Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff, who for obvious reason signs her postings “Heart” and not “Head,” subscribes to the same school of paranoid Feminism as that ditzy chick teaching at USC.

Seelhoff quotes the Hadji Girl song, and (with typical Feminist logic) segues from a discussion of a humorous skit of a Marine turning the tables on insurgents who attack him, to the case of several soldiers from the 101th Airborne Division of the US Army, not Marines, who have been accused by Iraqis of participating in an incident of rape and murder in the Iraqi city of Mahmoudiya.

Today 15-year-old Abeer Qasim Hamza is dead, having been raped and burned by soldiers after her family had been shot by them.

According to this article the soldiers who murdered her had been sexually harrassing her (described as “making advances” towards her) every day as she passed through a checkpoint they manned. She was scared and had told her mother about it several times, and her mother had spoken with friends and even asked whether her daughter could stay with them.

It is so transparent. It is so obvious.

Abeer Qasim Hamza made the fatal errror of refusing the “advances” of Marines. She had to have known, said they, that she was hot. She had to have known, said they, what she was doing, sashaying through that checkpoint every day. And she turned them down. Ignored them. Rejected them. Acted like she was scared. Who the hell did she think she was? What. They were there all the way from the United States to defend her and her family, and she thought she could get away with that kind of bullshit?

After they raped her and killed her family, they blamed it on “insurgents.” And in their minds, that wasn’t really a lie. In fact, to men under male heterosupremacy, beautiful women who refuse their advances are always “insurgents.” They are deceivers, evil vixens, jezebels, dangerous, and deadly, decoys scheming to lure them into traps. They deserve to be raped. They deserve to die.

I’m not surprised by this; it makes perfect sense to me. It will make perfect sense to any honest and clear-thinking woman who has experienced this same murderous hatred at the hands of a man she has spurned or ignored (something most women have experienced sometime or other.) I don’t think any of the men who did this were personality-disordered. I think they were men under male heterosupremacy who had the opportunity of a lifetime: the opportunity to get away with raping and killing and getting revenge against a beautiful young girl who had rejected them.

What disturbs me, and scares me, are all the Americans, including women, who defended this song, defended this performance, and bought the public explanations — thousands and thousands of them. All the Americans who thought this song was funny.

Ms. Seelhoff not only doesn’t need the formality of a trial to convict the accused soldiers, only one of whom seems to have been been charged so far. Seelhoff knows exactly what the accused were thinking, which thoughts happen to have consisted of the perfect case stereotype projections of masculine malevolence from a feminist perspective.

The reality is, neither I nor Ms. Seelhoff were there. We don’t know the truth in the Mahmoudiya case. We certainly do know that Islamic enemies of the United States are very well acquainted with our cultural vulnerabilities to accusations of this kind, and are prone to try to arrange such propaganda victories. We owe members of the US Armed Forces who have served in a theatre of war, at the very least, the same presumption of innocence until prove guilty which American civilians enjoy.

Whatever happened or didn’t happen in Mahmoudiya hasn’t got a thing to do with the song.

And, until feminists like Ms. Seelhoff develop the capacity for logical thought, and grow a sense of humor, no sensible member of the patriarchy will ever take them seriously.

———————

Old joke:

Question: How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb.

Answer: That’s not funny!

Diana York Blaine, a Senior Lecturer in the University of Southern California’s Writing Program, uses Flickr to host her photos, and ill-advisedly (but in keeping with her personal philosophy) chose to upload and display three topless photos of her middle-aged self.

Dr. Blaine’s anatomy came to public attention as the result of her proclivity toward public expressions of feminist victimhood. Blaine took several occasions of accusation of rape by members of the USC football team (all of which were subsequently dropped or dismissed) to declare the USC team and the entire USC male population obliged to stop rape by attendng feminist rallies.

So if a few bad eggs don’t respect women’s right to decide if to have sex with them, why should I hold the whole football team accountable? Because I do. Because I hold every single male on this campus responsible. Because every single male on this campus has the responsibility for stopping rape. Every fraternity brother, every science major, every professor, every one of them. Because they all rape? Of course not. But because only men rape and only men can stop other men from raping.

Annoyed by Blaine’s persistent accusatory rhetoric and narcissitic posturing, a student group blog called Cardinal Martini began publishing a series of postings quarreling with the professor’s statements, and characterizing them as FemiNazi-ism. One of these posts recently outed Dr. Blaine’s topless photos on Flickr, in the course of commenting on the inappropriateness of the lady’s linking to these from a blog she says she created for the benefit of USC students.

My blog is for the 100s of USC students who have told me they wish they could have further exposure to my ideas once our class time together has ended.

And the martyred matron responds:

Many people continue to contact me to express surprise at the outpouring of hatred against me and my unmutilated middle-aged breasts, which I had the audacity to have photographed in several spontaneous life moments and the unmitigated gall to share with others.

The nerve of some people! Don’t I know my place?

But seriously, I am not surprised at all. My life work has centered on researching the ways that sexism functions as a method of control, benefiting a few at the expense of the many. As women in the United States, we are encouraged to serve men, making them happy in ways often detrimental to our own well-being. Feminist scholars write about the many forms such institutionalized sexism takes, all the way from unpaid labor in the home to underpaid labor in the workplace. And because our scholarship opposes current patriarchal ideologies, we threaten the system and therefore are viewed as enemies rather than legitimate contributors to knowledge. Hence the attempts to silence us.

Worse than a Feminist, Dr. Blaine also styles herself a “thanatologist,” and visitors to her blog will find even more dreadful and appalling nonsense on the subject of attitudes and behavior associated with death and grief.

——————-
H/t to PJM.

The Brussels Journal reports that Sharon Dijksma, a prominent member of the Dutch Labor Party (PvdA) has introduced legislation which will attempt to recover some portion of the costs of their education from women who choose to stay at home and who fail to pursue careers.

Dijksma’s proposal reflects Dutch state subsidies of education. Consequently, the Labor politician is of the opinion that those who study at the taxpayers’ expense and do not join the workforce are guilty of destruction of social capital.
_________________
Hat tip to David Ross.