Every year San Francisco has something called the Folsom Street Fair, where gays do some very bizarre things. They dress like dogs, horses, and ponies, tie themselves up, get spanked, and more. This isn’t a fringe movement–thousands of homosexual (mostly men) do this. If gay=normal, then why do they do these very strange things?
My oldest daughter and I were walking around San Francisco’s SOMA neighborhood on a clear autumn day in search of a mattress store called Keetsa back in 2008. I remember turning a corner and almost bumping into an enormous naked man riding his bicycle on the sidewalk.
My daughter was five at the time and she was startled.
“Mom, why does that guy have a sock on his penis?” she asked.
“Um, well, um…”
“Why are there rings sticking through his bottom?”
Walking further down the sidewalk, we passed men wearing black leather chaps with their rears fully exposed and a few more naked guys.
I said more than “Ummm” when my daughter asked about the man with the sock on his penis, but my bumbling explanation isn’t anything to offer up as an example for other parents.
The photos in the article show
o Dog Masks. Men wearing dog masks. A LOT of men wearing dog masks. And we’re not talking about poodle or maltese masks, but very threatening looking angry black dog masks. There was even a very menacing group called the K9 demonstration group. Are they looking for anonymity because they are ashamed of what they are doing? Or do they find the idea of imitating dog behavior sexually attractive, and if so, why?
o Dog Behavior. The photos show dog-face men almost completely naked on their hands and knees, imitating dogs Marcel Marceau style, and there was the man who was chewing on dog toys. Is this about beastiality? Sniffing of rear ends? Something else?
o Horse heads. There were also people dressed in very disturbing looking horse heads. Again, if this isn’t about a craving for beastiality, what is it about? The fair also introduced something called “slave ponies“, women wearing ears and long snouts over their faces. One pony was gagged in a photo which had the caption: “Dressed in a pink pony outfit, participant Nikki, of the Los Angeles Pony and Critter Club, awaits for her pony master at the Folsom Street Fair”
o Whippings. A number of men volunteered to be whipped. One person who appeared to be a woman in black underwear had a back that was red from whipping. Here’s a typical caption “Tim McDonald, left, stands behinds a parking meter as he is flogged by Phillip Wolf, right, at the Folsom Street Fair”, and , “People watch a man being flogged on a stage during the Folsom Street Fair”.
o Exposed Anuses. A lot of people had their rumps exposed and others were fondling their bottoms in public.
- Bondage. People volunteered to be handcuffed to street signs. And one man even had the word “prisoners” tattooed on his back and had himself locked up in chains and locks. A third man had himself bound in leather and tied to a wheel. One person had himself tied and hung upside down like a piece of meat in a frozen food locker.
o Tonguing in inappropriate areas. One photo showed a shoeshine stand but shoes were being shined with a man’s tongue.
This fair was in public, on the streets of San Francisco, and though there were warnings for children to stay indoors, the public space had basically become invaded with very sexually inappropriate content.
The big question: is this typical of the gay community? By the numbers, it sure looks like it is for at least a substantial minority. Once again, this wasn’t some deviant fair with 20 fairgoers. There were thousands of participants, and this goes on every year. How can we be asked to teach our children that this medically unsafe lifestyle, which doesn’t produce children, is the equal of traditional men-women relationships, especially when this disturbing subculture seems to be married, for want of a better word, to the whole gay rights movement?
By the way, while some heterosexuals go to strip clubs, or buy kinky sexual devices, no where in the world will you find a similar large exhibition of sexual perversity like this in the heterosexual community. It’s exclusively in the gay community, and it raises a lot of disturbing questions.
To reverse the increase in the number of children waitlisted to enter nursery schools, the government plans to offer incentives to the estimated 700,000 qualified nursery school teachers now on leave or otherwise not working, government sources said Saturday.
The number of children on waiting lists for spots at nursery schools rose to 23,167 as of April 1, marking the first increase in five years, according to data by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.
The government has stepped up efforts to build and equip nursery facilities around the country to realize Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s goal of eliminating that waiting list, a drive hampered by a severe shortage of teachers.
Beginning next April, the government plans a number of incentives aimed at getting as many as possible of these qualified teachers to return to work through such measures as subsidizing childcare fees for their own children, the sources said.
Many qualified teachers are reluctant to go back to work once they leave to give birth and raise children, due in part to the difficulty of balancing work and family.
The staff shortage also reflects the low average monthly salary of about 210,000 yen ($1,750) for nursery school teachers in Japan, which is more than 10,000 yen below the average wage across the board.
Under the planned scheme starting in fiscal 2016, nursery school teachers with preschool children who want to return to work will receive subsidies amounting to half of their own childcare fees. Their children will also be given priority for admission to childcare facilities, the sources said.
The government is also considering offering 100,000 yen to nursery teachers with or without children, to use buying items needed to return to work such as clothing after being out of the workforce.
The number of nursery teachers has been increasing, but the health ministry estimates that Japan will need an additional 69,000 teachers over the five-year period through fiscal 2017.
To secure enough teachers, the government also plans to conduct its national certification exam for nursery school teachers twice a year starting in fiscal 2016, rather than once annually.
There is strong demand for childcare services for those under the age of 3 in Japan, and urban areas have more children who cannot enter day-care centers compared with rural areas.
Well, it appears that the UN has discovered just how flawed is the UN Report “Cyber Violence Against Women and Girls, — A World-Wide Wake-Up Call,” a report so flawed and bereft of evidence that it could only be love child of contributors Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn.
It is a document so disingenuous that the only thing factual about it is the fascism of the authors. Even the UN saw it, so they dumped the piece of social justice porn from their website. Once that happened it started disappearing everywhere.
Well, sort of.
Per our usual courtesies to AVFM readers, we have secured a copy of the document to be offered here to any and all who care to read it. It is SJW smut in its purest form so take break out the Kleenex before reading…for your eyes.
Does the show expose the horrors of rape culture?
The show realistically depicts that the FBI seeks Mormon (LDS) recruits (often because they are unlikely to be pot smokers) but unrealistically shows the recruit to be one who raped an underage Malawi girl while he was on his church mission, knocked her up, and tried to get her an illegal abortion, which killed her. The perfect feminist storm, it seems.
Of course, Mormon men go in pairs or large groups while on their missions and are kept so busy that it would be highly improbable (I think impossible) for a young missionary to pursue a sexual relationship with a woman, get her pregnant, find an illegal abortionist, set up an illegal abortion, and then cover up her death and his role in the whole affair in such a way that an FBI background check would be unaware of it.
The show has upset the real LDS community but ABC doesn’t seem to care about that.
Of course, the show depicts no real US rape culture at all, so from a credibility or credulous feminist standpoint, it is a double failure.
The show does, however, depict a faux rape, which would count as a real rape from a feminist standpoint. Before Ryan and Alex fuck in his car, he buys her a drink on the plane where they meet. Since alcohol was involved, according to feminists, Alex was too drunk to consent, even though she was on top during the resulting intercourse. Complicating matters further, Ryan was deceiving Alex – he claimed to be a soldier, then an FBI recruit, when in reality he was an FBI agent, her technical superior, assigned to investigate her.
To feminists, sex by deception is rape (if the guy is deceptive; women lying and wearing makeup to get sex is cool with them) and sex with a superior is rape because the power imbalance makes it impossible for the inferior woman to give meaningful consent. Their hookup is now a triple faux rape: it is drunken, deceptive, and power imbalanced. Of course, the show glosses over all of this, ignoring the faux triple rape and feminist theory on rape.
Does the show demonize Christian religions while supporting Islam?
Although the Christian bona fides of Mormonism are controversial, LDS is derived from Christianity and uses Christian scripture as a part of their own, so yes, the show does take a swipe at Christians.
One of the recruits is an “ambidextrous” Islamic woman who wears the hijib in mirror-image ways. She has her own private quarters and she reacts angrily when a gay male recruit enters unexpectedly. She also appear to be a pair of identical twins with a nefarious purpose, maybe. The show goes out of their way to set her up as the fall girl(s), which to my thinking makes her unlikely to be the actual terrorist, especially in a feminist show that only shows minority women in a positive light.
While showing their hatred of Christians and love of Islam might make feminists smile inwardly, exposing these tropes openly has to set their vagina dentata on edge.
Does the show treat men and families with utter contempt?
Oh, hell yes.
