Tag: Feminism

Michelle Obama scolds women who voted for Trump

Identity politics strikes again

“In light of this last election I’m concerned about women, about how we think about ourselves and each other. I think more about what is going on in our heads where we let that happen,” Obama said when speaking at the United State of Women Summit.

“So I do wonder what young girls are dreaming about when we’re still there when the most qualified person running was a woman, and look what we did instead,” Obama said. “Women are still suspicious of one another” and hold themselves to a higher standard than men, she claimed.

Allow me to translate for you ladies

Don’t you dumb gals know you are supposed to vote for leftists? You better remember your place!

Are Feminists really that crazy?

Well, that is a silly question. Of course they are, as The Other McCain explains

He was high on morphine and methamphetamine, and he had a .357 pistol and an AK-47 with four extra magazines, with a total of 172 rounds of ammunition. When police showed up, he told them: “The meth doesn’t make me crazy, man . . . The lizard people are real!” He said his family was being held hostage by the “alpha dragon,” and that President Trump had called to warn him about the lizard people. He was sent to a mental institution for evaluation. (Hat-tip: Instapundit.)

Hmmm, I wonder if CNN or MSNBC are hiring, this guy might get his own show. So what do lizard people, and meth have to do with Feminism? One word PARANOIA!

Meanwhile, an editor at Feministing says they’ll be forced to shut down if readers don’t help. By contributing $5 a month, Julianna Britto Schwartz promised, readers will get “that warm fuzzy feeling that comes with knowing that your dollars are supporting young women who are sticking it to the capitalist, white supremacist heteropatriarchy.”

Is the “heteropatriarchy” more real than the lizard people? Probably not, but maybe the editors of Feministing should stockpile AK-47 ammunition just in case. “It’s not the meth, man.”

I leave you with one question. Which will screw your mind up quicker, Meth, or Feminism? Hmmmmmmmmm

Lesbian activist seeks to make Wonder Woman hotter and enrage Feminists

Strange bedfellows?

Change.org petition titled “Make Wonder Woman Bisexual” was launched on Monday by one Gianna Collier-Pitts, who identifies as working for LGBT advocacy organization GLAAD.

The petition claims the global hit film starring actress Gal Gadot “was a success for everyone… except the bisexual community.”

So, the bisexual community must have every movies with bisexual leads? More Identity Obsession Disorder for America! And the idiocy deepens

“All I ask is that Warner Bros. directly acknowledge Diana Prince for who she is, who she has always been (regardless of her current love interest), and what her character could potentially represent for millions of people,” the petition concludes.

Hmmm, doesn’t the petitioner grasp that Diana Prince is, fictional, as in not real? But the news might not be all bad. If the next Wonder Woman features Gil Gadot, who is hot getting busy with other hot women, another “community” would be into it too. Men! 

This of course would aggrieve and offend Feminists, who hate to see men have fun. And we all know how entertaining wacky Feminists are when they are pissed, so, bring on the new “improved” Wonder Woman. Here are some suggestions for costars to help Gil Gadot “come out”. Let the Feminist meltdown commence!

Kearran Giovanni


Cote de Pablo


And yes, Salma Hayek, who could play the arch nemesis of Wonder Woman.


Imagine the fun those two could have with that lasso Wonder Woman carries. Yes guys would love that, and Feminists would lose their freaking minds. Sounds like a win win to me


Ladies, when the Left Shrieks about empowering you………..

…..what they really desire is to enslave you to a lifetime of government dependence

As you surely know by now, dozens of hardcore leftist organizations participated in a march on Washington to push for all sorts of leftist ideas, like abortion, ‘climate change’, vaginas, pussy’s, flipping people off while grabbing their vaginas, wearing pussy hats telling us they’re empowered (hey, that’s what most of the photos I saw seemed to be pushing). The NY Times has a wonderful collage of photos which conveniently forget most of the Crazy.

Yes, feminists are obsessed with their “lady parts” and with being empowered. Yet, all of that empowerment seems to revolve around having the government pay for the pads, tampons, abortions, birth control. Does anyone else think this odd? Certainly not Leftists like New York Andrew Cuomo, who is all happy to provide the government shackles ladies.

“These regulatory actions will help ensure that whatever happens at the federal level, women in our state will have cost-free access to reproductive health care and we hope these actions serve as a model for equality across the nation,” Cuomo said. “Women deserve to make a fair wage and the same salary as any man, they deserve to work in an office free of sexual harassment, they deserve comprehensive paid family leave, and they deserve control over their health and reproductive decisions.”

Oh Governor Cuomo you lying Leftist you. You, and anyone who thinks about this knows that this has nothing to do with women’s right, or empowerment. In the real world, the more “rights” the government invents, the more it ultimately controls those it “gives” those rights to. The more government provides, the more it controls, and, of course, in Andrew Cuomo’s world that is the goal.

In fact the goal of the Left is always control, it is at the very core of their Collectivist hearts. That is why they focus so much energy into propagandizing Americans into identity based group think. When those groups fall for that re-education, they also fall for the lie that only big government can protect their “rights”, and that thinking as an individual is bad. You must sacrifice your individual identity, and embrace your “identity” as a member of your “group”. Of course, those who are wise reject this notion for what it is, an invitation into slavery to the State.

