New opposition party launched in Japan

 

http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/new-opposition-party-launched-in-japan

 

TOKYO —

Two Japanese opposition parties merged on Sunday to form a new grouping intended to put pressure on Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s conservative ruling party before the upper house election this summer.

The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), the main opposition party, and the smaller Japan Innovation Party merged to create the Minshinto party, which will have a total of 156 lawmakers in the upper and lower house.

It will still be far smaller than the coalition led by Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which controls a majority of the upper house and more than two-thirds of the lower house.

The new party’s name in English will be the Democratic Party.

The DPJ—a broad center-left grouping—ousted the LDP after more than half a century of conservative dominance in a historic election landslide in 2009.

But after coming to power it limped along under unpopular prime ministers and lost public support, with Abe’s LDP regaining power in 2012.

“We must realise that this will be our last chance for a change in the regime,” said Katsuya Okada, a former foreign minister who leads the new party.

© 2016 AFP

The Feminist/Maternal War On Vaccination Is A War On Masculinity

http://www.antifeministtech.info/2016/03/the-feministmaternal-war-on-vaccination-is-a-war-on-masculinity/

 

The anti-vaccination movement is responsible for the rise in measles (such as the Disneyland measles outbreak in 2015) and whooping cough.  Since the anti-vaccination movement is primarily made up of mothers and other women, this is something where women bear responsibility. On top of that, mothers are usually the ones making health care choices for their children so in almost all cases where a child is not vaccinated (for anything other than legitimate medical reasons), a woman is responsible.  This problem is made worse by divorce and that fact that women are responsible for most divorces.  Fathers have to fight their ex-wives to get their children vaccinated and protect their children.

What started all of this anti-vaccination nonsense was a discredited study linking vaccination to increased autism rates.  Not only was this study discredited to the point where the journal that published it chose to disavow it, the study was funded by a law firm on a fishing expedition to sue vaccine manufacturers.  Despite these facts, women immediately latched on this.  Why did this happen?  To understand the reason, one must understand that certain degrees of autism, particularly autism level 1 (or Asperger’s Syndrome as it used to be called), is not a debilitating disease but indistinguishable from ultra-masculine thinking (the type of thinking that drives innovation).  In fact, lower levels of autism, especially those that used to be called Asperger’s Syndrome, are likely to be nothing more than the medicalization of regular masculinity.  In other words, women believed the anti-vaccination conspiracy theory because of their fear and hatred of masculinity.  Not only is women refusing to vaccinate their children dangerous for their children’s health, it is particularly dangerous for their sons since those women in addition to endangering their health will be raising them in a cesspool of feminist/anti-male ideology.  This is another example of how women’s role as child-bearer is rapidly becoming unnecessary and in many cases even harmful.

 

Feminism: Impossible to Parody

http://theothermccain.com/2016/03/25/feminist-industrial-complex-ohio-state-university-rape-culte/

 

The thing about covering feminism is that craziness piles up so fast that it’s hard to keep up. No sooner do I get through with one wacko —recovering cocaine addict and topless Bernie Sanders supporter Tiernan Hebron — than someone calls my attention to another nutjob. Or two, as in the case of Katherine Marino and Jennifer Suchland, who are both professors of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Ohio State University. In 2003, Professor Suchland co-authored a journal article entitled “Gender Violence And Hegemonic Projects”:

We discuss why re-thinking the relationship between gender violence and hegemonic projects is important for feminist theory and activism. Moving beyond the narrow, representational approach to ‘violence against women’, we argue that the hegemonic projects of the state are constituted through gender violence. Rather than an effect of power, gender violence is thus instrumental to the very operations and existence of hegemonic projects. We insert the contributing essays within this framework, elucidating their examination of three key issues: (1) how hegemonic discourses operate through gendered violence; (2) how dominant political institutions, ideas and discourses determine what ‘counts’ as gender violence; and (3) how responses to gender violence engage metanarratives about gender, race, class and nation/state, both resisting and sustaining hegemonic projects.

Here’s a concept: “Word salad.” Look it up.

Professor Marino’s Ph.D. dissertation at Stanford was entitled “La Vanguardia Feminista: Pan-American Feminism and the Rise of International Women’s Rights, 1915-1946.”

Obviously, the taxpayers of Ohio and the parents who pay tuition to send their kids to OSU are getting their money’s worth from these two.

When they’re not busy spewing gibberish about “hegemonic discourses” or La Vanguardia Feminista, however, these OSU professors like to talk about rape, which is the subject of their Ms. magazine article, “4 (Intersectional!) Ways to Stop Campus Sexual Assault.” Professor Marino and Professor Suchland assert that ending the scourge of rape on university campuses will require “challenging binary understandings of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ that justify the beating up of genderqueer students and that sanction men’s sexual access to female bodies”:

 

Universities should broaden prevention strategies beyond the current focus on individual behavior . . . to include structural ways that the campus recognizes gender, sexual and racial diversity. For example, in order to combat the persistent harassment and violence that genderqueer and trans students face in gender-segregated bathrooms, universities should prioritize providing gender-neutral restrooms around campus. Campuses could also diversify student-housing options for LGBTQ students and provide readily accessible counseling and health services that include counselors who are not only attuned to the needs of a diverse student population, but who also reflect that diversity themselves. . . .
Curricula should also address intersectional approaches to sexual violence. . . . It is not a radical idea to require students to take courses that would deepen their grasp of sexual violence, racialized sexual violence, and violence against LGBT, non-cisgender, and differently abled people.

 

So, professors of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies want to requirestudents to take courses which sound very much like the courses taught in the department of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies.

Here’s a concept: Rent-seeking.” Look it up.

It might be too much to ask for actual data regarding (a) the number of “genderqueer and trans students” attending U.S. colleges and universities, and (b) how many “LGBTQ students” are victims of sexual assault as compared to, y’know, the typical male/female drunk hookup scenario. Because while I’m not sure exactly how “binary understandings of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’ . . . sanction men’s sexual access to female bodies,” I know for a fact that 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. Perhaps I am not “attuned to the needs of a diverse student population,” but it seems to me that heterosexual male students are being systematically demonized by the “hegemonic discourses” of the kind of feminism promoted by professors of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies.

Here’s a concept: Rape hoax.” Look it up.

 

UPDATE: Speak of the Devil and she doth appear!

The young woman who was the central figure in Rolling Stone’s discredited story about a fraternity party gang rape is locked in a heated standoff with a University of Virginia dean seeking to depose her for a defamation suit against the magazine. . . .
The article made national headlines first as a shocking example of campus sexual violence and then as a journalism scandal when its central claims unraveled and Rolling Stone retracted it with an apology to readers.
Lawyers for “Jackie”, the anonymous protagonist of the article, are battling efforts by UVA associate dean of students Nicole Eramo to question her about what she told the magazine.
Ms. Eramo is suing the magazine over how it portrayed her in the story. The story, according to her defamation suit, cast her as “the chief villain” and falsely asserted that she discouraged Jackie from reporting her alleged gang rape to protect the reputation of UVA. . . .
Attorneys for Ms. Eramo, in a court filing Tuesday stated they have every right to want to question her:

The bottom line is that, as the Court has already held, Jackie is a highly relevant witness in this action. Rolling Stone published a completely false story alleging that Jackie was gang raped as part of a fraternity hazing ritual, and claiming that Dean Eramo sought to cover up and suppress Jackie’s supposed assault. The apparent source for virtually all of these falsehoods was Jackie, and therefore Jackie’s credibility — and whether Rolling Stone acted negligently or recklessly in printing what Jackie told them — are key issues in the case.

The filing says Jackie and her attorneys have “never offered any affirmative evidence or facts whatsoever to substantiate the claim that Jackie was a victim of a sexual assault,” noting that police in Charlottesville, Va. said last year that they found no evidence to support the rape claims made in the magazine.