Counterculture Con HQ

October 4, 2011

The Gender Benders: Google+ offers Male, Female, and “Other”

A world with no gender

I learned something new today: PGP.  Preferred Gender Pronoun.  It’s for those days when you wake up in the morning and you aren’t sure whether you want to be a boy or girl.  Which is where the new social networking site Google+ comes in handy.  Aren’t sure what your sex is?  Simply sign in as “Other”.  That’s choice!  That’s freedom!  No limits baby!  From the New York Times:

The Freedom to Choose Your Pronoun

A FEW weeks ago, Katy Butler, 16, updated her status on Facebook with an enthusiastic shout-out for Google+, the social network’s latest rival. “Oh my God Google! I love it! I was signing up for Google+ and they asked me my gender and the choices were male, female or OTHER!!!!! Oh ya Google!”  Katy, a high school junior in Ann Arbor, Mich., first encountered “other” as a gender option at a meeting of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning and Allies (LGBTQQA) in seventh grade. “For those of us in the nonconforming gender community, it is great to see Google make the option more mainstream,” she said.

Though Google created the “other” option for privacy reasons rather than as a transgender choice, young supporters of preferred gender pronouns (or P.G.P.’s as they are called) could not help but rejoice. Katy is one of a growing number of high school and college students who are questioning the gender roles society assigns individuals simply because they have been born male or female.  “You have to understand, this has nothing to do with your sexuality and everything to do with who you feel like inside,” Katy said, explaining that at the start of every LGBTQQA meeting, participants are first asked if they would like to share their P.G.P.’s. “Mine are ‘she,’ ‘her’ and ‘hers’ and sometimes ‘they,’ ‘them’ and ‘theirs.’ ”

P.G.P.’s can change as often as one likes. If the pronouns in the dictionary don’t suffice, there are numerous made-up ones now in use, including “ze,” “hir” and “hirs,” words that connote both genders because, as Katy explained, “Maybe one day you wake up and feel more like a boy.”  Teenagers are by nature prone to rebellion against adult conventions, and as the gender nonconformity movement gains momentum among young people, “it is about rejecting the boxes adults try to put kids in by assuming their sexual identity labels their personal identity,” said Dr. Ritch C. Savin-Williams, director of the Cornell University Sex and Gender Lab. “These teens are fighting the idea that your equipment defines what it means for you to be a boy or girl. They are saying: ‘You don’t know me by looking at me. Assume nothing.’ ”

Australia last month issued new passport guidelines allowing citizens to give their official gender as male, female or indeterminate. In Britain, the Home Office is also considering a third gender category on passports, according to reports.  In the United States, the transgender movement is beginning to find advocates in high schools. There are now nearly 5,000 Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs, high school organizations offering support to teenagers, registered with the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, a national organization whose mission is “to assure that each member of every school community is valued and respected regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.”

“More students today than ever are thinking about what gender means and are using this language to get away from masculine and feminine gender assumptions,” said Eliza Byard, the network’s executive director.  Some colleges, too, are starting to adopt nongender language.  Last month, students at Pomona College in Claremont, Calif., voted to edit the student constitution so that it contains only gender-neutral language. And in 2009, the University of Michigan Student Assembly passed a resolution eliminating gender-specific pronouns from the Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities.

Source

And they say Big Business is conservative?  Really???  lol  They aren’t even Republican, let alone conservative.

Here we have yet more proof that Leftism is the greatest threat to Western civilization since the bubonic plague.  Everything it promotes, it seems, take us one step closer to cultural oblivion.  Today’s example of their suicidal madness is the war the Left is waging on gender identity.  I’m not talking about the mere tinkering around the edges which was the shift in gender roles starting in the 70s.  You know, that women get to have a career and men help around the house.  Radical stuff back in the 70s, but how quaint that all seems today.  No sir, cutting edge 21st century Leftism is concerned with obliterating the very notion of gender itself.

The Left despises “distinctions”.  You see this contempt in their moral relativism which rejects absolutes, blurring the lines between good and evil (even rejecting the very notion of “evil”).  Distinctions, they believe, divide people and cause friction and strife.  The distinctions we see between nations must be eradicated because they cause conflicts and wars, and they imagine a world with no countries nor borders.  Gender distinctions oppress women and gays because these differences are the originator of gender roles and the “patriarchy”, so it too must be obliterated (which is ultimately why “gay marriage” is so heavily promoted even as they do everything in their power to undermine traditional marriage).  The Left doesn’t promote equality, it promotes sameness.

We often wonder what crazy kook cockamamie idea the Left will latch onto next after they win the battle for marriage. What will the Left declare as the next frontier of “progress”.  Polygamy?  Pedophilia?  Seems we now have the answer.  These are the same people, mind you, who seek to portray conservatives as “crazy” and “extremist” and “radical” because they want to protect and preserve the best of our Judeo-Christian civilization from these rapacious culture destroyers.  Could anything be more upside down?  I mean, wow.

And here the New York Times and Google, Inc.  (both Big Businesses) do their part to imagine a world with no sexes/genders.  This is the Left’s trajectory.  This is secular progressivism.  This is mainstream Liberalism today.

UPDATE:  And to further illustrate our point, Lefties celebrate gender bending as “art” here.

