Category Archives: Feminism

The Week of The Whining Womin

Feminism, Gender, Labor, Political Correctness, Republicans, Sex

“The Week of The Whining Womin” is the current column, now on WND. An excerpt:

“The logic is as simple as it is foolproof. An “air-tight free-market argument,” according to WND: “If women with the same skills as men were getting only 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, men as a group would have long-since priced themselves out of the market. That entrepreneurs don’t ditch men en masse for women suggests that different abilities and experience are at work, rather than a conspiracy to suppress women.”

The logic is not, however, female proof.

It’s been the week of the weaker sex: filled with baseless whining. The Week of the Womin culminated with Facebook billionaire Sheryl Sandberg grumbling to Fox News millionaire Megyn Kelly: “I think it’s good that the president took some steps on equal pay, but it’s not enough.”

About women’s work Sandberg holds humdrum feminist views. She learned the hard way, having dared, at first, to share the aggregate reality she had encountered in the workplace: Men were wont to be as driven as demons. Women needed to be driven. For that observation, the Pussy Riot Sisterhood threatened to sandbag Sandberg. Facebook’s chief operating officer quickly corrected course. Ms. Sandberg started mouthing the only acceptable meme: Saddle “society” and the “patriarchy” for any and all female failures and preferences.

As her politically pleasing, mainstream opinion currently has it, society and the patriarchy have conditioned women to be nurturing and to apologize for any male-like, go-getter ambitions they harbor. While men will attribute their success to their own core skills; women “attribute their success to luck and help from other people,” carps Sandberg. The girls are too nice. They don’t take credit for their greatness. They don’t raise their hand enough. They don’t “Lean In”—the trite title of Sandberg’s serialized book. Yes, there’s a follow up for advanced nudniks. …

Read the complete column. “The Week of The Whining Womin” is now on WND.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATED: Every Day An Outrage (More Megyn OMGs)

Celebrity, Critique, Feminism, Iran, Journalism, Media

The Kelly File, for which I had high hopes as a news broadcast, has disintegrated into a rah-rah, flag-waving, hour-long session. Each segment features some sort of outrage against:

US deserved status in the world
US flag stateside
US soldier

The current outrage on Kelly is over Iran’s new UN ambassador. It’s news only the first time reported. Otherwise, these items are meant to heighten emotions and send hissing viewers to social media to create a buzz.

UPDATE (4/3): Mygyn’s OMG segment today had to do with “Tolerant Feminists Tell[ing] Conservative Young Woman: We Don’t Want You Here.” Yawn. A tolerant feminist is a contradiction in terms.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATED: V-Day For Vagina-Centric Libertarians? Not So Fast. (‘Brutality’ Alert)

Feminism, Gender, libertarianism, Liberty, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy, Pseudo-intellectualism

At EPJ, where “V-Day For Vagina-Centric Libertarians? Not So Fast” is now published, Lila Rajiva and myself exchange opinions about whether I was right or wrong to avoid naming the individuals discussed in the column.

Lila Rajiva March 28, 2014 at 12:37 PM

I think we should be truthful. She and Tucker ARE widely published so what’s the point of saying they are non-entities?

They are not. It just makes you sound as over-emotional as they are.

That was one thing with which I disagreed in this otherwise excellent piece.

Dispassion and professional standards entail that when you read someone, you should cite them. Leave “vanishing” people to the state and to propagandists and hypesters.

Reply
ILANA MERCER March 28, 2014 at 2:18 PM

Respectfully, you’re wrong. You are looking at this storm in a C-Cup from the insular world of the libertarian. My piece was written for a wider audience. Good or bad, the bigger picture is that the two alluded to are insignificant, the one more so than the other. The one has the run of a publishing house, and, unethically in my opinion (as it involves a conflict of interest), uses the imprint to publish some of his own books. Yet these books have hardly any buyers (Amazon rank #649,120). My contention that in the bigger picture these people are unknown entities is correct. The female of the duo is certainly a non-entity. Given her aptitude, no matter how well promoted she is, and no matter how much she suctions face to camera, she will never muster an opinion or an analysis that isn’t second-hander material. She’s not working with much. To properly gauge the significance of these two one has to exit the libertarian orbit. Thus, addressing non-entities by name is unnecessary in a piece meant for popular consumption. On this topic, my dear friend and mentor, the influential and talented Walter Block, demeans himself and his stature by constantly addressing nobody bloggers by name, rather than just dealing with their arguments, to the extent these sorts make these.

Reply
Lila Rajiva March 28, 2014 at 2:40 PM

@Hi Ilana,

I agree with you in the wider world. But, in the wider world, since they are unknown, they don’t need to be rebutted at all.

However, in terms of libertarian in-fighting, everyone knows who Tucker is…

Still, it was an excellent piece. I am sick of this waving of the V. I actually thinks it’s some kind of propaganda offensive that began in 2012 with Naomi Wolf’s book.

Get us to talk, one way or other, about genitals all the time. Mainstreams the stuff, like the Lewinsky trial did.

Reply
ILANA MERCER March 28, 2014 at 3:16 PM

I see what you’re saying, Lila. As expected, we both make valid points. “Respec,” as Ali G. would say.

Ms. Rajiva is funny in the comment below. A woman with a sense of humor. Wicked (or “brutal”). Lila has to admit, though, apropos our exchange above, that the “brutal” wordplay (or swordplay) on this and other libertarian sites is an example of “inside baseball.” Everyone on here knows what is being mocked. But few outside our orbit will understand. This goes to my point about not needing to name names when addressing a wider audience.

Lila Rajiva March 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM

I think it’s grossly BRUTALIST and a violation of the civil rights of Tucker, Reisenwitz & the rest
to pit one whole Mercer in full throttle against them.

It’s downright violent and violence will not be tolerated… unless we’re for it.

I call for UN sanctions, economic sanctions (no more blintzers for you, Ms. Mercer), and carpet-bombing…..

Let the humanitarianism begin…..

UPDATE: VIA FACEBOOK:

David Colpo writes:

If the names of writers obscure to the general population aren’t worth publishing, then why bother refuting their equally obscure arguments to that same audience?
59 minutes ago · Like

Ilana Mercer replies:

David Colpo, b/c I care about truth and reality. And as a libertarian I care about Mises. I care about libertarianism. I don’t care for–or about—the people who are trying to make libertarianism appealing to throngs of bimbos by lying about white, old men in order to make them palatable and politically correct. As if, there was anything wrong with Mises the way he was.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Vagina-Centric, Tax-Sponsored, Monument To Republican Mindlessness

Constitution, Feminism, Gender, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Republicans, Taxation

Forget about upholding the Constitution, Republicans can’t even uphold the interests of their primary constituency. Instead, they insist on stalking and courting identity groups—women, for one—that can’t stand the Grand Old Party.

As deficient as it is, there is no warrant in the Constitution for stealing from taxpayers in order to aggrandize women. But leave it to House Republicans to plot a vote “this year on legislation promoting construction of a National Women’s History Museum.”

Perhaps they’ll get the women’s vote? Forget about it. “Sisters love Uncle Sam,” and while Republicans do too, sisters don’t perceive the GOP to be as statist as they’d like.

… The move lends enormous momentum to the years-long push to establish a memorial to women’s history near the National Mall — a proposal that’s lingered in Congress for nearly two decades without ever reaching the president’s desk.

Congressional supporters from both parties have been working behind the scenes to rally backing and pressure leaders to stage a vote on the bill this year, even as Congress’s shift into campaign mode has left little appetite for most non-essential legislation ahead of November’s midterms.

Cantor spokeswoman Megan Whittemore said the congressman supports the bill and intends to bring it to the floor.

Museum supporters wasted no time praising the announcement, with Rep. Carolyn Maloney — a New York Democrat who’s been working on the proposal since 1998 — saying she’s “thrilled” by Cantor’s move. With top House Democrats already behind the proposal, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.), Maloney predicted it will sail through the lower chamber.

“This is a huge boost to our efforts,” said Maloney, the bill’s lead sponsor. “Leadership from both parties in the House has now come out in favor of this bill, and I’m hopeful we can secure a large, bipartisan vote in favor of its passage. …”

THE HILL.

A society founded on individualism does not promote individuals based on their sexual or racial identity. If private companies wish to promote females purely because they are women, and often at the expense of better males—that’s the prerogative of private property. Sensible sorts can shun these establishments. However, politicians have no right to steal from one group (taxpayers) for the benefit of another (females), in the course of increasing their own sphere of influence.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Comments On ‘Higher Education Is A Hard Row To Ho’

Education, Family, Feminism, Gender, libertarianism, Military, Morality, Ron Paul, Sex

Boundaries protect kids. Passing judgment is a very good thing indeed.

Here are replies to comments on EPJ, where “Higher Education Is A Hard Row To Ho” has been posted:

WRITES Nick Badalamenti, March 14, 2014 at 12:41 PM

“That’s private. Only for you to see and touch. To do that, you have to go to your room and close the door.”

That validates that my response to my four young girls, which has been almost identical to yours when they get curious about their privates- Thank you!

ILANA:

Glad, Nick. The thought of exposing these little kids to the corruption of full-on sex-ed (rampant in all schools, private too) is frightening. Kids show a fleeting interest. It’s not a signal to bombard them with the proverbial condoms, HIV-ed, the glories of diverse sexuality, etc. Let them be babies. At this age, they need to understand what is private and what is proper social behavior. That response conveyed both respect for the child’s person and for society’s codes of conduct (you don’t want your kid touching self in front of your guests—or imperiling herself with what some perv might take as lewd conduct). Boundaries protect kids.

Anonymous March 14, 2014 at 1:49 PM

A few things came to mind when reading this:

1) Ron Paul was a military doctor.

2) “Indeed, daddy’s girl is an open book. We know what the 18-year-old does and that she does it for the love of it.” Regardless that she also happens to enjoy it, didn’t she say she’s doing this to raise money for tuition?

3) I feel like the 2 comments below are pretty judgmental on your part. Isn’t the idea of freedom of speech that people are free to comment on things that the average person disagrees with? As Ron Paul said (paraphrasing) “we don’t have freedom of speech to talk about the weather”

“As corrupt as Miriam’s morals are, better to have been a ho for sale than a mercenary for Uncle Sam.”

“Thankfully, this writer’s adult daughter has never delivered so imbecilic a soliloquy and has taken care to be discreet about her private life.”

-Kevin

Reply

Anonymous March 14, 2014 at 4:33 PM

1) Ron Paul was drafted
2) So you are against speech that is judgemental?

Anonymous March 14, 2014 at 4:47 PM

Just as I suspected – you had no comeback for my 2nd point!

As far as your point on Ron Paul being drafted – Fair enough, though I guess one could argue that Dr. Paul could’ve tried to be a “conscientious objector” (though maybe he did try?)

On your point “so you are against speech that is judgmental?” – Nope. To be honest, I only mentioned it because clearly the point of the article was to talk about the liberty aspects of this story rather than the author’s opinion of right and wrong. In other words, saying her morals are “corrupt” adds nothing to the main point.

-Kevin

ILANA:

Anon: I’m not quite sure who’s who in the comments above, but, yes, Ron Paul was drafted. However, even if his military service were voluntary, from the fact that Dr. Paul served Uncle Sam it doesn’t follow that it is right, or that we all must support such service. I thought libertarians were supposed to be skeptical of ALL politicians, even the good ones.
Point # 2 about judgment is spot on (whoever made it). Why reach for the smelling-salts when you encounter judgment, as liberals do? Judging means to discern; “the formation of an opinion after consideration or deliberation.” The human species would not have survived so far if not judgment.
As to the comment about, “the point of the article was to talk about the liberty aspects of this story rather than the author’s opinion of right and wrong.” The point of the article is to talk about the points in the article, not only what is legal or illegal in libertarian law. Why the queasiness about the moral judgment in the column?

March 14, 2014 at 6:45 PM


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATE IV: Latest Anti-Man Moaning From Menstruation Lobby (‘The Americans’)

Capitalism, Celebrity, Feminism, Film, Gender, Government, Hollywood, Political Correctness

Just for a change, the menstruation lobby is moaning about the movies and its members’ representation therein: “The latest study on women in front of the camera finds that female characters are still significantly under-represented on the big screen. … The numbers for minority females are even lower. African-American female representation on screen climbed to 14%, from 8% in 2011, but down from 15% in 2012.”

Despite the same lobby’s attempt to ban the word, we women are “bossy.”

I control the remote in the house. My husband, however, is happy to allow it, because we like viewing the same things—except that he is more patient and prone to watch foolish female heroes strut their stuff in stilettos and plunging cleavages while chasing the bad guys. He’s been softened. He believes the schtick.

Other than “Olivia” in “Law and Order”—she’s the only believable woman in a tough-cop routine—I can’t watch females as action heroes because it doesn’t make sense. I’m way too wedded to reality to find women believable in these roles.

As for the presence of minorities in movies: it usually signals a two-hour long, oppressive racial lecture. And “I’m no more inclined to turn to ’12 Years A Slave’ for entertainment, than I am to subject myself to Oprah Winfrey and her M.O.P.E. (Most Oppressed Person Ever) ‘Butler.’”

Maybe other viewers are on to this and agree, because it is quite clear that Hollywood is giving viewers what they want to see: men in lead roles. If film executives listened to loathsome Lena Dunham, instead of to the demands of consumers—the industry would go bankrupt.

In any event, Sean and I both like the Metal and Military Channels, “Investigation Discovery” for the gory real-life murder cases, “Law and Order” (Olivia’s awesome), “The Following,” “Criminal Minds” (the horror compensates for the hens), “Justified,” and, I know the category is wrong, but the Oscars belongs to ….

The Americans.

It is simply superb; TV at its best: no politics, surprisingly, no mega movie stars (who usually can’t act); real foreigners playing foreigners (no fake foreign accent, courtesy of Angelina Jolie), and a great script.

Enjoy tonight’s episode.

UPDATE I (3/13): The Following” is ad hoc, make-it-up-as-you-go garbage. But it’s done well-enough to entertain.

UPDATE II: “THE AMERICANS.” The script and story are so good in The Americans, that you don’t root for a political side—the story is remarkably apolitical, given how political is should be, the halmark of good storytelling—you simply get absorbed in the plot. It’s a great spook story. That’s the experience the movies should deliver. Good narrative, good acting, no wagging finger. However, it is pro-American in the subtle, good, non-rah-rah way, as it shows how the couple is living the life while going through the spook motions. It is wonderful TV.

UPDATE III: The script and story are so good in “The Americans,” that you don’t root for a political side—the story is remarkably apolitical, given how political is should be, the hallmark of good storytelling—you simply get absorbed in the plot. It’s a great spook story. That’s the experience the movies should deliver. Good narrative, good acting, no wagging finger. However, it is pro-American in the subtle, good, non rah-rah way, as it shows how the couple is living The Life while going through the spook motions. It is wonderful TV.

House of Cards: I do not like a lecture: not from the Right, the Left, or from the libertarians (my crowd). And I do not watch any program about politicians, CIA, FBI, NSA. I want to excise these cancers from my life.

UPDATE IV: Some seek an ideology in a story, I seek a good narrative. Not sure what it is about my explanation on Facebook that Friends have failed to get about excising all gov. from my life. CIA, FBI, NSA, D.C.: “Good” or bad, it’s all bad, because it should be abolished. I don’t watch it for “fun.” I write about it.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint