The ‘dissident feminist’ on the intersection between feminism and debate.
Camile Paglia writes: History moves in cycles. The plague of political correctness and assaults on free speech that erupted in the 1980s and were beaten back in the 1990s have returned with a vengeance. In the United States, the universities as well as the mainstream media are currently patrolled by well-meaning but ruthless thought police, as dogmatic in their views as agents of the Spanish Inquisition. We are plunged once again into an ethical chaos where intolerance masquerades as tolerance and where individual liberty is crushed by the tyranny of the group.
The premier principles of my new book, Free Women, Free Men, are free thought and free speech—open, mobile, and unconstrained by either liberal or conservative ideology. The liberal versus conservative dichotomy, dating from the split between Left and Right following the French Revolution, is hopelessly outmoded for our far more complex era of expansive technology and global politics. A bitter polarization of liberal and conservative has become so extreme and strident in both the Americas and Europe that it sometimes resembles mental illness, severed from the common sense realities of everyday life.
My dissident brand of feminism is grounded in my own childhood experience as a fractious rebel against the suffocating conformism of the 1950s, when Americans, exhausted by two decades of economic instability and war, reverted to a Victorian cult of domesticity that limited young girls’ aspirations and confined them (in my jaundiced view) to a simpering, saccharine femininity. Read the rest of this entry »
“His presidency, if the path is any indication, it is going to be nothing like previous presidencies. The direct communication with the public through Twitter, the lack of political correctness, the idea that he would make new foreign policy off the cuff in a transition period. The transition was the most remarkable I have ever seen. I mean, he became essentially the president and was acting like one. He made the dollar slip just a couple days ago with a single tweet.”
ESQ: Your characters have become touchstones in the culture, whether it’s Reagan invoking “Make my day” or now Trump … I swear he’s even practiced your scowl.
“…when I did Gran Torino, even my associate said, ‘This is a really good script, but it’s politically incorrect.’ And I said, ‘Good. Let me read it tonight.’ The next morning, I came in and I threw it on his desk and I said, ‘We’re starting this immediately.'”
CE: Maybe. But he’s onto something, because secretly everybody’s getting tired of political correctness, kissing up. That’s the kiss-ass generation we’re in right now. We’re really in a pussy generation. Everybody’s walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist. And then when I did Gran Torino, even my associate said, “This is a really good script, but it’s politically incorrect.” And I said, “Good. Let me read it tonight.” The next morning, I came in and I threw it on his desk and I said, “We’re starting this immediately.”
“I haven’t talked to Trump. I haven’t talked to anybody….He’s said a lot of dumb things. So have all of them. Both sides. But everybody—the press and everybody’s going, ‘Oh, well, that’s racist,’ and they’re making a big hoodoo out of it. Just fucking get over it. It’s a sad time in history.”
ESQ: What is the “pussy generation”?
CE: All these people that say, “Oh, you can’t do that, and you can’t do this, and you can’t say that.” I guess it’s just the times.
ESQ: What do you think Trump is onto?
CE: What Trump is onto is he’s just saying what’s on his mind. And sometimes it’s not so good. And sometimes it’s … I mean, I can understand where he’s coming from, but I don’t always agree with it.
ESQ: So you’re not endorsing him? Read the rest of this entry »
Political Correctness has once again dictated the outcome of more violent attacks , and Kat Timpf has something to say about it
‘I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view.’
David Rutz reports: President Obama condemned the rash of liberal political correctness seen recently in American colleges Monday, saying “that’s not the way we learn” and that
college students shouldn’t be “coddled and protected from different points of view.”
“Sometimes there are folks on college campuses who are liberal, and maybe even agree with me on a bunch of issues, who sometimes aren’t listening to the other side, and that’s a problem too.”
— President Obama, speaking at a town hall in Iowa
Speaking at a town hall in Iowa about affordable college education, Obama launched into his remarks after a question about Dr. Ben Carson’s proposal to stop government funding to schools with political biases.
Obama slammed Carson’s idea, but he segued into his criticism of left-wing intolerance for opposing viewpoints that have popped up on campuses around the country.
“I’ve heard some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative or they don’t want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women.”
“Sometimes there are folks on college campuses who are liberal, and maybe even agree
with me on a bunch of issues, who sometimes aren’t listening to the other side, and that’s a problem too,” Obama said…
“And you know, I’ve got to tell you, I don’t agree with that either. I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view.”
“And you know, I’ve got to tell you, I don’t agree with that either. I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view.
“You know, I think you should be able to—anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with them. But you shouldn’t silence them by saying, ‘You can’t come because I’m too sensitive to hear what you have to say.’ That’s not the way we learn either.”
You know, I think you should be able to—anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with them. Read the rest of this entry »
Bill Whittle analyzes how we can defeat ISIS… American soldiers are nice, kind, and happy, so how can they defeat nasty, savage, brutes?
“I used to fight with this audience all the time, because we used to get the audience strictly from liberal sources, then we got the audience like from everywhere and I’ve had a much better time the last couple of months.”
Maher spoke with comedian Jeff Ross on “Real Time” over the weekend about Jerry Seinfeld, who said last week he doesn’t play at colleges because they’re too PC. Maher suggested the reason was political…(read more)
Comedian Jerry Seinfeld is sick of the PC culture epidemic gutting comedy in America.
[VIDEO] Leno: ‘Being Anti-Guacamole is Not Racist, Okay? You Have no Idea What Racism is. That’s Not Racism, You Idiot, You Moron!’Posted: March 20, 2015
Jay Leno: ‘College Kids Now Are So Politically Correct’
Meyers asked Leno how colleges have changed since he played them decades ago. Leno said, “College kids now are so politically correct.”
Modern liberalism depends on the language police, and Jonathan Chait himself is Exhibit A.
Sean Davis writes: In a widely praised piece for New York Magazine, liberal writer Jonathan Chait says the leftist language police are perverting liberalism. Chait is wrong. The politically correct language police don’t pervert modern liberalism; they embody it. And amateur leftist thought cop Jonathan Chait himself is proof.
“Speech codes are a widely used tool taken right out of the fascist toolbox. If they can’t control how you act, then they’ll control how you speak. If they can’t control how you speak, then they’ll control how you think.”
In his piece, Chait catalogued numerous discussions within a large Facebook group called “Binders Full of Women Writers” to show the toxic effect that language and thought crime policing can have on basic political discourse.
“Jonathan Chait’s recent critique of political correctness insists that the phenomenon has undergone a resurgence. It hasn’t; contrary to Chait’s characterization, it never went away. The difference is that it is now being used as a cudgel against white liberals such as Jonathan Chait, who had previously enjoyed a measure of immunity.”
“Chait is hardly in a position to complain about that, given his own heavy reliance on that mode of discourse. Chait isn’t arguing for taking an argument on its own merits; he’s arguing for a liberals’ exemption to the Left’s general hostility toward any unwelcome idea that comes from a speaker who checks any unapproved demographic boxes…”
— Kevin D. Williamson
At times, members of the overwhelmingly liberal group would demand that certain sentiments not be shared. Sometimes, members declared that certain people weren’t even allowed to have opinions on a subject on account of their color, gender, or sexual orientation. Here’s a small selection from Chait’s piece:
On July 10, for instance, one member in Los Angeles started a conversation urging all participants to practice higher levels of racial awareness. “Without calling anyone out specifically, I’m going to note that if you’re discussing a contentious thread, and shooting the breeze … take a look at the faces in the user icons in that discussion,” she wrote. “Binders is pretty diverse, but if you’re not seeing many WOC/non-binary POC in your discussion, it’s quite possible that there are problematic assumptions being stated without being challenged.” (“POC” stands for “people of color.” “WOC” means “women of color.” “Non-binary” describes people who are either transgender or identify as a gender other than traditionally male or female.)
Two members responded lightly, one suggesting that such “call-outs” be addressed in private conversation and another joking that she was a “gluten free Jewish WWC” — or Woman Without Color. Read the rest of this entry »
TRIGGER WARNING: It’s Roy Rogers’ birthday pic.twitter.com/WIB8erJPGs
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) November 10, 2014
The disappearance of University of Virginia sophomore Hannah Graham two weeks ago is the latest in a long series of girls-gone-missing cases that often end tragically. A 32-year-old, 270-pound former football player who fled to Texas has been returned to Virginia and charged with “abduction with intent to defile.” At this date, Hannah’s fate and whereabouts remain unknown.
Wildly overblown claims about an epidemic of sexual assaults on American campuses are obscuring the true danger to young women, too often distracted by cellphones or iPods in public places: the ancient sex crime of abduction and murder. Despite hysterical propaganda about our “rape culture,” the majority of campus incidents being carelessly described as sexual assault are not felonious rape (involving force or drugs) but oafish hookup melodramas, arising from mixed signals and imprudence on both sides.
Colleges should stick to academics and stop their infantilizing supervision of students’ dating lives, an…
View original post 582 more words
Shorter Obama administration: We’re not at war with ISIS, we’re at war with the English language
— David A. Graham (@GrahamDavidA) September 11, 2014
David A. Graham’s timely tweet (
is that an original epigram, David? Update: he confirms it is) reminded me of this item from a few years ago, a reference to an ancient figure, before Reagan, before Clinton and Bush, even way back before Lyndon Johnson.
[Also see – John Kerry: America Isn’t at War with ISIS]
From a column by Roger Kimball…
March 27th, 2011, Roger Kimball writes:
…what Obama’s minions are calling our “kinetic military activity” in Libya, I noted that the folks presiding over Orwell’s Newspeak would have liked the phrase “kinetic military activity.” As a mendacious and evasive euphemism for “war” it is hard to beat. But Orwell is not the only important thinker the Obama administration’s assault on the English language brings to mind. There is also Confucius.
…Asked by a disciple how to rule a state properly, Confucius replies that it begins with rectifying the names:
“If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be conducted successfully. When affairs cannot be conducted successfully, propriety will not flourish. When propriety does not flourish, punishments will not be properly meted out. When punishments are not properly meted out, the people will not know how to conduct themselves.”
That was written about 475 B.C. When will we catch up with its wisdom?
Andrea Tantaros and Mark Styen on Confronting the Islamoplogists’ Fear of Violating Social Norms and Correct MannersPosted: August 31, 2014
Q: Why Did British Police Ignore Pakistani Muslim Gangs Abusing 1,400 Rotherham Children?
A story of rampant child abuse—ignored and abetted by the police—is emerging out of the British town of Rotherham. Until now, its scale and scope would be inconceivable in a civilized country. Its details will make your hair stand on end.
A: Political Correctness
Imagine the following case. A fourteen-year old girl is taken into care by the social services unit of the town where she lives, because her parents are drug-addicted, and she has been neglected and is not turning up in school. She is one of many, for that is the way in Britain today. And local government entities—Councils—can be ordered by the courts to stand in for parents of neglected children. The Council places the girl in a home, where she is kept with others under supervision from the social services department. The home is regularly visited by young men who try to entice the girls into their cars, so as to give them drugs and alcohol, and then coerce them into sex…(read more) Forbes
What happens when public figures fear putting their reputation at stake to speak truthfully about the deadly force required confront these depraved, barbaric practices? Rapes and child slavery and beheadings that are, by now, plainly visible to all?
Fox News Channel host Andrea Tantaros is being publicly vilified for her blunt comments, ripping Obama’s handling of ISIS and other radical Islamic groups on last week’s Outnumbered.
“The only proper response, I think, Sandra, is for the president in about 45 minutes, to approach that podium and admit, not just that he was wrong, but that we’re going in there and we’re gonna flatten them. Last night we should have taken out 10,000 ISIS fighters, warned them, last night, not today, that if you kill that other journalist, we will be back and we will wipe out 10,000 more, and we will continue to decimate you with aggressive air war until we obliterate every single one of you, period, end story,” she said.
Tantaros added “they’ve been doing this for hundreds and hundreds of years, if you study the history of Islam … this isn’t a surprise, you can’t solve it with a dialogue, you can’t solve it with a summit, you solve it with a bullet to the head.”
“All we’ve heard from this president is the case to heap praise on this religion, as if to appease them,” she accused. “His Cairo speech, his remarks from last Memorial Day saying that we have a shared history of tolerance. Instead of making the case against this threat that is never going to stop.”
“AAJA calls for Tantaros and Fox News to apologize for the irresponsible, inflammatory statements,” the organization said. “We also call on Fox News to discourage its journalists from making blanket comments that serve to perpetuate hate and Islamophobia. Muslims and Islam are not interchangeable terms with terrorists or ISIS. We in the media know better and must be vigilant in our choice of words.”
As the left-wing islamopologist backlash continues, Tantaros responds:
I will not apologize for speaking the truth about radical Islamic jihadism. Period.
— Andrea Tantaros (@AndreaTantaros) August 30, 2014
All I can say is, bravo, Tantaros, and recommend NRO‘s comments, No, Pointing Out Muslims Have Been Beheading People for Centuries Isn’t Islamophobic.
It’s not just the kidnapping and beheadings of adult men, captives killed in distant deserts for prime time viewing on social media, it’s already brazenly at home torturing children in quaint communities in the modern west, protected by a collective fear of violating politically correct social norms.
If you dare read anything about the Rotherham nightmare, read Steyn‘s comments:
“The queasy reluctance among the fearless knights of the media to state the truth anywhere north of the 20th paragraph helps explain why this happened, and why it will happen again.”
College Newspaper Can’t Be Called ‘The Bullet’ Anymore Because It’s Too Dangerous
“The editorial board felt that the paper’s name, which alludes to ammunition for an artillery weapon, propagated violence and did not honor our school’s history in a sensitive manner.”
A Virginia university has decided to stop calling its newspaper “The Bullet” over concerns that the name was so insensitive and inappropriate that it could even make people violent.
I can’t verify the authenticity of this, the translation is either a spoof, mischievous liberties were taken, or it really is based on the original text, but it looks like characteristic Mao-era cultural training. One thinks of North Korea, San Francisco, Think Progress, MSNBC, DNC Headquarters, even classrooms in New Jersey as recently as 2009…
The Emerging Liberal Dystopia
In a recent installment of the infamous “New Rules” segment of the HBO show titled after himself, Maher tackled the trendy topic of the release of Donald Sterling’s recorded remarks. Only instead of falling in line with the mainstream liberal media’s inexorable march for political correctness in this as in all cases—instead of focusing on the “racist” dimension of Sterling’s comments, that is — Maher decided to buck the well-worn mantle of his ideology and, instead, focus on the real story. That is: instead of playing into the fabricated narrative predictably constructed by the pervasively liberal media, Maher saw what is really at stake in a case like this — namely free speech, privacy, and our Fourth Amendment rights.
The terrifying reality is that we are on the verge of, and moving ever closer to, a liberal dystopia in which speech is directly policed, and thought thereby indirectly policed; one in which principles of political correctness replace moral standards as the ultimate criteria of normative evaluation; one in which the chilling effects on discourse has become a deep freeze. Maher himself made the perfect historical analogy during the May 9 show, which is somewhat ironic:
“Who wants to live in a world where the only place you can speak your mind is in your head? That’s what East Germany was like. That’s why we fought the Cold War, remember? So we’d never have to live in some awful limbo where you never knew who, even among your friends, was an informer. And now we’re doing it to ourselves.”
As we bid Lessing farewell, the blight she spoke of—“political correctness” and, in particular, its toxic feminist strain—is on the move again
Cathy Young writes: The tributes to Doris Lessing, the novelist and Nobel Prize laureate who died on November 17 at 94, have given scant attention to one aspect of her remarkable career: this daughter of the left, an ex-communist and onetime feminist icon, emerged as a harsh critic of left-wing cultural ideology and of feminism in its current incarnation.
Over 20 years ago, I heard Lessing speak at a conference on intellectuals and social change in Eastern Europe at New Jersey’s Rutgers University. It was 1992, the dust still settling from the collapse of the Soviet empire. Lessing opened her memorable talk with a warning: “While we have seen the apparent death of Communism, ways of thinking that were born under Communism or strengthened by Communism still govern our lives.” She was not talking about the East but the West, where coercive “social justice” had reinvented itself as “antiracism,” feminism, and so forth. “Political correctness” had become, Lessing said, “a kind of mildew blighting the whole world,” particularly academic and intellectual circles—a “self-perpetuating machine for dulling thought.”
Even as I chuckled at Ian’s post about Democratic hysterics over the farm bill, I realized that the leftist response is no laughing matter. I have three thoughts:
First, excepting an exceedingly cynical minority, leftists use this rhetoric because they really, truly believe it. They truly believe we don’t care about kids. They truly believe we conservatives want people — especially minorities — to live in poverty if it means preserving our perceived wealth and privilege. In part they believe this because they tend to live in more concentrated monocultures than conservatives, and are more used to talking about us than talking to us.
Second, as intensely as they believe we are evil, they believe in their own ideological virtue. Thus, they often take a critique of their ideas in the same way that others take personal insults — as direct frontal assaults on their character. This makes civil disagreement difficult and causes dialogue to degenerate quickly to an exercise in public shaming.
Third, conservatives are sick to death of this nonsense. It’s tearing our nation apart — one tweet and Facebook post at a time. At the dawn of the modern era of political correctness, my conservative friends (especially my conservative Christian friends) tended to respond with shock and consternation when facing accusations of racisim, sexism, homophobia, etc. “No, no, I’m really a nice guy!” Now, the response is either derisive or — more likely for the less political among us — sullen, seething silence. This is not how great constitutional democracies are nurtured and maintained.
I don’t mean to say that conservatives are immune from these failings — and I’ve certainly seen an unhealthy amount of the same tactics from some on the right — but there is simply no comparison between conservatives and liberals in the level of tolerance for dissent or in the assumption of the worst of motives for disagreements. Depending on the issue, from the Supreme Court to the academy to a disagreement between “friends” on social media, the unshakeable assumption is that a person who isn’t in favor of our bloated, poverty-perpetuating welfare state or isn’t an enthusiastic participatant in the sexual revolution is merely a cruel, vicious, greedy, self-seeking bigot.
And that brings to mind this golden oldie from Jon Stewart