Silencing Women… Conservative Women

In the mainstream media, women on the left are almost always portrayed as paragons of compassion and virtue. But when it comes to conservative women, it’s a different story. Why is this? Heather Higgins, chairman of Independent Women’s Forum and CEO of Independent Women’s Voice, explains the reasons behind the double standard.

Naomi Wolf Realizes Her Book Is #Fakenews (UPDATE)

DAILY CALLER has the story:

A former advisor to Bill Clinton and Al Gore may have set a record for fastest discrediting of a book when a BBC interviewer showed her the central thesis was based on a misreading of legal terminology.

Naomi Wolf’s book, “Outrages: Sex, Censorship, and the Criminalization of Love,” which is not even out for another month, makes the claim that the British government continued to execute people for sodomy long after it was previously thought the practice ended. Wolf looked at records from the Old Bailey and saw the term “death recorded,” a term she realizes in this interview actually refers to cases in which a sentence of death is passed but suspended.

Wolf claims to have found “several dozen executions.” Her research, she claims, “corrects a misapprehension that is in every website that the last man was executed for sodomy in Britain in 1835.”

“I don’t think you’re right about this,” the BBC’s Matthew Sweet replied to her in the interview.

The presenter pointed to the case of Thomas Silver in 1859. Wolf claims in her book that Silver was executed, but he was not. “Death recorded” meant that a judge used judicial discretion to suspend a death sentence, a practice in use since the 1820s.

“I don’t think any of the executions you’ve identified here actually happened,” Sweet added.

“That’s a really important thing to investigate,” Wolf replied

Sweet also added that the offense in question hardly makes a good example of same-sex love being criminalized, as it involved a 14 year-old’s “indecent assault” on a six year-old boy……..

MORE…

Naomi Wolf’S New Book A Complete Misunderstanding | An Author’s Greatest Nightmare Unfolded On Live Radio.

Wow. That’s simply mortifying. It is, I suppose, a peril of being the sort of author that Wolf represents: a talented writer who lights on a topic of interest and then cranks out a book, rather than an expert in a subject that writes within their field.

Her publisher is standing by her in the most bizarre way possible:

The book hits U.S. stands on June 18, according to the Amazon listing. A Houghton Mifflin Harcourt spokesperson offered this statement: “While HMH employs professional editors, copyeditors, and proofreaders for each book project, we rely ultimately on authors for the integrity of their research and fact-checking. Despite this unfortunate error we believe the overall thesis of the book Outrages still holds. We are discussing corrections with the author.”

The entire premise of the book is wrong. Now, it remains true that homosexuals have been treated horribly over a span of centuries, including by the medical community and the legal system. But it’s not true that we were until recently executing people for it in the West….

UPDATE…

PJ-MEDIA has a great story on two fabricating authors, Wolf and Wolff in sheep’s clothing:

Let’s turn our attention for a moment to two authors, Wolf and Wolff. Feminist icon Naomi Wolf is reeling from a nonfiction fiasco that has caused her horrible and very public embarrassment. Irresponsible fictionalizer Michael Wolff is apparently incapable of shame.

What do they have in common? Not much, beyond the fact that they’re both bi-coastal elites who share a loathing for President Donald Trump.

In Wolf’s case, a perfect encapsulation of the PR nightmare befalling her latest work is presented by the Post Millennial’s Libby Emmons in “Naomi Wolf Was Destroyed by Her Research Bias.” While an author is ultimately responsible for fact-checking content, in this case, the “research bias” runs deep. The book started out as a thesis paper, which means it had to have been green-lit by both academia and New York publishing to ever see the light of day. These gatekeepers, steeped in leftist bias, failed to catch the monumental error that serves as the premise of Wolf’s book: the assertion that homosexuals were executed in Victorian England.

As for Wolff, how Trump could have allowed such an individual to plant himself on a couch in the West Wing for an extended period of time in quest of a truth-challenged tell-all is something that heartland Trumpservatives will never understand. Steve Bannon had a lot to do with it, and we all know how that turned out.

Unlike the chattering classes who would see traditionalist, sovereign America overrun and enervated in the name of globalism, Trump’s ardent supporters are not interested in gossipy, inconsequential trash-talk among members of the so-called cultural and managerial elite. Who gives a damn what Omarosa Newman or Rupert Murdoch think of the president or vice versa?  That Mr. Trump has kept promises and keeps trying to keep promises on issues they care about is what matters.

Trump’s base had no use or respect for Wolff’s first anti-Trump effort, Fire and Fury, an admittedly fictionalized, preventable screed that earned for the unverifiable muckraker a place in the earnings stratosphere with authors like Stephen King and J.K. Rowling.

Wolff’s latest, the sure-to-be wildly imagined Siege: Trump Under Fire, has already been called out for bold-faced prevarication by, of all entities, Robert Mueller’s team. Wolff knew he would be denied access to the White House for his “sequel,” (like he should have been the first time) but that didn’t stop him (why should it?) from penning another alleged tome full of cowardly hearsay from a collection of anonymous sources.

Flip the script: an almost-famous conservative author gathers salacious dirt from unnamed sources who claim to have firsthand knowledge that former President Barack Obama had numerous homosexual liaisons while in college, and then puts it in a book.

When asked to back up his reporting, the conservative author says, “I’m not a journalist, and such journalistic strictures do not apply to me. Besides, it seems like it could be true, right?”

That’s Michael Wolff. That’s what he does to earn his multi-million-dollar living…..

(READ IT ALL)

Women for Kavanaugh (The Red Wave)

Hugh Hewitt this morning asked only for first time women callers to call in — he had over 30 women chime in. A truck driver (widow) with 6-children. A couple psychologists as well as a few prosecutors, lawyers, house wives etc. They were all for Kavanaugh, and many said they would be horrified if this happened to their sons. Others had only girls and are in full support of Kavanaugh. Some said they were never interested in politics like they are after a good man had his life destroyed.

PJ-MEDIA has an excellent post and video:

Fallout from the Brett Kavanaugh hearings and the now-debunked allegations of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford has expanded the divide not only between Republicans and Democrats, but among women — the very group Democrats hoped to motivate for this year’s midterms.

As I’ve covered the hearings and the circus surrounding them, I’ve heard a constant refrain — conservative women are furious about the false allegations leveled against Kavanaugh. They resent the feminist call to believe the woman and thereby assume the man’s guilt simply because he is a member of the male collective.

Feminists have made a mistake assuming that they speak for all women. They don’t.

Many of us are mothers. We have sons whom we love and would defend to our last drop of blood.

We have husbands, fathers, brothers, and male friends we hold in high esteem. Kavanaugh referenced these relationships during his testimony when he pleaded with the committee to consider how they would respond if this happened to a man they loved.

Women across the country applauded, identifying more with Kavanaugh than Ford’s tearless, detached performance laced with inconsistencies, contradictions, and uncorroborated evidence….


  • “A majority of voters believe that Kavanaugh’s confirmation process was politicized and mishandled, with 69% calling it a ‘national disgrace,’” a poll from the respected Harvard CAPS – Harris group just found.

Voters are surprisingly unified when it comes to one thing: Chastising Feinstein for her role in the debacle.

  • “75% of voters believe that Senator Diana Feinstein (sic) should have immediately turned over the letter from Christine Ford to the Senate Judiciary committee in July, when she received it,” the Harvard CAPS – Harris poll found.

(CONSERVATIVE TRIBUNE)


Even the Leftist rag SLATE has to admit November is looking like a “red wave”:

The accusations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh are widely perceived to be a boon to Democrats heading into the midterm elections in November. “The women of this country identify with Dr. Ford and will not forget what is happening here,” Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, told NBC News over the weekend. “They are not angry, they are furious, and I expect the largest women’s turnout in a midterm—ever.”

In fact, however, the Kavanaugh spectacle seems to have evaporated the Democrats’ enthusiasm edge, according to a poll conducted Monday by NPR, PBS NewsHour, and Marist. In July Democrats were likelier, by 10 percentage points, to say the November elections were “very important.” That gap has now narrowed to a statistical tie. “The result of the hearings, at least in the short run, is the Republican base was awakened,” Marist head Lee Miringoff told NPR.

The change is particularly striking when comparing women in the two parties. Of all the cohorts measured by the poll (including Independent men and women), Democratic women are the only group to display less enthusiasm for the midterms this week than they did in July. Meanwhile, Republican women seem invigorated. In July, 81 percent of Democratic women said the November elections were very important, compared to 71 percent of Republican women. Now, Republican women are 4 percentage points likelier to view the midterms that way (83 percent to 79 percent). That’s a 14-point swing in female voters’ interest in the midterms—after the hearings, and in Republicans’ favor.

The titanic anger of progressive women has been a dominant theme in the media since President Trump’s surprise victory over Hillary Clinton two years ago. Two major books about female rage have been published this fall, including Good and Mad by writer and reporter Rebecca Traister. “This political moment has provoked a period in which more and more women have been in no mood to dress their fury up as anything other than raw and burning rage,” Traister wrote in the New York Times on Saturday. “Many women are yelling, shouting, using Sharpies to etch sharply worded slogans onto protest signs, making furious phone calls to representatives.”

But women’s rage is not a chorus performed in unison. Atlantic reporter Emma Green talked with about a dozen female conservative leaders across the country for a story this week that puts flesh on the Marist poll’s finding: that the Kavanaugh hearings have electrified conservative women too. “I’ve got women in my church who were not politically active at all who were incensed with this,” the chairwoman of the West Virginia Republican Party told Green. The Indiana state director for the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List, Jodi Smith, told Green that “people in Indiana are angry.” In her view, the hearings are “one of the best things that could happen to us” as she looks forward to a hotly contested Senate election in the state in November.

The Marist poll is just one poll. And conservative women plugged into state and local politics were already very likely to vote (and vote Republican) before the Senate hearings. Their new outrage over Kavanaugh’s supposed mistreatment won’t make their votes count more. But their reactions may indicate that less-engaged Republican women are feeling similarly outraged, or even just ambivalent, about the Kavanaugh accusations.

The Kavanaugh hearings have riveted the country in a way that few news stories have the power to do. Almost 20 percent of American households watched portions of the testimony last week; that figure does not include people who streamed the hearings online or listened on the radio. In my own anecdotal observation, my evangelical-heavy Facebook feed has been taken over by posts about accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s credibility, often written by women, including those who rarely post about politics. “There is total manipulation of this process—it’s disgusting,” one woman wrote on an evangelical friend’s post that proposed it was impossible to know who was lying. “I believe she was assaulted [but] I simply refuse to believe it was him.” Others argue that Ford’s evidence is too thin, that Kavanaugh’s good name has been permanently smeared, that his family is suffering unjustly.

Here are the children of children, being brainwashed by the university to be the violent Democrats we are becoming familiar with:

This topic of violence made it to outnumbered on FOX where the Democrat strategist was, well, OUTNUMBERED (DAILY CALLER h-t)

Just a few of my own posts on this:

The DAILY WIRE concludes similar to Slate:

In the space of three weeks, Democratic fortunes have turned in a shocking way. Just three weeks ago, on September 13, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) came forward with an allegation of sexual abuse against Brett Kavanaugh; just three days later, Christine Blasey Ford herself came forward in an interview with The Washington Post. At that time, Kavanaugh’s nomination fell into severe jeopardy. Democrats held an eight-point lead on the generic Congressional ballot according to the RealClearPolitics poll average. According to the latest Economist, Marist, and IBD polls, those numbers are now below six points. IBD has the race inside the margin of error; Rasmussen does as well. The enthusiasm gap for Democrats has essentially disappeared.

So, what happened?

Democrats woke the sleeping giant.

In 2016, Republicans showed up to vote because they were afraid of Hillary Clinton. But that concern pales next to the concern Republicans now have about the possibility of Democratic governance. Republicans have been treated to a front-row seat in a display of Democratic willingness to do anything to damage conservatives. Anything.

Republicans have known about lack of Democratic decency since at least 2012, when Mitt Romney was characterized as a potential slaver by Joe Biden and an emotionless, cruel sexist by many in the media. It’s one of the reasons so many Republicans voted for Donald Trump, a blunt instrument unwilling to back down in the face of threats, to face off against Hillary Clinton.

But Kavanaugh was one step further. Kavanaugh wasn’t up for election — he was a career judge, on one of the most prestigious circuits in America. He was a political moderate, with the support of many of his liberal colleagues. He was establishment. What’s more, he was a devout Catholic and a father of two.

And Democrats decided to ruin his life. Feinstein decided to hold back Ford’s allegations until the last minute, then drop them. Democrats decided to play up every weak, uncorroborated allegation, no matter how disgusting; they decided to promote the insane speculation of professional publicity whore Michael Avenatti. The media decided to endorse the idea that Kavanaugh, a respected federal public servant, was actually a secret gambler, alcoholic, ice-thrower, and gang rapist, throwing out their basic standards of journalism in the process.

And Republicans watched. So did independents.

What they saw scared the bejeezus out of them: a militant Left willing to ruin a man’s life based on unverifiable and uncorroborated allegations, for purely partisan purposes. And those Americans began to think: would the Democrats do that to me?

(H. Wayne House hat-tip)

Women ARE More Emotion… And?

In an almost “reality is better than fiction” moment, feminists in the West are outraged (emotional) that the idea of women being more emotional is even considered with a grain of salt. Dennis Prager uses some recent articles/stories to show the outrage from the Left to the ideas of difference and their attempt to make totalitarianism (total thought) the norm. I liken it to people saying “Islam is a violent religion,” and Muslims being soo offended that they murder people to prove it isn’t. I thank GOD my wife is more emotional that I with my kids… I would HATE for “two me’s” to raise them.

Feminist Reductionism and Leftist Fantasies (cuckoo-cuckoo)

“When a Man [Woman] stops believing in God he [she] doesn’t then believe in nothing, he [she] believes anything.” — G. K. Chesterton

Dennis Prager discusses a couple articles about “feminist science” and Leftists having sex with nature. You read that right. Here are the two articles in order of Dennis reading them:

Again, the left ruins quite a bit, here are two more examples to add to the quiver:

French Actresses Reject #MeToo As “War on Men”

Dennis Prager discusses an article (see USA TODAY) that discusses some well known French actresses rejecting the #MeToo movement as going too far in it’s war against men. Discussed as well is feminism’s deleterious affect on femininity — with a clip from Curb Your Enthusiasm that Dennis enjoyed.

See other related audios:

Christina Hoff Sommers Has A Killer Serve

During an interview with NPR’s Lulu Garcia-Navarro on June 25th, 2017, tennis great John McEnroe said that tennis great Serena Williams would rank about “700 in the world” if she played against men. The outcry on social media and in the press was swift, harsh, and omnipresent. But was it deserved? Christina Hoff Sommers, AEI Resident Scholar and Factual Feminist, serves up her analysis. (McEnroe’s comments)

What do you get when you cross sports with hyper-genderism? You get the usual outrage machine train wreck of course. Like when tennis great John McEnroe said that if Serena Williams played in men’s professional tennis she’d rank around 700th. The media erupted as if to say, “You cannot be serious!” Yes, he can—as even Williams herself agreed. (POWERLINE)

Feminist Science – Right Angle

BTW, as a man, I think of “Barbarella” when I hear “feminist science.” Why do I say that? To note my natural side as a man [Romans 7:14-24] AS WELL AS TO cause deep despair in any feminist who happens along this blog-post.

There were a lot of feminist scientists in “Blame it on Rio” as well — cue smiley wink.

Feminists now claim the biggest problem with science today is that there are too many white straight males. Bill Whittle, Stephen Green, and Scott Ott tackle this outrageous claim.

Hands and Lips Are As Alluring As Breasts, So Say Feminists

Yesterday’s show and his column today via Dennis Prager, deals with CNN reporter, Jill Filipovic, writing about Australian Sen. Larissa Waters. Miss. Waters does not cover her breast while the baby eats… a polite manner/habit when breastfeeding in public. The part I was especially interested in was the portion quoting evolutionary psychologist Carol Jahme, a science columnist for the left-wing pro-feminist publication the Guardian….

….Because in virtually every society, heterosexual men have found the female breast a particularly sexually alluring part of a woman’s body.

Evolutionary psychologist Carol Jahme, a science columnist for the left-wing pro-feminist publication the Guardian, summarized a whole host of academic studies. She wrote: “The full, plump bosom seen in the human ape is an anomaly. No other primate has a permanent breast. … The sex appeal of rounded female buttocks and plump breasts is both universal and unique to the human primate.”

So, then, the sole purpose of women’s breasts is not for nursing babies. It is also to attract and arouse men.

Yet, whoever argues that women’s breasts are there to arouse men, not just to provide a baby with milk, is dismissed by feminists as a sexist heterosexist patriarchal pig, a product of a sexist culture that renders women and their baby-feeding mammary glands sexual objects.

But it turns out that science, not just common sense, rejects the feminist argument.

So, how does a CNN columnist, along with myriad other feminists, not know this? Why did my grandmother, who never went to high school, know this, while a vast number of graduates of our universities do not?

The answer is that today’s universities — especially women’s studies and gender studies departments — generally make people stupid.

The only remaining question is: Did anyone at CNN find this column absurd? I suspect not….

Keep in mind, I do not believe in naturalistic evolution, but this is an argument you would adopt to show the detractor that even their side argues against them.

Myth #1: American Women Live Under A Patriarchy

A series of 5-myths via Daniel Flynn’s excellent book — Machiavelli said, “One who deceives will always find those who allow themselves to be deceived.”


MYTH #1: AMERICAN WOMEN LIVE UNDER A PATRIARCHY

ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE wrote of the United States, “I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position.” More than 170 years later, his observations remain applicable. Opportunities open to all women in America are unknown to most women outside Western civilization.

A more jaundiced view of the status of women emanates from domestic feminists. Angry Andrea Dworkin labels Western women “the ultimate house-niggers, ass-licking, bowing, scraping, shuffling fools.” Women’s “minds are aborted in their development by sexist education,” the feminist academic writes. “[O]ur bodies are violated by oppressive grooming imperatives,” the disheveled Dworkin complains, and “the police function against us in cases of rape and assault.” Her rant continues, “the media, schools, and churches conspire to deny us dignity and freedom… the nuclear family and ritualized sexual behavior imprison us in roles… which are degrading to us.”

One would be hard-pressed to find many feminists willing to defend Tocqueville’s perspective. It would not be very diffi­cult to find large numbers of feminists, both inside and outside the academy, who agree with the substance of Dworkin’s tirade. This speaks volumes about contemporary feminists. Feminist theory posits that an ambiguous force known as “patriarchy” keeps women down. With key components (e.g., religion, fam­ily, and capitalism) of the patriarchy warmly encouraged by American culture, feminists vent special ire toward the United States. Ironically, the country that feminists denounce in the harshest of terms stands as the greatest ally in equality of op­portunity for women.

It is telling that the feminists most vociferously decrying America as the dreaded “patriarchy” are notoriously prone to overstatement and issuing baseless claims. In her book Who Stole Feminism?, Christina Hoff Sommers documents such dis­honesty among women’s issues activists. For example; several years ago the presidents of the National Organization for Women and the National Women’s Studies Association declared domestic violence the leading cause of birth defects. Media outlets such as Time, the Chicago Tribune, and the Ari­zona Republic repeated the claim, citing a nonexistent March of Dimes report as evidence. Like the March of Dimes study, the idea that domestic violence causes a large proportion of birth defects is a feminist-generated hoax. Another widely believed fraud posits that a national anorexia epidemic kills tens of thou­sands of young women annually. If these figures on anorexia put forward by the likes of Gloria Steinem and Naomi Wolf were true, one might quite logically conclude that our culture inflicts tremendous harm on young women. But the figures promiscuously bandied about have little relation to the truth. In reality, the approximate number of deaths per year from anorexia in the United States is a more modest but still tragic 100. Accuracy, one concludes, is not a strong suit of feminists.

Some feminists are actually quite honest about their dishon­esty. Feminist scholar Kelly Oliver writes, “in order to be revolu­tionary, feminist theory cannot claim to describe what exists, or, `natural facts.’ Rather, feminist theories should be political tools, strategies for overcoming oppression in specific concrete situa­tions. The goal, then, of feminist theory, should be to develop strategic theories—not true theories, not false theories, but strategic theories.” Other feminists avouch that all truth is so­cially constructed. Feminists deride the conventional tools used to arrive at truth, such as logic, reasoning, and science. Thinking About Women, a leading women’s studies textbook, imparts, “de­spite the strong claims of neutrality and objectivity by scientists, the fact is that science is closely tied to the centers of power in this society and interwoven with capitalist and patriarchal insti­tutions.” When we come to grips with the fact that for feminists “strategic” interests trump ridiculed concepts such as science and truth, we are better equipped to understand the rationale for feminism’s wild claims, particularly its closely guarded tenet that the patriarchy governs our affairs in the West.

If women in the United States live under “patriarchy,” what term could accurately describe the situation faced by women in other parts of the world?

Are the problems that preoccupy American feminists—the lack of taxpayer-funded abortions, low self-esteem for school­girls, an unequal number of sports teams for women—in any way comparable to something like clitorectomy, a culturally ingrained practice that has mutilated the genitals of more than 100 million living African women? Is the patriarchy that forces women to abort their unborn children in China the same “patri­archy” that “oppresses” women in America? What is there to compare between the status of women in the West and the sta­tus of women in the Arab world? Is it honest to use the term “patriarchy” to describe both the Western form of marriage, where women are free to choose their husbands, and arranged marriages in India, which sometimes lead to the bride’s death because her family provided an “insufficient” dowry?

“Patriarchy,” a term that adequately describes societies in many parts of the world, loses its currency when applied to the West. The effect of mislabeling America a “patriarchy” is as likely to endear people to the patriarchy as it is to repel them from America. The feminists abuse language by freely hurling about terms without regard for their meanings.

Think of any major problem affecting our society. Chances are, that problem disproportionately affects males. Males are both the victims of most crimes and their perpetrators. The population behind bars is an, overwhelmingly male population. Almost 19 out of every 20 prisoners are men. Homelessness is predominantly a male problem. Men constitute 70% of the adult homeless population. Men abuse alcohol and other drugs in far greater numbers than women. The suicide rate for men is more than four times greater than the rate for women. More males lack health insurance than females.

Girls get better grades, are more likely to be enrolled in ad­vanced placement courses, and are involved to a greater extent in all major extracurricular activities save sports. Boys, on the other hand, are suspended from school more, are three times more likely to be enrolled in special education, and constitute the vast majority of high school dropouts. Knowing this, should we be taken aback when we learn that the majority of students who have enrolled in college for each of the past 24 years have been women?

Women in the United States tend to live nearly seven years longer than their male counterparts. Cancer, heart disease, and the remaining 15 leading causes of death all victimize men in greater numbers than women. In the United States, AIDS is an overwhelmingly male disease. Men make up 54% of the workforce yet fall victim to 92% of all deaths in the workplace.

Of course, there are many areas where women generally find themselves on less than equal ground with men. To name just two: The average woman earns less money than the aver­age man, and women occupy fewer political offices than men. Just as no institutional force compels men to commit crimes or abuse drugs, no governmental or societal force keeps women from seeking greater wealth or political power. Unlike in other nations, economic and political opportunities are completely open to women here.

Women in the West lead better lives than women in the Third World. More important, according to numerous statisti­cal indicators, American women are healthier, better educated, and less susceptible to various cultural pathologies than are American men.

If American men conspire to oppress women, as theories of “patriarchy” assert, they are not doing a particularly effective job of carrying out their plot.