Tuesday, October 27, 2020

'We have to erase men': Lesbian author who urges women to 'eradicate' men from their lives racks up 5 star reviews on Amazon - but some argue it's 'a form of apartheid'

Just another version of Leftist hate

A lesbian activist has urged women to 'eliminate' men from their minds and lives in a controversial new book that claims to provide the ultimate solution to female emancipation.

Paris city Councillor Alice Coffin, has revealed in her debut book, Lesbian Genius, that she doesn't listen to music, read books, or watch films made by men and her partner Yuri also only consumes things that have been produced by women.

Reflecting on feminism and lesbianism in the years since French feminist Simone de Beauvoir penned The Second Sex, she claimed that the only way for women to be truly emancipated is to eradicate men from their lives completely.

'It's not enough to help one another, we have to erase them. Erase them from our minds, from our pictures, from our representation. I don't read books by men anymore, I don't watch their movies, I don't listen to their music', she writes.

Alice admits she imagined herself as a boy when she was younger, but now believes being a lesbian is a 'greater' achievement.

The author who says she's aware that generalising may annoy people, claims men are a 'permanent war on women' and her book is a response to the favour men continue to receive.

Speaking about the male role models and those currently in leadership, Alice writes: 'There's only men like Macron at the head of our political, economic and cultural institutions and in the media.

'Some worse than others. Let them go. They sow misfortune, we want joy. Being a lesbian is a party, they won't spoil it.'

Hinting at the reason why she doesn't watch films made by men, Alice argues the media objectifies women.

'Following into a well-oiled mechanism created by the Catholic state, the movie industry turned women into objects to massacre, while still putting them on the highest of pedestal.

'Be beautiful and shut up, be beautiful and I rape you, be beautiful, you're going to die, this is the movie industry,' she says.

Alice argues men erect monuments to celebrate their heroes, meanwhile women are abused for centuries and their history is lost without a trace.

'I never say that men have everything to win with feminism. It's false. They have everything to lose. Their privilege, their monopoly, their power,' she adds.

Arguing women are blasted for speaking out, she says: 'When we, feminists, put together lists, produce data, are outraged, they have the nerve to ask: "But you don't think, you just hate men".

Despite the book receiving a flood of five stars reviews on Amazon as readers gush that the author makes points they haven't heard before, fellow French feminists have blasted Alice's call to action.

Marlène Schiappa who is France's former minister for gender equality, accused the author of advocating for 'a form of apartheid,' reports The Economist.

She was asked to share her views about the book promoting a 'form of totalitarianism' in a discussion with radio host Sonia Mabrouk.

Meanwhile, author Agnès Poirier argues Alice's new French feminism would be dubbed 'ridiculous' by Simone de Beauvoir.

Simone who published The Second Sex in 1949, was bisexual and flouted convention to give French women a voice.

Blue-Check Ignorance and Intolerance Threaten Freedom and Our Way of Life

Last week the Twitter blue-check mob tried to cancel one of the nicest and most decent people on the planet: actor Chris Pratt.

His crime? Pratt exercised his freedoms of speech and association by declining an invitation to publicly support Joe Biden. Twitter’s little hate engines went to work on him, until the Avengers actors assembled and clapped back at them. Robert Downey Jr., Mark Ruffalo, the whole gang who defeated Thanos (an environmentalist extremist, by the way) on the big screen stood up for their friend Star-Lord, and good for them. It’s all too easy for actors to just go along with whatever nonsense the blue-check chuckleheads come up with. Actors tend not to be the most morally courageous lot. If they were, Harvey Weinstein would never have happened.

All in all, it was a good ending to yet another moment of mass stupid in 2020, but the moment should never have had to happen. Silence is speech (not violence). When you’re arrested, the cops even tell you that “you have the right to remain silent” as part of your Miranda rights. In that case, silence is a defense against self-incrimination. Silence can also be a defense against groupthink, and it can be an assertion of your basic human right to be left alone.

Pratt’s decision to keep his mouth shut is not only one that many more of the famous should exercise, it literally lines up with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

What if the Avengers actors hadn’t defended Pratt? Would we have seen cancel culture destroy a good and decent man not for saying something offensive, but for saying nothing at all? Probably.


Recent blue-check stupidity doesn’t stop at the Avengers’ defense of the Bill of Rights. During the final presidential debate, President Trump brought up the issue of “coyotes” smuggling people across the border. Twitter idiots erupted with guffaws. Because they’re stupid.

Someone went and gathered blue-check reaction to the president’s factual and accurate coyotes remark. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic.

Blue-checkers exhibit their ignorance about a key border problem.
A couple of those blue-checkers are actually famous. Peri Gilpin, originally from Waco, Texas, played Roz on Frasier. Lexa Doig has starred in a few B-grade and below TV series and movies.

As both of them and all Americans ought to know, coyotes are human smugglers and traffickers. They charge poor people exorbitant sums of money to get them into the United States against our laws by whatever means their evil minds may devise. Coyotes do not care about the welfare of their customers at all. They care about cash and breaking laws. They tend to move the human cargo in the backs of trucks and in conditions that subject them to the real threat of injury and death. No food. No water.

Coyotes are very bad people. They are also fixtures on the border and have been for ages. Trump was right to bring them up during the debate. That he was mocked for it betrayed the arrogance and, again, stupidity that is rampant across the blue-check mob and across too much of our culture. Blue-checkers are not better than the rest of us. They tend to know a whole lot less than your average American. But they were probably handed trophies for doing nothing when they were kids, they’ve been treated like demigods for landing a TV role at some point, and the “I’m the center of the whole universe!” mentality stuck like flypaper.

The left’s combination of self-righteousness and arrogant ignorance pollutes our public discourse, threatens our fundamental rights, and may yet be the death of our freedoms and our republic.

Biden is Wrong: U.S. Didn’t Have a Good Relationship With Hitler — But the New York Times Did

Did the United States really have a good relationship with Adolf Hitler before he started World War II? Joe Biden made this bizarre claim during Thursday’s debate with President Trump. Trump said of North Korea’s Kim Jong Un: “North Korea, we’re not in a war. We have a good relationship. People don’t understand. Having a good relationship with leaders of other countries is a good thing.”

Biden shot back: “We had a good relationship with Hitler before he, in fact, invaded Europe, the rest of Europe. Come on.”

Come on, Joe! The U.S. didn’t have a good relationship with Hitler before he “invaded Europe. The German dictator was, however, beloved in certain quarters, including the editorial offices of the New York Times.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt didn’t attack Hitler directly before the war began, but relations between the U.S. and Nazi Germany were by no means good. In September 1938, Roosevelt sent a telegram to Hitler lecturing him about the importance of keeping the peace and stating: “The conscience and the impelling desire of the people of my country demand that the voice of their government be raised again and yet again to avert and to avoid war.” Implying that Hitler was a warmonger was hardly a hallmark of cordial relations between the two countries.

Failing to get a satisfactory response from Hitler, on October 11, 1938, Roosevelt announced that he was increasing national defense spending by $300 million (over $5 billion in today’s dollars). No one thought that money was going to build up our defenses against Britain and France.

Some in America, however, loved the Führer.

The historian Rafael Medoff recently noted that on July 9, 1933, just over five months after he became Chancellor of Germany and years after his virulent anti-Semitism and propensity for violence had become notorious worldwide, the New York Times published a fawning puff piece on Hitler that rivals even today’s media adulation of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Nancy Pelosi in its one-sidedness, myopia, and disdain for essential facts.

Pulitzer Prize-winning “journalist” Anne O’Hare McCormick traveled to Berlin to become the first reporter from an American news outlet to interview the new chancellor, and she was an intriguing choice for the Times editors to make to conduct this interview, as in the presence of this man whose name has become justly synonymous with evil, she was decidedly starry-eyed: “At first sight,” McCormick gushed, “the dictator of Germany seems a rather shy and simple man, younger than one expects, more robust, taller. His sun-browned face is full and is the mobile face of an orator.”

As if that weren’t enough, she continues with a description of the Führer as outlandish and adulatory as likening the supremely zaftig Stacy Abrams to a supermodel: “His eyes are almost the color of the blue larkspur in a vase behind him, curiously childlike and candid. He appears untired and unworried. His voice is as quiet as his black tie and his double-breasted black suit.”

McCormick labored to portray Hitler as more modest than his public persona might suggest: “In the country he has plastered with banners and insignia he wears only a small gold eagle in his buttonhole. No flag or swastika is in sight.” He is also, she signaled to her readers, reasonable and genuine: “He begins to speak slowly and solemnly but when he smiles — and he smiled frequently in the course of the interview — and especially when he loses himself and forgets his listener in a flood of speech, it is easy to see how he sways multitudes. Then he talks like a man possessed, indubitably sincere.” What’s more, “Herr Hitler has the sensitive hand of the artist.”

The intrepid New York Times reporter doesn’t seem to have asked Hitler if he had a significant other, but no one would have been surprised after reading all this if the two of them had become an item.

However, McCormick’s interview was not all about Hitler’s sun-browned face and blue larkspur eyes. In the 29th paragraph of a 41-paragraph article, she recounts that she asked him: “How about the Jews? At this stage how do you measure the gains and losses of your anti-Semetic [sic] policies?” Hitler answered, she said, with “extraordinary fluency,” and she records his answer – a tissue of victim-blaming and excuse-making – at considerable length.

Then, McCormick recounts, “seeing the second part of the question was not going to be answered, your correspondent referred to the position of women.” Ah, yes: when the interviewee doesn’t want to answer the tough question, go on to something easier. The Times and its allies today always keep this in mind when interviewing Democrats. This surrender mollified Hitler as well: “Herr Hitler’s tension relaxed. He smiled his disarming smile.”

Little did Anne O’Hare McCormick realize, as Hitler’s blue larkspur eyes twinkled in her direction and his disarming smile made her heart flutter, that all these years later, the New York Times would still be publishing puff pieces about authoritarian thugs. And old Joe Biden, as he contemplates the approaching end of the presidential race from his Delaware basement, can rest secure in the certainty that no matter what outrageously false or crazy thing he says, that same New York Times will cover for him, too.

Handling diversity-talk

These days, when we hear academic folks uttering new holy words —“diversity,” “intersectionality,” “systemic racism”— many conservatives deny in knee-jerk fashion that such a goal is important or such a thing exists. Christians should be different. Instead of denying problems, we should acknowledge them, then expand understanding by viewing them Biblically.

Instead of scoffing at diversity-talk we should say, “Your diversity is too thin: Let’s have hyper-diversity.” Paul famously wrote, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Yes: We should welcome into our churches or colleges different nationalities, different legal statuses, and of course both male and female.

Today, instead of limiting “diversity” to the big three of race, sex, and sexual orientation, let’s say, “I’ll see your three and raise you three: Let’s add religion, ideology, and abortion orientation,” since the current Supreme Court battle shows abortion is our most divisive current issue.

After all, is it harder now for a lesbian or an openly pro-life woman to get a tenure track position at a major liberal arts college? Who is more likely to get a promotion at most Fortune 500 companies, someone who sports a Black Lives Matter sticker or someone who keeps an open Bible on his desk?

If we’re asked why a particular dispute like abortion should be singled out, let’s respond, “Fine. Let’s add issues such as socialism versus free enterprise, or evolution versus creation, and do all we can to let students hear a diversity of views.”

Christians who bristle about “intersectionality”— the idea that people can face discrimination for a multiplicity of reasons — should instead say, “Of course. Because of original sin, life is hard, for multiple reasons. Your intersectionality is too small.”

All have sinned — see Romans 3:23 — and sinful individuals create sinful systems. Mega-intersectionality includes structural problems in housing and banking that liberals have pointed out — “redlining” was a long-term sin — and also a welfare system that discourages marriage, a lack of school choice that traps poor kids in awful schools, and an abundance of cohabiting relationships that often lead to children growing up without dads.

And while we’re examining IN-famous problems, let’s be sure to emphasize street-level reality rather than suite-level theorizing. If we’re into castigating “white privilege,” let’s acknowledge that one of the most privileged people of 2020 is Robin DiAngelo. She’s white and reportedly charges $10,000-and-up to give a speech attacking whites and — according to black linguist John McWhorter — condescending to blacks.

McWhorter applies critical thinking to “critical race theory” and DiAngelo’s best-selling book,White ­Fragility: He wrote inThe Atlantic and said on NPR that it “openly infantilized Black people” and “simply dehumanized us” by teaching that “Black people’s feelings must be stepped around to an exquisitely sensitive degree [since] Black people are unusually weak.”

His critique is just. DiAngelo and others teach that fragile white folks who feel defensive when charged with racism must not say things like “I marched in the ’60s” or “You don’t know me” or “You are generalizing.” Such comments will purportedly make fragile black folks furious.

The Bible emphasizes not fragility but strengthening. Proverbs 27 IN-famously tells us, “Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another.” Ecclesiastes 10:10 adds, “If the iron is blunt, and one does not sharpen the edge, he must use more strength, but wisdom helps one to succeed.”

I’ll end with a theological twist from famous pastor Tim Keller: “Doubt doubt.” When a materialist professor discounts Christian testimonies by saying people believe only because they’re part of a particular social group, we should neither nod nor get angry. Instead, let’s ask, “Why do you disbelieve? Why shouldn’t we discount your argument?”


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)


No comments: