The Manipulated Man

I just discovered a short 1971 book, The Manipulated Man:

The book argues that, contrary to common feminist and women's rights rhetoric, women in industrialized cultures are not oppressed, but rather exploit a well-established system of manipulating men.

Vilar writes, "Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves. As compensation for their labours men are given periodic use of a woman's vagina." The book contends that young boys are encouraged to associate their masculinity with their ability to be sexually intimate with a woman, and that a woman can control a man by socially empowering herself to be the gate-keeper to his sense of masculinity.

The author says that social definitions and norms, such as the idea that women are weak, are constructed by women with their needs in mind, and that praise is only given to a man when a woman's needs are met in some way.

Vilar claims that women can control their emotional reactions whereas men cannot, and that women create overly-dramatized emotional reactions to attempt to control men and get their way. She says that women "blackmail" men and use sex as a tool.

The book argues that women use traditions and concepts of love and romance, which are seen more positively than sex, to control men's sexual lives. Vilar writes that men gain nothing from marriage and that women, who are out to get men's money, coerce them into marriage under the pretense that it is romantic.

Roosh V, a big defender of red-pill masculinity, wrote in 2012:

For a while now I’ve come to the belief that men need to lead the household and provide for their family to be happy and feel like a man. I want to be proud of being able to take care of a wife and kids. Vilar argues that this pride is no different than a donkey feeling strong as it carries a heavy load. ...

I’ve never had a book that made me reconsider so many of my beliefs like this one. It ended up being the most vicious takedown of the female gender that I’ve ever read, five times harsher than anything I’ve written. My mind was buzzing while reading, hungry for a fresh take on the male-female issue. If you still have the problem of respecting women, this book will fix you right up. Not only will you avoid getting entrapped by a woman, but you’ll have a better understanding of what causes their seemingly irrational behavior. Highly recommended.

The is short, and has a lot of sweeping generalities. You can buy it on Amazon, download the full book in pdf, or listen to a YouTube reading. See also her debate a leading German feminist: Alice Schwarzer vs. Esther Vilar [1975] | English Subtitles.

This is one of those rare books with the potential to turn a man from MRA to MGTOW. She says:

With his many gifts man would appear to be ideally suited, both mentally and physical, to lead a life both fulfilled and free. Instead he chooses to become a slave, placing his many discoveries at the service of those who are incapable of creation themselves - at the service of `mankind', man's own synonym for women, and of the children of these women. ...

If a young man gets married, and starts a family and spends the rest of his life working at a soul-destroying job, he is held up as an example of virtue and responsibility. The other type of man, living only for himself, working only for himself, doing first one thing and then another simply because he enjoys it and because he has to keep only himself, sleeping where and when he wants, and facing woman when he meets her on equal terms and not as one of a million slaves, is rejected by society The free, unshackled man has no place in its midst.

The MGTOW refuses to become a slave, at risk of social disapproval.

Judge gives opinion about girl consenting to rape

There is a sickening trend towards judges and others giving opinions about whether an underage girl consented to rape. The whole point of statutory rape laws is that a girl cannot consent if she is below the age of consent.

Eugene Volokh reports:

Unsurprisingly, New Hampshire makes it a felony for adults to have sex with under-16-year-olds. And New Hampshire also makes it a more serious felony for adults to have sex with anyone when, among other things,

at the time of the sexual assault, the victim indicates by speech or conduct that there is not freely given consent to performance of the sexual act.

But earlier this month, in State v. Lisasuain, the New Hampshire Supreme Court interpreted this “aggravated sexual assault” provision as potentially covering even conduct where the victim remains totally passive.

*After reviewing the record ... the evidence was sufficient ... that she did not consent to the sexual assaults by the defendant."

The only evidence needed for that conclusion is that she was under 16, the age of consent.

Feminists are always complaining about blaming the victim, so I would think that they would complain about any discussion of consent by an underage girl. Instead they complain about this study:

A program that taught college women ways to prevent sexual assault cut in half the chances they would be raped over the next year, a Canadian study found. It was the first large, scientific test of resistance training, and the strong results should spur more universities to offer it, experts say.

Five percent of freshman women who went through the four-session program said they had been raped during the following year, compared to 10 percent of others who were just given brochures on assault prevention. Attempted rapes also were lower - about 3 percent in the training group versus more than 9 percent of the others.

The results are "startling," said a prominent researcher on sex assault ...

Startling? It used to be that all girl were taught prudent measures for avoid sexual assaults. Now this teaching is resisted by feminists who say that girls have a right to be sexually provocative and to pursue risky behavior.

But many of those same feminists would like to abolish the age of consent laws, and allow girls of any age to be sexually active and get abortions without parental permission.

And they deny that one rape can be any worse than any other rape. To them, stranger rape is the same as spousal rape, and raping a slut is the same as raping a virgin. I don't think that a jury can even be told whether or not the victim was a virgin. Weird.

Following up on a previous story, AP reports:

California’s attorney general is asking a judge to toss out a proposed ballot initiative that advocates killing anyone who engages in gay sex. ...

Even conservative groups in California have repudiated the proposed ballot measure.

It says "even conservative groups"?! Did someone really think that conservative groups might suppoert this? Read the initiative, as it is obviously a joke.

This is like saying: "Even conservative groups have repudiated a white gunman killing black church goers in Charleston.

It has some joke reponses, such as The Intolerant Jackass Act, but the California attorney general is supporting that.

Atheists infected by man-haters

There is a skeptic-atheist community that actively denounces religion, superstition, and medical quackery. Unfortunately it has been infected by leftists, feminists, and social justice warriors. They claim that the same rationality that leads them to reject God also leads them to reject men's rights, and vote for Obama and Clinton.

For below, MRM = Men's Rights Movement, MO = Modus operandi, Latin for method of operation.

A recent comment:

There are very large communities of atheists, skeptics and feminists. It's kind of murky waters. Atheists don't like religion. Skeptics don't like "irrational" things. Feminists don't like, well, we know.

Atheists and skeptics are similar communities and they often interchange. One major hub of both communities is Rational Wiki. The "rational" approach to countless topics.

But who gets to decide what's rational or not? The answer is the status quo. "Skepticism" really becomes blind defense of the status quo.

The status quo right now is that MRM are misogynists, feminists are heroes of equality, various SJW bullshit is on the right side of history. So a big part of Rational Wiki and by proxy the skeptic movement is about trying to tear down men's issues.

In a bigger way "skeptics" want to control how you think, much like feminists do. If anything, it seems the skeptic community have become the liberal activist pit bulls. ...

The skeptic community seems to be in bed with feminism and will blindly support whatever are mainstream views, and they focus their efforts on bullshit instead of things we should actually be skeptical about. ...

Feminists have in recent years taken to invading "men's spaces" and running protection rackets the same way they have successfully done with universities and businesses using the sexual harassment racket (by "racket" I mean like the mob -- threaten to damage a business if they don't pay "protection" money).

Atheists, skeptics, gamers, tech conferences. The MO is the same each time. Feminist women turn up to conferences or groups and make false accusations of sexual harassment. Then other feminists threaten to libel the group as anti-woman if they don't pay up by creating "anti-harassment" rules which give feminists more power to bully people, and also tend to employ feminists to regulate.

It's a big industry in the business world and has huge power in academia. If you don't knuckle under expect feminist flack that libel's you as a woman hating group, or even worse, more targeted false accusations.

Atheists -- Atheist Plus and a few scandals manufactured at their meetings and accusations of misogyny against prominent atheists.

Skeptics - "Elevatorgate" and accusations of rape against prominent skeptics.

Gamers: Gamergate and various accusations of rape, death threats and so on.

Tech: Donglegate and accusations of misogyny.

Generally the male leaders fall over themselves to pay of the feminists to avoid a label of misogyny or worse resulting is draconian rules that give feminists the power to have men thrown out of conferences or fired with a simple false accusation. The rules are usually worded neutrally but never enforced against the feminists who deliberately harass men.

Of all these groups only the gamers really defied the feminists, although Atheism plus never took off.

Just read about the stupid little disputes that dominate the skeptic-atheist conferences, and you will never want to attend one.

For people who claim to be rational, they are amazingly intolerant of other views. They are always trying to shut down discussion by calling people racist, sexist, homophobic, and all the other SJW name-calling.

College has statue of mansplaining

Wash. Examiner reports>:

That scene is depicted in a statue at the University of the Incarnate Word in San Antonio, Texas, and despite no sign of distress or physical assertion, some women have decided it is a statue of "mansplaining" — a term used to describe men condescendingly explaining something to a woman.

Funny. The college may have to add a statue of a woman nagging a man.

Lena Dunham's war on us

I have mention lena Dunham here and here, but I didn't know that I was part of a war on her:

The Right-Wing War on Lena Dunham
The right-wingers obsessively document and chastise her every move. Why are conservatives so threatened by a 29-year-old TV showrunner and author?

In honor of Memorial Day, Lena Dunham Instagrammed herself in a lacy bra and panty set, and captioned the sultry snap, “I think I will wear it to dinner with some boots & a smile because we are all very lucky to be free.”

Dunham clearly presents her exhibitionism as a celebration of personal and political freedoms, but certain fringe elements of the right-wing media have taken the peaceful photo as further evidence of Dunham’s personal war on male retinas, Republican values, and the American Dream.

The friendly folks over at Breitbart even took it upon themselves to share the photo on Facebook along with a PSA: “DISCLAIMER: Breitbart News is not responsible for any emotional, spiritual, or psychological damage that might occur as a result of viewing this article.” Because trigger warnings are a liberal tool used to infantilize and over-coddle ...

I agree that the picture requires a trigger warning, so I am not posting it.

All I can say for this picture is that she conceals her kooky tattoos.

A Hollywood actress should be still attractive at age 29. Now she just looks and acts like a broken degenerate.

My guess is that most right-wingers regard her as a pathetic porno actress, if they have even heard of her. But she is at war with Republican, and most of civilized society. Her nonsense is barely worthy of comment, except as an example of what is wrong with millennial girls.

On another subject, the Free Range Mom reports on an Ohio newspaper:

Stranger danger education saved one Butler Elementary School student from possible abduction Tuesday. ...

A letter sent home Wednesday alerting parents about the attempted abduction said the man was a passenger in a white colored Ford Ranger pickup. The vehicle was driven by an older woman with gray hair, the letter said.

The newspaper explained the next day:

he attempted abduction reported Tuesday in Butler has turned out not to be one. ...

But what really happened was that the man got out of the vehicle near the end of the school zone to wave at his two children, who were outside on the school grounds.

More evidence of our sick society.

Clinton is only pushing for interests of women

A Hillary Clinton supporter complains:

Clinton really, really needs to kill her incoherent “When women are [fill in the blank], families are [same word; slightly different meaning] slogan. Really.

When women are strong, families are strong.
– Hillary Clinton, repeatedly

When women are healthy, families are healthy.
– Hillary Clinton, a few days ago ...

The above-quoted sing-song slogans marry two of Clinton’s hallmarks: First, her belief that simply using the word “women” constantly is her ticket to victory — after all, isn’t that what matters to baby boomer feminists? Well, that, and the fact of her gender itself? Second, her preference for incoherent slogans intended just to indicate generic policy positions. ...

Taken at face value, the two slogans are incoherent.  They’re non sequiturs.  You get the general idea of what she means, but why doesn’t she just say what she means?

I think that she is saying what she means. She wants you to vote for her because this is your chance to turn the USA into a matriarchy. Men will be dependent on benefits to women trickling down to men.

Ireland just abolished family rights

Michael Brendan Dougherty writes in The Week:

Closer to home, in Kansas two years ago, another parent put a baby in a shopping bag, so to speak. In 2009, William Marotta answered a Craigslist ad posted by a lesbian couple seeking sperm. He donated a few cups of the stuff. In 2014, a Kansas court ordered him to pay child support. "I donated genetic material, and that was it for me," he said in his defense.

How you feel about Marotta's case is probably a good indicator of which side you land on in the culture war. If you think the state is right to make him pay child support, you are likely on the side of the old dispensation — of the "natural family." If you think it is an outrage that some responsibility for the child should be assigned to its biological father, you likely fall on the side of the age that is coming into being — the age of the contractual family, one appointed by authorities.

No, the old school view is not in favor of saying that a family is a baby, a lesbian, and a Craigslist sperm donor.

For details on what I think of this Kansas case, see my comments here, here, and here.

Ireland just passed same-sex marriage, as widely reported, but what they really did was to redefine the family to make same-sex family rights superior to all other laws:

This Friday, Ireland will have a national referendum to amend its constitution to include same-sex couples in the definition of a family. Those campaigning for a "No" vote have settled on the slogan that every child deserves a mother and father. That has inspired some predictable consternation over there. The "Yes" campaigners are frustrated that a debate about equal treatment under the law is being diverted into debates about surrogacy, in vitro fertilization, and the donation of "genetic material" like eggs and sperm.

Fintan O'Toole says that the "No" campaigners are offending many more people than gays and lesbians, and surely they are. The same conflict between the Natural and the Contracted family are at play everywhere in the advanced world, but they have been drawn especially sharply in Ireland.

The reason is that the proposed change is to the family section of the Irish Constitution, which relates not to marriage only but "the family." The Irish Constitution states: "The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law."

The "No" campaign makes a subtle but profound argument. This section of the Constitution has been found by Irish courts to include the right to procreate, and so the "No" campaigners say that artificial reproductive techniques will insert an ideological understanding of parentage, rather than biology, into the heart of Irish jurisprudence. The word "natural" will have to take on a new meaning.

And rather than the state "recognizing" an antecedent and natural institution of the family whose claims trump those of the state, it will have to take the new commercial understanding of parentage into its hand as it usurps the power to assign legal parentage regardless of biology. The intent of the contracting parties now trumps nature.

This is the most radical step any country has taken. I am amazed that the Catholic Church could not stop this nonsense. Ireland only just barely legalized divorce in 1995.

Where previously the Irish family was "possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights ... as the primary and fundamental unit group of Society", this so-called equality will use BIOTCh to turn them into slaves of the state.

Because the Irish state recently and hastily arrogated itself tremendous new powers to act in the "best interests of the child," and because the consideration of biological parentage in family law court cases would give an unequal advantage to opposite sex partnerships, the legal force of biological parentage will be eroded.

In fact, guaranteeing the right to procreate to same-sex couples practically demands the erasure of biological parenthood, as same-sex couples cannot have children without involving a member of the opposite sex, somehow. And equality demands even more. To create the equal experience of full parenthood for both, the child's curiosity (or claims) on his or her biological parents must be obviated and denied, whatever the heartbreak.

Equality before the law will be achieved when all natural parents are in the same legal position as sperm and egg donors, or those who contract for them. The entire social, psychological, historical, legal, and spiritual status of motherhood is thus reduced to mere incubation, and fatherhood to the provision of "genetic material." Instead of the state recognizing the "natural" claims of the family that precede the state, it will appoint them in the "best interests of the child," without counting biological relationships.

As this article show, Ireland has adopted "truly an entirely new conception of the family", and it necessarily requires state supervision of the best interest of the child.

Threatened by surrogacy

A Euro group complains:

Surrogacy often depends on the exploitation of poorer women. In many cases, it is the poor who have to sell and the rich who can afford to buy. These unequal transactions result in consent that is under informed if not uninformed, low payment, coercion, poor health care, and severe risks to the short- and long-term health of women who carry surrogate pregnancies.

You could make these complaints about any transaction. Any time there is a buyer and a seller, you could claim that the buyer would not buy if he did not have the money, and the seller would not sell if she did not want the money.

In the USA, the carriers are probably much better informed, and have better health care, than the typical pregnant woman.

Children born of assisted reproductive technologies, which are usually employed in surrogacy, also face known health risks

Yes, there are health risks, but probably less than in other pregnancies, because of all the screening, testing, and monitoring.

I am not sure what is driving this opposition to surrogacy, because it cannot be these health concerns. The Catholic Church opposes, for reasons related to their opposition to abortion and birth control. But this is from European countries where abortion is widely accepted. Some of the signers to the statement are abortion rights activists.

Maybe they believe that the nuclear family with natural parents is best, but I doubt it.

Surrogacy is rare enuf that there is no reason for most people to care one way or the other.

I think that some people feel threatened by surrogracy. Not sure why.

Pao jury gives hope for our society

I rarely post good news on this blog, but the Ellen Pao verdict shows that there is some hope for humanity. This went to a jury, and was presumably a mixture of men, women, whites, and Asians. Pao's situation is strange:

Ellen Pao is married to a man whom I’ve written about in depth. His name is Buddy Fletcher, and and he has a history of filing dubious lawsuits inspired by perceived slights and financial desperation. In my opinion he is, at the very least, a scoundrel; the forces of law may yet prove him a criminal.

I wrote about Fletcher in Boston magazine; he’s a Harvard graduate, an African-American man, who went to Wall Street and tried to make a lot of money. He left his first job at the brokerage firm Kidder Peabody and promptly filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination. Like Ellen Pao, Fletcher charged that he was treated differently from the great majority of employees whose identity did not match his. In my article, I found that the grounds for that lawsuit were thin at best. Fletcher didn’t win it ...

He is broke now, because he is not a financial genius, and there is ample suggestion that he is broke even though he siphoned money from his hedge fund — including retirement money from Louisiana firefighters — to support a lavish lifestyle that included the ownership of three apartments at the Dakota, John Lennon’s old apartment building in New York. ...

One other fact about Fletcher that’s worth knowing: Until he fled New York, married Ellen Pao and had a baby, he had lived his entire adult life as a gay man. Not bisexual—gay.

The judge in Pao’s case has ruled that none of this is admissible, and I think that’s the right decision; in court, Pao’s allegations should stand or fall on their own merits. The mainstream media seems to have decided that it’s sexist or something to write about her marriage, and so I haven’t seen a single smart article that really explores her relationship with Fletcher and whether it’s had any impact on her decision to sue Kleiner Perkins.

Pao was intelligent, successful, and on the fast track at a high-status high-paying job. Then she has an affair with a married Indian partner at the firm, and tries to give him an ultimatum to leave his wife. Later she marries and has a kid with a gay black financial con man (assuming that the accusations are correct). And she sue her employer over some relatively minor slights. Weird.

The liberal feminists hate to ever admit that someone might be innocent, as the NY Times reports:

Even with her loss in the case, Ms. Pao’s suit succeeded in prompting debate about women in technology and venture capital, said Deborah Rhode, a law professor at Stanford University.

“This case sends a powerful signal to Silicon Valley in general and the venture capital industry in particular,” Ms. Rhode said. “Defendants who win in court sometimes lose in the world outside it.” ...

“Kleiner Perkins has been significantly tainted by the facts that have come out in this proceedings,” Ms. Rhode of Stanford said.

Too bad there are no jury trials in family court or juvenile dependency court. I think that Texas is the only state where a parent can demand a jury trial before his kids are taken away.

Meanwhile a somewhat different verdict came out of Oklahoma:

Members of a University of Oklahoma fraternity apparently learned a racist chant that recently got their chapter disbanded during a national leadership cruise four years ago that was sponsored by the fraternity’s national administration, the university’s president said Friday.

President David Boren said the school interviewed more than 160 people during its investigation into members of its now-defunct Sigma Alpha Epsilon chapter who were captured on video taking part in the chant, which included references to lynching, a racial slur and the promise that the fraternity would never accept a black member. ...

Boren said about 25 members of the school’s SAE chapter will face punishment ranging from two expulsions the school announced previously to mandatory community service and cultural sensitivity training. The video, which surfaced earlier this month, showed fraternity members yelling the chant on a chartered bus while headed to a formal event at an Oklahoma City country club with their dates, Boren said. ...

Beginning in the fall, Boren said all current and future OU students will be required to take diversity training. ...

SAE’s national leadership disbanded the OU chapter in the wake of the incident and announced it was taking steps to become more inclusive, including requiring all of its members, nationwide, to go through diversity training and by setting up a confidential hotline for people to report inappropriate behavior.

SAE began collecting racial and ethnic data in 2013. Approximately 3 percent of SAE’s reporting members identified as African-American and 20 percent identified as non-white, according to Ayers.

We don't know whether the students have any racist opinions or not. They were just reciting some dopey chant just as they might sing a school song without necessarily believing every word.

I thought that it was just the commies who sent people to re-education camps for their opinions, and who set up confidential hot-lines for reporting any politically incorrect thinking.

I wonder if Boren has ever listened to rap music. If he were consistent, he would punish all the students who listen to rap music.

Somehow I suspect that Boren and the other white liberals promoting these policies would never live with black people themselves. Some of the most liberal areas in the USA are also areas where they have somehow figured out how to keep the blacks out.

Feminist reporters exhilarated by lawsuit

The feminists are all excited about the Ellen Pao lawsuit against the Si Valley venture capitalists. Look at how NPR Radio reports it:

CORNISH: You've been writing that equal rights advocates have been waiting for a lawsuit to kind of bring out into the open the gender bias in Silicon Valley. But you questioned whether this case was the one to do it.

TIKU: I mean, I think that it's exhilarating that she filed this lawsuit and that we are able to get so much information. But I think a lot of it is just how you interpret these things. I mean, it's about the subtle sexism in the workplace, you know, maybe even unconscious bias. So that's where I think that people who are looking for a big win, for a definitive statement about sexism in Silicon Valley, aren't going to get it with this trial just because it's so particular to her situation. But that doesn't mean that this isn't progress and this isn't, you know, a potentially different era.

So they are exhilarated by the discrimination lawsuit, but disappointed that no one found any explicit discrimination.

We should have a jury verdict soon. The venture capitalists have famous for being extreme rich from investments, and for being jerks to lots of people. So I am expecting a verdict of $2M or so from the possibility of some harm. But this woman should have been fired for being a homewrecker, and does not deserve a dime.

Update: The jury has ruled against Pao on her first 3 claims, and voted 8-4 against her on the 4th. It is likely that she will get nothing out of this lawsuit.

Update: The jury finished, and Pao has lost on all counts. This is a total win for the VC firm, as it probably offered a settlement of $2M or so.

A female executive writes:

I think that regardless of the outcome, Ellen Pao's lawsuit is frivolous and moreover, a setback for professional women. ...

A job is an exchange of services on one side for compensation on the other. If that exchange is not working for either side, then move on. ...

If Pao wins her lawsuit — and frankly, even just from her bringing such a lawsuit to bear — she actually creates an additional handicap for women to overcome. It will give those in Silicon Valley and elsewhere pause and concern when hiring women because of an unfair potential liability. Why hire someone who you are concerned could sue you by playing the gender card if things didn't work out?

I expect the feminists to say that this lawsuit only proves how bad the discrimination is -- that women cannot get remedies in court, and that the discrimination is so subtle and unconscious that it cannot be proved.

Ellen Pao trial continues

I mentioned the Ellen Pao lawsuit, and here is a report:

I’ve been attending the Kleiner Perkins gender discrimination trial for the past week looking for irrefutable examples of gender discrimination, but so far I haven’t seen the bombshell disclosures that would lead me to think Kleiner is sunk. ...

After talking to experts on the issue of gender and bias, the lack of a smoking gun is not surprising. Instead, these cases are tough to prove because they are often filled with small, everyday examples from the workplace. There is the dismissive tone in emails, the bawdy chitchat in breakrooms, the office layout with the power corridor, and seating charts at conferences.

In other words, there is no overt discrimination, and you have micro-analyze trivial behavior to allege them.

A typical complaint is that the men were once discussing a porn show. Or maybe it was just an HBO show for mature audiences.

“Standing alone, the examples don’t seem that significant,” said Jason Knott, a litigator with Zuckerman Spaeder in Washington who focuses on business and employment disputes. “But when you stand back, it can look discriminatory.”

I thought testimony about the review process produced some of the most interesting detail about the small, subtle stuff of gender bias. Pao was told she was too timid and not commanding enough. But she also had her knuckles rapped for being seen by co-workers as shrill, abrasive and not nurturing of others. Male co-workers were praised for traits that did not sound all that different.

It is possible for a woman to be both timid and shrill. And less likely for a man to be.

If men are more likely to be team players, as research has shown, is it discrimination to promote the team players?

One unusual thing about this case is that the jury is allowed to ask questions of Pao and the other witnesses. 9 of the 12 have to agree.

I don't see how they can side with Pao. She was paid $400k a year, and seducing one of the married partners. No other female employees are suing. Just this homewrecker.

On another matter, I have discovered that there are limits to the feminism at Jezebel. A post last year said:

Looking for practical advice about your relationship? You may want to avoid the Wendy Williams Show, because the talk show host just told an audience member it's okay to trick your husband into getting you pregnant if he promised you a second child. "Men have never been in control of our bodies," Williams tells the star-struck fan before telling her that she'd never suggest anyone trick a spouse in this way.

The audience agrees that the woman should trick her husband into another child.

And the war on free speech continues, with the NY Times reporting today:

The University of Maryland in College Park revealed on Thursday night that its officials had learned of email sent last year, apparently connected to a different fraternity, containing racist and sexist slurs, and that the university was investigating.

The university says that it has been investigating this email for 15 months! Apparently we have gotten to the point where a college kid cannot express an opinion in an email. Unless he is black and reciting rap music lyrics, of course.

The article also says the guy in the picture "said he was once turned away from a fraternity party because of his race." If the fraternity was so racist, why did he want to party with a bunch of racists? Maybe because the hot white college girls do not attend the black parties. Just guessing.

Female politicians have been bad for Silicon Valley

Silicon Valley sex discrimination is in the news, with the Ellen Pao lawsuit. But this is an area that has tried the experiment of female politicians, and it has been a disaster:

San Jose was once the female capital of the world for political power. Janet Gray Hayes was the first woman mayor of a major city. She had a council consisting mostly of women. The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors also had a majority of women. Gender parity was coming into vogue.

But times have changed and fewer women are now in local public office. The Board of Supervisors has just one woman, Cindy Chavez, and previous to her special election victory the board was all male. ...

Only in Congress, where Mike Honda joins Zoe Lofgren, Anna Eshoo and Jackie Speier, is there an actual majority of women representing Silicon Valley. ...

We also have Boxer and Feinstein in the US Senate. All elected many years ago, and we are sick of them.

The feminist press complains of double standards:

Nobody cares when Bill Clinton changes his hairstyle, unless he holds up airport traffic getting it cut. Nobody comments on Dick Blum’s fashion choices when he stands next to his wife, Sen. Dianne Feinstein. They don’t refer to him as Mr. Feinstein. Nobody questions Mitt Romney’s commitment to his numerous grandchildren when he ran for president, but for some reason it is a story for Hillary.

To many in the good old boy establishment, much of this is dismissed as political correctness or women being overly sensitive to criticism — an insulting charge. The simple truth is that there is a new generation of women who will not play by the outdated codes and double standards that continue to persist. They see rules that need rewriting and want to change perceptions.

What women wear, whom they date, what they look like and what name they choose to be called is not relevant to the content of their character. It is not news and it will be challenged.

Are you kidding me? Hillary Clinton has decided herself to play up the grandmother role for her presidential run. She also is the one to emphasize her maiden name, as if she was never happy to take Bill's name.

One of my readers points out an incisive comment:

Like the child allowed to grow-up undisciplined and unruly by an inept single mom, San Jose has never found the maturity necessary to pay as it goes, address its responsibilities, or plan for the future... Take a walk along San Jose’s borders and you will find, in almost every direction, that to step across the line is to step into higher home valuation, better schools, smoother pavement, faster fire service, cleaner parks, better police coverage, and enhanced residential services.

The Dilbert site got taken down with a DDOS attack apparently because of this comment:

Locally, one hears stories all the time about some guy who did something special with a start-up, or he’s a superstar coder, or a product genius, or whatever. How many times have I heard similar stories about superstar female entrepreneurs with technology skills? Maybe…never? At least none in the past year. ...

Here’s the part that ends my career: On average, men and women are equally capable for academic and technical pursuits. But men tend to have the most freaks on the high end and low end of the IQ spectrum. One study says there are about twice as many men as women in the top 2%.

The Germans have joined other European countries in passing laws requiring women to be on corporate boards of directors.

Silicon Valley is a meritocracy, so they should have wised up about women politicians by now. They have been stupid enuf to elect women in the past, and to decide we needed a black President. Will they think we need a woman President? I hope they look at the track records of Democrat candidates a little better.

Update: Silicon Valley startups have always been against regulation, especially of the internet, but not that Obama has enacted regulations to protect Google and Facebook, the local papers are telling a different story. From today's paper:

The FCC's vote essentially puts the Internet under the same regulatory umbrella as telephones. The aim is to keep Internet service providers from slowing or blocking certain web activity -- or creating paid "fast lanes."

Silicon Valley's House Democrats -- Mike Honda, Zoe Lofgren, Anna Eshoo and Jackie Speier -- all lauded the FCC's action. But among Republicans, the only split now seems to be between those who want to use their new majority in both houses of Congress to ram through a resolution decrying the FCC in the hopes of overriding the decision, and those who would prefer to enlist some Democrats to impose different, weaker rules.

Even House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, a frequent visitor to Silicon Valley and arguably the GOP's point man for the region, blasted the FCC vote.

"The FCC has just taken the Internet -- arguably the most dynamic contributor to a growing economy and higher quality of life in the world -- back in time to the era of landlines," he said in a statement after the vote. "The Internet is too important to the everyday lives of Americans for such government overreach."

If G.W. Bush had done this, we would be hearing a lot more complaints. What a lot of people don't realize is that big companies like regulation, because their lobbying can control it, and it keeps small competitors out.

Update: Hillary Clinton's email account, while Sec. of State, was hdr22@clintonemail.com. Those are the initials of her maiden name. She just wants to use the Clinton name when it advances her political agenda.

Homewrecker sues for sex discrimination

It used to be that homewreckers outcasts.

Ellen Pao is an overeducated (3 Ivy degrees) Chinese-American who is currently CEO of Reddit.

The NY Times reports:

Now, in a high-profile suit set to go to trial this week, a jury will pass judgment about whether one woman suffered discrimination. The proceedings could resonate widely: A guilty verdict will be billed as a sweeping indictment of the high-tech world, while a dismissal might supply ammunition to those who feel gender issues are being overplayed.

The accuser is Ellen Pao, who worked at one of the valley’s most prominent venture capital firms, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. At the center of the suit is John Doerr, a legendary investor who was Ms. Pao’s boss and, according to court papers, practically a father to her.

She had an affair with a married East-Indian-American, and broke it off when he refused to divorce his wife. Then she married and had a kid with one of richest African-Americans, whose hedge fund has since gone bankrupt and may have been a Ponzi scheme.

30 years ago, I think that most men and women would say that a firm ought to fire any woman who is poaching married men at work. Such women were known as homewreckers, and were especially despised by women. It would not have mattered if the man made flirtatious comments that contributed to her seducing him.

Now, I don't know. I no longer have a feel for whether a jury would consider this acceptable behavior. Yes, it is a feminist dogma that a woman has a right to be a sexual predator and seduce whomever she pleases, regardless of anyone marital or employer obligations, and if anyone objects, she has a right to sue for millions of dollars.

But will a jury of 12 buy into such nonsense? I have no idea. We will soon find out, I guess.

Even if she loses, there will be big pressure on the tech world. The LA Times reports Women are leaving the tech industry in droves. And the masculine culture is to blame, as Pao will also argue at her trial.

The typical woman freezing eggs

I posted some Attacks on artificially assisted reproduction, and here is who is doing it. New York writer Jillian Dunham writes a personal essay on The Real Reason Women Freeze Their Eggs. She tells of many romantic boyfriends, and how she always wanted to have a kid, but somehow marriage never quite worked out.

That morning, I was single and 37 years old, almost precisely the average age at which women freeze their eggs, although I didn’t know that then. Of my close friends in New York, most did not have children, but a handful did. ...

There were no men. We all appeared to be in our 30s or early 40s. Most of us were white, but not all. I noticed that every woman in the room was attractive, dressed for work in the way that successful, self-possessed New York women dress for work: appropriately, but with some signal to the world about who we were — a worn leather jacket, an unusual ring. ...

“There’s something wrong with the men in your generation,” he said. I was stunned. Here was a doctor who had just been talking about the importance of considering statistical significance, and now he was chalking my dating problems up to the broadest of generalizations. But he was articulating two forms of truth: the mathematical and the personal.

“It isn’t you,” he said. “All day long, I see patients like you. You’re smart, beautiful, accomplished, nice. It makes no sense. I go home to my wife and I say, ‘There’s something wrong with the men in this generation. They won’t grow up.’”

The egg-freezing can prolong her fertility by 5 or 10 years. She has that much time to find a father for her child. Or she can just give up, get a sperm donor, and go it alone.

Is there something wrong with the men? I do not think so. Her story is a byproduct of changes to our society that have been brought about by women, not men. 50 years ago, she would have married a beta man in her 20s and been happy. Women have gotten the freedom to date a long series of alpha men (aka jerk boys) who are not interested in marriage, and the freedom to walk out of marriage. Now she wants a kid but those beta men are not good enuf for her. The feminism that was so liberating to her 10 years ago does not look so good anymore. She is not likely to admit it.

Mother Jones on Warren Farrell

The left-wing magazine Mother Jones has a long article on men's rights:

Mad Men: Inside the Men's Rights Movement—and the Army of Misogynists and Trolls It Spawned

How did an ex-feminist once hailed by Gloria Steinem become a hero of the haters?

The article is mostly about Warren Farrell, a popular author of some gender-role books. The woman author mixed straight-forward reporting with weird innuendo:

But such rhetoric could lead to violence, warns Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist groups. "When you have a movement pumping out nasty propaganda, it invariably finds fertile ground in the mind of someone like Elliot Rodger or the man behind the 1989 Montreal massacre," she says, referring to 25-year-old Marc Lépine, a misogynist who shot 14 women to death at a university.

Beirich cited a third example: mass murderer Anders Breivik, who carried out attacks on a government building and summer camp in Norway in 2011, killing 77 children and adults. Breivik wrote a manifesto that seized on men's rights ideology—he declared that fathers had become "disposable," that women use their "erotic capital" to "manipulate" men, and that the media turns men into a "touchy-feely subspecies who bows to the radical feminist agenda." Men's rights activist Peter Andrew Nolan, who runs a site called Crimes Against Fathers, praised Breivik, suggesting he was "a hero." (Some men's rights activists, including Elam, disavow Nolan as a dangerous radical.) ...

Following Elliot Rodger's murder rampage last May, Farrell and the men's rights movement drew attention like never before. There is no evidence that Rodger (or other killers) had any ties to Farrell, Elam, or men's rights organizations. But commentators highlighted Rodger's focus on the Pickup Artist scene and his ideas about women and their sexual dominion over men. "They think like beasts," he wrote.

So if these killers have no connection to Farrell or the men's rights movement, what are they doing in this story?

The article has over 2k comments, including many calling the article a hatchet job.

This is what you get from left-wingers. If you tell some truth that they don't like, they call you a racist or a sexist or play some weird guilt-by-association game.

Left-wing groups like the SPLC really do incite hatred and violence:

The man who shot a security guard at the Family Research Council (FRC) on Wednesday was “given a license” to do so because of groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) that have labeled the FRC a “hate group,” said FRC President Tony Perkins.

The SPLC has posted what it calls a "Hate Map" on its website that points to the FRC as a "hate" group located in Washington, D.C..

The map and SPLC listing of "hate organizations" equates groups such as the Family Research Council, which promotes the traditional Christian view of marriage and sexuality, with racist groups that violate Christian teaching on human dignity.

On Wednesday, 28-year-old Floyd Lee Corkins of Herndon, Va., allegedly entered the lobby of the Family Research Council and shot the security guard. According to the FBI, Corkins had a 9mm handgun, two magazines of ammunition, 50 rounds of additional ammo and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his backpack. According to the FBI, he “stated words to the effect of ‘I don’t like your politics.’”

The SPLC defends its slander because an FRC official once said, “The reality is, homosexuals have entered the Scouts in the past for predatory purposes.”

Elliot Rodger was just some lone crazy kid. I don't know what set him off, but it could have been feminism for all I know. I do not see how anything Farrell said could have encouraged him to kill his mom.

Mother Jones is just a left-wing hate rag. That's all.

Davis nationally known for murder and Communism

I mentioned that Angela Davis was speaking in Santa Cruz, along with other anti-American feminist scum. (If a US Senator can use that term, so can I.)

Here is how the local newspaper covered it:

Titled “Racism, Militarism, Poverty: From Ferguson to Palestine,” Davis’s talk drew connections between King’s work and uprisings today, in response to recent police killings of unarmed black men in Missouri and New York. ...

Davis, known nationally for her leadership in the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and 1970s and her more recent work on abolishing the prison industrial complex, was selected to give the keynote speech at UCSC’s 31st annual convocation, in part due to her ties to campus.

No, that is not what she is known for.

Davis is mainly known for her murder trial. She was associated with the Black Panthers and she bought the guns that her boyfriend used to kill a judge, and was a fugitive for a few months. President Nixon called her a "dangerous terrorist". It was the OJ trial of the day, and she was somehow acquitted in a politicized trial.

The second thing she is known for is being a VP candidate on the American Communist Party ticket.

She is a black lesbian feminist. Her doctoral degree is a bogus degree from East Berlin.

Here are some letters to the editor:

Having Angela Davis speak was a waste of money

So, “political activist” Angela Davis, longtime member of the Communist Party USA and its Vice Presidential candidate in 1980 and 1984, supplier of the weapons used to murder Judge Harold Haley in August of 1970, 1979 recipient of the Lenin Peace Prize awarded to her in Moscow by the Soviet Union (during the height of the Cold War) and long-time feeder at the UCSC trough has been given $15,000 of our tax money to preach her anti-Semitic rhetoric in the name of Martin Luther King, Jr. Chancellor Blumenthal defends UCSC’s subsidy of Davis’ hate speech as an “opportunity for constructive debate on the merits of different viewpoints.” This is the same chancellor who could not figure out how to come up with $250,000 to help subsidize the far more academically worthy Shakespeare Santa Cruz. It is time the taxpayers of California got what they are paying for — an affordable university system capable of preparing our young people for productive careers.

Teaching them to hate their country, hate Jews and commit acts of terror should not be on the syllabus.

— David Emberson, Santa Cruz

Angela Davis’ speech highlights her bias

After attending Angela Davis’ lecture in honor of MLK Jr. I was disappointed with her speech. She said that American police from various cities have gone to Israel to learn how to fight terrorism and therefore Israel was to blame for police action in America against citizens of color. This example portrays Prof. Davis’ rabid bias against Israel. In her discussion of the recent fighting in Gaza, Prof.

Davies failed to mention how Hamas terrorizes its own civilians while firing hundreds of rockets at Israel. While she espoused the rights of women, there was no shred of criticism of Palestinian society which is repressive to women and gays and has no freedom of the press. Why does she support Palestine where there is no minimum age for girls to marry, a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man, and “honor killings” of women is practiced. Singling Israel for criticism is Anti Semitic and contrary to MLK Jr’s support for Israel.

— Ilana Goldstein, Santa Cruz

Ethnic study almost never about cultural heritage

Apparently DeCinzo didn’t get the memo on ethnic studies, that any attempt to initiate a dialog on the failure of liberal education policies is always met with accusations of racism and the need for censorship. Rather than the self censoring that has been the result of political correctness and the fear of being called a racists, all subjects should be up for discussion. Ethnic study programs are almost never about cultural heritage, instead it is the liberal demonization of capitalism, white privilege and the self fulfilling prophesy that minorities can never prosper in a rigged free market, hence the need for socialism and forced equality. This is usually followed with the absurd premise that a school curriculum should be based on race. Instead of ethnic studies that divides up the student populations by race, color, religion and/or language, how about an emphasis on assimilation and the need for an informed electorate.

— Brad Goodwin, Santa Cruz

That last letter is about this cartoon:

The cartoon refers to this:

Under a new bill, California’s public high schools could be required to offer ethnic studies classes as part of an effort to build cultural understanding.

“This is a bill that’s going to take a lot of work,” said Assemblyman Luis Alejo, D-Watsonville, who introduced the legislation last week. “Local efforts already show that it can be done in a significant way.”

Santa Cruz feminist commies at work

I mentioned activities by Santa Cruz feminist commies, and I happened to notice some criticism from the Left. One of them is using M.L. King to hate the Jews:

An upcoming civil rights talk by UC Santa Cruz emeritus professor Angela Davis has prompted division and outcry among local Jews due to Davis’ public support for boycotts of Israel. ... Davis is one of around a dozen UCSC community members who have publicly endorsed an academic boycott of Israel, which some consider a blacklisting of Jewish Israeli academics.

The other is now against free speech:

Bettina Aptheker, a professor of feminist studies at the University of California–Santa Cruz, recently wrote an essay commemorating the Berkeley Free Speech movement, in which she participated as a student in 1964. She now expressed a newfound skepticism in the merits of free speech. “Freedom of speech is a constitutional guarantee, but who gets to exercise it without the chilling restraints of censure depends very much on one’s location in the political and social cartography,” she wrote. “We [Free Speech movement] veterans … were too young and inexperienced in 1964 to know this, but we do now, and we speak with a new awareness, a new consciousness, and a new urgency that the wisdom of a true freedom is inexorably tied to who exercises power and for what ends.”

Of course these people are against free speech. Their evil ideas cannot survive in a open discussion of the issues.

Reader goes his own way

Since saying that the system cannot be reformed, I have attracted some MGTOW readers:

I make a ton of money. I have a high net worth. I'm not married. I don't have kids. If it weren't for feminism, the incredibly simple, care-free, easy life I live today might not have been possible. My estate is willed to men's charities.

Women have nothing to add to my life but the opportunity to have sex. Sex with most women bring (1) the chance of contracting an incurable STD, (2) the chance of a false rape claim (cause I'm not calling her the next day or next week), (3) the chance of an unwanted pregnancy, where 'my body my choice = your wallet', (4) the emasculating 'privilege' of living with a woman, (5) the pressure to get married and (6) giving a natural parasite the opportunity to transfer my wealth to themselves through divorce and/or other forms of civil suits.

Feminism helped men a lot more than it helped women. The only reason men are still getting screwed en masse is because all of media promotes a 1950s view in men's thought processes. Most of the messages sent to men in the media are still promoting white knight/captain save a hoe/gynocentric mentality (i.e., man up/get married). If you can somehow wake men up and remove the illusions, enchantments and false beliefs regarding women (i.e., teach them the true nature of women, hypergamy, etc), then you're going to have a lot more single, happy men.

All of the above is why the MGTOW mindset is so very beneficial for men. The MGTOW mindset undoes all of the false social programming that destroys men. MGTOW thinking frees men's minds.

I have come around to your view, but I do not agree completely.

We would be a lot better off if the mass media really promoted a 1950s view of the family. That was when the man was the responsible head of household, the wife was loyal, and the kids had respect. Feminists have succeed in reversing that from a good thing to a bad thing.

There are millions of American women over age 40 who would give anything for that 1950s family life, but they do not seem to realize how feminism has made that difficult. Some can still get what they want in one of the religions that still believes in marriage (Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox Judaism, Eastern religions).

I do agree about white knights. That is one area where the mass media pushes men to do foolish things.

Want proof that the system is anti-men? Read State tells Detroit man: Pay for child that isn't yours or go to jail! I posted this story before, and the man is still facing jail.

Michigan law must be really screwed up to let this happen. While this guy gets no relief, the Michigan lesbians pictured below got their case to the US Supreme Court. You can read more about them and the other couples in the same-sex marriage case here.

Feminist admits movement went too far

Nancy Gertner is a famous American feminist law professor and federal judge. She finally decided that her feminist policies had gone too far when she defended a man against a false rape accusation:

I took over the appeal. The brief my firm filed was what I described as a feminist brief: Just because the legal system has moved away from the view that all rape accusations are contrived does not mean it must move to the view that none are. This conviction was not just technically imperfect, I argued, it was a true injustice. I was successful. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversed Paul’s conviction on a procedural error, the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. The prosecutor could have retried the case, but, thankfully, chose not to do so.

After decades of feminist advocacy (the case establishing the right to choose abortion in Massachusetts, the first introduction of Battered Woman Syndrome in a defense to a murder charge, and on and on), I was picketed by a women’s rights group when I spoke on a panel following the reversal of Paul’s case; I was a “so-called women’s rights attorney,” one sign announced, simply because I had represented a man accused of rape. When I explained why, including the fact that I believed he was innocent, a demonstrator yelled, “That is irrelevant!” The experience was chilling; to the picketers, a wrongful conviction and imprisonment simply did not matter. Paul would have been incarcerated, but for my firm’s advocacy and the appellate court’s independent review. Still, advocacy and appellate review could only go so far: Though the charges against Paul were dropped, he was expelled from the college he had been attending; he struggled to reapply years later and finally get his degree. Worse yet, he continues to suffer from the stigma of the accusation to this day, many, many decades later.

Here is discussion of another accusation:

I did an interview and talked about Bill Cosby. Obviously I’m disgusted with what’s going on, it’s horrible what’s happened to these women, it seems like he did it. That’s what it seems like. But obviously, no, I don’t want to believe it. The last reason I don’t want to believe it is because it will hurt my image of Bill Cosby. The first reason is women are getting drugged and raped. That’s awful. But what I said was, of course I don’t want to believe this, but there’s fucking 20 of them now. If there’s 20 accusations, that means there’s hundreds. It’s like when you see one cockroach in the house that means there’s a thousand in the walls. That’s what I said. So that sounds okay, right? What do you think people did with that?

WIL: Comedian compares rape accusers to cockroaches.

PATTON: Rape victims to cockroaches.

I am not sure of his point here, but look at the illogic of his reasoning. If 20 women are willing to publicly accuse Cosby of drugging and raping them, then there must be 100s more who had the same thing happen and are keeping their mouths shut. So Cosby did it.

I think the reverse. Assume that the evidence is such that either Cosby is innocent, or that he drugged and raped 100s of women. Which is more likely?

If just one of those supposed victims called 911, made a report, and was given a physical exam, then there would be objective evidence. Cosby's semen in the vagine, and rape drug in the blood. Then the cops get a search warrant, and find matching rape drugs in his house, and other evidence. Cosby would be a dead duck.

Not all women report rape. Maybe only a half or a third do, I have no idea. Maybe some were aspiring actresses who thought that Cosby could get them jobs. But I cannot believe that he drugged and raped 100s of women and none of them reported it.

That is part of why I doubt the Jerry Sandusky molestations. He supposedly molested dozens of kids, and no one ever reported. Even after Sandusky was being investigated, his supposed victims denied. They only made accusations after they lawyered up and the likelihood of millions of dollars from Penn State became available.

The latest feminist victory is to get more clothing on the London The Sun page 3 models. A rival newspaper offers discussion:

Is the Sun's scrapping of Page 3 topless models a victory for women?
The Sun has 'quietly' stopped publishing photos of bare-breasted women on Page 3. Our writers discuss how significant this is for women

Of course all the comments are from feminists who essentially say the same thing -- that showing pretty girls objectifies women and therefore must be censored. No one wants to say the obvious. My guess is that women look at those pictures as much as men do.

Anita Hill comes to Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz California is a magnet for leftist-feminist kooks trying to destroy America, and here is the latest:

Law professor Anita Hill, who vaulted into public prominence during the 1991 Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is coming to Santa Cruz.

Hill has been booked to appear at UC Santa Cruz on Feb. 26 in an event co-sponsored by UCSC’s Institute for Humanities Research and Bookshop Santa Cruz. She will give a talk on racial and gender equality and will sign copies of her book “Reimagining Equality: Stories of Gender, Race and Finding a Home.”

In advance of Hill’s Feb. 26 appearance, the Nickelodeon in Santa Cruz will screen the documentary on Hill’s experiences titled “Anita: Speaking Truth to Power” Feb. 22 and 23.

For information on the free talk, visit ihr.ucsc.edu/event/anita-hill.

Yes, she vaulted into prominence as the Democrats' stooge for what Thomas called a "high-tech" lynching.

Bookshop Santa Cruz, the local leftist book story, announces:

UC Presidential Chair in Feminist Critical Race & Ethnic Studies is pleased to bring Anita Hill to UC Santa Cruz for a public talk on sexual harassment law, gender and race equality. After the talk Anita Hill will be signing copies of her book, Reimagining Equality: Stories of Gender, Race, and Finding a Home. There will also be a public screening of the film “Anita: Speaking Truth to Power” at the Nickelodeon Theater in Santa Cruz.

Here is the UCSC Events Calendar:

In 1991, Judge Clarence Thomas’ Senate Confirmation hearing sparked nation wide conversations regarding gender representation, sexual harassment, and race. Hill, who testified about Thomas’ inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace when he served as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the Department of Education and Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Hill will explore the impact of the hearing, including the legal developments, and related issues of credibility, consent, agency, and the interplay of culture, race, class, gender, and sexuality.

No, she did not testify about Thomas’ inappropriate sexual behavior. She made a series of uncorroborated and unverified accusations of Thomas making a few flirtatious comments, all of which were denied by Thomas and other employees.

The impact of the hearings was startling. Most people did not believe her. But I heard from many women, both personally and in the news media, who said things like "I know that she is telling the truth, because I once had a coworker who said similar things."

I never heard a man say anything so stupid. It is like saying, "I know that the defendant is guilty of robbing the bank, because my local bank was robbed once." I hate to think about women like that serving on juries.

Here is a sampling of the sort of nonsense that you can expect from Hill, as quoted in the NY Times:

Professer Hill gave her retrospective view of the hearings in the arcane language of the academic doctrines currently fashionable in legal and literary criticism.

"Because I and my reality did not comport with what they accepted as their reality, I and my reality had to be reconstructed by the Senate committee members with assistance from the press and others," she said.

"In constructing an explanation for my marital status as single, I became unmarriageable or opposed to marriage, the fantasizing spinster or the man hater. An explanation of my career success had to be introduced which fit with their perceptions about the qualifications of people of color, women and the myth of the double advantage enjoyed by women of color.

"I thus became aloof, ambitious, an incompetent product of affirmative action and an ingrate who betrayed those who had worked to insure my success."

Among academic literary critics, there is no such thing as objective reality. There is just my reality, your reality, and other realities. So if her distorted worldview conceives some sexual harassment fantasies that become her reality, that is good enuf for her, and the law should respect her reality regardless of anyone else's reality.

You would think that this sort of nonsense would scare away students who want a real education, but the university is doing better than ever:

UC Santa Cruz received a record number of applications this fall, including significant increases from out-of-state residents and minorities.

Nearly 55,000 prospective undergraduates applied to attend UCSC in Fall 2015, an 11 percent increase from the previous year. The jump is the second highest among UC campuses, all of which received record numbers this fall.

They will have to take class from the sort of kooks who invited Hill.

So who is the "UC Presidential Chair" that invited her? There are two co-chairs, one of which is an inbred Jewish Commie. In you think I exaggerate, read the Wikipedia bio on Bettina Aptheker. She succeeds Angela Davis, a black Commie. Those are probably the two most famous Communists in the USA today.

Davis is retired, but she is coming back to town next week to speak:

Activist, author, and distinguished UC Santa Cruz professor emerita Angela Davis is this year's keynote speaker at the 2015 Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial Convocation in downtown Santa Cruz.

Davis is the author of nine books, including her most recent book of essays, The Meaning of Freedom.

The topic of her talk will be "Racism, Militarism, Poverty: From Ferguson to Palestine." The convocation begins at 7 p.m., Wednesday, January 28, at the Santa Cruz Civic Auditorium. The event is free and open to the public. ...

One of the highest-profile faculty members at UC Santa Cruz, she was a professor in history of consciousness and feminist studies from 1991 to 2008, when she retired.

For many years she has been a highly outspoken organizer and activist. A determined critic of the United States prison system, she helped popularize the term "prison industrial complex." In her speeches, she often asks her audiences to think seriously about the possibility of a world without prison.

She almost served a long prison term herself, as she bought the gun that her boyfriend used to murder a judge.

There is a UC Santa Cruz Women’s Club, but it does not appear involved in this nonsense. Its main activity in putting on the 8th Annual Santa Cruz Chocolate Festival. That is surely a more worthwhile activity, even if it is going to make all the local girls fat.

Otherwise, this is a sleepy little beach town, where the big news is high tides for surfing, and the skunk mating season.