Category Archives: Undead sexist cliches

Caitlin Flanagan and Jordan Peterson; two bad tastes that taste bad together

Anti-feminist Caitlin Flanagan insists that sexism guru Jordan Peterson has the left terrified because he’s knocking our legs out from under us by shattering identity politics. Once you take the liberal fixation with identity politics off the table, “it was possible to talk about all kinds of things—religion, philosophy, history, myth—in a different way. They could have a direct experience with ideas, not one mediated by ideology.”

Like Laura Ingraham’s complaints about America, that’s sort of true. If you eliminate race and gender from the discussion of history and religion (as this slacktivist post notes), then we do talk about things in a different way. But it’ll be wrong.

Whether you’re male or female, black or white is massively woven with religion and history, with how they treat you and how you experience them. Even today, we have people who preach that blacks are cursed to inferiority by the sin of Ham, and that women are made by god to have no rights. Peterson’s take on this amounts to Big Whoop, Everyone’s Disadvantaged “Maybe you’re too short, or you’re not as beautiful as you could be, or, you know, your parent, your grandparent was a serf — likely, because almost everbody’s grand-, great-grandparent was. And you’re not as smart as you could be.” Oh, and maybe you’re Hispanic or black and you’ve suffered discrimination, can’t get your kids in a good school, lost a job, but it’s the same thing. Nobody’s got a perfect life.  The solution is the free market!: “We’re going to outsource it to the marketplace. You’re going to take your sorry pathetic being, and you’re gonna try to offer me something that maybe I want. And I’m going to take my sorry pathetic being, and I’m gonna say, “well, all things considered, as well as I can understand them, maybe I could give you this much money”, which is actually a promise for that thing. And you’ve packed all of your damn oppression into the price. And I packed all my oppression into the willingness to pay it. And that solution sucks. It’s a bad solution. But compared to every other solution – man, it’s why 10 percent of us have freedom”

As Flanagan says, Peterson reaches this nitwit conclusion by ignoring “identity politics.” If you ignore that it was perfectly legal when I was born to refuse to hire a woman, a black man, a Jew, to shut them out of the free market, to bar blacks from even spending money in the same stores and restaurants as white people yes, that’s seeing things in a different (though entirely unoriginal) way. But it’s wrong. It’s the same-old, same-old about how identity politics is bad, a ridiculous issue, rather than stuff — abortion, birth control, integration, equal rights — that has a massive effect on people.

And, of course, to assume that Peterson is somehow operating from a dispassionate, rationalist stance free of ideology when he glorifies male dominance is just nonsense. Or that Flanagan, a woman who hires a nanny then condemns feminists and working mothers for hiring nannies (see first link in post) is making an objective judgment. She despises feminists and working mothers and here’s a guy who doesn’t have any more use for them; is it surprising she fantasizes he’s going to end feminism?

Liberals don’t fear Peterson’s bad ideas. Speaking personally, I fear the number of people who will swallow them and advocate for them because there are always people willing to embrace the bullshit that white, male supremacy is both right and natural so discrimination is okay. That doesn’t make Peterson any righter. And it doesn’t mean he’s the antidote to identity politics; he embodies them.

Leave a comment

Filed under Undead sexist cliches

Laura Ingraham pretends her words have no meaning

So Fox News’ Laura Ingraham went on a long rant about how “in some parts of the country it does seem like the America that we know and love doesn’t exist anymore. Massive demographic changes have been foisted on the American people and they’re changes that none of us ever voted for and most of us don’t like. From Virginia to California, we see stark examples of how radically in some ways the country has changed. Now, much of this is related to both illegal and in some cases legal immigration that of course progressives love.”

In a strange way, she’s right, just not the way she thinks. The America I know and love doesn’t exist in some parts of the country. The parts where they hate and fear Hispanics, adore Trump and desperately fear equality for non-whites. Sure, those parts have always been there, but at least when I was a teen we were lurching, in awkward baby steps, toward greater equality for all, back before the right-wing began pushing back in favor of white supremacy in the 1980s. Back then, while immigration had a lot of opposition, there was also pride that someone from a “shithole country” would want to come here and start fresh. When the Statue of Liberty was still “the mother of exiles.

