Category Archives: Feminism

Updated: Don’t Ask Don’t Tell For Hets & Homos

Etiquette, Feminism, Gender, Homosexuality, Military, Sex

In his “State of the Union remarks, President Obama said he would work with Congress towards repealing the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ law on which the policy is based.” The Generals, sitting in the front row, remained conspicuously stone-faced.

Today the news was all a-flutter when a politician in fatigues, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “made an impassioned plea for allowing gays to serve openly in uniform, telling a Senate panel it was a matter of integrity and that it is wrong to force people to ‘lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.'”

As the top- old dogs of the military are replaced by younger, more hip men, faces will soften on hearing such ludicrous ideas. So will the will.

The issue can be solved by returning the military to an earlier formation of disciplined men, united in common purpose. The ubiquity of women in the military has introduced into its ranks rampant, promiscuous sexuality. Combine youth, on-hand studs, testosterone, abundantly available loose women, and enabling laws—and you’ve created an assembly line of unwed, welfare moms, operating in a sexually charged atmosphere.

Remove women from the military, and you’ve removed the toxic effects straight women have on esprit de corps (and on rates of illegitimacy and welfarism).

In this kind of all-male outfit, there is no need to parade sexuality, straight or gay. Think of an all-boy school. Yeah, some hanky-panky goes on, but clandestinely.

Gay men who’ve chosen a military career are probably inclined to keep quiet about their sexual exploits. If he is the very poofy, prancing type, who doesn’t shut up about his beloved or bathhouse exploits; then our gay military man is probably unfit to serve.

As a wise woman said back in 2002, “The closet, sadly, has come to signify oppression, not discretion.”

I propose restoring indiscriminate discretion.

My answer to this facile debate is thus, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” for all military men, hets and homos.

Update (Feb. 4): A while ago “some industrious Army general in Iraq sought to limit the wages of whoring in the military. Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo III, quite reasonably, issued a policy on Nov. 4, 2009, ‘forbidding pregnancy among his soldiers.'” Cucolo was shot down by just about everyone. His, however, is a reflection of a healthy traditional morality. So screwed up have we become—so corrupt a culture are we mired in—that we think that our “civil rights”; in this case the right to fornicate, impregnate, procreate on the public dime, must accompany us wherever we peddle our sorry behinds.

I suspect most individuals who associate gays in the military with prancing poofs who feminize the force have a stereotypical view of gays. Homosexual men are not necessarily feminine. Men who join the army are seldom feminine. Among the vocal DADT advocates I’ve seen on TV, none was feminine; in fact most were way manlier than Markos Moulitsas, the editor of the Daily Curse, who has served.

The point is to restore decorum and morals to an army in which everyone is sexing it up. See? Back in the closet, hets and homos.

Update IX: Massachusetts Musical Chairs (Brown WINS; Dems Blame…)

Conservatism, Democrats, Elections, Feminism, Gender, libertarianism, Media, Politics, Republicans, War

Finding a conservative instinct in a “conservative” female writer is near impossible. Kathleen Parker, the yin to neoconservative David Brooks’ yang, zeros in on the essence of State Sen. Scott Brown, the Republican vying with Attorney General Martha Coakley to fill Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts.

The second most important thing to Parker, as noted in her column about the candidate who is fast gaining on the Coakley character, is that, “He’s a Mr. Mom to his busy wife, a Boston TV news reporter.” Like most “conservative” women, Parker makes the candidate’s feminist and family bona fides front-and-center.

But we’re not here discussing the mediocrity of Parker’s saccharine sweet, gender-specific, unremarkable prose, but the banality of the “JFK Republican,” Scott Brown. Basically Brown likes senseless war more than futile welfare.

Brown’s wishy-washy platform notwithstanding, you don’t need CNN to tell you that, “A GOP victory in overwhelmingly Democratic Massachusetts could give Senate Republicans enough votes to block Obama’s health care plan. It also could shatter assumptions about the competitiveness of politics in the progressive Northeast.”

Brown has opened up a lead of 4 percentage points.

According to the Suffolk/7 News survey, Brown is grabbing 65 percent of independent voters, with three in 10 pulling for Coakley. And 17 percent of Democrats questioned said they’re supporting Brown.
If Brown pulls an upset and defeats Coakley, the Democrats will lose their 60-seat filibuster-proof coalition in the Senate. The shift could threaten the party’s priorities on health care and a range of other issues.

Brown’s election could mean the defeat of Obama’s healthcare bill, and that’s a good thing.

Otherwise, it’s all more musical chairs between the mamzers.

Update I (Jan. 18): If he wins, and it looks like he will, Brown will be on the next flight to DC to cast a vote in the Senate to kill the bill. As I understand it, Brown does not need to await confirmation to vote. His vote will be perfectly legal. If Democrats pull any procedural mischief, there will be riots.

The most liberal, Democrat-favoring state in the country—I believe Massachusetts has not elected a Republican to the Senate since the late 1970s—is rejecting Obama’s policies, or at least some of them.

This is a turning point in current Democrat-Republican dispensation. It’s a serious blow to blowhard Barack and a kick in the pants to Ted Kennedy, his “legacy” and possy. Some overall gains for liberty may result, although homeostasis within the duopoly will ultimately be restored.

Remember, “The Democratic and Republican parties each operates as a necessary counterweight in a partnership designed to keep the pendulum of power swinging in perpetuity from the one entity to the other.”

Update II (Jan. 19): Not a peep from the media about this gentleman. Thanks to Myron for introducing Joe Kennedy, an independent candidate.

I skimmed his short platform. Kennedy’s a patriot. A tad weak on immigration, as he dares to speak only of the illegal kind, and cleaves to the, “We are a nation of immigrants” mantra. Still, Kennedy is better than most any establishment Republican.

Update III: Michelle Malkin clobbers David Frum in a post on Brown: “Brown has run on the core Tea Party issues of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and a strong national defense, while appealing to a broader swath of voters by emphasizing integrity, independence, and willingness to stand up to machine politics.” Read the complete post for the Frum bits.

Update IV: From Salon’s Joan Walsh, who has the aura of a wound-up, puritanical Martha Coakley, to Brother Eugene Robinson of the WaPo; to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and the pretty, empty-headed Norah O’Donnell—the malpracticing media seems intractably unwilling to apply analytical acid to what’s unfolding in Massachusetts.

In Obama’s election, the Left saw a heavenly celestial alignment of the political stars. The media had been blessed at last with a son. “For Unto Us A Son is Born,” blah, blah. In the near dethroning of a Democrat in the liberal miasma that is Massachusetts, the ponces above see only logistical and tactical missteps.

The latest from Fox News: “Republican Scott Brown has taken the early lead in the Massachusetts special election, an unexpectedly competitive contest that could have significant implications for President Obama’s agenda in Washington.”

Update V: BROWN HAS WON. Associated Press:

In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in a U.S. Senate election Tuesday that left President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul in doubt and marred the end of his first year in office.

Coakley has conceded.

Update VI: Want proof that Olby is bonkers? Here is what the MSNBC host said of the center-right, senator elect from Massachusetts:

“In Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees.’
— Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC’s Countdown, in a virulent rant against the Massachusetts candidate”

Michele Malkin: “… there are more long faces at MSNBC than at an aardvark convention.”

Here’s an image courtesy of Chris Matthews PR:

Update VII: Joan Walsh pleads, under the guise of an impartial postmortem: “this is a referendum on Coakley’s campaign, not on President Obama (thought I’ll get to him later.) She blew it … Coakley didn’t lose because of doubts about the health care reform bill…”

That’s settled, then. If Dems run good campaigns, they should be alright.

Walsh’s woman’s wiles tell her that this Republican victory in Massachusetts, achieved because the candidate rode a populist, tea-bag wave, has nothing to do with Democratic overreach. “In fact,” she assures her readers, “the problem has been under-reaching, and failing to deliver on campaign promises. But it’s going to take a lot of work on Obama’s part to bring those two poles within his party together. Exactly a year after his inauguration, it’s time for Obama to lead.”

Blessed be the boobs for they have inherited the earth.

Note Walsh’s dark demands that “agendas” be delivered on by hook or by crook.

The winner, Brown, disagrees. Campaigning “from the Berkshires to Boston, from Springfield to Cape Cod,” the voters of the Commonwealth told him they did “not want the trillion-dollar health care bill that is being forced on the American people.”

Odd that. (Even odder was Brown’s smarmy allusions, in his victory speech, to playing basketball with the president. Did you get the impression that the Republicans’ golden boy was looking forward to hobnobbing in high places? That disturbed me. The liberals, on the other hand, didn’t appreciate his crass peddling of his daughters as “available.” Cheap and inappropriate, that’s for sure.)

Update VIII: A good summery of the diabolical options Dems have been weighing, vis-a-vis the health care bill, soon to be laid to rest (we hope).

Update IX (Jan. 20): I’m hanging at Salon for a bit. Sometimes one just has to experience, or endure, a full frontal of the stuff. You tend to forget how repulsive the beltway liberal really is. Another insight into the seismic dethroning of Dems in Massachusetts courtesy of the Salon scribblers: “Massachusetts is filled with sexist voters.”

Updated: No More Making Whoopy In The Military?

Classical Liberalism, Feminism, Free Speech, Gender, IlanaMercer.com, Iraq, Military, Morality, Private Property, Sex, The State

Oh dear, some industrious Army general in Iraq wants to limit the wages of whoring in the military. Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo III, quite reasonably, reports ABC News, issued a policy on Nov. 4 “forbidding pregnancy among his soldiers.”

His policy statement said violation of the rule could be punishable by court martial, and that it would also apply to the men who get female soldiers pregnant, even if the couple is married.
Pregnant soldiers are immediately redeployed out of combat zones to bases where they can get comprehensive medical care.

“The true purpose behind this is to cause them to pause and think about, ‘Okay wait a minute. It was written in the order and I’m going to leave my team. I’m going to leave an outfit shorthanded,'” Cucolo said.”

[SNIP]

NO MORE MAKING Whoopy In The Military? What next? Leaving Iraq for lack of recreational outlets? We can only hope.

Anyone with a brain cell knows that the military, other than being an arm of the state, subject to all the malignancies that entails, is one of the Biggest Whore Houses around.

The authority on the subject is “Stephanie Gutmann, a Jewish woman out of Manhattan,” as Fred Reed forthrightly fingers her. Reed writes the following about Stephanie’s apolitical “reportorial” effort, which,

[D]escribed perfectly the fraud and double standards used to make women look successful in the army. Much of it would be hard to credit, except that I had seen it from outside … In the course of events I met Steph a couple of times, chatted on the phone, and lost contact with her. The book got few and bad reviews because it was not what the media wanted to hear. It was a fine book.

As is “Steph’s” Other Book. Read about it here. (I too have had a pleasant exchange or two with this lovely lady.)

Update (Dec. 23): To the distracting diversions in the Comments Section, including my responses (by necessity), let me repeat: The Posting Policy of BAB states: “Please note that ‘Barely A Blog’ is private property. Posts are published at the proprietor’s discretion.” Apparently this requires explanation, as participants prefer the fun of expressing themselves without the discipline of acquaintance with the philosophy espoused here.

THE CONFUSION about this statement demonstrates even more the need for participants to become “vaguely familiar with the political philosophy championed on this forum and the Mother Site, ilanamercer.com. Accordingly, there is no such thing as absolute free speech; there are only absolute rights of private property. Speech is circumscribed by private property rights. I’m afraid you may deliver a disquisition in my virtual or tangible living room only if I let you so do.

Update II: What Conservative Chicks ‘Care’ About (Not Individualism)

Conservatism, Feminism, Gender, Individual Rights, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, Republicans, Sarah Palin

The salient thing about “conservative” chicks is how unconservative they are. Sexism, racism, homophobia—these concepts are engraved in their inherently liberal minds. The concepts are, of course, poisonous arrows in the quiver of left-liberal identity politics.

So it was that The View’s Elisabeth Hasselbeck was a prime mover behind the persecution of Imus, for politically unpalatable speech, alongside race hustlers Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, neocon sister Amy Holmes, and other sundry sorts of the left (Whoopi Goldberg, Maya Angelou, Naomi Wolf).

Palin is always shouting sexism, and has intensified her hissing ever since Newsweek published an appealing cover of her in running gear. Hasselbeck has been complaining about the sexism to which Palin is allegedly subjected. She did so recently on The View. Clearly, a liberal worldview is not the only malady to inflict conservative women. They are never original (other than Coulter, who is sui generis, and I have a soft spot for the Michelles Bachmann and Malkin).

Update I (Nov. 18): Another of these harpies’ trade marks is to conflate a love of war—any war waged by the US—with the conservative position. Does this pertain equally to neoconservative and so-called conservative men? You tell me.

Wait a sec, I already “told me”:

“… never once have the war harpies and their hombres in the ideological trenches indicated they comprehend how and who is paying for all this. I know they believe we’re not being taxed in lieu of the debt, a faith they base on Bush’s promise not to raise taxes. [A “promise kept by Barack, Bush’s loyal successor.]

Pro-war pundits, women especially, think that government can spend what it doesn’t have without any economic repercussions. They’re a lot like babies prior to acquiring object permanence: what isn’t visible doesn’t exist. However, government spending more than it collects in revenues is the cause of the deficit.

And ultimately of inflation.

However, there is no question in the small minds we’re discussing that a blind support for the experiment in “Eyeraq” is as American as apple pie. Ditto Democratizing our toothless, poppy-smoking Pashtun with smart bombs. The women of the neoconnerie have been instrumental in keeping their fans “tuned-out, turned-on, and hot for war.”

Don’t expect an understanding of economics with your “conservative” harpie/hottie of choice. Palin was given a pass by the equally compromised Bawbawa Walter when she said that the bailout bill she supported in her capacity as a VP candidate didn’t work out well. Who would have known!!

Bachmann and Malkin have firm positions for fiscal conservatism; the rest go with the financial flow.

Update II (Nov. 20): Some comments posters have alluded to my mention of first principles in the new WND column, “Weapons For The GOP Punditocracy.” I note that first principles and GOPiness do not mix.

Even less so do first principles and foxettes go together. Individual rights are subsumed in FP. You would be hard pressed to find a woman who thinks less of the paramountcy of the individual over the collective than a foxette.

She got uncontrollably (and repulsively) hot for “Murder with majority approval”—i.e., the war in Iraq—and oversaw the decimation of the population there (including an ancient Christian community).

She promoted through the argument from cleavage the specious, wicked, individual-averse idea of collateral damage. That collectivist calculus was a feature of the war cheerleading done by the freedom-loving Fox New foxes.

All the networks were complicit, but no where was the morally repugnant zeal more pronounced than on Fox New where words like “Breaking Baghdad,” “Decapitation,” and “Shock and Awe” were the order of the day.

So far war.

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard Martha MacCallum, one of the more rightist ladies, mull over the need for national healthcare and a national data base where bureaucrats can access private healthcare information. I’m sure readers who understand liberty (which is inseparable from philosophical first principles) will provide more examples (accompanied by hyperlinks) for Foxette fascism.

With few exceptions, Fox News generally favors the rights of the police—backed by the power of the state—in altercation with helpless individuals. When “Andrew Meyer, a journalism student, was pounced upon by campus police, tasered, detained overnight, and charged with violently resisting arrest (a felony), and disturbing the peace (a misdemeanor),” Fox beaus and bimbos had a good laugh at his expense. O’Reilly was in stitches.

The Drug War: It is the very crucible of the fight for individual liberties. Show me a Foxy Lady who sympathetically covered any prominent case (such as the one of the granny gunned down in her home by DEA agents because of alleged “drugs”). And don’t start me on the medical marijuana fear mongering at Fox.