Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Gender Issues » Feminst faith

Category Archives: Feminst faith

Advertisements

Jason Wilson can’t stand Milo Yiannopoulos

This is probably going to be long.
It stems very much from a conversation I have been having with Jason over twitter where he insisted to me that his purpose with this piece was to be a reporter frankly I don’t buy that claim for a minute because the essay I am going to critique is anything but journalism. Its a far left polemic in defense of the left wing  ideology  that Wilson is so invested in.

DePaul University Tour Shut Down by Protestors, Lead by Self-Styled Free Speech Warrior Milo Yiannopoulos

This is the title is certainly not a good start. In the first instance it is so clumsily worded that you could be forgiven for thinking that Yiannopoulos was the one shutting down the university tour rather than the Black lives matter activists who were the interrupters. Hang on tight dear readers because the things only get worse from here on in. for those interested Milo put up the vision for the De Paul incident at nearly two hours long its a bit of a grind to watch but it is interesting in the context of this essay


Yiannopoulos and his fans once again did not prove to be as robust as their rhetoric.

 

At DePaul, the self-styled free speech warrior and his fans once again did not prove to be as robust as their rhetoric. When protesters arrived they begged for the intercession of cops, and cartoonish redpill tough guy Matt Forney complained about being manhandled.

What would you expect any speaker to do if their event was interrupted? Get the audience to beat up the hecklers? You can’t have it both ways when the police  are tasked with keeping order and they fail to do this it is reasonable to be less than happy about it.

Nevertheless, the event received the usual hagiographic treatment on Breitbart and the Daily Caller, and once again Yiannopoulos was able to portray himself as the alt-right’s courageous truth-teller.

Which begs the question “is Milo telling the truth here?” Personally I would say that he is  but lets see if  Wilson even explores that question here

He was fortunate, in a way. On his current US campus tour, alleged threats to his free speech, and the back and forth between Yiannopoulos and his antagonists have been the only thing sustaining interest in the whole enterprise.

Hmm lets see If you hive a hall or lecture space and have your ability to perform is compromised by “activists” then isn’t that by definition his free speech being denied?

I know because I attended a Milo event at which there was no left reception committee. When he appears unchallenged, the Milo show is the dampest of squibs.

At the University of Oregon, where I saw him, it was not clear that he was especially grateful for the platform, or the lack of interruptions.

“Your professors are cunts, on the whole,” he tells the mostly student audience in an almost-full auditorium, “limp-wristed, pacifistic, sandal-wearing weirdos.”

It goes on like this for hours – the epithets are relentless and the provocations artless.  Without hostile interruptions, Yiannopoulos’s act, which unfortunately relies entirely on him speaking, is a one-note affair.

So much for Wilson as a reporter!  So much for Wilson as the man with a handle on the online traditions of shit posting and mischief making .

The Oregon engagement begins, like the others, with a one on one interview. Tonight his interlocutor is the co-president of the local branch of Young Americans for Liberty, who are sponsoring the evening. Then comes an open question and answer session, and Milo finishes up by giving fans an opportunity to take selfies with one of the right’s rising stars.

Its a tour around many campuses and were it any other type of tour there would not be any complaint about it having a running order or even a script that if followed on any of the legs of the tour.

But right now, that’s a long way off. First, we have to wade through the redpill boilerplate that constitutes Milo’s political views.

“There is an assault in this country”, he informs his interviewer, “on straight white men”, waged by “middle class women and cucks.” In this case the latter is being used to describe male feminists, who “don’t need to be castrated, they’ve done it themselves.”

Moving onto rape culture, which he considers a myth, he asks, with a theatrical moan, “Is there anything worse than consent?”

Wilson makes no secret of his disdain for Milo’s opinions, as is his right, however he undermines his own argument here by not even exploring the possibility that Milo has both the facts and the truth on the side of his talking points here. Wilson simply accepts all of the feminist orthodoxies without a single question

These opinions are odious, of course, but in another way utterly banal. Most adults will find Yiannopoulos’s show exactly as transgressive as a dirty joke told by a racist uncle. He wants desperately to cause deep offence to the left, and with some campus-based comrades, he clearly succeeds. Others will struggle to muster an eye-roll. I’ve heard pithier put-downs of progressives on Australian bar stools.

Why are his opinions “odious” would be an obvious thing to follow the opening claim of this paragraph but instead of that Wilson goes for that old favorite of the progressive the ad hominiem argument. The thing is having watched a lot of Milo’s shtick in his you tube vids he clearly gets a good response to his talk, his interviews and debates all show him to be witty clever and generally amusing. He may not be funny to the cohort of Wilson and his friends but as they are  among the targets of Milo’s sarcasm, satire and wit it would be surprising if Wilson and his friends enjoyed being so mercilessly mocked.

So why are all these other people laughing?

After all, even if you agree with this stuff, there’s not much here that’s new. Milo described the alt-right, for which he as a kind of spokesman, as a group which is “young, creative and eager to commit secular heresies”.

But anyone who’s ever listened to Michael Savage or Mark Levin, or even waited around in a small-town barber shop has already encountered all of this guff at punishing length. If there’s a difference, it’s purely a matter of presentation.

Students of the art of humor will tell you that there are only a handful of proto -jokes and all of  the huge  lexicon of laughs derive from this small seed, so its not always what you say as much as how you tell them  Milo’s shtick works because he is a consummate communicator and his audience likes what he says. Wilson is simply unable to do likewise because of his own political baggage and intellectual  investment in left wing progressive ideology.

His core politics are similar to those of the mens rights movement – he hates feminists and claims they’re waging a war on the *real* victims, men. But everyone on the American right pretty much agrees with this. He calls lesbians names and questions whether there should be further Muslim immigration. But these are not novel sentiments either.

On the subject of feminism this interview with Dave Rubin explains far better  what it is about contemporary feminism that deserves scorn and strong criticism. Wilson’s vilification and character assassination is based on the faulty belief that Milo objects to the now achieved (in western countries) goals of first and second wave feminism.

For sheltered campus conservatives in provincial college towns, though, it all sounds terribly naughty, even revolutionary. Not because of what’s being said, which is “redpill”  boilerplate, but because of who is saying it.

Has Wilson not heard of the internet?

In an irony whose full implications escape his audience – who are not, on the whole, well-attuned to such things – his identity is the only real value he adds to an otherwise bog-standard litany of complaints.

Its seems to me that Wilson can not cope with the idea that am  man can be both Gay and conservative

The conservative ecosystem is variously populated by talk-radio mastodons; dessicated, reptilian columnists; and near-vegetative think-tankers with about as much charisma as their lanyards. In this Jurassic world, Milo can self-consciously promote himself as something disruptive and new.

For someone who claims to be a “reporter” his political allegiances are doing great deal of harm to his objectivity

Of course, he’ll say he’s also bringing glamour. But as has been  pointed out, the guy dresses like something out of a “Hey, kids!” PSA, or Poochie.

If Wilson’s profile picture is anything to go by Wilson would not qualify as  any sort of fashionista himself, that said though if one takes the time to review Milo’s various media appearances its clear that the man is actually quite good at dressing for the occasion, most serious events will see Milo wearing a well cut suit but on the current tour he can of course be more frivolous.

Tonight, in pink t-shirt, bling, gaudy trainers and lightly distressed denim, he looks like he’s beamed in from the “boys casual wear” section of a decade-old Macy’s catalogue. Only the buttoned-down Randroids who run YAL could think that his frosted tips and ostentatious indoor sunglasses are anything other than normcore-gone-wrong.

Its called dressing for the occasion Mr Wilson and playing the game of political performance. Frankly I would have thought that  asocial media pundit such as your self would understand that all politics is a performance art-form then again I can’t help thinking that Wilson would be lauding any “progressive” using Milo’s tactics here maybe this explains Wilson’s clear rancor  because he simply can’t get his head around anyone other than one of his fellow progressives being so able to exploit the social media the way that Milo so clearly does.

The really entrancing thing for America’s reactionary dweebs and young fogeys is hearing this from a gay, British man in his thirties, rather than say, Rush Limbaugh.

It means that for an hour or two, they can put aside their niche anxieties about creeping sharia, or who is using which public restroom, and imagine that they are part of something subversive.

What Wilson fails to understand here is that while his progressive cronies have long held the upper hand in social discourse on the campuses of first world universities  to be a conservative and to be openly Gay about it IS a subversive act just as much as being a communist was for my own generation

The bonus is that even in making this pitch, he comforts his audience with the knowledge that they don’t have to take the political demands of other LGBT people seriously. He drops hints that deep down, he hates queers as much as they do.

NO there is simply not any hatred for “LGBT people” in play here Milo does not “Hate Queers” either on the surface or deep down. His take on is is quite sane and very grown up He enjoys being a homosexual is the bottom line

One of his biggest applause lines in Eugene was the moment when he distanced himself from other gay men, averring that “the worst thing about being gays is other gays… They’re just such fucking fags.”

Its called being self deprecating and taking the piss out of your own subculture that Milo both endorses and celebrates

It’s all a bit like music hall for young tories: marginally risque but ultimately reassuring. It’s conservative all right, but not in the edgy way Yiannopoulos imagines it to be.

If only Wilson could understand that Conservatives are allowed to have a place in the polity that is not just to be the butt of progressive ire, and what Milo’s “Dangerous faggot tour” is really about is pointing out that conservatives no longer  have to be hiding  in the shadows of campus life any more, they don’t have to remain under the dishonest heel of political correctness  , kowtowing to the craziness of third wave feminist nonsense

In fact he’s just one of a long line of performers who exist to endorse the whole slate of garden-variety petty bourgeois prejudices. It’s dull work, I imagine, but there’s a steady market for those who can give it fresh nuance.

For now, he appears to be on a roll. From his start as a Breitbart writer and gamergate troll, he’s energetically barged his way into the dress circle of rightwing celebrity.

Those over tight progressive underpants are in evidence again with this claim mainly because I don’t think that an Ideological warrior like Wilson  cannot  imagine that any legitimate criticism of progressivism   is  possible. Nor do I think that Wilson has any understanding of Gaming or the Gamergate movement he so casually dismisses. I asked him on twitter if he was a gamer  and his response was to try to chnage the subject. so my guess is that his opinions all come from the likes of Anita Sarkesiain  and those of her ilk rather than him having any experience of the subculture or the experience of gaming

He now rubs shoulders with the likes of Ann Coulter, with whom he shares a performative, post-Trump antipathy to established movement conservatism. He’s successfully positioned himself as a member of the “alt-right”, a movement for which he drafted a manifesto which also functions as an apologia for the open anti-semitism and racism of that community.

Hmm I simply don’t see the antisemitism that Wilson is claiming, in fact most of the  antisemitism in the western polity comes form the left in their apologia for Islam and the Jihadists.something that I have seen Wilson himself flirts with on twitter where despite me giving him ample giving him ample opportunities to denounce the inherent bigotry of Islam he could not bring himself to admit that Islam is hateful to Gays or women.

(During the evening, he retails the anti-establishment sentiments which are themselves now de rigeur on the right, saying that “the Republican Party needs to be torn up, burnt to the ground and rebuilt”.)

The hustle has been competent enough to secure the greatest reward that a bogus generational spokesman can reap: a profile in the New York Times magazine. And now, he’s on a US tour, bringing his fabulous brand of bigotry to America’s universities.

If there is one thing that is fabulous its the way that Wilson portrays anyone who offers a counter to the “progressive narrative” as bigotry, Question the Black lives matter narrative and in Wilson’s  view its bigotry, Question the silly claim that one in five students will be raped and its bigotry,  In fact its seems clear to me he is just over invested in the “progressive” orthodoxy and he is terrified of having to rethink any of that he just digs his heels in and calls people names because its

In Eugene, around 350 prople show up (at DePaul, Breitbart claimed there were 500, but they have a habit of talking their employee up). A solid three quarters of those in attendance were men. Given Milo’s obsession with detailing what he sees the failings of women – especially feminists, lesbians, and those who aren’t thin – it’s no surprise that his events are such sausage-fests.

Would Wilson care if a Feminist had a predominately female audience or would he disparage a majority female audience as a  “vag-fest” or some other derogatory term of a cohort of women ?

Indeed, the passages of the evening in which he talks about the many women that he doesn’t like are one of the few times that a genuine emotion – disgust – rises to the surface of his camp repartee.

When he describes lesbians as “horrendous, quivering masses of horror”, described feminism as “cancer”, he’s practically spitting. It’s the kind of vituperation you don’t usually employ unless you’ve encountered a real threat.

Like so many on the progressive side of politics Wilson has no sense of humor and no understanding that the anti-lesbian shtick  is all part of Milo’s performance. As I have found in my own interactions with Wilson to him its  inconceivable that  any thing that a conservative says or does will not have some malign intention or purpose. Essentially he lacks any generosity towards conservatives and only sees them as a class enemy to be denounced.

I don’t know, or much care, whether Milo Yiannopoulos’s own contempt for women is a mask for fear. But he certainly appears to be answering to the fears of his audience.

This is utter rubbish from Wilson there is simply no reason to think that Milo has contempt for women nor does it follow that the audiences at his Dangerous faggot tour do either.

The sources of this disquiet are evident in the queues for the question and answer session, and later for selfies. It’s very clear in these moments that Milo’s core audience, his most devoted fans, are bewildered, young, reactionary, male nerds.

Once again Wilson shows his contempt for ordinary young men who have not taken up the progressive orthodoxy. That my friends is the core of the contradiction with in progressiveism It claims to be about inclusiveness and diversity unless you are a straight white man then you will be eternally the subject of scorn and derision

You get the vivid impression when you hear them talk that their antipathy to feminism has bloomed out of a much more intimate kind of frustration with the opposite sex. Unfortunately, they’ve come to the world’s worst source of dating advice.

Could anyone be more arrogant or more disparaging at a personal level than this? this is claim is all just an ad hom  fallacy writ large

During question time, men ask for and recieve counsel about how to deal with feminists challenging them in their personal lives, and Yiannopoulos commiserated with them about “the oppressive hegemony of social justice”.

Although I have not attended one of these events I have watched several on Milo’s and other you tube channels and this characterization of the Q & A session is simply wrong and the  questions and comments are as varied the people who attend

The whole ritual does no more than try to reverse the polarity of identity politics, insisting that actually, it’s white men who are oppressed. And the only way he can really make this case is to talk about class.

Wilson is correct that identity politics is a big issue for those who attend however in typical SJW style Wilson willfully misunderstands the arguments that are in play here.  The point is not to try to seize a better  place in the oppression hierarchy fro “white men” as he contends, but to dispute the entire social analysis of “oppression” that underpins the SJW  notions of identity politics that would demonize every one who is straight, white and male.

Thus, he talks about the “awful, awful, terrible, diseased, and damaged people lecturing and hectoring the working class” who have “rightly had enough of it”, and whose only hope of salvation is “President Donald Trump”.

Here I can to some extend share Wilson’s  concerns about the virtues of Donald Trump however I think that Wilson is sadly not detached enough  from his left wing obsessions to understand why Trump is popular. What that popularity boils down to is a rather refreshing refusal to kowtow to the conventions of Political correctness and if there is one thing that those on the right appreciate its anyone who will slash through the bindings that have come from identity politics and the deathly fear of giving offense, But to explore this topic in more detail I suggest that you go to this article which also looks at Milo’s Trump shows but it does so with a far more even hand.

The problem – apart from the fact that this is delivered in an upper-middle class British accent, and that his audience are mostly college kids – is that he’s not really offering the working class anything except the permission to dish out racial slurs and minimise rape culture.

To be frank I don’t buy into Wilson’s Marxist assumption that the audience are what would be “working class” or that Milo being English or “upper class” makes a blind bit of difference to  cut though to his audience. This is an audience who have grown up with the cultural diversity of YouTube and they simply do not care about Milo’s accent. Now would college students be what we in Australia would call working class because they (or their parents) are all paying to go to the colleges and that takes enough resources to place those audience members well and truly into the middle classes

He boasts about the scholarship scheme he’s set up for underprivileged boys, but he has nothing to say about the economy except hints of support for a Trumpian economic nationalism.

Why on earth does Wilson think that Milo should be any sort of economist?

In another hackneyed move, Yiannopoulos posits the “Working class” not as a product of structural economic inequality but as another kind of political identity, one that expresses itself in salty language and low-level sexual harassment.

Here I can’t honestly do better than recommend the Why people love Trump piece I previously linked to because it looks at the subject free from Wilson’s arrogant disdain for Milo and his audience.

This is the kind of caricature you can only believe in if you don’t actually know that many working-class people. Like every other right wing hack, Milo absolutely depends on the angst of wounded identity, and its quest for an alternative victimhood.

I am rather fond of arguing for a certain generosity when you discuss politics, that sort of generosity would have prevented Wilson’s unshakable urge to demonize anyone who is snot singing from the progressive play book as he does here. The thing that Wilson seems to miss entirely here is that its not about seeking “victimhood” at all its about saying instead that the labels and characterizations of the SJW narrative  are nonsense, broken and  or wrong.

The working class he spins fantasies about are exclusively white, because like every right wing hack, his principal concern is activating white male resentment. This rhetoric was developed precisely to divide the working class, and to keep them in their place.

The problem for Wilson here is that Milo is not working from the Marxist lens  that he himself see’s the world through. No is it about something as negative as activation of  anyone’s resentment. Its all about saying that we are all individuals rather than  just being elements in one group identity or another, its the classic libertarian positions that Milo is drawing on here, ones that value individual enterprise and self reliance. Sadly for a Marxist like Wilson this is just incomprehensible.

At one point Yiannopoulos offers something of a credo: “The only way to respond to outrage culture is to be outrageous”. It’s handy because it’s a good cover story for pursuing his real goal, which is no more or less than the getting of attention.

Milo makes no secret of his love of social provocation and were he of the left rather  than the right I am rather sure that Wilson would find this behavior to be praise worthy because  like a lot of lefties he thinks that social transgression belongs to his side of politics

But Milo Yiannopoulos is not outrageous, nor is he of himself especially dangerous. He’s just a wanker. When the Trump wave recedes, he may in time be regarded, along with the rest of the flotsam it deposited, as a curiosity. More likely, he’ll return to the mean and become one more right wing talking head in a perennially shallow talent pool.

Wilson is particularly humorless when it comes to anyone not from his own left wing tribe and here is a perfect example of his lack political generosity that puts him very much into the authoritarian left. Its obvious to anyone else that the title of Milo’s “Dangerous Faggot” tour is meant to be ironic and trangressive to the SJW tropes about the use of language as with the word “queer” Milo seeks to reclaim the word “faggot” here by taking what was a term of derision and making it something positive

The ideas he promotes are damaging, of course. He talks a lot about “the public square”, but the fruit borne of his adolescent attacks on feminism are likely to play out in more private spaces, where the most important negotiations about sex, consent, and equality happen.

But its not all of feminism that Milo rails against its just the man hating third wave feminism that has blossomed in contentment universities over the last couple of decades that actively seeks out offense and it is that brand of feminism that Milo describes as Cancer

God help the woman whose partner is a Milo fan. At the very best, she’ll have to listen to this horseshit on a loop. At worst, she’ll be living with someone who has the tools to rationalise selfishness, abuse, and even sexual assault.

Pardon me? Is Wilson really suggesting that being  a Milo fan is tantamount to being a wife beater? a rapist even? How shallow is Wilson?

What’s perhaps not considered often enough how much damage this nonsense does to those men who take it seriously. For one thing, it allows them to put off the day on which they grow up, and realise that the women who won’t sleep with them aren’t persecuting them, but making the kinds of choices characteristic of autonomous human beings.

No Jason that is utter  nonsense. Men who “listen” to the argument against the SJW tropes do not become monsters and its not at all about disaffection because these men can’t get laid. In fact there is no evidence at all that those on the right are any less successful at finding sexual  partners than Wilson’s fellow lefties. Nor is he correct to assume that those men  on the libertarian right don’t see women as anything less that fully autonomous individuals just like themselves   That he thinks otherwise is actually a sad artifact of his own collectivist thinking.

So as derivative as this whole enterprise is, it may cause problems. What’s to be done?

DePaul’s progressives had one strategy – protest – which I do not plan to gainsay. That’s a decision for local activists to make based on what’s happening on their campus.

So left wing “protest goo”d in Wilson’s mind

There’s been more than enough hippie-punching in recent months directed at those who protest at public events that attract the far right, and I don’t propose to add to it. Protesting serves many purposes: publicly articulating common positions, building comradeship, and making claims or counter-claims on public space. There should be more of it.

Unless of course its anti SJW  protest, then its bad and should be confronted.. Hmm OK

It’s true, though, that on those occasions like the night in Eugene, where he is not met by protesters, Milo seems forlorn. His schtick goes limp; he’s revealed as a one-trick pony.

When a young man, identifying himself as a feminist, spoke up against him, Milo whisked him onto the stage for an extended chat. Briefly, the evening was enlivened, though no one was enlightened, because Milo doesn’t argue in good faith. But he knows that the audience comes for the fireworks.

This bit of Wilson’s piece shows just how little this left wing warrior respects the core value of democracy which revolves around a robust exchange of ideas.  That Milo is willing to engage with and debate his opponents is not just “schtick ” its an example of his confidence in his argument. Nor is it ever the case that democratic discussions ore as one dimensional as Wilson implies here. There is simply nothing wrong or awry  for a polemicist to make their events entertaining with a little bit of drama. Wilson needs to lighten  up a great deal.

Absent opposition, it’s harder to convince supporters that he’s bravely overturning PC shibboleths and taking it to the SJWs.

Not in the age of social media it isn’t even if the event at Portland was lacking in “fireworks” ( it has been the exception rather than the rule for the “Dangerous faggot tour”)  all that it shows is that the SJWs there are rather less bolshie than at other universities on the itinerary

Perhaps the decision by students at the University of California, Irvine, to offer a counter-event to Milo’s visit offers a promising way to deal with this nuisance.

When it comes to the right, “ignore them and they’ll go away” is generally bad advice, but skipping the Milo show, and using it as  to build something positive sounds like something that could also build the left ahead of the Summer of Trump.

Thus Wilson ends with whimper  here rather than a roar but that is hardly surprising given that Wilson has done nothing but give us an an extended ad hominiem attack on both Milo Yiannopoulos and the young Trump supporters who have been finding the Gay man  so engaging. To Wilson they are just the class  enemy rather than men and women who have as much right as his fellow lefties to be involved with the issues and  debates  about their society. In fact Wilson’s piece is an almost perfect example of why Donald Trump is  more than likely to be elected President. What we are seeing here is a whole movement of young people who are refusing to see that the SJW emperor is wearing a fine well tailored set of threads. They are trusting their senses and they are daring to speak the truth about the regressive left’s saggy arse that is in the breeze on so many issues, Things like the Myth of “rape culture” and other third wave feminist tropes are being seen clearly and actively denounced, Likewise the  willful blindness about the ideology of Islam that I have found Wilson himself guilty of is something that more and more people are no long willing to accept, especially after the horrendous slaughter at the Pulse night club.  Finally though I just want to say that  this  essay is not intended to be any sort of personal attack on Wilson himself I  have brought this humble blog out of its hiatus in part because I want to demonstrate to Jason Wilson that I have read and understood his piece but mainly I wanted to substantiate my suggestion to him on twitter that the “Why people love Trump” is a far better piece of journalism than the missive I have been considering here.

Advertisements

Lying bitch lies

I like women, I have more female friends than friends who are male  but that does not mean that I am ignorant of what they used to call “feminine whiles”, you know the way that women are so adept and getting what they want  from the men in their lives.  So with that in mind I offer to the sand pit’s readers this ratehr amusing Vid from Diana Davidson:

Cheers Comrades

Dalia Dippolito may be physically attractive but that exterior hides a rather nasty personality...

Dalia Dippolito may be physically attractive but that exterior hides a rather nasty personality…

Femnazi follies

Thanks to face book I discovered this nice article by my favourite Marxist:

When conservative Christian women demanded the censure of rude art and entertainment in the 1970s and 80s, they were roundly mocked by radicals.

Now the same radicals, most notably feminists, are engaged in the exact same policing of morality and destruction of culture that offends their sensibilities.

Other feminists in Britain are agitating for bans on “lads mags” and the removal of Page 3 girls from The Sun. In the US, feminists have made waves during the past month with their scaremongering about sex on campus.

At the end of October, at universities across the US, feminist students came out in solidarity with a Columbia student who wanted a male student who she claimed raped her expelled from university — even though a disciplinary hearing found him not guilty and the police said there was no case.

In a creepy echo of Stalin’s favoured method of dealing with deviants, feminists want him thrown out of university on the basis of one woman’s accusations. This is genuinely shocking.

Other American campuses have instituted their own sexual-assault courts, which don’t comply with the rigorous rules of normal justice yet which have been used to expel students suspected of assault. As American civil libertarian Wendy Kaminer says: “Once, authoritarian, right-wing officials hunted down suspected communists on campus … Today, authoritarian, left-wing officials are targeting alleged sexual predators on campus, with similar disregard for civil liberty.”

Taken together, all these recent feminist ventures speak to a movement that has become deeply censorious and unjust, riding roughshod over free speech and due process. Feminism is no longer a women’s liberation movement — it’s a women’s authoritarianism movement. Under the new tyranny of feminism, anyone who possesses allegedly warped views or produces saucy culture could potentially find themselves cast out of public life.

Women’s lib no longer on agenda of today’s authoritarian feminists     Brendan O’Neill

Women’s lib no longer on agenda of today’s authoritarian feminists
Brendan O’Neill

Its an argument that is so sadly too true as my run-ins with various feminists has shown, Sanctimony is their stock in trade these days along with misandry and a boorish desire to shut down anyone who dares challenge their orthodoxy.
Cheers Comrades
stir

Teenage hook-up sex leaves feminism behind arse up

By SockPuppet (a interested party)

Hi there allyou long suffering Sock fans who have waited so long for my return to Chez Hall. Well here Iam back for another chameleon performance a curtain call or a whole newseries – takeyour pick. I dunno if I will stay or go but I just I thought it was about time you were given a pickmeup dose of what the Sock does best – you know the polioemic polarisation of the blogging world.

Now what subject I hear you ask would so grab my attention and interest that it would stir me from my den of inequity caravan with the lovely Laura to write another groundbreaking cuttingedge peace of literatti genius? What? Well bloody sex of course you idiots. And thats what Im here to talk about:

S.E.X.

And lotsofit.

Well lots ofit for some people…..Especially the young people or so it seems. Here is my groundbreaking peace on Sex and the modern teenager and how feminism has gone arse about on itself. Below.

I mean on the line below the …………… (dots)

………………………………………………………………………..

Hook-up-girls

I have to wunder how dumb some people are when it comes to the old saying of “be careful what you wish (or push) for” because it might not turn out to be so f*ucken great afterall.

Just look at 40-sumthing feminist journo Wendy Squires from the SMH. Wendy has gone out and studied the sexual habits of young people today for a book shes writing about … well about young peoples sex habits of course. And she is just so saddened and worried that young girls today are having multiple sex partners without even a real date let alone a relationship and this is not what she had in mind for the feminist future cos she reckons the girls are just being sluts and its all the fault of young men who look at porn. Go figure.

Hear is what she found (I apologise for reproducting most of Wendy’s piece here but its necessary cos the devil is in the detail my friends):

Speak to sexually active teenage girls today, as I have been lately while researching a book, and it is evident that many feel the only means they have to beguile men is through sex. And even then, they feel a need to be overt with their flirt.

All those too-tight, too-short and too-low dresses aren’t, as I once thought, what girls wear to be appear fashionable to their female peers. They wear them, I’m informed, to look sexy to men.

Whoa, stop right there. You thought girls dress like that to appeal to there girlfriends? Did you think they were like all lesos or something? Its news to you that girls like to look sexy for men? Sheez. Read on:

‘‘I don’t really care what my friends wear out,’’ one young lady told me, ‘‘unless it makes them look hotter than I do.’’

‘‘You have to be hot to attract a guy,’’ another 16-year-old girl asserted. ‘‘If you don’t look sexy, then they won’t think you are interested in them.’’ And once you attract said guy? ‘‘You need to have sex with them. If you don’t, they’ll just go with someone who will.’’

One just-turned-17-year-old, who will remain anonymous so her mother doesn’t kill her and then me, confessed that she has had sex with seven guys ‘‘so far’’. One she considered a boyfriend, because they went out for three months. The others? All ‘‘hook-ups’’.

Stop #2: So lets see – she has Just turned 17 and had 6 insta-fucks with hook-ups already? That’s good going girlie and at that rate by the time your 20 you will have about 50 notches on your belt. What a catch you will make for some bloke one day – any thoughts of ever getting married and having kids with someone? Think again. Back to the fem journo:

A hook-up, it seems, doesn’t normally entail even eye contact, that blush-inducing chemistry when spotting someone attractive across a crowded room. Instead, I’m assured, a hook-up can start on a dating app such as Tinder and often entails posting a sexy selfie and then volleying some flirty texts back and forth, often soon followed by a photo of a would-be date’s erect penis.

This last part I found hard to believe, naively assuming that young men today were as awkward and embarrassed about their bodies as they were in my day. That was until several of the girls I spoke to pulled out their smart phones to show me said photos, with one girl exclaiming upon seeing an erect member on her friend’s screen, ‘‘I think I got sent that too!’’

Stop again – I think Wendy shoulda thought about that last line with the exclamation mark she added making it read like the girl said ”I think I got sent that tool”. Well she did didn’t she? You can carry on reading now:

From there, I learn, the hook-up – a face-to-face meeting – occurs, which usually entails sex. ‘‘Usually just oral,’’ one young girl reassured me, seeing no irony in the ‘‘just.’’ ‘‘Everyone does it!’’” she added with eye-roll upon witnessing my obvious horror.

‘‘Why would you meet up with them if you’re not going to have sex?’’ another says, in a tone that implies I am way down the spectrum of coolness. ‘‘That’s just teasing.’’

Comment break: “Usually JUST oral”? Oh I see if you just give a bloke a blowjob it doesn’t count? It counts for him young lady. Back to the story:

‘‘But, don’t you worry that this is all too much, too soon? That you’ll wind up jaded or regret your choices?’’ I splutter, unable to contain myself. Rightfully, I receive an earful in response.

‘‘And you call yourself a feminist!’’ one young friend admonished. ‘‘Now girls are acting like men always have, there’s supposed to be a shame around it. How hypocritical!’’

It is true I find this issue a conundrum, one that tests my own moral boundaries and ethics. As a feminist, I agree I should be supporting young women to live their lives the way they wish; reinforcing the idea that it is their bodies and their choices.

Whoa, whoa and whoa again there Wendy. Another break and groundbreaking comment is needed here:

Deary when you say “As a feminist, I agree I should be supporting young women to live their lives the way they wish ..blah, blah and blah….” what you are really saying (to there ears and unformed brains) is this:

“I support young women becoming young sluts and degrading themselves by having sex with as many blokes as they like within a few minutes of meeting them (oh after seeing their cocks on there phones of course)”.

Thats the message they get lady – they are not exactly Einsteins remember? Back to Wendy:

But, perhaps because I have also have been talking to a lot of young men lately who are either participating in or witnessing hook-up culture, I must confess I am left in despair.

From what I’m hearing, young men are happy to participate in casual sex and claim they are still friends with lots of girls they have ‘‘been’’ with. However, ask if they would consider any of them as girlfriend material and a vast majority respond with a vehement ‘‘no way’’.

‘‘I would never go out with a girl who’s been with my mates,’’ one 17-year-old told me. His friend, 19, agrees. ‘‘No guys go out with girls who screw around.’’

Comment intervention time again:

Oh, I have some news for you Wendy – blokes have always thought that way about girls who give it out so freely. Didn’t you know? Or did you think blokes would/should respect girls who fuckalot and don’t care who with and how often? Wendy continues:

Now, before I get inundated with protests and/or abuse on Twitter, let me say that, yes, I understand this is not all kids today and, yes, I am painting my snapshot of the situation with broad brush strokes.

But I will not apologise for saying I find it beyond sad that sexuality has been reduced to the sexual act itself. That the trust, tenderness and affection that I was offered in my sexual first encounters is not always afforded to girls today by porn-educated young men (most of the girls I spoke to admitted they are yet to have an orgasm from a sexual encounter). That there is not always a sense of appreciation that comes with such intimacy.

While I think it is commendable that young women feel in charge of their bodies and lives, I do wonder whether it comes at the cost of what is at our feminine core, whether through nature or nurture, and that is a desire to feel secure and respected in our romantic relationships.

Wait up there Wendy: So you think its all the fault of the “porn-educated young men” and that is why young girls are putting out so easily and not even having orgasms just sex for sex’s sake cost thats what guys are making them do? Look deary, here is some more news for you:

Young men have ALWAYS wanted sex with every half attractive chick they meet. Nothing has changed in that respect porn or no porn, Tinder or no tinder and mobile phones with photos of there cocks or not. Do you geddit? Blokes will have sex if girls let them. That is the way it has always been and will always be.

Here is some more news for you honey:

No one made these girls give insta-fucks and blowjobs on the spot to these young men they hardly know. No one except them and maybe you and your kind who told them it was okay to have sex like men (or sex like the ‘Sluts in the City’ show what was on TV).

And finally Wendy wraps it all up:

Of all the young girls I’ve spoken to recently, I’d say 90 per cent told me they want to get married and have kids one day. All implied they are aware that men are less likely to commit than in generations past, yet all still wanted to be an exception to this rule.

Few believe their actions now will reduce their chances of this happening, and I sincerely hope it is the case. More than that, I hope they don’t end up feeling powerless when it comes to love.

Well Wendy you pushed for sexual equality remember?

This IS what you and your fellow feminists wished for honey, a generation of girls whose only hope of having kids is to get themselves knocked up and bring up the kid as a single mum (thats happening a lot already btw).

Either that or find some less-than-a-real-man loser who actually falls ‘in love’ with one of these slackers and marries her even though she does not and cannot love him back on account of shes basically (and literally) f*cked her own value and self worth to death.

You see Wendy here is the real truth.

The reality.