Ingraham’s anti-immigrant screed (which also included bashing Ocasio-Cortez) got a thumbs-up from David Duke. Apparently being so blatantly racist didn’t suit whatever Ingraham’s target demographic is, so she promptly announced it had “nothing to do with race.” Nope, she was upset because “the rule of law, meaning secure borders, is something that used to bind our country together …, I made explicitly clear that my commentary had nothing to do with race or ethnicity, but rather a shared goal of keeping America safe and her citizens safe and prosperous.”

Um, no, talking about demographic change is about race. It’s nothing to do with secure borders, particularly when she cites legal immigration as part of the problem. This is a standard racist dog whistle, pretending they’re concerned about legal immigration rather than America having more Hispanics than they want. It’s why even though I don’t like illegal immigration I’ll never sign on with anti-immigrant groups. I’d be fine if we had the same number of people coming in legally; most of them wouldn’t. Likewise, I suspect the stuff about keeping America safe references the constant alt.right theme that white people need safe spaces, by which they mean anyone who isn’t them should be excluded from everywhere white people want to be.

Even if she wasn’t dog-whistling in her apology (“See, alt.righties, I’m still one of you!”) her apology is bullshit. What she said simply doesn’t mean what she claims it does. It’s roughly as convincing as Jordan Peterson explaining when he calls for enforced monogamy to solve the incel problem, he obviously didn’t mean we should enforce monogamy. Like Ingraham, I guess his career still depends on not being caught crossing certains lines.



Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches

The Klan, divorce in America and the Sub-Mariner: books and graphic novels

THE SECOND COMING OF THE KKK: The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s and the American Political Tradition by Linda Gordon is a history written in full awareness how much that Klan’s anti-immigrant, anti-semitic, anti-Catholic politics mirrors the current era, and how the Klansmen (and women) saw themselves as the Real Americans in contrast to their opponents (Jews being their biggest bogeyman). After the initial attempt to revive the Klan in the wake of Birth of a Nation flopped, a couple of PR whizzes (Elizabeth Tyler and Edward Young Clarke) bought the organization and took it national. Their trick was that along with politics they presented the KKK as a fraternal organization much like the Masons or the Elks (and it did have a lot in common with them), with the added plus that if members recruited new Klansmen, they got a commission (part of which was passed up the line). Tyler was the first of several prominent Klanswomen who found the organization a perfect outlet for ambitions as motivational speakers, organizers and businesswoman. Interesting, and depressingly familiar

When I was a tween, my impression from TV was that divorce was slightly edgy, disreputable and just not done by normal people. Ah, youth; DIVORCE: An American Tradition by Glenda Riley shows that the US was already divorcing at a much higher rate than Europeans, and had been doing so for years (the US allowed judicial divorce long before Great Britain did). Riley tracks the constant push and shove between those who wanted to make marriage eternal, those who thought an exit option was necessary, and those who thought marriage, not divorce, was the real problem (the whole “we don’t need a piece of paper to prove we love each other” of the 1960s had lots of precedent). This has lots of detail, some of it amusing, such as learning Indianapolis was once the quickie divorce capital of America (though the statistics don’t confirm the reputation). Interesting again

MARVEL MASTERWORKS: THE GOLDEN-AGE SUB-MARINER by Bill Everett and others was one I picked up on sale last year. While I’m not particularly a fan of Namor, there’s some fun to be had here; in one story, when Namor busts up a ring of radium thieves he keeps the rare element for use by his own people (not yet identified as Atlantean) rather than returning it. The backup, the Angel, is pretty fun too; the protagonist apparently has no secret identity, being the Angel full-time (not the only Golden-Age hero of whom that was true). Entertaining, but I doubt I’d have bought it at full-price.

#SFWApro. Art by Alex Schomburg, all rights remain with current holder.

Leave a comment

Filed under Comics, Reading, Undead sexist cliches

There was no room for these added links about sexism in this morning’s post

So here we go! Some are a bit old, I really need to clean out my bookmarks more regularly.

Samantha Field responds to a blog post about how men want to marry debt-free virgins without tattoos. According to the original post, that’s not all men want: we also want women who haven’t gone to college (they might get ideas above their station) and ideally have stayed at home under their father’s control until we meet them. In short, as Field puts it, it’s not about tattoos, it’s about desiring women who have no independent life at all.

Good idea Oregon: A ban on anyone convicted of partner violence from buying guns.

A woman had a miscarriage. The pharmacist refused to provide her with abortion drugs because of his religious beliefs. Of course, it’s a miscarriage so he’s not saving the baby’s life — but despite the health risk to the woman, he wouldn’t “kill” the baby. I’m sure we’ll see more of this until we reach the same point Ireland was at for years.

A standard counter-feminist argument is that women don’t get the top jobs or good tech jobs or high-paying jobs or [insert similar item here] simply because they make different choices from men. And those choices are completely unaffected by social pressure or companies’ policies (much the same way Megan McArdle imagines poor people choose to be poor). Wired however, shows how tech recruiting sessions come off sexist which turns away women.

I hadn’t heard about this before, but the suffragette movement a century ago defended itself from police violence with jujitsu.

Another day, another non-Muslim terrorist.

Working with women can reduce gender stereotypes.

The Trump family, where a woman eats what the man tells her to.

Evangelical male supremacist Doug Wilson says that a man who has sex with a hundred women is like a “master key” whereas a woman with hundred lovers is just damaged goods like a broken log. But of course he’s not saying a man who sleeps around is better than a woman who sleeps around! Yeah, right.

Minnesota Republican Jason Lewis thinks it’s a bad thing we can’t call women sluts any more. People can and do, it’s just they’re more likely to get called out for it. Which for conservatives is the same as tyranny and thought policing.

Leave a comment

Filed under Undead sexist cliches

Sympathy for the devil’s moral complexity? Yeah, right

Several years ago, I wrote an And column in response to one Victoria Coren Mitchell saying we needed to be more nuanced about Roman Polanski raping a thirteen-year-old instead of reducing cases like this “to mindless categories of good and bad.” Because he’s a great filmmaker. He’s a Holocaust survivor. And doesn’t the victim have to accept some responsibility for letting Polanski get her alone?

I, on the other hand, have no problem with reducing “rape of 13 year old” to “bad.” And I don’t think that’s mindless at all. Polanski is a rapist. He raped a 13-year-old. There’s no nuance to that. Being a rapist is not the sum total of Polanski’s existence but it is him, just like racist lawyer Aaron Schlossberg owns his racist rants [edited for clarity]

Apparently my incisive reasoning didn’t convince pundit Lee Siegel (come on, he couldn’t possibly not have read my column right? Right?). In an NYT op-ed, he argues that, as Mitchell found with Polanski, we’re suffering a lack of nuance when we judge Harvey Weinstein, and when we judge people who try to explain him: “If, in a spirit of free intellectual and imaginative inquiry, you dared to suggest that a man who masturbated in front of a woman he barely knew without her consent might have been acting out, in an attitude of aggressive contempt, his own shame and emasculation — if you tried to understand his actions, without justifying them — you would be shouted down and vilified … Could it be that Mr. Weinstein, who reportedly had often been mocked for his appearance, wanted to dehumanize these women as well, while at the same time turning himself into a person who is watched and admired, like a person of beauty?”

As noted at the link, Siegel postures as a daring truth-bomber unafraid of being shouted down and vilified, when he’s actually writing in one of the country’s most prominent newspapers. Pretending he’s handing out mimeographed Free Harvey Weinstein fliers, then rushing off before the cops bust him is just bullshit (much like the daring thinkers of the intellectual dark web). That said, it’s possible Siegel will be villified, but I’m okay with that. Because he’s kind of a chump.

As noted at the link, feminists have been discussing what drives men to rape and harass for decades. Nobody’s villifying them for bringing it up (plenty of people villify them for not slut-shaming rape victims). But their explanations are considerably less elaborate than Siegel’s: rape involves power, lust, patriarchy, male ego. Portraying Weinstein as wanting to be admired or acting out “his own shame and emasculation” seems almost like a plea for sympathy. Like Mitchell. Or like Camille Paglia portraying Bill Cosby as compensating for an emasculating wife. Maybe that’s unfair to Siegel, but he does seem very disturbed we’re more interested in punishing Weinstein than understanding him. Dude, if he did what he’s accused of, punishment is entirely appropriate. Understanding is optional. It doesn’t matter if he’s been mocked or humiliated or feels emasculated, if the accusations are true (and I’m inclined to believe them), he raped and abused a whole bunch of women and tried to destroy their careers if they resisted.

As with Polanski, I don’t think classifying Weinstein as “bad” indicates a lack of moral complexity on my part. Nor do I think we need more sympathy for incels. You know, the guys who think 10-year-old girls deserve to die?


Leave a comment

Filed under Undead sexist cliches

Incels and other links

An online incel discussion concludes that when women turn a man down they should be terrified he’ll dox, harass or assault them. Yet we still have mainstream thinkers who wonder why women don’t want to sleep with incels. Which the incels likewise think is a great idea.

Rush Limbaugh dumbsplains how Fifty Shades of Greyis actually a feminazi conspiracy. Showing similar brilliant logic right-winger Dave Daubenmire declares the success of Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter is the work of feminism.

In California, they recalled the judge who gave sexual assaulter Brock Turner a slap on the wrist.

Trump celebrated Ramadan at the White House but not with any American Muslims, just diplomats from Saudi Arabia and other allies. After all we wouldn’t want to invite non-white or non-Christian Americans into Trump’s presence, would we?

Crooked Donny also seems much more interested in Eastern Europe than our allies.

A while back I noted that the big papers love to hire Never Trump conservatives but no pro-Trumpers. Well the NYT crossed that line with brilliant results.

Alabama’s GOP favors Roy Moore’s protege for the new chief justice. On the plus side, the ‘bama sheriff who made millions from the fund for feeding prisoners got voted to the curb.

Republican revisions to the ACA eliminated the penalty for not buying insurance. But they’re using the penalty to argue (again) death to the ACA!

As No More Mr. Nice Blog predicted a while back, Republican predictions of an expose putting the final nail in Clinton’s coffin, or the Democratic Party’s or the Deep State’s never come true. But they keep the right whipped up so they feel everything is an existential crisis.

White Americans calling the cops on blacks is just a legal way to enforce white supremacy.

The Supreme Court ruling on baking wedding cakes for gays inspired one store owner to post a No Gays sign. And NRA mouthpiece Dana Loesch says forcing a baker to bake for gays is slavery.

Neo-Nazi California Senate candidate Patrick Little claims he came in first or second, but the Jews rigged the vote.

No, Perry Stone, bringing back prayer in school will not stop school shootings. Christianity didn’t stop slavery. Or the rape of slaves. Or lynching (and posing for it afterwards). Or anti-abortion terrorist Eric Rudolph. The only question is, does Mr. Stone seriously think it’ll work this time, or is he just using an excuse to force prayers on unbelievers?



Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches

No, feminists did not create Jordan Peterson

I’ve mentioned Jordan Peterson before — the guy who advocates “enforced monogamy” to deal with incels (he insists he only meant monogamy enforced by social pressure, which seems a dubious solution, even if that is what he meant) and that male dominance is the result of male superiority. NYT’s Bari Weiss thinks these trite sexist ideas are daring; I wonder if she’ll think the same about his recent declaration that women wearing makeup and high heels at work invite sexual harassment (sorry, don’t have a good link). And maybe they should stop wearing it to show they’re not interested in sex.

This is another old, sexist trope: women who dress too sexy should expect rape. And when it happens, they have no-one to blame but themselves. It’s as much a lie as Phyliss Schaffly’s claim that if a woman is known to be chaste, guys won’t hit on her — it’s only the sluts who get targeted (the latter was a-OK by the odious Schaffly). This involves a boatload of assumptions, such as harassment being purely about sex, and not about power, or control, or making a woman uncomfortable enough to quit. That it’s closer to a clumsy attempt to flirt rather than something like this.  That how you dress or the makeup you wear implies consent or at least invitation (even if a woman is dressing attractive to invite attention, that doesn’t mean she has to accept it from anyone). And that women wouldn’t suffer penalties if they went to work with plain, un-made-up faces — because yes, bosses have fired women for not being attractive enough. In one of the first looks-related discrimination cases, a female lawyer was denied a partnership in favor of much less successful associates. Why? She didn’t wear makeup, didn’t look good, and didn’t defer enough to men. It’s like telling women “you won’t be harassed if you come to work in a burka” — even if that was true (I doubt it is) the reaction wouldn’t be favorable.

Now Cathy Young of the libertarian (and ironically named) Reason manages to up Weiss by recycling more tropes, starting with him being feminism’s fault: “contemporary feminism’s main message to men is not one of equal partnership. Rather, it’s: Repent, abase yourself, and be an obedient feminist ally — and we still won’t trust you.” So feminists, by refusing to treat men fairly, drive them into Peterson’s arms.

Her examples? She links to what’s actually a very reasonable column by Irin Carmon pointing out that some men who position themselves as allies don’t walk the walk. No call for repentance or abasement, just stating the obvious — talk is cheap. Perhaps Young was hoping nobody would click through. She’s also playing on one of the oldest tropes, that feminists don’t want equality — visions of feminism as a female power-grab go back to the dawn of second-wave feminism and even earlier.  And as Echidne points out, there’s no evidence guys following Peterson would be open to an offer of equal partnership. Hie message isn’t equality, it’s man on top, all the way.

Young also recycles another old chestnut: feminists said it was okay to use off-color language in front of women! Then they get upset because men use off-color language in front of women! The “stub your toe” test in an early sexual harassment case covers that one well: is the off-color language something you’d say if you got out of bed in the middle of your night and stubbed your toe? Using four-letter worlds for female genitalia, the judge decided, don’t pass the test.

Feminists did not create a market for Peterson’s preachings by being unreasonable or extreme. He’s not new, he’s part of the same backlash that’s been going since the 1980s. And that backlash isn’t against feminism being extreme. It’s against feminism existing.

And as No More Mr. Nice Blog asks, if being routinely insulted turns people into right-wing extremists, why aren’t liberals extremists?

1 Comment

Filed under economics, Undead sexist cliches

Lesbians, a shaman, a rebel, lunatics and rape: books read

FUN HOME: A Family Tragicomic is Alison Bechdel’s graphic-novel account of coming out as gay, learning her father was gay or bi, then having him kill himself — or was it just a tragic accident? A fragmented, non-linear story as it bounces between Bechdel’s childhood at the family funeral home, her coming out at college, her parents’ troubled marriage and her awkward relationship with her father. However it’s very good, though darker than the musical version.

SHAMAN by Sandra Miesel is a 1989 revised version of her 1982 Dreamrider (so I gathered from the Internet) but it’s a stinker either way. It starts off promisingly as Ria, a woman from a dystopian 2009, finds her consciousness bouncing into alternate realities (one of the most striking moments is when Robert E. Lee captures Richmond for the Union) which turns out to be because two other-timeline shamans are recruiting her as a protege. The book hinges on the protagonist’s spiritual journey but Ria’s just dull (and feels much too contemporary for me) and the spiritual insights aren’t anything to speak of (and explaining the mysticism scientifically didn’t work for me either).

The Y/A REBEL OF THE SANDS by Alwyn Hamilton starts as an odd mix of Western and Arabian Nights as the gunslinging girl protagonist tries to earn enough money in a saloon shooting contest to get out of her backwater town before she’s married off. Before long, she’s on the run with a mysterious outlaw who turns out to have ties to the Rebel Prince fighting the tyrant sultan, and it’s more an anti-imperialist fantasy (the sultan keeps his throne by inviting one of the Great Powers to move in). Good, but I wish Hamilton had done more with the Western elements.

