DPJ, Innovation Party to name new party Minshinto




A new opposition party to be launched March 27 through the merger of the Democratic Party of Japan and the Japan Innovation Party will be named Minshinto, or the Democratic Innovation Party, senior lawmakers of the two parties said Monday.

The DPJ and the Innovation Party, respectively the largest and third-largest opposition parties, made the decision during a meeting of DPJ leader Katsuya Okada, Innovation Party leader Yorihisa Matsuno and other lawmakers in preparation for the launch of the new party.

The two parties have agreed to join forces through integration in an attempt to more effectively challenge Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s ruling coalition in a House of Councillors election this summer.

Altogether, about 150 lawmakers from both chambers of the Diet will join the new party, but it will still be far smaller than the coalition of Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party and the Komeito party, which controls a majority of the 242-member upper house and more than two-thirds of the 475-member House of Representatives.

The DPJ and the Innovation Party decided on the new party’s name after taking into account the result of an opinion poll they conducted over the weekend.

A senior Innovation Party lawmaker told reporters that the “Democratic Innovation Party” is the English name of the new party.

In the poll conducted Saturday and Sunday, the two parties asked which name the public would prefer, Rikken Minshuto as proposed by the DPJ or Minshinto as recommended by the Innovation Party.

Rikken Minshuto is roughly translated as “constitutional democratic party.”

The two parties had earlier narrowed about 20,000 draft names they received from the public down to two.


Is Jack Montague a Rapist?



The senior captain of Yale University’s basketball team, Jack Montague was averaging 9.7 points per game before he left school last month for reasons that were not explained at the time. Yale Daily News reports:

Two days after signs calling on the Yale men’s basketball team to “stop supporting a rapist” first appeared on campus, a new set of posters expressing a similar message appeared Wednesday morning in the Sheffield-Sterling-Strathcona lecture hall.
All of this week’s posters referred to the recent controversy surrounding the basketball team’s show of support for former captain Jack Montague ’16, who was withdrawn from the University on Feb. 10 for reasons the team and University have not specified.
At last Friday’s Yale–Harvard basketball game, the team came out for warmups wearing T-shirts which had Montague’s jersey number and nickname, “Gucci,” on the back and “Yale,” spelled backwards with inverted letters, on the front. Monday’s posters featured an image of the team wearing the shirts.
By 7:30 a.m. on Wednesday, new posters were hung on two billboards just outside the lecture hall and placed on chairs inside the hall. A handwritten note chalked on the classroom’s blackboard read “Rape culture is standing by your teammate and silencing Yale’s victims of sexual assault.”

Who is “silencing” whom?

The Yale Women’s Center wrote a lengthy status on Facebook. Their claims have not been substantiated.
The post read: ‘In light of recent events, The Yale Women’s Center would like to express its sentiments on the Yale that we want to be a part of.
‘Our Yale is a place of respect and a home to all. It is a Yale in which students can feel comfortable and forge meaningful relationships on the basis of mutual understanding and consent.
‘We at the Women’s Center believe in this vision, and therefore have high expectations for the Yale administration to promote a culture of respect.
‘Bearing this in mind, we wish to comment on the current campus conversation in hopes that we can create an atmosphere of respect and understanding during this time of healing. We recognize that FERPA and Yale policy prohibit Yale from commenting on the exact nature of the incident.
‘Though the silence is deeply frustrating to us and surely to many of you, Yale’s actions speak much louder than its words. It appears that Yale has expelled a high-profile member of a sports team in the midst of a pivotal moment in the season on the basis of sexual violence.
‘While we can only speculate about these occurrences, we can comfortably say that, should all of this be true, this is progress.
‘It is progress both in the sense that a survivor felt that coming forward was a viable option for them and that they got the decisive outcome that they fought for.’