Here is a great truth you must never forget. Once you willingly sacrifice your individual liberties, you lose every natural right that you possess. That reassuring sound for those that give in to group think is not security, or liberty.


It is, instead, the sound of the Collectivist jail cell door closing behind you.

Feminism is not pro-woman, it is pro Leftism

Feminism, we are told, is about empowering women. Empowering women to make their own choices, control their own bodies, run their own lives. In short then, feminists will tell you that women NEED feminism because of sexism and inequality. That is the message and rhetoric of Feminists, but the truth is quite different. In truth, feminism is about pushing leftism, and embittering, and thus controlling women, thus empowering feminists, and, again, furthering leftist ideology.

Again, if you might be thinking I am way off base here, consider how Feminists walk the walk on “empowering women” to make any choice they wish. Much like the self-appointed civil rights leadership seeks to keep Blacks from thinking for themselves, and leaving the Plantation of Liberal Ideology, feminist leaders seek to keep women “in their place” which, of course is bitter angry, and indoctrinated into the Left’s definition of feminism.

If a woman is pro-abortion, she is empowered. If she dares be pro-life, however, she cannot really be a woman.

If a women speaks “truth to power” on equality, and shrieks constantly about the evil Patriarchy, and sees every male glance or flirt as sexism, she is a member in good standing with feminists. Let a woman speak out and say she likes being attractive to men, or that she sees nothing evil about being flirted with, or complimented by a man, and she is a disgrace.

If a woman rails against traditional gender roles, and marriage (which any good feminist will tell you is rape), and stay at home moms, she is a warrior for social justice. But a woman who defends typical gender roles, and marriage, and raising her kids by actually raising them, then she is called a fool and a traitor to feminism.

If a woman uses her voice to bash the NRA, and gun owners, then she is a valued voice to the Left. But a woman who defends gun ownership, concealed carry, and actually trains with and carries a gun herself, she is bashed. Never mind that such a woman IS the true definition of what feminism ought to be. Such a woman is thinking for herself, and speaking out, and is actually walking the walk. But to feminists, she is a cancer, and must be ostracized and belittled.

In short, being a good feminist means being a woman who toes the lines correctly, and only makes life choices that the Left finds valuable. Consider a few more examples.

A woman should be free to control her own body, unless she wishes to control her own medical insurance and care. Or unless she chooses to pose for pictures men will enjoy, of course. Then she is serving the Patriarchy and betraying women somehow.

A woman must NEVER enjoy being attractive, and any men must never ever look at a woman, or direct any compliment towards a woman’s looks. Somehow noticing that an actress, or news anchor is attractive demeans her intellect somehow. Funny, I never knew that only unattractive people can be smart.  This of course, goes against nature. Men are, by definition attracted to women, and vice-versa. Trying to change that dynamic is as likely to succeed as trying to pet a wolverine is. 

Women must use their voices to help further certain causes, unless those causes are against leftism of course. This is why women like Michelle Malkin, and Stacy Dash and S.E. Cupp, or Katie Pavlich are so savaged by the Left. They do not “know their place”. Odd isn’t it? There is likely no greater form of sexism than feminism. Especially towards very attractive women. And yes, I find the four women I named very attractive, I also find them intelligent and fascinating and admirable. See, you CAN indeed appreciate a woman’s mind, ideals, and looks. Well, unless you are a feminist that is. After all, that whole equality thing is only for women who follow the feminist rules.

Invasion of the PENISphobes!



I think I might start referring to Feminists as PENISphobes! Stacy McCain explains

“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. Men’s world is like a vast prison or concentration camp for women. This isn’t a metaphor, it’s reality. Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men. . . .
“[H]eterosexuality doesn’t exist and our ‘urges’ to bond with [men] emotionally or sexually aren’t natural drives but normal PTSD reactions to years of abuse and mind-programming.”
Radical Wind, August 2013

When I think back on how this project began, I recall the woman whose screed against intercourse (“PIV is always rape, OK?”) led me deep into this swamp of radical feminism. It was, however, another rant by that same blogger which made me seriously explore the ideological psychosis of which her rant was a symptom.

“No woman is heterosexual.”

That four-word sentence sent me off on an investigation of her sources, especially including Professor Dee Graham, whose 1994 book Loving to Survive theorized female heterosexuality as a response to male-inflicted “sexual terror,” akin to post-traumatic stress syndrome. Understanding this claim in turn required me to examine the sources cited in Graham’s bibliography, including lesbian feminists like Marilyn Frye, Adrienne Rich, Mary Daly, Audre Lorde and Charlotte Bunch. Graham even managed to work in a citation to “Starhawk” (neé Miriam Simos), the lesbian feminist who was the founding high priestess of a California-based pagan witchcraft cult known as Reclaiming. From such dubious sources Graham had propounded her theory of sexuality, based in a view of men as violent oppressors and women as victims suffering under tyrannical male supremacy. After several months of further research, I’ve begun to refer to this feminist worldview as Fear and Loathing of the Penis.

You see this in the counterfactual “rape epidemic” hysteria on college campuses, with activists at Columbia University trying to frighten prospective students — high school kids — with protests about “gender-based violence on campus.” Robert Tracinski at the Federalist examines the possibility that “rape culture” discourse represents “an attempt to create a scapegoat for the emotional dark side of promiscuity.”

Go read it all. Of all the wings of Leftism, Feminism might be the CRAZIEST! We are talking bat shit crazy here folks. I am talking THIS crazy!

feminism ugly

Leftism is an ideology for those who care nothing about truth

Take the UVA “Rape” story, which Feminists have jumped all over. Doug Powers illustrates the ugly truth, which is that the veracity of the allegations mean nothing to those fighting the “Patriarchy”

Ah, journalism:

Last month, Rolling Stone published a story titled “A Rape on Campus” by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, which described a brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity house; the university’s failure to respond to this alleged assault – and the school’s troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. The story generated worldwide headlines and much soul-searching at UVA. University president Teresa Sullivan promised a full investigation and also to examine the way the school responds to sexual assault allegations.
In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

“In the face of new information” — that “information” being “the other side of the story.”

So, they ran a story without getting both sides, and Feminists are now angry that Rolling Stone is correcting their shoddy reporting. Again, truth, means nothing to the Left

The most pathetic aspect here is that there are feminists who are actually pissed about it. I mean, I can totally understand the anger directed at Rolling Stone for the shoddy report on such a serious allegation, but those who are only mad because they were using that particular story to slam “the patriarchy,” and now they can’t, are pathetic. 

Amanda Marcotte, who is as crazy as they come, has taken bat shit crazy to a whole new, nuclear grade level And then, there is this

One of these angry gals is the charming Melissa McEwan, who, according to her Twitter bio, is “proprietor of Shakesville, a progressive feminist blog and a community of teaspoon-wielding badasses who expect more.” Apparently one of the things she doesn’t expect is for rape accusers to be completely honest:


Truth? To the Left it is meaningless.

*VIDEO* Andrew Klavan: Just Say No To Emma Watson And Feminism



Feminist whiner goes to Wal Mart, outbreak of Feminut Outrage ensues

The source of said outrage? A T-shirt!

Via NewsBusters

Yahoo! Style Outraged By Walmart’s ‘Sexist’ Batman T-Shirt 

Lauren Tuck unleashed against superhero-themed T-shirts that are supposedly “displaying blatantly sexist messages” in a Wednesday post in Yahoo’s Style section. Tuck cited a blogger who ranted against one such shirt at Walmart that features the slogan, “Training to be Batman’s Wife.” The writer not only targeted “chauvinistic apparel” involving DC Comics characters, but also two shirts related to Marvel Comics’ “The Avengers” series. The Yahoo! Style assistant editor led her item, “Sexist Superhero T-Shirts Cause Controvery,” by spotlighting how “this week, Thor, one of Marvel’s principal characters, became a woman. But while one aspect of the superhero universe is becoming more diverse, another is causing controversy.” She continued with her “blatantly sexist messages” line, and noted that the shirts are apparently “sparking indignation across social media platforms.” 


Tuck first zeroed in on “Training to be Batman’s Wife” T-shirt, and pointed out that “blogger PJ Curtis discovered [the] t-shirt in the junior’s section of Walmart…’The idea that you should settle for being married to or sleeping with someone awesome instead of being the awesome person is insulting,’ she wrote on her blog PJ Says. ‘This just happens to be aimed at a young girl. I resent the idea that she should “train” to be so Batman’s wife.’”

I always knew Robert Jensen was a few sandwiches shy of a picnic

That would be University of Texas journalism professor Robert Jensen, who is about as wacky as a leftist can be. He is an anti-patriotism kinda guy. And a guy who likes to demonize anyone even remotely proud of their Confederate ancestors. He especially loathes Confederate memorials. In short, he is a Leftist. And, his story lends itself to the theory that all Leftists are nuttier than a bag of trail mix. Stacy McCain, writing about the pathology of the Male Feminist shares some of Jensen’s twisted thinking.

“[A] young professor of journalism, Robert Jensen . . . sent me several of his articles describing his transition from heterosexual, to homosexual, to celibate man now exploring impotence as the ultimate response to the apparent inescapability of ‘patriarchal sex,’ in whichever context sex is pursued. . . .
“Jensen gave up sex ‘with other people (including the people in pornography)’ after realizing that he could not have sex of any sort without recreating ‘patriarchal sex.’ He explains, ‘I was the man, and I was in control because men “naturally” take control of sex.’ Even converting to homosexuality did not save him from these dilemmas, for he found that gay sex, too, was contaminated by patriarchal values. . . .
“All men are raised with rapist ethics, he maintains, whether or not they are all rapists in legal terms.”
– Daphne Patai, Heterophobia (1998)

WTF??? I mean seriously who thinks like that? What kind of deranged person forces themselves into such morally retarded ideals? A person moronic enough to actually embrace any tenet of leftism Leftism, that is who.

Professor Jensen is absolutely correct that eschewing normal masculine sexuality — becoming an impotent gay celibate — is the only way short of castration or suicide that any man can become wholly acceptable within the context of feminist theory.

