Book Review: Who Stole Feminism?

who_stole_feminism_2.0

IronCrossIronCrossIronCrosshalf_ironcrossVery good!

Author: Christina Hoff Sommers

Publisher: Simon & Schuster

CH Sommers’ classic, anti-feminist tome is to gender relations what Jared Taylor’s Paved with Good Intentions was to race relations; pointing out what many non-indoctrinated people are thinking, but won’t say aloud for fear of ostracism.  In addition to the fact that gender is a considerably less controversial topic than race, Sommers has a pass to write this kind of book because she’s a woman and calls herself a feminist.  But she’s made the distinction that she is an “equity feminist”, rather than a “gender feminist”, and it is the gender feminists that are the problem.

Let’s be clear; Sommers may call herself a feminist, as one of my good lady friends does, but both of them consider themselves feminists strictly in the 1920, suffragette sense; meaning that they agree with the notion that women can vote, own property and compete in a world that was essentially invented by men.  I don’t call this a feminist, and I don’t see why they would want to either, especially since the hard line feminists that Sommers wonderfully takes down don’t distinguish themselves as “gender feminists”,  but just feminists.  That and one other reason, which I’ll get to later, are why I lop off half an iron cross in my final grading.  The whole, “that’s not a real feminist, this is” argument is an example of the “no true Scotsman fallacy.”

One other thing I want to mention before getting to the nitty gritty is how there is another parallel between Who Stole Feminism? and Jared Taylor’s Paved with Good Intentions.  In the rape chapter, the one where Sommers talks about how rape hysteria, that 1 in 4 women will be raped on a college campus myth, bogus “you were raped if you had one drop of alcohol and then had sex” surveys have caused government agencies to allocate rape prevention funds to college campuses, rather than to the inner cities, where women are far more likely to be raped.  Of course, when Sommers says it’s more likely to happen in the inner city, she neglects to mention who the majority of these rapists are.  Hey, you wouldn’t either if you didn’t want to lose a book deal.

In Who Stole Feminism?, Sommers breaks down chapter by chapter how the radical women’s (womyn’s?) movement, in typical Marxist fashion, sought to subvert academic and government institutions for the sole purpose of putting envious narcissists into power.  The shocking thing about their endeavor is how easy it was to accomplish, how all of these organizations, such as the American Advancement of University Women (AAUW), had to do was release a few sensational reports about how women are starving themselves to death to be thin or how women are overwhelmingly victims of domestic abuse, especially on Superbowl Sunday, or how women’s self esteem drops when they enter high school or how 1 in 4 – actually the count dropped to 1 in 5, and then again to 1 in 7 – women are likely to raped at universities, and well meaning government officials will vote to allocate funds to “battle” these “societal ills.”

The fact that people still believe that there is a gender pay gap disparity shows how well these apparatCHICKS (heh, heh) managed to push their agenda.  For the record, to my leftist friends, the reason women make $0.77 for every man’s dollar is because incomes are tallied for men and women in EVERY profession, ranging from janitor to rocket scientist and then are added up and averaged for both genders.  That means that a 74 year old grandmother, who has nothing to do with her time and decides to get a fast food job, is compared with a male doctor.  Women tend to work less hours, take less stressful and less dangerous jobs and go into less lucrative majors like sociology or English literature.  That’s it.

Unfortunately Sommers neglects to mention how biology might drive some of these choices that women make and even implies that a bit of adjustment might need to be made in the way tenure is done at universities to accommodate women who have children, rather than let the free market do its thang.  This is the other reason I chopped half an iron cross in the final grade of the book, but that’s such small part of the book, that it doesn’t undermine the rest of it.

Sommers goes on to describe how university classrooms have become less about education, and more about indoctrination.  One student complained about how she went to an English writing class, but rather than learning how to write, was bombarded with feminist pedagogy.  She further explains how many feminist activists are trying to eliminate objective truth and knowledge, claiming that objectivity is a “male creation”, and want to substitute it for a subjective, “all inclusive”, gynocentric viewpoint.

The most ridiculous examples of this, which would be laugh out loud funny if it wasn’t actually taken seriously, is Peggy McIntosh’s five phase approach to teaching method.  Phase one, the good one, the one that she hates, the “hierarchical” one, is the “malecentric” one, the one where 2+2 is always going to be 4.  Phase five is the one where 2+2 is whatever a woman wants it to be.  I’m not kidding!

What would a curriculum that offers an inclusive vision of human experience and that attends as carefully to difference and genuine pluralism as to sameness and generalization actually look like?

Pretty damn stupid is how it would look like, and we’re finding out just how stupid every single day.

Sommers name drops some of the most important names in feminism; Naomi Wolf, Betty Friedan, Susan Faludi and a bunch of others who I’m too lazy to research, along with siting the important – and I mean important for the changes they caused, not because they did any particular good – studies, which fundamentally changed much of the educational structure.  Keep in mind this book was first published in 1994, the year that the awesome movie PCU came out, back when people were making fun of this stuff.  Now it’s all but accepted by students, faculty and much of the general populace.

In the introduction, Sommers says that her son persuaded her against making corny jokes, and this is a good thing.  The entire book takes such a straight-forward, dry and academic tone, that it makes the material that much funnier; or at least as funny as it can be before you realize that people take this crap seriously.  In other words, the fact that Sommers maintains a poker face while describing how the “vertical approach” to teaching – and I’m not kidding – 1 + 3 +5 to a young girl who had trouble adding would require her to “think vertically, thereby undermining her self-esteem and causing her to become discouraged.  She [McIntosh] urged the Brookline teachers to find ways to ‘put… [students] off the right-wrong axis, the win-lose axis.'”  Wow.

To answer Sommers question, nobody stole “feminism.”  If you don’t want a completely outdated movement, one which accomplished every single goal it was intended to, to be ruined by annoying harpies who want to fundamentally change how America functions in order to increase their narcissistic supply, maybe it’s best to dissociate with “feminism”, and start going by a different term.  How about “equalitarian” or just not a retard.

 

 

Book Review: Republican Party Animal

Republican-Party-Animal_FRONT-COVER_300ppi_RGB

IronCrossIronCrossIronCrossIronCrossExcellent!

Author: David Cole

Publisher: Feral House

I’m starting to have my doubts about Ben Shapiro, the yarmulke wearing editor and writer for Breitbart, after he used the whole David Duke scenario as a way to discredit Donald Trump.  It’s so hypocritical that the same guy who claims “facts don’t care about your feelings” goes all “feely” the second Donald Trump didn’t publicly declare that he’s going to personally fly over to David Duke’s voting district and strong arm him with a couple of goons to make sure he won’t vote for Trump.  Why does it matter if Trump publicly denounces David Duke or not?  And I mean especially for Ben Shapiro considering Trump’s daughter is married to a Jew and Trump has never not supported Israel, so what the fuck, Ben?

But, I get it; the big boogie man of racism is the one taboo that leaves people with that icky feeling, which is why, if you decide, as a Jew to make your hobby Holocaust revisionism, you better make damn sure that the only people who know about it will never spill the beans or you’ll be all washed up in this town, ya hear?

I actually had no idea who David Cole was outside of just being one of the witty writers for Taki’s Magazine and the creator of wonderful, satirical videos such as this one below, which mocks Obama’s “nonviolent intervention” video.

But, as I soon discovered, David Cole has lead a much more interesting life, or rather, several lives.

For those who don’t know, Cole was the “infamous” Holocaust revisionist, who made the claim that Auschwitz wasn’t an extermination camp, but just a labor camp and that, possibly, instead of six million Jews being killed, it was four million.  He appeared on a number of talk shows, including Montel Williams, Phil Donahue and Morton Downey Jr., where he made such claims, and he did a number of speaking engagements.  Unsurprisingly, at one speaking event that was held at UCLA, the crowd threw food and drinks at him.

Eventually realizing that not much good would come out of attempting to present another side to possibly the most sacredly event in history – in the West that is; Cole actually toured Japan doing his lecture and had to give the mainstream Holocaust story first before giving his revisionist version since not many Japanese textbooks discussed the Holocaust – he “went underground” at a time when the internet wasn’t as prevalent and sold both “mainstream” and revisionist Holocaust videos.

Eventually his mainstream videos caught on and he came out of hiding, reinventing his identity as the much more Jewish sounding David Stein.  Soon enough, due to his charisma, he became a big shot organizer for Republican interest groups such as Friends of Abe and the Republican Party Animals; in other words, he put on glorified keggers with bands and celebrities.

For several years, he lived the high life and then, one fateful evening, his life collapsed at the hands of his bitter ex-girlfriend when she ratted him out for no other reason than to be a vindictive bitch.  Thanks to a wonderful invention called youtube, all of Cole/Stein’s old clips from the talk shows were on the internet for the world to see, and the cat was out of the bag.  Within minutes Cole/Stein’s entire life changed as the conservative media world purged him, and any record of his involvement was Stalinized.  Meanwhile, while the story was supposed to remain a private affair, the media eventually picked up on it as well, and Cole/Stein was publicly crucified.

And that takes us to the present day; apparently, like me, Cole likes to put down a few drinks and write un-PC screeds on the problems of the world.  Unlike me he gets paid to do it.

Republican Party Animal is a fantastic read.  Part of that has to do with the fact that Cole is a strong writer, inserting clever jokes, witty asides, juicy gossip and his own slanderous view of various people in the conservo-sphere.  Spoiler: he REALLY doesn’t like Ben Shapiro or Pam Geller, claiming the former ripped him off and the latter is more about sensationalism than truth.  She also apparently called him an “asshat”, an insult that I was too old to use when I found out it existed.

But more importantly this book discusses some bizarre and disturbing inconsistencies about the way we treat certain taboo topics.  For instance, it’s completely acceptable to debate whether American slavery was the cause of the Civil War or whether what happened to the American Indians can truly be considered genocide, but, in fourteen European countries and Canada, if you question the Holocaust in any way, you could wind up with a prison sentence; in the U.S., where free speech is still a thing, you will receive scorn, derision and accusations of being a bigot or a Nazi.  And, while questioning/revising/denying the Holocaust is illegal in Canada, you’re at least allowed to say anything you want in your defense when you’re in front of the judge.  In Europe, you’re either allowed to recant your views or plead insanity; they will not allow any other plea.

And, while we’re on the topic of inconsistencies, talking about a genocide that happened in the past can be considered illegal, yet the Canadian government had no problem giving Léon Mugesera, the government official accused of launching the genocide of the Tutsis, full amnesty and allowing him to teach there.

During Cole’s revisionist years, he came in contact with Holocaust deniers such as  Ernst Zündel, whose 1988 trial was possibly the biggest influence on his becoming a revisionist, along with Mark Webber of the Institute of Historical review and David Irving.  In addition to that he was physically attacked by Irv Rubin from the Jewish Defense League and even had a $20,000 bounty put on his head, which eventually lead to his “recanting” his views and going underground.

The entire book is fascinating, and is essentially two different books.  The parts about his time with “the Beast” and the pretty outside/ugly inside model who betrayed him are fascinating to read if only as a warning to men to be careful who you get into a fully committed relationship with, and the insider stories about all of the people he mingled with in the conservative world are also interesting.  Apparently Andrew Breitbart was a real egomaniac, Bill Whittle was nothing but a gentleman and Clint Eastwood never walked over to anybody; everybody walked over to him.

Please note: Republican Party Animal is NOT a Holocaust denial book, and David Cole/Stein is not a Holocaust denier.  He makes it clear that there is a big difference between a denier and a revisionist, and that he is the latter.  On top of that, he’s a staunch supporter of Israel.

If nothing else, this book tells a unique story and has some interesting insight.