“Progress” = getting the basketball team captain expelled. The federal law FERPA (The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) means that Yale officials cannot discuss the reasons for Montague’s expulsion. In the absence of details, it would be useless to speculate what happened, except that somebody failed to warn Jack Montague:


Feminists have incited a climate of anti-male hatred on American college campuses. Jessica Valenti has declared that the feminist movement’s goal is to “redefine rape” to make it easier to expel male students, effectively criminalizing all heterosexual activity on campus. Too bad Jack Montague didn’t read my blog. In November, three months before the captain of the Yale basketball team was expelled and branded a perpetrator of “sexual violence,” I explained what feminist “progress” means:

The fate of “John Doe” at Brown University — banned from campus for making out with a girl he met at a party — illustrates the extreme danger male students face in an academic environment where feminists have ginned up a frantic hysteria of hatred. Because the number of actual rapes does not justify their claim that 1-in-5 college women are victims of sexual assault, officials are trying to make up for the “Rape Shortage” by inciting false accusations.
At Washington and Lee University, an official reportedly told female students that “regret equals rape.” At Ohio State University, you are guilty of sexual assault unless you and your partner agree why you are engaging in sexual activity. At Harvard University, there were six false rape accusations in 2014. The organizer of a “Summit on Sexual Assault” conference at Darmouth College suggested male students should be expelled as soon as they are accused.

Warn your sons, America: Never talk to a college girl.

Heterosexuality Is Now a Crime at Yale: The Persecution of Jack Montague



After the senior captain of Yale University’s basketball team was quietly expelled last month, I asked: “Is Jack Montague a Rapist?” And when the university refused to specify the nature of the “sexual misconduct” charge, I asked last week: “What Did Jack Montague Do?” The systematic denial of due-process rights in university disciplinary proceedings, demanded by feminists and required by federal policy (a consequence of the Obama administration’s 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter), has made it possible for any male student to be expelled if he has any romantic interaction with a female student. Feminists have incited a witch-hunt hysteria on American campuses, encouraging female students to accuse their boyfriends of sexual assault, under a system where the accusation alone is usually sufficient to expel any male student who engages (or evenattempts to engage) in heterosexual activity with a female student.

“Never talk to a college girl,” I have repeatedly warned since the onset of the phony “campus rape epidemic” two years ago. Feminists have incited so much irrational hatred of males on campus that no man smart enough to go to college would ever be stupid enough to talk to a college girl. Amid the current climate of sexual paranoia, it is impossible for male students to know whether any sexual encounter on campus will result in an accusation of “misconduct,” and it is equally impossible for them to prove their innocence if they are accused. More than 100 male students have sued their universities saying they were falsely accused of sexual assault and denied due process in campus disciplinary tribunals.

It appears that Jack Montague will be the next plaintiff:


Monday, Jack Montague’s lawyer, Max Stern, issued a statement, saying Montague planned to sue the university for allowing fellow students to slander him by labeling him a rapist. The statement acknowledges that Montague and the woman who filed the complaint, now a junior at Yale, had developed a relationship and had had sex on four occasions. It says, “On the fourth occasion, she joined him in bed, voluntarily removed all of her clothes, and they had sexual intercourse. Then they got up, left the room and went separate ways. Later that same night, she reached out to him to meet up, then returned to his room voluntarily, and spent the rest of the night in his bed with him.
“The sole dispute is as to the sexual intercourse in the fourth episode. She stated that she did not consent to it. He said that she did.
“A year later she reported the incident to a Title IX coordinator. A Title IX official — not her — filed a formal complaint with the University-Wide Committee.”
There were no witnesses to this fourth encounter between the two students, and the incident in question took place 15 months ago, in October 2014.


Read the whole thing. This kind of nightmare, where a boy is expelled because of a “sexual assault” accusation that he has no way of disproving, in the context of a relationship that ended more than a year earlier, demonstrates feminism’s hegemonic influence on our nation’s college and university campuses. The anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology of radical feminism (“Fear and Loathing of the Penis”) has now become a matter of official policy, and every male student on campus is now a target of this totalitarian hate movement. Warn your sons, America.

