Chu begins trip to mainland, set for talks with Xi

TAIPEI — The chairman of Taiwan’s ruling Kuomintang (KMT), Eric Chu (朱立倫), began on Saturday his first visit to mainland China since taking up his post early this year, and is scheduled to hold talks with Chinese leader Xi Jinping for the first time.

Chu, who is also mayor of New Taipei City, departed for Shanghai in the morning at the head of a 100-strong delegation to an annual economic and cultural forum between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

The highlight of Chu’s three-day visit will be his first meeting with Xi, who is CCP general secretary, in the latter’s capacity as the top leader of mainland China and its ruling party.

The meeting, which will take place in Beijing on Monday, takes on extra significance as Chu, 53, is widely considered to be the KMT’s best chance of winning the presidential election either in 2016 or four years later. Chu has ruled out standing in the upcoming election, saying he will complete his second four-year term as mayor that began in December 2014.

Even though the meeting is not without precedent, it is important as Beijing ponders the prospect of Taiwan’s opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) possibly returning to power after Taiwan’s election next January.

During the eight years the DPP was in power from 2000 to 2008, relations between the two sides were tense as Chen Shui-bian, the first DPP president to rule Taiwan, tried to strengthen the R.O.C.’s status as a sovereign nation.

But in the past seven years of KMT rule, many people have been dissatisfied with economic and other domestic issues while some also worry that President Ma Ying-jeou, from the KMT, may be bringing Taiwan too close to the mainland.

After arriving in Shanghai, Chu will give a speech at Fudan University on the worsening income inequality caused by global capital flows.

His first day in China will also include a dinner hosted by Yu Zhengsheng, chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference.

Chu’s planned meeting with Xi will follow those between his predecessors Lien Chan and Wu Po-hsiung and then-CCP General Secretary Hu Jintao, respectively.

But it will be only the third time a KMT chief holds talks with his CCP counterpart when the KMT is in power in Taiwan. The two previous meetings took place in 2008 and 2009, when Wu was KMT chairman.

#letstalkmen #womenagainstfeminism 3 Signs She’s Making A False Rape Accusation

False rape claims distort the pursuit of justice and ruin the lives of innocent men. I want both men and women to know the signs of a false rape so that men can protect themselves and women can avoid looking like a liar if they were legitimately raped.

So let’s get to it. After many years of reading and hearing about various rape cases that were eventually dismissed, I started to notice patterns surrounding false rape accusations. While not any one of these tests are conclusive, if you see two or more of the signs below, your bullshit alarm should be going off.

1. Virtually no evidence of struggle

Contrary to what a lot of feminists claim, girls fight back when someone is trying to put an unwanted object in their vagina. Perhaps the most frustrating form of last-minute resistance known to man is having a naked girl on your bed who refuses to open her legs. How is a man supposed to rape her short of beating her down and tying her up?

Feminist response: “But what if the attacker has a knife/gun/(insert weapon here)?”

Unless the victim was approached in complete isolation, the attacker is going to have a very hard time sneaking in a weapon without being noticed in most public places, let alone raping her in public. And if a woman was raped in isolation, like some kind of back alley, then this test doesn’t apply because she is a true victim.

Feminist response: “But what if she goes over to his house, or he goes over to her house?”

This brings us to our next point…

2. The attacker is invited to the victim’s house OR the victim willingly went to the attacker’s house

Put yourself in a criminal’s shoes. If you wanted to rape a woman and get away with it, why would you rape a woman who invited you over? The evidence is already stacked against you should anything happen to her. The police would know for certain that you were in the same residence as her.

It is for this reason that a woman who claims to have been raped in her own house by a man she knew beforehand is a suspicious claim, since a man looking to rape someone would not pick a target who could identify him to the police.

This is especially true in our digital age – cell phones have GPS tracking systems, cars have GPS chips built in, and if someone so much as accesses the internet at a residence in any way a record is created – so the risk of being caught for any crime rises dramatically when in a personal residence. It would be impossible to create an alibi of being somewhere else.

The same is true for a man raping a woman he invited over to his house: why would he do such an act, knowing he could not deny being in the same residence with her? It doesn’t make sense.

Feminist response: “But according to all the statistics, most women are raped by men they know!”

This brings us to the final, and most obvious sign…

 3. Authorities are alerted days, weeks, or even months after the rape

If your car is robbed, do you wait a few weeks before telling the police? If your house burns down, do you wait a few months before making a claim?

I often hear women do not report rapes right away because they are ashamed or humiliated to report that it ever happened. This is pure bullshit because any rape victim working with the police can request to have their identity hidden from the press, and both the police and press must honor such requests under penalty of law.

The most likely reason a woman waits to file rape charges is because she herself doesn’t know how she feels about the sex she had – “Oh, he was cute but I was really drunk…” – and needs to convince herself she was somehow wronged.

But, in the real world, it’s easy to see when you’re wronged. Things like being raped aren’t ambiguous. The only reason women wait to report a rape is because they are unsure of how to spin a convincing story, or because pangs of guilt prevent them from doing so. Ultimately, when women make a false rape charge it’s to avoid admitting the man she slept with was a mistake.

Thus if a woman says she was “date raped” by a man she already known, and he had her at knife or gun point, ask yourself: How long did she wait to report the crime? Anything less than 36 hours and I would become suspicious.

Applying the tests

Try it for yourself. Go review some famous false-rape charges, such as the ones levied against Dominique Strauss-Khan, Julian Assange, or the Duke lacrosse players. You’ll see in all cases unharmed women who were properly on the same premises as the attacker, and, in the case of Assange, women who took their sweet time to file some charges.

When he was later interviewed by police in Stockholm, Assange agreed that he had had sex with Miss A but said he did not tear the condom, and that he was not aware that it had been torn. He told police that he had continued to sleep in Miss A’s bed for the following week and she had never mentioned a torn condom.