LUNATICS AND LOVERS: A Tribute to the Giddy and Glittering Era of the Screen’s “Screwball” and Romantic Comedies (though it includes several films that are neither, such as The Ghost and Mrs. Muir) by Ted Sennett is one I would have loved back when it came out in 1973. With no streaming, no DVD or VHS and few cable channels showing classic stuff there was little chance I’d see most of the movies here so a book synopsizing the plot, the good quips and reviewing them would have been fantastic. Now, though, I like more analysis with my film books; James Harvey’s Romantic Comedy in Hollywood tackles the same genre with much more thought. Plus now that I’ve seen many of the films, I find myself really disagreeing with Sennett’s recommendations (thumbing down the delightful Palm Beach Story while celebrating Don Ameche’s tedious Heaven Can Wait?).  So not really a winner.

A FALSE REPORT: A True Story of Rape in America by T. Christian Miller and Ken Armstrong suffers from having a few too many timelines going: the core story of Marie, who was assaulted by a serial rapist in a Seattle suburb only to have the cops right her off as a liar; the rapist’s personal timeline; and the cops pursuing two different rape cases in Colorado that turned out to be part of a series, and which they realized also included Marie’s rape. That said, the book makes compelling reading, showing how Marie’s case went sidewards, detailing the history of rape kits, and the story of the “rape is an easy charge” to make rule that has guided rape cases for so long (ironically the judge who said it had no problems with witchcraft trials). Overall, excellent.

#SFWApro. Cover by Bechdel, all rights remain with current holder.

Leave a comment

Filed under Comics, Reading, Undead sexist cliches

The scary thing about incels isn’t the incels ..

The recent attack in Toronto has generated lots of OMG Incels! discussion in the mainstream media, including explanations of what an incel is. This is a good thing, though as David Futrelle says, incels have been vile for a while — it shouldn’t have taken Toronto to wake people up. San Bernadino incel and murderer Elliott Rodgers went on his killing spree four years ago; incels celebrated his anniversary (May 24) last year and I’m sure they’ll do so again. In another case from last year an Australian neo-Nazi plotting a shooting spree said his lack of sex was one of his motivations.

But what’s really scary is that people in the mainstream express alarmingly sympathetic or similar views to the outraged incels. Economist Robin Hanson wonders why we fret about economic inequality but not sex inequality. And now it seems male supremacist guru Jordan Peterson, believes we should take action to appease the incels. His solution? Enforced monogamy. Not in the sense of banning divorce, but in some fashion mandating that women pair off with the incels (“Otherwise women will all only go for the most high-status men, he explains, and that couldn’t make either gender happy in the end.”).

And yes, I clicked through to the source article and that is indeed what he says, though he doesn’t give details. Perhaps because there’s nothing he can say that would make forcing women to pair off with men sound reasonable or sane. It’s particularly telling Peterson opposes economic redistribution, but feels the incel threat is so great, redistributing women is A-OK (let’s let the terrorists win!). I’m guessing that as sexual frustration doesn’t drive women to go around committing terrorist acts, Peterson won’t feel the need to force men to make them happy (or perhaps like many incels he believes even fat and ugly women get laid all they want).

Peterson is mainstream enough that the NYT’s Bari Weiss portrays him favorably as part of an intellectual dark web, saying politically incorrect things nobody else dares say. Yes, saying male dominance is justified by male superiority is soooo edgy! Nobody else out there is saying things like that.

It’s not even new. Back in the Reagan era, antifeminist George Gilder argued that men simply don’t have the instincts to behave like responsible human beings unless they have a woman to civilize them. Marriage makes men mature; without it, they’re just self-destructive thugs. So women have a duty to society to put their lives on hold and marry men. Much like Peterson, the focus should be on low-status men. Losers. They’re the ones who need uplifting. Rush Limbaugh made the same point in the 1990s: men can be dangerous savages or they can be responsible members of the community. It’s up to you, women (why yes, this is very close to the explanation for twenty-something slackers I’ve written about before) And claims that male killing sprees are women’s fault go back at least a decade.

And for a final example, we have right-wing Christians Jared and Douglas Wilson (unrelated) who in addition to believing women should have no rights, have also expressed a view that for men, sex is all about conquering and dominating while women’s role is to submit: “the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasure party.” I think incels would be down with that — and as far as I know, conservative Christians still consider the Wilsons as legitimate thinkers in good standing.


Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches

We elected Trump. Is it surprising the Egyptians worshipped the dung beetle?

Herewith, a round up of people who seem to have prestigious, high-paying positions despite … well, dung.

For starters, Trump himself. I missed it, but last year he undid much of Obama normalizing relations with Cuba. Now he’s decided to tear up the Iran nuclear deal. And he apparently thinks any negative news about his glorious self is fake news by definition. As Lance Mannion says, among Trump’s goals as president is to reinforce his own delusions how wonderful he is, and to undo everything Obama accomplished that makes people respect Obama more. But Mannion’s right, a hundred years from now Obama will have a record of accomplishment and Trump won’t.

Next, rape apologist Robin Hanson, whose views on redistribution of sex I ripped into a week ago or so. Along with claiming nonviolent rape isn’t as bad as cheating on your husband (because having your body violated isn’t as awful as a man unwittingly raising someone else’s child) he also wonders why stealing food when you’re starving is less objectionable than raping someone when you’re horny. Okay, fair enough. Besides the fact lack of food kills and lack of sex doesn’t; stealing food (at least in his example) doesn’t involve assaulting anyone (I don’t know of anyone who thinks say, drugging someone so you can take their food nonviolently is OK); so yeah, totally interchangeable.

Bari Weiss at the NYT, for example. According to her the “intellectual dark web” is a daring group of right-wing freethinkers who tackle ideas that are utterly repressed in the mainstream, like “There are fundamental biological differences between men and women” and “Identity politics is a toxic ideology that is tearing American society apart.” I’m very impressed they could come up with groundbreaking, paradigm-shattering ideas that sound exactly like the same cliches conservatives spew every day (we’ve been hearing about the evil of left-wing identity politics since Trump got elected). How long before Hanson’s on the IDW, I wonder? In related links, Mother Jones responds to Weiss’s article, one writer questions an account in the article and CJR looks at all the left-wing voices getting much less coverage in the media. Nathan Robinson points out that the people in Weiss’ article are not silenced at all.

Male supremacist and misogynist Paul Elam offers an impressively awful list of excuses for Bill Cosby’s rape history: the problem is he liked sex too much which makes a man weak! And the sluts were totally asking for it! And the evil feminists want to take down powerful, successful men! Etcetera.

Sure, podcaster Nick Fuentes wants white Americans to have a white homeland (as usual, he’s not advocating white people go back to whatever homelands their ancestors came from) but that doesn’t mean he’s a racist or anything! Hopefully his career will suffer as much as Richard Spencer’s.

Scott Pruitt likes shielding himself from public scrutiny for good reason.

Theocrat Bryan Fischer who insists based on his personal reading of the First Amendment that it only protects Christian rights. Which would be a bad thing for Christians if it were true — but fortunately neither the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution says anything about discriminating between religion. Fischer also claims it only applies to Congress, except when he wants it to apply to the states. Or anyone else Fischer needs it to apply to. And like those IDW types, Fischer likes to whine a lot about imaginary persecution.

Southern Baptist powerhouse Paige Patterson has a long history of saying the right option for women abused by their spouses is to suck it up. I linked to something about Patterson Monday, but it seems worth adding this.

Self-help guru Tony Robbins thinks women are just joining #metoo to feel significant (sort of the way they cry rape because it gives them perks, I guess). And it’s a bad movement because it’ll just piss men off! Which I’m sure hasn’t occurred to anyone before he pointed it out (Robbins subsequently apologized).

And UPDATE: NY AG Eric Schneiderman, violent abuser.

To illustrate this article, here’s a tree against the sky (no symbolism, I just like the photo).


Filed under Politics, Undead sexist cliches