Subscribe: Arts and Palaver
http://artsandpalaver.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
affirmative consent  affirmative  consent  feminist  life  media  new  sex  sexual  social  time  university  victim  women 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Arts and Palaver

Arts and Palaver



A Forum Dedicated to Extremely Sensitive Issues Whether They Involve Books, Film, or Politics



Last Build Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 14:21:14 +0000

 



The Apex Predators of Feminism - Julie Bindel Wants New Prison Camps While Meghan Murphy and Apostles Like "Educational Psychologist" Lori Day of Massachusetts Manifest a Comfortable Form of Homicidal Entitlement, Better Known as TOXIC FEMININITY

Mon, 23 Jan 2017 19:52:00 +0000

The Mainstreaming of Misandry - Media Personalities and Child Educators Embrace the Freedom to Openly Preach Murderous Hatred of Men and the End of Heterosexual Sex - Is This the Last Desperate Hurrah of the RLFs or the Resurrection of S.C.U.M.? Andy Why Isn't Anyone Opposing Them?Just as humans have a prior right to existence over dogs by virtue of being more highly evolved and having a superior consciousness, so women have a prior right to existence over men. The elimination of any male is, therefore, a righteous and good act, an act highly beneficial to women as well as an act of mercy.             - Feminist Valerie Solana (S.C.U.M. Manifesto)One of Valerie's Brilliant SCUM RealizationsShortly Before She Began Stalking Andy WarholMan haters like Andrea Dworkin, Julie Bindel, Meghan Murphy, Lori Day, and the murderous Valerie Solana notwithstanding, I am a feminist, and have been for over 30 years. I fervently believe in the power of women, and in working to achieve status as a powerful and independent woman who takes no prisoners and always does it her way come success or failure. I have never hated men or blamed them for my mistakes, for if I blamed them I would be a hypocrite if I didn't also thank them for my victories. In truth, my life, like that of others, is the result of so many things acting in concert, many of which I have little or no control over. But where and when I do have control, I take full advantage. I draw my sword, my bracelets deflect bullets, and I charge.Xena and Diana are my patron saints. Damn the fat cigars, full speed ahead!Lately though, I have found myself and others of my ilk under a withering assault by the radical lesbian feminist wing who are coming to dominate the general perception of feminism by virtue of their pure aggressiveness and determination. Years ago we could consign the likes of the sex hater Andrea Dworkin and murderous man-hater crazies like Valerie Solana to the dark museum of feminist curiosities, but now, with the ever growing power of social media, feminist superbloggers like Meghan Murphy, educational psychologist Lori Day, and news media personality Julie Bindel have pumped a vibrant new life into sex-male-hating. Like possessed demons they flood the Internet with the most vitriolic and absolutist dogma I've ever seen with respect to heterosexuality and heterosexual males. They preach an end to heterosexual sex (except for Lori Day) and prison camps for men. Sound extreme? It is. They make no apologies for their extremist views but consider them mainstream and sensible given their political philosophy. In fact, they are in the process of utilizing the Internet to mainstream their hate, to make it culturally acceptable in general, and in many ways, they are winning the fight. As noted above, a shining example of this is Julie Bindel, news columnist for The Guardian. She proudly proclaims herself a radical lesbian feminist, and furthermore, openly discusses her fantasy of all boys and men being placed into enormous prison camps, as well as her belief that heterosexual sex is doomed. She falls short of Valerie's S.C.U.M. plans for widespread murder campaigns, but you can't help but believe that Bindel would eventually support such a final solution if she were able to get away with it. Here is a bit of evidence:Isn't she a dear? Read more about it here. You wonder how any man, no matter his political persuasion, could avoid Bindel's misogyny label unless he openly supported her murderous misandry. Even then, my guess is that she'd have him shot later, or at least put on a leash sans testicles. He could feed her crackers and cheese while she watches feminist porno flicks at home.Regardless, I don't believe men will sit still while the RLFs like Bindel or Solana herd them into prison camps. The amount of sheer force and organization that would be required to strip away the authority and responsibilities of literally tens of millions of males in the U.S. alone is difficult to imagine, and could only be achieved afte[...]



Victim Feminist Survivor, Eleanor Sharman, Speaks Out

Wed, 07 Sep 2016 17:59:00 +0000

(image) I'm pasting in the words of Eleanor Sharman below. Who could summarize this condition in a manner more eloquent than this?
"Feminism had not empowered me to take on the world – it had not made me stronger, fiercer or tougher. Irony of ironies, it had turned me into someone who wore long skirts and stayed at home with her girlfriends. Even leaving the house became a minefield. What if a man whistled at me? What if someone looked me up and down? How was I supposed to deal with that? This fearmongering had turned me into a timid, stay-at-home, emotionally fragile bore.
Thankfully, I learned a lot from the experience. Teaching women that we exist as probable victims (to the probable attacks of men) is not freeing or empowering. Modern feminism trains us to see sexism and victimhood in everything – it makes us weaker. It is also anathema to gender equality. How are we to reconcile with our male ‘oppressors’ when we view them as primitive, aggressive beasts? How are we to advance female agency when everything from dancing to dating is deemed traumatic?
The answer to the problems we face as women is not to submit to the embrace of victim feminism, but to stand up for ourselves. We must throw off the soft, damp blanket of Safe Space culture and face the world bravely. If we do not do so now, we will consign any prospect of real equality to the ash heap of history. "



Candace Owens, Founder of Social Autopsy, Defends Her Revenge Website

Wed, 07 Sep 2016 17:34:00 +0000

allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/XAtm5mw_gE4" width="560">


Candace Owens, founder of Social Autopsy, defends her hideous revenge website that she devised for her own personal aggrandizement while pretending to be a social justice warrior of sorts. Just thought to post. OMG.

For those who don't know, the ostensible purpose of Social Autopsy is to out "trolls" that Candace and others of her ilk don't like. The opportunities for abuse of this are endless. Anyone can anonymously "out" anyone else and the posting of personal information is allowed: schools they attend and/or place of employment.

Pure revenge. Talk about a paradise for axe grinders!



Narcissist Ziyad Marar Defends College Shriekers by Dissing "Reason" and Free Speech

Fri, 22 Jul 2016 15:56:00 +0000

The Pontification of Ziyad Marar on Social Justice I just bumped into this quietly nasty piece by a pseudo-intellectual Englishman named Ziyad Marar. He's a publisher in the UK, having moved there from Iraq at age ten. Apparently looking to get some attention, he seized on the opportunity earlier this year to play counterpoint on the matter of The Shrieking Girl of Yale. It's hard for me to communicate just how despicable and oily I find this man, Ziyad Marar, but his "reason" is my "unreason" and his freedom to speak belongs not just to him but to me also. So let's jolly well go forward!Marar begins his passionate defense of The Shrieking Girl of Yale with an attack on reason and free speech as epitomized by none other than Thomas Jefferson. According to Ziya Marar, it's all just relative. Even "reason" in his mind becomes the "unreason" of today. Therefore, The Shrieking Girl was perfectly reasonable in Marar's mind? Judge for yourself by his own speech. I've added some comments in parens. I'm sorry, but I can't help it. It's just such bullshit:"Dominant voices (you mean the prof being bullied?) have long defended the established views of their time (he was doing no such thing) on the grounds that they are rational and dispassionate (this is a narcissist projection--they're simply saying the principles of free speech are best), and this general point is particularly apt in the “coddling” debate. Critics of today’s students sometimes cite (very rarely if ever) Thomas Jefferson’s statement at the founding of the University of Virginia: “This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” Yet it is easy to forget that the reason of one age was another age’s unreason (Says who? Another narcissist projection by Marar) – and that the content of rational-seeming positions (including truths held to be self-evident by the slave-owning Jefferson) can change dramatically thanks to activists (like the Shrieking Girl? An activist???) who struggle against those with more power (like the bullied prof over the issue of Halloween costumes? The "power" to defend the free speech of Halloween costumes?)." and further:"The irrational, the unreasonable and the uncomfortable are often the only weapons available to the powerless. This is not to laud all unreasonable ideas, but it is to say that we would do better to ask who has the power before judging too quickly."Who has the power? If you watch the damn video, Mr. Ziyad, you will see that all the power belonged to The Shrieking Girl. She and her "powerless" friends were utterly bullying a hapless professor who was simply trying to calm things down and "reason" with them--or should I say, "unreason" with them? And let's not forget that your Marar-dubbed "powerless" students, all of whom are privileged to be in the 1% of the 1% and attend Yale University! Who are you kidding? So yes, ask who has the power? The prof's wife who wrote an email asking people to stay calm and be tolerant on Halloween, or The Shrieking Girl and her bullying social justice warriors who seized on the phony issue and shrieked like mad harpies at her husband who was trying to offer explanation?Btw, at least a couple of intelligent readers stopped by to counterpoint Marar. Reader's comments (2) #1 Submitted by Scholar on January 15, 2016 - 12:31pm Hmmm........except that the starting point of all this kerfuffle was the professor's partner sending out an email suggesting that the authority to decide whether a Halloween costume is offensive should be in the hands of the student body, not the university administration. Shrieking Girl was arguing against this, thus taking the strange position of deliberately seeking to be powerless.#2 Submitted by joeditemer on May 27, 2016 - 2:04am "Who has the power?" is indeed the right quest[...]



The Real Victims of The Victim War - From the NYT

Thu, 21 Jul 2016 22:01:00 +0000

Arthur C. Brooks DEC. 26, 2015Continue reading the main storyShare This PageShareTweetEmailMoreSave660The Incredible ShriekingGirl of Yale University -Victimized by Threat ofHalloween CostumesBACK in 1993, the misanthropic art critic Robert Hughes published a grumpy, entertaining book called “Culture of Complaint,” in which he predicted that America was doomed to become increasingly an “infantilized culture” of victimhood. It was a rant against what he saw as a grievance industry appearing all across the political spectrum.I enjoyed the book, but as a lifelong optimist about America, was unpersuaded by Mr. Hughes’s argument. I dismissed it as just another apocalyptic prediction about our culture.Unfortunately, the intervening two decades have made Mr. Hughes look prophetic and me look naïve.“Victimhood culture” has now been identified as a widening phenomenon by mainstream sociologists. And it is impossible to miss the obvious examples all around us. We can laugh off some of them, for example, the argument that the design of a Starbucks cup is evidence of a secularist war on Christmas. Others, however, are more ominous.On campuses, activists interpret ordinary interactions as “microaggressions” and set up “safe spaces” to protect students from certain forms of speech. And presidential candidates on both the left and the right routinely motivate supporters by declaring that they are under attack by immigrants or wealthy people.So who cares if we are becoming a culture of victimhood? We all should. To begin with, victimhood makes it more and more difficult for us to resolve political and social conflicts. The culture feeds a mentality that crowds out a necessary give and take — the very concept of good-faith disagreement — turning every policy difference into a pitched battle between good (us) and evil (them).[ MORE ]Btw, a bit of the ultimate victim, THE SHRIEKING GIRL OF YALE: allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/V6ZVEVufWFI" width="560"> ___________________________[...]



Enhancement Drugs at The Olympics - A View By The Moderate Voice

Tue, 19 Jul 2016 20:51:00 +0000

When you want to ruin a perfectly good trail mix, you toss in a handful of banana chips. When you want to ruin a perfectly good sports exhibition, you toss in a sample-sized cup of steroid-tainted urine.Should we back up? Let’s back up. We’re talking about doping — a practice that continues to persist, even in a world that can no longer keep secrets. We’ve had the displeasure of seeing some of our most treasured athletes succumb — including Lance Armstrong, whose career more-or-less imploded after it was discovered that he had engaged in doping and had conspired to cover it up.But one would hope that a high-stakes sports exhibition like the Summer Olympics — a time-honored celebration of international cooperation and friendly competition — would be a sacred place, safe from the inky shadow of foul play and the scent of tainted urine.However, if one believed that, one would come away disappointed.A World Leader in DishonestyLet’s start with Russia. Russia’s track and field team has been summarily banned from the upcoming Rio Olympics — the first such sanction in many decades. The last time a similar penalty was levied against an entire nation’s sports team, the year was 1960, and the nation was East Germany.So what’s happening with Russia? It began with reports published by the World Anti-Doping Agency, which alleged that a far-reaching and state-sanctioned doping scheme had undermined the results of the 2008, 2012 and 2014 Games. But while the specter of doubt has hung over Putin’s Russia for many years, it was only in the last seven months or so that things took a darker and more decisive turn.When the dust finally settled, we were left with a handful of shameful details:• Russian athletes had been provided with a three-drug cocktail, complete with liquor chasers.• The Russian Federal Security Force was found to have made a habit of threatening or blackmailing drug testers.• Russia had apparently successfully enlisted the assistance of some of the less honest authorities to manipulate tests by swapping out tainted urine and destroying other urine samples entirely.Like so much else that goes on in the upper echelons of Russian leadership, Russia’s efforts in these most recent Olympic Games is half bluster and half smoke and mirrors.[ MORE FROM MODERATE VOICE ]___________________________[...]



A Must See: Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia Meet To Discuss "Feminism"

Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:07:00 +0000

CHS: I gave a lecture at Oberlin and Georgetown a year ago, and they organized safe spaces for students who were “triggered” — a Philosophy professor was going to induce PTSD. What they objected to is that I might have some ideas that invalidate their experience.CP: They’re institutionalizing neurosis.CHS: It’s absolutely true!CP: That’s what they’re doing. It’s absolute madness.CHS: And have you heard the phase, the ‘fashion on campus’ now is called, ‘intersectional feminism’, and it’s supposedly very progressive and it’s going to take feminism to a place where it is taking into account women with multiply marginalized identities, on and on. But all of the women — the practitioner — seem to meet at the intersection of propaganda and neurosis and rage. And they’re bullying people.[ more ]CP: That’s what education has come to. Absolutely. The definition down is  “therapeutic resorts.”CHS: Oh yes! And they have “feelings circles;” they have reflection journals. It’s this odd mix of therapy and anger — the word for this style of activism is ‘cry bullies’ because they’re both victim and victimizer.That’s the new style of campus intersectionality. They actually do to other people what they claim was done to them. They treat people, they objectify and they stereotype and they demonize and then they try to get these people punished.[ more ] allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iv7LvRhvgNI" width="560">___________________________[...]



Mattress Girl Emma Sulkowicz NOW Award, Copulates for The Sake of Art, and As Usual, Displays her Tireless Narcissism

Tue, 12 Jul 2016 03:47:00 +0000

An excellent talk on the narcissist smear campaign and the manipulations used to gain sympathy and followers by becoming a victim. This bears watching in order to get a different viewpoint on the facts regarding the actions and words of Emma Sulcowicz in the context of her life following the breakup between she and her old boyfriend who she later accused of physical assault and rape. allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2EECf8-BaSk" width="560">I thought that if you deny, disparage, or otherwise attempt to negate another human being's opinion while making direct reference to their skin color, you are a racist. Am I right? It's almost comical to see Emma Sulkowicz throw the racist card when it suits--a juvenile way of avoiding the issue and labeling the messenger. It's also fascinating to see how she's evolved her victim status to such a fine edge that even broaching the subject of healing with an unsuitable phrase is potentially an act of violence. So much for ascending from victim to survivor. Of course, the survivor rung is in the future. Emma has only to reinvent herself again into a state of "survivor art." Oh, and btw, Emma doesn't have a problem with white women giving her awards or praising her, just so long as no one suggests she actually transcend and grow as a woman.Fascinating. Sulkowicz has declared an indefinite victim status. How long can she play it out, you ask? Her "fear" must be validated. But what is she still afraid of? She doesn't say. And of course, she pats herself on the back at the end. She did it "my way" and the "unexpected right thing." What could that be? Lugging a mattress across campus for the camera? Nevertheless, she has attained the moral high ground as both victim and self-righteous being. Who can doubt her?In this context, any ostensible ascendance from victim status, especially at this time, is not a good idea. The victim has become inextricable from the art, and the art forever fused with the victim.It would not be difficult to characterize her entire display related to the alleged rape as an ongoing exercise in childish dishonesty and narcissism thinly disguised as activism. Not difficult at all. Here is a great timeline regarding the Emma Sulkowicz issues. Read it. Note her interactions with the university and her lack of cooperation. Her schedule just didn't match their schedule. Darn! Also, please take time to read the record of her conversations with her victim regarding their sex romps; and if you can't see dishonesty and narcissism on this page, and after watching the video recreation of her alleged rape, then IMO you have blinders on.Here is one screenshot of the staged rape reenactment:This is actually Emma Sulkowicz having sex with a porn actor --complete with violence and an acting out of her distress with loud criesI can't and won't stream her porn-ish video "art" on this blog, but you have to see this to believe it! It's simply amazing that even someone as narcissistic and dishonest and blameless as Emma Sulkowicz, trans-frankensteined by NOW and others into the perfect archetypal victim of "male power structure," willingly, and with such theatrical relish, allows herself to be "raped" on camera by a porno actor. I just never would have believed something like this, in this context, could take place, but it has. Emma did it. She found a way to launch herself into the media once again, to take center stage at all costs.If I were ill, the sight of her copulating with this ugly bastard would make me vomit. HowHer NOW Award for Couragecan she stand to look at him much less absorb his rod? What in living hell is wrong with this woman? What kind of dark obsession makes this possible? As a dabbler in psychology, I see the reenactment of the violent parts (the slapping and choking) as metaphor for her emotional state in [...]



Mandi Gray of York University is a "Guerilla Feminist" Victim For All Seasons

Fri, 08 Jul 2016 02:07:00 +0000

Methinks she protests too much? It is truly amazing to see Mandi Gray go from aggressive feminist warrior to traumatized victim and back over the course of months. Will it ever end? Mandi has won in court. See her new list of demands for nationwide social change and a point-by-point call for retribution against the defendant's lawyer--below in the comment section. And btw, as of now I have reached the unavoidable conclusion that the defendant received an unfair trial at the hands of Judge Marvin Zuker. Ample evidence of that below. IMO Zuker purposely avoided what amounted to clear evidence of a criminal affirmative-consent assault by Mandi Gray.     "Victimization now structures my day-to-day life." - Mandi GrayMandi Gray Noted She Was Traumatized by This Event and Others of Similar NatureThat fact is clear. As an ongoing victim she utilizes her status as a basis for vehemently and persistently attacking York University, and in a way that can only be described as a vendetta. To do what she is doing, you either gotta have a lot of hate in you, or else a big need for justice, or a burning desire to grandstand for reasons of ambition, or perhaps a portion from all three columns. Far more titanic energy on Mandi Gray's part is devoted to her attack on the school, and in particular, her subsequent re-victimization, secondary victimization, and re-traumatizing by school officials, and others (see letter below), than to matters relating to the alleged rape--as if it has become nothing but a footnote.As to the alleged rape in question, you need to reach your own conclusion. I was really leaning towards believing the story of Mandi Gray of York University until I read her entire letter written to the school, excerpted below, and then followed up by watching her interview video wherein she lambastes York in a way I can only describe as juvenile and narcissistic. I recommend you take a long hard look at this video, and this video, and read the letter, then do more research on Mandi Gray (see links below).SEE MY COMMENTS ABOUT THE TRIAL BELOW On to the letter. The excerpt below details a victimization that is ongoing, dramatic, incredibly varied in source and complete with accompanying psychological symptoms that even include flashbacks. I have never read anything that can top this. Like the personality of Mandi Gray in the interview, it smacks of narcissism and entitlement. Though the fact of this doesn't negate her accusation, it certainly makes me curious about her psyche.http://www.academia.edu/11203878/An_Open_Letter_to_York_University_RE_YORK_UNIVERSITY_POLICY_ON_SEXUAL_ASSAULT_AWARENESS_PREVENTION_AND_RESPONSE"As any trained professional or survivor will tell you, victimization now structures my day-to-day life. I experience victimization and secondary victimization everyday from:Both the Union and the University have caused a re-victimization of my experience, including further trauma;Daily interactions and inactions with actors of the judicial system, the health care system, and, now, York University;I now suffer from debilitating anxiety and stress that has caused me to take a temporary leave of absence from my studies and my employment at York University;I suffer from insomnia;I suffer from depression;I suffer from flashbacks; reliving parts of the experience, which trigger  psychological and physiological effects of stress and trauma;I am bearing the burden of paying out of pocket and live with the fear of being  bankrupted by having to pay for my lawyer and counseling fees;I am living in a constant state of fear and not knowing what the future will bring due to York’s ambiguous policy on dealing with sexual violence;I am even afraid of commuting to and from York University campus for fear of seeing my attacker. This tells you that it is not even enough to ban him [...]



Melanie Boyd Puts Smiley Face on Punitive Sex Crime Tribunals : The Yale Feminist Who Theorizes Sexual Assault Issues In Her Spare Time and Supports Universal Application of Affirmative Consent in American Life As a Path to "Feminist Sexual Power"

Wed, 29 Jun 2016 17:17:00 +0000

Why Does Melanie Boyd Remind Me of My Sweet but Sex-hating, Buttinski Jewish Mother WhoLoved to Micromanage Everyone Else's Life?"Grounding women’s emancipation, sexual and otherwise, on such a sweeping use of criminal punishment and civil incapacitation (e.g., expulsion from college with a transcript marking one as a sexual wrongdoer)  has led feminist reformers to take several stances typically thought to be hallmarks of social conservatism.  They are seeking social control through punitive and repressive deployments of state power.  They are criminalizing as a first rather than a last resort to achieving social change.  They are affirming indifference to the punishment of innocent conduct. They have moved well to the right of civil-liberties-oriented liberalism in their advocacy for swift and sure punishment unimpeded by due process restraints."        - Janet HalleyMelanie Boyd, btw, please see my heartfelt note to you in all caps at the base of this page, thank you. Oh, and to all who stop by, I included a list below of actual studies on female sexual aggression. As for me, I've been sexually aggressive my whole life and loved every moment of it. The Catherine MacKinnon viewpoint (wellspring of the Melanie Boyd sex-negative world) that depends on the woman always being the passive and coerced participant is both inaccurate and silly, and btw only a concept that a woman who fears and hates sex could have imagined in the first place. And to all you out there who do fear and hate sex, that's fine, just go have your own party and stop trying to enforce your viewpoints on the rest of us. Pretty please? Sex-Negative"Culture Activist"Before we get on to the business of Melanie Boyd of Yale, the miss warm-and-fuzzy-aw-shucks Ivy League "sexual culture activist" and spokesperson for Affirmative Consent--who bills it as a harmless and sensible all-American pursuit that wouldn't hurt a sex starved fly--I note that the below snippet of blog commentary was cropped from a long thread connected to one of many debates on Huffington Post concerning the application of Affirmative Consent (AC) as a universal constant on college campuses across the United States. Perhaps it's just me, but I continually find it odd that certain heterosexual white women crowing about AC as a must-have on college campuses and in American bedrooms appear to see AC policy and law as a one-way street. If not, then why do they never discuss AC in terms of having to acquire or seek prior consent from their male partner for various acts of sex? How about just one, "Is it okay if I stick my finger up your ass, Bob?" or "I made sure to ask Rudolpho last night if I could kiss his throbbing member." No, not one. It's invariably about their obedient, well-trained male partner attempting to seek, or failing to seek (oh no, release the hounds!), ongoing stage-based prior sexual consent from them.Might a few weeks of psychoanalysis reveal this unfair circumstance to be the result of narcissist power trips? Or perhaps a subconscious misandry that smugly grins each time their naked male partner quizzes with yet another "Will that be okay, schmoopy?" Or could it be a nurtured inheritance from a matriarchal micromanaging mother who bullied the emasculated father into begging for sex? That's one way to assure sexual dominance.What do you think, my dear and precious Yale sex authorities? Your Melanie Boyd, working to institutionalize neurosis, has figured it out, and that's obvious when she states: "Determining consent post facto in a disciplinary hearing may be difficult (and disciplinary boards will sometimes get it wrong), but in media res agreement is clear." WELL YEAH! We know, Mel. No fooling honey! But the dark side of AC isn't about reality or normal passion-b[...]



Can We Hear The Rape Radio Through All The Media Static?

Tue, 31 May 2016 23:21:00 +0000

Professor Schulhofer Intrudes Like a True CrusaderThe American Law Institute (ALI) resoundingly rejected as impractical and unconstitutional an effort by sex negative feminists and their allies in the ALI like Professors Schulhofer and his grim sidekick Erin Murphy to "reshape American sexual norms" by creating a draconian new penal code that would have given courts all over the country the necessary guidance and confidence to sentence to hard prison time tens of thousands of men for "sex crimes" ranging from attempted hand holding to kissing--in reality to every single stage and sub-stage leading to intercourse (whether or not it was achieved); and if the man could not prove he obtained "prior affirmative consent" for each rung of the sex ladder (with a theoretically endless number of rungs)  he climbed, the threat of cold prison steel would be a fact--not to mention a ruined life, lost job, sex offender registry, and so forth.And if you are skeptical regarding what I've said above, see this piece on Professor Schulhofer and the rest of the good old "gavel and cage 'em" gang. Given that ALI and non-ALI sex negatives alike naturally share the view that sex is an unceasing act of predation that must be micromanaged in order to protect a woman's body (under threat of violation each moment she is in the presence of men), it's not surprising that even married men and long-standing relationships were on the chopping block. One "unsolicited" or "consent lacking" sexual touch and days, weeks or even years later, the jaws of prison would become a distinct possibility if the prosecutor wished to pursue. With thousands of men potentially incarcerated for such "offenses" enabled to insane reality by an affirmative consent penal code, you begin to wonder why some men believe The War on Men isn't a myth but a reality? To say that sex negative feminists applaud and support this movement towards affirmative consent and vastly expanded punitive action is an understatement.But I digress a bit.Self-defined Sex Negative PersonSimilar to the sex-negative penal code above, the Affirmative Consent laws for colleges now living and breathing in states like California and New York, do their best to significantly increase the numbers of sex offenses while simultaneously making it impossible for the accused (invariably a man) to defend themselves. This has resulted in dozens of lawsuits against colleges across the nation, and it's no wonder since the colleges effectively remove most if not all of due process procedure when judging the accused in order to more easily facilitate findings of guilt. The supporters of these conditions have also conjured the horror of the male serial rapist roaming campuses all across America, and in the thousands, but I can't understand why not a single one of these serial offenders has yet been tagged and caged. Not even one... Hmmmm? Could it be a myth?Regardless, the sex-negative feminists, together with their state and university lobbyists and social media supporters, are transparently overreaching to extend the rape and assault umbrella over sexual acts that are considered consensual by both parties at the time. They also wish to enable post-coitus reconsideration and group discussion that results weeks, months, or even years later in a finding of technical "rape" due to the presence of alcohol and/or lack of "affirmative consent"--itself a hydra of legal issues and constitutional infractions (noted above). The sex negatives at Harvard, e.g., basically want men accused of rape 24/7 regardless of circumstances, since they argue we women can't give consent with any real certainty because we're mind controlled by the patriarchy.  OMG! And who does this mentally ill BS really serve?And what is the result of all the above?[...]



Kathy Caprino of Forbes Props the "Glass Cliff" Myth, Thereby Satisfying the Need for Women as Victims Regardless of Circumstances

Sat, 14 May 2016 21:51:00 +0000

What is Kathy Caprino thinking when she fails to question or comment intelligently on the so-called existence of "The Glass Cliff?" Please read Kathy Caprino's article in Forbes then return here and the paragraph of critique below will make a lot more sense.The Glass Cliff inventors, Ryan and Haslam, are academics transparently looking to create results that will get them publicity. 97% of CEOs in the U.S. are male, leaving only a tiny percent of female. CEO turnover is a fact of life, women or no women. Many get appointed, many fail, and for a complex and huge variety of circumstantial, personal, and political reasons. To take any number of women who "failed" and manufacture a "glass cliff" excuse is not only to absolve them of responsibility, it's an act of intellectual dishonesty that infers an absurd patriarchal conspiracy at work. For example, the case of Bartz at Yahoo in the Forbes article by Kathy Caprino neglects to note that other leaders had failed before she got there, and they were all men! They "failed" just like she did because the Yahoo circumstances are crazy and entrenched. The place was hemorrhaging talent. But if you subtract the Bartz case from its context and apply the "glass cliff" overlay of Ryan and Haslam while at the same time making lies of omission, you create a false case that appears to support the Glass Cliff assertions of the academics.Btw, here is Kathy Caprino's bio:"Greetings! I'm a women's career success coach, leadership trainer, author and speaker dedicated to the advancement of women. My career consulting firm, Ellia Communications, offers a wide array of resources, programs, and courses to help you "dig deep, discover your right work, and illuminate the world with it." I'm also a former corporate VP and trained therapist and have worked with over 10,000 professionals globally. Along with Forbes, I contribute to Huffington Post, LinkedIn, and my own blog. For help to build your happiest career, feel free to visit http://kathycaprino.com. There, you'll find my book Breakdown, Breakthrough, my online course The Amazing Career Project, my Amazing Career Certification training for coaches, my weekly podcast Best Work/Best Life, and other free Career tools, quizzes, and assessments. Visit kathycaprino.com and amazingcareerproject.com for more info.""Dedicated to the advancement of women"? How, Kathy? By giving credence to intellectual fraud that transparently attempts to make women into victims even after they've succeeded to positions of great responsibility? Isn't this telling us women that even if we succeed we fail? If we're given challenging work to turn things around we will be ousted by the patriarchy as part of a conspiratorial scheme? And if not the patriarchy, then who precisely is behind all these meany old firings of wonderfully competent women who should never have been fired if it weren't for... THE GLASS CLIFF?Again, hundreds of men have been fired over the past few decades for PRECISELY THE SAME REASONS. It's part of the job. Grow up! And everybody, please ignore those social media feminists who make us into 24/7 victims for their own gain.btw, my post over on Think Progress and Huffington Post on the so-called Glass Cliff. I'm sick and tired of woman-as-victim studies that avoid the facts and make us all look foolish:___________________________[...]



Affirmative Consent Law: "Invading Bodies" and Disputed Sex Acts

Sun, 04 Oct 2015 22:54:00 +0000

Judge Carol McCoy"The judge found that the university unlawfully limited the plaintiff's right to cross-examine the primary witness against him, namely, the female student who had accused him of sexual assault. According to the university's procedures, a student who is accused of sexual assault does not cross-examine the complainant directly, but rather, submits his questions to the chair of the disciplinary panel that is conducting the hearing, who asks the questions on behalf of the accused. In this case, the accused student submitted 31 questions for possible cross-examination of the complainant, but the chair asked only 9 of them."           - Court Ruling on Affirmative Consent Case at UCSD"Mr. Dixon did describe behaviors that he believed indicated [the female trainer's] affirmative consent during both incidents. He stated that he believed there was affirmative consent because she was "Lip biting, moaning, kissing me back on my neck type thing." He also stated that he believed she indicated affirmative consent by lying naked on the bed while he put on the condom."          - Overturn of Affirmative Consent Conviction by Los Angeles Superior Court"Harvard has adopted procedures for deciding cases of alleged sexual misconduct which lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused, and are in no way required by Title IX law or regulation..."          - Boston Globe Article re Sexual Assault Policy at Harvard"The UTC Chancellor improperly shifted the burden of proof and imposed an untenable standard upon Mr. Mock to disprove the accusation that he forcibly assaulted Ms. Morris. He made no finding that Ms. Morris did not consent, intertwined the definition in SOC 7 of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, and made no distinction as to which acts had occurred."         - Judge Carol McCoy on Reversing An Affirmative Consent Conviction"At every stage of every physical relationship, the “perpetrator” is at risk with no safe harbor of any type. If the initiator got positive agreement “sufficient to show affirmative permission” (Discussion Draft No. 2, Substantive Material, at 54) to initiate a kiss, the initiator is still at risk because the accuser can always counter by asserting, “I didn’t say you could kiss me that way.” If the initiator got positive agreement “sufficient to show affirmative permission” and did the kiss the right way, the initiator is still at risk with the next identical kiss because, “I didn’t say you could kiss me twice.” The draft acknowledges that its standard “requires the fact finder to focus on the existence of consent regarding each of the disputed sex acts.” Id. and Section 213.0(3)."          - American Law Institute Members In Opposition to The Affirmative Consent Penal Code"Here is a rich irony to chew on: At a time when women's political, social, physical, and especially economic powers are at a 10,000-year high, a movement to regulate sexual intercourse in this country is growing, fueled by the notion that contemporary women can't say "no."          - Copulemus in Pace"Grounding women’s emancipation, sexual and otherwise, on such a sweeping use of criminal punishment and civil incapacitation (e.g., expulsion from college with a transcript marking one as a sexual wrongdoer)  has led feminist reformers to take several stances typically thought to be hallmarks of social conservatism.  They are seeking social control through punitive and repressive deployments of state power.  They are criminalizing a[...]



All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman - Catherine Mackinnon

Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:02:00 +0000


Katie Mac took time off from her busy schedule preaching hate and venom at Harvard to step out on the town. She looks both sexy and elegant.

I wonder if she had the ability to freely choose her own clothing in a world ruled by the patriarchy?




Law Professor Stephen J. Schulhofer of NYU and His Sidekick Professor Erin Murphy Have Decided to Radically Change The Way America Conducts Its Sex Life by Inventing New Sex Crimes and Hard Time Prison Sentences

Fri, 04 Sep 2015 16:43:00 +0000

"Most people just aren’t very talkative during the delicate tango that precedes sex, and the re-education required to make them more forthcoming would be a very big project. Nor are people unerringly good at decoding sexual signals. If they were, we wouldn’t have romantic comedies. “If there’s no social consensus about what the lines are,” says Nancy Gertner, a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School and a retired judge, then affirmative consent “has no business being in the criminal law."                          - New York Times "They do not intend to make sexual intercourse impossible to construe as an innocent act. But this would be the consequence of their draft. Any act of sex in which permission is not repeatedly requested and granted would put at least one of the parties, usually men, in legal jeopardy. Absent the repeated "May I…?" and affirmative responses, any woman could later have her partner locked up over unexpressed mental reservations. Men could make the same accusations. No one who opposes this legal change argues that consent is unnecessary. But the "yes means yes" standard is so stringent that it would criminalize millions of Americans overnight unless no one reports them."                         - Washington Examiner"My primary concern is with the drafting of the substantive crimes... this revised Model Penal Code, at least if the draft continues in its present form, is likely to be famous for its dramatic expansion in the criminalization of sexual activity, including codification in the revised MPC of a number of new sexual crimes that have not previously been recognized by any jurisdiction... This proposal appears based on the view of the Reporters (Schulhofer and Murphy) set forth in the second paragraph of their introductory note that the criminal law "must often be called upon to help shape social norms by communicating effectively the conditions under which commonplace or seemingly innocuous behavior can be unacceptably abusive or dangerous." I believe any attempt to criminalize "common place" or "seemingly innocuous" behavior in order to "shape social norms" needs to be examined carefully by the ALI membership."                         - Laird Kirkpatrick, Professor of Law, GMU  At every stage of every physical relationship, the “perpetrator” is at risk with no safe harbor of any type. If the initiator got positive agreement “sufficient to show affirmative permission” (Discussion Draft No. 2, Substantive Material, at 54) to initiate a kiss, the initiator is still at risk because the accuser can always counter by asserting, “I didn’t say you could kiss me that way.” If the initiator got positive agreement “sufficient to show affirmative permission” and did the kiss the right way, the initiator is still at risk with the next identical kiss because, “I didn’t say you could kiss me twice.” The draft acknowledges that its standard “requires the fact finder to focus on the existence of consent regarding each of the disputed sex acts.” Id. and Section 213.0(3).                         - ALI Members and Advisers In Opposition to The Model Penal CodeThe Masters and Johnson of NYU Law?So these two people on the left one day got together and decided they should labor to reshape the social norms of America even though America didn't appoint them to d[...]



Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies

Thu, 27 Aug 2015 16:17:00 +0000


(image)

Authors: Daphne Patai, Noretta Koertge
Feminists have often called Women's Studies the "academic arm of the women's movement." But Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge charge that the attempt to make Women's Studies serve a political agenda has led to deeply problematic results: dubious scholarship, pedagogical practices that resemble indoctrination more than education, and the alienation of countless potential supporters.

In this new and expanded edition of their controversial 1994 book, the authors update their analysis of what's gone wrong with Women's Studies programs. Original chapters feature interviews with professors, students, and staffers who invested much time and effort in Women's Studies, and new chapters look primarily at documents recently generated from within Women's Studies itself. Through critiques of actual program mission statements, course descriptions, newsletters, and e-mail lists devoted to feminist pedagogy and Women's Studies, and, not least, the writings of well-known feminist scholars, Patai and Koertge provide a detailed and devastating examination of the routine practices found in feminist teaching and research.
BUY THIS BOOK! One of the many sources that prove the man-blaming haters are harming the real feminism.



No Matter What Zerlina Maxwell of the Washington Post Says, Men Have Rights Too

Wed, 10 Dec 2014 21:19:00 +0000

Zerlina's Finest Hour as She Stands Up for MoralityIn a post regarding the now debunked UVA gang rape claim on the part of the mysterious "Jackie," Zerlina Maxell of the Washington Post, makes the statement:We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist. Even if Jackie fabricated her account, U-Va. should have taken her word for it during the period while they endeavored to prove or disprove the accusation. This is not a legal argument about what standards we should use in courts; it’s a moral one...I find the above shocking. What happened to rights of the accused? Due process? Why does the United States bother to insist on such civilized behavior. Well, people like Zerlina Maxwell are the answer. If she had her way ... OMG! It's shocking to me that the Post allows this kind of rights-trampling diatribe disguised as intelligent commentary. But she's popular, an attorney, an ardent feminist. And make no mistake. The arrow points in one direction, people, from the tip of Zerlina's finger to every man in this country: YOU ARE GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. UVA, and everyone else, should be MORALLY OBLIGATED TO DENY RIGHTS TO THE ACCUSED IF THE ACCUSER IS A WOMAN.Zerlina appears to be creating her own form of feminist hip-shooting morality, a kangaroo court of her own legal reality wherein any female accuser must be believed or the "costs" will be high. In her article, she argues that regardless of circumstances, female accusers must always be believed from the onset no matter how wrong-headed or outrageous their claims, and let's face it, the Jackie UVA rape claim was outrageous by anyone's standard. As of the date of this posting, lives and organizations and a proud school have been smeared by the media, and Zerlina is perfectly at peace with that? It doesn't matter to her whether or not the media makes a lynching circus out of UVA or anyone else in the near future? It doesn't matter to Zerlina how her philosophical take on smearing and lies will encourage more smearing and lies? After all, if you just point the finger and open your mouth to do as much damage as you can, you MUST be believed in Zerlina's world because "wrongly disbelieving a survivor" (a woman) outweigh the costs of wrongly bludgeoning men and institutions and anyone else who might seek to question an accuser's validity at any particular time.Zerlina Maxwell should have lived in the Salem witch trial era. She would have loved it. Everyone believed the witch accuser without question. The women just pointed and shrieked, fell on the floor, rolled around and screamed like hyenas. And nothing stopped them. No courts, no common sense, no one to stop rushes to judgment, and best of all, a pile of victims getting bigger and bigger with no one to raise a red flag (until the rich people were accused). In a backdoor way, Zerlina Maxwell is arguing for the rights of the media to slash and burn also without waiting for the facts to come in--which is what they do anyway. Look at UVA, it's all there.Zerlina's world.UVA took the accuser's word for it, obviously, and began punishing the frats and making sweeping statements before the truth came out. Wasn't that good enough for Zerlina? And doesn't it all remind you of Duke University and their damning of the lacrosse boys who turned out to be completely and overwhelmingly innocent? Another rush to judgment, another huge mistake.Zerlina's utopian paradise.No one "wrongly disbelieved" Jackie. They behaved as if her claim had validity and the press did also before t[...]



Why is Ruchika Tulshyan Making Jill Abramson Into a Feminist Martyr?

Tue, 20 May 2014 15:25:00 +0000

Who is Ruchika Tulshyan of Forbes.Com and why should anyone care? In the bigger picture of doing her part to create and nurture media myths by means of fact avoidance, hearsay, and transparently false conclusions, no one in my opinion does it better. But how can we fault a woman working for Forbes who looks like a gorgeous international model? We'll start with common sense. On the matter of the Jill Abramson firing from the NYT, Ruchika Tulshyan succeeds in black-and-whiting the sad circumstance to suit her own ambitions. How you ask? By inappropriately martyring the legendary "Good Bad" Jill Abramson, making her the stereotypical victim of the merciless patriarchy that hates "assertive women" who dare to demand equal pay. Based on Ruchika's first grade life math, Abramson was an assertive woman (1). She didn't get paid as much as her male counterpart Keller (1), so therefore, when Abramson allegedly confronted "the top brass," she was fired.NO real thought process needed. No complications or unknowns. Judge All-Men-Suck has boomed her gavel. Those damnable penises are at it again! Emotional participation in the agony of the victim has never been more accessible, desired, or self-righteous. We are all infused with the rape of justice. Thank you so much, Ruchika. As women, we all needed that fix. Or did we? But wait, we have ever greater proof of Ruchika's contention. Her supporting evidence is neatly presented in her Forbes article:"Auletta’s post suggests that Abramson confronted “the top brass” about her alleged pay gap, which irked them. He says this fed into the Times’ narrative of her “pushy” personality. That word – loaded and undeniably gendered – speaks to the deeper issues women face when they demand anything."Let's move on. In reading and mulling over our mediagenic darling's version of reality on the matter of Abramson's firing, it becomes increasingly difficult to draw a line between sheer ignorance and media feminist ambition. Perhaps she simply desires to belong to the right club, and what better way to demonstrate allegiance than by capitalizing on the opportunity presented by Abramson's misfortune?But let's be wiser, just for a minute, if possible. Let's do the real life math, one more like algebra, a math that reveals life to be complex, full of nuances, unknowns, politics and social relationships that graph up and down depending on the day and environment. A world of Good Jill, Bad Jill, as revealed in the now famous Newsweek article.It takes maturity to understand that life isn't always black and white, especially in a high-powered executive office culture where Type A egos do battle on a daily basis. Opinions, tempers, and shifting alliances can rule or ruin the day. And it takes experience and a mature viewpoint to understand this. If only such rationality could rule the media piranha and counteract the smell of blood. If only … Unfortunately though, for all concerned, there exists a new generation of feminist media type who is hungry, narcissistic, and looking to make waves, hoping for that shot at MSNBC or CNN, and when such types see a potential feminist martyr in the making and a chance to fault the patriarchy, you better get out of their way or they and their friends will smear you all the way to a social media hell of condemnation you never imagined possible. Just ask feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers who receives hate mail any time she is courageous enough to challenge blatantly false statements issued by the AAUW, e.g., regarding the alleged wage gap between men and women.Just as the AAUW ignores its[...]



Redux of Obama Praising Reagan on Camera

Mon, 04 Nov 2013 01:48:00 +0000

Every time I tell someone about this video they don't believe me. It's OLD news, but here you go. Obama praising Ronald Reagan. No surprise now, is it?

Will the "liberals" still excusing Obama please wake up and smell the drone fumes now?


allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/HFLuOBsNMZA" width="420">



Dianne Feinstein: Verizon Court Order

Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:07:00 +0000

It is "lawful," yes, because the law is such a good excuse. Feinstein was always a showman, and this shows everyone her true colors. Well golly gee, it's just a renewal, and we've been doing it for seven years. And as if Chambliss really knows what metadata is. What a bumbling goof!

width="490" height="276" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3TLUZv1MUE0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>




Donald Trump Attacks Snowden Over NSA Leak

Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:58:00 +0000

My question: when will someone blow the whistle on Trump? Oh, I forgot. We all know he's an asshole already. And Snowden is a grand stander? Give us all a break! The mega pot calling the little kettle black. Sorry for the Fox News link here, but I could not help it.

width="470" height="255" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/s1p2-d4vDg8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>




Obama Defends Phone Data Collection

Fri, 07 Jun 2013 21:32:00 +0000

From Huffington Post:
Obama portrayed the programs as a trade-off between security and civil liberties. "I think it's important to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security, and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society," he said.

He also expressed his displeasure that the domestic spying programs' existence was leaked to the press. "I don't welcome leaks," he said. "There's a reason these programs are classified."

The president's full-throated defense of the programs, albeit with the qualification that he welcomes debate, is unlikely to quell the outrage over the revelations. Obama ran as an antidote to Bush's policies in 2008, but the reports reveal that he has continued many of them, leading to concerns over the reach of the national security state.

Obama went on to defend those who operated the programs as "professionals."
What's wrong with this picture?  Even a child would know that any terrorist would simply interact like they did in the old days before cell phones and Internet. It's easy. Look at partisan actions in WW II, for example.

The terrorist thing is an excuse, plain and simple. They're using 911 as an excuse to jump through the window and inspect our lives and engage in political retaliations.  It's so obvious, and it's indefensible.

MSNBC is defending his BS every day. It has become the White House equivalent of Fox News, I swear to God!





Miami Cops Choke Black Teen for Staring???

Mon, 03 Jun 2013 21:12:00 +0000

I just saw this on Salon.Com: Micami cops trying to justify choking some young black guy for "dehumanizing stares"?  What are we talking about here?  He was charged with disorderly conduct (which is debatable) given the circumstances, and once he "resisted" arrest by the bullying cops they do what bullying cops do best: attack and choke. Anyone who resists their bullying and racism is "resisting arrest" and charged with a felony.

If the youth were actually engaged in the commission of a real crime and he resisted the efforts of police to stop him and/or place him under arrest, that is one thing, but this incident begs for a hearing.

width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sgdN_y9D--M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen>



Pentagon Creating New Enemies "On The Fly"

Thu, 09 May 2013 02:09:00 +0000

Shades of bombing Cambodia! The Pentagon is on a mission to create a new drone fleet and expand attacks to other countries. No surprise there. The evil genius consists of killing people until they actually become terrorists, thus assuring an unending supply of enemies and increased validation for ever expanding military budgets of one type or another.

From the L.A. Times in February:
In the long run, a more important question may be whether the drone strikes, which have killed more than 3,000 people, are creating more enemies for the United States than they are eliminating.
Scholars who have studied the political effects of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen have argued that even well-targeted raids often claim innocent victims, and the result is a backlash against the U.S. Likewise, Hayden and retired Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the former U.S. commander in Afghanistan, have warned that too many drone attacks — in Pakistan, for example, where the CIA uses "signature strikes" against suspected militants without identifying them individually — can be a bad thing.
"What scares me about drone strikes is how they are perceived around the world," McChrystal told the Reuters news agency last month. "The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes ... is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who've never seen one or seen the effects of one."
During a hearing that lasted more than three hours, only one senator asked about that critical issue — a senior Republican, Susan Collins of Maine.
"If you looked at a map back in 2001, you would see that Al Qaeda was mainly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and if you look at a map today, you would see Al Qaeda in all sorts of countries," Collins said. "If the cancer of Al Qaeda is metastasizing, do we need a new treatment?"



Michael Neff and Algonkian Writer Conferences Score a Hit With Antagonistic Force on Author Salon

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 23:25:00 +0000

My friend, Michael Neff of Algonkian Writer Conferences, asked me to post one of my favorite articles by him on the subject of great fiction writing and I chose this one from Author Salon:______________________________ A SMART DOSE OF ANTAGONISTIC FORCEAntagonists Who Light The Drama and Transform Writing Into Great Literature Links: The 50 Greatest Villains Comment by Barbara Kyle Antagonists are often the most memorable characters in literature, without whom many of the best selling novels of all time would simply cease to exist, their supporting beams cut away, the shell of remaining "story" quietly imploding to ignominy and self-publication ... And consider the impact on a scene, any scene, as soon as the author moves the particular chess piece of antagonist onto the page. The mere presence of a Javert from "Les Misérables," Assef from "The Kite Runner," or even Marilla from "Anne of Green Gables," immediately energizes the environment. The narrative and dialogue literally crackle and groan with antagonist.    - Michael NeffWhat chances do you as a writer have of getting your novel manuscript, regardless of genre, commercially published if the story and narrative therein fail to meet reader demands for sufficient suspense, character concern, and conflict? Answer: none. But what major factor makes for a quiet or dull manuscript brimming with insipid characters and a story that cascades from chapter to chapter with tens of thousands of words, all of them combining irresistibly to produce an audible thudding sound in the mind, rather like a fist hitting a side of cold beef? Such a dearth of Élan vital in narrative and story frequently results from the unwillingness of the writer to create a suitable antagonist who stirs and spices the plot hash. And let's make it clear what we're talking about. By "antagonist" we specifically refer to an actual fictional character, an embodiment of certain traits and motivations who plays a significant role in catalyzing and energizing plot line(s), or at bare minimum, in assisting to evolve the protagonist's character arc (and by default the story itself) by igniting complication(s) the protagonist, and possibly other characters, must face and solve (or fail to solve). Writers new to the fiction game often shy away from creating an effective antagonist. If you are an editor, you see this time and time again. But why? Is it because they can't accept that a certain percentage of cruel and selfish humans are a reality of life? Is it because they live in an American bubble surrounded only by circumstances that reinforce their Rockwellian naivety? Do they not watch Bill Moyers, or Sixty Minutes, or even a shred of film footage from the latest repressions of the downtrodden by tyrannical government forces? Or is it because they don't understand the requirements of good dramatic fiction (no good guy without a bad guy, folks)? Or some combo thereof? Whatever. Though you would think after watching hundreds of films (even comedies) and reading God knows how many novels they might catch on. And this doesn't mean they have to reinvent the black hat cowboy. We're talking about prime movers of social conflict and supreme irritation that come in wide variety of forms, from relatively mild to pure evil. Antagonists are often the most memorable characters in literature, withou[...]