5723 Michael commentary
5723 Michael commentary
By Anonymous GotNews Reporter
Lost in the debate over the shooting of Walter Scott, by South Carolina Law Enforcement officer Michael Slager, is the uncomfortable question of when it is, in fact, justified to shoot a fleeing suspect. The issue came before the US Supreme Court in 1985 in Tennessee v. Garner.
At the time, Tennessee law authorized police to use deadly force against a fleeing suspect. The state statute provided that “if, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flees or forcibly resists, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest.” While the District Court found for the law and the officer actions, the United States Court Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the decision. They ruled that “the killing of a fleeing suspect is a “seizure” for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only when it is reasonable.” The state of Tennessee appealed the decision to the US Supreme Court.
Read more at http://bit.ly/1Gxj7bU
the ugly warthog caught again looking like a teenage girl
looking foward to hear news reports of colleges being raided by Police, FBI and RCMP etc in terrorist plot investigations
James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has released several videos recently showing support for terrorists on college campuses.
Today, O’Keefe released a video that’s absolutely shocking. It shows students, administrators, and teachers all eager and willing to sign a petition to financially support the terrorist groups ISIS, Hamas, and Hezb’allah.
In a news release, Project Veritas explains:
Today’s video reveals a multitude of professors, administrations, and students at numerous California state universities signing a petition pledging financial support to ISIS, Hamas and Hezbollah. Professor Bruce Burnam of California State University, Northridge had no problem signing the petition pledging economic support to ISIS, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Nor did, Jon Masciana, Director of Admissions at the Paul Merage School of Business at the University of California, Irvine who gladly signed the pro-terror petition.
“I was encouraged by the fact that many of the people we approached refused to sign our faux petition, however, I was disturbed by the amount of professors, administrators, and students across California who had no ethical qualms whatsoever about supporting ISIS, Hamas, and Hezbollah,” said Project Veritas President James O’Keefe. “There were far too many people who were far too willing to support these recognized terrorist organizations. It is truly frightening just how many supporters these organizations have on our college campuses and the affect it is having on our nation’s youth.”
Last week, O’Keefe released a video showing several high-level officials and a professor at Barry University sanctioning a club with the stated purpose of sending material aid to ISIS. The Project Veritas investigative journalist, an honors student, was subsequently unjustly suspended. And earlier this month, O’Keefe released a video showing a dean at Cornell University advising a Project Veritas investigative journalist on how to start and fund a pro-ISIS club on campus.
O’Keefe calls the petition drive a “huge success.” But if you watch the video carefully, I’m not sure how many of the people we saw signing the petition actually understood that they would be asked to give money to terrorists.
But this is a small point. The fact that there were dozens of people willing to sign a petition that was in support of advancing “economic opportunity” for members of terrorist outfits is a damning indictment of the political correctness and hostility to Israel and the West that abounds on college campuses across the country.
admitted sex predator hates herself so what else is new?
Where does a lifetime of liberal indoctrination about “inclusivity” lead young women? Feminist Heterosexual Guilt Syndrome:
Dunham shared her views on her lesbian sister and sexual attraction during an appearance at the Point Honors Gala at the New York Public Library Monday.
The “Girls” star thanked her sister Grace, now 22, saying, “I have always felt a strong and emotional connection to members of the LGBTQ community. It was actually a huge disappointment for me when I came of age and realized that I was sexually attracted to men. So when my sister came out, I thought, ‘Thank God, now someone in this family can truly represent my beliefs and passions.’”
It’s easy enough to wisecrack about this, but the sad reality is that feminist ideology does celebrate lesbianism as the ultimate in liberation and equality, so that Lena Dunham’s feminist “beliefs and passions” — the core tenets of her intellectual loyalty — are at odds with her personal preference for penis-in-vagina (PIV) intercourse that feminism condemns as violent oppression. (“PIV is always rape, OK?”) Perhaps you’ve forgotten the radical feminist who explained that their ideology is based on a rejection of the “sex role as fuckholes, breeders and slaves has been forced on us by men, and that this role is wholly unnatural to us.”
This pejorative description of women’s “sex role” may inspire mocking laughter, but it deserves serious critical scrutiny. What the radical feminist rejects is the idea of sexual dimorphism as a natural basis for the division of labor between the sexes. Students of design are taught that form follows function, and the observable differences between male and female constitute a sort of scientific argument for a differentiation of roles between them. The biological purpose of sex is procreation, and if we expect both parents to contribute to the survival of their offspring, the pair-bonding of parents into a permanent unit — the basis of the family — requires a system of cooperation. Viewing sex roles from this natural or biological perspective, we see that child-bearing and breast-feeding tend to inhibit the ability of mothers to work outside the home, at least until their children reach a certain level of maturity.
Advances in technology and the pervasive affluence of developed industrial economies permit us to ignore sexual differences — and the natural or biological basis of sex roles — to a great extent. If “work” consists mainly of sitting in front of a computer terminal, after all, there is no obvious reason that men and women should not be equally capable of such work, whereas in earlier societies, the male role as breadwinner depended largely on physical labor for which men’s greater upper-body strength made them especially suitable. Modernity makes it easy (especially for college-educated professionals who have never earned their living by manual labor) to forget that the superiority of masculine physical strength still matters, just as the development of technology — including cheap, reliable contraception — obscures the centrality of childbearing to women’s biological characteristics.
Anthropology, neuroscience and evolutionary theory all point in the same direction, namely that the differences between men and woman are not merely physical, but that the biology of the brain — including the influence of hormones on our behavior and emotions — also predisposes men and women toward different roles. Radical feminism rejects this view, claiming that apparent differences (e.g., women’s greater tendency toward nurturing) are “social constructs,” imposed on women by the oppressive patriarchy.
If you consider sexual desire and romantic love between men and women to be natural and healthy, you are not a feminist. Because male sexuality is violent and harmful, feminism teaches, women’s “emotional bond to men” is in fact a reaction to men’s “inescapable violence and oppression,” enabling men “to ensure our long-term submission” by “using us as their dick receptacles.” There is nothing natural about sex, according to feminist ideology, no biological urge that causes women to be attracted to men. Indeed, feminism teaches, most women’s belief that they enjoy sex with men is the result of patriarchal brainwashing:
No woman is heterosexual. What men call heterosexuality is an institution where men make women captive for PIV, to control our reproductive functions and steal our labour. Heterosexuality, or sexuality with men does not exist, because the only relationship to men that exists is men’s violence, physical and mental invasion — one that men have so well crafted and disguised for so long that we can mistake it for attraction, sexual urges or love. . . .
It’s part of the global male infrastructure that ensures men a constant supply of ready-tamed and pre-possessed women to effortlessly stick their dicks in, impregnate and abuse.
The penis is an instrument of male violence and intercourse is the means by which women are forcibly oppressed, according to feminism. If any woman believes she has “attraction, sexual urges or love” for a man, this belief results from a “mental invasion” by which “the global male infrastructure” trains a supply of women who can be “effortlessly” obtained as “penis receptacles” to impregnate.
Perceiving male sexuality as intrinsically harmful, and believing that normal women are victims of “heteronormative” brainwashing, feminists imagine the male proposition thus:
Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
Please be my breeder-slave
And dick receptacle, too.
Such a crude derogation of men’s sexual desire is an insult to every woman who takes pleasure in her distinctly feminine role as wife and mother — and the insult is quite intentional, once we realize the extent to which feminism has been dominated by lesbians and abortion fanatics for decades. Overt hostility to men, marriage and motherhood are not recent developments in feminist doctrine, nor is feminism’s philosophical antipathy toward heterosexuality a “fringe” phenomenon.
Why else would Lena Dunham feel the need to express apologetic shamefor her heterosexuality, if her feminist professors at Oberlin College had not taught her this sense of embarrassment at being helplessly brainwashed and voluntarily oppressed as a “dick receptacle”?
Yet this phenomenon — Feminist Heterosexual Guilt Syndrome — is implicit in contemporary liberal culture, which holds that sex is merely a form of pleasure, without any spiritual or moral dimension, to be regulated only by mutual consent. Liberalism’s apparent neutrality toward the sexual preferences of consenting adults, however, is belied by the incessant cheerleading for contraception, abortion and homosexuality. Contraception and abortion are necessary to the liberal project of diverting women from the path toward marriage and motherhood by suppressing their natural fertility. And homosexuality is celebrated by liberals as part of the same project, to delegitimize the traditional family as a normative social institution.
As I said, feminist hostility toward heterosexuality “deserves serious critical scrutiny,” and this means asking ourselves what the consequences would be if, as they say, sexuality and sex roles are merely “social constructs.” Consider as a hypothetical that there is no biological impulse toward heterosexuality, no natural instinct or innate drive that directs us toward marriage and procreation.
If this were so — if sexuality is a “social construct” — then there would be no reason why, in a society free of “heteronormative patriarchy,” everybody should not be homosexual. Of course, that would result in rapid extinction of such a society, but if it is only social influences that shape our sexual behaviors, an entirely homosexual population is a theoretical possibility, at least for one final generation.
However, despite decades of pro-gay propaganda, a Gallup poll found that only 3.4 percent of the population identifies as gay.
It appears, therefore, that there may be some biological resistance to the gay agenda, some innate tendency toward heterosexuality. What has resulted from this gay propaganda is a situation in which the overwhelming majority of Americans — 96.6 percent — are subjected to routine and ubiquitous cultural celebrations of a sexual preference they do not share. And this produces Feminist Heterosexual Guilt Syndrome, where straight women like Lena Dunham feel obligated to publicly denounce themselves for desiring sex with men.
This strange hostility toward viewing heterosexual behavior as natural, as a function of basic biology, also explains the attitude that led a Massachusetts college sex educator to complain:
I suppose I’ve been relying on students to find their own way to embracing biology as a valuable way to think about sex. But this point of view is so foreign to many of them, many of them Sociology or Women’s Studies majors who have never thought about sex in terms of biology or reproduction . . . And I suppose it was too much to ask that they get there on their own.
I wanted them to find their way to the notion that it’s not “heteronormative” to recognize that sex is an evolutionarily adaptive reproduction strategy that, in humans, involves males and females; it’s just our biology, and there’s a complex, mutually interacting relationship between the biological and the social. I’ve been working toward that all semester. But they have not gotten there.
Amazing! A biological view of sex — as simple as “Me Tarzan, you Jane” — is nowadays so alien to the worldview of college students that they reject it as being somehow anti-gay.
Given the prevalence of these weird ideas in academia, it’s not surprising that many students are deeply confused about sex. If campus performances of “How to Be a Lesbian in 10 Days or Less” are regarded as routine at universities, how many more young women feel the same kind of “huge disappointment” as Lena Dunham? Alas, they still crave men who will use their vaginas as “penis receptacles”!
Well, form follows function. That’s what I learned in college.
“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
— Matthew 19:4-6 (KJV)
“[T]he failure to examine heterosexuality as an institution is like failing to admit that the economic system called capitalism or the caste system of racism is maintained by a variety of forces, including both physical violence and false consciousness. . . .
“Lesbians have historically been deprived of a political existence through ‘inclusion’ as female versions of male homosexuality. To equate lesbian existence with male homosexuality because each is stigmatized is to deny and erase female reality once again. To separate those women stigmatized as ‘homosexual’ or ‘gay’ from the complex continuum of female resistance to enslavement, and attach them to a male pattern, is to falsify our history.”
— Adrienne Rich, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” (1980)
In recent weeks, I have been re-reading Daphne Patai’s 1998 book Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism, because it offers valuable insights into the ideology many readers first encountered in the ridiculous expression, “PIV is always rape, OK?”
Demonizing male sexuality, feminists have made hostility to heterosexual intercourse (PIV = penis in vagina) a persistent theme of their rhetoric for many years. When conservatives took notice of Radical Wind’s anti-PIV rant in January, many may have assumed that this was a new idea from the kook fringe of feminism, but it’s not. As I pointed out last year (“Taking Feminism Seriously”), Marxism and lesbianism are the twin pillars of feminist ideology, and have been since the 1960s. Most people don’t realize this, because feminism operates by a sort of duality: It has anexoteric rhetoric — a public discourse about “rights” and “equality” offered in mainstream venues — and an esoteric ideology, taught in advanced Women’s Studies classes and discussed in academic journals, where committed feminists are speaking to each other.
Daphne Patai, originally a literature professor, spent 10 years teaching Women’s Studies at the University of Massachusetts in the 1980s and ’90s, an experience that led to her 1994 book Professing Feminism (co-authored with Noretta Koertge). Her direct experience with academic feminism and extensive familiarity with feminist ideology informsHeterophobia, in which Professor Patai addresses the arguments and tactics of what she calls the Sexual Harassment Industry. Professor Patai’s experience enabled her to perceive how courts, legislators and academic theorists had incorporated into their discourse about sexual harassment many radical ideas that originated with feminist ideologues like Andrea Dworkin, Mary Daly and Catharine McKinnon.
Professor Patai begins Chapter 6 of Heterophobia thus:
Something very strange happened toward the end of the twentieth century. Heterosexuality went from being the norm to being on the defensive. By calling this phenomenon “heterophobia,” I am not speaking abstractly. Rather, I am referring to a distinct current within feminism over the past thirty years [i.e., since the late 1960s, as Professor Patai wrote this in 1998], a current that has been “theorized” explicitly by feminist scholars and agitators alike as they attack men and heterosexuality.
Here, then, Professor Patai begins to deconstruct feminism’s esoteric ideology, exposing it in plain sight for critical examination.
It is remarkable that feminism’s fundamental hostility toward heterosexuality was never really a secret, at least among those who bothered to pay attention to its development from the late 1960s onward as a phenomenon of the radical New Left (see “Re-Reading Susan Brownmiller”) into a coherent ideology propagated in university Women’s Studies programs. But just as no one paid much attention to latter-day New Left disciple Barack Obama until he emerged as the Democrat nominee for president in 2008, few have bothered to examine the core beliefs of feminism’s esoteric ideology, which have gained further influence since Professor Patai examined them in 1998.
Continuing in Chapter 6 of Heterophobia (pp. 133-134 of the hardback edition), Professor Patai discusses how “the antiheterosexual tenor of much feminist discourse” plays a role “in alienating ‘ordinary’ women from feminism.” She talks about the explicitly anti-male message “being conveyed in women’s studies classes taught by doctrinaire feminists eager to teach their students all about ‘compulsory heterosexuality,’ as Adrienne Rich famously put it.”
Those who are not students of feminism may be puzzled by Professor Patai’s description of Adrienne Rich’s phrase as “famous.” And this reaction – “Who the hell is Adrienne Rich?” — serves to demonstrate the yawning gulf between public awareness of feminism and the esoteric doctrine taught in Women’s Studies programs.
Anticipating this puzzled reaction, Professor Patai includes a lengthy endnote, which we find on pp. 234-235 of Heterophobia:
Adrience Rich, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 5, no. 4 (Summer 1980): 631-60. Rich’s essay is a key document that has had an enormous impact over the past two decades. It has been widely anthologized and is regularly taught in women’s studies courses. In her recent work, [University of California Berkeley Professor] Judith Butler refers to the presumably indisputable reality of compulsory heterosexuality without even citing Rich, so well known has the phrase become. . . .
Thus, in less than 20 years, the anti-heterosexual theme of Rich’s radical essay had become so deeply embedded in the feminist theory taught at universities that its “indisputable reality” was simply taken for granted by a leading Women’s Studies scholar.
“If you consider sexual desire and romantic love between men and women to be natural and healthy, you are not a feminist. . . . There is nothing natural about sex, according to feminist ideology, no biological urge that causes women to be attracted to men.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, April 10
You can read Rich’s influential 1980 essay online, where University of Georgia Law Professor Dawn Bennett-Alexander calls it “a major intellectual force in the general feminist reorientation to sexual matters in recent years.” A brief excerpt:
The bias of compulsory heterosexuality, through which lesbian experience is perceived on a scale ranging from deviant to abhorrent, or simply rendered invisible, could be illustrated from many other texts than the two just preceding. The assumption made by [Alice] Rossi, that women are “innately sexually oriented” toward men, or by [Doris] Lessing, that the lesbian choice is simply an acting-out of bitterness toward men, are by no means theirs alone; they are widely current in literature and in the social sciences.
I am concerned here with two other matters as well: first, how and why women’s choice of women as passionate comrades, life partners, co-workers, lovers, tribe, has been crushed, invalidated, forced into hiding and disguise; and second, the virtual or total neglect of lesbian existence in a wide range of writings, including feminist scholarship. . . .
Any theory or cultural/political creation that treats lesbian existence as a marginal or less “natural” phenomenon, as mere “sexual preference,” or as the mirror image of either heterosexual or male homosexual relations is profoundly weakened thereby, whatever its other contributions. Feminist theory can no longer afford merely to voice a toleration of “lesbianism” as an “alternative life-style,” or make token allusion to lesbians. A feminist critique of compulsory heterosexual orientation for women is long overdue. . . .
Readers may wish to examine Adrienne Rich’s biography, because she was by no means a marginal “fringe” figure in feminist history. The daughter of a renowned Johns Hopkins University medical professor, Rich graduated from Radcliffe College in 1951 and two years later married a Harvard economics professor with whom she had three sons. Rich gained acclaim for her poetry and in the 1960s taught at Swarthmore College, Columbia University and City College of New York. She became involved in radical politics and in 1970 separated from her husband, who then committed suicide at age 46. By the mid-1970s, Rich was living openly as a lesbian, subsequently explaining: “The suppressed lesbian I had been carrying in me since adolescence began to stretch her limbs.” She later taught at Brandeis University, Bryn Mawr College, Rutgers University, Scripps College, San Jose State University, Stanford University and Cornell University.
If Rich’s “feminist critique of compulsory heterosexual orientation for women” was, as Professor Patai says, “widely anthologized and . . . regularly taught in women’s studies courses” in the 1990s, how much further has acceptance of this doctrine progressed since then?
Far enough that a state university in Spartanburg, South Carolina, hosted a performance of Leigh Hendrix’s one-woman show, “How to Be a Lesbian in 10 Days or Less,” as part of a campus feminist conference. Far enough that celebrity feminist Lena Dunham feels obligated to publicly lament her heterosexuality as a “huge disappointment.” Far enough that a progressive sex educator finds her university Women’s Sexuality course denounced as “heteronormative,” and realizes that many of her students “have never thought about sex in terms of biology or reproduction.”
Readers who have followed developments in the Culture War in recent decades must ask themselves: “What’s next?”