American Corporations Only Support Gay Marriage When They Can Profit From It


We are always told that major corporations such as Facebook, Starbucks, and Apple are at the vanguard of supporting equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals. Yet they have a funny and very asymmetrical way of showing this commitment throughout the world. Starbucks in particular has become a for-profit behemoth wanting to act like a gay charity in the US, all while categorically ignoring the notion of gay marriage (or even gay rights) in countries as far afield as Japan, China, and Saudi Arabia.

It gets worse, though. These same sorts of companies were amongst the 379 filing pro-gay marriage friend-of-the-court briefs in the US Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges last year, which legalized gay marriage. Yet why did it take them so long to organize together for gay marriage in the United States? Why did they not vocally “come out” in support of it many years ago when only a fraction of Americans supported non-traditional marriage? “Human rights” should not depend on popularity, especially in places like America where violence against gays and their supporters has been infinitesimally small for decades. Consequently, the behavior of these corporations is more akin to flagrant opportunism than a deep-seated and real conviction about alleged human rights.

What we can draw from this situation is that major commercial concerns marketing to vast sections of the public will only declare their passion for gay marriage and similar policy proposals when it will not harm attempts at profit-making. This will also be done entirely selectively (i.e. “We support gay marriage and gay rights in America, but will say absolutely nothing about it in other countries we do business in.”) So this means a certain number of consumers have to support something first, regardless of what corporate leaders themselves think. Moreover, when a few companies begin to support gay marriage, hundreds of others follow, wanting to literally cash in on the trend-leadership of the first to do so.


Starbucks is one of many corporations that legitimizes the execution and maiming of gays by engaging in mutually beneficially partnerships with the governments of Saudi Arabia, the small Persian Gulf States and, more recently, Iran. When has it ever threatened to stop opening stores or even close current ones in protest at the treatment of LGBT people? In the meantime, Middle America has been excoriated by SJWs and corporations for their resistance to changing the traditional formulation of marriage. In no time in human history has the word “homophobia” been less applicable than it is today in the US, yet it is being used more than ever before.

The hypocrisy could not be starker. Run-of-the-mill Americans who peacefully disagree with gay marriage but have never engaged in any anti-gay violence are demeaned as bigots while CEOs and their senior colleagues treat the political leaders of a raft of oppressive regimes as necessary partners. Starbucks, Apple, and those of their ilk are more concerned with the Christian values of a plumber in Tennessee than the Middle Eastern Sheikh responsible for keeping local laws allowing the killing and beatings of gays.



A Theory of Sex (and Feminism)




Friday’s post about feminist Ruby Hamad included a quote by Professor Sheila Jeffreys, asserting that heterosexuality is “a political institution through which male dominance is organised and maintained.” This prompted the commenter Joe Joe to remark:

Does Jeffreys understand that all sexual relationships have some element of power relations? Butch/femme pairings are not accidental. And no, those women are not “imitating” heterosexuality: it’s internal. We’re born with different sexual charges. That’s biology, not politics.

Well, here we ascend to the lofty plateau of theory, an area of philosophical speculation that is far above my pay grade. Some readers have been mystified, I suspect, by the way I have dealt with feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within theheterosexual matrix — in the Sex Trouble project. To me this theory (a terse summary of Professor Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, which enjoys a quasi-scriptural authority among Third Wave feminist intellectuals) seems self-evidently wrong.

Notice that I say “wrong,” rather than false.

Far be it from me to dispute Professor Butler’s assertion that the “binary” social behaviors of the sexes are necessary to heterosexuality. Some men are more masculine than others and some women are more feminine than others but, however we describe these traits, they are highly correlated with success in terms of the natural biology of reproduction, i.e., heterosexuality. It seems to me that Professor Butler and others (e.g.,“Queer Theory” pioneer Eve Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick and Eastern Washington University Professor Mimi Marinucci, author of the 2010 textbook Feminism Is Queer) begin their arguments by assuming certain basic premises of all feminist theory. The essential premise of feminism — the movement’s sine qua non — is that all women are oppressed by men under a system of “male supremacy” otherwise known as patriarchy. This premise was stated most clearly in 1969 in the manifesto of the Women’s Liberation collective Redstockings:

Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. . . .
We identify the agents of our oppression as men. Male supremacy is the oldest, most basic form of domination. . . . Men have controlled all political, economic and cultural institutions and backed up this control with physical force. They have used their power to keep women in an inferior position. All men receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from male supremacy. All men have oppressed women.

If you disagree with that, you are not a feminist. The Redstockings collective was co-founded by Shulamith Firestone, arguably the most important figure in the Women’s Liberation movement (so-called “Second Wave” feminism) of the 1960s and ’70s. Author of the influential 1970 book The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution, Firestone had emerged as a leader in September 1967 at the National Conference for New Politics. At that gathering of the radical New Left, Firestone and Jo Freeman staged an insurrection, supported by women from Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), taking over a women’s workshop chaired by notorious atheist Madlyn Murray O’Hair.




This event (described in Susan Brownmiller’s 1999 memoir In Our Time) led directly to the formation of the Chicago-based “West Side Group” which was, as Brownmiller says, “probably the first Women’s Liberation group in the nation.” Obtaining a list of addresses of SDS women, Firestone moved to New York City and began recruiting and organizing others. Among those recruited by Firestone was a veteran socialist named Anne Koedt, subsequently a member of Ti-Grace Atkinson’s group The Feminists and editor of the 1973 anthology Radical Feminism. The history of the modern feminist movement can be traced directly back to the ideas, activism and organizing of a comparative handful of women associated with the 1960s New Left. What was the nature of women’s “oppression,” according to Firestone and her Redstockings comrades?

We are exploited as sex objects, breeders, domestic servants, and cheap labor.

In 1969, then, feminism condemned male admiration of beauty (women as “sex objects”), as well as women’s role in motherhood (“breeders”) and marriage (a wife’s work within her own household reduced her to the status of “domestic servant”). This amounted to a complete rejection of sex roles, per se. If it was “oppression” for women to become wives or mothers, then by the obverse principle, feminism also condemned any man who might desire to become a husband or father.

Given the all-encompassing categorical scope of feminism’s attack on every normal manifestation of human sexual behavior, is it any surprise that the movement soon attracted to its banner militant lesbians?

“Lesbian is a label invented by the Man to throw at any woman who dares to be his equal, who dares to challenge his prerogatives . . . who dares to assert the primacy of her own needs. . . .
“Until women see in each other the possibility of a primal commitment which includes sexual love, they will be denying themselves the love and value they readily accord to men, thus affirming their second-class status. . . .
“But why is it that women have related to and through men? By virtue of having been brought up in a male society, we have internalized the male culture’s definition of ourselves. That definition consigns us to sexual and family functions, and excludes us from defining and shaping the terms of our lives. . . .
“The consequence of internalizing this role is an enormous reservoir of self-hate. . . .
“As the source of self-hate and the lack of real self are rooted in our male-given identity, we must create a new sense of self. . . . Only women can give to each other a new sense of self. That identity we have to develop with reference to ourselves, and not in relation to men. This consciousness is the revolutionary force from which all else will follow, for ours is an organic revolution.”
Radicalesbians, “The Woman-Identified Woman,” 1970

You see how rapidly the inexorable logic Women’s Liberation advanced from its founding in 1967 to the emergence of lesbian feminism in 1970. Calling on feminists to reject “the male culture” of “a male society,” the Radicalesbian manifesto called on feminists to exchange their “male-given identity” for a “new sense of self,” thus achieving a new “consciousness” that would be a “revolutionary force” against male supremacy.


This advance in feminist theory occurred in less that three years, from September 1967 to May 1970, when the Radicalesbians disrupted the NOW-organized Second Congress to Unite Women with their protest. The significance of this is explained in my book Sex Trouble:

The authors of “The Woman-Identified Woman” were not as famous as celebrity feminists like Gloria Steinem, but even if they were completely unknown, their radical manifesto would continue to be influential, because it is routinely included in the curricula of Women’s Studies courses across the United States: Michigan State University, the University of Oregon, the University of Massachusetts, and the University of Minnesota, to name a few. It is not difficult to trace the influence of this early radicalism down to the present day, or to cite similarly influential treatises — e.g., “Lesbians in Revolt” by Charlotte Bunch (1972) and “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” by Adrienne Rich (1980) — commonly included in the syllabi of Women’s Studies programs. Any attempt to separate this kind of explicitly anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology from “mainstream” feminism would require us to argue that the most eminent academics in the field of Women’s Studies (including the lesbian editors of the widely used textbook Feminist Frontiers) are not “mainstream.”

What feminism actually means, as a political philosophy, is deliberately obscured when we see a celebrity like Harry Potter star Emma Watson enlisted to recruit men to support the feminist movement.

Today we are launching a campaign called “HeForShe.”
I am reaching out to you because I need your help. We want to end gender inequality — and to do that we need everyone to be involved.
This is the first campaign of its kind at the UN: we want to try andgalvanize as many men and boys as possible to be advocates for gender equality. And we don’t just want to talk about it, but make sure it is tangible.
I was appointed six months ago and the more I have spoken about feminism the more I have realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop. . . .
I decided I was a feminist and this seemed uncomplicated to me. But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word.
Apparently I am among the ranks of women whose expressions are seen as too strong, too aggressive, isolating, anti-men and, unattractive.
Why is the word such an uncomfortable one?

This is not really a difficult question to answer, Ms. Watson. No matter how many beautiful young actresses are conscripted as celebrity feminist spokeswomen, you can never evade the problem of feminism’s core ideology, the movement’s theory of women’s “oppression.”

Why is feminism “synonymous with man-hating”? This should not be mysterious to Emma Watson, nor to anyone with two eyes and a brain. It is easy for an extraordinarily privileged young woman like Emma Watson, who became a multimillionaire long before she was old enough to vote, to speak of “gender equality” as if this were something that would occur spontaneously once we overcome prejudicial stereotypes about feminists being unattractive man-haters. Going back to the very start of the Women’s Liberation movement, and continuing up to the present day, we see that it is always privileged women who achieve prominence as feminism’s intellectual leaders and spokeswomen.

The secret ingredient of feminist ideology is Daddy’s money:

Catharine MacKinnon, for example, is the daughter of a Republican congressman and judge; her family’s wealth enabled her to attend elite schools (Smith College and Yale University) and to spend 18 years writing her grand opus, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. It is astonishing to read, in the preface of her 1989 book (p.xiv), that the first chapter “was written in 1971-72, revised in 1975, and published in Signs in 1982.” Only an extraordinary sort of financial security can explain how a writer could be able to wait a full decade between writing the first draft of an essay and its initial publication. During the intervening years, MacKinnon published The Sexual Harassment of Working Women (1979) just two years after graduating from Yale Law School. This Marxist daughter of a Republican father was able to make herself an “expert” on the problems of “working women” precisely because she never had to work a day in her life. . . .
It was her remarkable socioeconomic privilege that was the basis of MacKinnon’s lifelong assault on “male supremacy,” and we see a similar pattern in the lives of many other feminists.

We encounter this phenomenon repeatedly in the biographies of feminist leaders. Women who make careers attacking patriarchy and capitalism are almost invariably the daughters of privilege.

Ti-Grace Atkinson, for example, was one of five daughters born to a prominent Louisiana family. Her father was a chemical engineer for Standard Oil, and yet she has never acknowledged the role of her father (or capitalism) in paying the bills for her education.

“Why do women keep getting married? . . . It’s conceivable somebody could be happydespite being married, but never because they were married. . . .
“Sex and love is the dynamic that keeps women’s oppression going . . .
“Motherhood is a heavily permeated sex role.”
Ti-Grace Atkinson, 2011

More than 40 years after she became a leader of the feminist movement, Ti-Grace Atkinson’s hostility to marriage, love, sex and motherhood remained the same as in 1969, when she protested against marriage anddeclared to a Time magazine reporter: “Love has to be destroyed. It’s an illusion that people care for each other. . . . It may be that sex is a neurotic manifestation of oppression.” Has any reporter bothered to ask Emma Watson if she agrees with Ti-Grace Atkinson? Of course not.


Who pays the bill for Emma Watson’s feminist agenda at the United Nations? In 2012, U.S. taxpayers provided $567 million — 22 percent of the United Nations’ budget — and, as Brett Schaefer of the Heritage Foundation explained, America’s “assessment” is “more than 180 other U.N. member states combined and 22,000 times more than the least assessed countries.” The vast majority of the world’s countries are parasitic freeloaders, in terms of the U.N. budget, while taxpayers in the United States (which has only 4.3 percent of the world’s population) provide 22 cents of every dollar the U.N. spends. Somebody at the U.N. got paid to “create a new symbol for our shared humanity,” proving the platform from which Emma Watson could lecture the world about how men need to become “advocates for gender equality.” This requires only that we ignore the actually history of the feminist movement.

Emma Watson has started a feminist book club, and I wonder if she would consider recommending Personal Politics: The Roots of Women’s Liberation in the Civil Rights Movement & the New Left by Sara Evans (1979), Daring To Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America 1967-1975 by Alice Echols (1989) and Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women’s Liberation by Kate Weigand (2001). Perhaps it would help Ms. Watson’s naïve young admirers to study how the modern feminist movement originated. If the subscribers to Ms. Watson’s book club are curious why “Second Wave” feminism so quickly became associated with man-hating lesbians, right here on my desk, I have several books that Ms. Watson could recommend to her feminist fans:

Let the members of Emma Watson’s book club read that list of 20 books —  a fraction of the feminist library I’ve amassed during my research — and tell me if any of these eminent authors has anything good to say about men, marriage or motherhood. Permit me to point out that among the names on this list are Professor Charlotte Bunch (Rutgers University),Professor Kathleen Barry (Pennsylvania State University), ProfessorMarilyn Frye (Michigan State University), Professor Celia Kitzinger (University of York), Professor Sarah Lucia-Hoagland (Northeastern Illinois University), Professor Sandra Lee Bartky (University of Illinois),Professor Sue Wilkinson (Loughborough University), Professor Dee Graham (University of Cincinnati) Professor Diane Richardson (Newcastle University), Professor Carole McCann (University of Maryland), Professor Seung-Kyung Kim (University of Maryland),Professor “Jack” Halberstam (University of Southern California) andProfessor Jennifer Rich (Hofstra University). Let the reader ask,”Who pays the bills to promote feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual agenda?” And the answer is: “You do.” Feminism is supported by taxpayer funding to higher education, and by every parent or student who pays a dime in tuition to the hundreds of colleges and universities that employ such professors in departments of Women’s Studies.

The secret ingredient of feminist ideology is Daddy’s money, you see.

Every year, some 90,000 students in the United States are enrolled in Women’s Studies classes, where they are indoctrinated (at taxpayer expense) in the Cult Ideology of Feminism, and sent forth into the world as activists promoting this anti-male belief system everywhere.

All of this is by way of explaining why I say Professor Judith Butler’s feminist gender theory is wrong, but not necessarily false.

If a woman feels nothing but contempt and hatred toward men, if she never desires to have a husband or babies, if the thought of heterosexual intercourse inspires in her only feelings of dread and horror, there is no reason why she shouldn’t embrace Professor Butler’s theory. Shulamith Firestone, Mary Daly, Catharine MacKinnon, Joyce Trebilcot, Gayle Rubin, Sheila Jeffreys, Amanda Marcotte, Jaclyn Friedman — one could recite a very long list of eminent feminist authors without naming a woman who had ever married a man or given birth to a child.

Does anyone imagine this is merely a coincidence? Of course not. As a rationalization of man-hating — or divorce, or abortion, or lesbianism — feminist theory is entirely valid. Begin with the premise that all women are “oppressed,” and that all men are “agents” of this “oppression,” and how else do you expect the argument to conclude?

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind . . .”
Romans 1:22, 28 (KJV)


The logic of feminism is obvious enough. But when the commenter Joe Joe asserted that “all sexual relationships have some element of power relations,” I felt obliged to offer my own perspective:

Let me say, first, that I do not like theory. Give me enough facts, and I’ll come up with my own theory — or not. Could I theorize about the nature of sexual attraction? Sure, and I even dabble a bit in it (“Me Tarzan, you Jane“) in my book. Heterosexual success requires that a man exhibit some quality of heroism, to elicit the admiration of a woman. She cannot love a man she does not admire. This is simple enough to understand, and also explains the fundamental problem of feminism — an ideology that takes a wholly negative view of masculinity, so that the feminist can never find any real enjoyment in a normal heterosexual relationship. Insofar as a man is worthy of admiration — possessing heroic qualities — the feminist must resent his success. This resentment of male success is so inherent to her ideology that the feminist must feel like a horrible hypocrite for admiring any man. She is always the protagonist of the drama, and he is a bit player whose only lines in the script are “yes.” For this reason, to hear her husband praised for any independent achievement of his own always fills the feminist with envy and rage.
Well, that is one theory, anyway. If you don’t like it, I could whip out another half-dozen by next Tuesday, but theory doesn’t pay the bills.

Somebody’s got to pay the bills, you see. Feminists do not want men to have economic success or career achievement that would enable men to pay the bills — to support their wives and children — because if women have husbands and children have fathers, this contributes to “the dynamic that keeps women’s oppression going,” as Ti-Grace Atkinson put it.

Lest anyone mistakenly believe that feminism has changed its tune, or doubt that young feminists subscribe to the same radical ideology that inspired Firestone, Atkinson, et al., carefully read the rant that Meghan Murphy published just last week, denouncing “capitalist patriarchy,” condemning “gender roles that are rooted in domination and subordination (i.e. masculinity and femininity),” and describing feminism as a movement “to build a society wherein men don’t feel entitled to sexual access to women.” Is Meghan Murphy a marginal extremist “fringe” feminist? No, she is the founder and editor of Feminist Current, Canada’s leading feminist website. She has a master’s degree in Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies from Simon Fraser University, and if Ms. Murphy insists that feminism must have “a real, radical definition” and “collective, agreed upon goals,” who am I to say she is wrong?

Meghan Murphy is right: Men cannot have “sexual access to women” — that’s rape culture, she explains — and masculinity and femininity must be abolished. Or so you must believe, if you are a feminist.

Professor Ann Althouse was intrigued by my rhetorical method:

This is an interesting form of argument, where you take a central term that people have infused with various meanings, adapting it to their preferences and purposes, and present evidence that the truest, most historically accurate meaning of that term refers to things that those who’ve been embracing it would find repellent.

Well, I make no argument, Professor, and I offer no theory. Such work is for intellectuals, whereas I am a mere journalist, and all I’m doing is reporting the objective facts here: Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It. Trust me on that.