I lived with my rapist for a week?

After looking at false rape reports, be sure to look at an actual rape case:

Lucas arrived Saturday at the doorman building with a pizza for a customer on the 10th floor. Once his work was done, the teen allegedly found his way to the victim’s unlocked door down the hall.

“He goes through the building opening doors,” said the victim, a modeling agent, as she wiped away tears. “There I am with my daughter sleeping. And he rapes me with my daughter right next to me?”

The rape occurred inside a bedroom filled with dozens of porcelain and plastic dolls belonging to the little girl. Cops said the attacker tried to muzzle the victim’s cries by putting his hand over her mouth.

“It seemed fake,” said the victim, who said she woke up a little disoriented to find Lucas already on top of her. “I opened my eyes. I said, ‘Get off. What are you doing?’ I was hysterical.”

Lucas was tracked down by police through the building doorman, who let him inside, and the customer, who steered them to the pizza shop.

As you can see the above case, an actual rape involves strangers, trespassing, and intense signs of struggle. While the three tests aren’t 100% accurate, since nothing can be known with complete certainty, these indicators will be right more often than not.

So learn the difference, and end the abuse of our justice system.

#blacklivesmatter #tdot2bmore : Why Do Pro- #BaltimoreRiots Pundits Live in Wealthy, White Areas? #FreddieGray

Lots of pundits are supporting the riots on Twitter.

We wanted to get a sense of what these pundits did in their private lives.

What is their revealed preferences?

Are these voices of black America or the so-called Baltimore uprising living in majority black areas?


In fact, many of them live in white-majority areas, gated communities, or high end apartments. More than a few of them live in wealthy suburbs.

In other words, they’re safe from the black ghetto crime that is gripping America’s inner cities. There’s no riot that’ll break out in their living rooms anytime soon.

#blacklivesmatter #toronto Donald Beckles 46, Trevor Seraphine, 17, Malcolm Marfo, 22

in March 2015 in North Etobicoke 3  black men lost thier lives to black gangsters in Toronto.  there is a  blacklivesmatter protest here in Toronto in front of the toronto police headquarters. the blacklivesmatters protesters are ignoring the March shootings of 3 black males by black gangsters in North Etobicoke.  The lives of the men do not matter to the protesters because they are not taken by white police or white men.

Mississauga mayor, Bonnie Crombie, aligned herself with Fatah, the parent movement of the terrorist Aqsa Brigades

Bonnie Crombie, the mayor of Mississauga (Ontario), attended (March 28, 2015) as a guest of honour the Land Day commemoration event organized by the Arab Palestinian Association (الجمعية العربية الفلسطينية), which is described as the regional branch of Fatah movement in Canada.

In her speech, Mayor Crombie aligned herself with the organizers stressing her sympathy for the Palestinian struggle over the land and her unwavering support of the Palestinian community. The following is the transcript of Mayor Crombie’s speech (14:09-16:21) which was broadcasted on Rogers TV (channels 10, 63 and 510):

“Masa al-khair (Good evening مساء الخير), as-salamu alaykum (peace be upon you السلام عليكم), of course I had to come, a hundred and twenty days now since the elections, since sworn in, and I wanted to be with you here to commemorate Land Day and what happened on March 30, 1976 as we will always remember.

“So, it’s a solemn time we must remember, to get together, here in Mississauga, to really celebrate our culture and the people that we have celebrating here in Mississauga wonderful Palestinian community alive and well in Mississauga.

“We cherish you and we celebrate you here, and we’re so happy that that you’re with us, and we have great friends among us, and many of them, many of them help my bid to get elected to represent you, you, I feel one of you, we are us together, we are one people, and I am one of you.

“So thank you, thank you, shukran (thank you شكرا), sukran (thank you شكرا) for all the help that you gave me and my campaign. You were there for me day and night throughout the months that we spent last year, eight months long… I’m honoured to be here with you, and I’m honoured to consider you my friends and my extended family. Thanks you.

“I will always come, no matter how busy or some doubt or shy. there was never a doubt, never a doubt that I will be here tonight so we can commemorate this day together…

“Maybe in June… maybe we’ll go to Palestine. What do you think? I’m so honoured to be the Mayor of Mississauga, the Mayor for the Palestinian community here in Mississauga. Thank you, shukran (thank you شكرا), good night, and I’ so happy to be with you and of course I’ll do my best.”

Among the the other speakers in the event were Rashad Saleh (رشاد صالح), the Secretary of Fatah movement in Canada, Hamed Abu Setta (حامد ابو ستة) who spoke on behalf of the Arab Palestinian Association and called Israel “a cancerous tumor.”

Mu’taz Qar’oush (معتز قرعوش), the manager of the Palestinian folk dance group Fununiyat and a Fatah official, gave Mayor Crombie a mini banner award illustrating the Palestinian adherence to the land. An unidentified woman gave her a scarf with the flag of Palestine.

The stage was decorated with a posters of the old city Jerusalem, Yassir Arafat, the founder of Fatah, PLO and the Palestinian Authority who died in 2004, and Fatah flags featuring an assault rifle and a map of what is called “historical Palestine” as an illustration to the commitment to liberate all the land of Palestine, including the territory on which the State of Israel was established.

Fununiyat’s performance included a scene in which the “Palestinian prisoners” were praised as heroes for their sacrifice in the struggle to liberate Palestine.

It should be noted that most of these prisoners were convicted of involvement in terrorist activities. This group include among others suicide bombers captured alive, dispatchers of suicide bombers, mass murderers, leaders of terrorist organizations, terrorists who killed civilians and those who attempted or planned to kill civilians.

Rape Culture Means: Guys, Do Not Have Sex With Jordan Bosiljevac (Update)

Jordan Bosiljevac is a deeply confused sophomore at Claremont McKenna College (annual tuition $47,395) and, like every other college girl, she’s got an opinion about rape culture:

Why Yes Can Mean No
It started with “consent is sexy.” But, of course, there was no point in that—it was like saying rape is just bad sex, instead of a felony. Then there was “consent is mandatory.” It was much better, reminding us that sex is consensual, and everything else is rape. But then there was me, after a party, in a man’s dorm room. And there was “is this ok?” If we are being legal about this, I said ‘yes’ — no coercion, no imminent threat of violence, no inebriation (well, not a lot, anyway). But what I want to talk about is what happened before I said yes, who taught me to say yes, why I thought it was better to say yes, and why I really meant ‘no.’ . . .

(Pause, dear reader, to imagine yourself in the position of the male Claremont McKenna College student who is the other half of this story. You hooked up with Jordan Bosiljevac after a party, and now she’s going to tell everyone who reads the student newspaper why, in fact, she really didn’t want to hook up with you.)

Depending on who you are, it might sound ridiculous: why would anyone ever say yes when they meant no? Honesty is important to any relationship — sexual or otherwise. Besides, the legal definition of rape in the State of California states “rape is an act of sexual intercourse when a person is incapable of” . . .
Honestly, there’s a lot more to it than that for me. At five, relatives used to kiss my cheeks even as I winced and turned away. At the tender age of twelve, I was taught that my bra straps and thighs deserved detention because they distracted boys at school. At sixteen, my boyfriend assured me that most girls liked this — I just needed to relax. So at 20, in someone’s room after a party, ‘no’ was scary and unfamiliar to me. These incidents, unfortunately, are not unique to me. In discussing this experience with friends, we coined the term “raped by rape culture” to describe what it was like to say yes, coerced by the culture that had raised us and the systems of power that worked on us, and to still want ‘no.’ Sometimes, for me, there was obligation from already having gone back to someone’s room, not wanting to ruin a good friendship, loneliness, worry that no one else would ever be interested, a fear that if I did say no, they might not stop, the influence of alcohol, and an understanding that hookups are “supposed” to be fun.

She was “coerced by the culture” and oppressed by “the systems of power,” you see. That dude she hooked up with after the party might havethought she was consenting to have sex with him when, in fact, he was “culture” and raped her. Or something like that.

The idea that women are “coerced by culture” into having sex by men is, of course, consistent with lesbian feminist Professor Marilyn Frye’s assertion that “most women have to be coerced into heterosexuality.” In other words, women do not actually want to have sex with men. Instead, because female “subordination is the basis of male power,” as Professor Charlotte Bunch explained, heterosexuality for women means “submission to personal oppression.” Having sex with men, feminist theory teaches, is part of the “socialized behavior instruction” of “the unnatural, yet universal roles patriarchy has assigned” to women. As lesbian feminist Adrienne Rich explained, “male power manifests itself . . . as enforcing heterosexuality on women,” so that “for women heterosexuality” is “imposed . . . and maintained by force.”

Whether or not Jordan Bosiljevac has learned any of that Advanced Feminist Logic™ at Claremont McKenna College, she clearly has grasped the core feminist doctrine that her entire life has been a traumatic experience of oppression. “Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization . . . to come to see oneself as a victim,” as Professor Sandra Lee Bartky has explained. Women’s oppression under patriarchy is so pervasive, according to feminist theory, that women cannot be sure that their ideas, beliefs and emotions are their own. Instead, feminism teaches women that they have been indoctrinated by a system of male supremacy, brainwashed into believing that having sex with men is “natural.” Feminist “rape culture” discourse is not about protecting women from rape; it’s about convincing them that any sexual activity with men can be considered rape, because how can any female (being a victim of male oppression) be able to freely “consent” to sex with her oppressor? This seems to be what Jordan Bosiljevac is trying to tell us:

For me, and many others like me, consent isn’t easy. Yes doesn’t always mean yes, and we misplaced ‘no’ several years ago. This experience isn’t random, but disproportionately affects oppressed communities. Consent is a privilege, and it was built for wealthy, heterosexual, cis, white, western, able-bodied masculinity. . . .
When you’re poor, disabled, queer, non-white, trans, or feminine, ‘no’ isn’t for you. . . . for me, finding ‘no’ is a process, consent is elusive, and sometimes, even when people don’t mean to — they hurt me.

Translation: Guys, do not have sex with Jordan Bosiljevac, ever.

She cannot authentically say “yes,” because “consent is elusive” and, while she is willing to stipulate consent as a hypothetical possibility, any male who would even think about having sex with Jordan Bosiljevac is as crazy as she is.

UPDATE: Thanks to the commenter who pointed out that, in another article at the Claremont McKenna Forum, Jordan Bosiljevac labels herself “a brown woman of gay parents,” and describes “third grade me, starting elementary school with more wealthy white children than I’d ever seen in my whole life”:

On the first day I entered this alien planet via my mothers’ red van — yes, that’s two moms that both came to drop me off. As if gay moms in an old, unfashionable van weren’t enough, I was one of a few children of color at my school. I had no friends, a lot of whispers about my strange family situation, and sudden regret for all the time I’d spent outside that past summer. Basically, I felt like a mess.

Well, “the personal is the political,” as Women’s Liberation pioneer Carol Hanisch famously proclaimed, and this sort of identity-based narrativeapproach to politics — i.e., offering one’s personal biography as the justification of a radical ideology — has multiple consequences. Forming any kind of coherent movement becomes difficult because everyone has an unlimited psychological investment in the movement, and must fight to make the movement reflective of their own identity. This was the history of Women’s Liberation in a nutshell, familiar to anyone who has read Alice Echols’ Daring to Be Bad or Susan Brownmiller’s In Our Time.

From its beginning amid the radical New Left of the 1960s, the modern feminist movement was crippled by its tendency to attract fanatical ax-grinders who were using politics as a means of addressing their own narrow personal grievances against men, against Judeo-Christian morality, against society in general. The undeniable fact that many of theleading activists in the Women’s Liberation movement were lesbiansshould have been a warning to any woman who joined the movement in expectation of advancing a reform agenda aimed at the everyday concerns of the typical woman’s life. When it became apparent that some of the movement’s most vocal spokeswomen (including both Kate Millett andShulamith Firestone) were quite literally psychotic, this should have prompted other feminists to reconsider their own basic principles.

Here we are, then, in the 21st century and the 20-year-old daughter of a lesbian couple finds that her search for happiness is fraught with perils and disappointments she can only analyze through a feminist lens. She has no other frame of reference and yet, as I have said, if feminism is the cause of your problem, the solution to your problem is not “more feminism.” This puts someone like Jordan Bosiljevac into a painful dilemma, for if she were somehow to re-examine her principles and discover traditionalism, she would be compelled to reject her own “family values.” Therefore it is much more likely that she will instead double-down on feminism, embracing an even more radical hostility to human nature.

This kind of reaction to feminism’s failure is exactly what we are witnessing everywhere now. A new book, Freedom Fallacy: The Limits of Liberal Feminism, edited by a pair of Australian feminists, collects essays advocating a renewed radicalism. The titles of these essays reveal a totalitarian suspicion of personal liberty (e.g., “Entitled to Be Free: Exposing the Limits of Choice”), a sense of a radical indignation (e.g., “The Illusion of Progress: A Betrayal of Women from Both Ends of the Political Spectrum”), and an underlying anti-heterosexual hostility toward men (e.g., “The Oppression That Dare Not Speak Its Name? Silences Around Heterosexuality in Contemporary Feminism”). These attitudes are surprising only to those who have not studied feminist gender theory and the history of the movement. (My book Sex Trouble provides a helpful introduction.) Ultimately, the movement aims to bring about the destruction of civilization as we know it, annihilating the traditional married family as a normative institution, and bringing about an “equality” of the sexes by the imposition of androgyny, i.e., “the abolition of gender.” If anyone asks where “the pursuit of happiness” fits into this radical vision, the answer is that feminists consider “happiness” a myth, a social construct of the heteronormative patriarchy.

BTW, as of May 5, it’s National Offend a Feminist Week. You can celebrate by being as happy as possible. Feminists hate happiness.

#GamerGate Bar Meetup Disrupted By Bomb Threats

Late yesterday evening, around 300 ordinary GamerGate supporters and major figures alike, including Christina Hoff Sommers and Milo Yiannopolous, attended a meet & greet at a small bar in Washington D.C. Heralded as the first real-life Gamergate meetup, the good cheer and joviality lasted well into the small hours of the morning, and the opinions of all attending were that an air of comradery and sanity evinced the true spirit of all GamerGate. #GGinDC was a trending topic as far away as the UK, and many were thrilled to meet the big names of the movement.

Teaching Literary Feminism

“Why invite the potential headaches of teaching a lesbian graphic novel in a religious institution?” asks Professor Scott A. Dimowitz in an essay published in an academic anthology this month. “In the course of several iterations of a class on Literary Feminism that I teach at Regis University, a Jesuit school in Denver, Colorado, I have used Alison Bechdel’s Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic and selections from her long-running comic strip, Dykes to Watch Out For to explain postmodern life narratives that incorporate nontraditional matter and a nodding acquaintance with Roman Catholic Church doctrine.”

Perhaps the disclosure of Professor Dimowitz’s curriculum is shocking to some alumni of Regis University and to Catholics who don’t realize how “postmodern life narratives,” including feminist gender theory, now pervade academia. As I previously explained (“Introduction to Feminist Theory”), “there are very good reasons why the proceedings in Women’s Studies courses are generally not discussed outside the classroom.” If parents and alumni were aware of what was being taught in these programs, and if voters understood how taxpayer subsidies to higher education are helping fund such ideological indoctrination on campus, we might expect a political firestorm to erupt. One can easily imagine a congressional committee hearing on what Professor Glenn Reynolds has called The Higher Education Bubble, where the “Your Tax Dollars At Work” aspect of this nonsense could be exposed to public scrutiny.

There are now Women’s Studies programs at some 700 U.S. colleges and universities, enrolling more than 90,000 students annually, and these programs are the intellectual command centers of the Feminist-Industrial Complex. Many thousands of professors are employed to teach courses in this interdisciplinary field. Carmen Rios, the self-described “raging lesbian feminist” who is Communications Coordinator at the Feminist Majority Foundation, has explained:

Is it Gender Studies? Women’s Studies? Women’s And Gender Studies? Sexuality Studies? Gender and Sexuality Studies? LGBT Studies? Queer Studies? Feminist Studies? . . . Women’s Studies remains an interdisciplinary field, making its name all the more difficult to decide on. Is it Women’s History and Theory, or is the program really Lesbo Recruitment 101?

She said that, not me. Regis University describes its program:

Women’s and Gender Studies examines the intersections of gender, race, and class, and also considers how gender roles are constructed in different global cultures and historical periods. Women have made important contributions in traditionally defined “male pursuits” (politics, science, art, etc.) Although traditionally understudied, women’s experiences and participation have led to the reexamination of long-held interpretations and conventional wisdoms in a wide variety of academic fields. Uniting all women and gender studies inquiries is the effort to understand and explain inequality between men and women, and to envision the possibility of new social practices that could bring about greater equality, mutual understanding, and human flourishing.

And also, lesbian comic books. Professor Dimowitz explains that he teaches Bechdel’s cartoons because this helps “defamiliarize traditional linguistic life narratives and form a uniquely productive site of tension and destabilization of students’ assumptions about gender, sexuality, and the very nature of what constitutes aesthetic merit, which few of the other traditional texts were able to achieve to the same extent.”

Exactly how does all this relate to the aims of a Catholic university?Professor Dimowitz is eager to explain:

To be clear about my own position . . . I was raised in a particularly strict form of Pennsylvanian, Croatian-immigrant Roman Catholicisim. . . . Years later I find myself teaching Catholic students, although Regis is a Jesuit university and Jesuits have always been more of a distinctly unconventional form of Catholicism. . . . As a specialist in postmodern literature and gender studies, I have an investment in engaging students in open discussions about representations of gender and sexuality in contemporary literature and culture.

Hmmm. So now the professor talks about his Literary Feminism class:

The course is offered as part of Regis University’s Integrative Core Curriculum, which was established in 2009, seeking to integrate juniors’ and seniors’ understanding of four key areas: (1) Diversity and Cultural Tradition, (2) Global Environmental Awareness, (3) Justice and the Common Good, and (4) The Search for Meaning. As a Diversity and Cultural Tradition course, Literary Feminism has two pragmatic goals, among others: (1) to introduce students to the idea of gender as a performative act, and (2) to understand the complexities and varieties of human sexual expression and representation. These goals reflect an overall tolerant approach to the study of gender and sexuality. . . .

So here we find the postmodern “idea of gender as a performative act,”i.e., the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix. One wonders what would be the reaction to Professor Dimowitz’s recitation of all this academic jargon, if you could present it to the devout priests who established this university, originally called Sacred Heart College, in the 19th century? One wonders, indeed, what the Pope must think of this, considering how he has twice in recent months condemned gender theory. In an interview with Italian journalists Andrea Tornielli and Giacomo Galeazzi, Pope Francis compared gender theory to the doctrines of the Hitler Youth and, on April 15, Pope Francis described “so-called gender theory” as “an expression of frustration and resignation that aims to erase sexual differentiation because it no longer knows how to come to terms with it.” Anyone who expects Catholic institutions of higher education to heed the Pope and fight against the nihilistic doctrine of gender theory, however, will be disappointed to discover what Professor Dimowitz is teaching at Regis University:

This graphic nature of the form is clear throughout Bechdel’s 2006Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic, a darkly humorous coming-of-age memoir of Bechdel’s childhood growing up in a funeral home run by her father, a closeted homsexual who was also a high school English teacher with a penchant for seducing some of his male students.

(Feminist Literature is so wholesome and inspiring!)

The book cycles its meditations around the event of Bechdel’s father’s death, which she believes may have been a suicide. Juxtaposing her own coming out story as a lesbian against her father’s inability to lead an authentic existence. Bechdel in Fun Homemetanarratively meditates on the nature of life writing. . . . The book is frank about sexuality and blunt about her father’s statutory rapes of high school boys, and the text even includes several panels in which Bechdel recreated imagined scenes of seduction of these students. Bechdel struggles to understand her ambivalent responses to her father’s death while trying to unify a life narrative out of the fractured collage of documents and memories.

Again: Why is this being taught in a Catholic university? Do the parents who are paying $33,060 a year to send their children to Regis University have any clue what is being taught there? Does anyone even care?Professor Dimowitz says 70 percent of freshmen at Regis “self-identify as Roman Catholic.” However:

Many incoming students . . . have a rather cavalier attitude toward Church orthodoxy, which is part of an overall movement in contemporary attitudes. In America, especially, belief in strict Vatican law is clearly trending away from dogma. . . . According to a 2011 Pew survey of Americans, clear majorities “across most demographic groups say homosexuality should be accepted by society” and not discouraged or ignored (which are the two other categories). Interestingly, Catholics, in general, favor acceptance at 64 percent, which compares positively to the overall population’s acceptance, which is only 58 percent.

Here it should be pointed out that the choices Pew offered — whether homosexuality should be “accepted,” “ignored” or “discouraged” — omit other alternatives, particularly “tolerated,” i.e., an attitude somewhere in the range of “live and let live” or ‘who the hell cares?” This kind oftoleration of homosexuality has in fact been widespread in America for decades, even while gay activists have hyped up claims that America is gripped by “homophobia.” So, sure, given the three choices the Pew poll offered, most people would say “accepted,” particular because they know that’s the answer they’re supposed to choose. We return to Professor Dimowitz’s discussion:

This general trending toward acceptance [of homosexuality], especially among millennials, opens up a fertile space for dialogue with students of a traditional college age.

(Professor Dimowitz gets paid to have a “dialogue” about gayness with college kids, and he seems quite eager to do so.)

When asked in a survey, “How did you feel about our openly discussing homosexuality in a Catholic school?” the Regis students were overwhelmingly positive. . . . Of course, part of this positivity is perhaps a function of Regis University’s generally progressive Jesuit orientation, and the question might receive a different response from a far more conservative school.

The bottom line, then, is that Professor Dimowitz and the administration at Regis University are comfortable with the idea that moral issues should be determine by (a) public opinion polls, or (b) “progressive Jesuit orientation,” and certainly not by (c) that old-fashioned “Thou shalt not” stuff in the Bible. Any institutional resistance we might have expected Catholic educators to make against society’s drift toward nihilism has been swept away. A progressive devotion to radical egalitarianism (the heretical “liberation theology” that embraced Marxist revolutionary movements in Latin America during the 1980s) steadily replaces devotion to God at institutions like Regis University.

Being “conformed to this world,” they teach “doctrines of devils.”

Feminism’s ‘Rape Culture’ Insanity

Does anyone else remember the “Culture War” of the 1990s? Conservatives like Bill Bennett and Robert Bork argued at the time that the decadence of popular culture — as evidenced in everything from gangsta rap to video games to Quentin Tarantino movies — was corrupting morality, inciting violence and sexual perversion. Here we are, two decades later and feminists are saying basically the same thing.

This is part of what the whole “rape culture” discourse is about. Whereas most of us think of rape as a criminal act perpetrated by individuals, feminists want to indict culture — or “misogyny” or “male supremacy” or some other way of blaming larger societal forces beyond the act of the individual rapist. Therefore, feminists now adamantly insist, it’s the way we talk about sex, or the way sex is depicted in advertising, movies and TV shows, which causes rape. So now the Speech Police patrol the Internet, ready to denounce as a “rape apologist” anyone who contradicts the feminist narrative. No one can be permitted to express doubt toward the Scientific Truth of the Feminist-Industrial Complex. After Christina Hoff Sommers spoke at Georgetown University, the student newspaper published an editorial that accused the College Republicans (who hosted Sommers’ lecture) of having “knowingly endorsed a harmful conversation on the serious topic of sexual assault.”

Merely to have a conversation is harmful on the 21st-century campus.

What sort of conversations are students permitted to have? Feminists apparently had no problem with the Foucault-influenced postmodern gibberish spewed by Emma Sulkowicz in a “Sexual Assault Awareness Month” event at Brown University:

There does not exist a scientific way to prove non-consent. . . . When it comes to sexual violence, scientific proof is impossible. . . . If we use proof in rape cases, we fall into the patterns of rape deniers. . . . When a person claims that their theory is a science, they disqualify other types of knowledge. . . . Let’s change the question from ‘Did she consent that night?’ to ‘Did she have the power to consent that night?’ . . . This is not about physical strength. . . . This is about historical power. . . . Seeing is the origin of interpretation. Interpretation is the origin of knowing. . . . If truth is scientific, then art cannot access truth. But perhaps there is something beyond the truth.”

Uh, “something beyond the truth”? Something we might call a lie?

This is pretty much what Paul Nungesser’s federal lawsuit says: “Emma Sulkowicz Is a Vindictive, Dishonest and Crazy Slut — Allegedly.”

Far be it from me to presume to know what transpired between Nungesser and Sulkowicz on the night of Aug. 27, 2012. She claims he held her down, choked her and forcibly sodomized her. There is no evidence at all to support her claim, however, while Nungesser says that everything between them was consensual and quotes Facebook messages from her that would appear to suggest that Sulkowicz was quiteenthusiastic about sodomy (see paragraph 16 on p. 5 of Nungesser’s lawsuit). As for a possible motive for Sulkowicz to lie, Nungesser’s lawsuit offers a credible explanation in paragraphs 30-31, p. 10:

As is evident from Emma’s Facebook messages to Paul during the summer prior to their sophomore year, Emma’s yearning for Paul had become very intense. Emma repeatedly messaged Paul throughout that summer that she loved and missed him. She was quick to inquire whether he was in love with the woman he was seeing abroad.
Thereafter, she continued pursuing him, reiterating that she loved him. However, when Paul did not reciprocate these intense feelings, and instead showed interest in dating other women, Emma became viciously angry.

“Hell hath no fury,” etc. This is an entirely plausible scenario, if you are familiar with a certain kind of high-maintenance young woman — what I call the “Daddy’s Precious Darling” type — who believes herself to be so special that she deserves to have whatever she wants. If Sulkowicz thought her hookups with Nungesser were about love, and if he treated this as just something casual? Yeah, you could see how she would feel herself to be “the woman scorned” and decide to avenge herself by falsely accusing him of rape seven months after the night in question.

All of that, however, was a preamble to this: Robby Soave at Reason magazine wrote an article with the following headline:

Student Accused of Rape By ‘Mattress Girl’ Sues
Columbia U., Publishes Dozens of Damning Texts

A fair summary of the case, but when it was posted to, a certain segment of feminist readers went berserk, including one 22-year-old who unleashed this:

Okay, I have something to f–king say about this sh*t, as someone who was raped and isn’t the “ideal” victim.
Like, yes, they had an ongoing sexual relationship.
However, he forced her to have anal sex against her will. Rapist seems to think that previous discussion of anal sex = consent. It is f–king not. You can be having sex with someone and if you start to do something to them they didn’t consent to, that they don’t want, that’s f–king rape.
She still texted him afterward? With “yearning” messages? Oh, wow. I can’t believe real humans who experience emotions are pegging this as evidence that she’s a filthy liar. When you have an established relationship with your rapist, it’s very f–king complicated. I allowed my rapist to torture me for 2½ years. We were dating. I loved him! Maybe, just f–king maybe, this woman continued to care about the man who raped her. That is NOT uncommon at all. And society tells women that when you care about a man, you have to please him. I would send my rapist “sexy” messages because I thought that’s what I had to do to get him to continue caring about me so I wouldn’t have to keep thinking about the rapes and have to cope with it.
f–king f–k all of you, holy f–king SH*T

Do you see the problem here? This anonymous Tumblr blogger says she was tortured by a rapist because she “loved him!”

Maybe I’m hopelessly naïve. Maybe I’ve led a sheltered life.

Maybe the world has changed in the past 30 years, and maybe there are lots of young women who date rapists and let themselves be tortured for 2½ years. “I loved him!”

Or maybe these women are crazy.

Also, maybe, conservatives were right about the Culture War. Maybe raising young people with no religious faith, letting them fill their minds with violence, noise and graphic sex is a bad idea.

Furthermore, the British Independent reported in August 2014:

A study on why teenage heterosexual couples may engage in anal sex has revealed a climate of coercion, with consent and mutuality not always a priority for the boys who are trying to persuade girls into having it.
Researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine interviewed 130 teenagers aged 16-18 in three sites across the country to “explore expectations, experiences and circumstances of anal sex among young people”.
The qualitative study found that anal heterosex appeared to be “painful, risky and coercive, particularly for women”, while males spoke of being expected to persuade or coerce reluctant partners.
“Anal sex is increasingly prevalent among young people, yet anal intercourse between men and women—although commonly depicted in sexually explicit media—is usually absent from mainstream sexuality education and seems unmentionable in many social contexts,” the study, published on BMJ Open, says.
It found that some young people normalised “coercive, painful and unsafe anal sex,” in an issue that needs to be addressed by health workers and schools in sex education.

Guys: DON’T DO THIS. Stop watching “sexually explicit media” (i.e., porn) and remember that sexual fantasy is called “fantasy” for a reason. All that weird and kinky stuff — especially stuff that is painful, degrading and unsanitary — is not what she wants.

Or if she does want it, she’s probably so crazy you don’t want her.

See paragraph 16 on p. 5 of Nungesser’s lawsuit.

Also, notice the footnote at the bottom of p. 7: Chlamydia.

Feminism and porn are both bad ideas. Butt sex? Bad idea. False rape accusations? Bad idea. You know who likes bad ideas? Crazy women.

Just in case you haven’t been persuaded yet:

A woman diagnosed with herpes at the age of 20 has written an emotional essay about living with the common condition to fight the stigma surrounding it.
Ella Dawson, now 22, said she had never had unprotected sex andthought she “wasn’t the sort of person STDs happened to”when the symptoms first appeared during her time at university in the US.
She found the diagnosis days later devastating, feeling a “tidal wave of shame” hit her in the student health centre. . . .
Six months after being diagnosed, she decided to start telling more people she had herpes to help herself get over the mental block.
Ms Dawson says she never had a negative reaction dropping the “herpes bomb” at parties and in class discussions at the Wesleyan University in Connecticut.

Wesleyan University, annual tuition $47,972. Ella Dawson graduated last year with a bachelor of arts in Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studieswith a concentration in feminist media analysis.

There is a word for this, and the word is crazy.

Introduction To Feminist Theory

Until I started studying radical feminism, I never thought of “normal” as an achievement. “If you want to understand feminism, begin by studying abnormal psychology,” as I explain on page 18 of Sex Trouble: Essays on Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature. Perhaps no entirely sane person would ever sign up for a university Women’s Studies class, but if she did, it might permanently warp her mind.

Consider, for example, “Introduction to Feminist Theory” (GGS 228), a sophomore-level course in the Global Gender Studies program at the University of Buffalo. This is one of the “Core Curriculum” classesrequired of every student who wishes to major or minor in this subject, and here is the official course catalog description of what the 19-year-old sophomore will be taught in GGS 228:

Introduction To Feminist Theory
Introduces to the complexity of feminist thought and theorizing through a discussion of many of the major schools of feminist thought and past and present debates within feminist theorizing as it has developed both within the United States, and abroad. A solid grasp of the core theories, their fundamental approaches, their insights into social phenomenon and the key criticisms of each, will allow the student to enter into and participate in the ongoing conversations that characterizes feminist thought. Feminist theory has always developed in tandem with feminist movements and activism. Thus, throughout the course, students will not only learn about feminist theories, but also apply the tenets of different theories to current issues and modern problems. Theories are not meant to be passive ideas unrelated to our everyday reality, but are meant to be used as tools to analyze the world around us. As a critical theory, feminist theory aims not only to produce knowledge, but also to provide a base for action. Feminist theories ask us to rethink what we mean by sex and gender, how we understand our sexuality, the roles, status, and ideals assigned to men and women in our societies and how we reward and punish individuals that question, challenge or deviate from these roles. Feminist theory engages with issues of social inequality, oppression, and sexism, and invites us to imagine strategies for creating a world where there is more equality and liberation.

You see that feminist theory is not “passive ideas unrelated to our everyday reality,” and therefore what students learn in GGS 288 cannot be separated from “feminist movements and activism,” so that students are expected to “apply the tenets of different theories to current issues and modern problems.” Notice also that students are required “to rethink what we mean by sex and gender.” The professors in charge of these feminist indoctrination programs are invariably of a type Eric Hoffer called The True Believer, because only a devoted ideologue would get a Ph.D. in this stuff. So, which lunatic is in charge of this particular asylum? During the Spring 2015 semester at the University of Buffalo, GGS 288 was taught by Assistant Professor Christine Varnado:

Dr. Varnado teaches courses in sexuality and gender theory, literature and the humanities, and qualitative methodologies. She received her Ph.D. from Columbia’s department of English and Comparative Literature, combining a specialization in the drama and prose of the English Renaissance with focuses on queer theory and the histories of sexuality and gender. She is at work on a book project, The Shapes of Fancy: Queer Circulations of Desire in Early Modern Literature, which expands the category of what can be called queer desire beyond historical evidence of same-sex sexual practices, to modes of feeling and desiring (such as longing for impossible transformation, or being used) that have often been overlooked in the period, thereby exploring the queer potential of readerly identification and recognition for studying desire in other historical moments. An essay on what offstage and un-staged sex looks like, “Invisible Sex!” will appear in the upcoming collection Sex Before Sex: Figuring the Act in Early Modern Literature. She has been active in the Shakespeare Association of America, the Modern Languages Association, and the American Comparative Literature Association. Varnado’s other teaching and research interests include witchcraft and witch persecutions, performance theory, bodily sex and reproduction, ethnography and ritual in the trans-Atlantic sphere, death and memorialization, literary theory, and cultural studies.

To summarize, then, Professor Varnado is interested in queer theory, queer desire, queer potential and also witchcraft.

Pat Robertson could not be reached for comment.

You know that Women’s Studies courses are taught to more than 90,000 students annually in programs at some 700 U.S. colleges and universities. You know this because those numbers are cited on page 29 of Sex Trouble, and you have read my book, haven’t you?

Knowing how many Women’s Studies programs exist, therefore, the reader may ask, “Stacy, what drew your attention to this particular course, taught by this particular professor, at this particular university?” Behold, the GGS228 account:

we are members of an “intro to feminist theory” course
in buffalo, ny looking to prove theory and tumblr
can exist together in harmony.

The reader who clicks that link (and keeps scrolling) will discover that there are very good reasons why the proceedings in Women’s Studies courses are generally not discussed outside the classroom. There is a vast gulf between the esoteric doctrine and the exoteric discourse of feminism. What the True Believer must believe — e.g., the social construction of thegender binary within the heterosexual matrix — is not subject to debate within academia. Yet these ideas are so seldom discussed outsideacademia that whenever I attempt to explain feminist gender theory to people, the reaction is invariably the same: “They don’t really believe that stuff, do they?”

Oh, believe it they most certainly do! And if anyone at the University of Buffalo (or any other institution of higher education in America) does notbelieve feminist gender theory, they’re being awfully damned quiet about their dissent. Why? Because disagreeing with feminism makes you a sexist; any expression of dissent from feminist ideology could be used as “evidence” of discrimination under Title IX; therefore, no university administration can tolerate opposition to feminism on campus without risking a federal civil rights lawsuit.

By defining disagreement as hate, you see, feminists have effectively prohibited criticism within academia and banished opponents from campus. This is why students go berserk when someone like Christina Hoff Sommers appears at Oberlin College. Because criticizing feminism is quite nearly illegal in 21st-century academia, students have never encountered an articulate exposition of opposing viewpoints. Indoctrinated to consider feminist ideology as synonymous with Truth, Enlightenment and Virtue, students believe that only ignorant bigots can possibly disagree with them. Feminist consciousness makes them intellectually superior to others, as Professor Sandra Lee Bartky explained: “Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization . . . to come to see oneself as a victim.” Disagreeing with a feminist means you are supporting oppression by denying her victimhood.

Crazy? Sure, it’s crazy, but if every college-educated person is required to believe it, “insanity” becomes a synonym for “education.”

Please, go to the GGS 228 account and keep scrolling. See what these students have to say about “patriarchy” and “heterosexuality”which, as readers of Sex Trouble know, are two ways to say the same thing: Women are oppressed because they are heterosexual (pp. 12-13), and women are heterosexual because they oppressed (p. 105). In feminist theory, males are only ever discussed as oppressors and rapists. No man is deserving of respect or admiration, nor can any man be trusted. What you find these University of Buffalo students saying on their blog is exactly what feminists say in the quotes found on pp. 48-53 of Sex Trouble: Heterosexuality is imposed on women through “institutionalized force” (Kate Millett, 1970), “programming” (Andrea Dworkin, 1974), a “patriarchal system” of “sexual repression” (Ann Jones, 1990) and “male power” (Dianne Richardson, 2000). There is no reason, according to feminist theory, that any woman should ever find a man attractive or desirable as a romantic partner.

As she obtains feminist consciousness of her victimization, the student understands that, as Professor Joyce Trebilcot explained, patriarchy “depends on the ability of men to control women through heterosexuality” (quoted on p. 100 of Sex Trouble) and, oh, look, what is this? “Smash the Patriarchy,” says the GGS 228 Tumblr.

There is an old saying that if someone says “it’s not about the money,” you know it is about the money. Feminist theory’s substitution of the word “gender” for “sex,” by the same token, tells us: “It’s about the sex.” And what do you think students in GGS 288 learn about that?

The other day in class, discussing heterosexuality as dependent on romantic love ideals and how it fails to address many of the evils behind it (i.e. rape, domestic violence, possession, etc.), made me wonder about all the hopeless romantic movies I have fallen in love with over the course of my 19 years and really reevaluate why I actually liked this certain genre. I do believe that it is because at a very young age, we are socially conditioned to admire those types of movies, and the reoccuring idea of heterosexual love, that of a strong aggressive man sweeping the damsel in distress off her feet in order to save her from whatever she is “distressed” about, without a second thought about any other types of love, such as lesbian , gay, bi, etc.
I can’t help but wonder that if at, lets say the age of 4, instead of Pocahontas falling in love with John Smith, she finds herself deeply in love with her best friend Nakoma, or a spin off The Lion King revolving around Timon and Pumbaa’s love affair, we would certainly think nothing of it, similar to the way we view heterosexuality and all the movies that portray it. If we had in fact, grew up with this type of cinema as the norm, then I do believe many of us would reevaluate why we are heterosexual, or why we thinkwe are.

Thus said a University of Buffalo sophomore in September 2014,, andanother student in the same class was even more explicit:

Walking out of Feminist Theory on Wednesday I heard someone whisper to a classmate something along the lines, “… every time I walk out of this class I just become more sexually confused!” Evidently, what she said was meant to be humorous, but I couldn’t agree more with what she was really trying to say.
By taking Gender Studies classes, we are all very fortunate to see the world from a different, gendered lens. Sure, learning about different types of feminism and how gender effects our daily lives are incredibly important and relevant subjects, but the more I seem to learn, the more I question how the person I am today seems to be merely product of socialization.
Although I don’t agree entirely with radical feminist thought, it undoubtedly transmits revolutionary ideas that lead us to engage in introspection. This week I have definitely been looking back on instances or practices that could have possibly socialized me to be who I am today – which has proven to be very unsuccessful.
I am, and will always be, a feminist… but how are we supposed to get anywhere successfully if we can’t even agree [or in my case even understand] the roots of the problem(s) we face?

Both of these students were quoted verbatim, typos and all, with the emphases in the original. Students complain they “become more sexually confused,” as they are taught that their sexual identity and orientation are “socially conditioned” by “romantic love ideals.” Remember that, as the course description for GGS 228 explains, “feminist theory aims not only to produce knowledge, but also to provide a base for action.”

What kind of “base for action” is provided when teenagers are taught thatheterosexuality is synonymous with “rape, domestic violence, possession, etc.”? What feminist action might be inspired by teaching college sophomores an ideology that never speaks of males except as dangerous, untrustworthy, violent oppressors? Gosh, I just don’t know.

Within academia, no one can criticize these radical ideas because campus feminists use terroristic tactics to silence dissent. If you dare contradict their totalitarian anti-male hate propaganda, they will accuse you by name of “perpetuating rape culture.”