Category Archives: Gender

Spinning A Web For Charlotte

Feminism, Gender, Hillary Clinton, Welfare

Charlotte’s Web is a darling children’s book, published in 1952:

The novel tells the story of a pig named Wilbur and his friendship with a barn spider named Charlotte. When Wilbur is in danger of being slaughtered by the farmer, Charlotte writes messages praising Wilbur (such as “Some Pig”) in her web in order to persuade the farmer to let him live.

A web of a different kind is the one being woven by Grandma Clinton in the name of Charlotte, her infant granddaughter, also the putative inspiration for Hillary’s presidential bid.

“Becoming a grandmother has made me think deeply about the responsibility we all share as stewards of the world we inherit and will one day pass on. Rather than make me want to slow down, it has spurred me to speed up,” she writes in the new ending to her 2014 book, “Hard Choices.” … The former secretary of state was expected to announce her candidacy for president “as early as Sunday,” according to NBC News sources.
Clinton’s only child, Chelsea, gave birth last September to a daughter, Charlotte.
Clinton said she is inspired to keep working to ensure that Charlotte and her generation are provided equal opportunities to live up to their potential.
“You shouldn’t have to be the granddaughter of a President or a Secretary of State to receive excellent health care, education, enrichment, and all the support and advantages that will one day lead to a good job and a successful life. That’s what we want for all our kids,” she says. (Today News)

Trust liberals to call this welfare-womin centric message original.

Here’s Hillary in one of the many Mao tunics she’s fond of wearing:

Mao Zedong:


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATE II: Alan Dershowitz On Making His Accusers Pay

Crime, Feminism, Gender, Political Correctness, Sex

You’d think that rape and false accusations of rape are a political cause and not crimes to investigate. Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz seldom comes up with obtuse, bad answers. But even this sharp civil libertarian ditched his initial forceful arguments from justice, when put on the spot about being falsely accused of sexual abuse. Two minutes and thirty eight seconds into this CNN interview, Erroll Barnett questions Dershowtiz as to what good it would do to jail the “troubled” women who had falsely alleged that Dershowitz and a host of other codgers sexually abused them. “What do you expect to get out of it,” asked Barnett facilely.

Instead of reiterating his initial, irate and forceful warning about the harm these habitual liars do to their victims’ reputations, standing in the community and finances; the need to punish such liars for their attempts to profit by siccing the law on their innocent victims—Dershowitz noodles on about the indirect harm a false accusation of rape does to real victims of rape.

UPDATE I: Dershowtiz did a good job until the end, of promising swift justice to this hussy. Then he waffled a bit. The crazy idea that these false accusers should not be punished was the CNN angle.

UPDATE II: Dershowitz is brilliant, hence his flawless delivery. He is also a lefty, hence his slight capitulation to the accuser.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

S.E. IDIOT & Jake Tapper Rubbish Ron Paul

Gender, Neoconservatism, Republicans, Ron Paul

In the event that you’ve failed to keep track of the succession of empty headed bobbing heads called on to impart their “analysis” on the idiot’s lantern—you’ll find everything you need to know about S.E. Cupp, “commentator,” in “Just Another Mouth in the Republican Fellatio Machine.” While Cupp is not as off-putting, banal and over-the-top as Jedediah Bila, she’s up there.

In any event, here is an exchange about Ron Paul between two of CNN’s towering intellects, Jake Tapper (an OK journalist when he sticks to reporting) and Cupp:

TAPPER: S.E., let’s start with you. I know you’re not Senator Paul’s biggest fan. But removing your views on him, he could be a serious contender, I think. …

… There’s one other elephant in the room, and that is Ron Paul, his father, who is — I don’t know how to say it without ending up with nine million tweets, but has very objectionable views to many Americans, to many Republicans, and has affiliated himself with some real crackpots on the right. I think that is definitely guarantee those tweets, but…

CUPP: [smirking smugly] Incoming.

TAPPER: How do you deal with that? How do you deal with somebody like Ron Paul?

CUPP: Rand Paul?

TAPPER: Yes.

CUPP: Yes.

Rand Paul sort of I think spent the past decade watching his dad run for president, and thought to himself, I can do that better. And so I think you have seen him moderate because he understands rightly that Ron Paul’s views were completely unpalatable.

So he’s starting from that, you know, far right or left — I don’t even know what to call it — place of Ron Paul and moderating toward the center. The trick is going to be to take the Ron Paul supporters, the young folks who liked Ron Paul’s libertarianism, and also make his — again governing philosophy, which is different from his libertarian philosophy, work for the center.

That’s going to be a tough thing to pull off. I know you’re confident he can, but I think he’s going to have a tough time with that.

MORE.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Don’t Marry Warns Fred Reed

Family, Feminism, Gender, Sex

A doff of the proverbial hat to the editor of “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lesson For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa,” the illustrious Australian writer Rob Stove, who just sent me Fred Reed’s latest. It’s marvelous (except for the porn stuff; yuk). To the upstanding Rob, “Matrimony, Holy or Otherwise: A Movable Concentration Camp” sounded over-the-top wrong. Not to me. Guilty. Averaged out, old Fred is right.

Matrimony, Holy or Otherwise:
A Movable Concentration Camp
By Fred Reed

“If you are a young man, and contemplate matrimony with the love of your life, it is well to look at marriage from the standpoint of reason rather than sentiment. Men are, after all, male, and occasionally capable of reason. The first question to ask yourself is: Why marry? What would you gain? Would your troubles disappear? Would sex be better? Would food be more savory? Would you get tax breaks, enjoy more freedom? Do stock options come with marriage?

Is there any practical advantage at all?

For you, I mean. For her, the advantages are considerable, and the drawbacks few. Your salary will allow her an upscale house, something more important to her than to you, which on the odds she will get in the divorce. Marriage locks-in child support. Since men die younger, she will get to pick your bones. For her, it is a good deal.

For you, no. Marriage has one purpose only, which is to get her legal hooks into you. Do not forget that American women, under the evanescent ivory skin, are eternally adolescent spoiled brats, feminine as a wrestler’s jockstrap and primed, as soon as life’s inevitable shocks come, to blame men for their unhappinesses. That means you.

Do not dismiss the foregoing as clever cynicism. Nobody goes into marriage expecting divorce, but it comes very frequently, and she really does get the house and the children. In divorces, men lose. Your child support will be based on what the judge thinks you should earn—this is called ‘imputed income’—so that, if you are a stock broker, you cannot decide that you would rather work on a fishing boat in the Caribbean. If the judge thinks you may be a flight risk, she can confiscate your passport. Your wife’s lawyer may advise her to accuse you of sexually molesting the children. (So help me, this happens. In a divorce, the man wants to get out, the wife to get even.) You may be denied visitation.

In the eyes of the court, the children are her property, to be done with as she chooses. She may remarry with an Air Force colonel she met in a meat bar, and be stationed in Okinawa. So much for your kids.

She can ruin you at any moment. Can and, not unlikely, will. When the moment comes, you will be astonished at how much she knows about divorce law, how vicious she can be. In marriage, you are betting your future on the flip of a loaded coin.

The sensible conclusion is that you are better off single, building a career or whatever you want in life, and dating such flowers as drift by.

Should you marry, the pleasure will be fleeting. Remember that women work on the principle of bait, switch, and fade. From fifteen to, say, twenty-five, they are dreams afoot, cute, with perfect skin and aerodynamic lines. That is what you think you are marrying. Add five or ten years, ten or twenty pounds, and the lack of any reason to continue being charming—and you are going to spend the rest of your life with it. Too many men marry the package, and only discover the content when it is too late.

Matrimony is seldom a happy state in America. Given that something like half of marriages end in divorce, you can bet that a lot of others almost do. Of the remainder, probably more are contented than happy. Resignation is not pleasant, but often the best you can hope for.

Live with her if you must, but don’t marry her. A woman cohabiting has at least some incentive to be agreeable. A married woman does not. Worth pondering is that, in a time of declining economy, feckless government, and political instability, the fewer responsibilities you attach to yourself, the better.

The very idea of marriage is problematic. In many ways, men and women are incompatible. Exceptions and degrees, yes, but on average women are more domestic, materialistic, fearful, totalitarian, and comfortable with routine. This means that to the extent you have masculine interests, you will find her to be an anchor. This doesn’t mean only that she won’t like that awful motorcycle or that noisy Corvette thingy. She won’t want to live in a small condo in the funky part of town, go to the shooting range, or scuba dive.

It is said that marriage rests on compromises, but in fact it rests on concessions, and you will make all of them. You will find your social life gravitating fast to other married couples. She won’t want you to have single female friends (nor will you want her to have single male friends: Marriage is based on mistrust.). Worse, she won’t want you to have single male friends. She will want you where she can keep an eye on you. Forget going out with the guys. …”

MORE Fred On Everything.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Don’t Be Conned By Con-servatives & Their ‘Ism’ Talk

Conservatism, Feminism, Free Speech, Gender, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Media, Political Correctness, Sex

No different to liberals, mainstream conservatives are a party of isms, not individualism. Like liberals, conservatives diligently examine controversial speech for signs of the prohibited “isms”: sexism, racism, ageism, etc. Were they devoted to the principles of freedom; conservatives would refuse to even debate the legitimacy of impugning a man’s character, or expunging him from polite company, for the words that roll off his tongue.

Yet any debate these characters conduct on speech is never a principled debate about debate. Self-styled, mainstream conservatives seldom recuse themselves from the act of policing speech. Rather, they join in dignifying the media circle jerk.

James Rosen is best known for having been the victim of the head of Barack Obama’s Justice Department, Attorney General Eric Holder. For doing his job as a reporter, this Fox News Channel reporter was framed by the same department for the crime of conspiracy to leak classified materials.

Now, from being a credible reporter at Fox News, Rosen has gone on to reinvent himself as a sometime commentator.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki and her deputy, Marie Barf, are studiously dumb chicks. Bill O’Relly was quite diplomatic when he said about the first that she was “way out of her depth” and lacked the “the gravitas for that job.”

Rosen could not let that stand. Via Mediate:

On Fox News yesterday, reporter James Rosen defended State Department spokeswomen Jen Psaki and Marie Harf from what he deemed vicious attacks that would never be directed their way if they were men. Harf in particular has gotten lots of conservative ridicule (to put it mildly) over her comments last week that 1) the U.S. can’t just kill its way out of war with ISIS; and 2) factors like job opportunity should be considered when examining the root causes of terrorism.

Rosen said, “It won’t please my social media followers to hear me say it, but I’ve been dismayed by the treatment of Marie and Jen on Twitter and other social media.” And not only are they mocked online, he said, but it’s done “in intimately person [sic] ways that I think bespeak a certain amount of sexism.”

Rosen went on to call Tweedledum and Tweedledumber very accomplished women.

American Thinker is insufficiently scathing about the quality of Tweedledum and Tweedledumber’s accomplishments—the two embody everything that is repugnant about womanhood in America—but it’ll do:

… Marie Harf sounded like a cheesed-off sixteen-year-old the morning after the big party when she dissed O’Reilly for saying, “…that woman [Jen Psaki] looks way out of her depth.”

For teenage girls the clique is of utmost importance. When they go all panties in a wad it’s often for their BFFs. Harf don’t stand on her jays, she stands behind her blud, Psaki. Harf not only lacks gravitas, she appears to lack conscience to grasp the international purpose and life-and-death seriousness of her job, that people live or are murdered on the turn of her flippant, self-referential phraseology. Stop the world! O’Reilly called my BFF “that woman.” It is hideous that she wasted one second in these desperate times ranting about imaginary sexism. Her bosses want Harf to spout domestic sex politics. And after all, that is the only item on her resume.

Harf is indeed hideous to behold.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Bum’s Rush For Allison Williams (Daughter Of Brian Williams)

Gender, Morality, Pop-Culture, Relatives, Sex

The phrase a “bum’s rush” means “throw the bum out!” Libertarians, the tinny kind that ignores the cultural aspect of liberty and civilization, will attack this post with hackneyed lines, such as that, Allison Williams, daughter of disgraced NBC anchor Brian Williams, is making her way in the free market. Leave her be. Don’t like what she does for a living? Don’t consume her crappy, pun intended, products (movies).

For one, it is arguable that Ms. Williams would be where she is were she not “a member of the media circle jerk,” courtesy of her father. For another, I never watch filmic effluent like “Girls,” in which Allison Williams apparently stars. All I know of this rubbish comes from perusing news headlines.

Like a lot of north American females, this girl acts and talks dirty (highlighted below). I’m no prude; do what you may in the bedroom, but why coarsen the public square? Whatever happened to privacy? Via Mediatie:

While we all watched the Golden Globes on Sunday evening, Gawker noted that HBO’s Girls began its fourth season with Allison Williams‘ character Marnie on the receiving end of some ol’-fashioned “booty eating” from her new beau.***

In advance of the episode, Vulture had a reaction from Allison’s father, NBC newsman Brian Williams, who gave pretty much the same answer he does every time his daughter is involved in a sex scene:

She’s always been an actress. For us, watching her is the family occupation and everybody has to remember it’s acting, no animals were harmed during the filming, and ideally nobody gets hurt.

For her part, Williams told EW about the scene’s creation, in which no butts were actually eaten:

I had a couple of days talking to wardrobe and makeup to get ready to rig the thing that I wore for the ass motorboating. It was an engineering achievement! I would manufacture it if more than one person a year needed it. [Laughs] It was so elaborate—it involved Spanx that we cut away and glued down and involved menstrual pads and two of those weird thongs. I’ve had to do scenes like this twice now.

The moment below, in GIF form here.

And head on over to Gawker if you want to view the actual scene.

***Prediction: This article’s comments section will be full of the predictable “this is disgusting” outcry, but take note, fainting-couch frequenters: The activity known as “booty-eating” is currently experiencing a cultural renaissance. [This is a non sequitur: An activity doesn’t become laudable just because the masses engage in it—ilana]


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint