Archive for the ‘Feminism’ Category

Contemporary feminism is exactly what you would expect to get if you took a bunch of overeducated, unattractive, power-hungry, man-hating women, gave them their own university department, and told them “all your theories are brilliant, we won’t allow men to criticize you with ‘logic’ and ‘science’ and other patriarchal constructs, and finally, we’ll pay you by the word.”

Remember the Toronto SlutWalk? The first one, before the societal cancer spread to other cities.

This is not what SlutWalkers look like. This is merely a hot Norwegian girl. Why? Because.

Do you recall what set off the sluts? Feminist blogger (and possible slut) i am charli spells out the need for the Sluts’ ill-advised Walk, in the post that introduced me to the slut-tastic phenomenon (here):

If you haven’t read it about it already, there was a cop from Toronto that recently spoke at a campus safety information session and said women can avoid being sexually assaulted by not dressing like “a slut.” … The fact that he said this proves that there is still a mindset about blaming the victim of rape or sexual assault.

Interestingly, according to the exact same feminist blogger, commenting at Unamusement Park (here and here):

Yes — unfortunately dressing sexier does up your chances of getting sexually assaulted.

I don’t think any one would disagree with you that dressing provocatively ups your chances of being raped.

Feminists are illogical and not worth debating.

Read Full Post »

The word “racism” is now meaningless in Norwegian as well, reports a reader via email from the land of snipers and black metal. (What do you mean, I don’t have a thorough understanding of Norwegian history and culture?)


Below is his translation of an article, “Chaudhry accuses FrP of racism,” from the Aftenposten (“Evening Post”), Norway’s largest newspaper. Note that the “FrP” is Norway’s “Progress Party,” which values individual rights, a free-market economy, small government, restricted immigration, and law and order. Since its inception, the FrP has resided on the political fringe because of its stance on immigration, i.e. its failure to recognize the wonderful, unspecified benefits of filling your country with the kind of people who build the kind of countries those same people are desperate to escape from. Since 2005, however, as Europe has begun to realize (and pay) the true cost of “diversity,” the FrP has flourished as Norway’s second largest party (currently the most popular among secondary school students).

Member of Parliament Akhtar Chaudhry (Socialist Left Party) accuses the Progress Party of racism after Per-Willy Amundsen said that Muslims have the lowest workforce participation rate.

“This borders on racism,” said Chaudhry to Dagsavisen.

Akhtar Chaudhry is a Pakistani immigrant and 4th Vice President of the Norwegian parliament.

Sniff sniff. "I think I smell some non-Dhimmis around here..."

He is also a whiny little bitch who seeks to undermine Norwegian values (like the separation of Church and State, women’s rights, and not stoning homosexuals) by shutting down debate and suppressing dissent with accusations of discrimination.

Chaudhry is distressed and concerned, and draws parallels to the growth of National Socialism in 1930s Germany. Amundsen’s comment is not in good taste.

Note the appeals to emotion: “distressed and concerned,” “not in good taste” — as if Chaudhry’s (fake) sense of propriety and (fake) distress define the limits of free speech.

“It’s completely borderline. [Note that completely almost racist is still not racist.] If you switch out ‘Muslims’ for ‘Jews’ in the criticism, you understand the importance of what is being said,” says Chaudhry.

He’s absolutely right: if you switch our “Muslims” for “Jews” in the criticism, and see that the result is a false statement, you will understand the importance of addressing Muslim immigration.

He is referring to Amundsen’s comment yesterday that Muslim immigrants have the lowest workforce participation rate. Minister of Labor Hanne Bjurstrøm (Labor Party), and Geir Bekkevold, political immigration speaker for the Christian Democratic Party, distanced themselves from the statement.

Cowards. Traitors.

Hardly in keeping with the proud Norwegian tradition of badassery.

Here’s why Amundsen is right, and also why he’s on Unamusement Park’s List of Cool Norwegians (along with Max Manus, Roald Amundsen (no relation?), all the Vikings, and of course anyone who reads this blog):

Amundsen is standing his ground and insists that he’s not racist.

“I disagree entirely. I am referring to public statistics. It’s clear that the immigrants in Norway with the lowest workforce participation rate are from countries in the Muslim world,” says Amundsen.

Amundsen is backed by the Central Bureau of Statistics. According to CBS, immigrants from Somalia have a workforce participation rate of 31.9 percent. In other words, almost seven of ten Somalians are unemployed. The next lowest countries on the list are Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Morocco, Turkey, Kosovo and Iran.

“The eight countries with the worst workforce participation rate are Muslim countries. That speaks for itself,” says Amundsen.

Remember: pattern recognition is racist.

Here is the actual ending of the article:

He also says that Islam’s view of women is a hindrance to their employment.

Here is my fantasy ending:

He also says: “Suck it, Chaudhry. If you and I had been born 70 years earlier, you’d be telling us how ‘distressed and concerned’ you are that I said Germans have the highest Holocaust participation rate. ‘It’s completely borderline! It’s not in good taste! Waaaaah!'”

At this point, Amundsen made an unprintably obscene gesture in the direction of Chaudhry’s seat in the Parliament Building, sang the national anthem with the voice of an angel and the raw power of a proud Norwegian muskox (bringing tears to this reporter’s eyes, and the eyes of every other true Norwegian within singing distance), performed a vigorous Norwegian folk dance, and declared the interview terminated.

Full disclosure: this reporter is now in love with Mr. Amundsen.

"And then he made us muck out his sheep. His proud Norwegian sheep."

News of Norway

From OzConservative to The Fourth Checkraise to Sofiastry (and also from Jewamongyou to Human Stupidity) to me to you: a video from Norwegian TV.

Norway is known for its news.

Yes, I follow the Norwegian news. Who doesn’t? (Google’s suggestion, based on my browser history: “Showing results for I hate all the Muslims and wish they would just go back to Johnny Arab land as soon as possible. Search instead for news of Norway.”)

FEMALE ANNOUNCER: In Oslo, all sexual assaults involving rape in the past year have been committed by males of non-Western background [meaning non-White]. This was the conclusion of a police report published today.

MALE ANNOUNCER: This means that in every single sexual assault in the last five years, where the rapist could be identified, he was a man of foreign origin [meaning non-White].

MALE REPORTER: The young girl we are about to meet was raped about two years ago. As she entered her apartment she was assaulted, and endured hours of threats, violence and rape by a [non-White] man unknown to her. She will be struggling with this experience for the rest of her life.

YOUNG GIRL: I have found it difficult to go out shopping on my own because I felt anxious. I was simply too afraid to go out the door, and had problems contacting and speaking to friends and family, and simply to live a normal life.

MALE REPORTER: In April, a few weeks ago four women were assaulted and raped on the same night [by non-White men]. None of the [non-White] perpetrators has yet been found.

Well, you can start with racial profiling. Call it “community policing” or something. Then round up all the young Muslim men for questioning.

Today Oslo police presented the total figures revealing how in the past year all sexual assault involving rape had been committed by men of non-Western background [meaning non-White].

FEMALE POLICE OFFICER: Many of the [non-White] perpetrators who commit these rapes on the edge of [White] society, often unemployed [i.e., too lazy to get a job; would rather live off White Norwegians’ tax dollars], arriving from traumatized countries [which, of course, excuses anything they do to their White oppressors — I mean, it’s not like it’s non-White people are the reason non-White countries are so “traumatized” (read: shitty).] In the past five years, it has often been asylum seekers.

“My country is mean to me! Waaaaah! Let me in to yours! I promise I won’t rape anyone! Waaaaah!”

MALE REPORTER: This girl was raped by a [non-White] man of Pakistani heritage. She is an ethnic Norwegian [i.e., White], as are almost all victims who are assaulted and then raped.

That sounds almost like discrimination.

YOUNG GIRL: He said that he had the right to do exactly as he wanted to a woman. [“Why?”] Because that is how it was in his religion. Women did not have rights or opinions. He was in charge.

Hey, who are we to judge?

Oh, right: we’re rational, moral human beings, whereas these people are objectively inferior savages. That’s who we are to judge.

FEMALE POLICE OFFICER: The way women are viewed [by non-Whites] is at least one of the questions we have to ask in order to understand the motive of the [non-White] perpetrators. …

The motive, incidentally, is sex. It’s just that they’re not decent-enough people to suppress their animal instincts.

… It should not stand on its own, as a stigma [meaning we should never incorporate race and religion into police work, no matter what the cost to real Norwegians], but it is an element we must have the courage to address.

Well, you could start by (a) calling them what they are (Muslims, non-Whites), and (b) not excusing them as “asylum seekers” from “traumatized countries.”

Your Mission, Should You Choose to Accept It

Here’s what I want you to do, you compassionate reactionaries: bring up this video in conversation. Real live conversation. Not on the Internet. You could wait until someone starts talking about Europe, or the Middle East, or immigration, or women (“speaking of which…”), or just start a conversation about it (“hey, did you know that…”).

"Hey kids, it's time to learn about Norwegian crime statistics!" "Sir, I'm going to have ask you to leave the playground."

After all, it’s just an interesting statistic you heard on the news. You don’t have to “defend” it. It’s not a political philosophy or a policy proposal — but see below.

Suppose you do bring it up, and someone says “so what?” Well, I tried having this conversation with myself, which is

  1. probably a sign of mental illness, and
  2. a good way to practice debating.

The following is a dialogue between a compassionate reactionary (CR) and a stupid, liberal, anti-white bigot (SLAWB), which I ranted to myself in real time, cleaned up, and annotated.

Warning: CR is compassionate, so he emphasizes the positive (crime prevention, women’s rights, preserving one’s culture), but of course he’s also a reactionary, so he probably goes much further than you’re comfortable with (outside the Internet). Consider him an upper bound on acceptable debate.

CR: Hey, so I saw this news report that says every rape in the capital of Norway in the last five years was by a non-White immigrant. Check it out.

SLAWB: So what?

CR: Excuse me? [I usually feign innocence (and confusion) after saying something provocative.]

SLAWB: What’s your point? We should just kick all the immigrants out of Norway?

CR: I didn’t make any suggestions for immigration policy. I just thought you’d like to known, ’cause you’re into, like, women’s rights and stuff. This is pretty much the number one way to identify rapists in Norway: they’re foreigners. Seems like women should be aware of that.

SLAWB: You can’t identify foreigners just by looking at them! How could you tell the difference between a Norwegian and a German?

CR: I wouldn’t be trying to tell the difference between a Norwegian and a German. [I try to shut down straw man arguments as quickly and directly as possible. “That’s not what we were talking about.”] If I were interested in avoiding rape, I would be trying to tell the difference between a Norwegian and a Turk. Or an Iranian. Or an Egyptian.

SLAWB: In other words, you want us to start using racial profiling to target Muslims!

CR: Oh, you’re saying all the rapists are Muslims? [If you deliberately avoid mentioning the problematic group you’re actually talking about, like Muslims in Europe or Blacks and Hispanics in the USA, it guarantees that your opponent will be the first to bring it up. Then it’s their idea, not yours, and you can just run with it:] Well, I guess that makes sense, considering what countries they come from.

Anyway, is this “racial profiling” anything like “sex profiling,” where you “target” men because they’re so much more likely to commit crime than women? Because that kind of profiling seems pretty reasonable: if one group of people is committing nearly all the crimes, then you should probably pay more attention to that group. Like men (sex profiling), young adults (age profiling), and Muslim immigrants (ethnic profiling). Or do you think we should be just as worried about an 80-year-old Norwegian grandmother committing rape, as we are about a 20-year-old Turkish man?

[Asking questions, even obviously rhetorical questions with only one sane answer, is weak: it gives your opponent the chance to answer you. That is why I never give anyone the chance to answer my rhetorical questions:] I don’t know about your idea of kicking them all out of the country, but maybe we could just deport the illegal immigrants and the ones with criminal records, then stop any new ones from coming in.

SLAWB: Most of those immigrants are poor refugees who just want to escape from injustice and lead a better life, the kind of life you were privileged enough to be born into.

CR: It seems to me that being poor and wanting a better life don’t excuse you from committing sexual assault. I’m no expert on fashion, but I always thought women kept their money in a purse, not in their vaginas. [I actually say stuff like this. Your mileage may vary.]

Anyway, it’s interesting you mentioned that they’re escaping from “injustice” in their home country: a country filled with people just like them. Same race, same ethnicity, same religion, same culture. People just like them are committing injustices against them. So they flee. They flee to a nice country like Norway, with nice people and a nice culture. And what’s the first thing they do there? Rape spree.

I mean, if they’re committing about 100% of the rapes, it stands to reason that the rate of sexual assault has gone up, like, infinity percent since they got there. Maybe the reason their home country is so bad is… it’s full of the same kind of people who are fleeing it and coming to Norway. Everyone wants a better life… especially the ones who don’t deserve it.

Based on this news report, it looks like these immigrants aren’t assimilating into the wonderful, privileged society of Norway. They’re not changing. They’re bringing their third-world problems with them. So as more and more of them pile into Norway, Norway is going to look more and more like a third-world country. Meanwhile, Afghanisatan and Pakistan are still going to be third-world countries, so rather than raising up the foreigners to our level, we’re letting them drag us down to theirs.

The Norwegians were leading a “better life” because they weren’t committing all these injustices against one another. Good for them. They’re entitled to keep living their privileged lives the way they’ve always lived them, with each other. They do have that right. Let the Muslim immigrants — especially the poor ones, the ones who get on welfare the moment they arrive, the ones who commit most of the crime — let them stay in their own country, with their own people, and fix it up so it’s as good as Norway. Don’t bring them to Norway, so they can drag it down until it’s as bad as… whatever. Syria, I guess.

SLAWB: [head explodes]

Try it yourself. Write a dialogue, or have a real one.

Imagine yourself as a proud Norwegian muskox, locking horns with an inferior Middle Eastern, er... goat.

For extra credit, re-read this post and identify all the signs of the Dark Triad in my writing. (That’s narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy: self-obsessed; deceitful and exploitative; and thrill-seeking and callous.)

Read Full Post »


My opinion of the modern world is best illustrated by these words.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Yeats, “The Second Coming”

My opinion of the modern world is second best illustrated by these words.

A man is lying on the street, some punk has chopped off his head,
And I’m the only one who stops to see if he’s dead.
Turns out he’s dead.
That’s why I’m singing:
Oooooo, what is wrong with the world today?
(What’s wrong with the world today?
<mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble>)

Flight of the Conchords, “Issues (Think About It)”

With all these gyres widening, innocence ceremonies drowning, and blood-dimmed tides on the loose, it is easy to become disheartened, bitter, homicidal, or glum.

“Fuck this shit,” I hear you say. “Fuck the war, fuck the economy, fuck global warming, and fuck the price of gas. Fuck the Democrats and fuck the Republicans, but especially the fucking Democrats, and especially the fucking Republicans. Fuck Obama, fuck Biden, fuck Boehner ’til he cries. Fuck the radicals liberally. Fuck the libertarians freely. Fuck the socialists according to your needs, and fuck them again according to their abilities. Fuck the birthers in Hawaii or fuck them in Kenya, it’s all the same to me. Fuck the truthers with an iron-rich sphere. Fuck the relativists and tell them it’s traditional in your country. Fuck the haters, I fucking hate those fucks. Fuck Iraq, fuck Iran; fuck Egypt and Afghanistan. Take a fifteen minute break, then fuck Libya. You know what, fuck every other Middle Eastern shit-hole sand pile, too. Fuck the terrorists. Fuck all the Muslims. Fuck the Arabs and fuck the Jews. Fuck Rachel Corrie with a bulldozer. Fuck the blacks and fuck the Mexicans. Fuck the Asians in the library. Fuck South Africa until they bring back apartheid. Fuck the feminists and make them call you ‘daddy.’ Fuck the Conscious Men, and hey, Dear Woman: Fuck You Too. Fuck the sluts, they’re asking for it. Fuck the betas. (Someone’s got to do it.) Fuck the lesbians straight and fuck the straight girls bi. Fuck the bi girls, they’re crazy in the sack. And while you’re at it, fuck the crazy girls too. Fuck the rapists before they fuck you. Fuck cancer, fuck AIDS, fuck herpes, and fuck swine flu. Fuck the criminals and fuck the police. Fuck mom and dad, they don’t fucking understand you anyway. Fuck Bristol Palin and get her pregnant with another retarded baby. (Or was it Sarah? Ah, fuck it.) Fuck Rebecca Black. Fuck her on Thursday, Thursday. Fuck her again on Friday, Friday. Tomorrow is fucking Saturday, and fucking Sunday comes afterward. You know what? Fuck ’em all. Fuck me, fuck you, fuck the whole entire world. Go fuck yourself.”

I understand your frustration, and I respect your enthusiasm (even as I fear your psychotic babbling). But I am here to tell you: fucking is not the answer! We cannot fuck our way out of this predicament. Our generation’s Berlin Walls will not be brought down by our collective jackhammer thrusting, despite the apparent aptness of the metaphor.

I'm paraphrasing.

Anyway, I came up with this thing. I call it compassionate reactionism. It’s like ordinary reactionism, only… slightly less hateful. It’s reactionism you can talk about over tea with Grandma. Over the next few days, I will attempt to explain the concept by examples. Hey, it’s not like I’ve got three other series going on already…

The Compassionate Reactionary on… Feminism

So you’ve decided women are just as good as men. Maybe better.

No, definitely better.

I happen to agree. Girls are soft and they smell nice. That alone guarantees their superiority. Oh, you meant something different. Equality and shit, right? But you’ve already got that.

Well anyway, I’m happy you’re so strong and empowered and independent and you don’t need a man and your vagina delivers monologues. Why you keep asking for special treatment is a bit of a mystery, but… whatever. We can put that aside for now. I really hope your Ph.D. in Gender Studies is six prime reproductive years well spent. (See how compassionate I am?) However:

Don’t come crying to me when your feminism meets reality, and reality kicks the shit out of you. This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. (I feel like we’ve been over this before, albeit in an altogether less compassionate way.)

If you drink and drug yourself into a stupor and wake up in a strange bed with a hangover, a tattoo, a bad case of crabs, and a whole lot of regret, you don’t get to wash away your culpability (or your crabs) by declaring yourself a rape victim. Light all the candles you want. That’s one night you can’t take back.

You say you have a right to not get raped. At first glance, this appears to be a true statement. However, your behavior has lead me to believe you have confused “right to not get raped” with “indestructible barrier protecting your vagina (etc.) at all times and in all places, allowing you to do exactly as you please without any consequences.”

The thing about rapists is: they don't need an invitation.

You say there’s a sexual double standard. I believe you. You’re still a slut, and I still don’t respect you. I’m sorry if I’m not sufficiently empowering you, but you just aren’t relationship material. Now flip over.

No, I don’t have a condom. That’s why we gave you abortion rights, isn’t it?

The Compassionate Reactionary on… Gender

So you’re dissatisfied your genitals. Hey, who isn’t?

But you… you take it further than most. You’ve decided you’re a woman in a man’s body, or a man in a woman’s body, or maybe even a gay man in a straight woman’s body. Something crazy like that. Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply you were mentally ill.

mental disorder (noun): a mental or bodily condition marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, and emotions to seriously impair the normal psychological functioning of the individual

Anyway, you’re not happy with how nature identified you, meaning what’s between your legs, so you’re self-identifying as something else. That’s nice. I hope your decision makes you happy. (See how supportive I’m being?) However:

You can’t tell me what you are. This is the kind of thing I’m talking about.

Well, you can tell me, but that doesn’t mean I have to believe you. I’m going to identify you however I like. Probably by how you look. If you don’t like it, don’t talk to me. Definitely don’t try to date me. Because if you look like a guy and talk like a guy but you say you’re a pretty little girl on the inside, well… I’m not going inside to check, if you know what I mean. Maybe your dick self-identifies as pussy, but mine doesn’t buy it.

Natalie Portman: 100 percent irrelevant. If you had just Googled "transgender," you would understand why I need this image right now.

You’ve got your freedom of association, so don’t associate with me — by which I mean, don’t try to fuck me. But I’ve got my freedom of thought and freedom of speech, so don’t try to fuck with me either.

Don’t worry. I’m just getting started.

Read Full Post »

The SlutWalk debate rages on, and everywhere I look, I see the same fundamental fallacy — or, to be blunt, the same fundamental stupidity — from gender feminists. For example, from the Trent Arthur, a front-runner in the Most Biased Reporting competition: “No means no, unless you’re a ‘slut,'” by Hazel Wheeler.

That was the message sent out on January 24, 2011, when the Toronto Police addressed community members at a safety forum at York University’s Osgoode Hall. The comment put forth by one of the officers, that women should “avoid dressing like sluts in order to not be victimized,” has caused outrage throughout the Osgoode community and beyond, and has made national news headlines.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the police officer was actually pointing out that if you don’t dress in a manner designed to make men sexually aroused, it is less likely that you will attract the attention of a man whose arousal is greater than his respect for your rights plus his fear of the possible consequences of raping you (injury, prison, etc.).

I applaud this girl's choice of attire. However, it puts her at a higher risk of being sexually assaulted.

The fundamental stupidity is to misinterpret this as “if you are a slut, then you don’t have any rights, and your assailant should not suffer any consequences.” Where feminists get this idea is a mystery to me. Almost every man they’ve ever met wholeheartedly agrees that women have the rights they keep harping on about, and that rapists should be caught and punished — severely. (We also think they’re crazy for doubting us.)

But you should keep in mind that evil people do exist. You cannot reason with them. You cannot make them empathize. You can only try to avoid them.

Shark rape: As if we didn’t have enough to worry about

Think of them as sharks. You wouldn’t ask a shark to respect your right not to get eaten, would you? Don’t ask rapists to respect your right not to get raped. They don’t care. That’s what makes them rapists. Just stay away from them. Since feminists have proven to be childlike in their reading comprehension skills, I suppose I should emphasize that I wrote “rapists,” not “men in general.”

Dressing modestly probably helps avoid rape. It seems plausible. But it’s your choice. Nobody is trying to take away your right to dress like a slut or act like a slut or call yourself a big ol’ slut. No one has come remotely close to suggesting it. Feminists are all just being hysterical.

There are many myths surrounding sexual assault, one of them being that a woman’s clothing or behaviour may increase her chances of becoming a target.

Madness. Feminists expect us to believe that a woman’s behavior doesn’t increase her chance of becoming a target? So a young woman walking home alone, late at night, drunk, in a poor part of town, is just as likely to be raped as the same woman sitting at home with a couple of friends, at ten in the morning, in a rich neighborhood?

"Swimming increases your risk of being eaten by a shark? VIIIIIIICTIM BLAAAAAAAMING!"

Note: if your first instinct is to say “she could get raped too, here is an example of a woman who did everything right but got raped anyway,” then you don’t know the definition of “chance” or “likely.” Look them up. I’ll wait.

In a few words: she’s asking for it. This line of thinking, where a woman’s rape is at least partly her fault, has generally been widely discredited; the only person who is responsible for an assault is the perpetrator. Period.

Same fallacy. Same stupidity. No one said she’s asking for it — that’s a feminist delusion. They see sexism everywhere.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the actual line of thinking is: there are things you can do to make yourself safer. Fault and blame don’t enter into this thought. Again, almost every man you have ever met agrees that the perpetrator is responsible. They don’t like rapists any more than you do. They may not shriek about it all the time, but they do have girlfriends and wives and mothers and sisters and daughters and enough brain cells to make the necessary connections. On the other hand, the few exceptions to the male rule will not be convinced otherwise, by you or anyone else. Period.

Wheeler writes: “no one should equate enjoying sex with attracting sexual assault.” The good news is, no one is. The bad news (for feminism) is, they are equating attracting sexual assault with attracting sexual assault.

Rape is about sex

The implications of these ideas are that men are mindless, sex-crazed animals, and that rape is born from a desire to have sex. If I were a man, I would take serious offense to the former, and to address the latter: rape is not about sex, but rather power and control.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the actual implication is that men are not one-dimensional beings. There is a great deal of variety among men: in height, weight, intelligence, sex drive, and even moral scruples. Acknowledge this variety and understand which end of which spectrum you need to be worried about, instead of screaming at the opposite end about sluts.

Much more important is acknowledging that rape is about sex. This is perhaps the most obviously true statement we can make about rape. Stephen Pinker, for one, has thoroughly debunked the feminist power-and-control myth in his book The Blank Slate, as I mentioned in an earlier post. Consider date rape, for instance: “Most people agree that women have the right to say no at any point during sexual activity, and that if the man persists he is a rapist — but should we also believe that his motive has instantaneously changed from wanting sex to oppressing women?”

"I want to have sex with you, but if you say no, I will stop wanting sex, and start wanting to oppress all women everywhere... which, coincidentally, I will accomplish by having sex with you."

I will list some more of his (fairly obvious) reasons why rape is about sex, not power or control.

  1. Rapists “rarely inflict a serious or fatal injury, which would preclude conception and birth.” This is not consistent with the power-and-control theory.

    Note: if your first instinct is to say “rapists are violent, here is an example of a violent rapist,” then you don’t know what “rarely” means.

  2. Rapists are “overwhelmingly young men, the age of the most intense sexual competitiveness.” Also not consistent with the power-and-control theory.

    Note: if your first instinct is to say “old men commit rape too, here is one old rapist,” then you don’t know what “overwhelmingly” means.

  3. “Victims of rape are mostly in the peak reproductive years for women, between thirteen and thirty-five,” as if we needed to be told, “with a mean in most data sets of twenty-four. Though many rape victims are classified as children (under the age of sixteen), most of these are adolescents, with a median age of fourteen. The age distribution is very different from that of victims of other violent crimes, and is the opposite of what would happen if rape victims were picked for their physical vulnerability [younger or older] or by their likelihood of holding positions of power [older].”

    Note: if your first instinct is to say anything other than “I agree,” then you don’t know the meaning of “mostly,” “most,” “mean,” “median,” “distribution,” or “likelihood.”

  4. Although rape is found in all human societies, “[c]ountries with far more rigid [traditional] gender roles, such as Japan, have far lower rates of rape” than less patriarchal countries, including the United States of America. So much for the evils of patriarchy.

    Again: “rates.” Please consult your dictionary.

Feminist sanity

You don’t have to take my word for it, though. Let’s ask a feminist. An equity feminist, that is: Camille Paglia, to be precise. Twenty years ago she made exactly the same point I did yesterday. (A clear case of time-travel plagiarism — as if shark rape wasn’t bad enough.)

For a decade, feminists have drilled their disciples to say, “Rape is a crime of violence but not sex.” This sugar-coated Shirley Temple nonsense has exposed young women to disaster. Misled by feminism, they do not expect rape from the nice boys from good homes who sit next to them in class. …

These girls say, “Well, I should be able to get to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy’s room without anything happening.” And I say, “Oh, really? And when you drive your car to New York City, do you leave your keys on the hood?” My point is that if your car is stolen after you do something like that, yes, the police should pursue the thief and he should be punished. But at the same time, the police — and I — have the right to say to you, “You stupid idiot, what the hell were you thinking?”

You stupid idiots, what the hell are you thinking? Why are you doing this?

Why they are doing this, and what they are really doing

From the original article:

SlutWalk is not about hate, nor seeing the offending officer fired, but rather demanding accountability from the Toronto Police Force, since, in [SlutWalk co-founder Heather Jarvis’] view, “they allowed him to go out as a representative, so his actions speak to the lack of training in dealing with rape culture and these sorts of stereotypes.”

SlutWalk is about feminist lies and willful ignorance. It is only making Toronto less safe for women. Congratulations, Heather, you’ve taught the police not to be honest about rape risk factors. (Actually, they already knew that, but you’ve hammered the point home.) They know you will not abide reality, if reality says: “you may do as you please, but I will impose consequences on you.”

There is no cause for alarm. Feminists assure me, walking alone through this park at night cannot possibly increase your chances of being assaulted.

Bring it on home, Heather.

“This is something that people want and need. Yes, there is criticism, and there always will be, but hundreds of people are showing their support for this initiative, and I think that speaks strongly to something that people are sick and tired of and want to do something about.”

Sadly, they’re not doing anything to stop rape or to help rape victims. All they’re doing is suppressing information — information that might actually do some good — in order to advance their slut-positive, sex-worshiping, reality-denying, criminally irresponsible gender feminist ideology.

Read Full Post »

Apparently this SlutWalk phenomenon is much bigger than I initially thought — and much crazier, and much more harmful to women. You can read more in the Excalibur, in the Trent Arthur, at Sexlife Canada, and at thestar.com.

What will you find? Thousands of sluts (their word, not mine) united in condemning a man for saying something undeniably true out of a desire to protect them, and all committing the exact same fallacy: just because you want to be able to behave any way you like without consequences — in or out of your bedroom — doesn’t mean you can. You don’t have to like reality, but you do have to live in it.

Every time a feminist lies that rape is about power, not sex, and every time she meets useful information with victim-blaming hysteria, she is making the world a little less safe for women. This kind of feminism, gender feminism, is undoubtedly doing real harm to women — as opposed to hypothetical harm, like the notion that rape victims will only come forward if no one ever says out loud what we all know to be true; namely, that for any given crime, there is a list of optional behaviors that definitely increase your chances of becoming a victim of that crime.

Don’t worry, though. Thanks to that feminist, no rape victim will ever forget it wasn’t her fault she was assaulted as she walked home at 3 am, alone, drunk, and wearing her awesome new miniskirt. She knew exactly what she was doing. She was armed with the knowledge that rape isn’t about sex, so how could her revealing clothing have anything to do with it? It just doesn’t make sense. The man who attacked her was clearly seeking power and control over women. His only motivation was furthering the goals of the global patriarchal conspiracy (the same conspiracy that mysteriously failed to deny American and Canadian women the right to vote, go to school, etc.). Next week, he’ll probably rape an 80-year-old grandmother at lunch time.

Go ahead, the gender feminists will say. Do the same thing tomorrow night. Or don’t, it makes no difference. Even if you stay home with Granny, you’re just as likely to be the victim of sexual assault. After all, patriarchal control isn’t limited to any particular time of the day, or place in the city, or kind of woman.

And above all else, anyone who disagrees is victim blaming.

If you think you missed some of my sarcasm, please read my previous post and the comments on it, where I lay out my positions on the matters of rape, women’s rights, blame assignation, causal relationships in human behavior, sexy schoolgirl sluts, and vicious grizzly bears, among other things.

Read Full Post »

Hatred is Unamusement Park’s ongoing five-part documentary on the War on Hate, a war which — strangely enough — is being waged by the most hateful and malicious elements of our society. Last time we considered the strange case of John Derbyshire, whose thoughtful remarks on race differences in intelligence were interpreted as a “Racism 101” lecture delivered by a “white supremacist,” illustrating the stupidity — as well as the hatred and malice — of the so-called “anti”-racists, who are actually merely anti-white.

We also stuck our heads into the coma ward of race denialism to check for signs of brain activity in one or two patients. Alas, none were detected.

Fun times were had by all. Today, though… today is going to get ugly. Today, we’re hunting big game. Today, we’ve got bigger fish to fry. Today… another animal metaphor.

Today, we gird our loins for battle, because our loins is the first place that our next target is going to aim for. Today, our fearless documentary crew covers the most vicious, brutal, and ultimately pointless battlefield in the War on Hate.

It's a metaphorical Vietnam, with slightly less drug use. (All due respect to our veterans.)

Today… goddamn it, I’m so excited, I can’t even say it!


Today we’re talking about girls. Don’t get too excited. For once it’s not gratuitous hot French girls.

"You... you don't want me anymore? I am so sad." :(

Of course we still want you, gratuitous hot French girl. In fact, we’ll desperately need a dose of your European femininity and general sexiness when we’re done here, because today we’re talking about feminist girls.

Since this my very first post wholly devoted to the dreadful subject, I’m going to treat it like spaghetti: throw a bunch of angry sex-conscious women at a wall and see if they stick. No, that’s not quite right. Let’s just say I’m going to strip down my rhetoric, whip out my toolbox of reactionary politics, and shoot my hateful ideas right in their faces.

There’s got to be a better metaphor for that…

Fuck tha Police (not literally)

Our doomed expedition begins at a curious post by feminist blogger iamcharli, entitled “FYI: My Clothes are Not an Invitation to Rape Me” (February 20 2011).

If you haven’t read it about it already, there was a cop from Toronto that recently spoke at a campus safety information session and said women can avoid being sexually assaulted by not dressing like “a slut.”

Indeed he did. A law enforcement officer, whose job it is to protect women from being raped (among other things), pointed out that women may be able to avoid this by not dressing in a manner specifically designed to arouse men. After all, rape is about sex. It’s about a woman (usually) who doesn’t want sex, from a man (usually) who does and is sufficiently motivated to get it anyway; in other words, whose desire for sex with that woman is greater than his fear of injury or prison, and greater than whatever respect for her wishes he might have. So-called slutty dress does not reduce the man’s fears, but it does increase his desire, and very likely reduces his respect as well.

Not saying it should. Just saying it might.

I wonder if I have any images on my hard drive that could illustrate my point…

"I'm not increasing your arousal, am I? I am? Oh NO!" (pouts)

Why, then, are students and staff at Osgoode Hall Law School “demanding an apology and explanation from the Toronto Police Service”, according to the article in the Excalibur? Why are feminists now marching in the streets in a ridiculous protest they’re calling the Toronto SlutWalk?

“I’m appalled by the comment that the police officer has made saying that women should avoid dressing like sluts, and I think it goes to show the inherent misogyny and lack of education,” said Selvasivam, York Federation of Students (YFS) executive.

“I think the officer should be very seriously reprimanded for the comment.”

Misogyny? The word means “the hatred of women by men.” The officer was trying to help women avoid sexual assault. That was his whole reason for being at the campus safety information session. He even knew the risk — in our feminist-loving, hate-hating society — of giving out too much useful information: “I’ve been told I shouldn’t say this,” he said, right before he said it anyway. (Well played, sir.) Who could accuse this man of hating women? Who could be that irrational?

Feminists, that’s who.

As for the officer’s lack of education, he may not have a degree from the Osgoode Hall Law School, but I’m sure he’s familiar with the reality of rape in the city of Toronto. The police aren’t taking these complaints against one of their own seriously, are they?

Toronto police spokesperson Constable Wendy Drummond confirmed the incident has been brought to the attention of senior officials and is currently under investigation.

“[This is] definitely something that we take very seriously. This matter […] has been brought to the attention of our professional standards unit and is something we will be looking into,” she said. … “We are of the position that if these comments were made, it is definitely something that we will [act on],” she added.


That slut deserved to get eaten by bears

Do not be alarmed! He is only here to illustrate a point. Not to rape anybody.

Ronda Bessner, Osgoode assistant dean of the Juris Doctor Program, was the information session attendee who contacted the police about the remark, asking for a written apology and an explanation. Perhaps she can explain why.

Bessner argued that such comments make it difficult for victims dealing with sexual assault because they make them feel uncomfortable going to the police for help.

“I think the problem with the constable’s conduct was that he was blaming the victim,” she said.

Blaming the victim? Curious. I suppose if he had told them they can avoid being eaten by bears if they stay out of forests, he would be blaming the victims of bear attacks.

There is a crucial difference between acknowledging a cause and blaming the victim. The officer was acknowledging a cause: women whose outfits are designed to turn men on, are at a higher risk of attracting a rapist; thus their choice of outfit is a partial cause of their rape. If he had wanted to blame some victims, he would have said something like this.

I’m supposed to tell you about how not to get raped or some shit, but I’m not gonna do that. You know why? ‘Cause if you get raped, it’s your own goddamn fault! You were asking for it, with your slutty clothes and your lip gloss and your hair all done up! You wanted it!

[stunned silence]

You all deserve to get raped!

"Slut! SLUT! Feel the wrath of my police-stick, slut!"

iamcharli elaborates on the horrors of victim blaming. “Dear Mr. Officer,” she writes, probably facetiously,

I don’t care if I’m wearing the sluttiest outfit or a skimpy top or if I’m totally naked. [Hot.] What I choose to wear does NOT, by ANY means, give anyone the right to sexually assault me. My clothing or how I act or what I’ve had to drink, doesn’t excuse a man from sexually assaulting me. My slutty outfit is NOT an open invitation for a man to rape me.

Curiouser and curiouser. I searched the article in vain for the part where the officer says “if you wear slutty clothes, you waive your legal right not to be raped.” I thought he was saying, “if you wear slutty clothes, you are more likely to be raped (because of how rapists choose their victims, in my experience as a police officer), and I might not be around to protect you, and all the legal rights in the world aren’t going to mean jack shit if he really, really wants to have sex with you.” Or words to that effect.

I should do one of these campus safety information sessions! I’m so good at informing women.

Consider a naked college girl

At this juncture, I pictured an attractive female college student walking around downtown Toronto naked. I did this for strictly scientific purposes, of course. I imagined her drinking fifteen Cosmos, then walking home alone. Now, I fully agree that her clothing (or lack thereof), how she acts, and what she drinks, don’t excuse any man from sexually assaulting her. Her hypothetical assailant is 100% responsible, legally and morally and ethically and theologically and whatever other ways you can be responsible, for his own actions. And she certainly didn’t send out invitations, open or otherwise, asking for interested rapists to ambush her as she stumbles her way home through various dark alleys and unlit parks.

Nevertheless, I can think of at least three things she did in this scenario that almost certainly increased her chances of being assaulted. I am not blaming the hypothetical naked drunk victim; I am simply acknowledging causes. She had three choices to make, and every time, she chose the one more likely to lead to her assault.

Of course — I think this goes without saying — anyone who assaults her should be punished exactly as if she had worn a snowsuit, drank nothing but vitamin water, and driven home in a tank with Batman riding shotgun and the 82nd Airborne Division as escort. Still, if she had made those choices, it wouldn’t be an issue, would it?

"Let's bring some democracy to these rapists — in the form of flaming-hot death from above." (Again, all due respect...)

Plus, she’d be going home with Batman. That’s got to count for something, right?

Rape: What’s it all about?

Bessner goes on.

“He’s also not making victims feel safe to go to the police. It’s quite astounding that in 2011 that you hear comments like that from a professional.”

Bessner stressed the importance of officers having proper knowledge about sexual assault cases.

“I think it’s really important that the police […] receive appropriate training on sexual assault, so that statements like this are never made and that they understand the dynamics of sexual assault.”

How low does your opinion of women have to be, that you think a police officer recommending modest clothing will scare them away from reporting rape to the police? I thought we were talking about law school students, not children. And the officer seems to understand the real “dynamics of sexual assault” quite well. He just doesn’t buy into the feminist slogans about rape and power.

iamcharli spells it out for us.

Someone needs to take the time to educate this cop about the facts and reasons behind rape. Rape is violent. Rape is not about sex it’s about control and power.

There it is: rape is not about sex, it’s about control and power. Hardly a novel concept: in 1993, the United Nations declared that “rape is an abuse of power and control in which the rapist seeks to humiliate, shame, embarrass, degrade, and terrify the victim.” Fucking an otherwise unobtainable woman? Never even occurred to him, officer! He was too busy with the terrifying and shaming and all that other stuff.

The power theory of rape originated in gender feminist Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 book, Against Our Will, in which she wrote that “[rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear” (emphasis in original). Well, that doesn’t sound crazy at all!

Of all the ludicrous left-wing postmodern blank-slate myths, this one is certainly the most dangerous for women, so it should be the first target of attack by feminists, not one of their core beliefs. Steven Pinker demolishes it, and many other myths about sex and gender, in Chapter 18 of The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.

Think about it. [Oh, if only they would!] First obvious fact: Men often want to have sex with women who don’t want to have sex with them. They use every tactic that one human being uses to affect the behavior of another: wooing, seducing, flattering, deceiving, sulking, and paying. Second obvious fact: Some men use violence to get what they want, indifferent to the suffering they cause. …

A rapist always risks injury at the hands of the woman defending herself. In a traditional society, he risks torture, mutilation, and death at the hands of her relatives. In a modern society, he risks a long prison term. [Score one for traditional society.] Are rapists really assuming these risks as an altruistic sacrifice to benefit the billions of strangers that make up the male gender? … If [encouraging rape to consciously keep women down] were men’s tactic, why would they have made rape a crime in the first place?

He goes on — it wouldn’t be necessary in a sane world, of course, but Pinker knows we don’t live in one — to prove that rape is not, in fact, about power or control. It really is about sex. For one thing,

date rape is a particularly problematic case for the not-sex theory. Most people agree that women have the right to say no at any point during sexual activity, and that if the man persists he is a rapist — but should we also believe that his motive has instantaneously changed from wanting sex to oppressing women?

"I want to have sex with you, but if you say no, I will stop wanting sex, and start wanting to oppress all women everywhere... which, coincidentally, I will accomplish by having sex with you." Makes sense to me.

It’s difficult not to type out the whole damn chapter and list the many sources it cites, but that would make my own half-baked ideas unnecessary, and we can’t have that. Anyway, I highly recommend the book, and not just for feminists.

When I’m sexually aroused, I become an uncontrollable werewolf

Of all iamcharli’s baffling remarks, this is perhaps the most baffling of all. The bafflingest, if you will.

Rape is not about what I decide to wear. I’m not sure when we all starting thinking that if a man is sexually aroused he becomes this uncontrollable monster and can’t stop himself. Men are not animals. We should be able to hold them to a higher standard.

Let me spell it out for the feminist who couldn’t be bothered to think rationally about an issue which is hugely important to women. Arousal, fear, respect for women, and all the other things men feel, are not goddamn light switches. Nobody is claiming your slutty clothes are going to switch on his arousal, switch off his fear of injury or prison, and switch off his respect for you, making him “this uncontrollable monster.” They are going to increase his arousal, very likely decrease his respect, and do nothing to his fear of injury or prison — unless, of course, your slutty outfit features a hunting knife and barbed wire accessories, which is not a bad idea at all.

Not likely to be a victim of anything, anywhere, at any time.

Go ahead, hold men to any standard you want. The ancient subroutines in their reptilian hindbrains will whir and spin regardless, and if they hit the right — or rather wrong — combination of hormones and neurotransmitters and… whatever, they are going to attempt to assault you. Yes, I know, this means we don’t have free will. Live with it.

Instead of saying stupid shit like “he’s blaming the victim” and “rape is about power” and “what I choose to wear does not give you the right to sexually assault me,” and marching around town proclaiming how proud you are to be a slut and how you would never give up dressing slutty even if it means making yourself a target for rapists, instead of that, why don’t you try to understand the chain of events that leads to a sexual assault — a chain of events that depends very much on the victim’s appearance and behavior; a chain of events which the police officer whose life you’re destroying is quite familiar with. Then ask yourself how you can avoid it.

This image is not strictly relevant, but can I just say how pleased I am to be talking about this instead of black people?

Manning up

Oh, she’s not done yet. Darn. That would have been a good place to stop.

How can we be ok with a police officer who has taken an oath to upload the law has the audacity to say something as sexist and insulting as, women can help prevent their own sexual assault if they cover up more?

Sexist and insulting — good grief. These words, like misogyny, have lost all meaning. Let’s try her reasoning with other crimes and other designated victim groups.

  • “How can we be OK with a police officer who has taken an oath to upload the law, but has the audacity to say something as sexist and insulting as ‘women can help prevent the theft of their own property if they lock up the house when they leave more’?”
  • “How can we be OK with a police officer who has taken an oath to upload the law, but has the audacity to say something as homophobic and insulting as ‘gay men can help prevent their getting AIDS if they wrap up their dicks more’?”
  • “How can we be OK with a police officer who has taken an oath to upload the law, but has the audacity to say something as racist and insulting as ‘black men can help prevent their own murder if they don’t deal crack cocaine in the ghetto… more’?”

Robbers, rapists, rival crack dealers, and retroviruses: deep down, they’re all just manifestations of a biological imperative, acted out by soulless molecules.

This needs to stop. More men need to man up and be part of the fight to end sexual violence.

Well, I tried. Somehow I don’t think this is what she had in mind.

And now it’s time for me to bid you adieu.

"I noticed you are speaking French. Does zis mean you have forgiven me?" :)

Appendix: Rape statistics

“1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime,” iamcharli declares. Not this shit again, I silently groan.

There is a great deal of debate about rape statistics. As a rule, anytime someone says “one in three,” “one in five,” or (especially) “one in four,” they’re full of shit. There is no rape epidemic of these proportions. If there were, it would be a national emergency — real apocalyptic martial-law stuff. Those figures do not agree with reality.

I have no desire to discuss rape statistics; it is enough for my thesis that rape of women by men happen, and that it involve sex. Therefore I will merely point out that Heather Mac Donald addresses the myth of campus rape in her appropriately titled article “The Campus Rape Myth.”


Read Full Post »

Originally posted at In Mala Fide.

As many of my readers can attest, sometimes it’s a real drag being an endlessly talented, stunningly attractive, impeccably dressed, impossibly brilliant über-alpha living in a world of worker bees.

Tell me about it.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the heck out of it most days. It’s just that it makes debating an exercise in frustration. When you’re ten thousand times cleverer than your opponents, there simply isn’t much sport in proving them wrong. So, to level the playing field a little and add a modicum of challenge, I’ve decided that today I will rebut them in song form.

It’s a reactionary musical extravaganza!

Act I

No Bells Curve Here (April 1996): “a new study by researchers at Columbia and Northwestern Universities suggests that poverty and early learning opportunities — not race — account for the gap in IQ scores between blacks and whites. … Adjustments for socioeconomic conditions almost completely eliminate differences in IQ scores between black and white children, according to the study’s co-investigators.”

The IQ Gap
If you want to measure factors
Like environmental actors,
Then ignoring DNA’s the greatest sin.
In controlling for the gene,
Just as on the dating scene,
It’s better when she brings along her twin.

Act II

Letter about Hispanic Students in Glendale Spurs Controversy (March 2011): “I asked the students why they refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance and they responded by saying, ‘we are Mexicans and Americans stole our land.’ … Most of them stated they were in the country illegally, White Americans are racist, and that they came here for a better life.”

If our white majority nation
Has so much discrimination,
Let me float a plan to help the NAMs* survive:
Line them up, in any order,
Send them south across the border —
Hispanics can’t be racist, so they’ll thrive!

*Non-Asian Minorities: blacks and Hispanics.


UCLA Student’s YouTube Video ‘Asians in the Library’ Prompts Death Threats; Violent Responses Criticized As Equally Damaging (March 2011): “A UCLA student has received multiple death threats in response to her video ‘Asians in the Library,’ which was posted Friday. … Speaking Sunday night, a university spokesman called the video ‘repugnant.'” The (highly entertaining) video may be found here.

Asians in the Library
The Asian horde informs me: UCLA is full of hate.
They cry for social justice — well, they cry, at any rate.
A white girl hurt their feelings — “assimilate”? How cruel!
Thank God the campus thought police could force her out of school.


Random heckler: “Level the playing field with Bulworth’s advice: everyone has to fuck everyone else until we’re all the same color. I’ll take a Halle Berry or a Jessica Alba… [racist ranting].”

Despite your moral clucking
About race quotas for fucking,
You think that hating white folk is all right.
And it’s just a little scary
That you plan on “taking” Berry:
You’d double white-on-black rape overnight!

Act IV

Why Do Parents Let Their Daughters Dress Like Sluts? (March 2011): “We are the first moms in history to have grown up with widely available birth control, the first who didn’t have to worry about getting knocked up. [And now] scads of us don’t know how to teach our own sons and daughters not to give away their bodies so readily. We’re embarrassed, and we don’t want to be, God forbid, hypocrites.”

The Sexual Revolution
A man prefers his woman to be chaste,
So a tramp who spreads so readily is just the biggest waste.
Now, she might suffice tonight, because he knows she loves to screw,
But she’s a temporary hole until he finds somebody new.

Act V

Beat Whitey Night (August 2010): “Over the weekend, mobs of Black youths roamed the Iowa State Fairgrounds and randomly assaulted White attendees in what was openly called ‘Beat Whitey Night.’ … Rep. Ako Abdul-Samad (D-Des Moines) said he ‘doesn’t have enough information’ to determine whether or not the attacks were racially motivated.” More here, and a similar story here.

Hate Crimes
There’s gangs of thugs who base
All their violence on your race.
A clearer case of hatred, you can’t name.
When these racist whites attack —
Wait, you’re telling me they’re black?
I take it back, those kids can’t be to blame!

Appendix: The IQ Gap Revisited

Lest the audience go home dissatisfied with the depth of my musical analysis, I will mention my previous rebuttals — in the more conventional prose form — of IQ gap denialism’s greatest hits: Income and IQ and Your ideas are stupid and so are you (part 2).

(Do musicals even have appendices?)

Read Full Post »

Via Reuters (Feb. 15):

CBS correspondent Lara Logan was beaten and sexually assaulted by a mob while covering the jubilation in Cairo’s Tahrir Square on the day Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down, the U.S. broadcasting network said on Tuesday.

Logan, a 39-year-old South Africa native and longtime war correspondent, has since flown back to the United States and is recovering in hospital. She was one of dozens of journalists attacked during the three weeks of protests throughout Egypt.

CBS News said in a statement Logan was covering the celebrations for CBS’s “60 Minutes” program on Feb. 11 when she and her team were surrounded by “a mob of more than 200 people whipped into a frenzy.”

“In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers,” CBS said.

Not sure what this is doing in the article, though:

“Egypt’s old regime orchestrated a ferocious campaign to stop the news of this movement for change,” Paul Steiger, a member of the CPJ’s board and former managing editor of The Wall Street Journal said. . . . Steiger said attacks on Internet journalists, which often include cyberattacks [sic] and attacks on websites, must be closely monitored.

“The often invisible, sophisticated attacks constitute a new front in the fight for press freedom,” he said. “We need to pay close attention to Internet censorship.”

Yes, we certainly need to pay close attention to Internet censorship.

This is not “a ferocious campaign” by “Egypt’s old regime” we’re talking about here. This not a cyber attack. This is the completely predictable result of putting an attractive white woman in a crowd of hundreds of non-white rioters. (White people don’t riot or gang-rape anyone. We’re classy like that.) Steiger is just there to distract us from the real story, which CBS would rather cover up.

It doesn’t seem to be working.

Ferdinand Bardamu over at In Mala Fide can’t make up his mind whether Lara Logan is an idiot or a liar:

Fuck Lara Logan. Fuck her and the shit-for-brains idiot who thought it was a good idea to send a WOMAN to report from a war zone. Am I the only one with the balls to point out these undeniable facts:

  1. Women are the weaker, frailer sex. The average man is physically stronger than the average woman, and absent physical protection (in the form of other men, be they police, military or family) women are COMPLETELY at the mercy of men.
  2. Egypt is a nation resistant to feminism. Egyptian men do not “respect” women, unlike the pale, porn-addicted, gelded fembois [sic] of America and Europe.
  3. A riot, by definition, is an event defined by its lack of law and order – meaning that the structures that protect women from the predations of men do NOT exist.
  4. Logan is a white foreigner, and is thus despised by the violent hordes who believe their government to be in thrall to hers.

You send a chick into a situation like the one in Egypt, you might as well hang a sign around her neck that says “FREE FUCKTOY”. . . . Did she really think that the teeming, America-hating, angry, sex-starved crowds of men she was surrounded by wouldn’t view her as a tasty treat? Is she THAT clueless about the non-Western world? Or did she truly think that her crew of yes-men could protect her every time she touched down in Surprise Sex Country?

dissention has similar questions:

Did she seriously expect to be not manhandled in an environment with tens of thousands of young non-pussy whipped men and no law enforcement?

In Iraq, she was ’embedded’ with US soldiers and things were under control. Did she really think that being around whipped soldiers is the same as standing in a crowd of young aggressive men?

Harsh. But fair? I wonder: who is ultimately to blame for Logan’s dangerously irresponsible behavior?

Yes, women are the weaker sex, so without male protectors, women are at the mercy of male aggressors—like the rioters she knew she would be covering. Hurray for patriarchy! Yes, foreign countries—like the one she knew she would be visiting—are full of these “violent hordes” who do not respect women, and hate and attack whites wherever they find them. Hurray for white people! So how could Logan possibly think this was a good idea?

Does it have something to do with living in a society of “pale, porn-addicted, gelded fembois”?

Logan is absolutely that clueless about the non-Western world. She’s one more victim of America’s sick masochistic fetish for anti-white, anti-male (in other words, anti-success) bigotry, including feminism, multiculturalism, anti-racism, and all the other symptoms of the cancer of our decadence. Logan is the natural, inevitable product of a civilization

We are well and truly fucked, ladies and gentlemen, and it’s because you’re not ladies and gentlemen: you’re sluts and players, feminists and faggots, shrieking harpies and supplicating eunuchs. You should have kept Lara Logan home—forcibly, if necessary. You should have taught her to respect the right men and fear the wrong ones. Hell, you should have just taught her right from wrong.

I hate you all.

Appendix A: false accusation?

Ferdinand Bardamu goes on:

Of course, this all assumes that Logan is even telling the truth. There’s a non-zero chance that she didn’t get raped at all, and that she made the whole thing up to garner attention and sympathy from the weepy, chivalrous masses. It’s certainly a story that the white nationalist types would buy – innocent, virginal Nordic angel gets ravished and defiled by a gang of smelly, swarthy, sleazy sand-niggers. Remember, (White) Women Don’t Lie About Rape!

Well, it’s possible, but there’s a reason the story is plausible and garners attention and sympathy: it happens. A lot. Minus the “gang” element, it is in fact the typical rape.

Appendix B: white Americans—zookeepers of the world

At Gucci Little Piggy, we find an excellent analogy (emphasis mine) but no sympathy at all for Ms. Logan:

. . . I prefer to focus on the natural fallout of a person being in a dangerous situation rather than victim-blaming. Mainly, if I were to engage in victim-blaming I’d have to presume that Lara Logan is a victim. . . . The reason that there aren’t communities of highly-paid journalists who never leave their apartments is the same reason that Lara Logan immersed herself in a dangerous revolution. Since the job is not easy and since Logan is willing to take on the job—her safety becomes a function of multiple factors. In short, sexual assault has always been a danger for any reporter—especially one like Lara Logan—which puts her in the same class as a long-haul truck driver who runs the risk of skidding out on a highway and ending up dead or in ICU. Since Logan’s job is to report on the events of thousands of raucous protestors [sic] in the throes of revolution, physical harm is an occupational hazard; in short, Logan’s private parts lose a certain amount of their privacy. To make another trite analogy, zookeepers occasionally get mauled by their bestial captives.

Appendix C: sleeping Sunday morning update

Variously punctuated blogger hbd* chick thinks part of the problem is that Egyptians are really into cousin-fucking. Tim Wise would fit right in.

i’d like to throw out there one other reason why i think sexual harassment has been increasing in egypt lately. it’s prolly ’cause increasing numbers of women have been moving to urban areas (i.e. away from their homeplaces) for college or work or whatever. they’ve been moving to places where they are not very related to the men, unlike back at home. . . . in an inbred society, the more you are NOT related to your neighbors, the more you are likely to treat them harshly.

It makes more sense when she says it.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: