Tag Archive: feminism
Emily DePasse (@eld3393 on Twitter) calls herself “The Carrie Bradshaw of Herpes” — a reference to the protagonist of Sex and the City — and she’s teaching her beliefs to children at a private school in Baltimore.
DePasse is a feminist who joined the #ShoutYourStatus campaign forSexually Transmitted Infection (STI) Awareness Month, declaring that her herpes infection had not prevented her from having a “fulfilling sex life.” DePasse went so far as to assert that being infected with herpes“actually made my sex life healthier & more satisfying than before.”
Such claims — in effect, “Herpes is good for you!” — might seem startling, but not as startling as the fact that DePasse has been teaching her feminist beliefs to seventh-graders at Baltimore Friends School, an elite private academy where tuition is more than $25,000 a year.
DePasse designed her own sex education curriculum, after she said the opportunity to teach the class “fell into my lap.” Monday, she described how one of the seventh-grade boys in her class, “On his way out the classroom . . . said to me, ‘See you tomorrow Sex Lady.’”
read more at the link above.
like the anti-vaccine movement. these perverted, sexual dysfunctional degenerate freaks are a danger to public Health. these are the same degenerates that labelled exercise and healthy living and being slim and fit as “fat shaming”.
Do you want your child to be a “genderfluid polyamorous demiromantic grey-ace” when they grow up? Probably not. Why do you think feminism in the 21st century attracts so many confused weirdos?
“Only when we recognize that ‘manhood’ and ‘womanhood’ are made-up categories, invented to control human beings and violently imposed, can we truly understand the nature of sexism. . . .
“Questioning gender . . . is an essential part of the feminism that has sustained me through two decades of personal and political struggle.”
— Laurie Penny, “How to Be a Genderqueer Feminist”
“Right now, today, as of writing this, I identify as queer. But I didn’t always. And no, I’m not referring to that awkward, uncomfortable time in my life where I knew that something felt ‘off,’ but I couldn’t quite place it, and so I paraded around in the charade of ‘straight.’ I mean that a few years ago, I identified as homoflexible. And before that, a lesbian. And even before that, bisexual.”
— Melissa Fabello
“The labels I currently use for myself are queer, gay, femme, and homoflexible. (Basically, I’m a lesbian with exceptions.) The label bisexual doesn’t work for me right now. . . . I’m on the asexual spectrum somewhere . . . I don’t experience primary sexual attraction.”
— Miriam Mogilevsky
Why do you think the Everyday Feminist website, edited by Ms. Fabello, features Ms. Mogilevsky as a columnist, sharing advice like “5 Ways Straight Women Can Be Better Allies to Queer Women”?
If it is “sexism” to believe men and women are different, as Ms. Penny insists, and if feminism teaches that these “made-up categories” are “violently imposed,” then are we surprised that Ms. Fabello condemns heterosexuality as a “charade”? Do we need to speculate why the “homoflexible” Ms. Mogilevsky cannot “experience primary sexual attraction” and thinks it an important task of feminists to teach women how to “be better allies to queer women”?
No, these are all entirely logical consequences of feminist theory. Once “progressive” parents (and schools, and media, and even the White House) decided that there are no meaningful differences between male and female, and that “gender stereotypes” must be destroyed, this kind of pathetic confusion was an inevitable result. When I describe feminism as aWar Against Human Nature, does anyone think that this phrase ishyperbole? Am I a misogynist, a bigot, an enemy of “equality”? Or rather is it the case that Ideas Have Consequences, as Richard Weaver warned, and that crazy ideas have crazy consequences?
Never take advice from a feminist, and certainly don’t let feminists tell you how to raise your children. Feminists hate children.
“I saw the feminist movement cover up for PEDOPHILES”
– Sara Fernanda Giromin
from the man hating U.K independent news site calling pedophilia a sexual orientation like being gay and straight
Feminist Liar and scammer Anita Sarkeesian hired a convicted child sex abuser and pedophile as her twitch moderator
The astonishing fact in the headline — the proliferation of what I’ve calledThe Feminist-Industrial Complex in higher education — is cited by Professor Janice Flamengo in her 15-minute YouTube video with the provocative title, “Women’s Studies Must Die.”
These programs in Canadian universities, she explains, employ hundreds of professors, both full-time and part-time, and when you consider that there are roughly 10 times as many Women’s Studies programs at U.S. colleges and universities (now on more than 700 campuses nationwide), you realize that there are now thousands of faculty whose primary occupation is indoctrinating students in feminist ideology.
Women’s Studies programs “have no more place at a university than voodoo,” Professor Flamengo says, because “these courses are not about knowledge. They’re about theories of oppression and resistance,” many of them taught from radical Marxist, “queer” or postmodern perspectives. “The fundamental tenets of feminism are not up for debate” in Women’s Studies programs, as Professor Flamengo explains. As I have elsewhere noted, Women’s Studies courses are not about teaching facts, but instead are about training political activists. Cult mind-control methods are employed to induce students to accept “feminist consciousness,” which is essentially a religious faith in women’s universal victimhood under patriarchal oppression. Taxpayers are required to fund the higher education system where these beliefs are taught; feminism is thereby subsidized and approved as a matter of official government policy.
The best analysis of what it taught in these programs is Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women’s Studies, by Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge. Professor Patai is also author of another excellent book I highly recommend, Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. For decades now, these programs have continued with little critical scrutiny, either within academia or from legislators in charge of approving education budgets. Why? Because anyone who questions the need for Women’s Studies courses will instantly be accused of sexism, a rhetorical weapon that feminists have used to expand their hegemonic power within academia, and to silence critics of their agenda.
“I spent years studying feminist theory,” Professor Flamengo says in her video. “I learned things that are untrue, about ‘gender is a social construct’ and about the ‘deep-rooted misogyny of patriarchal culture,’ and it took years to unlearn them. That hundreds of thousands of students across North America still learn these untruths . . . is staggering.” Indeed, it is staggering that so few citizens — most of whom think of “feminism” as essentially harmless belief in “equality” — are unaware of the hateful ideology being promoute in our universities.
People need to wake the hell up.
How is USC any different from other universities?
Everybody remembers the notorious case of John Doe v. Washington and Lee University, in which a university official reportedly told students that “regret equals rape,” advice that John Doe blamed for a false accusation of sexual assault against him by an ex-girlfriend. Washington and Lee settled that lawsuit in February, avoiding a court trial that might have have exposed the elite private university (annual tuition $46,417) to disastrous publicity. This “regret equals rape” motif has appeared in several other cases among the more than 100 lawsuits filed against universities by male students who say they were falsely accused of sexual misconduct and denied due process in the campus kangaroo court system. What happens, in some of these cases, is that what seemed an entirely consensual encounter is subsequently deemed sexual assault, usually months later, after the accuser has regret or remorse about a hook-up or a relationship. Consider this, from a court filing involving a John Doe lawsuit against the University of Southern California:
Jane, who was a student and athlete at USC, and a group of her friends attended a fraternity party in January 2013 at a large, off-campus house in the hills near Los Angeles. Jane and her friends caught a bus from the fraternity house to the party location. John, a member of the USC football team, was on the same bus. Also attending the party were two male students from an out-of-state university, “Student 1” and “Student 2,” who were friends of John?s teammate. At some point in the evening Jane began to dance, and John began dancing with her. John said that he and Student 1 were both dancing with Jane, “sandwiching” her between them. When asked about this, Jane did not remember whether it had occurred. After dancing together for a few minutes, John pushed Jane onto a couch and gave her a provocative “lap dance,” which John characterized as “flirtatious” and “silly,” and Jane characterized as somewhat “uncomfortable” because people were watching. After the dance, John, Jane, and Student 1 went to a bedroom together. John had vaginal intercourse with Jane while Jane performed oral sex on Student 1. During the sexual activity, John and Student 1 made comments to each other about Jane?s body. All parties agree that the entirety of this encounter was consensual. Jane returned to her group of friends and told them she had sex with John; she seemed happy and excited about it. Approximately 45 minutes later, Jane and John returned to the bedroom a second time. There were multiple men in the room, and people were continually entering and exiting the room.. . .
It was during this second trip to the bedroom that the incident occurred which “Jane” later claimed was assault. Everybody involved was apparently drunk and, pardon me for drawing any unfair conclusions here, but once she had willingly done a three-way (“the entirety of this encounter was consensual”) during this party, what might a reasonable person suppose the expectations were for this second trip to the bedroom? How about “anything goes”? Call me old-fashioned, maybe, but I have no idea what the prevailing customs and norms are for drunken college orgies nowadays. Really, when you’re partying with football players and frat boys at USC (annual tuition $50,210), what are thereasonable expectations concerning acts of sexual perversion?
Well, John Doe got expelled for his role in this orgy, not because the university has any moral standards — USC Is Decadent and Depraved — but because “Jane” got counseling and decided she was a victim:
The incident happened in January 2013. Jane reported it to SJACS in August 2013. She told SJACS representatives that in mid-February her athletic coach suggested that she had confidence issues, and therefore recommended that she see an athletics counselor. When the counselor asked Jane if she had ever been sexually assaulted, “it dawned on me and I connected it.” She then reported to the counselor that she was assaulted by John and several other men at the party. She told her parents about the incident in July of that year, and reported the incident to the school in August.
The rest of the story is merely details, unless you happen to care about the fate of John, who is just another guy who got chewed up by the campus machinery where male students are denied due-process rights.
What conclusions can we draw from this case? It seems obvious that every student at USC is a dangerous pervert. This is why parents pay $50,210 a year, so that their sons and daughters can have drunken orgies at a “prestigious” private university that has no moral standards whatsoever.
Students at USC are freaks and creeps and degenerates of every description. No conscientious parent would spend a cent to send their child to such a wretched hive of scum and villainy as USC, and therefore the only students who enroll there are the offspring of negligent parents who don’t mind squandering $50,210 a year to have their child “educated” in that foul cesspool of immoral hedonism.
UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!
UPDATE II: A commenter points out that the court filing cited is a judge’s ruling in the accused student’s favor. Here’s a news account:
SAN FRANCISCO — Wading into the fraught issue of sex crimes on college campuses, a state appeals court has reversed the suspension of a male USC student accused of participating in a group sexual assault against a female student.
The Second District Court of Appeal held that the male student, a USC football player referred to only as John Doe, wasn’t given sufficient notice of the allegations against him or a fair hearing by the school before being suspended.
The ruling highlights the difficult task universities have in balancing accused students’ due process rights with the concerns of victims and federal officials who have urged schools to adopt procedures to keep campuses safe.
Justice Audrey Collins acknowledged in Tuesday’s unanimous panel decision “that universities need adequate tools to address the very serious and sensitive problem of sexual assault on campus.” Still she wrote that “it is not too heavy a burden to require that students facing disciplinary action be informed of the factual basis for the charges against them.”
The male student’s attorney, Marc Harris of Scheper Kim & Harris, said that his client is “extremely gratified by the decision.” . . .
“All the issues that we raised in the court of appeal are issues that we brought up with USC” before turning to the state courts, he said. “This has been a long, painful and damaging path that John has had to take,” he said. He declined to say whether his client will seek to return to USC.
Honestly, if John Doe were my client, I would advise strongly against going anywhere near USC. The place is corrupt beyond description.
During her recent tour of Australia, Madonna brought a 17-year-old girl on stage, groped her breast, and then deliberately exposed it to thousands of concertgoers in Brisbane. The majority of attendees had access to cameras or phone-cameras, which were able to capture the incident in more than sufficient detail. No charges have been laid yet and Madonna is presently in a bitter child custody dispute with ex-husband Guy Ritchie.
In Australia, like most other countries, there are severe theoretical penalties for both sexual assault and producing nude images of minors. I say theoretical because these provisions are invariably not used to punish women, from female teacher sex abusers to girls who have sex with incapacitated men.
What we are witnessing, and not just with the Madonna debacle in Brisbane, is a new peak for female privilege. Women can condemn men to time in prison for mere allegations, often interspersed with inconsistencies and proven lies, while women commit these same acts on camera with no repercussions.
The initial claim from the Material Girl singer’s camp was that the exposure of Josephine Georgiou was unintended, but this does not explain Madonna’s initial groping or the fact that just before she pulled the top down she said, “She’s the kind of girl that you just want to slap on the a** and pull…”
Having read about and researched what happened, I waited for some sort of rebuke for Madonna from the powers-that-be, irrespective of whether they would charge her. Nothing came. Media personality Piers Morgan did launch a stinging attack on her, but it meant much less when we consider the pair have been at war for a long time.
“I saw the feminist movement cover up for PEDOPHILES”
““Lesbian and bisexual women have much more voice and respect within the movement so in the search for recognition of my struggle, with each day that passed, I deconstructed my heterosexuality and was substituting it with an artificial bisexuality.”
“hatred against men, hatred against the beauty of women, hatred against the equilibrium of families. That’s what feminism is”
– Sara Fernanda Giromin
Parents know what’s best for their children? At the risk of tossing tons of other scenarios aside, we LGBTQIA+ kids have heard that last one plenty while trying to grow up while out. Parents say we’re not bi. Or queer. Or a boy. Or non-binary.
They give us labels at birth and expect us to adhere to them. And when we don’t? Certainly it’s because our parents simply know us better than we know ourselves.
It couldn’t possibly be that parents are — gasp! — people who are ultimately a different being than their children.
But what of my suggested inability to provide parental advice when I’m not a parent myself? Okay, I give you that one. But the thing is that article wasn’t on parental advice.
It was an article on children’s basic human rights, which we tend to so grossly overlook.
How did that point so quickly get turned right back around to focus on the parents instead of the children?
Because adultism. . . .
The essential sovereignty of parents in raising their own children has been under assault in America for a long, long time. In the 19th century, “reformers” (especially including Horace Mann) began refashioning our education system along the lines of the Prussian model, which viewed children as the rightful property of the state. These progressive “reformers” deliberately sought to undermine parental authority, substituting the ideas of modern “experts” for whatever religious beliefs or old-fashioned customs might have hitherto served to guide parents in the governance of their families. By privileging their own opinions and preferences, these academic experts became self-ratifying authorities.
The manufacturing of “consensus” among a clique of intellectuals can easily create the appearance that these “experts” actually do have all the answers, and that skeptics and critics are simply ignorant.
When it comes to the best methods of child-rearing, the proof is in the pudding, but this pudding takes a long time to prepare. That is to say, you won’t know until your child is an adult whether your methods were right. So if a new “trend” in parenting or education comes along, it’s going to take about 15 or 20 years before you can look at the final product and evaluate the effects of the child’s upbringing.
When we saw the outbreak of student radicalism on university campuses during the 1960s, it became obvious that something had gone badly wrong during those seemingly placid years of the Eisenhower administration. Somehow, a number of spoiled brats (radical leaders of the SDS, for example) had developed ideas of “democracy” that were at odds with what most American adults believed. What caused this so-called “generation gap”? Two words:Public education.
During the great post-WWII economic boom, an enormous hubris characterized the leadership of the American education system. And a desire to instill patriotic idealism in these Future Citizens led to children being taught to celebrate democracy as the summum bonum.
The only way to judge whether something was good or bad, right or wrong, was to have a vote about it, many children were led to believe. To someone who has been taught this kind of mindless devotion to egalitarian democracy, it is enough to condemn anything to say it is “undemocratic.” The traditional family is condemned by this standard.
Let me state this plainly: I am not going to debate my teenage son over whether he should clean up his room and mow the yard.
If children are granted a veto over parental authority, then our society will be overrun by feral youth who have no respect for anything, e.g.,“Occupy Wall Street.” Furthermore, the child who is allowed to mope around all day, watching TV and playing video games — which is what children will do, if they are allowed a democratic “right” to decide how to spend their time — will never develop the habits necessary to success.
What is work, after all? Showing up on time and doing what the boss tells you to do or, better yet, figuring out what the boss wants you to do and just doing it without having to be told. Teaching kids respect for proper authority is actually quite important to the child’s future prospects of success and happiness in the world. Also, the child must develop good social skills and learn to cooperate effectively with others. Who teaches these skills and enforces the regime of cooperation? Parents.
It is very easy for a Yale professor, in his tenured sinecure, to lecture parents on how to raise our children, but unless that professor wants to show up at my house on a daily basis to tell my son to stop being mean to his sister, it’s my job, and I’ll enforce my rules in my house without regard to what any damned Ivy League Ph.D. has to say about it.
more at the above link.
Bird of weird feathers flock together, and when Melissa Fabello decided to engage in a Twitter colloquy with me (of course I mean, not me), she accidentally introduced me to her friend, Australian freelance writer Catherine Bouris, who has degrees from the University of Sydney and UCLA. Tempted as I am to snark about this ridiculous level of overcredentialization — you don’t need a master’s degree to be a freelance writer — that would be an irrelevant digression. Ms. Bouris made a remark about Ms. Fabello’s boyfriend, who is a secularized Muslim SJW (not a Hitachi Magic Wand), but that is also irrelevant.
My point is that Melissa Fabello’s relentless promotion of LGBTQIA sexuality at Everyday Feminism attracts to the site (surprise!) a lot of LGBTQIA feminists. What dopeheads are at a Grateful Dead concert or fat people at an all-you-can-eat buffet, weirdo women are at Everyday Feminism. (Miriam Mogilevsky’s latest: “5 Ways to Maintain Your Queer Identity in a Relationship People Read as Straight.”) There are women who claim to be both heterosexual and feminist, but good luck finding one among young devotees of Third Wave feminism, which is “inclusive” of everything except being normal. Meanwhile, in Australia . . .