The fundamental law of the men v women world that you and these young slags have either forgotten or never bothered to work out in the first place.

Here it is.

On the next line:

Real men do not respect or marry girls who have no respect for themselves and who fuck around like men do.

No that is not sexist … it is truth.

(PS: I showed this to Laura and she agreed but says she does not care. Shes a slut and she knows it. She does not want kids just more Bundy & Coke and lots of sex with lots of guys – and girls. Now even I can respect that type of honesty)

(PPS: Iain you dont have a ‘sex’ category – am I in the right place?

Equal opportunity in education regardless of gender does not require equal numbers from each gender into science and mathematics

Click for source

Click for source

Pieces like this one which headlines today’s Brisbane Times and they usually take the same approach of suggesting that it is some sort of social tragedy if we can’t get more girls to study science to the nth degree. I think that this is a reflection of an unrealistic feminist dogma. Simply put this brand of Feminist thinking argues that unless women filling half of the places in every profession then the patriarchy is still dominating our society. Its the stuff of nonsense because it assumes that men and women are precisely the same in the way that their brains are “wired” and that women and men all have the same proclivities   for subjects such as science and mathematics.

Ah do I hear you thinking “Iain Hall is a dinosaur who thinks women are lesser creatures”? well that is not the case at all but I think that feminists like Natalie Bochenski  should be contented with the fact that those women and girls who want to devote themselves to science can do just as the boys and men in our society who want to be the primary care givers for their children can follow that path. As I see it the important thing here is that individuals can choose their own path with their choices unrestricted by the contents of their underpants. We have got to that stage in our society and I for one am very grateful that my daughter  could be anything she pleases, in this country there is no profession that a woman is excluded from because of her gender. That is how it should be. However we should likewise not be concerned if young women choose not to do science or engineering. Just as we should not be concerned if our young men want to go into professions traditionally the preserve of women, like early childhood teaching or nursing do not do so in the same numbers as women do.

In an ideal society we should encourage all individuals to play to their strengths free of the ideological preconceptions of feminist dogma and while I will happily cheer and endorse the women who succeed in science and  mathematics  I won’t lament that they are a minority of their gender and frankly those who do are being utterly stupid.

Cheers Comrades

we are all equal in our humanity

we are all equal in our humanity even when we differ in our abilities.

Wasting police time

False accusations of rape are something that the Feministas  will insist are so rare as to be of no consequence  but as I have explored at this blog previously it is a serious matter and something that can not be ignored for ideological reasons.  Now it turns out that a supposedly nasty rape reported in Sydney  was in fact entirely fictitious and that only after an exhaustive and expensive investigation by the police  has the claim been exposed as a total fabrication:

click for source

click for source

The only upside here is that no poor sod has been dragged in to be interrogated and accused of a crime that he did not commit, however the amount of time and resources that have been expended by the police would have been quite considerable, not to mention the fear an loathing felt by women in western Sydney at the thought of a gang of men out there targeting  lone  women at night should not be under estimated…

So what sort of consequences should this stupid, stupid girl face for her fabricated claims?

A bill for the cost of the wasted  police time perhaps?

A community corrections order?

A stint in one of Her Majesty’s fine hotels?

Being named and shamed?

Sadly I tend to think that she will get off Scott free and still considered a “victim” rather than as a perp

Tis the way of the world Comrades

female_convict-lg

Equal in their humanity.

This is certainly worth a watch by anyone who values the concept that both men and women are equal in their humanity.

Cheers Comrades

6284518638_42b8023db9

Labor needs a VERY big spoonful of sugar

Spoonful

If ever there was a staple in the topical diet of politics tragics it would have to be the ever present reporting of opinion polling. To may mind they are rather like the rolled oats of  our political diet, bland and ubiquitous but still rather filing and nourishing. So of course we all pour over each iteration of this stalwart of our democratic process. If the poll shows  “our” team performing well then we tend to think that it must be right on the money and if it shows our team in the poo we tend to  find reasons to dismiss its results, for instance  my friends from the left love to claim that because phone polling  is only done to land line numbers then it is naturally biased towards the older demographic who are not totally devoted to cell phones like the younger brethren, this of course (according to their argument) means that such polling “naturally” has a “conservative” bias. When things get truly desperate for your team you can always fall back on the tried and true  “the only poll that matters is the one on election day” side step of the issue but I doubt that anyone really every buys that line.

click for source

click for source

Apart from a very brief Indian summer late last year Gillard and her administration have been consistently in disfavour with the voting public and the only raisin in the porridge has been a very slim hope that the personal unpopularity of Tony Abbott may just save them, especially when it comes to his perceived problems over the so called “women’s issues” things like abortion and women in the workforce were the one thing that have been sugaring the Labor tragic’s oats and sadly now they are discovering that the sweetness they though was nourishing sugar was in fact saccharine.

As Julie Andrews reminds us a spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down  however when the medicine is this bitter there is no spoon on the planet big enough to sweeten the  brew that Labor and its true believers will be supping on up to and beyond the election on September 14.

Cheers Comrades

stir

%d bloggers like this: