Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

Two recent incidents of violence against women

We are supposed to believe progressives/liberals fight for equality, women’s rights, and oppose violence against women. Consider this.

At the recent women’s march in Washington, D.C. The Rebel Media recorded a video of a male member of the march assaulting a conservative woman.

Rebel reporter assaulted at Women’s March — $1,000 reward to find him

You’ll see in the video the perp is male, the assault happens against a women, and the assault occurs in the midst of the protest (plenty of progressives/liberals present as witnesses). And how do the perp’s fellow protesters respond? By protecting HIM! Watch the video for yourself.

At West Virginia University we have another video of another leftist assaulting another woman.

Leftist student physically attacks conservatives after botched debate meeting

The hate this guy harbors is painfully obvious. Watch the video.

And what should we expect from the progressives/liberals who learn of these two incidents of violence against women? Nothing other than the same reaction we saw in the 1990’s when a certain president was sexually harassing and abusing women all over the place – total hypocrisy. Feminism looks like a fraud when it protects men who do the very things these women claim they oppose.

Political correctness and social justice are not about justice or fairness or equality. They are about the anti-diversity left wing agenda of sameness, driven and defined by powerful agenda makers. The common folk do indeed have power but not the kind of power they think they have. They are being led down a road I suspect many of them would reject if only they could see where it takes them.

The ultra left (which now seems to be the mainstream left) only selectively cares about women and violence against women and women’s rights. Reasonable leftists (if there are any) need to know about this stuff. If anyone has a chance of pulling the leftwing of the political spectrum from its extremes back toward the center it is reasonable leftists. Please spread the word whenever anything like this happens.

abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, culture, ethics, extremism, feminism, fraud, hate crime, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, political correctness, progressive, scandal, victimization, video

Filed under: abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, culture, ethics, extremism, feminism, fraud, hate crime, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, political correctness, progressive, scandal, victimization, video

If Black Genocide were shown on BET, Black Lives Matter would be attacking abortion clinics

original article: One of Margaret Sanger’s Pals Ran a Concentration Camp That Killed Black People
October 14, 2016 by JASON JONES & JOHN ZMIRAK

It’s a pro-life commonplace that The American Birth Control League, founded by Margaret Sanger 100 years ago and later rechristened Planned Parenthood, had ties to eugenicists and racists. This is not quite right. It’s like saying that the NBA has ties to professional sports. The birth control movement and the eugenics movement were the same movement — to the point where Margaret Sanger twice tried to merge her organization with major eugenics groups.

One eugenics expert, Eugen Fischer, whom Sanger featured as a speaker at a population conference she organized, had already run a concentration camp — in German-ruled Southwest Africa, before World War I, where he murdered, starved and experimented on helpless native Africans. It was Fischer’s book on eugenics, which Hitler had read in prison, that convinced Hitler of its central importance. Another longtime official of Planned Parenthood, Garrett Hardin, had a decades-long track record of serving in eugenics organizations, and as late as the 1980s was calling for mass forced sterilization of Americans as a necessary solution to the “population problem.”

The same people served on the boards of the American Eugenics Society and Sanger’s organizations for decades, and they worked closely together on countless projects — ranging from researching the birth control pill as a means of diminishing the African-American birth rate (they tested the early, hazardous versions of the Pill on impoverished rural women in Puerto Rico), to passing forced sterilization or castration laws in more than a dozen states that targeted blacks and other poor people accused of “feeble mindedness” or “shiftlessness” and diagnosed as “unfit” parents. Today, Planned Parenthood sets up its centers in America’s poorest neighborhoods, and continues to target the same populations via abortion.

Maafa 21: Black Genocide

That’s the appalling truth uncovered in a neglected 2014 documentary which we feature here at The Stream as part of our #100forLife campaign. Maafa 21: Black Genocide gets its odd title from the Swahili word for slavery, and it is this film’s contention that the eugenics movement in America began in the panic which white racists felt at the end of slavery over what should be done to solve what some called the “Negro problem.” It’s a long, harrowing film, which you should watch in small doses — treating it as a miniseries. And keep a box of Kleenex handy, because you will weep.

Produced by the pro-life apostolate Life Dynamics with a mostly black cast of narrators and commentators, this film claims that Planned Parenthood and other organizations and government programs that target the poor and try to block their reproduction are the 21st century’s answer to the Ku Klux Klan — which was founded by white Southern elites to keep down the “unruly” ranks of freed black slaves.

It’s a shocking assertion, but one that the filmmakers prove beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, citing name after name, giving racist quote after racist quote, showing that Sanger personally approved the publication of outrageous and cruel claims of the genetic inferiority of millions of Americans, especially blacks, and calling for their forced sterilization, and the cut-off of welfare benefits and even private charity, to stop the “unfit” from reproducing themselves. Then she took part in promoting policies that turned this evil, utopian program of social engineering into binding American laws. One of the leading advocates for the legalization of abortion in the 1960s and 70s was Planned Parenthood, run by her appointees and later by her grandson, Alexander Sanger.

Margaret Sanger Worked with White Supremacists for Decades

The board of Margaret Sanger’s organization and others where she served as an officer, the authors she published in The Birth Control Review, the conferences she sponsored, and the people to whom Planned Parenthood gave awards well into the 1960s and 70s, are a Who’s Who of the ugliest, most paranoid misanthropic elitists and white racists of the 20th century — apart from those who were thankfully hanged at Nuremburg. After those trials, when “eugenics” had acquired a well-deserved taint, these same American elitists used the exaggerated threat of “overpopulation” to peddle the desperate need to control other people’s fertility, if need be by forced sterilization — a policy which Sanger had advocated since 1934.

The eugenicists, self-appointed experts on human quality of life, had peddled their theories not just in Britain and America but in Germany, where they helped to directly inspire Nazi sterilization and extermination programs aimed at the handicapped, Jews, and the small population of black or mixed race Germans — children of French colonial troops whom Hitler considered a grave menace to “Aryan” racial “hygiene.” One of Sanger’s regular authors in The Birth Control Review wrote in a U.S. newspaper in the 1930s defending the forced sterilization of such mixed-race children, for the sake of Germany’s “health.”

Hitler’s Bible, by Sanger’s Friend

Friends and associates of Sanger (such as Harry Laughlin) accepted awards from Nazi-controlled universities, visited with Hitler and Himmler, and boasted that the forced sterilization programs which they had instituted in America were used as models by the Germans. One author who served on Sanger’s board and published regularly in The Birth Control Review was Lothrop Stoddard, a high official of the Massachusetts Ku Klux Klan, whose book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, Adolf Hitler cited in Mein Kampf as “my bible.”

Ota_Benga_at_Bronx_Zoo

Nor were the eugenicists isolated cranks. Their ranks include Harvard professors, mainline Protestant clergymen, prominent conservationists for whom entire animal species are named, and Gilded Age plutocrats. Much of the funding for eugenics organizations came from the Carnegie Corporation and the Rockefeller Foundation.

Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing his opinion that the forced sterilization of a supposedly “feeble-minded” woman in Virginia was constitutional, infamously said that “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” His views were echoed by President Teddy Roosevelt, as the film proves with quotations. It also recounts how a Sanger ally Madison Grant, a prominent Darwin apostle and eugenicist, helped to exhibit Ota Benga, an African pygmy, in a cage with an orangutan for ten days at New York City’s Bronx Zoo, to “illustrate evolution.” Mr. Benga took his own life ten years later.

The eugenicists’ arrogant certainty that, because they had inherited money and power, they were genetically superior to the rest of the human race, found in Charles Darwin’s theories an ideal pretext and a program: to take the survival of the fittest and make it happen faster, by stopping the “unfit” from breeding. The goal, in Margaret Sanger’s own words, was “More Children from the Fit, Fewer from the Unfit.” Instead of seeing the poor as victims of injustice or targets for Christian charity, the materialism these elitists took from Darwin assured them that the poor were themselves the problem — that they were inferior, deficient and dangerous down to the marrow of their bones.

“Feeble-Minded” and “Shiftless” Blacks

The targets of this campaign in America were poor people, the unemployed, non-English-speaking immigrants, but most of all African-Americans. This vulnerable population, composed largely of ex-slaves and their children, was identified in the 1880s as a “threat” to the “racial health” and progress of the United States, by followers of Francis Galton — first cousin of Charles Darwin, heir to a slave-trading fortune, and inventor of the “science” of eugenics. These people had been exploited for centuries as free labor, denied education for fear of fomenting rebellion, and excluded from most of the economy. Now the eugenicists blamed the victims, black Americans, for their desperate social conditions, claiming that they were the natural result of blacks’ “defective germ plasm,” which posed a threat to America akin to a deadly virus.

The forced sterilization laws which Sanger and her allies passed were used to sterilize at least 60,000 Americans, but perhaps as many as 200,000, on the pretext that young women who became pregnant out of wedlock were “feeble-minded,” “immoral” or “socially useless” parasites — all rhetoric that Sanger personally used in her books, articles, and at least one speech before a Ku Klux Klan rally, as she recounts in her memoir.

tony-riddick-150x150

Maafa 21 interviews Elaine Riddick, who was raped at age 13 and became pregnant. As she lay in the hospital waiting to deliver the baby, welfare officials from the state of North Carolina warned her illiterate grandparents that if they didn’t sign the consent form to have her irreversibly sterilized, the state would cut off their welfare benefits. They scrawled an “X” on the government form, and Elaine was sterilized without her knowledge. She only learned what had been done to her five years later, when welfare officials explained that she was too “feeble-minded” to care for a child “or even tie my own shoes,” as she recounts. Elaine was sterilized in 1968. The last such “eugenic” forced sterilization in the U.S. took place in 1983.

While Elaine never went to high school, she went on and finished college, and the one child which the United States government had permitted her to have — Tony Riddick, a child of rape — now runs his own successful company. Harry Laughlin, the eugenicist who helped pass the law that sterilized Elaine, died without any children.

abortion, abuse, bullies, elitism, ethics, eugenics, extremism, feminism, government, hate crime, history, ideology, left wing, nanny state, oppression, progressive, public policy, racism, racist, scandal, tragedy, victimization, video

Filed under: abortion, abuse, bullies, elitism, ethics, eugenics, extremism, feminism, government, hate crime, history, ideology, left wing, nanny state, oppression, progressive, public policy, racism, racist, scandal, tragedy, victimization, video

2 fatal mistakes made by Roe v. Wade

original article: 2 fatal mistakes made by Roe v. Wade
January 18, 2016 by KRISTI BURTON BROWN

Roe v. Wade has been the most fatal judicial decision in U.S. history. In the aftermath of Roe, 58 million babies have been aborted, whilecountless women have been irreparably damaged and families have been harmed and torn apart.

Roe was based on multiple mistakes, direct lies, and a rejection of accurate science, research, and the real Constitution. (Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg agrees that Roe was “heavy-handed judicial intervention [which] was difficult to justify.”) However, there are two particularly damaging mistakes – one made by the justices and one by the attorney who argued the case.

FATAL MISTAKE #1: The justices completely missed the intent of the 14th Amendment.

The justices behind Roe wrote that there was no constitutional basis for protecting preborn life. They rejected the 14th Amendment as a basis for protecting the preborn, even though it recognizes the right to life and equal protection for all persons.

They entirely failed to recognize the specific intent of the Congressional sponsors of the 14th Amendment. The intent – a key part of interpreting law – shows that the sponsors wanted to include future vulnerable and oppressed human beings in constitutional equal protection.

Representative John Bingham, a House sponsor, intended the Amendment to be applied universally – to any and every human being.[1] In a speech to Congress, prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, he declared that the Constitution is “based upon the equality of the human race. Its primal object must be to protect each human being…”[2]

Senate sponsor Jacob Howard agreed that “the measure would apply to even the ‘humblest, the poorest, the most despised of the human race.’”[3] Representative H.D. Scott stated: “The strength of this Government…is in its willingness as well as ability to do equal and exact justice to every human being…”[4] He condemned justice being “made subservient to interest” and when the strong “can prey upon the weak and unfortunate with impunity.”[5]

Just as these statements applied to Black Americans at the time, they apply to the preborn now, just as they did on January 22, 1973, and at the time the 14 Amendment was passed. The Roe Court would have done well to recognize this clear and constitutional truth.

FATAL MISTAKE #2: The lawyer who argued Roe believed women needed abortion to be successful.

There are certainly things to admire about Sarah Weddington, the 26-year-old lawyer who successfully argued Roe v. Wade before the U.S. Supreme Court. At a very young age, she took on the entire nation to advocate for something she believed in. She didn’t let her age, gender, or inexperience stop her.

However, besides the fact that Weddington was on the completely wrong side of a human justice issue, she also has a sad story in her personal history. Before she married Ron Weddington, she became pregnant with their child in her final year of law school. Neither of them wanted children, and so the couple traveled over the border to Mexico, for an illegal abortion.

Weddington cites her ability to have an abortion as the reason she went on to have a career as a lawyer, and yet countless successful female attorneys have proven Weddington’s assertion wrong. Women are, in fact, able to be successful and to be mothers.

Erika Bachiochi, a feminist and former pro-choice attorney,  authored “Embodied Equality: Debunking Equality Arguments for Abortion Rights” for the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. She also wrote about the real truth on abortion and women for CNN:

As a one-time abortion rights supporter, I well know the temptation to see the right to abortion as a representation of women’s equality. …

Abortion betrays women by having us believe that we must become like men — that is, not pregnant — to achieve parity with them, professionally, socially, educationally. . …

When we belittle the developing child in the womb, a scientific reality that most pro-choice advocates have come to admit, we belittle and distort that child’s mother. We make her out to be one with property rights over her developing unborn child (much as husbands once had property rights over their wives).

We give her the inhumane (but for 42 years, constitutionally protected) right to decide the fate of another human being, of a vulnerable child — her child — to whom she properly owes an affirmative duty of care. We do all this rather than offering her the myriad familial and social supports she needs, whatever her situation, and cherishing her role in the miracle of human life.

Conclusion

While these two fatal mistakes continue to cost millions of lives, we can each personally work to stop the damage. In our conversations with friends, on social media, on campus, and at our offices, clubs, churches, and groups, we can spread the truths that every human being – at every stage of development – deserves equal protection and that no woman needs to take her child’s life to succeed at life. We can actively and practically help women who make the choice for life.

As Carol Tobias, President of the National Right to Life Committee,says:  “As long as abortion is legal, pro-lifers will fight and never give up.”

Sources:
[1] CONG. GLOBE, 34th Cong., 3rd Sess. (1857)
[2] Id.
[3] SENATOR JACOB HOWARD, SPEECH INTRODUCING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, Speech delivered in the U.S. Senate, May 23, 1866
[4] CONG. GLOBE, 34th Cong., 3rd Sess. (1857)
[5] Id.

abortion, culture, feminism, history, ideology, indoctrination, judiciary, law, lies, progressive, propaganda, science

Filed under: abortion, culture, feminism, history, ideology, indoctrination, judiciary, law, lies, progressive, propaganda, science

The Clintons are a war on women

Possibly the most famous sexual predator not in prison is named Bill. No, not Cosby, his name is Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is a war on women. Any widely accepted definition of abuse of women should include the former philandering president. So how do we square Hillary’s recent comments on hearing, believing, and supporting abused women with Hillary’s own efforts to utterly destroy any woman who accuses her husband of sexual predation? Watch The Run Down address the particulars of the question.

buse, campaign, civil rights, corruption, cover up, criminal, culture, Democrats, elections, elitism, ethics, feminism, fraud, government, hypocrisy, ideology, pandering, politics, propaganda, relativism, scandal, sex, tragedy, victimization, video

Filed under: abuse, campaign, civil rights, corruption, cover up, criminal, culture, Democrats, elections, elitism, ethics, feminism, fraud, government, hypocrisy, ideology, pandering, politics, propaganda, relativism, scandal, sex, tragedy, victimization, video

Is feminism anti-human?

Feminism is far from a monolithic single-minded entity. There is vast diversity of thought within feminism, and not all denominations of the movement agree with one another. Some wings of feminism are not even acknowledged by others. Part of the problem is that, while all feminists at least seem to be fighting for equality for women, not all of them actually are fighting for that goal.

Among the nuance one might have noticed 3 primary schools of thought within feminism: the pro-equality school, the pro-women school, and the anti-male school. The latter has a fairly bad reputation in western culture with the most extreme flavors of feminism falling into this category. That reputation, sadly, is well earned. It should not have to be said that an anti-male attitude is not the same as a pro-woman attitude, and certainly not a pro-equality one. This radical brand presumes to be the primary voice for women in the world. This ultra-left flavor of feminism gives all feminism a bad name and it should be called out for what it is. So what is it exactly that needs to be called out?

First, not all brands of feminism are inherently Marxian, as is the ultra-left anti-male feminism. Marxism teaches, among other things, that life can be understood as a contest between oppressors and the oppressed. The problem with this mentality is that it is tragically reductive, over simplifying life to a simple equation utterly dependent on fomenting anger and bitterness. In the anti-male feminist school this amounts to treating men as inherent, inevitable enemies of women. To understand life in these terms is not to understand life at all. While plenty of evidence can be found to support this rabid view of life, to maintain such view the believer must ignore most of life’s experiences or distort them in a way as to confirm the predetermined bias. Any confirming evidence is treated as the norm (i.e., “rape culture”), and conflicting evidence treated as an aberration, if acknowledged at all. This is how confirmation bias works, but it is not how understanding (or intellectual honesty) works.

Second, the anti-male school of thought unintentionally ends up being anti-woman. Think about it. What are the most common ways extreme feminists advocate to empower women? By urging women to act more like men! Women are denigrated for living a lifestyle which militant feminists would ridicule as “gender stereotypes”. Motherhood is often treated as a form of slavery, marriage as a form of oppression. The maternal instinct is regarded as something like a disease that must be educated out of a women in order to free them. In this way womanhood itself is denigrated and shunned. Women are instead encouraged to abandon traditional hallmarks of womanhood and instead become aggressive, like men. On the one hand we have the feminization or Oprahfication of men and the masculinization of women, both of which are designed to reduce men and women to a politically correct delusion where the sexes are the same. Not equal, mind you – the same. Treating people equally is one thing, trying to make them the same is quite another. You are not the same as other people in the world, you are a unique person. You are more than your sex organs or life choices. But the militant wing of feminism has made it seem they reduce women to mere tools, politically viable weapons and force women into a victim mindset. Whether that was the intent of this brand of feminism, this is in fact how it makes itself appear.

Which leads us to a third issue with militant feminism: it is anti-freedom. We are not allowed to think for ourselves regarding militant feminism. If these feminists see a situation as the oppression of women, even falsely accusing men of rape is blindly accepted as truth, where there is no need to verify any evidence. If something is deemed sexist we are not permitted to view the situation is any other way. (Some feminists insist the tradition form of narrative (story telling) is sexist because it models the male sexual experience – as if that were the only legitimate way to think of narrative).

Ruling in Twitter harassment trial could have enormous fallout for free speech
July 14, 2015 by Christie Blatchford

Likewise, women find militant feminism attempts to control them by pushing for some choices and denigrating others. A woman who has a college degree is often pressured into following a career, as if she has an obligation to womanhood to do this. If such a woman instead, of her own will, chooses to be a home maker and mother, that same woman can expect to be treated as a traitor to her sex or as a blind zombie mindlessly falling into a patriarchal trap. Women are encouraged to treat sexuality with the same selfish, consequence-free fantasy (and childish) attitude men are often criticized for. With bully tactics like this (telling other people what to think) we find militant feminists constructing a way of womanhood while claiming to abhor social constructs.

At the end of the day it seems modern feminism (the anti-male type) is intent on destroying anything feminine in women, even the freedom to make their own life choices.

On the other hand there are women who fight for equal rights for women without devoting their lives to attacking men. Such women have the misfortune of being attacked by extremist feminists but they also offer a far better picture of empowering women. These women fight an uphill battle against a hyper-politicized and well funded extreme left wing brand of feminism.

One such woman is Christina Hoff Sommers of The Factual Feminist. Sommers is an academic who does not allow falsehoods and fraudulent augments to pass for truth in feminist circles. She challenges bogus data and politically motivated bunk because feminist fraud doesn’t help women, it harms real efforts to help them.

Another woman fighting against bogus feminism is the infamous Phyllis Schlafly. I say “infamous” because Schlafly is often accused of being anti-woman. I’ve seen Schlafly in person and read numerous criticisms of her. I can’t help but notice a deliberate effort to misconstrue and mischaracterize her work by those who accuse her of being against women. Besides, Schlafly’s experiences show she didn’t need a militant feminist movement to earn her education or establish her career – she did all that before most modern feminists were even born (let alone “helped her” achieve what she has achieved). I’ll let her tell her own story:

abuse, bias, bullies, corruption, culture, elitism, extremism, feminism, fraud, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, marxism, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism, sex, sexism, socialism, victimization, video

Filed under: abuse, bias, bullies, corruption, culture, elitism, extremism, feminism, fraud, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, marxism, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism, sex, sexism, socialism, victimization, video

Progressive chickens coming home to roost in higher ed

PC Liberals Devour Their Own
June 3, 2015 by RICH LOWRY

Noorthwestern University professor Laura Kipnis didn’t set out to become a martyr to free speech when she wrote a spirited essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education pushing back against “sexual paranoia” on college campuses.

To stir the pot, yes. To outrage the sensibilities of people she thinks are more naive than she is about sex, sure. But not make an example of herself in the fight against the stultifying regime of political correctness that grips academia.

This is the chilling fact at the center of the Kipnis affair: Her university investigated her for something she wrote, and not even something that was remotely anti-feminist or traditionalist.
No one will mistake Kipnis, who teaches filmmaking, for Phyllis Schlafly. Her books include “Ecstasy Unlimited: On Sex, Capital, Gender, and Aesthetics” and “The Female Thing: Dirt, Envy, Sex, Vulnerability.” In a starred review, Publisher’s Weekly said an evidently pro-adultery book she wrote combined “the slashing sexual contrarianism of Mailer” and “the scathing antidomestic wit of early Roseanne Barr” (sounds delightful).

This gets to the other fact that should be chilling for any liberal blasé about the Jacobin atmosphere of college campuses: If they can come after Kipnis, they can come after anyone.

Conservatives in academia have traded stories for years of fear on campus, of keeping their heads down and watching what they say lest they get harassed or fired. Now, the illiberalism of the left is being turned against its own. It is an illustration of the basic civil-libertarian point that any regime meant to stifle opponents eventually comes back to bite its architects.

The groves of academe have gone from what are supposed to be bastions of free speech to grim prosecutorial arenas where everything you say can and will be used against you. The potential McCarthyites sit in every lecture hall and seminar room and they are children of the left, students who have been trained and encouraged to be whiny, litigious and censorious.

This is a dystopia entirely of the left’s making. Its identity politics, feminism and hysteria about campus rape are ascendant on campus. On top of this, it is the Obama administration that weaponized Title IX in response to the alleged epidemic of campus rape and made it a clear and present danger to due process and freedom of expression.

In her essay, Kipnis argued that “in the post-Title IX landscape, sexual panic rules,” and the new campus codes are “a striking abridgment of everyone’s freedom” and “intellectually embarrassing.”

Kipnis should have known that her offenses were manifold. She called a he-said-she-said case of alleged unwanted groping at Northwestern, the occasion for a Title IX lawsuit, a “melodrama.” She questioned why women are called “survivors” instead of “accusers,” even when their accusations haven’t yet been validated. She professed mystification at the proliferation of students who say they find course material “triggering.”

Her critics could have argued back and hoped one day to be able to write as well as she does. Instead, they protested Kipnis (carrying mattresses, naturally) and reported her to the authorities.

In retrospect, Kipnis might as well have been a 13th-century monk taunting the Inquisition, or a 17th-century courtier of Charles I daring the Stuart king to throw him in front of the Star Chamber. She was duly accused of violating Title IX by writing an essay questioning the excesses of Title IX.

The university’s investigation of her was about what you would expect if Kafka’s Josef K. had caught the attention of the shadowy Committee of Affairs by writing an op-ed some people found uncongenial. It was difficult for Kipnis even to find out what she was accused of, which turned out to be violating a Title IX prohibition against retaliating against an accuser — even though all she did was write about a case that had nothing to do with her.

Kipnis was eventually cleared of the charges, but, as the cliche goes, the process was the punishment. Her subsequent essay on her experience, “My Title IX Inquisition,” has caused liberal soul-searching. It’s all fun and games when Condoleezza Rice gets disinvited, or when feminist-critic Christina Hoff Sommers protested, but when a film professor with high regard for Foucault is targeted, then clearly things have gotten out of hand.

The liberal explainer website Vox ran a piece a few months ago basically arguing that political correctness is a hoax perpetuated by oppressors. In the wake of the Kipnis piece, it featured a piece by a liberal professor saying he’s terrified of his liberal students, for the same reasons as Kipnis (tellingly, he wrote it under a pseudonym).

If liberals are really going to push back against the political correct regime on campus, they will have to do a number of things they will surely find unwelcome: tell students to grow up and realize that speech they disagree with is not tantamount to a physical threat; acknowledge that campus rape, even if it’s a serious issue, is not an out-of-control plague that requires dispensing with due process and other norms; and pressure the Obama administration to rescind its notorious April 2011 letter on Title IX that has roiled campuses and caught up innocent actors like Kipnis.

As it stands now, for a university not to take every Title IX accusation seriously is to risk a federal investigation and potentially a catastrophic loss of federal funding. So the normal bureaucratic impulse is to toss common sense out the window, and with it, protections for free speech.

In its statement on the Kipnis case, the campus free-speech group FIRE wrote, “The transmogrification of Title IX into an all-purpose excuse for knee-jerk overreactions to complaints about speech — sometimes only tangentially related to sex — is an unacceptable trend that endangers freedom of expression and undermines the purpose of higher education.”
Laura Kipnis just proved it.

Further commentary:

Support separation between School and State

My Title IX Inquisition
by Laura Kipnis

I’m a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me
June 3, 2015 by Edward Schlosser

FIRE’s Statement on Northwestern’s Lengthy, Unwarranted Title IX Investigation of Laura Kipnis
June 1, 2015 by Fire

Laura Kipnis’s ‘Title IX Inquisition’ Reveals Absurdity of the Current Campus Climate
May 29, 2015 by Susan Kruth

The Laura Kipnis Saga: Privacy Paranoia Runs Amok Once More On Campus
June 2, 2015 by Greg Piper

abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, bureaucracy, censorship, discrimination, education, extremism, feminism, free speech, government, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, litigation, nanny state, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, politics, progressive, protests, public policy, reform, regulation, scandal, unintended consequences, victimization

Filed under: abuse, bias, bigotry, bullies, bureaucracy, censorship, discrimination, education, extremism, feminism, free speech, government, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, litigation, nanny state, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, politics, progressive, protests, public policy, reform, regulation, scandal, unintended consequences, victimization

The real victim of ‘rape culture’? Free speech

original article: The real victim of ‘rape culture’? Free speech
April 23, 2015 by JAMIE PALMER

In November last year, anti-rape activists at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, erupted in outrage when it was announced that libertarian feminist Wendy McElroy had been invited to take part in a debate about sexual violence. McElroy, as it happens, was herself the victim of a rape so violent it left her with permanently impaired vision. But she has since incurred the wrath of those who claim to speak for rape victims by vehemently disputing the existence of what radical feminists call ‘rape culture’. Rape culture, McElroy has written, is ‘a lie [which] has been successful in spite of reality’ and is now being used to justify an illiberal and sinister attack on due process. Whether one agrees with this view or not, it ought to be obvious that transparent debate of this issue is not only legitimate, but vital. McElroy’s activist opponents disagreed. The very expression of opinions like hers, they insisted, constitutes an intolerable threat to student safety.

This dismal scenario is now being re-run following an invitation extended by Oberlin College Republicans and Libertarians (OCRL) to feminist writer Christina Hoff Sommers. Sommers – a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and author of the 1994 polemic Who Stole Feminism? – also considers ‘rape culture’ to be a dangerous moral panic. And, like McElroy, she believes it must be discredited with the careful marshalling of evidence and argument. Her opponents, on the other hand, while maintaining the truth of their own claims to be self-evident, have preferred to marshal only disgust and invective, the most recent manifestation of which has been an open letter published in theOberlin Review beneath the maudlin headline ‘A Love Letter To Ourselves’.

These activists have every reason to feel defensive. Sommers’ talk comes on the heels of the devastating investigation by the Columbia School of Journalism intoRolling Stone’s credulous reporting of last year’s UVA campus rape hoax. Not only was the story’s fallout an embarrassment for Rolling Stone – it also painfully exposed the degree to which campus activists refuse to allow facts to interfere with conviction and radical feminist dogma. The Oberlin letter will do nothing to dispel this impression.

The letter opens with a spurious attack on Sommers’ bad timing. ‘This Monday’, it explains, ‘happens to be a part of Sexual Assault Awareness Month which makes the timing of this talk particularly objectionable’. And why should awareness-raising preclude open debate and discussion? Because, we learn, Sommers is a ‘rape denialist’. The inference is not hard to grasp. Would you, the letter suggests, bring a Holocaust denier on to campus to contest the facts of the Shoah during Holocaust Memorial Day? It is difficult to conceive of a more tasteless and dishonest analogy, which may be why no attempt is made to substantiate it. Instead, what follows is an example of question begging in its crudest form:

By denying rape culture, [Sommers] is creating exactly the cycle of victim/survivor blame, where victims are responsible for the violence that was forced upon them and the subsequent shame that occurs when survivors share their stories, whose existence she denies. This is how rape culture flourishes. By bringing her to a college campus laden with trauma and sexualised violence and full of victims/survivors, OCRL is choosing to reinforce this climate of denial/blame/shame that ultimately has real-life consequences on the wellbeing of people who have experienced sexualised violence.

Or, in other words, it is dangerous to challenge the existence of rape culture, since to do so inflames rape culture.

This is, at best, circular reasoning, and, at worst, an exercise in self-serving denunciation, cynically constructed to render dissent heretical. Have the letter’s authors never heard of the importance of falsifiability? Or have they simply chosen to disregard it in the name of expediency and bad faith? What follows leads me to suspect the latter: ‘We could spend all of our time and energy explaining all of the ways she’s harmful. But why should we?’ Why indeed, when to act fair-mindedly would only invite the accused to defend herself?

But like a child who has purged himself of a violent tantrum, the letter’s tone then lapses abruptly into sullen resignation. Eight ‘concrete examples of ways to engage’ are offered: ‘1) Listen to your friends who’ve been harmed; 2) use your social and financial capital; 3) challenge violence and harm; 4) participate in actions and conversations in response to the event; 5) recognise and prioritise intersectional feminism and survivor support; 6) genuinely care for one another; 7) educate yourself on the impacts of trauma and symptoms of post-traumatic stress/reactions; and 8) silence.’

But what is being recommended here is not engagement, but flight from argument, a retreat into the comforting echo chamber of like minds. Lest there be any doubt, sympathetic readers are then encouraged to ‘engage in some radical, beautiful community care, support and love. Let’s make space for everyone to engage at whichever level they want/need. Let’s come through for each other, both now and in the future. Trauma is an experience that threatens a person’s bodily, spiritual and emotional integrity. The psychological, emotional and somatic impacts extend beyond the experience of trauma. Healing is a process that looks different for each person. Let’s make space to care for all experiences of trauma and to respect those we care for. Let’s focus our energy on taking care of each other and ourselves. Let’s make [Sommers’] talk irrelevant in the face of our love, passion and power.’

If this letter is representative of intersectional feminism, then this is surely an ideology approaching its nadir. Its champions hold reason, scholarship, academic rigour and critical thought in contempt, while they re-cloth censorious spite and sanctimony as compassion. We are right because we care; you are wrong because you don’t. ‘It is important to underscore both that safety is a priority and that it’s not possible to be neutral about rape culture’, the letter runs. ‘A decision not to support survivors/victims is a decision to permit the actions of the perpetrators.’

If you are not with us, you are with the rapists. The gavel has come down. The sentence is public disgrace and excommunication from feminist politics and decent society. May God have mercy on your soul.

abuse, bias, bullies, censorship, culture, discrimination, education, extremism, feminism, first amendment, fraud, free speech, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism, scandal, sex, tragedy, victimization

Filed under: abuse, bias, bullies, censorship, culture, discrimination, education, extremism, feminism, first amendment, fraud, free speech, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism, scandal, sex, tragedy, victimization

Modern Feminism Means Forcing Your Wife To Work

original article: Modern Feminism Means Forcing Your Wife To Work
May 6, 2015 by Mollie Hemingway

USA Today published a column from Sean Dunbar, 32, who is married with two children. “Why I won’t let my wife quit her job” is about how Sean won’t “let” his wife quit working even though she would like to. It sounds like controlling spouses’ career decisions is a general problem with his friend set. He begins by noting that his “friends are telling their wives to quit their jobs and be stay-at-home moms.”

Sean says he makes decent money so his friends ask him why his wife works. The wife is always referred to as his, never by name. None of the women who are being forced to stay in the workforce or to leave the workforce are named in the piece. Sean concedes that if his wife were to stay at home with their children, it would have “many benefits for the entire family.”

But, he says, “I want better for my wife. Am I a bad man for wanting this?”

I mean, we’re all stained by sin, so Sean’s not particularly special by being a bad person. But yes, he’s a bad man! There are all sorts of problems with this attitude. Namely, Sean is spending a lot of time thinking about what he wants and not a lot about what his wife wants. He lists all the reasons why he wants her to work and so by the time you read in the piece that Sean’s wife specifically said she’d like to stay home with the kids, you want to send her a help line. This is the picture of the couple that accompanies the USA Today column.

NamelessBrideA friend sent the article to me with the note, “Area man doesn’t see he’s making decisions for his wife.” That he’s announcing the decisions he’s made for her under the claim of wanting “better” for her is particularly patronizing.

Sean says that other women look at him as if he’s insecure for wanting his wife to work. He admits he fears her staying home. He discusses how proud he is of how hard she fought for her college degree (working full-time and going to school full-time). He says that she’s proud of her college diploma and is a good worker. When she was pregnant with her second child, her mood began to change, though. He thinks it was because her bosses were concerned about maternity leave but it sounds like she simply wanted to raise her children:

She started asking me whether she could quit her job and stay home with the kids. I danced around the issue, telling her things would get better.

But my wife could not wait to have the baby and be done with work.

But what Mrs. Dunbar wanted was not relevant. See, Sean says he was “so afraid of my wife becoming stagnant,” which is, I guess, what he thinks of women who are homemakers. I am a stay-at-home mother, albeit one who has also worked full time for a few years, and trust me on this: the least stagnant I’ve ever been in my life was when I got to stay home to be with my children. They are a never-ending source of joy and challenges that are unmatched by any job I’ve ever held. Every day was different, unlike many years of office jobs I held. But yeah, Sean, thanks for the dig.

Sean’s wife is working a new job from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. and he says she loves it. He admits that making time for the kids is “just harder.”

His friends think he’s a jerk and he wonders, again, if he’s a bad man for making her work “even though she says she wants to stay home with the kids.”

He justifies this by saying he’s “terrified she’ll lose her drive,” which I think is a reference to how he values her only in terms of her market value.

Take this line:

The happiest times I have seen my wife (besides with the kids) is when she has achieved professionally. I don’t want her to look back and say, “I could have done ‘this’ with my degree.”

Isn’t that sad? He realizes she’s happier with their children but he is so focused on her (unstated) professional achievements that he denigrates that vitally important work of motherhood and fails to see how much women who stay home achieve in their home lives. There’s an old saw about how “no one ever says on his deathbed that he wished to spend more time at work.” But this conventional wisdom is becoming hate speech in an era where women are pressured to work full-time no matter if they want to or not.

Sean is a bundle of fears, saying he’s worried that if he doesn’t force her to work, she’ll feel inferior to him and resent him. And he goes on to note how much he hates women who raise their children at home:

More so, I think about our daughter. I don’t want her seeing mommy at home, thinking she needs to do the same because that’s what she grew up seeing.

I lay in our daughter’s bed at night, talking to her and listening to her dreams about going to Mars or being the first female president.

We don’t talk about her dreams of becoming a trophy wife or stay-at-home mom.

What the what? He equates raising one’s own children rather than paying someone else to do so with being a trophy wife? In what world does that make sense?

Anyway, let’s get to the end of this trainwreck:

A self-sufficient, independent professional also keeps a husband on his toes.

I mean, no offense, Sean, but you don’t really seem to be on your toes so much as on your back, on a digital therapist’s couch, telling the world about all of your greatest insecurities. And you’re making your wife — and your children — pay the price for your issues.

Listen, I’m sympathetic to the idea a husband would want his wife to work. Sometimes I talk to my husband about whether I could quit working and he strongly encourages me to keep working. But it’s because he genuinely thinks it’s good for me. And he doesn’t tell me what to do or make me do things against my wishes! And I don’t think I ever felt so valued as a woman as those early years with my children when I was so appreciated by my husband and babies.

This guy’s denigration of stay-at-home mothers combined with forcing his wife to work some 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. job against her wishes, shows how confused our messages to women are. It reminds me of when President Obama said of women who leave the workforce to raise their children, “That’s not a choice we want Americans to make.

Actually, women leaving the workforce to raise children is an excellent decision for a woman to make. Another important thing to remember is that this discussion should not be about simply full-time work or leaving the workforce. Some six in ten women with children at home say they’d like to work part-time. If it occurs to Mr. Dunbar to be so generous as to “allow” his wife such an arrangement, that might be the best of all worlds.

culture, family, feminism, freedom, ideology, left wing, liberalism, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, relativism

Filed under: culture, family, feminism, freedom, ideology, left wing, liberalism, oppression, philosophy, political correctness, progressive, relativism

Real rape culture on campus: the war on men

Another reason to separate school and state

original article: Columbia Univ. sued for supporting fake rape allegation
April 25, 2015 by streiff

Most of you have heard Emma Sulkowicz. She’s the rather homely girl, shown above in her natural environment, who has made a college career of lugging a mattress about campus as a way of commenting on sexual assault on campus. You see, Sulkowicz claimed that she, herself, was raped and the Columbia University did nothing about it.

In fact, Columbia and other authorities have cleared the young man with whom Sulkowicz is obsessed several times and they have done this even in the feminist dominated world of academia and under the impossibly low standards of proof required to convict in the Star Chambers/kangaroo courts that universities use to investigate these matters. Both parties were subject to confidentiality agreements. The young man kept his end of the bargain. Sulkowicz, unsurprisingly as it has turned out, did not. Rather she began a campaign of harassment that has driven the innocent man from college, achieve heroine status for herself among the hairy-armpit feminist set, and she got college credit for doing it. Because carrying a mattress to protest something that didn’t happen qualifies as performance art, much like covering yourself in chocolate syrup and beans sprouts. For instance, slightly bonkers NY Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)2% invited Sulkowicz to be her guest at the last Obama “State of the Nation” speech.

Via the New York Times

The lawsuit alleges that Jon Kessler, the professor who is named as a defendant, not only approved the project but also “publicly endorsed her harassment and defamation” of Mr. Nungesser.

“She is actively earning course credit from Columbia for this outrageous display of harassment and defamation,” the lawsuit says, with the school aware that “Paul’s legal rights are being violated and that his well-being and future prospects are suffering immensely.”

Ms. Sulkowicz is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit, which was filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan. The suit seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial for what it calls the harm caused to Mr. Nungesser’s reputation, and his loss of educational opportunities and future career prospects.

Mr. Nungesser’s suit only involves Columbia so Sulkowicz will not be able to testify. And by filing the lawsuit, he is able to tell his side of the story, something he had been prevented to do while Columbia colluded with Sulkowicz to paint him as a rapist. The lawsuit is here. Read it. Some of it is gold. For instance, this is Sulkowicz in mating mode:

nungesser-complaint1And Sulkowicz gives public health advice:

nungesser-complaint2

Fake rape seems to be the sign of sisterhood these days. You have the pudgy Lena Dunham claiming that an easily identifiable Oberlin student raped her. You have the fabulist at UVa conspiring with a polemicist from Rolling Stone magazine to smear and slander a fraternity. You have the Duke Lacrosse case. This is probably only the tip of the iceberg.

Conservatively, Sulkowicz is nuts and should be institutionalized. She enlisted at least two friends of hers to also accuse Nungesser of rape and she filed a false complaint with the NYPD. Columbia grossly violated its own rules in how to handle complaints and it is probably going to be an expensive lesson to them in letting political correctness and feminist-weirdoism run amok. Unfortunately, Mr. Nungesser’s life is damaged, His academic career is probably over. He will forever be the guy this promiscuous woman accused, from the Pantheon of possibilities, of raping her.

abuse, bias, bullies, corruption, criminal, culture, discrimination, education, ethics, false, feminism, fraud, ideology, justice, left wing, liberalism, litigation, oppression, political correctness, progressive, relativism, scandal, sex, sexism, tragedy, victimization

Filed under: abuse, bias, bullies, corruption, criminal, culture, discrimination, education, ethics, false, feminism, fraud, ideology, justice, left wing, liberalism, litigation, oppression, political correctness, progressive, relativism, scandal, sex, sexism, tragedy, victimization

Lack of outrage at Letterman shows us the real war on women

original article: PC LETTERMAN’S REAL ‘WAR ON WOMEN
April 23, 2015 by Joseph Farah

There was David Letterman last week warming up his studio audience before airtime, preparing them for live laugh tracks for the show.

Apparently, not being prepared with any jokes he wanted to waste off air, he decided to react to questions from the group.

According to an account in the New York Post and other sources, the first one came from a college staffer who asked what advice the scandal-scarred funnyman would give to this year’s graduates.

Without missing a beat, what came to mind for the late-night host was these politically incorrect sage words of wisdom: “Treat a lady like a whore, and a whore like a lady.”

Huh?

This from a guy who panders to so-called “progressives” with uncanny consistency – referring to Rachel Maddow as “the smartest person in the world,” characterizing Michele Bachmann as a “whacko” and throwing softballs to Barack and Michelle Obama?

Scratch a so-called “progressive” and they reveal their true character.

Now, I’m 60 years old, and I have never heard that expression. I did not grow up as a sheltered Christian. I was a bomb-throwing lefty as a young man. But this is one of the most insulting proverbs I have ever heard in my life – particularly about women.

But Letterman will survive this little controversy unscathed – mark my words. Because he has paid his dues by paying homage to “progressive” causes and personalities over the years. He’s earned immunity. He can say whatever he wants. He’s got a get-out-of-jail-free card from the PC police. That he is retiring as host of his show is beside the point.

By the way, if it was a joke, it bombed. That’s how the world even knows about it.

This is the real Letterman, by the way. Don’t forget in 2009 the married comic was forced to admit having a series of affairs with female staffers. That didn’t matter to the radical feminist crowd either – any more than Bill Clinton’s sexual predatory behavior, including at least one credible allegation of rape, did.

He, too, had earned “progressive immunity.” So did his wife who helped him cover it all up. She still does, as she carries on about the “war on women.”

We’ve learned the saying uttered by Letterman is a throwback to another age, first attributed to 1930s screenwriter Wilson Mizner. But it’s those quick retorts that often reveal more about a person’s character than the scripted material he’s used to following.

When the zinger fell flat, Letterman tried to recover by urging future alums to “eat a lot of salad” and always be nice, said one person present in the studio.

Nice try, Letterman. Quick comeback.

Think about what that saying really means: It suggests nice women want to be treated like tramps. It turns women into sex objects. It’s disgusting. I can say that as the father of five daughters. One doesn’t need to be a feminist.

Interestingly, I haven’t seen the NOW gang jump on Letterman. That makes my case. If you say Rachel Maddow’s the smartest person in the world, you can get away with being a misogynist.

Personally, I think it’s time to judge people on the basis of what they do and what they say in unguarded moments behind closed doors rather than by the carefully rehearsed patronizing political pabulum they spew.

But keep in mind, it’s not just Letterman. You will see this behavior throughout Hollywood. They love everything that smacks of progressivism, but watch what they do behind closed doors. I’ve seen it firsthand. I’ve been there. The hypocrisy is palpable. And nobody seems to care.

bias, bigotry, corruption, cover up, culture, Democrats, elitism, ethics, feminism, hate speech, humor, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, pandering, political correctness, progressive, relativism, scandal, sexism

Filed under: bias, bigotry, corruption, cover up, culture, Democrats, elitism, ethics, feminism, hate speech, humor, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, liberalism, pandering, political correctness, progressive, relativism, scandal, sexism

Pages

Categories

February 2017
M T W T F S S
« Jan    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728