

The shallowness and self-absorption of the "female perspective" on display at Newsweek is the death rattle in the throat of a once-great American institution. The shallow and self-absorbed demographic it is targeted to reach is too shallow and self-absorbed to care, and those serious, thoughtful, and civic-minded enough to care to read a newsweekly will abandon this mess in droves.

Rest in peace, Newsweek. I am going to be subscribing to something with a little more intellectual heft and journalistic integrity... something like Maxim, whose pictures will always be better than anything Newsweek can offer. In the meantime, enjoy your "play."

Femtards are Such Incredible Idiots

This has happened at least three times prior... but today I decided I wanted to capture it.

A femtard website has picked up my story on how femtards are irrational because commitment to feminism is an emotional commitment, not an intellectual decision - and is running it as a HEADLINE PIECE on their webpage.

Apparently, all you have to do to be picked up on some sites is run a #feminist hashtag on twitter? Or maybe, judging from the other articles, this was the only article on feminism published that day that was cogent, logical, and not written in pidgen English?



See the original article at ObjectifyChicks: Empowering Women!

The Truth About Women Who Have Been Influenced by Feminism

Excuse the pidgin English of the question below, but remember, it was written by a woman....

__________

Question: What is it about Asian women that makes men [mostly white men], wanting to be with them?

It is not so much the LOOK of Asian women that makes them popular with men (though many are beautiful). It is rather the demeanor, attitude, and values of Asian women that make them popular with adult males.

American women are worthless. They are fat, ignorant, self-absorbed, and sexually unskilled. They are so stonehearted that they have been murdering their unborn at the rate of 4,000 innocents a day for 30 years. They are psychologically unstable, romantically unreliable, and more prone than not to use the legal system as a weapon to merely get their way. American women are brash, obnoxious, loud, and irrational - and that is on their very best days.

And as to looks... when did you last hear an Asian woman talk about "comfortable shoes" or note that she didn't "believe in makeup?"

Asian women are (largely) diminutive, petite, and feminine. They are quiet and submissive, and have genuine values (whether or not Westerners would agree with them all) from having been reared in a Confucian environment. They are devoted to their family, and recognize that sexual skill is a necessary part of being a woman. They recognize that their primary loyalty is to their husband and do not have the "party" attitude of young American women. They are clean, manageable, marriageable, and sane. These are the reasons why Asian women are popular among adult males.

And I know that, during the time that I spent in Asia, I was greatly encouraged to find that the average Asian woman wholly rejects feminist philosophy, which is a short way of saying everything I wrote above.

I am married to an American woman who is beautiful, sexually skilled, a good wife and mother, and quiet and submissive. She is a real jewel. However, I had such a hard time finding a woman like her among all the aspiring female linebackers that typify the American female population, that if anything every happened to her, I would actively seek an Asian wife.

Along this line, it is important to recognize that the femtard interest in Western men's attraction to foreign women has nothing to do with their purported concern for "human trafficking." Femtard attempts to criminalize foreign matchmaking services and the ease with which foreign wives can obtain visas is rather an attempt to squelch competition from real women (which Western, femtard women are NOT) so that Western men are forced to settle for the screeching, obnoxious, and fat-laden banshees of the femtard left.

Even feminists, who generally are complete and utter fools, have enough sense to realize that the only way that a man would choose to marry or be involved with a femtard is if they had no other choice.

How One of the Most Powerful Women in History Predicted the Moral Carnage of Feminism

"I am most anxious to enlist every-one who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights,' with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and pro-priety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to 'unsex' them-selves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection." Queen Victoria of England, 1870

Book Review: The Death of American Virtue - Clinton vs. Starr

The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr – by Ken Cormley

As a social studies teacher during the Clinton administration, I had assured my students that it would take the United States 100 years to recover from Clinton's presidency – if it ever did.

Ken Cormley's book on the evolution of scandal into scandal with its eventual climax in the impeachment proceedings has been universally (as far as I can tell) praised as being an even-handed work of scholarship. Cormley is a Constitutional Law scholar and dean at the Duquesne University Law School, and his account of this David vs. Goliath (hint: David is Ken Starr, for illustrative purposes) struggle is indeed one of the finest works of historical inquiry that I have read. And as a former social studies teacher, I have read a lot of history. It is intricately sourced and indeed, even-handed, yet reads like the finest of novels.

As one would expect from a work praised for its lack of bias, the book reflects real world realities starkly. We know who is wearing the white hats and the black hats in this story, just as anyone whose conscience has not been perversely twisted during the actual Clinton scandals. Bill Clinton is a vile, monstrous, deceiver – a man of few principles and zero conscience. What you will learn, perhaps for the first time by reading Cormley's book, is that Clinton is also a world-class coward. Ken Starr, however, is a man of impeccable character, respected as a man of integrity by everyone who was not a defendant in this case, including Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno (pp. 340ff). While Starr occasionally appears (and admits to being) somewhat befuddled by the prosecutorial task of following allegations, he is clearly a man of honesty and honor whose shortcomings are entirely human and do not affect the final outcome of the investigatory task. Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, and others, are proven repeatedly to be the liars that we all knew that they were back in the day.

Having said all that, I would say that reading Cormley's book has significantly changed my mind about a few things.

First of all, back in the day I considered it to be axiomatic that Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, et al., were obviously telling the truth about being sexually harassed, raped, and what have you, by Bill Cinton. Upon reading Cormley's book (did I mention that it has been praised for being even-handed?), I am convinced that they were not, in fact, telling the truth.

Paula Jones repeatedly expressed a desire to have her case concluded with a fair settlement just so that she could “have her life back.” Her advisors, including (but not limited to) conservative activist Susan Carpenter-Macmillan and Jones' own ex-husband, continually twisted her arm to keep the ball rolling. Had Jones actually been harassed in the way that she described, I cannot imagine her being willing to dismiss her allegations upon payment of funds to a charity, especially when the allegations of Clinton's alleged character as a rapist began to be published abroad. Further, Jones repeatedly assured various characters, including her own lawyers, that she would do certain things (settle the case) and wouldn't do certain things (pose naked in a porno spread), and reneged on those commitments. Finally, in one of the most outrageous lies ever known to man, Jones maintained to her lawyers once the said buff pictures had indeed been published that she was unaware that she was being photographed. *Ahem.* Anyone who has seen any of those pictures knows that Ms. Jones was quite aware that she was being photographed. Jones is an unstable liar, and her allegations against Clinton should be discounted accordingly.

Willey's case is, if anything, even more cut-and-dried than Jones.' Willey alleged that Clinton accosted her when she came to seek a political job from him, pinning her against the wall, biting her lip, and aggressively fondling her breasts. However, on the very date on which Willey suggests that this occurred to her, Linda Tripp maintains that she saw Willey coming out of Clinton's office appearing in an almost dreamy state, relaxed and happy – certainly not distraught in any way. Additionally, Willey's friend, Julie Hiatt Steele, denied that she had ever maintained that Clinton had misbehaved with reference to her. Willey, in fact, confessed to being behind closed doors with Clinton and willingly kissing and mutually groping him.

In short, by all evidence that exists beyond mere prejudice, it appears that these two women (and a host of others, whom I will ignore in the interests of brevity) were mere opportunists who sought to gain something – whether a Penthouse spread or a job – by the filing of false allegations against the president.

The hypocrisy which congeals around these allegations, which were simultaneously widely considered to be false among the intelligentsia and yet widely circulated by that same intelligentsia, is astounding. Ben Bradlee, editor of the Washington Post and the boss of Mike Isikoff, who broke the Lewinsky story among the “respectable” [sic] media, admitted that, while a great fan of JFK (whose credentials as a “girler” were impeccable), it was necessary to pursue and publish similar allegations against Clinton: “[Clinton] made the news.... I mean, we didn't take up with Monica Lewinsky.... Where do I draw the line? I draw the line at truth.”

Ahhhh, but there is the rub. Any time Bill Clinton is involved, the lines between truth and falsehood become marvelously blurred, don't they?

While it is true that Clinton is among that vilest of the class of human beings – those who treat their marriage vows as if they were clauses in a contract riddled with exceptions – and is singularly the most perverse and shameful politician to have ever inhabited the national stage (BHO44 notwithstanding), and while it is true that Clinton had (shall we say?), an extremely full social calendar, while broadcasting abroad the truth that Clinton was a devilish adulterer whose compulsion apparently exceeded that of one Tiger Woods, the press simultaneously broadcast the known falsehoods of the myriad of empty pockets, heads, and lives who swarmed around the Starr investigation like sharks around chum, seeking Warhol's proverbial 15. In short, the truth that Clinton was (and still is) an adulterer is not an excuse for knowingly accusing him of nonconsensual antics – including rape (Exodus 20:16).

But when lies are being tossed around, Bill Clinton is in his element. He is not just a Master of the Lie, in fact he is The Ringmaster of the Lie. Kevin Ohlson, a Justice Department appointee under Clinton, expressed fear when Janet Reno recommended handing off the Lewinsky matter to the Office of Independent Counsel (and by the way, contrary to the insane warblings of the Clinton administration, the investigation into the Lewinsky matter had nothing to do with sex – it was rather an investigation into obstruction of justice and the possibility of bribery being passed through Vernon Jordan in the form of a jobs-for-silence conspiracy): “Oh my God, this could lead to the president's resignation... out of sheer and utter embarrassment” (343). Of course, Ohlson can be forgiven for the unprovable assumption that Bill Clinton possesses enough conscience to feel embarrassment about anything. It is a common trait among sociopaths, of course, that they display no capacity for shame....

And so the false allegations against Clinton produced, not the truth, but rather an engorgement on falsehood that resembled, spiritually, the chaos present whenever my mother-in-law and a buffet are in the same room. Clinton was more than happy to engage in denials of the truth (one of which had his law license permanently revoked in Arkansas), character assassination (“Drag $100 through a trailer park and who knows what you'll come up with?”), and a scorched-earth policy of mudslinging (as successive Republican Speakers of the House resigned under the assault emanating from the Clinton White House through model citizen and *Hustler* publisher, Larry Flynt). Because Bill Clinton is a liar deep in his soul, he is in his element when the lies are flying fast and furious. And if winning counts, then he won. But if someday one is held to account for *how* one wins, there may be a somewhat different verdict before a slightly more majestic bar than the impeachment panel rightly convened against him.

So yes, it is quite an even-handed treatment of a chaotic period of American history. Cromley's objective treatment show Bill Clinton to be the vile criminal that he actually is in real life – a man so alienated from truth that he is destined to be remembered primarily for lies. Both the lies that he himself told, and the slanders that were proffered against him.

What has not been discussed in Cormley's book, or any other, of course, because the topic is expressly *verboten* among polite society (luckily, I do not consider myself to be polite at all), is the nexus between the Clinton scandals and feminist doctrine.

First, one may justly wonder, though Ben Bradlee seemed not to do so, why it is that the philandering of JFK, FDR, and (possibly) other presidents were largely covered up by the media, while Clinton's were declared, as it were, from the housetops. Now, liberals have their own explanation as to why this occurred (a “vast right-wing conspiracy,” but then paranoia is a natural aspect of the mental disorder known as liberalism), but liberals are always wrong, and have been proven so by history. So what is the real reason?

One word: court. Court documents. OK, that's really two words.

Marcia Lewinsky, Monica's mom, essentially paints her daughter as the victim of a perjury trap, noting that EVERYBODY'S first reaction when caught in adultery – even when you have got “the goods” on them – is to deny it. She makes the point that Paula Jones' public display was voluntary (though Jones herself would deny this, saying that she was thrust into the spotlight by *The American Spectator*): “Just because Paula Jones may have thought it was her right to make a public spectacle... I think Monica [similarly] thought it was her right to keep it private. And not to tell anyone about it, and to deny it, which is exactly what she did” (p. 399).

And I would agree, except for one thing: feminists generally, and Bill Clinton specifically, not Paula Jones, long ago made the decision for all of us that sex was going to be a public matter to be wielded like a weapon whenever it stood to benefit a woman to do so (and with so-called “rape shield laws,” feminists similarly established that feminism is not really about equality, but about enacting a series of double standards, when they also devised evidentiary standards in legal cases which kept relevant information about a so-called “victim's” past out of evidence, thereby reducing all rape, domestic violence, child abuse, and sexual harassment claims to “he said/she said” status).

In 1994, Bill Clinton signed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as a sop to the feminist movement without whose devotion he would not have been elected (and, as subsequent events would confirm, as a sop to his wife as well). VAWA contained several provisions that were designed to promote the filing of false charges by women against men:

• VAWA removed the possibility of perjury charges for any testimony that a woman makes in a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) hearing.

• VAWA lowered the standard of evidence for obtaining a DVPO from the “likelihood of imminent harm” standard, which has been the standard for obtaining restraining orders in English Common Law since prior to the establishment of the American experiment, to the much more mushy “subjective fear of the woman.” In practical terms, this means that traditionally, in order to get a restraining order, a person had to prove that absent such an order, there was an imminent probability of harm. Under VAWA, however, any woman willing to manufacture false allegations (and nearly all DVPO proceedings are merely a convenient venue for the airing of generic grievances which have nothing to do with “violence” - it is estimated that false DVPO proceedings drain the economy of $20 billion annually, see http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-False-DV-Allegations-Cost-20-Billion.pdf), against a man need only convince a judge that she possesses fear of that man (and not even that such fear is justified!) in order to be granted a restraining order. Obviously, it is exceedingly rare for a requested DVPO to not be granted, on even the flimsiest of evidence. I have seen DVPOs granted by courts because the husband was an evangelical Christian or, in one case, because a husband canceled an insurance policy – which caused his wife to very dramatically intone in her testimony, “I just don't know who he is anymore. That is not the kind of thing he would do. I feel naked and exposed – I am SO SCARED.” Subjective fear of the woman requirement satisfied: DVPO granted.

• VAWA further continues to corrupt the judicial system by controlling the continuing education classes taken by judges and attorneys on the topic of “domestic violence.” Of course, all such continuing ed courses are taught either by doctrinaire feminists, who view the breakup of the family as a part of their ongoing political project, or by representatives of women's shelters, whose funding depends on an ever-expanding definition of and finding of “domestic violence.” Lawyers and judges at the district court level, where these matters tend to be disposed of, are now thoroughly brainwashed by feminist dogma, which has no relation to facts.

Clinton had, then, as one of his first major triumphs of policy, signed into law a piece of legislation that was designed to produce false allegations. It has done so in spades. This is entirely consistent with everything that we know about Bill Clinton, because the one reality that history will inevitably connect with his name is "liar." A man who lies as much as Bill Clinton always has, would certainly be a man whose alienation from truth is so complete as to desire to encourage lying in the general populace.

Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones were hardly the first females to use... uhhhhh... "creative" interpretations of sex to accomplish their purposes, whatever they were. In the book of Genesis, we see that false allegations are second only to seduction in the female weaponry utilized in the war against men (Genesis 39:7-20).

But the United States, under the tutelage of Bill Clinton, the notorious liar, and consequent to the Violence against Women Act, is the first society in all of human history to actively encourage these false allegations. Bill Clinton signed VAWA with the full knowledge that false allegations would ensue, that innocent men would be separated from their children (at least) and unjustly convicted of crimes (at worst), and that the American family would experience incomprehensible carnage. And that is exactly what has happened.

The purely karmic reality, however, is that Clinton was one of the very first to suffer under this regime.

God does exist.

And He has quite a sense of humor.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, there is nothing funny about the carnage that has been wreaked on the American family by Bill Clinton's signing of VAWA. It will, indeed, be 100 years before America recovers from the Clinton administration.

If it ever does.

Who Harms Women?

‎"Feminists have done more damage to women since the 60s than men have done in all of human history." Carmen Connors on WRDU's (106.1, Raleigh/Knightdale, NC) "The Morning Rush"

Interesting FEMALE perspective, wouldn't you say...?

Crystal Gail Mangum - Feminist Icon

Finally, Crystal Gail Mangum has been called to account for her crimes!

You will, of course, remember Ms. Crystal Gail Mangum. She is the slanderous harpy (i.e., feminist) and "exotic dancer" (i.e., hooker) who lodged false allegations against the Duke University Lacrosse team in 2006 - apparently because she felt slighted when she was not tipped what she thought she deserved for dancing at one of their parties.

As per usual, when North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper intervened and administratively dropped the charges against the lacrosse players, the decision was made in the local district attorney's office to not prosecute Mangum for her crimes of abuse of process, filing a false police report, obstruction of justice, or even perjury.

The stated excuse for not filing such criminal charges against her was that she was too mentally unstable to be legally responsible for her crimes (but then, aren't all feminists similarly mentally unstable?). However, let's never forget that it is the official legal dogma of the feminist movement that slanderous women who file false allegations against innocent men (and there are many - up to or exceeding 60% of the aggregate allegations of rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and child abuse or molestation are false allegations) should never be prosecuted, inasmuch as such prosecutions of slandering hussies will deter "real victims" from filing their complaints. Oddly, feminists have never argued that those who file false insurance claims should not be prosecuted lest such prosecutions deter those with real insurance claims from filing....

But one district attorney in a false allegations case, in explaining why he would not file charges against the perjurious feminist who slandered an innocent man, demonstrated the depths to which femtard mythology has penetrated into the black heart of the legal system....

"If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them."

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), in fact, codifies this feminist desire to encourage false allegations by encouraging states to adopt no-prosecution policies against any women who file charges of "domestic violence" against a male - even if such charges are determined to be false.

The end result of this turn of events is that feminists strive for a cultural milieu in which women are encouraged to file false charges against innocent men by removing all costs to themselves for doing so. It is the decriminalization of the crime of perjury - if one is a woman, of course.

Now of course, morally, matters are much stickier. For in fact, we have all known that Crystal Gail Mangum was a criminal nearly from day one. That the state refuses to prosecute her based on its political corruption by feminist dogma does not mean that she is not a criminal - for certainly she is a criminal, regardless of whether she has been prosecuted. And she is rightly viewed with contempt across the board in this country today.

But nevertheless, the whole Duke Lacrosse situation remains an interesting illustration of what passes for "justice" in the twisted feminist mind. Emotionally unstable and mentally shortchanged women are encouraged to approach life from a perspective of vigorous anger and self-absorption, never considering the lives of so much as their own children, and certainly giving less than a care about any man or even society itself. When such women act out... errrrrrr... lash out... uhhhhhh... "empower themselves," the innocents whom they are in the process of destroying are expected to simply accept their punishment (in the criminal realm, or settle, at a cost of thousands or millions of dollars in the civil). Meanwhile, the costs to those individuals is astronomical (as the Duke Lacrosse players and their families had to expend millions of dollars to defend themselves against the slander of Mangum and District Attorney, Mike Nifong), the costs to society are unexpected and far-reaching (as the Duke Lacrosse team lost an entire season of play, Mike Nifong lost his job and wound up in jail, Duke University settled out of court for willingly participating in the slander against the lacrosse players, several players did not graduate from Duke, the lacrosse coach lost his job, and the entire Durham community was divided along political lines) over what was, remember, merely a woman acting out because she had been brought up with a sense of feminist entitlement in a feminist culture which teaches women that if they do not get what they want they are justified, nay, even required, to be assertive and stand up for your rights and not be any man's doormat and lash out in some way at whatever displeases them.

Feminism is, of course, a mental disorder. It is a form of neurosis, in which its adherents are taught to ignore reality, replacing it with a dream world designed in their own heads. Further, it is a form of sociopathy, in which social conventions and the rights of others are submerged into an extreme narcissism and self-absorption that produces a bent toward aggression and crime. Whether those crimes be the filing of false allegations, other forms of perjury, or the slaughter of unborn innocents on a scale that dwarfs the Holocaust, feminists are simply and inarguably criminals - though mostly unprosecuted, as was Mangum.

Feminists often tell us that "sexual predators" (i.e., those whose lives have been unjustly stained by the feminist false allegations industry's slanders) should be stopped on the first sign of deviance, so that far greater crimes in the future may be avoided.

Would that feminists were equally as concerned about the criminal potential of their own adherents, whose crimes are not imagined. Mangum's criminal record, for instance, is interesting. She was arrested for driving while impaired in 2000, and surrendered (or had revoked) her license in lieu of prosecution. But in 2002, Mangum was charged with grand larceny, driving while impaired, speeding to elude arrest, and assault on a government official when she stole a taxi belonging to a man to whom she was giving a lap dance, initiated a high-speed chase with police, and attempted to run over a policeman who approached the taxi on foot. She pled guilty to misdemeanor charges and spent three weekends in jail.

Then, of course, came the moment(s) of truth. On February 17, 2010, Mangum's daughter called Durham County's 911 and reported, "My mom's gonna die if you don't hurry."

Upon arrival, the police found Mangum in a violent, chaotic meltdown. She was, of course, merely "being assertive" in feminist style. Police report that they observed her "kicking, scratching, and throwing objects" and that they heard her threaten to kill her boyfriend (!!!???), one Milton Walker, when she screamed "I'm gonna stab you, motherf****r!" Yes. In front of police. Think maybe Missy has come to believe that there are no consequences for her wrongdoing...?

Upon further inspection of the home, police discovered that she had deposited her boyfriend's clothing in the home's bathtub and set them on fire.

Did I mention that Mangum's three children - aged 10, 9, and 3 - were present in the home?

I am pleased to report that Mangum has finally been charged with a crime -a whole slew of 'em, in fact! From attempted murder, to simple assault, arson, child endangerment, communicating threats, identity theft, damage to property, and resisting arrest, she has finally had the state endorse the proposition that all of us knew to be true from early in 2006 - that Crystal Gail Mangum is a sociopathic criminal who ought to have been locked up long ago.

Yet, something bothers me about all this....

I have previously pointed out that Mike Nifong is a feminist icon. It really doesn't make sense that he has been disbarred, charged and convicted with crimes, and locked up in jail - all he did was exactly what feminists have demanded that all law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts do: believe all allegations made by women against men regardless of the evidence.

In the same way, I can't really see charging Mangum with any crimes since all she is doing is exhibiting the strong, independent, assertive (some would say narcissistic and sociopathic) personality type that is encouraged in women by our feminist culture.

For instance, feminists encourage the filing of false allegations against men, and even admit that they are not really concerned that such false allegations take place! One Catherine Comins of Vassar College remarked in Time magazine....

Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."

Undoubtedly this is true. Primarily, I would think they gain a realistic perspective on feminism.

If false allegations are merely a public service done by women toward men, why then, who is more of a feminist iconoclast than our beloved Crystal Gail Mangum?

Feminists additionally assure women that, when they feel that their rights are trampled on, or when their feelings are not taken into account by the male authorities in their lives (be that daddy, hubby, lover, or employer), they are justified in manufacturing criminal or civil charges, in the form of a false rape claim, a claim of domestic violence, or a manufactured civil claim of sexual harassment.

Undoubtedly, Mangum merely looked at the economic hardship of her country (for she is undoubtedly a patriot), and decided to handle her problems without further burdening a family court system that is already overburdened with the false allegations of thousands of other women! Criminal? Hardly. Mangum is merely a feminist who respects Hayek!

Feminist culture teaches women that their happiness, self-fulfillment, self-esteem, and self-absorption is the primary issue in all of reality. It justifies the destruction of innocent men, the devastation wreaked upon the institution of marriage, justifies the groaning weight of the welfare state, and even serves as a ready reason for the slaughter of the unborn in the womb. Children are merely appendages that can be disposed of at will when the interests of the mother are at stake.

It is puzzling, then, why Mangum could be charged with child abuse. After all, had the fires that she set inside the house actually gotten out of hand and her children had perished, undoubtedly she would not have thought of it as murder, but rather as a 40th-trimester abortion (at least for her ten year old, feel free to do your own math on the other two kids!).

I could go on, but I think the point I am making is rather much clear. Crystal Gail Mangum may or may not be a criminal, but in a feminist culture in which her behaviors are merely the logical extension of femtard agitation it is worth considering: Is it true that Crystal Gail Mangum is a feminist icon, having mastered the behaviors and attitudes encouraged by feminism, and if so, is it also true that feminism is merely the politicization of a criminal sociopathy?