This is why most people reject feminism. Normal men refuse to accept the insulting anti-male rhetoric of feminism, and normal women — i.e., the kind of women who like normal men — have no enthusiasm for the pet theories of Marxist lesbians.

All feminists are insane, but “male feminists” are a special kind of crazy.

Or, as my Granddad would have said, that boy is touched in the head.

Of course, not all Leftists are crazy, some, like Dana Milbank, are just assholes

Non-Shocker of the Day Feminists are still crazy (about Rihannas Breasts)

Rihanna is a beautiful young lady, and as a man I certainly appreciate her figure. But Feminists like #justineharman? As RS McCain reports They REALLY get into Rihanna’s breasts because PATRIARCHY!

The #fem2 hashtag is Twitter’s shorthand for feminism and, while surfing it last night, I came across a column by Justine Harman, an editor for the web site of Elle magazine:

Rihanna’s Boobs Make Me
Feel Better About My Body

OK, then. This is an issue feminists call “body image,” which isn’t really an issue so much as it is an excuse for women to write silly columns about their feelings. Justine Harman is super-silly:

So here’s the deal: I’m kind of known for my boobs. Though I’m 5’3″ (on a good day), my breasts are somewhere between a 34C and a 32D and naturally possess what a high school classmate once called “indomitable turgor pressure.” Translation: My cups, most definitely, runneth over. As a result, I spent all of high school and college wearing low-cut halter tops with little or no support. And I beamed with pride whenever someone suggested my teeming décolletage was fake. “Touch them!” I’d demand of guys and girls alike. But as I’ve gotten older, Father Time hasn’t been so much cruel as he’s been fair to my cleavage.
At 29, I can no longer wear a flimsy tank without also wearing a granny bandeau. . . .

(Gravity is a weapon of the patriarchy!)

And though I’m learning to adjust to my slightly less-than-Jessica-Rabbit silhouette, it seems that the rest of the world would rather not. The ideal breasts — regardless of the natural, biological progression of the feminine form — are perfectly symmetrical, gravity defying, and Blake Lively-esque. . . .

Well, Miss Touch My Magnificent Melons, I hate to break the news to you, but the “rest of the world” just isn’t that into your boobs. I know, that must stun you, and your over-sized boobs over-sized ego, but the truth can hurt. Frankly, the world, at least from men’s eyes, has a wide variety of taste where boobs are concerned. Some of us are all about size, some about proportion, and some of us are really not “boob” guys. Yes. we like breasts, but other anatomical features are more important in what attracts us to women. Take me for example, give me a small-breasted woman with a great butt, nice legs, and a pretty face over a woman with a huge rack and not much else. The “rest of the world” does not have one standard for breasts, and your issues with your “body image” are your fault, not the rest of the world. But, I think your real issue is that you are PO’d about MEN!

And due to my lack of understanding about how I should feel, I’m still not sure which of the following incidents was more scarring: the time I was busted for stuffing my bra in the eighth grade, or the time a guy I knew in college pulled down my tube top, under which I was most definitely not wearing a bra, after he lost a game of beer pong.
Both situations made me feel embarrassed for something I wasn’t fully aware of yet: my inherent need for approval from men. . . .

Oh of course, the PATRIARCHY! It is always the PATRIARCHY!

But, everything is OK now, because Rihanna’s breasts reached out to #justineharman and spoke to her

Monday night, when Rihanna proudly displayed her lovely, but very real, rack in that dazzling Adam Selman getup at the CFDAs, I breathed a sigh of relief. That’s right: Rihanna’s body makes me feel better about my own. . . .

So when Rihanna, a woman who was very publicly the victim of domestic violence, displays her body with pride, it sends two messages: She refuses to equate being undressed with being vulnerable; she doesn’t give a shit what people think. Her nudity — as opposed to, say, Warrior Sports’ recent Instagram post of Playboy Playmate Jessica Ashley clutching a new hockey stick in ecstasy, her pert nipples just visible through her wife beater — has nothing to do with men. And she clearly doesn’t care that they don’t sit up as if suspended on a highwire or that her nipples aren’t the size of Tic Tacs. When Rihanna bares her perfectly womanly breasts, she’s doing it because Rihanna feels like it. And that makes me feel tremendous.

No Justine, the issue is you. It is not Rihanna’s body, or the body image, or anything but your screwed up priorities. Stacy McCain sums it up

Feminists oscillate between utter confusion and fanatical certainty, and this kind of Rorschach inkblot reaction — “Rihanna’s breasts are sending me messages!” — is further evidence that feminism is less a political movement than it is a psychiatric symptom.

Bingo! Feminists, deep down, DO care what men think, and that pisses them off. But they deny this fact of course, along with many other facts about sex, attraction, and gender roles. All this denial tends to make them cranky, and stupid columns about Rihanna’s breasts ensue. I mean any idiot can see that Rihanna’s dress was not worn to make any statements, it was worn to get attention. It is called publicity! And publicity, in this case, is good! And here is clear evidence of that

Rihanna (1) Rihanna



Kirsten Dunst says some very reasonable things, Feminists stricken with Offendeditis!

Feminists are a great example of how left-wing groups say one thing and do another. Feminists tell us, OK they usually scream at us, with the anger of “oppression” etched on their faces, that they wish to empower women. Really? REALLY??? No, what they want is to embitter women to hate men, America, unborn babies, Capitalism, and most of all traditional gender roles. What? You do not believe me? You think that Feminists will support any lifestyle or political view that any woman chooses to embrace? Well, there is a long list of women that would beg to differ, and the latest is Kirsten Dunst who has, apparently sinned against the Church of Eternal Feminist Bitterness! Matt at Conservative Hideout explains

Once again, the forces of tolerance are skewering an individual for showing independent thought.  Kirsten Dunst stepped on a Cultural Marxist land mine when she stated that men and women had roles. 

Here’s what she said in an interview with Harper’s Bazaar in the UK:

“I feel like the feminine has been a little undervalued,” she says. “We all have to get our own jobs and make our own money, but staying at home, nurturing, being the mother, cooking – it’s a valuable thing my mum created. And sometimes, you need your knight in shining armour. I’m sorry. You need a man to be a man and a woman to be a woman. That’s why relationships work…”

Of course, feminists are freaking out that Dunst suggested that women have an important role in the home as homemakers.  In an age where women who freely choose to be homemakers are demeaned by feminists for not being “strong and independent,” it’s refreshing to see someone in liberal, pro-feminist Hollywood embrace traditional gender roles and reject political correctness.

Now, Matt also links to some extraordinary, and frightening quotes from some Leftist Feminists that will sicken anyone with a moral compass. Never forget that Feminism is not pro-woman, it is anti-family, and anti-liberty

Today’s young women are empowered to choose career, family, and all sorts of combinations of both. But the words of Steinem and other liberal feminists revealed what they believed about American women…

Steinem: “[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.”

Simone de Beauvoir: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

Betty Friedan: “[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry…not people. [Housework] is peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls. [It] arrests their development at an infantile level, short of personal identity with an inevitably weak core of self…. [Housewives] are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps. [The] conditions which destroyed the human identity of so many prisoners were not the torture and brutality, but conditions similar to those which destroy the identity of the American housewife.”

So that is why Feminists are perpetually angry

The Other McCain blows the lid off of this story

Dropped on Her Head Again? Radical Feminist Rants About ‘Intersectionality’

So THAT is what is wrong with them? They were dropped on their heads! Or maybe they fell from the Tree of Bitterness, hitting every branch on the way down? Either way, the truth can be told. Feminists are, as my granddad would have said, touched in the head. Here is more from the world’s foremost expert on Feminuts, Stacy McCain. 

You may remember how, in reaction to a radical feminist’s anti-heterosexual rant — “PIV is always rape, OK?” — Twitter user @conkc2asked, “Was she maybe dropped on her head?” In recent weeks, the radfem has been on an extended rant about “intersectionality,” the most recent installment being the fifth in the series:

Intersectionality, part V: additional notes
on amnesia and springing from Outercourse

When we can’t see men as the oppressors, men’s violence is suppressed in the unconscious realm (or in the “subliminal sea”) and what remains visible and conscious to us in the foreground is the betrayal by puppeted women orchestrated/remote-controlled by the invisible male lords/puppeteers. . . .

She actually includes two footnotes in the first paragraph to define “background” and “foreground” according to Mary Daly, a recently deceased feminist (see “‘Snools Rule’: Mary Daly and the Radical Feminist School of Atrocious Writing“). Anybody who reads much Mary Daly might start babbling like they had been dropped on their head, and our favorite radfem has read a lot of Mary Daly.

The title of the radfem’s post invokes Daly’s 1992 book, Outercourse: The Be-Dazzling Voyage, which contains 477 pages of the most deranged gibberish ever published by a tenured professor. Daly invokes “amnesia” in the first chapter of Outercourse:

When I went back to teaching in the fall of 1969 I had already begun to change drastically. I had begun to see through the particularities of my experience with Boston College to the universal condition of women in all universities and in all institutions of patriarchy. I had experienced my first explicit encounters with the demons of assimilation — especially taking the form of tokenism — and won. . . .
By Seeing and Naming the connections that had been largely subliminal in the earlier stage of Voyaging, I Moved into The Second Spiral Galaxy of my Outercourse. This involved Acts of Exorcism of the amnesia inflicted by patriarchal institutions, religion in particular, and by the -ologies which they engender and which . . . serve to legitimate them. Exorcism of amnesia required Acts of Unforgetting — Seeing through the foreground “past” into the Background Past — beyond the androcratic lies about women’s history. I found that Breaking through to knowledge of a Prepatriarchal Pagan Past opened the possibility for Radical Naming. . . .

Like I said CRAZY! Lots more at the link.

If crazy were a precious metal, Feminuts would be loaded!

I saw this earlier at The Other McCain, and all I can say is that the radical Feminists have truly dug deeper into the Pit of Crazy than I thought possible. I would have posted earlier but I was making some supper. And after reading into this I am really glad I did not have tuna for supper

Last night I teased this at the end of a post about two “empowered” feminists and their podcast about the men they’ve had sex with.

At Huffington Post, author Jenny Block wrote a column with the headline, “My Vagina Doesn’t Smell Like Shame“:

So, I’m going to just put this out there loud and proud. I love my pussy. I love her. And my lovers love her.
She looks like a pussy and smells like a pussy and she’s perfect in every way.

Wow, just wow! I am almost speechless, I mean how do you respond to that. But, there is more craziness to sniff out here, as RS McCain notes with an Hall of Fame worthy line. 31 flavors of crazy indeed!

Do you want to read the whole thing? It’s 31 flavors of crazy, and was written in reaction to an even crazier column at Jezebel:

I know that every woman smells unique. I know that good and bad is simply a judgement. No. My fear is that he might be indoctrinated by the same system I am struggling to escape. And if I see my own insecurity mirrored in his eyes, I will feel once again the humiliation that I felt growing up. The humiliation of having a vagina and knowing that others know I have a vagina. Blood is evidence I have a vagina. Discharge is evidence I have a vagina. Camel Toe is evidence I have a vagina. And perhaps most insidious of all; smell is evidence … that I have a vagina.
My vagina smells like shame. Rancid and sickly. SHAME.
Since educating myself through my own personal project The Vagina Times, I’ve discovered so much about our systemic culture of shame which has prompted women to mutilate, bleach and douche their genitals to eliminate their natural shape, colour and smell. It’s truly heartbreaking. Because shame stems from someone else’s emotional repression. And their beliefs become internalized until we perpetuate them and shame our daughters.

Sure, you want to read that whole thing, too, because you haven’t yet been convinced that feminism is a psychiatric disorder.

KRAZY as a pet coon! Go read the rest, and, amazingly, it gets even KRAZIER! And by Krazy, I mean deeply delusional and likely in need of hospitalization.

There is Crazy, then there is FEMINIST CRAZY!

Via The Other McCain

A remarkable uproar has been inspired by a radical feminist’s opposition to heterosexual intercourse, which she terms “PIV” (penis in vagina) and denounces as always rape:

First, well intercourse is NEVER sex for women. Only men experience rape as sexual and define it as such. Sex for men is the unilateral penetration of their penis into a woman (or anything else replacing and symbolising the female orifice) whether she thinks she wants it or not — which is the definition of rape: that he will to do it anyway and that he uses her and treats her as a receptacle, in all circumstances — it makes no difference to him experiencing it as sexual. That is, at the very least, men use women as useful objects and instruments for penetration, and women are dehumanised by this act. It is an act of violence.
As FCM pointed out some time ago, intercourse is inherently harmful to women and intentionally so, because it causes pregnancy in women. . . .
Men, by whom we are possessed, colonised and held captive, are the sole agents and organisers of PIV. Men dominate us precisely so we can’t opt out of sexual abuse by them; intercourse is the very means through which men subordinate us, the very purpose of their domination, to control human reproduction.

McCain has much more on the woman who penned these ramblings. It seems she had some bad relationships and she has learned to hate all men, and to hate normal sexual behavior. I can understand allowing pain to change your mindset, and I can understand how emotional pain can make you reluctant to trust, or open up, but that is not what this woman has done. She has gone off the deep end and is sinking fast into a pit of self-pity and hatred. That is, of course, assuming her tales of “rape” are even true. We all know those on the Far Left see nothing wrong with wholesale lying, and fabricating outrages. They really fancy their role as victims. But, either way, she is crazy. And, she is not alone as Stacy McCain documents

Following up on last night’s post, “Mental Illness and Radical Feminism,” I arrived at a feminist blog that rejects capitalization:

this is what our oppression consists of and what it is. men get to name it (sex, fucking, knocked up, mother, father) men get to execute it (intercourse, impregnation) and men get to enforce it (rape, heteronormativity, marriage, and legal remedies and lack thereof for sexual and reproductive offenses). note that i am considering rape to be the violent enforcement by men of womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders.

Well, OK, then. Notice the sequence “rape, heteronormativity, marriage” that radical feminism views as equally forms of oppression, assigning women to a “sex role as fuckholes and breeders.” This particular blog, by the way, has an entire category about “PIV” (penis-in-vagina) which is what “heteronormativity” is all about, eh?

By the time a feminist reaches the radical point at which normal sexual intercourse is regarded as inherently oppressive, she has already marched a good distance down the Crazyville Road. Sane, normal people become the Enemy and, in order to maintain her delusions, the feminist seeks out the company of her fellow radicals, who share and confirm these extreme beliefs. The maladjusted thereby exile themselves to a sort of voluntary asylum, where they only encounter lunatics like themselves.

The saddest part of this, to me anyway, is how the Left always gravitates towards this type of insanity. It is that negativity and need to be a victim that seems to dominate so much of leftist thinking. Whether it is race, gender, sexuality, the environment, guns, whatever, those on the Left always sell out to craziness.

Gals with huge racks just do not need Feminism

Do not blame me for that headline, I am simply repeating The Other McCain

When Donald Douglas posted this photo at American Power, I immediately recognized it as an ironic put-down of feminism:


Two key clues to the satirical intention:

  1. A poster in the background showing Austrian economists — Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, et al. — signals a libertarian/individualist orientation, directly contradicting the statist/collectivist radical egalitarian worldview of feminism; and

  2. Her breasts. A young woman with such a splendid rack would have no motive to adopt the victimhood mentality of feminism.

McCain is right, those are NOT Feminist boobs at all. And the woman’s face is not nearly angry and bitter enough to belong to a Feminist. Real Feminists are always angry, and their faces show it.

My best advice to young women? Do not take Feminists seriously

Ladies, Feminists do not wish to empower you, they wish to use you to empower themselves, and to garner more influence, and to remain relevant, because relevance means $$$ to them. They also wish to move the country in a dangerous direction, away from family, and faith, and ladies, if you do not believe me, try making a choice for yourself that Feminists do not approve of. See how they treat you. And beware the most dangerous area you can heed the advice of Feminists is where sex and personal responsibility are concerned. Stacy McCain explains

Back in August, when I covered “SlutWalk DC,” I observed:

Date rape is an apparently common campus crime that usually involves two drunk young people, one of whom has an erect penis, and the other of whom is unable to avert what the erect penis typically does.

Of course, feminists would denounce such a statement of fact as a misogynistic expression of “rape culture,” but facts are facts: Alcohol is a significant contributing factor in the incidence of date rape. Leslie Eastman at College Insurrection remarks, “Never let it be said that outraged campus feminists confuse themselves with common sense,” as she highlights a Washington Post column about a recent uproar:

The message of Emily Yoffe’s Slate article about binge drinking and sexual assault on college campuses was as important as it was obvious: The best step that young women can take to protect themselves is to stop drinking to excess.
Young women everywhere — not to mention their mothers — ought to be thanking Yoffe. Instead, she’s being pilloried.
A “rape denialism manifesto” full of “plain old victim-blaming,” Lori Adelman wrote on the feminist blog Feministing.com. Erin Gloria Ryan, on Jezebel.com, accused Yoffe of “admonishing women for not doing enough to stop their own rapes.”

Read the whole thing. This feminist nonsense is perfectly understandable once you recognize that the whole p0int of endless ranting about the evils of the oppressive patriarchy is to absolve women of responsibility for their own failures. So the coed who starts guzzling tequila at the ATO house and wakes up the next morning sore, sticky and naked, with only vague memories of how she got that way, is not merely a victim of drunken fratboys — and we all know what deviant beasts those ATOs are, right? — but also a victim of all men everywhere throughout the course of human history. Anyone who says otherwise is just a misogynistic slut-shaming bigot.

In other words ladies, be careful around certain guys. It is easier to avoid date rape if you do not over indulge in alcohol. And while it is true that getting sooo drunk does not excuse anyone harming or assaulting you, the cold hard fact is not getting sooo drunk, makes avoiding becoming a victim much easier.

It is Hard out There for the Perpetually Offended Feminist!

The Other McCain has the background on this poor, poor woman who cannot seem to stop being offended, and cannot to seem to put that hard-earned Honors BA in  Social Justice and Peace Studies to good use.

Yes, I know, it is mean to mock those less intelligent than the average four-year-old, but when someone boasts about a degree in  Social Justice and Peace Studies, or a Masters in Gender Studies they have it coming.

Hilarity ensued Monday after @Andria_XX complained that social-media criticism of Miley Cyrus included “bodyshaming/slutshaming” and “heteropatriarchal crap.” Readers will recall that Andria has an “Honors BA in Social Justice and Peace Studies” and is pursuing a Master’s degree in Gender Studies. So . . . how’s that going?


I have a honors BA and I’m defending my MA thesis
in two weeks. I am also apply for jobs and I can
only find stuff in the
 service industry. I applied
for a Hotel Front Desk Clerk job today.
My degrees mean NOTHING.
I am at the end of my rope.

What? Being an advanced student of useless ideology doesn’t result in meaningful employment? That’s just really . . . unfair.

Look on the bright side Andria, you can USE those USELESS degrees to help continue to blame men, and bodyshaming/slutshaming” and “heteropatriarchal crap” for all your ills.

BTW Andria, I like Black Forest ham and roasted turkey, mustard AND mayo, ripe tomatoes, extra pickles, and green leaf lettuce on my sandwiches.


Does Stacy McCain aggravate Feminists? Or are Feminists like @StephHerold and @SaraAlcid just naturally aggravated?

The answer, I would say, is that Feminists are perpetually Offended, and maybe only feel fulfilled when they are aggrieved PO’ed, and angry! And paranoid apparently.






The FBI? Good Grief! Someone needs a timeout, seriously, such drama queens. McCain has more

“You are just an ignorant, inarticulate, hate-filled bigot — a typical American — and you are so insignificant that Sara Alcid can’t be bothered to notice.”
– Robert Stacy McCain

Talking back to a Queer Feminist is a now evidently a hate crime or something, and Badger Pundit chronicles how my reply to a “reproductive justice” activist made Sara Alcid a heroic martyr in the “War on Women.”Disagreement is hate, because feminism.

Ah yes, Feminism, or the poisoning of Female minds to be bitter,, angry, and hostile to men and anything that makes men happy. Oh and did I mention delusions of moral superiority? 

These people are Our Moral Superiors. We are inarticulate subhumans who have no rights, not even the First Amendment free speech right to express disagreement or defend ourselves against insults.

We cannot reply by pointing out that Sara Alcid is a disciple of “queer theory” feminist Judith Butler, or that Sara Alcid works for a 501(c)3 non-profit abortion advocacy organization, or that Sara Alcid views Valentine’s Day as a hateful occasion when “heteronormativity and gender roles … rear their ugly heads.”

We cannot point these things out, because disagreement is hate.

The flawed logic of their rhetoric, their enthusiasm for bad ideas, their fanatical desire to destroy all that is true, right and decent in the world — no, you can’t point this out, because if you do, some people might say mean things about feminists, and people who say mean things about feminists are evil hateful sexist harassers who are trying to silence and intimidate these courageous women.

More at The Other McCain. These women are deeply angry, likely because they are wrong on the issues they hold dear. they KNOW, deep in their hearts they are wrong, but that offends their feelings and the result is Bitter Feminist Syndrome! If these women REALLY want help, they ought to call a psychologist, not the FBI because a blogger mocks them



DAMN! I just hate it when a famous blogger I never heard of stops blogging!

Who the Hell is Hugo Schwyzer? That is the question that popped into mind when I read this at Slate Hugo Schwyzer, a history and gender studies professor at Pasadena College and perhaps the Internet’s best-known male feminist blogger, has just declared that he’s going to leave the Internet for a while.  

The World’s most famous male Feminist blogger? Hmmm, I have blogged about Feminists, who are always bitter, irked, pissed off, aggravated, and generally not very pleasant. Wait, I almost forgot to add that the are usually not very attractive either. Yes, I know, that will outrage said Feminists, but what the Hell, they are so angry anyway why not. But back to Schwyzer, whoever the Hell he is. why is he leaving?

At New York magazine, he explains his reasons, which are a mix of personal problems (depression, a need to focus on his marriage), and vague accusations leveled at it’s not exactly clear who. The low point is probably this:

Well that explains why I have never heard of him, He does interviewws in New York magazine, which I never read. Do I really have to explain WHY I do not read that rag? I thought not, anyway back to Mr. Well Known FemiMan

One reason you became a punching bag is that there just are not many men writing feminist columns online. Why is that?

Look at me. I mean, who wouldn’t want to be me? If you look at the men who are writing about feminism, they toe the line very carefully. It’s almost like they take their cues from the women around them. Men are afraid of women’s anger. It’s very hard for men to stand up to women’s anger. I did for a long time until finally my mental health had to be a priority. I just got out of the hospital. I’m not shy about that. I’m sober, but I checked myself into a psych ward for a week, when I became a danger to myself.

Ah, I see he is basically afraid of women, or of offending Feminists, lest they cast scorn upon him , or call him sexist or something. Apparently the thought of standing up to Feminists drove the FemiMan nutty. At this point I might ask where his balls are, but that would be mean, so back to Mr. Crazy FemiMan
The note of persecution is painful. Schwyzer presents himself as a lone, brave soul standing up to women’s anger and fighting for authentic idiosyncratic feminism, unlike all those other weak-willed feminist men who are benighted because they are willing to listen to women talk about their own lives. Also, apparently, more men don’t write about feminism because feminist women are just so damn mean. Look at Hugo!  He’s only written for the Atlantic and Jezebel and has tenure. And when he declares he wants to quit the Internet, New York magazine comes running to interview him. It’s like he’s been gagged.

I don’t have anything personally against Schwyzer. He’s a smart guy; I enjoy his writing. I’ve had pleasant interactions with him on Twitter. Schwyzer’s revelation that he’d slept with a number of students have raised reasonable and painful questions about his place in the feminist movement. Even so, the vitriol that has been directed at him has been (as such things often are online) unnecessary and cruel.

See that is his problem. He is either unwilling to tell the unvarnished truth about Liberal Feminists or is not willing to take the heat for what he writes. Me? I have no problem telling the ugly truth about These Feminuts. They hate men, hate babies, love infanticide, and detest any woman that dares make any choice they do not approve of. They are bitter, nasty, and crave power OVER women to actually supporting women. And if you do not think they are evil and nasty I refer you to Amanda Marcotte who is crazier than the entire MSNBS crew combined!

Update! Just found this out about FemiMan. Maybe he is crazy, or maybe he is just as nutty as Marcotte

By his own admission, he spent much of the 1990s addicted to various drugs and alcohol. His sobriety began after his attempted murder-suicide in 1998. In the interview that sparked controversy on Feministe, he said that his sex with students (including four on one school trip he chaperoned) had been “deeply and profoundly wrong,” but added that it made him “keenly sensitive to power imbalances in sexual relationships.” He makes much of having (as part of his amends) written Pasadena’s policy on consensual relations between teachers and students. Depending on how you look at that reversal, it’s either inspiring or creepy.

Lots more about Schwyzer at the link.