From the Culture Wars: A Career Woman Answers the Question Does a Hard Working Dad Feel Guilt & Doesn’t Even Know She Did


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

I was reading this article from Good Housekeeping titled I’m 99% Mom and 1% Wife: And It Has to be That Way.  Really?  It has to be this way?  I don’t think it does nor should it be that way.

I put John last, pretty much all the time. And it’s not like he’s a bad guy — far from it. He does the laundry, grocery shopping, cooking, makes the kids’ lunches, even braids my daughter’s hair. He often compliments me, and regularly asks if we can go away, alone, for a weekend, or at least out to lunch.

I tell him I have no time for leisurely lunches, let alone two entire days away. I can’t be bothered to figure out who is going to take care of our kids, pack, unpack, then scramble getting ready for Monday morning.

What kind of marriage is that?  Now I realize that feminists have, over the years, made marriage seem like a bad thing, but why even bother to keep pretending you have a marriage if this is truly how you feel?
It is very hard to keep a marriage going after the kiddos come along.  The more you have, the more time the kids will take up.  But, that doesn’t mean you don’t get to behave like being a spouse is unimportant.
While I think many people think the skill sets for being a parent and being a spouse are pretty much the same, they are also very different.  Your children should be enhancing your marriage, not causing you to ignore it.
She goes on:

I’ve spoken this sentence to John. “Let me be clear: If I have to choose between you or one of the kids, you will lose every time. Do you have a problem with that?”

No why would he?  It isn’t like he is their father and loves just as much as she does.

I put John last, pretty much all the time. And it’s not like he’s a bad guy — far from it. He does the laundry, grocery shopping, cooking, makes the kids’ lunches, even braids my daughter’s hair. He often compliments me, and regularly asks if we can go away, alone, for a weekend, or at least out to lunch.

I tell him I have no time for leisurely lunches, let alone two entire days away. I can’t be bothered to figure out who is going to take care of our kids, pack, unpack, then scramble getting ready for Monday morning.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

But she is the main breadwinner.

For most of the last 10 years, I’ve been the breadwinner. I worked long hours commuting into Manhattan full-time. Now, John has a job, but I still commute, and also work from home trying to keep us ahead of the bills.

My older son is in college, and I will save him from student loans or die trying. My younger son has some special needs, and keeping him on track is a full-time job. My daughter, like any 11-year-old girl, wants her mom to listen, to watch, to help. The clock is ticking on her innocence, and I dare not miss a second of what’s left of it.

I am tired, and I am worried. Worried there won’t be enough. Enough money, enough luck, enough time, enough of me. John’s a great dad, but I play a singular role in each of my kid’s lives. And as they’ve grown, the urgency to get it right screams at me, day and night.

It sounds like that John was a stay at home for a period of time.  So that makes her comments even more shocking.  By that I mean isn’t it feminists that keep harping on this stupid theory that some how men who are out working don’t get what it is like to have the responsibility of home life and the female gets stuck with all those roles?  In this family the roles are reversed.  He is the one doing the day to day, yet she still realizes that a mom and a dad have different roles in the life of a child.  Their expectations of what they want from them are different.
She has taken on the traditional role of the man in her family, yet isn’t happy that she has to worry about the money being enough, the time being enough, the kids getting enough.
No matter what your particular family dynamic is, there is guilt either way.  This woman has answered those questions for feminists without realizing she has done it.  It is strangely and sadly comical.
The main breadwinner who is out working feels guilt.  They too wish they had more time to be a more active and involved parent and spouse.  But there is only so much to go around, so they take shortcuts and prioritize what works best for them.
There are no easy ways to navigate marriage and parenthood.  But ignoring your spouse and putting your marriage on the back-burner you are doing your children no favors.  They aren’t seeing a healthy relationship  By thinking that having a big Christmas with every little thing they ask for under the tree will make up for the shortcomings of not being around, the only person you’re deluding is yourself.
This woman may be a much happier person as well as a both a better parent and spouse if she realizes that providing all the material things isn’t nearly as important as giving of yourself.  Forgo some of the extra Christmas and birthday gifts.  Let your kids take on a little of the responsibility of paying for college, or send them to a community college for two years.  You can spend your money in different ways and not feel this burden to “have it all”.
To John, you obviously love your wife and children very much.  One day they are going to read this article and fully understand what it means; and they will love you all the more.

Originally posted at Just a Conservative Girl. 

Note from the Ch 2.0 staff:  If you want to read more about Feminism, might I suggest the following from Robert Stacy McCain of The Other McCain…


Feminist Admits Aborting Baby Because He Was a Boy: States She Didn’t Want to Bring Another “Monster Into the World”


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

When we say that feminism isn’t based on equality, but on hate, we are ridiculed.  The following shows why we are correct, via Weasel Zippers…

Via Pundit Press

In a stunningly evil and disgusting article, a feminist only willing to identify herself as “Lana” has described her decision to abort her child, based solely on the fact that he was a boy.

Lana begins her article by explaining that “the patriarchy has been well entrenched since the dawn of time,” and continues by writing about an argument she had with a man on an airplane, while she was pregnant, to summarize what she deemed “extreme patriarchy.”

The description of the argument is straight forward: Lana was flying to San Francisco to participate in an Occupy Wall Street rally. When the person sitting next to her found out about it, he swore at her, to which Lana responded by screaming at the top of her lungs “ASSAULT.”

After “contemplating” lying to the flight attendants and telling them that the man struck her, Lana decided to tell the truth. The flight attendants told her that they couldn’t force the man to move in response. And in response to that, Lana decided that she “could no longer depend on men to be an ally of the cause.”

The “cause,” in her mind, is feminism. Soon after, she went to the doctor and was told that she was pregnant with a boy. Her immediate response, she writes, was “my body had betrayed me even worse than the misogynistic suit jockey on the airplane so many months before. I was in shock, I started crying, weeping at the thought of what I was about to curse the world with.”

Over the course of several days, she decided that she could not bring another male into this world. She explains, “I couldn’t bring another monster into the world. We already have enough enemies as it is.”

While I think this is pretty typical for feminists, and it don’t think it need to expound on it,  Feminism was never about equality-it has always been about hate.  If anyone out there doubts that, I fear that there is little I can do for you.

I would really like to point out the section in which she was “contemplating” lying to the flight attendants.  This is typical liberal behavior.  How many fake hate crimes have been exposed?  Remember the false rape claims repeated by Rolling Stone?  Or what of the “Mattress Girl?”  Or what of, “if you like your plan. you can keep it.”  Or, for that matter, that the Earth is hotter every year?   I could write a book chronicling liberal lies.   The point is simple; whether you call is progressivism, liberalism,   communism, fascism, or any of the other titles, their beliefs and policies are all based on lies.  And, when they logical results of those policies come to light, they lie about those too.

Then again, they are following the father of lies, so I guess we shouldn’t be surprised.


Dating Tips: Offend a Feminist Style


Offend a Feminist Week is incredibly versatile.  So versatile , in fact, that it can even help the dateless find love-or something to that effect. Behold…

And even more convincingly…

See, offend a feminist, and get valuable dating advise!  Where else can you get that other than the Conservative Hideout?


Offend a Feminist Week: Vitamins, Appliances and Fast Food Edition


It’s Tuesday, but the feminists must not be given a moments rest-for the rest of the week.  The offending will continue.

You hear that men?  The more vitamins she takes, the more she works!

You wouldn’t want her to cry over kitchen appliances, would you?  Buy them all, and she’ll have no excuses for ever leaving the kitchen.  After all, that is her place!

See, fast food only came about for men who did not have a wives to make them  sammiches!


Offend a Feminist Week: Good Housekeeping Prevents Death from Nuclear War?


Hey all, welcome to Offend a Feminist Week!  I our first salvo of our yearly attack on feminism, here is a classic post, slightly revamped for your reading pleasure…

That’s right folks. in the 50?s, we were told that good housekeeping meant good survival chances in the event of nuclear war.  Take a look at this video I found at Dangerous Minds…

Translation:  In order to save the world from certain doom and destruction, women need to be back in the kitchen. 

Oh, and while you’re in there, why don’t ya fix me a sammich?

Just sayin.

Now think about this carefully.  What has feminism done to our women?  They went from being like this…


Look at her, she appears to be in her element…

To this…

ugly sluts

Well, I guess these womyn are in their element too.  And I doubt the one with the brightly colored hair is holding up a cook book.

But, does this not lead us to certain doom?  It most certainly does.  They are not at home cleaning, and the b0mb could go off at any time!

NOTE:  Here are some great posts from other Offend a Feminist Week participants.

Call It the ‘Post-DTF Stroll,’ Maybe?

Let National Offend a Feminist Week commence you SeXXXXXISTS!

National Offend A Feminist Week 2014 (#NOAFW) Has Begun!





Feminists and the Destruction of the Family: Cultural Marxism at Play


culture war

Feminists have always tried, until recently, to portray their twisted world-view as a means by which for women to achieve equality with men.  Of course, that was a lie.  In reality feminism is a part of an larger overall strategy that we know as Cultural Marxism.  Seeking to create a Marxist revolution by destroying the underpinnings of Western Culture, Cultural Marxists seek, among other things, to destroy the family unit.  As we know all too well, children raised in broken families have every disadvantage thrown their way, and are very susceptible to the type of government plantation/dependency promoted by the regressives.  One way to crush the family is to prevent women from staying home and being mothers.  Feminists recognized that early on, and made it a battle cry. 

Today’s young women are empowered to choose career, family, and all sorts of combinations of both. But the words of Steinem and other liberal feminists revealed what they believed about American women…

Steinem: “[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.”

Simone de Beauvoir: “No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”

Betty Friedan: “[Housewives] are mindless and thing-hungry…not people. [Housework] is peculiarly suited to the capacities of feeble-minded girls. [It] arrests their development at an infantile level, short of personal identity with an inevitably weak core of self…. [Housewives] are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps. [The] conditions which destroyed the human identity of so many prisoners were not the torture and brutality, but conditions similar to those which destroy the identity of the American housewife.”

Steinem has never been a fan of women who didn’t think like her or buy in to her radical feminist political agenda. “Having someone who looks like us but thinks like them (meaning men) is worse than having no one at all.”

So much for tolerance—and the belief that women are individuals who should be free to think and make choices for themselves.(emphasis added)

To adherents of Cultural Marxism, like feminists, tolerance is nothing more than a term to be exploited.  They are the most intolerant of evils, and actively seek to force their will upon others.  Because, after all, you might not chose to go along with them.  In that event, force will be applied.  And, when they can wreck society doing it, and bring forth the Marxist nanny state, they win.


Fat Liberation vs. Rape Culture: Opposite Sides of the Same Jelly Donut


Now that we’re dealing with this “fat liberation” vs. the evil and entitled thin people, I guess we also have to throw a dash of “rape culture” into the mix.  Robert Stacy McCain has more…

This public service announcement should not be necessary, but unfortunately there seems to be some confusion on the subject:

Rape culture is prevalent, insidious, and normalized in our culture. . . Fat women face an extra special facet of rape culture though — the fact that they should be grateful for it. You read that right — grateful for being raped. The logic goes that, of course, no one would want to touch a fat woman. We’re so gross, you know? So if someone was actually willing to have sex with us we should be on our knees with gratitude thanking that person for sharing their special snowflake of a dick with us. Some people even deny that it’s possible for fat women to be raped because, ew, who would want to have sex with a fattie? . . . Let’s be clear, while the reasons for rape are complicated and include a whole lot of things, dehumanization and objectification of women is at least one pretty large factor. And who doesn’t love to dehumanize and objectify fat women? Fat woman are simultaneously desexualized and oversexualized in our culture. Myths of fat women being always ready for sex, promiscuous, and never turning down sex abound. . . . Rape culture is where this desexualization and oversexualization intersect. No one could possibly want to have sex with you which is why you’re such a slut and sleep around and why you would be lucky if you get raped.

She’s arguing with the voices inside her head, projecting her own imaginary fears onto “our culture,” over-interpreting negative feedback, and seeking moral authority by striking a pose of outraged victimhood.

Which is to say, she’s a feminist.

Please get over to Stacy’s place, as there is a ton more.

He’s spot on, the writer is arguing with  the voices in her head- the voices of Cultural Marxism.  To the disaffected, these voices give meaning and purpose to their own self hatred.  By focusing self hatred on others, the disaffected never have to look within.  Healthy living is for the evil thin.  Dieting?  That’s a conspiracy to sell vegetables!  Exercise?  It’s the new opiate of the masses created by Planet Fitness!   Oh, and by the way, they want to rape you, because you are fat!  With reality twisted into the hatred of another, you don’t have to change you, everyone else has to change to suit your lifestyle, whether it works or not. And, because this all based on projected self hatred, it can be contradictory and even nonsensical.  Since when has hate ever relied on facts?


My Take on Belle Knox; AKA Miriam Weeks


Miriam Weeks, a Womyn’s Studies major a Duke, achieved notoriety by being outed as porn actress, Belle Knox. I’ve been following that story at The Other McCain, as Stacy has been adeptly skewering the hypocritical feminazi nonsense that has been spewed in her defense.  I have not written about it until now, as I had nothing to contribute to the story, other than to simply link Stacy, which I will do now.

Also, @Belle_Knox Is a Psycho

Is Everything Feminist ‘Empowerment’ Now? Or Is @Belle_Knox a Sociopath?

On ‘The View,’ @Belle_Knox Says ‘Most People’ Start Watching Porn at Age 12

Is Duke ‘Supportive’ of Teen Porn?

Those, at least, are the most recent.  Again, Stacy has done a fine job with this, and it’s well beyond my ability to  add to it, except to make two brief points:

Is this staged? 

Belle Knox makes money doing porn.  And, if her “stage name” becomes more and more well known, perhaps people will buy her porn?  Don’t get me wrong; this is a story worth telling.  It points to the accelerating decay of our culture.  I speaks to the intellectual bankruptcy of the left, and feminists in particular.  At the same time, did Knox “out” herself, or did her and her “management” exploit the exposure for more profit?

Is this hypocrisy?

In reference to feminists; they’re always hypocritical, so that is not a surprise.  But, I have to ask, how is making “simulated rape-porn” “empowering?”  Does that not contribute to the “OMG RAPE CULTURE” that the feminists are always ranting about?  And how can feminists; many of whom think that the mere existence of the penis means “OMG RAAAAAPE,” support a fellow femiazi loving “blowjob porn?” Isn’t a woman, on her knees, and “servicing” an, “evil man” the ultimate symbol of submission to the ever-evil penis?  I know, it’s an exercise of futility to ask them to be internally consistent.


Insane Feminist Amanda Marcotte: Compares Babies to Cavities, States They Are ‘Time-Sucking Monsters’


If there is anything positive about the slide of our society into complete degeneracy, it is that the leftists are less inclined to hide their agenda, or the thinking behind it.  Here is what deranged feminist, Amanda Marcotte, has to say about it. 

Lest there be any doubt, Amanda Marcotte really hates pro-lifers. In a two-part rant posted March 14 and 17 on Raw Story, the morally challenged feminist writer attacked pro-lifers as “consummate liars,” “anti-choice kooks” with “boring,” “half-baked nonsense” and “shit arguments.”

But Marcotte’s hate doesn’t stop at pro-lifers. It extends to the babies they want to protect.

“Either way, what she [the woman]wants trumps the non-existent desires of a mindless pre-person that is so small it can be removed in about two minutes during an outpatient procedure. Your cavities fight harder to stay in place.” Did she just compare an unborn child to a cavity?

Marcotte then goes on a seriously mature rant about the reasons she does not want a child: “ I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding. No matter how much free day care you throw at women, babies are still time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness.”

On the topic of adoption, Marcotte sums up her feelings simply:  “Adoption? Fuck you, seriously.” That’s a heck of an argument.

Marcotte then argues against forced adoption, “forcing women to donate babies is reprehensible.” Wait, since when did the U.S. have required adoptions?

Abortion is a no-brainer choice for Marcotte: “This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.” She calls a growing life to “a lentil-sized, brainless embryo that has half a chance of dying on its own anyway.”

At second thought, I owe Amanda Marcotte an apology.  She isn’t insane, or deranged.  she knows exactly what she is doing.

She’s actually evil.


Porn Professor Attacks Teens Protesting Abortion


Seems that a certain professor, of porn, of all things, cannot tolerate being exposed to the realities of abortion.  See what happened when a student protest is disrupted by the porn prof!

There is one visual a University of California, Santa Barbara, professor who teaches porn can’t handle: photos of abortion victims.

You would think Mireille Miller-Young, pictured right, who also teaches queer theory and sex work at UCSB, would have a hardened brain and eyes by now, but apparently the reality of abortion overcomes her. From The College Fix, March 12:

A department of feminist studies professor has been accused of going berserk after coming across a campus prolife demonstration that used extremely graphic displays, leading a small mob of students to chant “tear down the sign” before grabbing one of the signs, storming off with it, then allegedly engaging in an altercation with a 16-year-old prolife protestor who had followed the educator to retrieve it.

Much of the scuffle was recorded on a smartphone by the 16-year-old, Thrin Short. The yet-to-be-released video is now in the custody of Santa Barbara law enforcement officials, who are investigating the March 4 incident.

IMG_3169Short, pictured right, was with a group of 13 from Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust when Miller-Young allegedly absconded with one of their 3×5 signs and ran off with it. What happened next, according to the Survivors:

She paraded across the campus with two female students carrying the sign.  Joan [Short, Thrin’s sister] and Thrin followed, Thrin video-taping and Joan on the phone with the police.

The parade weaved through two buildings and entered an elevator in the third.  Thrin attempted to get on the elevator with them, but Young blocked the doorway.  Thrin stuck her foot in the door, but Young pushed it out with her foot.  Tenaciously Thrin put it back.  This happened several times as Thrin pleaded with the students to not get involved.  “The police are on their way,” she told them, “you don’t want to be with Professor Young.”

Suddenly Young reached out and pushed 16 year old Thrin. “Don’t touch me!”  Thrin cried, startled. Young’s long fingernails scratched Thrin’s arm.  Young pushed Thrin twice more and each time Thrin kept the door from closing with her arm.  Finally, Young got out of the elevator, and tried to pull Thrin away from the elevator door.  Thrin held onto the elevator with her other hand, the one holding the camera.  Realizing that students were trying to take the camera out of her hand, Thrin let go of the elevator.

The elevator doors closed.  Professor Young let go of Thrin, leaving several scratches on her arms, and got on another elevator.  Then the police arrived.

The police did not seem overly concerned about the incident until they saw the video and realized how violent the professor had been. Police identified the assailant and found the remains of the sign – it had been destroyed. UC Santa Barbara police are completing their report to be submitted for prosecution.

Here is the video, which was released in an update to the original post…

Violence with a smile, just like liberals all over.   And, like so many other feminists, she appears, shall we say, rather offending to the eye?

And, I have to wonder, isn’t porn a product of the “rape culture?”  And, by being a porn prof, isn’t contributing to that “rape culture?”


Why Hate is the Core of the Feminist Agenda


Robert Stacy McCain is doing, as Donald Douglas Suggests, a “seminar on radical feminism.”   I could not agree more.  Over the last few weeks, Stacy has been dismantling feminist arguments and assertions (in as much as they can be called arguments in a logical sense).  Here are links to two of his latest…

How Can @KirstenPowers10 Ever Abandon Her Idolatry of Equality?

Why Do Lesbians Love ‘Slut Walk’?

They are well worth the read, as is Donald Douglas’s discussion of the topic…

Harvard’s Sandra Korn and the Leftist Crusade for ‘Academic Justice’

And, once again, allow me to go “process over content.”  Feminist theory (and I am gravely insulting theories everywhere, even Ancient Astronaut theory, by making that comparison), as a part of Cultural Marxism, does not really seek to support, elevate, or alleviate any problem or ill.  It is not meant to correct problems, or even improve the life of a single human being (except from Women’s Studies professors).  It isn’t based on facts, logic, or anything any functional human being would see as remotely reasonable.  It is instead based on hate.  Hatred of marriage, hatred of nature, hatred of child-rearing, hatred of anything good or noble, and even hatred of self-all of these are at the core of feminism.  Feminist hate is therefore eagerly swallowed by disaffected people, allowing them to project their self-hatred onto a number of scapegoats.  It isn’t aimed at making things better; it is aimed at making things worse, by destroying all of our cultural institutions.

Sadly for the feminists, they have failed to recognize that if they win; they lose.  Like all useful idiots, their fates are rather unpleasant; once they cease being useful.


“Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice,”



That quote, “Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice.” is attributed to women’s liberation pioneer Ti-Grace Atkinson.  During the late 80’s, when I was at a small university, it was said that the “Women’s Studies” Department was really the “Lesbian Studies” department.  Rumors abounded that the professors in that department used the steady stream of young, impressionable (and probably vulnerable) students as a harem of sorts.  Of course, having a head full of mush myself, I thought little of it, and occupied much of my out of class time with parties and the pursuit of far more attractive heterosexual girls.  Needless to say, I had not heard of Ti-Grace Atkinson, or her thinking.  I didn’t need to.  It was assumed that the “Lesbian Studies” Department was really a “Lesbian Recruitment Center,” so we all just moved on to what many students of the era did, pursuing booze and girls (Which, I guess, is what the lesbian studies department did as well).

I assume I’ll catch hell due to that paragraph, but perhaps not as much as Robert Stacy McCain, who has been 0n a tear as of late. Stacy has written two posts at The Other McCain, and one at the American Spectator, that is sure to ruffle the feathers of more than a few feminists.  Here are the links to those posts:

‘If It Was a Rape, It Was Good Rape’

Professor Dee Graham: The Psychologist Who Drove Feminists Crazy

V Is for Victimhood

Let me say that we will not be quoting very much from these articles. Instead, I strongly encourage you to follow the links and read the articles in their entirety. This is yet another situation in which using simple excerpts does Stacy an injustice.  However, for my purposes, I will be taking a look at another example of sex with minors being glorified.

This is why feminists have made Valentine’s Day an annual occasion for the performance of Eve Ensler’s play “The Vagina Monologues” on university campuses. One of the most controversial scenes in Ensler’s original play involved a 13-year-old girl experiencing “a kind of heaven” after being sexually molested by an older lesbian: “If it was rape, it was a good rape.” That line was subsequently excised from the script and the girl’s age changed to 16, but the fundamental point of the scene remains: Lesbian sex is never wrong, and introducing young girls to lesbianism is a good thing.

So, even though the author has backpedaled from her original assertion that, “if it was rape, it was a good rape,” it is clear that the victimization of children is, at the very least, not seen as a serious issue. At the worst, the victimization of children is preferred.  But, for all of the connections between these kinds of radicals, and the victimization of children, we hear very little from the mainstream media in the mainline gay-rights groups to denounce that same victimization.

I also like how Stacy ended his American Spectator article. He closed with the following…

There is no such thing as a happy Valentine’s Day for feminists. They hate men, they hate love, and they hate happiness, too.

And, that is absolutely correct. Feminism, in all of its forms, is a construction of Cultural Marxism. Stable sex roles, the nuclear family, and even love itself, must be attacked and destroyed in order to usher in an era of “social justice” and “equality.” For this to be accomplished, the most insane ideas are required. And, the proponents of feminism can never be happy. They must continue to be driven by hate. Because, if the soldiers of feminism are happy, they will have no ammunition with which to attack human nature.  Hate is needed to kill millions of babies. Hate is needed I in order to dehumanize men; for portraying them as nothing more than exploiters and rapists who are worthy of death.  And, in the end, hate is needed to view students, and even children, as sexual objects to be initiated into the ultimate sorority of lesbianism.  Because, as we all know, “Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice,”


Wage Gap Myth Exposed


Ferminazis will tell you that there is this terrible “wage gap,” by which the evil and mythical patriarchy punishes women for having internal sex organs.  However, like most liberal constructs, the wage gap itself is nothing more than a cleverly packaged pack of lies.  This video, via Chicks on the Right, exposes the lies in all of three minutes…

So, the next time that a feminazi rails about the evil patriarchy and it’s wage gap, you can calmly correct them, and watch as they recoil in horror and rage.


Great Moments in Civil Discourse: Republican Candidate, Marilinda Garcia, Targeted by Hate



In the Liberal Zone, as I like to put it, things are not always what they seem.  See, in that “unreality bubble,” speaking ill of a woman is awful, hateful, evil, and just plain bad.  However, if the woman is a Conservative, it suddenly becomes OK, fine, and good to engage in whatever “hate speech” you prefer at the moment.  It’s fine, go ahead, the feminists won’t say anything, just ask Marilinda Garcia, she got the, “liberal treatment” from her possible democrat opponent, Peter Sullivan

Shortly after Garcia announced her candidacy on Nov. 25, Sullivan posted on Twitter, referencing conservative state Reps. Al Baldasaro of Londonderry and William O’Brien of Mont Vernon, the former New Hampshire House speaker:

“She’s Al Baldassaro (sic) in stiletto heels, a lightweight and O’Brien clone.”

“Bill O’Brien + Kim Kardashian = Marilinda Garcia”

“She is a right-wing, homophobic, anti-worker shill for the Koch Brothers.”

He later wrote, “After careful consideration, I want to apologize to Kim Kardashian for comparing her to a right-wing extremist like Marilinda Garcia.”

The posts began a partisan war of words for a brief time on Twitter, and Garcia said in a statement, “To me, the most unfortunate byproducts of such personal attacks, negativity and vitriol are that they discourage good people from getting involved in politics, cause citizens to be disgusted at the political process, and tarnish the reputations of all elected officials just by virtue of association.”

And the real fly in the ointment is this…

So, here is an intelligent and attractive female candidate, who is being abused by her male opponent.  And the response from the Tammies?  Well, they’re likely too busy, being on their knees in front of the democrat party hierarchy, to notice.


Feminists in an Uproar Over Advise to Avoid Being Inebriated?



Feminism has an orthodoxy, and if you had to sum it up in one sentence…

Anything wrong in the world is the fault of people in possession of a penis. 

What feminism probably misses is the simple observation that since the “sexual revolution,” women, instead of being protected from evil penises, have ended up having encounters with many more of them.  And, sadly, many of those encounters are less than voluntary.  After all, if you “liberate” sex from it’s prior status (as a means to propagate the species in the context of monogamous marriage), you have to loosen moral standards.  And, if you do that, you loosen the moral codes about forcing someone to do something they don’t want to do.   But, they’ll ignore that because it doesn’t fit their narrative.

Frankly, a lot of things don’t their narrative, and since their ideology is rather narrow, when facts or events don’t fit, they try to pound it into place.  However, they look really stupid in the process.  We saw that when they opposed gender selection abortion, because their “rights as women” to kill babies mean that they have to specifically target female babies for extermination.  Because to “protect the rights” of women, you have to target and kill them…get it?

Now, for the latest on this narrow and frankly asinine world view, it seems that advising women to not go out and get drunk to the point of incapacitation is apparently bad, very, very, bad. 

Back in August, when I covered “SlutWalk DC,” I observed:

Date rape is an apparently common campus crime that usually involves two drunk young people, one of whom has an erect penis, and the other of whom is unable to avert what the erect penis typically does.

Of course, feminists would denounce such a statement of fact as a misogynistic expression of “rape culture,” but facts are facts: Alcohol is a significant contributing factor in the incidence of date rape. Leslie Eastman at College Insurrection remarks, “Never let it be said that outraged campus feminists confuse themselves with common sense,” as she highlights a Washington Post column about a recent uproar:

The message of Emily Yoffe’s Slate article about binge drinking and sexual assault on college campuses was as important as it was obvious: The best step that young women can take to protect themselves is to stop drinking to excess.
Young women everywhere — not to mention their mothers — ought to be thanking Yoffe. Instead, she’s being pilloried.
A “rape denialism manifesto” full of “plain old victim-blaming,” Lori Adelman wrote on the feminist blog Erin Gloria Ryan, on, accused Yoffe of “admonishing women for not doing enough to stop their own rapes.”

Larry Jackson, at Political Realities also has some observations…

There is a real and present danger that is inherent anytime someone drinks alcohol, especially when it is done to such excess, as we see when binge drinking is involved. Emily Yoffe has been severely criticized as someone who is waging a war on women, all because she is trying to point out how many sexual assaults could be prevented. She isn’t saying the victims of sexual assault are to blame for their plight, but does try to explain how they can stop some of these sexual assaults from taking place.

Doesn’t it make more sense to be able to prevent rape and sexual assault, rather than have to catch the perpetrators after the fact? Telling them the facts and warning them of the danger does not constitute a war on women.All it will take is for the young women to realize the danger they are placing themselves in, when they fall into the crowd and start drinking themselves into oblivion.

Both Stacy and Larry point out things that should be blatantly obvious to anyone.  Drinking excessively doesn’t eliminate the ability to consent, but it does drastically reduce one’s ability to enforce that decision.  If you are unconscious, or unable to walk, let alone resist an overly amorous person with a penis, the more chances that the penis in question doing something that you do not want.  Does that excuse the person with a penis?  Of course not.  No means no.  The entire point is to avoid the situation entirely but maintaining control of one’s self.

In reality, this is all about risk-management.  If I tell a woman that a great way to avoid being attacked and raped in a parking lot late at night is to park as close to the store as possible, and under a light, is that some rape-apologist bit?  Of course not!  If I tell her to have her keys out when she leaves the store, so she doesn’t have to take time searching  for them when she arrives at her vehicle, is that facilitating the mythical “rape culture?”  Absolutely not!  If I tell her that not getting p*ss drunk is going to decrease her chances of having an non-consensual encounter with a penis, is that a an evil statement?  It is, if you’re a feminist.  But, then again, their ideology is as divorced from reality as any branch of regressiveism, so we ought not be surprised.


The Saga of Sarah Alcid, Your Intellectual Better & Committed Useful Idiot


It certainly is true what is what is said about R.S. McCain-he attracts a higher grade of troll.  And over the last couple days, he attracted one Sarah Alcid, a queer feminist Marxist who took offense offense at R.S. McCain’s coverage of the DC slut walk. 

It isn’t every day that a “Queer Feminist” with a diploma from Bryn Mawr (undergraduate tuition $42,870 a year) decides she needs my attention, but I’m so grateful for Miss Alcid’s encouragement to expand on what I said this morning:

“Professor Aptheker is exactly right: If you want to be a
true feminist, you must be a Communist lesbian.”

The inherent radicalism of the women’s movement — its theoretical foundation in Marxism, its implacable antagonism to traditional marriage and other institutions of bourgeois society — is not generally understood outside such campus cauldrons as Bryn Mawr.

Feminism is a totalitarian ideology. It cannot be co-opted or moderated. You cannot negotiate or compromise with feminism, because the ambitions of feminism are without limit. They can accept nothing short of the complete overthrow of “hitherto existing society” (Marx and Engels) resulting in their own dictatorial authority. Halfway “reform” (to which the bourgeoisie may agree in its attempt to stave off this upheaval) can ever placate the revolutionary, because the radical does not seek reform, but rather destruction. And the problem that most conservatives have, in trying to cope with radical movements, is that the typical conservative cannot imagine how fanatical — how rigidly unreasonable, how full of passionate destructive hatefulness — the radical really is.

So, it is quite true that feminism has it’s basis in Marxism, and I’ll get to that in a moment. But, I want to make a point regarding the difference between Conservatives and regressives.  Conservatives tolerate the existence of liberals. We disagree with them, and vehemently resist their efforts to destroy our society, but they are allowed to spout their vitriol.  It’s their right.    But, their rights end when they try to indoctrinate children into vile ideologies and ban any expression or mere utterance that shows dissent from their opinion.  You see, they cannot tolerate dissent, because truth hits their points like a death ray.  We don’t have to “convert” everyone, but regressives like Sarah Alcid have to crush and dominate all resistance.   Simply put, they don’t play well with others.

Sara Alcid wants to smash your family, smash your faith, smash your community. This is what she means in denouncing “heteronormativity and gender roles” and “systems of domination.”

Sara Alcid hates you, she hates every institution you cherish and respect, and she considers your love for these institutions to be hate.

Sara Alcid believes this because she has been taught this. The fact that you cannot afford $42,870 a year to learn to think like Sara Alcid thinks is further proof of your inferiority, and your inferiority in turn justifies Sara Alcid‘s fanatical determination to destroy everything you love — in the name of “liberation,” of course.

In these terms, Sarah Alcid is performing her assigned function.  To destroy the US, Cultural Marxists mustt destroy the underpinnings of our society.  If you recall, Cultural Marxism is the response to Marxism’s failure to destroy Europe during WWI.  The Marxists all over the world expected the peoples of Europe to rise and shake off the shackles if capitalism, and join them in a massive Red Terror bloodbath.  When that failed, they determined that the culture, God, marriage, family, self sufficiency, nationalism, and the like prevented their long awaited win.  So, they translated Marxism into cultural terms in order to attack the underpinnings of Western Culture.  Basically, they make good evil, and evil good.  We’re obviously seeing that more and more these days, and Sarah Alcid doesn’t want to be left out of the fray.

But, she wasn’t done with R.S. McCain. 

Sara Alcid is better than you, because she’s a Queer Feminist who attended a prestigious college, and you’re not. She is so much better than you that you can’t even comprehend her vast superiority, her erudition, her knowledge of advanced philosophies that only the most sophisticated minds can ever hope to understand. You are just an ignorant, inarticulate, hate-filled bigot — a typical American — and you are so insignificant that Sara Alcid can’t be bothered to notice.

Every day, Sarah Alcid and her Queer Feminist friends “work to critique and dismantle” those ”systems of domination” — religion, marriage, family, free enterprise — that the typical American loves. They claim to do this in the name of “equality,” but what they’re actually doing is demonstrating their own superiority, their authority to take away from you everything that you hold dear and thus to arrogate to themselves complete power over you.

Sarah Alcid deserves this authority. Sarah Alcid is entitled to this power.

You deserve nothing and you have no rights, and if you dare to speak back to Sarah Alcid, this just proves you’re a hater.

Narcissism, AKA unwarranted self importance is a common trait of leftists such as Sarah Alcid.   They are just sooo much smarter than the rabble in flyover country.  And these folks honestly see themselves as enlightened leaders of a bold new tomorrow of equality, social justice, and unicorns that fart rainbows.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

As you all know, I’m a big fan of the late Yuri Bezmonev, reputed to be the highest ranking KGB official to defect.  In the early 80’s, Mr. Bezmonev made several videos describing his work in India, which, mirrors Sarah Alcid’s stated intent here in the US.  His job was to work with Indian leftists in order to subvert their government, and set the stage for Communist takeover.   According to Mr. Bezmenov, Sarah Alcid is a useful idiot.  She is trained and “brainwashed,” if you will, to attack the framework of our society.  Her function is to…

Sara Alcid wants to smash your family, smash your faith, smash your community. This is what she means in denouncing “heteronormativity and gender roles” and “systems of domination.”

And if  queer feminist Marxists like Sarah Alcid can achieve their goals, society will  fall apart.  The ties that bind us all will be gone.  Children will be sociopaths, people will starve, economic activity will be conducted at the point of a gun,  anarchy would reign.  This is scenario desired by Marxists, as they would be the ones to come in and establish order.  They will be welcomed as saviors that will set all the old grudges right.  They will promise peace, food, and equality.  At least, they’ll call it that, though real justice and equality will be nowhere to be seen.  And ask any Ukrainian that survived the 1930’s about food.

However, once this point is reached, the useful idiots won’t be quite as useful anymore (unless the new Marxist overlords want to use them for the red terror).  No matter when, at some point, people like Sarah Alcid stop being useful.  Mr. Bezmonev informed us what happens then…

What people that Sarah Alcid don’t grasp is that they are pawns in a larger game.  They are little poison pills, or ticking time bombs set by an evil and discredited political ideology.  Her sole purpose is to destabilize our society.  She relishes this task, but hasn’t the foggiest notion as to why she is really doing it.  And, even worse for Sarah Alcid, winning means that while she might not be first to the wall, she’ll get there eventually.  She’s a tool, and a means to an end.  The saddest thing is that she’ll never realize it.