Zachary Antolak, a/k/a “Zinnia Jones,” a/k/a “Satana Kennedy,” a/k/a “Lauren McNamara” is a transgender activist and Internet pornographer who has a verified “blue check” Twitter account, @ZJemptv. Rather than getting any further into the weird biography of Antolak/“Jones” now, I’ll just call attention to his/“her” unusual tattoo of a Satanic pentagram inside a transgender symbol.
To adorn yourself with the symbol used on the cover of Anton LaVey’s Satanic Bible is an anti-social gesture symptomatic of extreme alienation.
Speaking of extreme alienation, “pro sex” feminist Laci Green has become so disillusioned with the progressive social-justice movement that she is now dating anti-feminist YouTuber Chris “RayGun” Maldonado.
Laci Green’s apostasy touched off a huge online imbroglio, which Maldonado described on his YouTube channel: “A lot of social justice people and a lot of feminists are ostracizing her and putting her on blast, and a lot of anti-feminists and anti-social-justice type people are embracing her with open arms. Now, this is fascinating, because this is usually the exact opposite of how things normally go in this sphere of YouTube.” Maldonado’s fans believe love conquers all, but my reaction to the so-called #GreenRayGun romance was skeptical:
Does it seem plausible to you that Laci Green, hitherto an enthusiastic feminist proponent of masturbation, dildos and lesbianism, has for some reason now decided it’s OK to become a man’s “sex object”? Has she repudiated all her previous condemnations of male sexuality? And does it make sense that the person who has persuaded Ms. Green to embrace “unequal power in society” is a 24-year-old anti-SJW YouTuber?
Anything is possible, I suppose, but you’ll excuse my skepticism toward Ms. Green’s belated discovery of the pleasures of patriarchal domination. . . .
“Every feminist’s ideal boyfriend is a Hitachi Magic Wand.”
Expect this Laci Green “romance” to end badly.
Anti-SJW types are high-fiving each other in celebration of Maldonado’s evident triumph, but I’m withholding congratulations because I can’t believe Laci Green would abandon feminism for the sake of love.
Ask yourself this question: Why is transgender activist Zinnia Jones so obsessively concerned with Laci Green’s dating life? Could it be — and I’m just throwing this out there as a possible explanation — that the SJW community is against heterosexual relationships, per se?
This may seem like hyperbole, but when you consider (a) how feminist rhetoric demonizes heterosexual men and (b) how the only way any male can be accepted in the SJW community is to declare himself gay — or become a transgender “female” — the bias is obvious enough. Third Wave feminism is founded on the work of Judith Butler — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — and “queer theory” (e.g., Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick), so that the war against “patriarchy” requires an implacable opposition to heterosexuality:
Until I started studying radical feminism, I never thought of “normal” as an achievement, but Feminism Is Queer, as Professor Mimi Marinucci has explained. Feminist theory condemns heterosexuality as “the ideology of male supremacy,” and denies that behavioral differences between men and women are natural. . . . Feminism seeks to abolish gender in order to achieve “equality” by establishing an androgynous society in which the categories “male” and “female” cease to have any significance.
This is why I’m so skeptical of the Laci Green/Chris Maldonado romance. Given the fact that Ms. Green has spent her entire adult life promoting this anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology — denouncing masculinity as “sexist,” a source of “exclusion and unequal power in society” that makes men “emotionally stunted,” teaching them “to see women as sex objects” — how could she ever possibly be attracted to a male? She has declared herself “pansexual” and produced numerous videos advocating lesbianism and masturbation, which would lead anyone to surmise that Ms. Green endorses the feminist consensus that males are sexually irrelevant, socially unnecessary and politically undesirable.
Why do you think 63 million people voted to elect Donald Trump, anyway? Wasn’t a major factor that the Hillary Clinton campaign so closely aligned itself with radical feminism? Do you think Americans are too stupid to figure out what feminist slogans actually mean?
So, is Chris Maldonado “alt-right,” a “white supremacist,” a “Nazi”? Or could it be that he is just a more-or-less normal guy who feels no need to apologize to SJW feminists for being a normal guy? And hasn’t Zinnia Jones constructed his/“her” worldview around hatred of normal guys?
There is no such thing as “gender confusion,” according to the transgender activist who began his/“her” YouTube career as a teenage atheist attacking Christianity in a weird robotic monotone voice. Less than two weeks into Zachary Antolak’s YouTube career, he replied to commenters who couldn’t figure out if he was male or female.
In fact, “gender confusion” appears to have been a lifelong personal issue for Antolak. According to a YouTube fandom site, Antolak’s parents divorced when he was young and his mother remarried to a man who “spoiled his biological daughter to no end,” but “would berate his stepson for not having an active interest in masculine activities like sports.” This mistreatment evidently inflicted a permanent sense of inadequacy on Antolak. Three months into his YouTube career, in February 2009, Antolak posted a video “coming out” as gay, but this proved somewhat problematic because a prerequisite to being a homosexual male, obviously, is that you must like men, which Antolak does not.
To skip ahead a bit in the story, Zinnia Jones wrote in the foreword of a recent book (You and Your Gender Identity by Dara Hoffman-Fox) that his sense of identity was “occluded by a dense fog of uncertainty, misconceptions, anxieties, and stereotypes,” which he/“she” blamed on “harmful cultural messages about what’s expected of different genders.” Because he could not “comfortably fit within a given gender assignment,” Antolak/Jones wrote, he found it “impossible to . . . mentally place myself anywhere,” and experienced “a blurry-edged separation from reality itself.” At the time of his 2009 “coming out,” Antolak used his YouTube channel to lecture the world about “sexuality” in a five-part Q & A series (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5).
“Notice the judgmental language — ‘genetically defective,’ ‘incomplete form of a species.’ That is the sound of prejudice. And I don’t mean that in the sense of, ‘Oh, someone doesn’t like me,’ I use it in the literal sense. This person has already made a judgment ahead of time, and now they’re looking to scrape together anything that sounds vaguely scientific to support this judgment. Basically, they’ve got it all backwards.”
— Zinnia Jones, “Sexuality (part 1),” April 3, 2009
At age 19, then, Antolak was representing himself online as an expert on sexuality, dismissing critics as “prejudiced” and “backwards.”
This is the same mentality which rejects ordinary expectations of male/female behavioral patterns as “harmful cultural messages.” In other words, if parents expect their sons to be typically masculine, or their daughters to be feminine, and especially if they expect their children to be heterosexual, this is “harmful.” Why? Because some children will fail to live up to such expectations and, therefore, everybody must adopt the perspective of the misfit children and condemn these “harmful cultural messages,” which hurt their precious feelings.
Where did Zachary Antolak get these ideas? From the Cult of Self-Esteem. For decades, our education system has been controlled by liberals who believe all childhood problems are a result of low self-esteem. Nothing is more important than teaching kids to feel good about themselves, according to the advocates of self-esteem. This dubious educational theory gets mixed in with a “progressive” egalitarian ideology which rejects ordinary social standards and value systems as invalid, because these values and standards damage the self-esteem of those who fail to succeed within such a hierarchical system. The Cult of Self-Esteem requires us to believe that it is a social injustice for the all-state linebacker to be more popular in high school than the boy who plays clarinet in the marching band. This is analogous to the feminist belief that it is wrong to admire women for their beauty. Just as there is no reason we should admire men who are tall and athletic, according to the egalitarian proponents of self-esteem theory, there is no reason why anyone should prefer supermodel Kate Upton to feminist Jaclyn Friedman.
Jaclyn Friedman, feminist (left); Kate Upton, supermodel (right).
Where does this egalitarian worldview lead? To the regime of Thought Police, who are constantly lecturing us that our opinions are wrong. The Thought Police act as cultural commissars, monitoring our words and deeds for evidence of beliefs that are sexist, racist or homophobic. Suppressing prohibited opinions results in a one-sided public discourse, where dissenters are demonized and silenced, where disagreement is labeled “hate speech” and criticism is forbidden as “harassment.” No one can be permitted to mention any fact that might be cited in contradiction of the Thought Police regime, nor is anyone allowed to question the authority of the Thought Police. No one is supposed to ask how certain people, simply by calling themselves “feminists,” acquire the authority to speak on behalf of all women. Who chose the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement to represent the African-American community? Merely to ask such a question exposes the fundamental issue of authority claimed by the Thought Police. On what grounds do they claim the right to suppress opposing opinions? Who put them in charge and granted them the power to act as self-appointed prosecutors against those whom they accuse of prejudice? How is it that any 19-year-old with a YouTube channel can arrogate to himself the authority of the Thought Police?
If you want to know why our university campuses seem to be constantly erupting in lunacy (e.g., “Evergreen State College Students Reportedly Roaming Campus With Baseball Bats”) it is because our education system has promoted this Thought Police regime to enforce an egalitarian ideology by suppressing dissent. This incentivizes claims of victimhood because, in the social-justice calculus of “progressive” ideology, being a member of an oppressed victim group entails the right to attack whatever forces of “society” and “culture” you blame for your oppression.
“Believe it or not, there are plenty of gay men who have had sex with women, although I am not one of them. . . . Essentially, society tells men to find a nice woman to love and have a family with. That is what’s expected of them and there’s a lot of pressure for men to participate in this heterosexual lifestyle.”
— Zinnia Jones, “Sexuality (part 1),” April 3, 2009
You see? The only reason any man wants “to find a nice woman to love and have a family with” is because “society” tells him to do so. Because there is no objective reason why a man might wish “to participate in this heterosexual lifestyle,” Zachary Antolak lectured the world via YouTube in 2009, therefore men only have sex with women because they are under “a lot of pressure” from society to do so. This is simply a colloquial restatement of feminist “social construction” theory. There is no such thing as human nature, according to feminist theory. No pattern of behavior can be described as “natural” or “normal,” the feminist believes, because to do so would imply that other patterns are unnatural or abnormal and, as Zachary/Zinnia elsewhere says, such “misconceptions” and “stereotypes” produce “harmful cultural messages.”
Let’s ask a simple question: Who is responsible for the “pressure” Zachary/Zinnia describes? Who is it that “tells men” to marry women, form families and otherwise “participate in this heterosexual lifestyle”?
Zachary/Zinnia attributes this to “society,” but who is “society”? There are 7 billion people on this planet, 320 million of whom reside in the United States, so who among us is exercising this “pressure” that Zachary/Zinnia attributes “society”? Speaking for myself personally, I would not give a damn what Zachary/Zinnia does, were it not for his/“her” habit of telling other people what we are allowed to think. The only reason I’m taking time to write about Zachary/Zinnia today is because he/“she” has arrogated to himself/“herself” the authority to tell Laci Green who she is permitted to date. How did Zachary/Zinnia obtain such power? Who is in charge of hiring the Thought Police, and where do I go to apply for that job? Perhaps you see my point. But if not . . .
Zinnia Jones is in a polyamorous relationship with lesbian feminist Heather McNamara and transgender pornographer “Miss Robo.” This came to public attention in 2015, when Ms. McNamara forced her son “to write an essay on misogyny and its effects on society.” Yes, you read that correctly — Ms. McNamara is raising her son from a previous (heterosexual) marriage with the assistance of two transgender “partners.” Collectively, they are the “team” at Gender Analysis.
“For me and my partner of five years, Zinnia Jones, a transgender woman whom I love devotedly, things have recently become even more unpleasant. . . . Making it illegal for her to use the women’s room puts her in a unique situation. Anyone who looks at her would see a woman, but she’s also sometimes recognizable as an openly transgender activist. Does she use the women’s room and risk getting recognized, fined or imprisoned? Or does she use the men’s room and effectively out herself in a political environment that is suspicious, if not outright violent, toward transgender women?”
— Heather McNamara, “What ‘Trans Panic’ Means for My Family and Me,” Ms. Magazine, May 10, 2016
One supposes that Ms. McNamara, a self-declared Marxist feminist lesbian, could never “love devotedly” a heterosexual man, but the “transgender woman” formerly known as Zachary Antolak has by some strange magic qualified for inclusion in the McNamara “family.”
After first “coming out” as gay at age 19 in 2009, Zachary Antolak subsequently declared in April 2011 that he was a “she” in a decidedly weird way: “She’s my girlfriend and I’m her girlfriend. and I’m her girlfriend. The answer was right there: I’m a lesbian!“
Sure. Whatever you say, pal. Far be it from me to damage your self-esteem with any “harmful cultural messages.” To be honest, I never would have known Zachary/Zinnia existed, if Ms. McNamara had not assigned that essay about “misogyny” to her son in October 2015. That was four years after Zachary/Zinnia’s September 2011 announcement that he/“she” was moving to Florida. Why the relocation?
“In case you haven’t noticed, I’ve been a little busy recently. That’s because I’ve now assumed the role of stay-at-home mom. The reason I came to Florida was to help take care of my girlfriend’s children, and that’s what I’ve been doing for the past month. The younger one is not yet out of diapers, and the older one is in second grade. This has been an intense, hands-on learning experience, and probably the hardest thing I’ve ever done. . . . Surprisingly, raising children is not easy!”
— Zinnia Jones, “Zinnia’s Parenting Adventure,” Oct. 26, 2011
Heather McNamara divorced her husband, then got 22-year-old transgender “lesbian” Antolak to move in as “stay-at-home mom” to her two young children. Nothing to see here. Move along. Meanwhile . . .
In September 2012, Antolak began transgender “hormone replacement therapy” (HRT). How did that go? Zinnia explained in a 2015 video:
And again, in an August 2016 video:
Well, congratulations on the success of your “therapy”! Considering that Zach Antolak wasn’t exactly an impressive specimen of masculine vigor to begin with, I’m sure these . . . uh, therapeutic effects of long-term hormone treatment have been quite remarkable. But undergoing hormone treatment and being a “stay-at-home mom” hasn’t been the only excitement in the life ofZachary Antolak, a/k/a “Zinnia Jones.” Using his/“her” married name of Lauren McNamara, he/“she” was a witness in the 2013 trial of his/“her” friend Bradley “Chelsea” Manning.
Obviously, “stay-at-home mom” Lauren McNamara a/k/a Zinnia Jones a/k/a Zachary Antolak is an upstanding citizen with a respect for law and order. Anyone who suspects otherwise is probably some kind of transphobic right-wing bigot, because Lauren McNamara a/k/a Zinnia Jones a/k/a Zachary Antolak comes from a very respectable background:
My mother considered herself a feminist. (She’s not dead, I just don’t talk to her any more and she might as well be.) She was also bipolar and had a difficult time communicating things in a way that made sense, even though she was intelligent and thoughtful about a lot of things.
Looking back on my childhood, I realize that there were messages she sort of tried to teach me, but didn’t effectively teach me at all. To me, it just looked like more things fitting into her patterns of erratic behavior, but now I understand why she behaved the way she did about me wanting to shave my legs and wear makeup, and why she didn’t mind walking around the house naked after a shower. . . .
It always really bothered me that she would be naked in the house, in front of me and/or my brother. That, combined with her serial monogamy, led me to label her a Slut and grew the hatred I felt toward her. Didn’t she understand boundaries? Didn’t she understand that I didn’t want to see my mom naked? . . .
I think she might have exchanged sexual favors for drugs a few times, and I looked down on her for that, too. . . .
One time, I took a shower in her bathroom and freaked the hell out when I saw her vibrator in there. I thought it was dirty, I thought she was dirty, because of the number of her sexual partners. . . .
At the time, I just labelled her “crazy” and called her Satan behind her back. I knew that she was often noncompliant with her prescription medication and that she self-medicated with marijuana. I was a child being abused and I couldn’t understand why she was the way she was.
Someone with that excellent family background certainly could never be suspected of any kind of wrongdoing. However, Zachary/Zinnia says it is “creepy” for Laci Green to be dating Chris Maldonado, and also . . .
Well, well, well. Advocating the destruction of Laci Green for her alleged “sin” of dating someone of whom Zachary/Zinnia disapproves? Pushing her to the “breaking point”? As many people have pointed out, it is absurd to describe Chris Maldonado as “alt-right.” He supported the socialist Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democrat primaries. To call him a “white supremacist” or a “Nazi” is rather odd, considering his Puerto Rican ancestry (and Laci Green’s half-Iranian heritage). Is he an “MRA” (men’s rights activist)? No, as I say, he strikes me as just a normal guy who doesn’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with being a normal guy, but this is 2017. Feminists will not permit anyone to say a word in defense of normal guys, which makes Chris Maldonado so “controversial” that Laci Green has been excommunicated from feminism for dating him (see also, “Social Justice Warriors Dox, Publish Lengthy Dossier on Feminist YouTuber Laci Green”). As the biography of Zinnia Jones demonstrates, one doesn’t find many sane people in the feminist movement. In fact, it seems that mental illness is now required as a qualification for membership in the feminist movement.
What? Horse dildos?
How do horse dildos figure into the “feminist work” to which Zinnia Jones expresses such a zealous devotion? Why do Zinna Jones’s critics refer to him/“her” as “Queen of the Horse Dildos”? And why, in 2014, did Zinnia Jones write an article entitled, “Animal dildos: An ethical analysis”?
Do you really want the answers to these questions? Because when I tell you that Zinnia Jones produces pornography under the alias “Satana Kennedy,” you might be tempted to do a Google search, and discover the answers to these questions in a most unforgettable manner. You probably don’t want to do this, but if you succumb to foolish curiosity, keep in mind this fact: Zinnia a/k/a “Satana Kennedy” produces his/“her” pornography while functioning as “stay-at-home mom” for Heather McNamara’s two young sons. This is Zinnia’s “feminist work.”
There’s that tattoo again. “Satana Kennedy” — Zinnia Jones a/k/a Zachary Antolak, who tells feminists who they are allowed to date.
Gawker, the gay hard-left gossip website, was forced to shut down yesterday. Hulk Hogan won a $140 million dollar verdict against Gawker for violating his privacy rights when it published clips of a sex tape he made. He won so much money that Gawker had no choice but to be sold off and shut down, a humiliation for Nick Denton, the far-left founder.
Should we feel bad that a media site has been shut down? Should we feel worried about freedom of the press?
Normally, I would say yes. But Gawker was such a vile, hard-left site that they had it coming.
The articles on Gawker fell into several basic varieties:
1) Articles about how proud and virtuous anal sex is, which is the prime transmission source for AIDS.
2) Articles talking about how evil white people are.
3) Articles talking about how evil the police are.
4) Articles talking about how evil men (presumably, non-homosexual men) are
5) Articles talking about how oppressed Muslims are (but only oppressed by white Americans, not by other Muslims in the Middle East who are slaughtering them by the thousands).
While constantly spewing this toxic mix of racist, sexist, anti-American, pro-Islamic, and pro-AIDS agenda, there is little to feel sad for. Other news sources–The New York Times, The Washington Post, the major news networks, and more–have the same agenda, the only difference is that they are just a little bit less direct about it than Gawker, and a little bit less vile in the words they use. Perhaps the most commonly used word on Gawker.com was the word “shit”–perhaps the readers were in love with that word given it’s proximity to anal sex.
Gawker won’t be missed. Pass the popcorn.
Science proves that the LGBT feminazis are mentally ill!
Here is the world according to the LGBT Left: Just as there are black and white, there are gay and straight. One’s sexual orientation, like one’s race, is fixed and immutable at birth. The process of “questioning” one’s orientation isn’t a process of deciding but of discovering.
Similarly, when it comes to gender identity, there is “cis” and there is “trans.” A cis person’s gender identity matches the sex they were “assigned” at birth. A trans person — well, a trans person is any one of the fifty-plus other genders on the entirely reputable Facebook spectrum. This, you see, is science. Anyone who contradicts it — whether relying on ancient, discredited “holy” texts or outdated notions of morality — isn’t just ignorant, but bigoted. And when it comes to bigots, why draw minute moral distinctions? Is there really much difference between a Klan member and a Christian conservative? Such reasoning has been the source of much of the LGBT movement’s political force. It’s the narrative that dominates the academy, pop culture, progressive corporate America, and, lately, the Supreme Court. Justice Anthony Kennedy referred to the LGBT population’s “immutable” nature in his opinion constitutionalizing same-sex marriage. To those who live in the real world, this narrative has always run counter to observed reality. Human sexuality is not so neatly and cleanly divided and determined. Circumstances and culture matter, as does morality. So it should come as no surprise that — upon closer scientific examination — the LGBT Left’s case collapses. Sexual orientation and gender identity are nothing like race.
Yesterday, The New Atlantis released a comprehensive “study of studies,” taking a look at the accumulated body of credible scientific research on LGBT issues. The study is by Lawrence Mayer, a scholar-in-residence at Johns Hopkins University, and Paul McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, and its findings destroy the narrative. First, regarding sexual orientation, the view that it is “an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings — the idea that people are ‘born that way’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.” Indeed, the authors highlight numerous studies finding that sexual orientation is often fluid, with one study showing high rates of abandonment of non-heterosexual identification as young men grew out of adolescence.
Second, “compared to the general population, non-heterosexual subpopulations are at an elevated risk for a variety of adverse health and mental health outcomes.” The numbers are sobering. Non-heterosexual populations have 1.5 times the risk of anxiety disorders and substance abuse, twice the risk of depression, and 2.5 times the risk of suicide. The transgender population also is at elevated risk for mental-health problems, with the suicide numbers particularly troubling: “The rate of lifetime suicide attempts across all ages of transgender individuals is estimated at 41%, compared to under 5% in the overall U.S. population.” Third, the idea that “gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.” Indeed, only a minority of children who experience “cross-gender identification” will continue to do so as they get older.
The study is lengthy and comprehensive, and when you dive into its depths, it’s clear that McHugh and Mayer aren’t positing simplistic alternative explanations for human sexuality that would mirror and rebut the Left’s narrative. Instead, what emerges is a messy, realistic vision of human beings who are shaped by myriad social, cultural, and biological forces. To take one example, the authors spend considerable time talking about the high incidence of childhood sexual and physical abuse in the LGBT community. Do LGBT people experience higher rates of abuse and assault because of their orientation, or does the life-altering experience of abuse and assault contribute to the formation of an LGBT identity? As the authors note, the answer is not necessarily either/or. A person can be targeted because they’re perceived to be gay and “sexual abuse perpetrated by men might cause boys to think they are gay or make girls averse to sexual contact with men.”
Here’s the thing, the messy reality McHugh and Mayer describe has been experienced by humans since time immemorial. The LGBT Left’s narrative is the new nonsense. But in response to the new nonsense, there are sectors of American and European politics and culture that can’t kick away the old norms of marriage and gender fast enough, and they keep doing so in spite of the mountain of evidence that those who forsake the allegedly oppressive “Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement,” to quote Black Lives Matter, face far greater challenges than those hidebound bigots who stick faithfully to the heteronormative nightmare of traditional male-female marriage.
What’s even worse — what’s downright insane — is that some on Left want to end the debate. They want to keep selling their moral vision to the public without any competition. Here’s their vision, in a nutshell: Consenting adults should be able to do what they want with their bodies, and the resulting physical or emotional harm is either reasonably tolerable or can be alleviated through a combination of government programs and public re-education. The Judeo-Christian model, by contrast, is aspirational, calling on people not to do what they want, but what they should. Admittedly, this path is far easier for some than others, but there has always been some play in the cultural joints. The Left’s response is alluring, but it offers a self-indulgent path down which lies cultural ruin. The LGBT Left is driving us there just as fast as it can depress the gas pedal, but thanks to McHugh and Mayer, we now know they most assuredly are not doing so in the name of “science.”
Women’s fashion magazine Elle has decided to stop focusing on its four letter title, French for “Her,” and has placed Hari Nef, a 23-year-old man who graduated from the theater program at Columbia University last year on its September, 2016 cover. Hari was not available for comment, and therefore I am unable to confirm whether this is masterful acting by the cunning theater major Hari, able to troll photographers, makeup artists, editors, and publishers into believing he is a hot woman, or the staff of top selling Elle magazine forgetting what their nameplate means
Hari grew up in a single parent home in Massachusetts. His mother was a saleswoman, and he expressed some discomfort as a teenager, and after moving to NYC to study drama at Columbia, began dressing in “genderless clothes” and upon graduation landed a modeling gig and performed his first catwalk in 2015 during New York Fashion Week.
Apparently, Hari still has most of the associated cues of being a male. He states:
“I could have hidden in Boston and lived at home for 3 years, gone through my transition, taken voice lessons to make my voice more feminine, gotten gender reassignment surgery, and spent time to complete my transition, but I didn’t want to wait. I wanted to be in the world,”
He states that he still sounds, acts, and looks like a man, and likely has kept the frank and beans like role model Bruce.
Hari is attracted to and dates other men, stating
“in an ideal world, I wouldn’t have to change my body. I wouldn’t have to do all this stuff. I wouldn’t have to be pretty, or feminine, and people would respect that.”
Well, I wouldn’t go so far as to respect anything besides your privacy, but yes, if you just shut up and quietly lived your gay life without calling attention to yourself, and without the theatrics of pretending to actually be female, or “gender shifting” or any of the other 31 flavors of the month, then many people wouldn’t have a problem with you.
As recently as 15 years ago, this would be 100% pure humor. While I did chuckle at this story, and several of the photos are rather humorous, the fact is, today, this is taken seriously by much of America. As the film Zoolander parodied, models are not always dressed in the most feminine of clothing, and indeed many models have an androgynous look.
But the culture is changing so rapidly, that a post-millennial kid today would be confused by the plot of many top films of recent memory, such as Silence of the Lambs, which purposefully made the mass murderer Buffalo Bill a cross dresser, reinforcing his depravity and mental illness.
Feminism: Always The Enemy of Fun
But today, a man dressing as a woman is not seen as silly or humorous, as it has throughout most of Western history, but a Proud and Strong and Brave Womyn Expressing Her Inner Strength and Spirit. While 2001’s Zoolander was a critical and box office success, earning over $30 million in profit from theater sales alone, 2016’s sequel Zoolander 2 was a commercial failure, only barely covering its costs of production. Add humor to another item in the long list of things feminism has killed.
Where Does It Come From?
Elle Magazine (“Her” Magazine) is owned by a French conglomerate, and the American version is published by Hearst Media, a privately held and controversial publisher founded by William Randolph Hearst, that once held a monopoly on major media and today owns interests in hundreds of magazines, newspapers, and TV stations reaching 20% of US viewers, including ESPN, who has worked closely with the NFL in turning football gay. One can look into the history and background of the major media and see the common source which creates this garbage.
While there will certainly be backlash as elites attempt to define to us what is beauty, what is female, and what is good, the end result is that the vast majority of post-millennials will succumb to this propaganda and never know the truth. When the majority of their classmates are fat, gross, prepubescently-sexually active, and genderqueer, they will never be exposed to real beauty.
While corporations like Elle can save money by employing mentally ill workers that don’t have to be told to “look confused and depressed”, they are destroying the basic biological imperatives of humanity. Hari Nef has already been hired for television work and will be coming to a network near you soon. Throw away your TV and tune out the offensive degenerate media
The new Star Trek series is featuring a female lead and an officer who enjoys anal sex.
This should not be surprising since Bryan Fuller, who is creating the series, says he also enjoys anal sex.
The producers probably think it will be great to have a character who can show viewers, especially children, the joys of anal sex, to continue the promotion of this unhealthy lifestyle.
I just hope they have finally found a cure for AIDS in the 23rd century.
As for the woman lead, that is no surprise, like the Force Awakens, like Rogue One, like Ghostbusters, no men need apply.
Women are tough, women are leaders, men are sheep, men are followers.
Let the brainwashing continue.
This is what Obama thinks of the military. This is what he thinks of children. This is what he thinks of us.
As J.E. Dyer reports, Obama will be naming a Naval vessel after Harvey Milk…
The U.S. Naval Institute reports that Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus will be naming a Military Sealift Command support ship after slain San Francisco politician Harvey Milk, a 1970s crusader for gay issues.
The ship class is the John Lewis class “fleet oiler,” and USNS Harvey Milk will be T-AO-206, the second unit of the class.
In company with Milk and John Lewis, the admired civil rights leader, will be Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, who is credited with jump-starting the Supreme Court in a career of political activism;
Harvey Milk was a major gay activist and the usual suspects will be getting a kick out of this. Except that, aside from everything else, Harvey Milk was also the creepy guy trying to lure kids into his van.
Gerard Dols told of how – as a physically disabled teen – the “very nice” Harvey Milk had encouraged him in 1977 to run away from his Minnesota home and come to San Francisco.
According to Dols, Milk told him, “Don’t tell your parents,”
In his glowing book “The Mayor of Castro Street,” Randy Shilts wrote of Milk’s “relationship” with the McKinley boy: ” … Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. … At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.”
Years later McKinley committed suicide.
This is what Obama’s America looks like. It’s a nightmare of pure evil. And yes, things don’t get more evil than some of Harvey Milk’s associates.
“Rev. Jones is widely known in the minority communities here and elsewhere as a man of the highest character, who has undertaken constructive remedies for social problems which have been amazing in their scope and effectiveness,” Supervisor Milk wrote President Jimmy Carter seven months before the Jonestown carnage.
The purpose of Milk’s letter was to aid and abet his powerful supporter’s abduction of a six-year-old boy. Milk’s missive to the president prophetically continued:
“Not only is the life of a child at stake, who currently has loving and protective parents in the Rev. and Mrs. Jones, but our official relations with Guyana could stand to be jeopardized, to the potentially great embarrassment of our State Department.”
John Stoen, the boy whose actual parents Milk libeled to the president as purveyors of “bold-faced lies” and blackmail attempts, perished at Jonestown.
Obama’s Obamanation is a sick and twisted place.
Here’s the latest in biological news coming at you from liberal Slate magazine! According to Slate writer Chase Strangio, (yes, Strange-io), it’s “factually wrong and dangerous” to describe a person as being “anatomically male.”
To the average, commonsensical American, the query Strangio poses in her article “What Is a ‘Male Body?” seems pretty straightforward. But like every good radical leftist, Strangio has decided to play mental contortionist with what would otherwise be a simple question.
The author, who’s an attorney for the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project, was inspired by the fact that “almost 200 anti-LGBT bills were introduced in state legislatures across in the country” during the 2016 state legislative sessions. Which is, of course, proof that legislators just don’t understand the plight of the less than 1 percent of Americans who are transgender!
According to Strangio, “there will be no movement on formal equality for LGBTQ people without greater understanding of who transgender people are and what it means to be transgender.” This apparently involves redefining, er, sorry, “understanding,” that a person’s sex isn’t determined by their genitalia. In fact, Strangio writes that the word “genitalia” is offensive. This is the same kind of language that “opponents of transgender people use, carelessly referring to women who are trans as having ‘male genitals.’” Well, she’s got the “carelessly” part right, but if Strangio would like to suggest what else they should be called, we’re all ears. Or is “ears” a verboten word too?
Her proof that there’s no such thing as male or female bodies? “The medical experts I have spoken with could not identify a single medical purpose for assigning sex at birth.” Except for the fact that the two sexes grow at different rates and undergo obviously different pubescent stages. But these mysterious “medical experts” are bound to know more on the subject than the millennia of human beings that came before – and certainly more than your average ignorant American.
Americans “have a responsibility to recognize that it is an ideological position—and not a scientific fact—to name someone’s body, genitals, or biology male.” Actually, ignoring factual science, and accepting made up lefty faux science, sounds pretty irresponsible. Imagine if liberals did this with junk food and stopped trying to ban soda and salt.
Apparently, Chase Strangio “was assigned female at birth, but [has] never had a female body.” So, to justify her confusion, the other 99.5 percent of us must suddenly accept that people are halibuts, cars are mammals and the ocean is melted chocolate. Of course, makes sense. Typical left-wing operating procedure.
According the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF), which published an LGBT glossary of more than 250 terms, the belief that there are only two genders — male and female — should be treated as “genderism.”
The guide, which was published as part of the DCF’s Safe Harbors Project and was last updated July 7, defines “genderism” as: “The system of belief that there are only two genders (men and women) and that gender is inherently tied to one’s sex assigned at birth. It holds cisgender people as superior to transgender people, and punishes or excludes those who don’t conform to society’s expectations of gender.”
“Gender oppression,” according to the heavily-Democratic state, is “The societal, institutional, and individual beliefs and practices that privilege cisgender (gender-typical people) and subordinate and disparage transgender or gender variant people. Also known as ‘genderism.’”
The Safe Harbor Project was originally created in 2001 to “educate against homophobia, gender bias and racism while working to create a world where youth, adults and families of all sexual orientations and gender identities are valued and affirmed, and to implement affirming and unbiased, culturally competent, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning & Intersex (LGBTQI) service trainings for foster and adoptive parents, social workers, child care and community providers surrounding the issues and problems specific to youth and families with inherent sexuality issues.”
Christian Mingle was forced to accept gay dating. now they are going after churches that disagree with them.
The Iowa Civil Rights Commission has issued an interpretation of the law that would prevent churches from teaching biblical views on sexuality and gender identity.
I think I read somewhere that this is sort of illegal.
Fort Des Moines Church of Christ filed a federal lawsuit against the commission on Monday, arguing that the agency’s interpretation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act violates the First Amendment.
Christiana Holcomb, legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents the church, said it is difficult to “imagine a more obvious unconstitutional invasion of the state into the internal affairs of the church” than what theCivil Rights Commission is proposing.
“Churches should be free to teach their religious beliefs and operate their houses of worship according to their faith without being threatened by the government,” Ms. Holcomb said in a statement. “That is a foundational First Amendment principle.”
The lawsuit came in response to an explanatory brochure titled “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity — A Public Accommodations Provider’s Guide to Iowa Law,” released by the Civil Rights Commission. It says churches are public accommodations and therefore generally subject to the Iowa Civil Rights Act.
Under a section header titled “Does this law apply to churches?” the brochure says: “Sometimes. Iowa law provides that these protections do not apply to religious institutions with respect to any religion-based qualifications when such qualifications are related to a bona fide religious purpose.”
“Where qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious purpose, churches are still subject to the law’s provisions,” the brochure continues, adding that church activities such as “a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public” are not examples of “bona fide religious purpose[s].”
A spokesperson for the commission did not respond to questions about who decides what a “bona fide religious purpose” is and what church activities — if not a “church service open to the public” — would qualify as “bona fide religious purpose[s].”
The brochure also defines discrimination as, among other things, “publicizing that the patronage of persons of any particular sexual orientation or gender identity is unwelcome, objectionable, not acceptable, or not solicited.”
The lawsuit says the Civil Rights Commission’s interpretation could force churches to permit access to sex-segregated facilities on the basis of gender identity. Refusing to call a transgender person by the pronoun corresponding with their gender identity could constitute illicit “harassment.”
The money quote here is “bona fide religious purpose.” Apparently, a church service open to the public is defined as a “public accommodation” thus making sermons subject to civil rights law. You may recall they tried to pull something similar in Houston only to have the red faced mayor pull the rule after a nationwide outcry.
So far, this story doesn’t appear to have gotten much traction outside of religious websites. But your bones will be chilled if you read what an LGBT advocate says about the commission’s interpretation,
Donna Red Wing, executive director of pro-LGBT rights One Iowa, said the lawsuit has no merit.
“Do we understand what is happening? They are suing the Iowa Civil Rights Commission for doing its job,” Ms. Red Wing said in a statement.
“As a church, they can believe whatever they want,” she continued. “In their bona fide religious activities, they are exempt. They cannot, however, break the law when providing public accommodation.
I can easily see this ruling being upheld by SCOTUS if Clinton is elected president and gets to name a Supreme Court judge or two.
As if the stakes in November weren’t already high.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/07/iowa_state_government_looks_to_silence_churches_preaching_biblical_interpretation_of_sexual_identity.html#ixzz4E3447HN6
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
A new study shows there’s much more depression, obesity and suicidal tendencies among adults raised by same-sex couples than among adults raised by a normal family of complementary male and female parents.
According to the study, which tracks the development of children to adulthood, 51 percent of those raised by same-sex couples had experienced depression, compared to only 19.7 percent of those raised in normal married households.
“By age 28 a cohort of children raised by same-sex parents are 2.25 times more likely to experience depression than is the general population. Adult onset depression is associated with a more frequent history of abuse victimization, obesity, stigma, and distance from one or both parents.”
Thirty percent of adults from gay households fanaticized about suicide as an adult, compared to 7 percent from normal households. A whopping 71.9 percent of adults raised in gay homes reported obesity, compared to 37 percent from opposite-sex homes.
The study shows more kids raised by gays reported that a parent or caregiver had slapped, hit, or kicked them. More of them said they were touched in a sexual way or forced to touch someone in a sexual way or were forced into sex relations.
The study used data from the non-partisan National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, and was produced by Professor Paul Sullins of the Leo Initiative. He’s worked with the Department of Sociology at the Catholic University of America for many years.
The major limitation of of the study is that the database contained information on kids raised by only twenty same-sex couples. But there are very few children raised by gays at all, let alone over a long period. Even so, as sociologist Mark Regnerus says of this study, “This makes the same-sex household estimates displayed in the graph imprecise, but it does nothing to undermine the significance of the differences between groups.”
The study has already come under attack from gay blogs that tend to pounce on any negative data.
At the urging of gay bloggers, in 2012, Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin was investigated by his university and attempts were made to bring him up on charges and get him fired for reaching much the same conclusions as Sullins has reached. Though the University of Texas backed him up and the journal that published his paper has not withdrawn it, he still comes under bitter criticism from gay advocates.
ThinkProgress has tried to smear Sullins for his religious faith and his priesthood. The author, Zack Ford, a columnist and not an expert in sociological research, called the study “hugely flawed” and ran a picture of Sullins in his priestly garb. He also complained that the study was carried out on children raised by gays prior to the legalization of gay marriage, proposing that marriage will make all the difference in outcomes for kids.
Even liberal advocates admit that children do best when raised by their own mom and dad. Secular sociologist Sara McLanahan of Princeton University and other secular experts have reported for decades that children do best within normal families.
A recent Buzzfeed video features a lesbian “gender non-conforming” couple speaking about how they force their son into “queer” relationships with his own gender.
The couple, Dashiell and Michelle, have no problem pushing a certain sexuality onto their son despite his young age.
“It’s really funny, because he’s, like, super into sports,” Michelle said. “Maybe he was, like, an Olympic athlete in his past life. He, like, came with all of these sporting talents that are, like, visible at 17 months. That’s what Dashiell liked growing up. She easily relates to him on that level.”
“I’m constantly, like, trying to queer my relationship with him and get him to wear tutus. He hates it. He’s just, like, ‘No,’” she continued. “When I catch myself trying to do these things, it ends up making me feel really retro and dumb about gender,” Michelle continued. “It just takes me away from the reality of, like, him, Atticus. Like, who is he? What does he want? And the sort of purity of the things that he’s interested in or delighted by. Obviously, I want to support whatever he wants to be.”
Michelle later concluded she doesn’t care what her son Atticus grows up to be; she just wants to give him the variety of options.
“Everyone needs to be reconsidering the way that they’re presenting gender to their kids. It’s not even whether or not Atticus is personally going to be a genderqueer or genderfluid person. Atticus can grow up to be a completely traditional cisgendered male and he needs to understand the variety of genders that are out there so that he can be a respectful human being in the world,” Michelle concluded.
Good luck, Atticus.
After reading up about the Toronto lawyer who is on a rampage to force the LGBTQP-SJW agenda down the throats of Caribbean countries like Jamaica (some are saying that he used litigation on Trinidad and Belize too), I have discovered that more TORONTO people are implementing SJW activism in countries like Guyana (British Guiana) and Suriname (Netherlands Guiana).
Too bad that Toronto feminazis cannot touch French Guiana since France owns the country to this day.
York University spreading Toronto feminazism into Guyana and Suriname:
Quote:The InterGuianas-Canada Gender Studies Exchange
This transnational feminist partnership links the Centre for Feminist Research with universities in Suriname, Guyana and Toronto around Caribbean gender studies. Aims of the partnership are to mobilize and improve intersectional knowledge about gender through research and education, in order to better respond to gender injustices in the Caribbean countries and the diaspora.
Collaborators: Kamala Kempadoo, York University; Renuka Biharie, Institute for Women. Gender and Development Studies, Anton de Kom University of Suriname; Paulette Henry, Institute for Gender Studies, University of Guyana; Vidya Kissoon, independent educator and activist, Guyana; Amar Wahab, Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies, York University ; Andil Gosine, Sociology, York University; Alissa Trotz, Caribbean Studies, University of Toronto; and Camille Hernandez-Ramdwar, Caribbean Studies, Ryerson University.
Be noted that Guyana is the country where it houses the headquarters of the CARICOM administration. CARICOM is like the European Union of the Caribbean islands. Therefore, if Toronto feminazism is being implemented in a headquarter country, then the rest of the Caribbean might have to follow the SJW agenda too.
The University of the West Indies (UWI) is also on the road to Toronto feminazism. As usual, somebody from York University was behind the transition to implement “Gender Studies” on the Caribbean community.
Quote:At the end of August 2015, the University of Guyana (UG) launched its Institute for Gender Studies after two years of collaboration. This involved York University’s Kamala Kempadoo, coordinator of the Inter-Guiana-Canada women’s and gender studies exchange, academics at the University of Guyana, activists from Guyana’s Women and Gender Equality Commission, officials from the Ministry of Social Protection, and The UWI Institute for Gender and Development Studies.
Professor Verene Shepherd, Regional Director of the IGDS, and Dr. Gabrielle Hosein, Lecturer at the St. Augustine Unit, also delivered comments at the launch. Professor Shepherd and UG Vice-Chancellor Jacob Opadeyi signed a Memorandum of Understanding, on behalf of The UWI and the University of Guyana, to strengthen collaboration.
The launch also offered an opportunity to bring together The UWI and UG with the Institute for Women, Gender and Development Studies at the Anton de Kom University in Suriname. One such example of possible collaboration may be an intake of Guyanese and Surinamese students in The UWI St. Augustine’s Philosophy of Gender in the Caribbean graduate course, which will be offered regionally through online blended learning strategies from January 2016.
I’m very concerned that these Toronto feminazis will eventually infect French Guiana even though it is technically an overseas territory of France. There were already a fair number of stories where Toronto women would travel to France and then all of a sudden at least 2 out of 3 of those women allege that they were victims of sex crimes while staying in Europe for vacation.
For some of you guys, French Guiana is that part of the world where it’s not above 300,000 people, has a steady influx of Parisians (French punnany) and it’s located in a tropical climate near to Brazil. In addition, French Guiana is a part of France, which means that any European Union member can travel there without any restrictions.
However, these neo-Victorian Toronto feminazis are spreading their SJW garbage all over the place man…Toronto feminazis infected Montreal, and now it appears that they want to infect the French-speaking parts of the Caribbean, Latin America and South America.
I wouldn’t forsee the CARICOM community to become as deplorable as Toronto in terms of dating, society and masculinity, but I do forsee a huge quasi-Marxist uprising in the making when people such as Jamaicans are fed up with this forceful agenda of SJW-FEMINAZISM-LGBTQ from Canada on their society.
Toronto feminazis in their ivory towers and glass condos don’t seem to realize that their IMPERIAL agenda is evident when they travel to foreign countries and FORCE the locals in foreign societies to accept Canadian SJW values..
Do these Toronto feminazis actually believe that locals in the CARICOM nations will believe at face value how Canadian women in 100k+ a year jobs are “oppressed” when the average wage in the Caribbean community is around 5,000$ a year?
Countries like St. Vincent, Guyana, Trinidad, Jamaica and other CARICOM nations are in a huge recession these days, yet Toronto feminazis actually believe that a Canadian femincunt can bring her dildo up her ass to claim how she is “oppressed” to a group of Caribbean locals who know that if they walk at 9pm in the streets of their capital city, they can get robbed by men with AK47s regardless of how they dressed?
It looks like the stereotype of Yankess bringing their ideology to foreign countries have been taken over by Canucks who are literally spreading Toronto feminazism through infiltrating the political, educational and legal systems of foreign countries. It is a clear agenda going on with these Toronto feminazis. An international conspiracy of some sort.
If you reside in any CARICOM nation, Latin American country and/or overseas territory of France or Netherlands, kindly enforce your democratic rights to spread Red Pill ideas to your communities. The Toronto feminazi infestation has gone all over the place.
straight from the horses mouth
If you study history, you learn to see patterns. What happened in the French Revolution was replicated in the Russian Revolution — destruction in the name of “equality,” and the implementation of “reforms” according to a radical ideology, followed by a bloody nightmarish failure. Last night I received an email from a reader:
What would a feminist-approved rape trial look like?
I know what the verdict would always be 100% of the time, but I just want to know what the procedure would be in order to reach that verdict. We all know that current justice system is not good enough for feminists and that the campus sexual-assault system isn’t quite up to the feminists’ liking either. So… then what? What would a feminist-approved system look like?
I imagine a dunce cap might be required at some point. Thoughts?
It’s like anything else with the Left: They are against the status quo. The existing society is unjust, and therefore …
Well, therefore what? Ever since the French Revolution we have seen a repetition of the same pattern: Destroy the system, replace it with something dreamed up by intellectuals and the result? Catastrophe.
The regime of Lenin and Stalin was infinitely more cruel than the czarist regime.
So, feminists want to destroy the current legal system and we ask, “What will you replace it with?”
The answers are always either (a) vague or (b) frightening, or (c) both vague and frightening.
What is clear, going back to Catharine MacKinnon in the 1980s, is that feminists think the law is on the side of the rapist, and that the normal due-process protections of defendants shouldn’t apply in rape cases. We see the kind of kangaroo-court proceedings established on university campuses, where the accusation alone is tantamount to proof, and where exculpatory evidence is ignored, and if you point this out as an injustice, you are accused of being a “rape apologist.” We can therefore assume that this is what feminists would institute as the basis of legal “reforms” in our courts, if they had the power to do so — which they might someday get, if Hillary is elected.
Some people observing this step-by-step advance of feminism may think, “Well, I’m not a rapist. My son is not a rapist. This will never affect me.” Yet the secondary and tertiary effects of such policies are difficult to predict, and the Law of Unintended Consequences can take decades to work itself out. Many of the problems we see today are consequences of policy changes that happened in the 1960s and ’70s, such as the end of university administrators acting in loco parentis. Once upon a time, a boy caught in the girls’ dorm (or vice-versa) outside regular visiting hours was subject to expulsion. Now most universities have coed dorms, and no effort at all is made to curb sexual promiscuity, and then everyone acts surprised when rapes happen. But conservatives who opposed the coed dorm policy decades ago are not heeded when they say, “I told you so.” Some consequences are not intended, but they are to some extent predictable, and letting college kids run wild was certain to have negative results, even if not all of the results could be foreseen.
Feminism fails because feminism is a War Against Human Nature.
In times of revolution, when society begins spinning out of control, the wise course is to protect yourself and your family from harm — insofar as this is possible — while warning others about the danger ahead. Prophets of doom are never popular, but when we see history repeating itself the way it is now repeating, we have a duty to sound the warning.
Study the life of Leon Trotsky. He sided with the Mensheviks when Lenin first split the Marxist movement in Russia, but when the crisis of 1917 erupted, Trotsky saw that Lenin’s strategy could succeed, and so cast his lot with the Bolsheviks. During the subsequent era, Trotsky’s leadership of the Red Army was decisive in saving the Leninist regime, but when Lenin fell ill, Trotsky was reluctant to push himself forward as Lenin’s successor. This enabled Stalin to gain the dictatorship, and Trotsky was subsequently purged and exiled and ultimately assassinated — a victim of the revolution he had helped make possible.
Now, consider this headline:
The source for that headline is a radical feminist site. For more than two years, I’ve reported how radical feminists — especially including Cathy Brennan — have opposed the transgender movement. To a great extent, such feminists are like Trotsky, warning against the danger of Stalinism.
While it would have been difficult, if not entirely impossible, to predict such weirdness as Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner being named Glamour magazine’s “Women of the Year,” still these bizarre developments are not altogether surprising to conservatives. “Equality” is a corrosive solvent, totalitarians are never satisfied by any compromise, and Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It. If you grant every demand feminists make today, tomorrow they will return with a new list of demands. Once it was obvious that the Supreme Court would side with LGBT activists on same-sex marriage (and the Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003 was a clear signal of this intent, as Justice Scalia foresaw), the question was, “What next?”
No one predicted in 2003 that, as a result of the Lawrence ruling, by 2016, the White House would seek to impose gender-neutral restrooms on America’s schoolchildren but . . . “Equality!”
Radical feminists now see themselves depicted as bigots — lumped in with Christian conservatives in this regard — for insisting that separate public facilities are necessary for the safety of women and girls.
All of us who feel a sense of foreboding about the impending disaster know that we will be denounced as paranoid fearmongers if we speak bluntly about the kind of dangers that lurk in the future. The frog has been boiled slowly for a long time and I’m reminded of a once-famous title by Lewis Grizzard: I Haven’t Understood Anything Since 1962. Sure, I was only 3 years old in 1962, but I understand now what Grizzard was saying. The cultural upheavals of the 1960s unleashed destructive social and political forces, and every effort to put the genie back in the bottle — e.g., the so-called “Reagan Revolution” — has only occasionally slowed the tempo of catastrophe. We have had a few short periods of apparent calm, when it seemed that order was finally restored. Yet these are merely brief halts in our Long March to the Gates of Hell, because the forces of anarchy and depravity will never rest until America is finally destroyed.
Remember the Minnesota parents who are raising their 5-year-old son as a girl? We recognize this as Munchausen Syndrome by proxy, and yet we see how feminist theory can be used to justify this pathology:
For more than 40 years, radical feminists have advocated androgyny — the abolition of gender — as the means of achieving “equality.” . . .
Feminism condemns normal human behavior as “male privilege” and “tyranny” (Firestone), “patriarchal power” and “sexual repression” (Dworkin), “male sexual dominance” (MacKinnon), and “the systematic oppression of women” (Scanlon). Because of feminism’s hegemonic influence in academia, these ideas have become widely accepted on university campuses, and inevitably have begun influencing policy and curricula in public schools.
Just today, I was skimming a 2005 anthology edited by Professor Chrys Ingraham (SUNY-Purchase). This academic text includes an essay by Professor Diane Richardson (Newcastle University) in which she invokes “critical perspectives on the social construction of gender and sexuality” to condemn heterosexuality as an oppressive “system of privileged, institutionalized norms and practices.” In feminism’s “theoretical framework,” Professor Richardson explains, “sexuality is seen as a key mechanism of patriarchal control.” Because I know what feminist theory actually is — and can cite the sources by name — what am I to say of those feminists who insist that the transgender phenomenon is anti-woman?
When radicals decided to destroy the social order (e.g., “patriarchal power”), who could predict what would emerge from the chaos?
Promoters of “gender-neutral” childhood want to convince parents that our common-sense objections to their bizarre schemes are motivated by ignorant prejudice. Feminists now consider “normal” a synonym for wrong. Heterosexuality is the worst thing in the world, and parents who try to raise normal kid are obviously haters, guilty of homophobia.
Teaching girls to hate boys is perfectly OK with radical feminists, who likewise approve of deliberate anti-male discrimination in the name of “diversity,” and what did they expect would be the result? After radical feminists have waged a four-decade crusade to destroy families and undermine Judeo-Christian morality, to what system of values can they now appeal in opposing the transgender cult? “Social justice”?
Chicago billionaire James “Jennifer” Pritzker is funding the transgender agenda.
Do feminists expect chivalrous courtesy from deranged perverts? Do they think transgender billionaire James “Jennifer” Pritzker gives a damn what happens to girls and boys subjected to sex-change “treatment”? Do they think George Soros actually cares about women and children?
Ignorance of history does not excuse the folly of radicals who have forgotten (or perhaps never learned) that Roberspierre went to the guillotine and Trotsky died at the hands of a Communist assassin.
One of the basic problems with feminism is that, by making equality the measure of human happiness, the feminist purchases an infinite supply of resentment. If you convince yourself that everything in the world should be divvied up equally, and that any observable instance of inequality is proof of oppression — social injustice! — you will become permanently angry, and perfectly miserable. Ronald Reagan once mocked the fundamental error of the egalitarian worldview: “We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one.”
If you believe inequality is a synonym for injustice, then you must see injustice everywhere, because in order for everyone to be “equal,” we would all have to be identical. This is exactly what feminists have in mind, of course, when they speak of achieving equality by abolishing “gender.”
“Gender is a hierarchical system which maintains the subordination of females as a class to males through force. Gender is a material system of power which uses violence and psychological coercion to exploit female labor, sex, reproduction, emotional support, etc., for the benefit of males. Gender is not natural or voluntary, since a person is not naturally subordinate and no one chooses to be subordinated.”
— Rachel Ivey, 2013
Only if you view the world through the warped lenses of a crypto-Marxist ideology is it possible to see male-female differences as a “system of power” characterized by “violence and psychological coercion.” Yet this bizarre worldview is what inspires the feminist T-shirt slogan “Raise Boys and Girls the Same Way,” which presumes that a gender-freeandrogynous childhood will eliminate inequality (“the subordination of women as a class”) by eliminating differences between men and women.
Actually, what gender-free childhood will produce is failure.
Common sense plays no part in feminist discourse, or else the problem with their egalitarian androgynous idealism would be obvious to them.
Normal women like masculine men and normal men like feminine women. Why are my teenage sons hitting the gym and drinking protein shakes? Enhancing their muscularity is a way to gain an advantage in the grand Darwinian competition against other young males, and if your teenage sons aren’t doing their reps on the bench press and the squat rack, guess what? They’re going to lose that competition.
“Women are attracted to successful men, and the competitive drive for success is therefore intrinsic to men’s ‘sex role.’ Every attempt to escape this logic is doomed. . . . Winners winand losers lose and, ultimately, no political agenda can change this.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, 2015
Boys compete with boys and girls compete with girls. This is the natural order, which produces a natural hierarchy and, whatever our own situation might be in terms of this hierarchy, no one with common sense would think the way to “fix” it is to have girls compete against boys.
Feminism is based on a zero-sum game mentality which conceives of every interaction between men and women as a manifestation of unjust “male privilege” whereby women are exploited and oppressed. From the feminist perspective, whatever any man has — in terms of career achievement, financial resources or social prestige — he has gained by oppressing women. The more success a man achieves, the more “male privilege” he possesses, according to feminism, and so the most successfulman must also be the most oppressive man. Therefore, to bring about “equality,” the goal of feminism must be to prevent male success.
This is insanity, of course, but this is where the logic of feminism leads.
“Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from male supremacy. All men have oppressed women.”
— Redstockings, “Manifesto,” 1969
“Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization . . . to come to see oneself as a victim.”
— Sandra Lee Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression (1990)
“Feminism involves the implicit claim that the prevailing conditions under which women live are unjust and must be changed.”
— Carol R. McCann and Seung-Kyung Kim, Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives (2003)
“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. Men’s world is like a vast prison or concentration camp for women. This isn’t a metaphor, it’s reality. Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men.”
— Radical Wind, Aug. 8, 2013
“Radical Feminism is, and has always been a political movement focused on liberating girls and women, those who are born into the sex caste female, from the unnatural, yet universal roles patriarchy has assigned.”
— “Radical Feminism,” Tumblr.com, July 26, 2014
Viewing life as a quasi-Marxist “class struggle” between men and women, as collective groups with mutually antagonistic interests, feminist ideology makes cooperation between men and women impossible. Cooperation in the sense of teamwork assumes that each member of the team has some individual ability to contribute to the overall effort, and in terms of male-female cooperation in marriage and parenthood (which is the fundamental basis of human society) such cooperation inevitably requires role differentiation. This does not mean that the definition of male and female roles must be “rigid” or “polar” (the kind of pejorative language feminists use to disparage “gender roles”), but still we see that certain general patterns of male-female roles persist in family life, despite decades of feminist efforts to eradicate these differences. From the perspective of economics, these patterns can be viewed in terms of division of labor, specialization and efficiencies of scale, but there is no need to do a complete analysis of “gender” in search of an ideal system of male-female cooperation. At the level of individual behavior, each couple works out their relationship and family life as suits them best, within the constraints of the available resources and in consideration of their own abilities. Each of us does the best we can, for ourselves, our spouses and our children — but this is never good enough for feminists.
“The personal is political,” a slogan coined by Carol Hanisch in 1969, was essentially a denial of individual agency in private relationships, an argument derived from feminist “consciousness-raising” groups:
One of the first things we discover in these groups is that personal problems are political problems. There are no personal solutions at this time. There is only collective action for a collective solution.
By intruding the politics of “collective action” into personal relationships, feminism thereby annihilates privacy. This is a totalitarian principle, very similar to the ideas of Mao’s “Cultural Revolution.” There can be no individual freedom — “no personal solutions” — because this might permit people to behave in ways contrary to the egalitarian goals that “collective action” is aimed to achieve. Insofar as everything in society is not perfectly equal between men and women, feminism requires that every private action and personal relationship be subjected to political scrutiny, to determine how it reflects the “prevailing conditions” of oppression from which women must be liberated.
This is insanity, as I say, but feminists are utterly serious about destroying “the unnatural, yet universal roles patriarchy has assigned.” Nothing is off-limits to the surveillance of our totalitarian Gender Commissars.
Every hookup between two drunk teenagers who meet at a college party is subject to feminist analysis to determine if it conforms with “affirmative consent” doctrine or whether the drunk girl was somehow victimized by the “psychological coercion” of male power, in which case the drunk boy is a rapist (because “regret equals rape”) and he will be expelled. However, feminism actually encourages the pursuit of casual sex as “empowering” — an exercise of “sexual autonomy” — and any criticism of promiscuity is rejected by feminists as “slut-shaming.” Feminism thereby promotes exactly the kind of behavior that puts young women at risk of “date rape.”
Dubious claims about “rape culture” are an attempt to create an all-purpose scapegoat for the emotional dark side of promiscuity.
College campuses have long since been taken over by a culture in which casual sex with acquaintances is considered normal and where slightly outré sexual experimentation is strongly encouraged, all of it spurred on by alcohol, which figures prominently in most of these cases. But it’s clear that some young women are not psychologically prepared for this. They have casual relationships and hookups, but then feel regret and emotional trauma when the experience ends up being emotionally unsatisfying or disturbing. Then they are encouraged, by the feminists and “rape culture” activists, to reinterpret the experience as all the fault of an evil man who must have coerced them.
It’s a system which systematically preys on and exploits the emotional vulnerability of young women in order to use them as publicity fodder for an ideological agenda.
This emotionally damaging culture of casual sex flourishes with the approval of feminists who have spent decades encouraging promiscuity and attacking marriage as an inherently oppressive institution.
“Marriage means rape and lifelong slavery.”
— Ti-Grace Atkinson, 1969
“The first condition for escaping from forced motherhood and sexual slavery is escape from the patriarchal institution of marriage.”
— Alison M. Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature (1988)
“[P]atriarchy is a system of male domination in which men dominate women through the control of female sexuality. The control of female sexuality through the institutions of patriarchal marriage is not incidental to patriarchy, but rather is central.”
— Carol P. Christ, 2013
Feminists condemn marriage as “sexual slavery” and “male domination” in large part because it is within the context of marriage and motherhood that natural male-female differences are manifested as behavioral roles.
Never Underestimate the ‘Domestic Goddess’
In a university classroom or a professional office environment, people perform tasks where differences between males and females are irrelevant, or at least are not obvious. Yet parenthood necessarily places greater demands on women than on men and, although most fathers now strive to be more involved in childcare than was common in previous generations, “equality” in the division of domestic duties is an elusive goal, if not impossible. While few households are now characterized by strictly traditional roles — husband as breadwinner, wife as homemaker — many women actually would prefer such a division of labor within marriage, especially when their children are infants and preschoolers. Women who take pride in being wives and mothers may agree with comedian Roseanne Barr’s famous joke, “I don’t like the terms homemaker and housewife. I prefer to be called Domestic Goddess.”
However, from its beginnings in the 1960s, the modern feminist movement targeted the marriage-based family as a site of sexist oppression. In the Women’s Studies textbook Feminist Frameworks, the editors Alison M. Jaggar (University of Colorado) and Paula S. Rothenberg (William Patterson University) include Alix Kates Shulman’s influential 1970 article “A Marriage Agreement”:
When my husband and I were first married a decade ago, “keeping house” was less a burden than a game. We both worked full-time jobs and we each pretty much took care of ourselves. . . . Our domestic life was beautifully uncomplicated.
Then our first child was born. I quit my job to stay home with him. Our domestic life was suddenly very complicated. When our second child was born, domestic life, the only life I had any longer, became a tremendous burden. . . .
Here, let me interrupt to add: Sic semper hoc — ’twas ever thus — and shall forever be. A couple without children can live like college roommates, but once the babies come along, the demands of motherhood necessarily change their domestic arrangement. Shulman continues:
Once we had children, we totally accepted the sex-roles society assigns. My husband worked all day in an office and I was at home, so the domestic burden fell almost entirely on me. We had to move to a larger apartment to accommodate the children. Keeping it minimally livable . . . took hours of every day: children make unbelievable messes. . . .
But ven more burdensome than the physical work of child-rearing was the relentless responsibility I had for the children. There was literally nothing I could do or even contemplate without having to consider first how the children would be affected. . . . They were always there. I couldn’t read or think. . . .
Here we observe the bias of feminist theory, with Shulman condemning the typical division of labor as “the sex-roles society assigns,” and construing her responsibility as a mother as “burdensome.” Shulman seemingly took no pleasure in motherhood, viewing her children as unwelcome intruders in her life, depriving her of independence. Perhaps, instead of teaching Women’s Studies as an attack on “the sex-roles society assigns,” students could be asked to examine Shulman’s article as an example of what happens as a result of society’s failure to prepare young women to handle the psychological demands of motherhood. And, I hasten to add, young men also should be taught to appreciate how stressful motherhood can often be. Lesson One for young fathers: Never criticize your wife for neglecting other tasks while she’s caring for infants and toddlers. Laundry piles up, the living room becomes cluttered, the kitchen sink is full of dishes and, buddy, don’t you dare complain about it. Either pitch in and do the housework yourself, or else shut up.
Marriage and parenthood require cooperation, and this becomes impossible if the couple engage in what I call “scorekeeping,” mentally keeping track of their spouse’s failures and tallying up a list of grievances as a sort of indictment: “You did this and that wrong thing, and look at all the good things I have done, and you never do anything right!”
Love cannot survive such a hostile attitude, which is exactly what feminism’s anti-male rhetoric encourages. If men and women are natural enemies, as feminists suggests, then male-female relationships are a rivalry for power characterized by mutual antagonism, and there is little likelihood of cooperation between men and women. Feminism incites so much suspicion between men and women that love becomes impossible even to imagine. By making radical ideology the measure of all things —“The personal is political” — feminism tends to convert every private conflict and disappointment into a collective grievance.
We return, then, to Alix Kates Shulman’s 1970 article:
As the children grew up, our domestic arrangement seemed increasingly odious to me. . . . My husband, I felt, could always change his job if the pressure was too great, but I could never change mine. When I finally began to see my situation from a women’s liberation point of view, I realized that the only way we could possibly survive as a family . . . was to throw out the old sex roles we had been living by and start again. Wishing to be once more equal and independent as we had been when we had met, we decided to make an agreement in which we could define our own roles our own way. . . . We recognized that after a decade of following the traditional sex roles we would have to be extremely vigilant and wary of backsliding into our old domestic habits. . . .
Shulman then proceeds to provide details of the “agreement” she imposed on her husband. Despite her use of the first-person plural (“wedecided”), it is obvious that this “agreement” was actually her unilateral demand, an ultimatum with which her husband attempted to comply.
The Sudetenland Is Never Enough
“Peace for our time” was Neville Chamberlin’s infamous boast when her returned to England from the conference at Munich where he had agreed to Hitler’s demand for the German occupation of the Sudetenland in western Czechoslovakia. Of course, in hindsight, this “compromise” proved fatal. Within a year of Chamberlain’s betrayal of the Czechs in September 1938, Hitler launched his blitzskrieg against Poland, and by July 1940, Hitler had conquered Holland, Belgium and France, forcing the desperate British forces to escape via Dunkirk. Soon the German bombers were raining destruction on England, and only the heroic courage of RAF pilots in the Battle of Britain staved off the threat of invasion.
“Peace for our time,” indeed.
Comparing feminists to Nazis is perhaps unfair, but this history lesson is still quite relevant. A dictatorial temperament can never be appeased by compromise. Chamberlain and the other proponents of appeasement were feeding the crocodile, hoping to be eaten last, as Churchill said. The essential root of all totalitarianism is a resentment of the natural order, which Shakespeare long ago described:
Take but degree away, untune that string,
And, hark, what discord follows! each thing meets
In mere oppugnancy: the bounded waters
Should lift their bosoms higher than the shores
And make a sop of all this solid globe:
Strength should be lord of imbecility,
And the rude son should strike his father dead:
Force should be right; or rather, right and wrong,
Between whose endless jar justice resides,
Should lose their names, and so should justice too.
Then every thing includes itself in power,
Power into will, will into appetite;
And appetite, an universal wolf,
So doubly seconded with will and power,
Must make perforce an universal prey,
And last eat up himself.
If we lose respect for natural order, so that everything in life is aboutpower, then the “universal wolf” shall sooner or later come for us.
Anyone might reasonably celebrate feminism as a check on unlimited “male supremacy” — a defense of women against abuse or unjust discrimination — if only feminists were content with such reasonable aims, but this has never been the case. From its very inception as the Women’s Liberation movement in the late 1960s, modern feminism has been led and controlled by radicals, and devoted to radical goals. It is nowadays fashionable to forget how modern feminism emerged from the extremist fringe of the New Left, and how the movement celebrated would-be assassin Valerie Solanas, as well as terrorists like Jane Alpert,Angela Davis, Susan Saxe and Katherine Ann Power.
Feminists have repeatedly declared their determination to destroy civilization as we know it — to eradicate “gender” and abolish the family — and I have often quoted at length feminist statements of their totalitarian goals, but here let me just briefly quote Catharine MacKinnon:
“Sexuality, then, is a form of power. Gender, as
socially constructed, embodies it, not the reverse.
Women and men are divided by gender, made into
the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements
of heterosexuality, which institutionalizes
male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”
Now, this statement is either true or false, yet it does not matter to me whether any reader agrees or disagrees with Professor MacKinnon. The point is that this is what feminists believe about sexuality and gender, and as Richard Weaver said, Ideas Have Consequences. Feminism’s goal is to end “male domination” and, Professor MacKinnon argues, equality can only be achieved by abolishing heterosexuality and destroying the “social requirements” that produce the divisions of “gender.”
That feminist T-shirt slogan isn’t just a cute phrase, you see, when you understand the radical theory which inspires it. Feminist attacks on “gender roles” and their advocacy of “gender-neutral parenting” have profound implications which I have previously explained:
When I began my in-depth exploration of feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — it was immediately apparent to me that (a) Professor Judith Butler’s argument assumed as its tacit premise feminism’s opposition to heterosexuality, per se; and that many adherents of so-called Third Wave feminism had either (b) failed to recognize this premise, or else (c) were being less than honest about what “gender theory” actually implies and where its application as policy is likely to lead.
To “raise boys and girls the same way,” as feminist T-shirt sloganeers demand, is to prepare children for failure as adults. In identifying “gender” as originating in “the social requirements of heterosexuality,” Professor MacKinnon meant to condemn the society that “constructs” male-female differences, but why? Is it wrong for parents to hope that their sons will grow up to become husbands and fathers, and to teach them how to succeed and be happy in those adult roles? And if we expect that our daughters will want to marry men and have children, shouldn’t we likewise prepare them for success and happiness?
Belated Victims of the Culture of Death
So much feminist attention has been devoted to the goal of equality in the paid work force — the mythical “gender gap” in wages — that parents and educators seem willing to neglect the question of how children should be prepared for their social and domestic lives as adults. Look, if you want your daughter to grow up to be a man-hating crazy cat lady, or if you’re OK with your son becoming a transvestite pornographer, then go ahead and take parenting advice from feminists. My own advice is otherwise:
If all you knew about sex and gender was Third Wave feminism’s endless celebration of androgynous confusion, you might suppose that very few young people in the 21st-century are normal. However, while researchers have recently observed “a slight increase in self-reported bisexuality,” the vast majority of Americans (substantially more than 90%) are heterosexual, despite every effort of feminists and LGBTQIA activists to convince Americans that heterosexuality is bad and wrong.
Believe it or not, raising normal kids is still possible, and happy marriages are still possible, too. Feminism destroys normal happiness, however, and Alix Kates Shulman’s unhappy marriage to Martin Shulman ended in divorce about a decade after her humiliated husband (“one of the great masochists of the twentieth century,” as Caitlin Flanagan described him) signed the agreement she imposed on him. Love cannot survive the scorekeeping mentality and the cycle of hostility, suspicion, conflict and retaliation to which it inevitably leads. Here, we may again interrogate the meaning of “the personal is political.” Were the problems of the Shulman marriage a product of male supremacy, requiring “collective action” rather than “personal solutions,” as Carol Hanisch said? Or is it possible that Alix Kates Shulman was so easily persuaded to support this “collective action” because it offered her a political belief system through which she could rationalize her own personal unhappiness?
Alix Kates Shulman, with her husband and children.
A great irony is that Martin Shulman had actively supported his wife’s feminism, driving her and a carload of her radical friends to Atlantic City for the first major public protest of the Women’s Liberation movement, the 1968 demonstration at the Miss America Pageant. And this was by no means the limit of his support for “equal rights.” At a 2005 screening of the pro-abortion film Speak Out, Alix Kates Shulman told the audience that she had had four abortions “and not one was the result of carelessness” (by which she meant that she had used contraceptives, but gotten pregnant anyway). Can anyone imagine a marriage in which a husband encourages his wife to have repeated abortions?
Such fanatical devotion to the Culture of Death calls to mind the biblical warning against those who have “their conscience seared with a hot iron,”their spiritual disease manifesting itself as cruelty.
There was an interesting coda to this story a few years ago.
For years, pro-life activists had faced terroristic threats and harassment that escalated after Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller was murdered in 2009. A pro-abortion blog called Operation Counterstrike declared: “Right-to-lifism is murder, and ALL right-to-lifers are bloody-handed accessories. Swear it, believe it, proclaim it, and act on it.” The proprietor of that blog made ominous threats, including one to pro-life activist Jill Stanek: “I’m looking forward to watching a documentary entitled ‘The Assassination of Jill Stanek.’” A phone call to pro-life activist Cheryl Sullenger warned: “Convert to pro-choice during the few months you have left on this earth.” And then, in February 2011, the threats stopped — because the FBI had made an arrest:
The Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested abortion supporterTheodore Shulman, 49, yesterday and charged him with communicating interstate threats against two pro-life activists. He is currently being held without bond at Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York City, a Federal holding facility. . . .
“This is a huge relief to us that Ted Shulman is behind bars where he belongs,” said Sullenger. “He often posted threatening comments to our web site and called me on my cell phone too many times to count. He was always brazen in his threats and openly identified himself, telling us not to bother calling the FBI because they would never do anything for us. Thankfully, he was wrong about that, and we hope that, in addition to his New York charges, he will also be charged in Kansas.”
In May 2012, Ted Shulman reached a plea deal with federal prosecutors:
A self-described “pro-choice terrorist” now faces up to 5 years in prison after pleading guilty in federal district court in Manhattan last week to posting an online death threat against two well-known pro-life advocates in 2010.
Theodore Shulman, 51, pleaded guilty to “one count of transmitting a threat to injure another person by threatening to kill two pro-life advocates,” on May 10, according to Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. . . .
Numerous pro-life figures say they have been the target of Shulman’s threats, including nurse and pro-life advocate Jill Stanek, who said she had received threats and assisted the FBI investigation by providing over 4,000 comments from Shulman to her Web site over a four-year period. . . .
In a statement, FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge Janice K. Fedarcyk said that the FBI takes death threats very seriously.
“There is a distinction between advocacy of one’s beliefs and making threats against those who disagree,” Fedarcyk said in a statement. “Advocacy is a right protected by the FBI. Making threats is a serious crime.” . . .
Sentencing for Shulman, who faces 5 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000, will take place on Sept. 12. He has been held without bail since his arrest.
Shulman is the son of feminist Alix Kates Shulman . . .
Congratulations, feminist mom — your son’s a convicted terrorist!
the article is written by Man Hater Alicen Grey
they ignoring pedophiles, rapists, perverts and pimps within their own ranks.