The Daily Dot reports (among many other outlets) that Cain quit Twitter after getting fed up with all the invective:
This cover, drawn by Joelle Jones, provoked a barrage of unpleasant messages to Chelsea Cain on Twitter. In a series of tweets that have since been deleted with the deactivation of her account, Cain wrote, “I’m in my office dealing w/ misogynist bullies on Twitter” instead of spending time with her 11-year-old daughter, adding, “I’m just done here. I’m amazed at the cruelty comics brings out in people.”
The Twitter campaign #StandWithChelseaCain got underway, with folks like above Nick BOOson participating. Here’s more:
I loved Twitter. I made friends. I maintained friendships. I was delighted when I got to exchange texts with my favorite podcaster or a TV actor or writer I love. And I had a huge network of other comic book industry professionals who offered me daily support and invaluable advice. I mentored teenagers and exchanged tweets with readers and tried to be funny sometimes.
But know that I did not leave Twitter because of rape threats or because someone had posted my address, or any of the truly vile tactics you hear about. I left Twitter because of the ordinary daily abuse that I decided I didn’t want to live with anymore.
Emphasis mine. So what we ended up with was a manufactured social justice warrior controversy over a (female) writer vamoosing Twitter because she had had it with its general negativity.
I don’t fault Cain whatsoever for what she did. Twitter, and social media in general, can be a pretty discouraging place if you don’t have a tough exterior. She had little to do with the hyperbolic tweets which appeared faster than a Quicksilver dump following the announcement her resignation from the platform. But for SJWs, the fact that Cain imbued Mockingbird with feminism, and the fact that she is a woman, well, they just KNEW she had to have been subjected Christian Szell-like torture!
And need I mention that that of which Cain got weary is what many comics creators themselves subject their fans to day in and day out? How many words on that subject have Doug, Avi, and myself written over the years?
I asked Ed Brubaker about just this in a reply to his Cain-supporting tweet:
One of the constant drumbeats of modern American feminism is that “rape culture” exists and that it is perpetuated by “violent masculinity.” Newspapers like the Guardian, for example, will even write about “gangs of men” who rape women on the streets of London (even thought they never bother to explore if those “gangs of men” share a common denominator with the “gangs of men” who rape women in Germany). What is rarely, if ever, seen in these debates is condemnation of female celebrities whose body of work screams to girls everywhere, “You too can objectify yourself for the sexual gratification of men!”
Fergie’s new ‘M.I.L.F. $’ music video is a perfect example of a clarion call for objectification that masquerades as “female empowerment.”
Fergie has finally dropped her much-anticipated “M.I.L.F. $” video.
Released Friday, the star-studded visual features celebrity “MILFs” Kim Kardashian, Chrissy Teigen, and Ciara as they act as neighbors in “Milfville” while the “milfman” drives around delivering milk. They hang out at a diner with stripper poles, a spa, and a classroom. They also pour milk on themselves and take selfies. “Got MILF?” they ask. …
“Changing the acronym to Moms I’d Like To Follow is about empowering women who do it all,” says Fergie in a statement. “They have a career, a family, and still find the time to take care of themselves and feel sexy. With a wink of course :).”
Yes, little girls will want to “follow” Kim “sex tape” Kardashian, Fergie, and other celebrities because nothing can be more “empowering” than squeezing into skin-tight outfits and slowly pouring milk over your backside.
Here are some lyrics:
“Heard you’re in the mood for a little milkshake. Welcome to the dairy-dutchess love factory. I can whip it up, fix you up, straight away. Coming in the front door, leaving out the back door, rip it, flip it, hey!
We’ve been working at your service to give it to you. Didn’t mean to make you nervous, you mother-f***a.”
If the collective influence these women have over young developing minds wasn’t so profound, then their “art” would be somewhat amusing, albeit in the way people historically gawked at street performers with chimpanzees in the late 1800s.
If one were to agree with the premise that rape culture exists, then what would be most responsible?
Option 1: Testosterone levels in adult males.
Option 2: A constant bombardment of videos featuring scantily-clad celebrities humping the air to tribal beats and bathing in milk tubs, all while singing different variations of, “heard you’re in the mood for a little milkshake. Welcome to the dairy-dutchess love factory. I can whip it up, fix you up, straight away. Coming in the front door, leaving out the back door, rip it, flip it, hey”?
American feminists have zero moral authority because they consistently ignore the real enemies of empowerment to attack good men who disagree with them on public policy issues. It is the Kim Kardashians and Fergies of the world who do real damage to feminists’ stated cause, and until that is earnestly addressed they will not be taken seriously.
Liz Heron, the executive editor over at HuffPo, did the world a huge favor on Friday — she demonstrated why so many people have a problem with modern feminism.
“Notice anything about this @HuffingtonPost editors meeting” the editor wrote while adding emojis that screamed “girl power!”
The internet responded with predictable snark, but the issue demands more attention than that. What viewers witness in a single tweet is that feminism is a congeries of contradictory rules and regulations, which allow elites to wallow in self-congratulation for behavior that would earn others condemnation.
Ask yourself the following questions about Ms. Heron’s tweet:
If women should be judged on their merits, then why is HuffPo essentially asking readers to cheer the amount of estrogen it packed into a room?
Should HuffPo be applauded for its female editors, or scolded for its lack of racial diversity?
If feminism is about equal opportunity, then why tweet an image that seems to relish the idea of excluding men?
If making an assumption about gender based on physical appearance is frowned upon, then why engage in “you go, girl!” tweets that encourage such behavior?
Personally, I do not care what a room full of editors looks like as long as they produce good content. HuffPo generally reads like it’s run by 25-year-old women, so on some level it’s nice to know my suspicions were correct. If that’s the vibe the website is going for, then great — but those same women should probably zip it when they run across a website that unabashedly celebrates the male minds behind a male-oriented website.
The weird thing about identity politics is that its foot soldiers litter the cultural landscape with social justice mines and then eventually step on their own munitions. Instead of learning a lesson or two after their credibility explodes into a thousands pieces, they go right back to laying mines. Independent voters should keep all of this in mind next time they read a HuffPo political piece that translates: “Vote for Hillary Clinton because she wears a bra.”
It was only a matter of time before feminist Anita Sarkeesian worked her way into my Facebook feed. The last time this blog mentioned her was when Stephen Colbert was treating her like a delicate flower on Comedy Central in 2014 — and she still had a hard time articulating her point of view. Her website, Feminist Frequency, has released a new video, “Strategic Butt Coverings – Tropes vs Women in Video Games,” where she complains about pixelated female behinds for almost seven minutes.
As a man who cannot walk into Target or Panera Bread on a weekly basis without being bombarded with Jen Selter wannabes in yoga pants, I must laugh.
As a man who watches as millions of young girls and women idolize butt-obsessed Kim Kardashian and Beyonce, I cannot help but scoff at feminist rage over digital behinds.
This is what modern-American feminism has come to: YouTube videos griping over how hard it is to look at Batman’s butt under his cape compared with Lara Croft of Tomb Raider. Women are literally sold as sex slaves in the Middle East and North Africa, and the struggle for Ms. Sarkeesian is putting countless hours of time, money and resources into exposing the nefarious game designers who dare to have Catwoman walk…like a cat.
But here is the most telling thing about modern feminists: They are so confident in their claims that they must block the comments section of their highly-viewed videos.
The reason why Feminist Frequency does not allow comments on its videos is because guys like me would mention Beyonce — alleged uber feminst — playing dice on another woman’s butt in her music videos. Video game butts are unacceptable, but Beyonce objectifying another woman with “smack it” underwear in videos seen by millions of little girls gets a pass. Got it.
Here is a suggestion for American feminists — either don’t buy games you don’t like, or become game designers.
Don’t wear yoga pants with your mom in Target that show off every curve of your body, and then expect guys like me to show you sympathy when you complain about the curves of imaginary characters in a video game.
Until American feminists believably target female icons who objectify themselves on a regular basis — you know, real human beings who actually hold sway over popular culture — they will have zero moral authority to harangue gamers over what they find aesthetically pleasing.
Editor’s note: I normally link to videos or embed them within the actual post. I will not do so for this video since Feminist Frequency has blocked all feedback.
The great thing about modern “feminists” with a microphone is that they regularly discredit their own brand of feminism. Take the women of “The View,” for instance. They spent Thursday cackling with each other over the face of Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina.
Collins:She looked demented! Her mouth did not downturn one time. **audience claps and laughs**
Behar:I wish it was a Halloween mask. I’d love that.
Let us flashback to Sept. 10, when they got up on a moral pedestal to lecture Donald Trump for doing the same thing.
Behar: “You talked about Carly Fiorina in Rolling Stone magazine, and you said, “Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president? Are you making fun of her looks, Donald? Because I know you don’t like it…”
Trump: “Not at all, no. I’m talking about the persona, Joy. …”
Behar: “Then why don’t you talk about her brains instead of her face?” **audience claps**
It is interesting how that works: When the (liberal) women of “The View” lecture a man on disparaging a woman’s physical appearance, they are applauded. When the (liberal) women of “The View” say mean and disgusting things about a woman’s physical appearance, they are applauded.
Here’s a pop quiz: Do you know who treats women the worst in America?
It is highly ironic watching Joy Behar — caked with 10 pounds of makeup to look her best — say Carly Fiorina’s face looks like a Halloween mask. If you put a mole on Joy’s nose and a broom between her legs, would she look like a witch? You decide.
Here we have Michelle Collins — after professional makeup artists got her ready for television. What would she look like without makeup? Use your imagination.
Finally, we have Whoopi Goldberg of “rape-rape” infamy.
These “feminists” do not care about treating women right as much as they care about getting congratulated for whatever they say and do.
When they tear down another woman — they want to cheered. When they chastise a man for tearing down another woman — they wanted to be cheered. They have zero moral authority, and should be relentlessly called out on their hypocrisy every time it rears its ugly head.
If you want to weep for the future of America, then simply look to Williamstown, Massachusetts. Students and infantile officials at Williams College ironically cancelled an “Uncomfortable Learning” series event featuring author Suzanne Venker. The reason: They feared it would make students too uncomfortable.
Williams College students invited Suzanne Venker, a writer and longtime critic of feminism, to speak Tuesday night, but changed their minds and took back the invite for her talk, “One Step Forward, Ten Steps Back: Why Feminism Fails.”
Venker had been invited to participate in a student-run, alumni-funded speaking series at Williams called “Uncomfortable Learning.” The program’s purpose is to expose students to controversial voices and opinions they might not otherwise hear. Many of the speakers tend to be conservative or people whose views don’t square with those of most students. …
The concern, [series co-president Zach Wood] explained, was that “people would get riled up while she was speaking,” maybe even throw things, and there wasn’t time before the event to organize security. “You never know,” he said. “We’re just trying to think ahead here. The last thing we wanted to do was do something destructive.”
Coddled college students are like the psycho kids you knew growing up, the ones who threw violent tantrums when others didn’t want to play games according to their rules. The only difference is that now the weird kids are big enough to hurt others.
I have always been extremely thankful for the opportunity to experience what it is like to be a young conservative on an overwhelmingly-liberal campus. Every day students and teachers took great glee trying to make guys like me uncomfortable. My opinions were consistently challenged. I would be a rich man if I had a dime for every rhetorical cheap shot.
The real world is an uncomfortable place. People disagree with you. People don’t like you. People say mean things just to be mean. In fact, some people will hate you — for traits you consider completely innocuous. It is much better to be forced through a social and intellectual gauntlet in college than to be given “safe spaces” and political pacifiers.
The kids at Williams College are being taught a dangerous lesson if threats of violence against unpopular speech are rewarded. Intolerant students are likely to mutate into intolerant political leaders down the line. One doesn’t need a college degree to know that intolerant political leaders easily mutate into totalitarian thugs.
Venker wrote about her experience in a piece for Fox News Oct. 20.
“I had planned to talk about feminism, but from a different perspective than the one students are used to hearing. I was going to tell them why feminism fails. (Hint: because it denies the existence of biology and teaches that equality means sameness, which is a losing proposition when it comes to planning a life—particularly if that life includes marriage and family.) … Naturally, all my preparation went down the drain.”
Zach Wood appeared to understand — far too late — just how pitiful it was to pull Venker’s invitation. He told Reason Magazine on Friday the author was re-invited to speak sometime next spring. Why would an author come back to a school so terrified by a bunch of petulant children that it yanked her speaking engagement at the last minute?
“I can’t muster writing another speech anytime soon. As I say, it’s no small thing and I’m already behind on a book I’m writing,” Venker told Reason.
Williams College wasted an author’s valuable time. Unbeknownst to many of students, attendance at a college that shields them from “uncomfortable” encounters is also a waste — measured in years instead of hours.
Tuition at Williams College: $50,000. Setting self-righteous college kids up for a rude awakening years down the road: Priceless.
NY Mag featured an op-ed by “feminist” Michael Sonmore on July 16 that I hope, on some level, is a piece of satire. Mr. Sonmore’s “What Open Marriage Taught One Man About Feminism” is one of the saddest things I’ve read in years.
The author, a stay-at-home dad, says in his first paragraph:
“She’ll come home in the middle of the night, crawl into bed beside me, and tell me all about how she and Paulo had sex. I won’t explode with anger or seethe with resentment. I’ll tell her it’s a hot story and I’m glad she had fun. It’s hot because she’s excited, and I’m glad because I’m a feminist.”
If Mr. Sonmore’s understanding of modern feminism is correct, then modern feminism is a recipe for disaster.
As a Catholic man, I have vowed before God to give myself — 100 percent — in mind, body, and soul to my wife. She has done the same and we have become one unit. My responsibility is to love her with every fiber of my being, which demands that I always look out for her long-term interests. If I allowed my wife to objectify another human being and turn him into a living sex toy, then I would not be looking out for her spiritual health. If she allowed me to treat female coworkers as masturbatory slot machines, then there is no doubt my spirit would cry out in sorrow.
The author continues:
She didn’t present it as an issue of feminism to me, but after much soul-searching about why the idea of my wife having sex with other men bothered me I came to a few conclusions: Monogamy meant I controlled her sexual expression, and, not to get all women’s-studies major about it, patriarchal oppression essentially boils down to a man’s fear that a woman with sexual agency is a woman he can’t control.
Here again we find a man who doesn’t understand that marriage is not about “oppression” or “control” of one party over another, but a team effort to fully realize one’s mental, physical, and (most importantly) spiritual potential. The proper exercise of authority and control saves lives — and souls. I want my wife to demand that I strive for the kind of happiness that is only attained when one achieves mastery over his or her basest instincts. She expects the same from me.
It gets worse for Mr. Sonmore:
For my wife, the choice between honoring our vows and fulfilling her desires was a false choice, another trap. She knew how deep our love was, and knew that her wanting a variety of sexual experiences as we traveled through life together would not diminish or disrupt that love. It took me about six months — many long, intense conversations, and an ocean of red wine — before I knew it, too.
When my wife told me she wanted to open our marriage and take other lovers, she wasn’t rejecting me, she was embracing herself. When I understood that, I finally became a feminist.
Does a reader laugh or cry that it took the author “an ocean of red wine” to “know” his wife was right? His spirit cried out in protest; instead of listening, he poured an ocean of red wine down his throat to try and shut it up. And yet it still cries out to him, even if he can’t read between the lines of his own op-ed.
Would it be “patriarchal oppression” for a man with two children to forbid his wife from playing Russian Roulette? Of course not. Likewise, it takes a serious amount of self-delusion to believe that prohibiting the sexual equivalent of Russian Roulette is “oppression.”
Speaking of sexual Russian Roulette:
I never forget that my wife is a whole person unto herself, a complete and dynamic individual, and though we are together, we’re not one. …
There are of course moments of jealousy, resentment, and insecurity. Recently, my wife went on a date and fell asleep at his apartment. I hadn’t heard from her since 10 p.m., she still wasn’t home at 6 a.m. My texts went unanswered and my calls went to voicemail. A tight knot of dread lodged in my stomach as I imagined all kinds of dire scenarios and realized that I not only didn’t know where she was, I had no idea whom she was with. I pictured myself going to the police saying, “I think she’s in Red Hook with a guy named Ryan. I don’t know his last name, but I think he’s a graphic designer? I’m not sure there’s actually a word for the unique blend of acute terror and unforgivable shame I felt that morning imagining that I’d lost my wife to Ryan, the maybe graphic designer.”
“We’re not one.” Again, that is where Mr. Sonmore is very wrong. If he or his wife realized and respected how spiritually entwined they are, then he would ironically never be put in a place where “a tight knot of dread” formed in his stomach.
Mr. Sonmore imagined himself saying to the cops, “I think she’s … with a guy named Ryan,” although he could have just as easily said “I think she’s with a man … named Jason Voorhees.”
How does Dear old Dad explain it to the kids when mom leaves the family for another man, mom contracts weird diseases, mom becomes pregnant with another man’s child, or mom winds up dead inside another man’s freezer? These are questions the happily married Catholic man will never have to ponder, and he is better for it.
And then there is this:
I don’t want her to fall in love with anyone else, and every time she goes on a date, I confront the possibility that she might. It happened at the beginning: The first person she dated after we opened up fell hard in love with her, and my wife, overwhelmed by his ardor, tried to love him back. Watching it happen, I was confused, angry, and terrified that she wanted to leave me.
Imagine a marriage where confusion, anger, and terror were always looming over your head at night. It would not be heavenly — it would be hell.
There is a reason why Catholics pray, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” That is because evil exists, and the surest way to find yourself in a confusing, anger-filled terror-tunnel of your own making is to have a marriage where giving into all forms of sexual temptation is defined as “freedom.”
If you get a chance, then pray for Mr. Sonmore and his wife. They need it.
Imagine a world where a guy dedicates his life to science, and then in his golden years he’s professionally executed after making a joke about how dangerous love in the lab can be. What kind of crazy world would allow online mobs to run a scientist out of town over a single joke? You can now stop trying to imagine that world, because the sad truth is that we’re living in it. Just ask Nobel laureate Tim Hunt.
Mr. Hunt said the following while speaking at the World Conference of Science Journalists in Seoul, South Korea:
“Let me tell you about my trouble with girls … three things happen when they are in the lab … You fall in love with them,they fall in love with you and when you criticize them, they cry.”
That joke caused female scientists on Twitter to ironically cry like babies. They threw a giant temper tantrum and Mr. Hunt was forced to resign his position at University College London (UCL).
When Mr. Hunt sought to clarify his remarks during a radio interview with The Guardian, the paper’s editors thought the only part worth printing was that he “did mean the part about having trouble with girls.” Here is the full quote, in context:
“I mean it is true that I have fallen in love with people in the lab and that people in the lab have fallen in love with me and it is very disruptive to the science. Because it is terribly important that in the lab people are on a level playing field, and I’ve found that these emotional entanglements made life very difficult. I’m really sorry I caused any offense. That’s awful. I just meant to be honest, actually.”
Should a man lose his job over that? Should he be dragged like a suspected witch to the Twitter town square and thrown into the fire? Is it unforgivable to say that falling for a coworker is often a bad idea? The answer is “No.”
Mr. Hunt and his wife — who is also a scientist — were understandably angry with the way UCL hurried to throw them to the curb. They told The Guardian June 13:
What he said was wrong, he acknowledges, but the price he and his wife have had to pay for his mistakes has been extreme and unfair. “I have been hung out to dry,” says Hunt.
His wife, Professor Mary Collins, one of Britain’s most senior immunologists, is similarly indignant. She believes that University College London — where both scientists had posts — has acted in “an utterly unacceptable” way in pressuring both researchers and in failing to support their causes.
Certainly the speed of the dispatch of Hunt — who won the 2001 Nobel prize in physiology for his work on cell division — from his various academic posts is startling. In many cases this was done without him even being asked for his version of events, he says. The story shows, if nothing else, that the world of science can be every bit as brutal as that of politics.
The Guardian has it wrong — it isn’t science that is “brutal.” It is the ideology that so many academics subscribe to that is scary. It can take a man who dedicated his life to ridding the world of cancer and serve up his professional corpse within 24-48 hours if he upsets the sensitivities of his field’s rabid feminists.
Staff at University College London should be ashamed. A man was fired for acknowledging a simple truth: When two people fall in love — in a work setting — professional criticism becomes exponentially harder to deliver without tears.
Every time an institution tries to placate the Twitter mob, it only makes the mob hungry for more bodies. These people would try to end a zombie apocalypse by throwing the diseased some of the last remaining healthy humans.
The only thing University College London proved by firing Mr. Hunt is that while it may be a place of science, it is also occupied by a bunch of spineless academic back-stabbers.
The Islamic State group is now passing out pamphlets in Iraq for the “rules” its members are to employ when taking on sex slaves. Women are being “gifted” and young girls are completely unaware that barbaric monsters are figuring out ways to use the Koran to justify rape. Meanwhile, in the United States, American feminists have propelled dyed armpits into a “movement” worthy of write-ups in The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post. Absent any real dragons to slay, modern American feminists will create them. Today’s dragon: Armpit oppression. It’s not quite as glorious as the women who are trying not to have their heads chopped off in the Middle East, but it will do.
The Washington Post reported Friday:
There is a new trend sprouting across the country. More specifically, there is a new trend sprouting in women’s armpits across the country, according to the New York Post and others.
Some women, you may have noticed, are growing out their armpit hair — and then dyeing it. …
In her “Free Your Pits Manifesto,” which you can read here, [Roxi] Hunt writes:
“Whether you shave or not, women should be allowed to make decisions about their bodies without judgement from others. And, women making these decisions about their bodies should not be something exploited by the media. What we need is encouragement, not judgment.”
Therein lies the rub. It’s not just about being an individual — it’s about telling others that they don’t have the right to pass any form of judgment on the decisions a woman makes about her body, even if she flaunts those decisions in public with red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet dye jobs that scream, “Look at me!”
Destiny M, who was covered in The Post’s piece, demonstrates quite nicely in a new YouTube video why the “Free Your Pits Manifesto” is inherently flawed:
“A lot of people were like, ‘That’s a cry for attention.’ Maybe it is! I don’t care. For me I know it’s not, but for other people it can be. There’s nothing wrong with that. Most things we do are for attention, so why hate it? And then growing out your body hair is empowering and I recommend it to everyone.”
If a woman wants to make a spectacle of herself, then the rest of us are under no obligation to offer “encouragement, not judgment.”
Ironically, Ms. Hunt’s own statement, “Women should be allowed to make decisions about their bodies without judgement from others,” passes a form of moral judgment. The modern American feminist wants to judge, but not be judged. She wants us to encourage her self-exploration — no matter what that entails — but does not want to encourage those who disagree with her worldview.
In some sense, Americans should view the “dyed armpits” campaign as a good thing: the women’s rights movement has become the women’s encouragement movement. While women in the Middle East are fighting for their right to life, women in America are whining about their preference for approval. The battle for basic human rights is one that is always worth fighting for — and can be won. The fight to be free from judgment for any behavior one deems to be an expression of his or her “true” self is wrongheaded, and should face stiff resistance.
Tattoo your face. Dye your armpit hair. Stick bones through your nose and stretch your earlobes to strange dimensions. Have a ball. It’s your choice, but the rest of society is under no obligation to cheer you on.
It’s no secret that individuals who identify as liberals tend to put quite a bit of stock in feelings and emotions. A liberal’s stated intentions have a higher value than the consequences of the policies he supports. However, recent revelations surrounding Rolling Stone’s UVA rape story, Lena Dunham’s rape allegations, and the “Hands up, don’t shoot!” protesters indicate that modern liberals have elevated their feelings to a whole new level: “truth” is whatever it is a liberal man or woman is feeling at any specific moment. If it feels true, then it must be true — at least until the shouts of enough people blow the delusional fog of self-righteousness from their eyes and they are forced to acknowledge the lies.
Sabrina Rubin Erdely wrote “Jackie’s” story Nov. 19:
“Shut up,” she heard a man’s voice say as a body barreled into her, tripping her backward and sending them both crashing through a low glass table. There was a heavy person on top of her, spreading open her thighs, and another person kneeling on her hair, hands pinning down her arms, sharp shards digging into her back, and excited male voices rising all around her. When yet another hand clamped over her mouth, Jackie bit it, and the hand became a fist that punched her in the face. The men surrounding her began to laugh. For a hopeful moment Jackie wondered if this wasn’t some collegiate prank. Perhaps at any second someone would flick on the lights and they’d return to the party.
“Grab its motherfucking leg,” she heard a voice say. And that’s when Jackie knew she was going to be raped.
She remembers every moment of the next three hours of agony, during which, she says, seven men took turns raping her, while two more – her date, Drew, and another man – gave instruction and encouragement.
What a horrible experience. Unfortunately, the story is bogus. The reason Rolling Stone didn’t know earlier: feelings.
Rolling Stone’s Will Dana wrote in his “Ooops, did I do that?” apology:
“Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie’s story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her.”
As The Washington Post pointed out, there wasn’t even an event at the fraternity on the night “Jackie” told Rolling Stone she was gang-raped. But hey, the “larger truth” of “rape culture” needs to be addressed. What’s the big deal? That, of course, brings us to Lena Dunham.
Ms. Dunham wrote in her memoir, “Not That Kind of Girl,” that she was raped by a college Republican named “Barry” when she attended Oberlin College. Breitbart News actually went to the campus to investigate, and found out that her description of the campus “remains the only detail Breitbart News was able to verify.” When Ms. Dunham’s story started to fall apart, Oberlin’s radio station historian suddenly began to sound like she would fit right in with the editors at Rolling Stone.
Sophie Hess: “People here are less interested in justice for this kind of crime and more interested in helping the victim. I’m not psyched to help you do this.”
John Nolte: “You can look at everything I’ve thus far written about this. We just want to know the truth.”
Sophie Hess: “Asking whether or not a victim is telling the truth is irrelevant,” Ms. Hess proclaimed. “It’s just not important if they are telling the truth. If this person had wanted criminal justice they would have pursued it.”
John Nolte: “I’m not just talking about criminal justice,” I responded. “The details in the book point to a specific individual.”
Sophie Hess: “Who graduated years ago.”
John Nolte: “This man is easily found using Google and says he’s innocent. Right now everyone is looking at him and he’s just twisting out there.”
Sophie Hess: “Our archives are private. We have no obligation to share them with anyone. I don’t want our organization to be a part of this. I’m the general manager and the answer is no.”
Again: the truth is “just not that important” if someone feels like a victim. In Ms. Dunham’s book, she says she took alcohol and drugs on the night she was allegedly raped. What is more likely, given Breitbart’s investigation — that Ms. Dunham was raped, or that she’s found a way to turn a drug-fueled experience she regrets into a public service announcement on “rape culture”?
I may feel really gross and dirty for what I did while high on cocaine with some random guy, but at least now I can turn it into a positive experience while damaging Republicans (score!) and dealing a blow to rape culture.
The same mentality also applies to those who feel like racism can only be defeated with lies.
Consider The Associated Press’ coverage on the “Hands up, don’t shoot!” protests that are based on a lie (debunked by forensic evidence and multiple [black] eye-witnesses):
To some, it doesn’t matter whether Brown’s hands literally were raised, because his death has come to symbolize a much bigger movement.
“He wasn’t shot because of the placement of his hands; he was shot because he was a big, black, scary man,” said James Cox, 28, a food server who protested this week in Oakland, California.
The truth “doesn’t matter” because a lie that can sway public opinion in support of a “bigger movement” is — in the minds of many modern liberals — better than a reality that doesn’t move large masses into action for a progressive cause. Sad.
When an ideology becomes so warped that the lies become the truth, that is how you get a.) men like Jonathan Gruber wielding enormous influence in the nation’s capitol, and b.) elected officials like Nancy Pelosi saying she doesn’t know who he is — despite video evidence to the contrary.
We live in interesting times: the truth seems treasonous, the biggest liars are given the bully pulpit, and hard-working Americans are told to sit silently while they’re blamed for the bad behavior of total strangers.