October 1, 2011

Temporary marriages, Gay Liberation, and the “Patriarchy”

Until death do us part?

Yet more proof that everything the Left does advances the clock of civilizational collapse.  I only had to read the headline to instantly realize the Left’s fingerprints were all over this one.

Mexico mulls 2-year marriage

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) – Mexico City lawmakers want to help newlyweds avoid the hassle of divorce by giving them an easy exit strategy: temporary marriage licenses.  Leftists in the city’s assembly — who have already riled conservatives by legalizing gay marriage — proposed a reform to the civil code this week that would allow couples to decide on the length of their commitment, opting out of a lifetime.  The minimum marriage contract would be for two years and could be renewed if the couple stays happy. The contracts would include provisions on how children and property would be handled if the couple splits.  “The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends,” said Leonel Luna, the Mexico City assemblyman who co-authored the bill.

“You wouldn’t have to go through the tortuous process of divorce,” said Luna, from the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution, which has the most seats in the 66-member chamber.  Luna says the proposed law is gaining support and he expects a vote by the end of this year.  Around half of Mexico City marriages end in divorce, usually in the first two years.  The bustling capital, one of the world’s largest cities, is much more liberal than the rest of the country, where the divorce rate is significantly lower although on the rise.

Abortion is legal in Mexico City, while the Supreme Court ruled this week to uphold state laws in Baja California that say life begins at conception.  Leftist Mayor Marcelo Ebrard, who angered the Catholic Church when he made Mexico City the first Latin American city to legalize gay marriage in late 2009, announced this month he would soon step down to run for president.  The church criticized the proposed change.  “This reform is absurd. It contradicts the nature of marriage,” said Hugo Valdemar, spokesman for the Mexican archdiocese. “It’s another one of these electoral theatrics the assembly tends to do that are irresponsible and immoral.”  The Church holds considerable sway in the country with the world’s second largest Catholic population after Brazil.

[.]

What "gay marriage" is ultimately about.

Hurray!  Divorce is even more hassle-free now.  So why are they doing this, you ask?  Because it promotes statism and the secular progressive value system.   This simultaneous promotion of gay marriage while undermining traditional marriage is all part of a larger plan in furtherance of their secular progressive utopia.  Leftism has always hated the institution of marriage as an instrument of oppression and the status quo.  They call it “the Patriarchy.”   Gay activist and atheist Martha C. Nussbaum puts it this way:

Gays and lesbians are a symbol, in much of the public imagination, for sex without reproduction, for the decoupling of marriage from commitment to raising a family in the traditional way, which has certainly been a male-dominated way. …The connection between recognition of gay unions and the erosion of traditional marriage is that if sex is thought to be available outside of the marriage bond, women will have fewer incentives to embark upon marriage and child rearing, and may not wish to do so if marriage continues to be a largely patriarchal and unequal institution.

Wow, that’s pretty blatant stuff.  You won’t often hear it so candidly put.  So it’s no coincidence that the same Mexican Leftists who legalized gay marriage in Mexico City are also behind this temporary idiocy.  And who suffers the consequences of these broken marriages of convenience in a country without a safety net such as Mexico?  Why, the children!  The children who then require the State to intervene as their surrogate daddy lest they end up on the streets and starve to death.  And if no such paternalistic state currently exists, why, then it shall be created!  See how they operate?  And now you know the ultimate reason why these Marxists are trying to destroy marriage and the “patriarchy.”

And of course, this is happening right under our noses but the dots aren’t being connected, so nobody even notices or cares.

UPDATE: Even the Huffington Post is now weighing in on this AWEMAZING idea!  And don’t neglect the comments section there which is always a pretty good barometer of just how far gone those people are.

September 29, 2011

Leftist Cranks say Racist Republicans Support Herman Cain (a black man) to Hide their racism

Filed under: Feminism, Race, Tea Party — Tags: — Jesusland @ 13:42

If I hear another liberal pull the race card, I think I am going to punch a baby. It’s pathetic, annoying, and anyone with half a brain can see right through it.  Here Janeane Garofalo bloviates with Ted Baxter:

“Herman Cain is probably well liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican party.”

Well, that’s kind of ridiculous considering it’s precisely those “racist elements” of the GOP which gave him the straw poll victory in Florida (i.e., the Tea Party).  Who are they trying to cover up for, themselves?  lol  Clearly, logic is not her strong suit.

“People like Karl Rove liked to keep the racism very covert.  And so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity say you can say ‘Look, this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look we have a black man.'”

Janeane is off her meds again.  Her first mistake is assuming that just because Tea Party favorite Herman Cain is black he therefore can’t be anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-female, etc.  He may even be a racist for all she knows.  In which case, he provides us no cover at all.  Which pretty much blows her theory out of the water, don’t you think?  lol

Of course, other than their accusations of racism, the race baiters never provide any actual evidence of racism.

August 4, 2011

Cultural Elite: The state will raise your children

Culture destroyer: Jennifer Aniston

Virtually everything modern Liberalism promotes today advances the clock of civilizational collapse.

Jennifer Aniston does not believe that women have to wait — or settle — for a man to start a family. Speaking at a Los Angeles press conference for her movie about artificial insemination, ‘The Switch,’ Aniston said that “times have changed” along with the idea of the traditional family. So if that means having one without the man in the picture, that’s okay.