Alex lies to her mother about joining the FBI. The blonde Southern Belle recruit lost her parents in 9/11. The head of Quantico accuses a man of mansplainin’ when he dares to suggest that the “glass ceiling” is a relic of the past. After she fucks Ryan in his car, Alex refuses to tell him her name because he is both too nice and a liar (PUA). She also humiliates him in front of other men when he tries to respect her privacy by not revealing their hook-up. If there is a scene with both sexes in it (no trans folk in the show yet) you can bet the women will be shitting on the men.
This is a feminist fantasy that is also a nightmare for them when their man-hate is shown so openly in the media.
Does the show cater to the Male Gaze, or engage in fat shaming?
True to the myth of the male gaze, all the men and women are strikingly good-looking. No fatties allowed. No butch women nor side-shaves appear at all – at least, not from the neck up.
Does the show explicitly portray feminism in a positive light?
Although feminist related themes are everywhere, “feminism” and “feminist” do NOT explicitly appear in the pilot. This is a huge fail, since feminists claim all “advancements” for women come from it and usually demand that all women MUST acknowledge the primacy of feminism in their lives.
Does the show promote gender equality or discuss dress codes?
The girly recruits giggle at the gender neutral uniforms as a blow for equality but ignore the feminist trope of calling for strict dress codes for men with no dress codes for women. This has to count as another feminist failure that further exposes their hypocrisy and man-hate.
Does the show reflect intersectionality?
Only for women, which appear to have diversity of origin (but not weight nor attractiveness). The men are almost all white while the women come from a lot of different countries regardless of the fact that the FBI only accepts US citizens as recruits. Of course, if the show intends to hammer men, it is important for them to only attack the right sort of men – the white ones.
Does the show expose the horrors of the patriarchy or male entitlement?
There is one explicitly “entitled” male recruit, Caleb, who is the son of two FBI agents. Only his family ties got him into Quantico; he is a hot mess. He fails at everything and triggers the Mormon recruit to go on a homicidal/suicidal rampage when Caleb tells the Mormon he knows his “secret.” Caleb is kicked out of the FBI, making him disgruntled enough – and well-connected enough – to be the real culprit in the terror attack. Although it won’t be revealed for a while, I’m betting on Caleb as the bad guy: white, male, entitled, and a loser.
Notice how the show conflates “entitled” with “unqualified” even though feminists, when pressed, deny this link (but with a wink). Exposing this trope is yet another feminist failure of the show.
Does the show depict gay men in a positive light?
Not really – when he walks into the Islamic twins’ room, the token gay male recruit is shown to be just another boorish man in feminists’ view. Yet another feminist fail.
Does the show portray men as the sole perpetrators of domestic violence?
No! Alex as a teenager murdered her father (and lies about it initially.) According to Alex, Alex’s mother physically attacks her father after he drunkenly waved a gun around, but since Alex is exposed as a killer and a repeat liar, maybe that is a lie as well.
Does the show portray women as honest and trustworthy, and that men should automatically believe women’s claims?
No – In addition to lying about her role in her father’s murder, Alex openly lies to her fuck buddy Ryan, and the Southern Belle fails a part of her lie detector test. Any depiction of women as liars violates a core feminist tenet: always believe the victim.
Although the show will be seen, at first, as a feminist triumph, I expect feminists will start trashing the show almost immediately and the trashing will snowball as the season progresses.
An Asian family who converted to Christianity claim they are being driven out of their home for the second time by Muslim persecutors.
Nissar Hussain, his wife Kubra and their six children said they have suffered an appalling ordeal at the hands of neighbours who regard them as blasphemers.
They claim they are effectively prisoners in their own home after being attacked in the street, having their car windscreens repeatedly smashed and eggs thrown at their windows.
Mr Hussain, 49, has even given up his career as a nurse due to the effect on his health.
Police have been called numerous times to deal with the trouble but are said to be reluctant to treat the problem as a religious hate crime.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3258159/Asian-family-converted-Christianity-driven-home-Muslim-persecutors.html#ixzz3nWYr9RBH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
taking a break from their genocidal war against the Native Black population of Sudan in their quest to islamize and arabize the country. they are now bitching about the ICC targeting African Leaders. and as Usual the genocidal Terrorist himself President Bashir still in hiding like a rat after he fled South Africa to avoid facing charges for crimes against Humanity.
Sudan’s Foreign Minister Ibrahim Ghandour on Friday used the annual gathering of the 193 members of the United Nations to rail against the International Criminal Court (ICC), which he said has become a political tool to target African leaders.
The Hague-based ICC has accused Sudan’s President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of genocide and crimes against humanity in his campaign to crush a revolt in Sudan’s western Darfur region. The Darfur conflict began in 2003 when mainly non-Arab tribes took up arms against the Arab-led government in Khartoum.
In a speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Ghandour said “the relationship between the Security Council and the International Criminal Court … has shown again and again that the scourge of politicization has turned it (the ICC) into a tool for targeting African leaders.”
Others indicted by the ICC include Laurent Gbagbo, former president of the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire, and Muammar Gaddafi, the late leader of Libya.
Ghandour went on to call for “the implementation of a structural reform process of the United Nations and the Security Council, in conformity with the principal of fair and equitable representation of all countries.”
“The current international system … can no longer cope with the developments and major transformations occurring worldwide,” Ghandour said.
He did not specifically mention the 2009 indictment of Bashir. He said Sudan had made “commendable achievements” in human rights, citing the growing role of women in politics.
But Human Rights Watch said last month that a government militia in Darfur carried out killings and mass rapes of civilians over the past year and a half.
The massacres in Darfur of a decade ago have eased, but the insurgency continues and Khartoum has sharply escalated the conflict over the past year, U.N. officials and human rights groups say.
Members of the ICC are obliged to act on arrest warrants, but Bashir, who rejects the court’s authority, has managed to
travel in Africa, the Middle East and beyond.
A month ago Chinese President Xi Jinping welcomed the Sudanese president in China as an “old friend”. Beijing, like Washington, is not a member of the ICC.
Bashir fled South Africa in June after a court ruled he should be banned from leaving pending the outcome of a hearing on his possible arrest. Pretoria disregarded the ruling.
Originally Khartoum had said Bashir would travel to New York this year’s General Assembly session to attend a debate on global anti-poverty goals but he did not attempt to travel to the United States.
Sarah Marian Seltzer (@sarahmseltzer) is a feminist and a fool, but I repeat myself. You never heard of her, and I hadn’t, either. Then one of her tweets — advocating “a human blockade around NRA headquarters”— came to my attention, and I wondered, “Who is this idiot?”
Habitual curiosity about people with bad ideas has led me many strange places during my long research into radical feminism. Before news broke of the Oregon shooting Thursday, I was contemplating a 1979 speech by lesbian feminist Adrienne Rich, included in her 1986 anthology, Blood, Bread, and Poetry. The title of her speech, given as the commencement address at elite Smith College, was “What Does a Woman Need to Know?” A few brief excerpts:
Suppose we were to ask ourselves simply: What does a woman need to know to become a self-conscious, self-defining human being? . . .
Doesn’t she need to know how seemingly natural states of being, like heterosexuality, like motherhood, have been enforced and institutionalized to deprive her of power? . . .
The belief that established science and scholarship — which have so relentlessly excluded women from their making — are “objective” and “value-free” and that feminist studies are “unscholarly,” “biased,” and “ideological” dies hard. . . . And the ideology of education you have just spent four years acquiring in a women’s college has been largely, if not entirely, the ideology of white male supremacy, a construct of male subjectivity.
Now, at risk of running down a rabbit-hole, let me ask the reader to imagine that spring day at Smith College in 1979.
Imagine yourself the parent of one of the graduating seniors. You worked hard for your money, and you and your spouse devoted yourself to your daughter’s education, intending for her to have the very best opportunities in life. Every possible advantage that you, as a parent, could give your daughter — a home library stocked with good books, subscriptions to quality magazines, museum visits, vacation trips to historic sites, and so forth — helped her to become a high-achieving student. Not merely did you spend money to provide her with these advantages, you also did the necessary work of parent as supervisor, protecting your child from harmful influences. You made sure your girl didn’t become a drug-addled loser hanging around with juvenile delinquents. All of these things you did, in order to qualify your daughter to attend what certainly once was, and arguably still is, one of the finest educational institutions for women in the entire world.
Imagine yourself, then, as a parent who had done everything necessary to send your daughter to Smith College (the list of alumnae include Nancy Reagan, Class of ’43, and Barbara Bush, Class of ’47), and when you show up for her graduation, the commencement speaker is a radical lesbian who denounces heterosexuality and motherhood as “enforced . . . to deprive her of power” (!) and who condemns “established science” as “the ideology of white male supremacy”! Would it not seem to you that the administration of Smith had been taken over by maniacs? As a tuition-paying parent, wouldn’t you feel you had been hoodwinked, scammed, bamboozled, ripped off, and otherwise defrauded? Wouldn’t you think that all your effort to provide your daughter an elite education and protect her from harmful influences was a complete waste of time and money? Frankly, she might have been better off hanging around the roller rink as a teenager, smoking Marlboros and making out with hoodlum boys in the backseats of their hopped-up GTOs.
Go back and read Bill Buckley’s classic God and Man at Yale, which first called attention to the problem of what we might call academic gnosticismin American cultural life. After he published that book in 1951, Buckley was denounced as a bigot and a reactionary for daring to suggest that our nation’s scholarly elite were guilty of bad stewardship. Buckley accused the administration at Yale of failing to provide students the kind of moral and intellectual guidance that their parents (and Yale alumni) expected from this prestigious institution. Yale had betrayed its own Christian heritage and, in doing so, was not only defrauding the parents and alumni who paid the bills, but was also quite literally sabotaging America, by perverting the minds of the nation’s future leaders. This accusation was quite controversial in 1951, but was much less so during the 1960s, when academia’s liberal leadership proved its moral bankruptcy by surrendering to the insolence of student radicals.
When shotgun-wielding militants took over Cornell University in 1969,everybody with two eyes and a brain could see the consequences of a moral erosion that the scholastic establishment had not merely permitted, but had actively assisted. By 1979, when Smith College brought Adrienne Rich to campus to denounce heterosexuality, motherhood and “established science” for the benefit of the graduating seniors, the institutional collapse of academia’s moral authority was a historical fact. No one in America expects college professors to provide anything like moral guidance to the young. Indeed, we nowadays take for granted that the faculty lounge is overcrowded with perverts and lunatics of one sort or another. If not all the professors are molesting their students, it’s only because the creepy old faculty freaks are afraid even tenure would not protect them from a Title IX lawsuit. Would any responsible parent want their son or daughter to be “mentored” by the kind of wackos and weirdos who teach at American universities? Academia in the 21st century seems to be inhabited entirely by the kind of people George Orwell once described thus:
“One sometimes gets the impression that the
mere words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ draw towards
them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist,
sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack,
pacifist, and feminist in England.”
Such people are now in charge of higher education in the United States, and have been for many decades, so that there are very few “educated” Americans who would read Adrienne Rich’s 1979 speech and think, “What wicked madness is this?” The whole purpose of our education system is to indoctrinate young people with the “progressive” attitudes approved by the intellectual elite. Even if the students at elite schools do not themselves become nudists, sex-maniacs, pacifists and so forth, they know that they must never speak disapprovingly of radicals, perverts or bohemians. The hiring process in academia is controlled by people who would much rather hire nudist sex maniacs than accidentally permit a Republican or a Christian to sneak onto the faculty.
Our universities today are more fanatically dedicated to the abolition of Christianity than was the Emperor Nero, and it is not the least bit shocking to learn that Thursday’s massacre on the campus of a community college in Oregon was perpetrated by a young lunatic who exhibited a particular hatred for Christians. The extermination of American Christians is a measure that our intellectual elite very much endorse, although their preferred means of accomplishing this are (a) contraception, (b) abortion, (c) homosexuality, and (d) public schools.
If your kid isn’t an atheist homosexual by the time he gets his high school diploma, the public education system has failed to achieve its intended objectives. Certainly, no elite university would be interested in normal kids. The folks who run Harvard don’t want Christian heterosexuals on campus any more than they want Republicans on the faculty. If you are raising your kids to be decent, honest and moral, you wouldn’t want them applying to an Ivy League school anyway. The elite campuses — Columbia, Penn, Brown, Princeton, etc. — now only accept the most indecent, dishonest and immoral young people.
Thus we return, after that thousand-word digression, to the subject ofSarah Marian Seltzer, who popped into my view, as I say, because of her fanatical hatred of the National Rifle Association. That inspired me to click over and see her Twitter profile to answer the question, “Exactly who the heck is this zany moonbat?” Somebody who hates the Pope, considersPlanned Parenthood a sacred cause, and shares with her parents avehement opposition to the Republican Party. Where do these mindless Obama Zombies come from?
Harvard University, Class of 2005.
Ms. Seltzer was on the staff of the Crimson, a position she used to repudiate the university and its values. Harvard proved to be “a disappointment as an institution,” because of “the ambitious, busy, career-focused atmosphere,” whereas Ms. Seltzer had arrived at Harvard intending “to get ready to change the world.” Preparing for a job that might involve the production of goods and services in the commercial marketplace (i.e., capitalism) was something Ms. Seltzer disdained as being “ambitious” or “career-focused,” you see. It is not merely that Ms. Seltzer considers herself an aristocrat, viewing all business-related careers as crass endeavors beneath her personal dignity. No, she has shown a lifelong hostility toward for-profit free enterprise, dating back to high school, when she spent a summer as an intern “for a public interest group,” where she learned “the career-enhancing skill of harassing Nike for its labor abuses. My troupe of fellow interns flyered, hung up posters and took part in every picket line around town, from striking bodega workers to stealth banner drops at Niketown.” You may not be surprised that Ms. Seltzer subsequently engaged in journalistic celebration of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement:
Coming into my own as a journalist . . . I specialized in thoughtful, nuanced cultural critiques as well super-incendiary listicles skewering the right wing. My favorite work? Tailing the badass feminist contingent of Occupy Wall Street around for months, reporting on their organizing efforts.
This is what an anthropologist would recognize as tribal signification for young progressives: “Hey, I’m one of you! I hate capitalism so much, I walked picket lines against Nike. I skewer the right wing and support badass feminism!” She’s a walking cliché — a stereotype, a clone of every left-wing woman you’ve ever known — and it’s more than an educated guess to suppose that her parents were the kind of liberals who voted for Alan Cranston in the 1984 Democrat primaries, who supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, who alternated between mocking Reagan as an inept “B-movie actor” and shrieking that Reagan was a dangerous madman conspiring to bring about a nuclear holocaust. (This is more than a guess, I say, because in her Harvard Crimson days, she described howher parents imbued her “with an idealistic distrust of ‘the system,’” and for liberals, “the system” is generally a synonym for capitalism.) It is astonishing, really, to think how common this kind of radical pose is among the soi-disant Best and Brightest, who attend universities where the annual tuition is higher than the median household income in most parts of the United States, yet feel compelled to embrace a politics they identify as aligned with the oppressed and downtrodden “masses.”
This is where I’m reminded of Adrienne Rich. The privileged daughter of a professor at Johns Hopkins, she attended Wellesley and married Alfred Conrad, a Harvard-educated economist. They had three sons and were living what most Americans would view as a very happy and prosperous life, but then the 1960s happened. Adrienne Rich grew restless with her privileged existence, and began dabbling in radical politics. Her husband was initially sympathetic and supportive:
[Conrad] joined her in hosting anti-Vietnam and Black Panther fundraising parties at their apartment. However, he quickly became exasperated: “She was becoming a very pronounced, very militant feminist,” says Hayden Carruth. “I don’t know what went on between them, except that Alf came to me and complained bitterly that Adrienne had lost her mind.”
In October 1970, Alfred Conrad committed suicide. This was, in retrospect, the signal achievement of Adrienne Rich’s feminist career, destroying her own husband as the emblematic personification of “white male supremacy,” and becoming the lesbian partner of Michelle Cliff. As a role model for how a woman becomes “a self-conscious, self-defining human being,” Adrienne Rich is perhaps the feminist ideal.
“The person is political,” as Carol Hanisch famously said, and each feminist is expected to wage war against male supremacy not merely as a matter of public policy, but also in every aspect of her private life. From the feminist perspective, therefore, Adrienne Rich’s father was her original oppressor, succeeded in turn by her husband Alfred Conrad and also, by her three sons. This is the fundamental premise of feminism, that all women are victims of patriarchal oppression, and that all men participate in and benefit from this systemic oppression.
What, then, of Sarah Marian Seltzer? She seems to consider herself oppressed by the Pope, the National Rifle Association and the Republican Party, but every liberal Democrat shares that sense of oppression. President Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, routinely pretends to be a helpless victim of Republican oppression, so there’s no real feminist traction for Ms. Seltzer in such a claim.
Maybe she’s oppressed by her employer. Ms. Seltzer is “Editor-at-Large” for Flavorwire.com, which is to say, she’s a blogger who produces about 35 posts a month for a site owned by web entrepreneurs Mark Mangan and Sascha Lewis. Obviously, these guys are a couple of slimy capitalist greedheads who get rich by exploiting Ms. Seltzer’s ill-paid labor. This is social injustice, comrades: Harvard graduate Sarah Seltzer compelled to toil away in obscurity as a member of the digital proletariat, cranking out insipid “content,” just so these rapacious exploiters can line their pockets with cash from advertisers. Yet everybody is a victim of capitalism, according to progressive Democrats, so there is no specificallyfeminist angle for Ms. Seltzer in this aspect of her life.
No, the real villain in this patriarchal tragedy must be her husband.
What? A feminist with a husband in 2015?
This makes no sense at all, after the decades of struggle to liberate women from this cruel yoke of slavery “enforced and institutionalized to deprive her of power,” as Adrienne Rich said. Strange as it may seem, however, Ms. Seltzer has been married since 2010 to Simon Vozick-Levinson, a Senior Editor at Rolling Stone (a magazine owned by the capitalist greedhead Jann Wenner, who has spent decades lining his pockets with cash from advertisers). Mr. Vozick-Levinson is probably paid more than Ms. Seltzer. That’s how patriarchy works. Even though both men andwomen are exploited by their employers, men get paid more, because capitalists are misogynists who cleverly profit from this kind of sexist discrimination. (Of course, that explanation doesn’t make any sense, but I’m just trying to provide a feminist theory of the so-called “wage gap” here and if feminist economic theories are completely irrational, don’t blame me. Rationality is a “construct of male subjectivity,” as I’m sure Adrienne Rich told her husband, the economist, shortly before he blew his Harvard-educated brains out.)
We can’t expect feminists to do math, nor can we expect them all to pursue the premises of the feminist syllogism to a logical conclusion, the way Adrienne Rich did. Most women who call themselves “feminists” are simply Democrats who think that Republican wife and daughters are somehow oppressed in a way that Democrat wives and daughters are not. Hillary and Chelsea Clinton are “empowered” progressive women, liberal feminists believe, whereas Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina are victims of the patriarchy. Does such a claim make sense? No, but making sense is another “construct of male subjectivity,” you see.
Sarah Seltzer wants “a human blockade around NRA headquarters,” but where will she find the humans necessary to this task? Liberal Democrats keep aborting all their babies and, while I suppose they could hire Mexican immigrants for this kind of “human chain” work, the AFL-CIO would probably demand they get paid union wages. Also, the National Rifle Association’s headquarters is in Fairfax, Virginia — a long way from New York City, where Ms. Seltzer and her liberal friends dream their gun-free dreams. Busing a bunch of gun-grabber from New York to Virginia for this “human chain” project would produce a lot of carbon emissions and contribute to global warming. Besides, do liberals like Ms. Seltzerreally want to stop psychos like Chris Harper Mercer (an immigrant) from killing Christians in small-town America? Liberals hate Christians. Liberals hate small towns and they hate America, too.
When a crazy Muslim shoots a bunch of people at Fort Hood, that’s notterrorism, according to liberals, it’s “workplace violence.” When a black guy kills two white people in small-town Virginia on live TV, liberals don’t call that racism, because only Black Lives Matter to liberals. And a bunch of dead Christians in Oregon? Liberals score that a “win” for their side, because the one thing liberals can’t stand is live Christians like Kim Davis, whom Sarah Seltzer denounced as “that bigoted clerk.”
Sarah Marian Seltzer is a feminist and a fool, but I repeat myself. She is just another liberal with bad ideas, like Adrienne Rich’s husband, who was happy to help his wife host “anti-Vietnam and Black Panther fundraising parties at their apartment” and didn’t expect her to become a “militant feminist” who accused him of oppressing her with his “ideology of white male supremacy.” It’s always that way with liberals, who are forever surprised by the predictable consequences of their own bad ideas. Maybe there’s no reason for Sarah Seltzer’s husband to worry about his feminist wife. He’s a smart guy — scored a perfect 800 on the verbal SAT when he was only 13 — and graduated from Harvard himself. Still, “the personal is political,” and it’s probably only a matter of time until Ms. Seltzer decides she is being cruelly oppressed by her husband because, as every feminist knows, oppression is what all husbands do to their wives. Obviously, she’s a victim of the patriarchy.
Alfred Conrad (Harvard, Class of ’47) could not be reached for comment.