Toronto Star edited Canadian Press news report omitting the term “Islamic State”



The Toronto Star reprinted on Friday, March 11, 2016 a Canadian Press (CP) news report on the video message posted by the Filipino Islamic terrorist group Abu Sayyaf threatening to execute two Canadian hostages if its demand for ransom is not met until April 8.

The original CP news report as was quoted by other media outlets read the following:

“Canadians Robert Hall and John Ridsdel — along with a Norwegian man and a Filipino woman — were kidnapped from a resort by members of Abu Sayyaf — a local group that has pledged allegiance to Islamic State jihadists in Iraq and Syria.”

The Toronto Star edited this paragraph as follows:

“Canadians Robert Hall and John Ridsdel — along with a Norwegian man and a Filipino woman — were kidnapped from a resort by members of Abu Sayyaf — a local group that has pledged allegiance to Daesh, also known as ISIS and ISIL.”

The Islamic nature of Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) is well known and also detailed by Public Safety Canada:

“Founded in the early 1990s, the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) is a militant Islamist group with links to Al Qaida and Jemaah Islamiyyah. Ostensibly, the group’s goal is the establishment of an Islamic state governed by sharia law in the south Philippines. In practice, however, the ASG primarily uses terrorism for profit: kidnap-for-ransom, guerrilla warfare, mass-casualty bombings, and beheadings are particularly favoured tactics. The ASG is also responsible for the biggest act of terrorism in Philippine history: in February 2004 the group claimed credit for planting a bomb on a passenger ferry and sinking the vessel, killing more than 100 people.”

In the video clip, on which the Toronto Star reported, the apparent leader of the Filipino abductors opened and closed his threatening statement with Islamic messages in Arabic:

“In the name of Allah. Praise be to Allah and may the blessings and peace of Allah be upon messenger of Allah [Muhammad] and upon all his family and companions… Allah is the Greatest.”

The Toronto Star has recently decided to use the Arabic word Daesh as an alternative to the Islamic State, a.k.a the Caliphate, IS, ISIS and ISIL.

Daesh (داعش) is the Arabic acronym of the al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham (the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant), the original name of a group which split off from Qaeda. Later in 2014 its name was changed to the Islamic State or the Caliphate.

The Toronto Star favored the old long name to be used in the news reports of the paper effective of March 3, 2016.

Michael Cooke, Toronto Star’s editor-in-chief, described the Islamic State/ Caliphate/ Daesh as “multinational gang of killers and rapists” who “have no legitimacy as a state” explaining that the “name change helps emphasize that.”

Olivia Ward, Toronto Star’s Foreign Affairs Reporter, elaborated on the new policy: “That’s because the criminal gang that has murdered, raped and pillaged its way across the Middle East, while sending sycophants to slaughter civilians abroad, is neither Islamic nor an internationally recognized state.”

The Star’s position which denies any connection between the Islamic State to Islam goes in line with the official policy of the Liberal government.

tip from Ian George: Journalist wins gender discrimination case against Islamic extremist group Hizb ut Tahir


An Islamic group has been ordered to stop segregating men and women after a journalist won a gender discrimination case against it.

Journalist Alison Bevege had attended a lecture hosted by Hizb ut-Tahrir on October 10, 2014, but was forced to sit in women’s-specific seating at the back of a venue in Lakemba, in Sydney’s south west – so she sued the group and five of its members for sexual discrimination.

On Friday, the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal said the action was unlawful sexual discrimination, a decision welcomed by Ms Bevege, who told Daily Mail Australia it was a ‘win for everyone – progressive muslims and non-muslims’.

In its finding, the tribunal ordered a member of the group to ensure attendees of further meetings were aware that segregated seating arrangements were not compulsory.

Ushers at such events also must be made aware and not instructed to enforce segregated seating.

Ms Bevege, who was ‘really happy’ with the outcome, said at the lecture she was made to sit with women, and she did not want to leave and give up the opportunity to ask questions at the end by arguing or leaving.

‘I had to sit down the back like a second class citizen’.