“Women are realizing more and more that you don’t have to settle, they don’t have to fiddle with a man to have that child,” Aniston said. “They are realizing if it’s that time in their life and they want this part they can do it with or without that.”

“That,” of course, meaning the man. “It’s happening more and more,” said Aniston.
In ‘Switch,’ Aniston, 41, plays a woman who elects to take on life as a single-parent through artificial insemination. When questioned, the most famous single woman on the planet said she didn’t “have plans” to take the insemination option for motherhood at this time.

But she vigorously defended the rights of other single women going down that road.  Aniston even engaged in one testy exchange with a reporter who insisted that her movie character was being “selfish” having a child without a father-figure in her life. Minutes after the question was asked, Aniston circled back and insisted that family life has “evolved” from strictly “the traditional stereotype of family.”

“The point of the movie is, what is that which defines family?” Aniston said. “It isn’t necessarily the traditional mother, father, two children and a dog named Spot.”  “Love is love and family is what is around you,” she added.  Aniston also took issue with the word “selfish” in terms of the single woman moving ahead with the decision to have a child.  “I don’t think it’s selfish,” she said. “It’s quite beautiful because there are children that don’t have homes that have a home and can be loved. And that’s extremely important.”

Aniston fielded a slew of questions about motherhood in the press conference promoting the movie about the very-topic which has dogged her in the entertainment media for year. She even dutifully answered yet another question about whether she wants to be a mother in the future.  “Yah, I’ve said it years before,” said Aniston. “I still say it. That’s today. Yah.”

Source

Jennifer Aniston’s movie promotes single motherhood by artificial insemination where fathers are irrelevant.   That’s what it does.  Womyn need men like fish need a bicycle.  And she defends this as “family that has evolved.”   Yet even in her interview she attempts to walk back her initial support by blurring the line between artificial insemination and adoption.  The two are not equivalent, and subconsciously she acknowledges this.

Once we step away from the PC line, single mother families– which are the natural consequence of the 60s counter culture and sexual revolution– are not “evolved” families, they are an unprecedented prehistoric devolution of the family institution.  It’s caveman days all over again, folks, where the male is free to plant his seed willy nilly and females are reduced to the status of brood mare.  Except today we have the welfare state (i.e., the taxpayer) to foot the bill for the inevitable consequences of this sexual revolution and shattering of traditional cultural taboos.

Jennifer Aniston has the money to do as she pleases.  Her wealth insulates her from the consequences of virtually any boneheaded decision she chooses to make.  And if she pays for it, then goddess bless her.   Yet the baby mamas in waiting to whom she is giving her blessings are not rich.  I’d wager most of them are broke.  So the children they choose to have on their own– with Jennifer’s blessings– will essentially be wards of the Liberal welfare state.  And without a father figure around to impose discipline, they’ll probably end up in jail too.

But though modern Liberalism is a lifestyle only the rich can afford to live, the Left promotes their values to the poor, and it has destroyed their communities in a way rapacious capitalism never could have.  Thus the Left’s welfare state has become indispensable in a society whose social institutions have been shattered by that very same moral and cultural relativist Leftwing elite whose values continue to undermine “the traditional stereotype of family.”

The New Normal: Children Out of Wedlock

She needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.

This is what the end of the “Patriarchy” looks like.  The nuclear family has been all but destroyed by the counterculture revolution of the 60s.  Back in the 80s when Vice-president Dan Quayle denounced Hollywood’s positive depiction of single motherhood in the show Murphy Brown, the term “family values” was turned into a punchline by cultural sophisticates of the day.  It would send the wrong message to our daughters that childbirth out of wedlock was a viable choice, Mr. Quayle warned:

”It doesn’t help matters when prime-time TV has Murphy Brown — a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid, professional woman — mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another ‘lifestyle choice.”’

He was vilified by the Left for his closed-minded intolerance.

The sexual revolution, the divorce revolution, and the welfare state have since come together to form a perfect storm of culture destruction in our poorest communities as unwed mothers and children out of wedlock in black communities become the “new normal”.  To affluent, white radical Vagina Warriors of the 60s – 80s who screeched that marriage is slavery and sexual intercourse is rape, this was ever their goal– to destroy that misogynous “patriarchy” and the oppression inflicted on womynkind.  They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, certainly in our poorest communities.  But while the rich white Liberal folk who promote this madness have the money to buy their way out of the worst consequences of their destructive worldview, poor blacks do not.  They become slaves to the State, and their children at risk.

In effect, secular progressive culture destruction has created the need for the Welfare State without which these fatherless families would be doomed.  In this way, the Welfare State and Leftwing culture destruction are symbiotic and mutually perpetuating, both justifying each other’s existence in a downward spiral of social dysfunction.

And this is what the end of the patriarchy looks like.

Blacks struggle with 72 percent unwed mothers rate

HOUSTON – Seventy-two percent of black babies are born to unmarried mothers today, according to government statistics. This number is inseparable from the work of Carroll, an obstetrician who has dedicated her 40-year career to helping black women.

“The girls don’t think they have to get married. I tell them children deserve a mama and a daddy. They really do,” Carroll says from behind the desk of her office, which has cushioned pink-and-green armchairs, bars on the windows, and a wooden “LOVE” carving between two African figurines. Diamonds circle Carroll’s ring finger.

As the issue of black unwed parenthood inches into public discourse, Carroll is among the few speaking boldly about it. And as a black woman who has brought thousands of babies into the world, who has sacrificed income to serve Houston’s poor, Carroll is among the few whom black women will actually listen to.

“A mama can’t give it all. And neither can a daddy, not by themselves,” Carroll says. “Part of the reason is because you can only give that which you have. A mother cannot give all that a man can give. A truly involved father figure offers more fullness to a child’s life.”

Statistics show just what that fullness means. Children of unmarried mothers of any race are more likely to perform poorly in school, go to prison, use drugs, be poor as adults, and have their own children out of wedlock.

The black community’s 72 percent rate eclipses that of most other groups: 17 percent of Asians, 29 percent of whites, 53 percent of Hispanics and 66 percent of Native Americanswere born to unwed mothers in 2008, the most recent year for which government figures are available. The rate for the overall U.S. population was 41 percent.

This issue entered the public consciousness in 1965, when a now famous government report by future senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan described a “tangle of pathology” among blacks that fed a 24 percent black “illegitimacy” rate. The white rate then was 4 percent.

Many accused Moynihan, who was white, of “blaming the victim:” of saying that black behavior, not racism, was the main cause of black problems. That dynamic persists. Most talk about the 72 percent has come from conservative circles; when influential blacks like Bill Cosby have spoken out about it, they have been all but shouted down by liberals saying that a lack of equal education and opportunity are the true root of the problem.

Read the rest.

May 29, 2011

Hateful facts: Virtually ALL rapes in Oslo last year committed by “Non-Westerners”

These facts are “hateful” because they don’t conform to the Liberal orthodoxy of multiculturalism.  From the Diversity is Strength™ files: In Oslo all sexual assaults involving rape in the past year have been committed by men of non-western background.  This was the conclusion of a police report published today.  This means that every single rape assault in the last five years, where the rapist could be identified, he was a man of foreign origin. 

Ain’t multiculturalism just grand!  The terms “non-Western” and “foreign” in this context means Middle Eastern and Muslim.

Who cares if your women are being raped, at least you have a large selection of ethnic restaurants at which to wine and dine them!  What is happening to Scandinavian women reminds me of something in one of CCHQ’s very first posts over a year ago.  From The Wilding of Sarah Palin, an old school feminist lamenting the damage feminism has caused to women also has a few choice words for Liberal men:

Like for most feminists, it was a no-brainer for me to become a Democrat. Liberal men, not conservatives, were the ones devoted to women’s issues. They marched at my side in support of abortion rights. They were enthusiastic about women succeeding in the workplace.

As time went on, I had many experiences that should have made me rethink my certainty. But I remained nestled in cognitive dissonance — therapy jargon for not wanting to see what I didn’t want to see.

One clue: the miscreants who were brutalizing me didn’t exactly look Reagan-esque. In middle and high schools, they were minority kids enraged about forced busing. On the streets of New York City and Berkeley, they were derelicts and hoodlums.

Another red flag: while liberal men did indeed hold up those picket signs, they didn’t do anything else to protect me. In fact, their social programs enabled bad behavior and bred chaos in urban America. And when I was accosted by thugs, those leftist men were missing in action.

What else should have tipped me off? Perhaps the fact that so many men in ultra-left Berkeley are sleazebags. Rarely a week goes by that I don’t hear stories from my young female clients about middle-aged men preying on them. With the rationale of moral relativism, these creeps feel they can do anything they please.

Bottom line?  The socialist/Leftist/Liberal men of Europe who’ve decided mass Islamic immigration is the way to go CAN’T/WON’T DO ANYTHING TO PROTECT THEIR WOMEN.  They are missing in action.

December 4, 2010

Neo-Pagans Open Cancun Conference on Global Warming

Ixcel, from the pantheon of "Gaia."

Is that a human head she’s holding?  Christ almighty.  The Right didn’t coopt “Jesus,” the Left tossed him in the gutter.  Lest you still thought the activistas of the Green movement were all scientific atheist types offering rational reasons why human population must be drastically reduced and fossil fuels eliminated, rather than the radical feminist, neo- pagan Gaia spiritualists they really are.  These are the opening statements at Cancun, mind you, not just some no-name activista conducting a workshop to an empty room down the hallway.

Cancun talks start with a call to the gods

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, invoked the ancient jaguar goddess Ixchel in her opening statement to delegates gathered in Cancun, Mexico, noting that Ixchel was not only goddess of the moon, but also “the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving. May she inspire you — because today, you are gathered in Cancun to weave together the elements of a solid response to climate change, using both reason and creativity as your tools.”

“Excellencies, the goddess Ixchel would probably tell you that a tapestry is the result of the skilful interlacing of many threads,” said Figueres, who hails from Costa Rica and started her greetings in Spanish before switching to English. “I am convinced that 20 years from now, we will admire the policy tapestry that you have woven together and think back fondly to Cancun and the inspiration of Ixchel.”

Source

Christina is definitely going to need a goddess of “weaving” to concoct any kind of convincing argument as to why governments should adopt measures to cripple their economies and and usher in the global Depression.  How fitting for the anti-human Warmists to invoke a pagan goddess whose pantheon demanded human sacrifice.

November 26, 2010

End of the Patriarchy, End of marriage

Filed under: cultural marxism, Feminism — Tags: — Jesusland @ 17:56

With 72% out of wedlock births in the black community, does this come as any surprise?  The sexual revolution, the divorce revolution and the Welfare State all locked together in a downward spiral of social dysfunction yield the following results.  The culprit– yet again– Leftism. This is what the radical feminists (the only ones that really counted) wanted all along.

Four in 10 say marriage is becoming obsolete

WASHINGTON – Is marriage becoming obsolete?

As families gather for Thanksgiving this year, nearly one in three American children is living with a parent who is divorced, separated or never-married. More people are accepting the view that wedding bells aren’t needed to have a family.

A study by the Pew Research Center, in association with Time magazine, highlights rapidly changing notions of the American family. And the Census Bureau, too, is planning to incorporate broader definitions of family when measuring poverty, a shift caused partly by recent jumps in unmarried couples living together.

About 29 percent of children under 18 now live with a parent or parents who are unwed or no longer married, a fivefold increase from 1960, according to the Pew report being released Thursday. Broken down further, about 15 percent have parents who are divorced or separated and 14 percent who were never married. Within those two groups, a sizable chunk — 6 percent — have parents who are live-in couples who opted to raise kids together without getting married.

Indeed, about 39 percent of Americans said marriage was becoming obsolete. And that sentiment follows U.S. census data released in September that showed marriages hit an all-time low of 52 percent for adults 18 and over.

In 1978, just 28 percent believed marriage was becoming obsolete.

Source

August 15, 2010

Kinsey´s paedophiles: Origins of the Sexual Revolution

Here is a disturbing documentary about the man who sparked the sexual revolution.  Just as the modern abortion industry has its origins with Margaret Sanger and the eugenics movement, the inception of the sexual revolution is equally sordid and vile.  As the gay wars begin to recede in the rear view mirror, I have not a shred of doubt after watching this documentary that the day will soon come when the Sec Progs are advocating for the “sexual rights” of children.  You heard it here first.  Nothing must stand in the way of progress, as they go from victory to victory.  Below the seedy side of the counter culture revolution explored in all its gory detail.

“The adult contacts are a source of pleasure to some children and sometimes may arouse the child erotically and bring it to orgasm. It is difficult to understand why a child, except for its cultural conditioning, should be disturbed at having its genitalia touched.” — Alfred Kinsey

Vodpod videos no longer available.

August 12, 2010

Oreilly on Aniston

Radical feminism meets 21st century technology where it’s perfectly acceptable to father children through artificial insemination and without the benefit of a father.  Marriage an instrument of patriarchal oppression and sexual intercourse a form of rape, now they are redefining childbirth itself.  This is what it looks like when the cultural avant garde in Academia and the culture-media establishment has captured the culture.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Naturally the one-note simplistas of the Left are whining about Bill O’reilly’s “judgmentalism”.  lol

July 12, 2010

The Greatest Trick Hollywood Ever pulled

Via Big Hollywood, it’s quite good.

by John Nolte

It was either Kayser Soze or some French poet with an unpronounceable name who said something to the effect of, ”The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” Not everyone believes in the Devil but we all know Hollywood exists, and isn’t six of one just a half dozen of the other? After all, the greatest trick Tinseltown (with the help of the MSM) ever pulled was convincing the world that a belief in a moral code is what’s abnormal because all the cool kids are into a collective degeneracy.

OUT21147053

Though liberals only make up 20% of the population, they’re still able to pull off this sinister bluff because conservatives took their eye off the ball and allowed the Left to infest the institutions in charge of documenting and portraying who we are as a society. Unfortunately, these socialist engineers aren’t stupid and figured out almost immediately that with a near-monopoly on sound and image they could make a majority of the population feel like the minority; with the goal in mind of using peer pressure to shape our culture into a godless orgy of anything goes hyper-sexuality.

The result is that those of us made nauseous by the idea of loveless sex are intentionally made to feel like the oppressive party-poopers – the weirdos, the prudes, the uncool outsiders lacking in compassion, enlightenment and sophistication. This devil has so perfectly executed this ruse that even those of us on to him can forget what’s happening until a genuine phenomenon like “Twilight” comes along to remind us.

Read the rest.

June 14, 2010

The Feminist Con Job

Radical feminism is to sexism what the race hustlers are to race– a big con.  Via Ann Althouse.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

“That’s Tina Brown trying to babble her way to saying something that makes sense. Watch the video at the link. I think she realizes in the middle — at the “you know, very much, uh, uh, you know” — that after invoking the big idea “feminism,” she doesn’t know how to say the right thing about feminism. It’s not right to say according to feminism, women aren’t supposed to be Republicans, so she can’t say that. What then can she say? She goes with the weak, mealy-mouthed “against so many of things that women have fought for such a long time.” So many of the things, eh? What? And fought for such a long time — as if women are supposed to — what? — adhere to traditional values and not make waves?

And what about the idea that there is variety within feminism and vivid debate about what is good for women? George Stephanopoulos pushes Brown with “Well, you could argue they’re different kinds of feminists….” And Brown settles in to the routine partisanship that is easy to spit out clearly: “Women, too, can be wing nuts, is the point.” Yeah, that’s cogent and clear. Funny too. Brown’s attempt at a point about feminism was flabby blather because it was dishonest. “Women, too, can be wing nuts” — she’s telling it straight now and shows it with the kicker that it’s “the point.” Thanks for abandoning your pretense of intellectual analysis for some plain politics. We get it, Tina. You’re a liberal. You don’t like when strong candidates emerge on the other side. And you have nothing interesting or insightful to say about feminism. Noted.”

Source at Ann Althouse

May 27, 2010

Media Defend Islam from ‘Sex and the City’ Jibes

The multiculti anti-Christian Left don’t like it when you criticize their little third world mascots.

There are some review snippets that likely won’t end up as movie poster taglines:

“an affront to Muslims” – USA Today

“breathtaking cultural insensitivity” – Washington Post

“cinematic Viagra for Western cultural imperialists”– Salon.com

Of all the criticisms that could likely be launched against Warner Bros.’ new “Sex and the City 2” movie, the media have latched onto the film’s reported depictions of misogynist policies in Muslim nations.

It was USA Today that called the movie “an affront to Muslims.” Reviewer Claudia Puig wrote that director Michael Patrick King “is out of his league attempting to comment on the inequitable treatment of Muslim women. He ends up mocking religious beliefs and making Carrie and her friends appear insensitive.”

Many reviews are quick to defend Muslim culture, or at least Abu Dhabi, which does seem a less-than-compelling example of a society out-of-touch with modern notions of gender equality. (Some reviews do take on the other questionable material including the sleaze and rampant materialism, but the media loved the first big-screen adaptation of the HBO series.)

The criticisms of “Sex and the City 2” as “blatantly anti-Muslim,” as The Hollywood Reporter described it, may be perfectly valid. But where were these defenders of the faith when moviemakers attacked other religions?

At the risk of appearing to compare “Sex and the City 2” with a comedic masterpiece, take the 2004 DVD release of Monty Python’s 1979 “Life of Brian,” a vicious satire of the Gospel stories.

The Washington Post found it “hard to believe that it was such a controversial film when it first came out.” Reviewer Ann Hornaday, the same person who accused “Sex and the City 2” of “cultural insensitivity” couldn’t understand how Christians would find it offensive to feature a Christ-figure, joined by a chorus of the crucified, singing, “Always look on the bright side of life.”

Or how about “Saved!,” a less-beloved anti-Christian movie released in 2004? The film, which depicts the lives of several Christian-school students as they deal – poorly – with an unplanned pregnancy, was far from offensive to Salon.com. The review complained that it was “conspicuously lacking both guts and well-sharpened teeth.”

The media double standard for entertainment is clear. Satirize – or just flat-out attack – Christianity and receive a resounding “encore!” or, at worst, a “try harder next time. Depict Muslim culture in a negative light in a film ostensibly about feminism and female empowerment, and prepare for two big thumbs down.

[…]

While the hypocrisy here is so glaring it hardly bears mentioning because it speaks for itself, this is the beauty of political correctness and multiculturalism from the standpoint of the Left .  It’s the best of both worlds-  attack Christianity and the West in the name of “social justice” (their ultimate target is capitalism), while defending everything non-Western from any kind of critical scrutiny.  Keep in mind they are not actually defending Islam, per se (because they don’t give a rat’s @ss about Islam), but rather their multicultural experiment.  Criticism of Islam undermines cultural relativism, which is the bedrock of Multiculturalism and the New Left’s vision for the West.  Nor do they ever feel the need to respond on the merits when they come to the defense of misogynistic Islam, nor any other non-Western cultural depravity for that matter.  It’s enough for their purposes that the critics be attacked as “imperialists” and racists.  The argument thus instantly shifts from Islamic misogyny to Western racism.  Now you’re on their home turf and on the defensive.  But that ruse is beginning to wear thin.

May 13, 2010

Just Say the Word! …”MUSLIM”

This is quite a disturbing post.

It seems that rape in Norway is done almost exclusively by foreigners; of the 41 cases of rape in Oslo over the last three years ALL have been committed by ‘non-Western immigrants’.

But as you will see in this Norwegian news report, Norway is under such a state of siege by Islam and PC New Liberal deconstructionist, they can’t even allow themselves to name the aggressor. I’ll say it for them … ‘Muslim’ men.

But one must ask themselves the harder question. Are these acts of rape ‘just rape’? This is almost so systematic one has to wonder if rape in Sweden is not being used as a weapon of terror. We know Cordoba is viewed as part of dar al Islam, and Rome is a target … are the Mohammedans (yes I just used this pre-Edward Said term) trying to make the Swedes pay for their Varangian roots?

Just ask Aqsa Parvez what happens to you if you don’t cover your flesh. Ask Medine Memi what happens to good Muslim girls who fraternize with boyz.

And of course, then ask the good Western ‘liberated’ New Liberal Naomi Wolfe … go ahead.

It doesn’t take a leap of the imagination to now see how the project of New Liberalism and the New Mohammedanism march on the West are interrelated.

(h/t to Jamie Glazov for his relentless fight against Naomi Wolfe)

April 30, 2010

U.N. Elects Iran to Women’s Rights Commission

The United Nations beclowns itself once again.

Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged “immodest.”

Just days after Iran abandoned a high-profile bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, it began a covert campaign to claim a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women, which is “dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women,” according to its website.

Iran’s election comes just a week after one of its senior clerics declared that women who wear revealing clothing are to blame for earthquakes, a statement that created an international uproar — but little affected their bid to become an international arbiter of women’s rights.

“Iran’s discriminatory laws demonstrate that the Islamic Republic does not believe in gender equality,” reads the letter, signed by 214 activists and endorsed by over a dozen human rights bodies.

The letter draws a dark picture of the status of women in Iran: “women lack the ability to choose their husbands, have no independent right to education after marriage, no right to divorce, no right to child custody, have no protection from violent treatment in public spaces, are restricted by quotas for women’s admission at universities, and are arrested, beaten, and imprisoned for peacefully seeking change of such laws.”

Yet critics of Iran’s human rights record say the country has taken “every conceivable step” to deter women’s equality.  “In the past year, it has arrested and jailed mothers of peaceful civil rights protesters,” wrote three prominent democracy and human rights activists in an op-ed published online Tuesday by Foreign Policy Magazine.

“It has charged women who were seeking equality in the social sphere — as wives, daughters and mothers — with threatening national security, subjecting many to hours of harrowing interrogation. Its prison guards have beaten, tortured, sexually assaulted and raped female and male civil rights protesters.”

Iran’s elevation to the commission comes as a black eye just days after the U.S. helped lead a successful effort to keep Iran off the Human Rights Council, which is already dominated by nations that are judged by human rights advocates as chronic violators of essential freedoms. The current membership of the women’s commission is little different.

[…]

Mind you, this is the same Iran that has declared that women with a sun tan will be arrested.

April 20, 2010

Gender, Radical Fems, and the Anti-Science Left

Tabula rasa.

What’s common sense to you and me, gentle readers, is earth-shattering paradigm shifting to the Gramscist Left and the childless Fems of the culture-destroying vanguard party.  Fisk this classic case of nature vs nurture with me, and keep in mind that these are the same people who insist being gay is genetic, but “gender” is merely socialization.  Just keep that in mind.

Even 9-Month-Olds Choose ‘Gender-Specific’ Toys

By Jenifer Goodwin (HealthDay News) — Parents may want their girls to grow up to be astronauts and their boys to one day do their fair share of child care and housework duties, but a new study suggests certain stereotypical gender preferences take root even before most kids can crawl.

When presented with seven different toys, boys as young as 9 months old went for the car, digger and soccer ball, while ignoring the teddy bears, doll and cooking set.  And the girls? You guessed it. At the same age, they were most interested in the doll, teddy bear and miniature pot, spoon and plastic vegetables. “The boys always preferred the toys that go or move, and the girls preferred toys that promote nurturing and facial features,” said study author Sara Amalie O’Toole Thommessen, an undergraduate at City University in London.

So does this mean that boys and girls have an innate preference for certain types of objects?  Or does socialization — that is, the influence of parents and the larger culture — impact children’s choice of toys very early in life?  It’s too soon to rule either out, said Walter Gilliam, director of the Edward Zigler Center in Child Development and Social Policy at Yale University.  “One of the things we’ve learned about babies over the many years we’ve been studying them is that they are amazing sponges and learn an awful lot in those nine months,” Gilliam said.

The finding raises the possibility of a biological basis for toy choices. A study from 2001 found even 1-day-old boys spent longer looking at moving, mechanical options than 1-day-old girls, who spent more time looking at faces.  Yet the impact of socialization should never be underestimated, Gilliam said.  Studies have shown parents and others interact differently with female and male babies from almost the instant they’re born, Gilliam said.

[…]

So even as gender is found at increasingly earlier ages, Dr. Gilliam believes this is merely proof of “socialization” at earlier ages.  She just keeps pushing the window further and further back.  Thus to her, the results of this study prove nothing whatsoever as she attempts to rescue radical Feminism from the bind this study puts them in.  If gender is innate, rather than learned, then radical Feminism fails because one of its pillars– that men and women are the same, and gender roles are a construct–begins to crumble.  But there’s no evidence for Dr. Gilliam’s unfounded assertions in defiance of this study.  It’s just desperately wishful thinking.

Notice also the reporter’s agenda here.  She’s less interested in informing you on the results of this study than she is in trying to debunk it.  That’s why an article that presumably was supposed to be about the latest results on gender turns into a radical Fem apologia with Dr. Gilliam as its star.  Dr. Gilliam– not this study– is who this reporter really wants you to hear from.  So the reporter begins with her own conclusion that gender differences “take root” before they learn to crawl, rather than in the womb.  With that little opening she provides Dr. Gilliam the wiggle room she needs to keep repeating–  despite this study, and with no evidence whatsoever– her radical Fem dogma that gender differences are a “construct”.  A classic case of MSM bias, however subtle.

A final observation, and perhaps the most important one.  Ideologically speaking, the Left is a herd of cats, united only by their hatred of the Mainstream and all things “the Right”.  The disparate ideologies of the Leftwing coalition are often at odds with each other, and that is certainly true of the Gay Agenda and radical Feminism.  While radical Feminism rests on the belief that all gender differences are learned “social constructs”, the Gay Agenda wants you to believe that homosexuality is the exact opposite– that it is genetic and therefore “innate.”  Gender is nurtured, but gay is natured.  Both turn reality on its head.  And both are mutually exclusive positions.  This simple fact is obvious on its face, yet it eludes the pro-science, intellectual powerhouses of the Left (heavy sarcasm there).  They will not be deterred from their never ending quest for the “gay gene”, even as they attempt to sweep male/female genetic, hormonal and physical differences under the rug.  Where science and agenda collide, a good Leftist will usually choose agenda.

April 19, 2010

Green Party Fems: “You are not born a man, you are turned into one.”

Culture-destroying, man-hating Radical feminists want to turn you into Richard Simmons.  From the Interested Participant:

(Bonn, Germany) At the Green Party National Women’s Congress this weekend in Bonn, the party leadership announced an anti-macho manifesto to achieve gender justice among all Greens. The new and stronger gender message is now proclaimed to be: “We no longer need to be macho!” along with “equality and male feminism.”

The signatories include several Green politicians from the European parliament, the German Bundestag as well as local Green leaders. “We no longer want to be macho,” it declares, “we want to be people. You are not born a man, you are turned into one.” The men’s manifesto makes two main points. First, men need to break out of their traditional gender roles. “We need a new awareness of a new masculinity,” write its co-authors Sven Lehmann and Jan Philipp Albrecht. Second, they argue that their fellow men need to realize that real equality will not happen without their participation.

“We want to live differently!” writes Lehmann, a senior member of the North Rhine-Westphalia branch of the party, and the European parliamentarian Albrecht.  They appeal for a slower pace of life, less focus on profit and more health consciousness. They want to start holding “Boys’ Days and gender-sensitive career-guidance sessions.”

Interestingly, while announcing a formal edict regarding suppression of testosterone in the male population, the German Greens also recently announced an LGBT Manifesto which formally declares that all people are to be treated equally and fairly. Maybe it’s just me, but in the fairness and equality arena, it seems that male heterosexuals lose.

Oddly, the Green Party was created to support environmental issues and now it seems to have developed a utopian agenda envisioning a world with only women, girly men and homosexuals. Lost during the transition is what, if anything, the matriarchal Shangri-La has to do with the environment.

In any event, I question the motivation for the anti-macho manifesto. Just guessing, my answer would be that some feminine-types need a formal policy and political party authorization for wide-spread demonization of men with balls.

[…]

April 13, 2010

Dhimmi Fashion hits the runway, Radical Fems ambivalent

Dhimmi fashion

Radical Feminists choose multiculturalism over women’s Liberation because they don’t quite trust the “secret motives” of those, like Nicholas Zarkozy, who want to ban the burka.

I suppose if seemingly nonthreatening terms such as “assimilation” weren’t actually really violent processes through which immigrants are routinely policed, shamed and forced to engage in, I would feel this democratic spirit, but I am not convinced. As Anushay Hossain pointed out a few months ago it is wishful thinking to suggest that Sarkozy’s motivation is the freedom of women, by making a legal demand of what they can wear (ironic no?), as opposed to just another strategic step in the cultural warfare between certain Muslim and non-Muslim communities in France. Either way, both scenarios objectify and ignore what some Muslim women want for themselves.

[…]

As you can see, when it comes to taking sides, radical feminists hate all things “the Right” more than they care about women under Islam.

Guess the Religion

Amish?  Mennonite?  Honor killings and honor violence against women in cultural Islam is merely an abstraction to us.  That’s partly because Western feminists more concerned with Tim Tebow commercials than with the plight of women under Islam have not brought the message home to us.  To muslim women the scourge of honor violence is very, very real.  The following is extremely graphic. Please go no further if you don’t have the stomach for this kind of thing.  You have been warned.

Via The Jawa Report, TERRORISM THAT’S PERSONAL, HERE.

April 9, 2010

Feminist: Ann Coulter Got What She deserved

To the modern Left, “diversity” and multiculturalism are higher values on the hierarchical ladder than freedom of speech.  There are myriad examples.  Here’s what eminent Canadian feminist, Susan Cole, says about it:

“We don’t have a First Amendment, we don’t have a religion of free speech.”

“Students sign off on all kinds of agreements as to how they’ll behave on campus, in order to respect diversity, equity, all of the values that Canadians really care about. Those are the things that drive our political culture. Not freedoms, not rugged individualism, not free speech.”

In other words freedom of speech for me, but not for you.  The lady is a columnist for a Toronto paper. Can you imagine the insipid drivel her readers must be subjected to?  The feminist claims they have “vital and vibrant dialogue” in Canada.  Right, tell that to all the people they’ve arrested and brought up on charges for “hate speech.”

Basic rule: the more entrenched the Power, the less devoted to freedom of speech it is.  That’s why as Megyn Kelly points out, hate speech laws are only enforced against conservatives.  When Leftwing loons say incendiary things everybody yawns.  Nevertheless, because our freedom of speech is enshrined in the First Amendment (unlike most democracies) America is still the freest country on Earth.  And don’t let anybody tell you otherwise.

Older Posts »