How smart are the elite intelligentsia really? Should ordinary Americans be more deferential and start bowing to the consensus of the elite on Global Warming, on Social Justice, and on Donald Trump?
Before you make up your mind read the introductory comments by Rod Dreher below and follow the link to the original New York Magazine story.
Sit down, my people, and read the craziest true story you will read this year or maybe even this decade.
It is written by a journalist named Kera Bolonik, who has made an extremely complicated story comprehensible, in the sense that she recalls a logical progression of events. Nothing else about it makes sense. It’s a story about a liberal Harvard Law professor who is a world-historical boob — and about how two grifters (a transwoman and his best friend) stole his house and used Title IX to further ruin his life.
In 2015, a mysterious young woman named Maria-Pia Shuman flirted with Prof. Bruce Hay in a Cambridge hardware store. Hay, who makes Pajama Boy come off like Vin Diesel. is married, but he and his wife, Jennifer Zacks, live together with their children as roommates, no longer lovers. What would a little fling with the sexy young woman hurt? …
Read it all. Trust me. I’m not going to go further here, because to tell even just a piece of it without telling the whole story would not do it justice. You have to read to see what these insane grifters did to this moron and his innocent wife and kids. It really does read like Fatal Attraction meets a transgender Bonfire of the Vanities. Golden quote: “I just really hate the patriarchy, that’s it.â€
Feminists have accused MV Agusta of misogyny after the Italian motorcycle manufacturer last week released an advertisement that features a naked woman gyrating atop one of its products.
MV Agusta published the video to various social media channels last Wednesday as part of a rollout of a new motorcycle, the Superveloce 800 Serie Oro. The one-minute-long ad features close-up shots of the model in suggestive poses along with thumping electronic music and the sounds of a woman moaning.
“Desire is about contemplation and then, ultimately, desire is about possession,†read a caption accompanying the video …
This photo of my future wife Karen is from her ancient Yale ID card. It was taken in 1971, her freshman year. The same photo was mounted and framed, along with similar photos of all the other members of the Class of 1975 in Berkeley College, and hung in the Common Room on the wall opposite the Dining Hall.
As you might expect, male Yale undergraduates not infrequently passed the time perusing the four Class Photo Displays, rating each of the young ladies on attractiveness and desirability. (Karen typically came in first in 1975.)
So I was not in the least surprised to read that male submarine sailors were in the habit of rating the respective appeal of their feminine shipmates, now that the US Navy has succumbed to political correctness and foolishly sexually integrated subs. What would anyone expect?
The lying propagandists of the journalistic left sensationalistically refer to the sailors’ ranking of feminine charms as a “rape list,” despite no reference therein of any kind to rape. I suppose they have to. How else would they be able to puff up perfectly natural, and to some at least, complimentary, male behavior into an aggression of some kind, a threat to the womens’ “safety,” and a scandal meriting a 74-page investigation, the discharge of two male sailors, and firing a captain.
“The sexually explicit list describes various USS Florida females by appearances, characteristics and various sexual acts the creators of the list wish to perform with them,” the investigation states. “The list describes aggressive sexual activity, but does not reference non-consensual acts.”
The sub’s commander got fired for failing to respond to complaints from goofy feminists with immediate inquisitorial proceedings. Doubtless, the unfortunate captain thought there were more important priorities on a warship than catering to the amour propre of the hyper-sensitive and easily offended. Clearly, today’s Naval High Command did not agree. Admirals in the Pentagon these days worry less about anti-submarine missiles and depth charges and more about the incredible destructive power of identity politics and crusading journalists.
Donald Trump ought to re-instate those two sailors and the wronged captain, shit-can everybody involved in the investigation including especially the initial complaintants, and issue an Executive Order ending the presence of females in combat units, including warships.
Actress and Model Emily Ratajkowski certainly showed those “25 old white men” in the Alabama State Senate who voted for the new Anti-Abortion Law. She punished them, and the rest of the male reactionaries in America, by posting the above photograph of herself on Instagram.
We’re bad. We deserve it. She needs to punish all of us some more.
An accused student is suing Yale University for concluding that the brief absence of a condom “during an otherwise consensual encounter†was sexual assault.
“John Doe†alleges that “gender bias was a motivating factor†in the decision against him by Dean of the College Marvin Chun, which resulted in his suspension. . . .
Doe met “Ann Roe†through the dating app Tinder. Shortly after, the two agreed to meet face-to-face in the early hours of December 9, according to the suit. After a fraternity party, they went back to Doe’s place and had consensual sex.
In the 90-minute encounter, the condom failed no later than 45 minutes in and “a new one had to be applied,†according to Doe. They had “unprotected sex for a few seconds†before he put on the new condom. . . .
Roe provided “undisputed testimony†that she gave Doe consent for the entire period both condoms were on. . . .
Roe stayed the night at Doe’s place, leaving on a positive note mid-morning. Throughout the rest of the month, the two exchanged an array of online messages that maintained a friendly dynamic, he said.
Roe changed her tone in January, when she told Doe that she was uncomfortable with the brief absence of protection during their intercourse.
Hold up here. More than a month after the encounter, she “changed her tone.†Like, everything was OK for five weeks, but then for unexplained reasons it wasn’t OK? And then . . .
Two weeks later, Roe filed a formal complaint of nonconsensual “unprotected sexual intercourse†against Doe with Mark Solomon, chair of Yale’s University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct.
Doe believes that university employees cajoled Roe into filing a complaint “that she otherwise did not contemplate filing,†and that the UWC adopted the Title IX coordinator’s “mission of increasing reporting†of sexual misconduct, though the suit doesn’t provide evidence.
You can read the rest. Bottom line is, he got suspended just a few weeks before he was scheduled to graduate because this girl decides retroactively that this brief moment when the condom came off during a 90-minute sexual encounter constituted “assault,†and Yale’s administration just goes along with this? If you’ll read the entire 66-page complaint you’ll find a lot of other reasons not to believe the accuser, including the fact that she claims to have been sexually assaulted more than once before she hooked up with John Doe, suggesting perhaps she has a victimhood mentality. But the larger point is, how can any guy at Yale know he won’t be the next “John Doe,†denied due process and expelled on the basis of a flimsy accusation?
The only safe course is NEVER HAVE SEX WITH A YALE GIRL.
Amazing stuff!
Why is Yale charging $72,800 next year? So they can maintain bureaucracies in charge of “Diversity” and responsible for ruining the lives of any young men who are unwise enough as to incur the wrath of women scorned.
The Western Journal reports on the latest victory of Woke Feminism down at Princeton U.
An a cappella group at Princeton University has agreed to stop performing a song from “The Little Mermaid†thanks to an angry feminist who claimed the performance was a “heteronormative attack†on women’s rights.
According to Inside Higher Ed, the Princeton Tigertones made the decision last week after a performance of the song “Kiss the Girl†by the all-male singing group.
In a typical performance, the Tigertones pick a random female from the audience to represent Ariel, the main character and subject of the song. They “playfully†dance with the female volunteer before calling up a male volunteer to represent the Prince Eric character, Inside Higher Ed reported.
In the course of the song, the Tigertones urge the two to kiss, which usually ends with a harmless peck on the cheek.
Last week, Princeton student Noa Wollstein slammed the performance as “problematic†in Princeton’s student newspaper, The Daily Princetonian.
“Despite the fact that an evil sea-witch cursed Ariel’s voice away, making verbal consent impossible, the song is clearly problematic from the get-go,†Wollstein wrote in a piece published Nov. 26.
This is reminiscent of the outrage over “Snow White.†In that movie, Snow White was cursed with eternal sleep until Prince Charming lifted the curse with a kiss. Liberals were angry that Prince Charming didn’t receive consent from the cursed princess.
The issue of “consent†seems to make up the majority of Wollstein’s complaints regarding “Kiss the Girl.â€
“Lyrics such as, ‘It’s possible she wants you too/There’s one way to ask her/It don’t take a word, not a single word/Go on and kiss the girl, kiss the girl,’ and ‘she won’t say a word/Until you kiss that girl,’ unambiguously encourage men to make physical advances on women without obtaining their clear consent,†Wollstein wrote.
In the ideal liberal world, Prince Eric would have gotten Ariel to sign a written consent form notarized by his lawyer before attempting to kiss her. However, he would first need to get Ariel to sign a separate consent form to hold her hand.
“The song launches a heteronormative attack on women’s right to oppose the romantic and sexual liberties taken by men, further inundating the listener with themes of toxic masculinity,†Wollstein claimed.
If anybody doubts that #MeToo Feminism amounts to witch-hunting, he just needs to read this article in Slate, describing (with avidity) how Yale Law Professor Jed Rubenfeld (husband of “Tiger Mom” Amy Chua) needed to be investigated for making a young lady “uncomfortable” through personal conversations or by complimenting her (!) The beast!
One afternoon late in her first year at Yale Law School, Linda sat down to create a contemporaneous record of a conversation she’d had the night before. She’d met with one of her professors, Jed Rubenfeld, in his office after hours at his suggestion, following repeated attempts to see him in the afternoon about a paper she was working on for him. Rubenfeld had made her uncomfortable throughout the year, commenting on her appearance and asking her about his. While friends had told her she had reason to feel creeped out by his behavior, Linda wondered whether she was being too sensitive and agreed to the 8 p.m. meeting. She really needed to make progress on the paper, after all. But given the queasy feeling she already had, she asked her partner to pick her up that night, and to come looking for her if he hadn’t heard from her after a reasonable amount of time.
Per Linda’s record, written the next day and shared with us recently, her conversation with Rubenfeld that evening quickly veered away from her paper. The professor asked her, “Why aren’t you married?†When Linda tried to steer the conversation to safe ground—mentioning how young she was and inquiring about his own marriage to fellow Yale Law School professor Amy Chua—Rubenfeld brought the focus back to her. He asked if she’d been the smartest girl in her high school, then if she’d been the prettiest. When she again deflected, he asked if her smarts had made things tough with the guys in school. The conversation meandered from there and never returned to her paper. Eventually, Rubenfeld said they should get going. By the time they left, Linda’s partner had come to look for her.
Linda, who today is a recent YLS alum, spent the rest of that academic year agonizing over what to do about her uncomfortable interactions with Rubenfeld, and experiencing more of them. One in particular sticks out: The Saturday night after exams wrapped up, Rubenfeld called her cellphone—the first time he had ever done that, she says. He said they’d never gotten a chance to talk about that paper and asked if she was free to do that now. Linda said she was busy preparing to leave New Haven and couldn’t meet, but said she was happy to talk on the phone. They had what Linda describes as a 30-second conversation about the paper before Rubenfeld quickly ended the call, saying he’d see her in September.
That summer, Linda spoke to Yale Law School’s Title IX coordinator. (Linda is a pseudonym, and to preserve her anonymity, we have chosen not to name the Title IX coordinator at the time, as it would identify her class year.) Her goal was twofold: She wanted to start a paper trail about Rubenfeld’s behavior, and she was looking for advice on what her options were for engaging the school’s Title IX process, the government-mandated means of investigating and stopping gender-based discrimination. According to Linda, the Title IX coordinator at the time told her at the very beginning of the call that if Linda named the professor during their conversation and the allegations were sufficiently serious, the coordinator would have to file a formal report. Once that process began, the coordinator said, Linda’s anonymity could not be guaranteed.
This was several years before #MeToo, and the prevailing wisdom at the time was that women should just lean in and push through when things got weird.
This put Linda in an enormously tough position. Schools need to protect the accused as well as the accusers, so it makes sense that Yale would ask women, or anyone alleging misbehavior, to attach their names to allegations. But it also makes sense that attaching her name would be incredibly difficult for Linda: Rubenfeld hadn’t just advised her on a paper. He also taught one of her courses, and he’d been her “small group†professor during the fall semester. (At Yale, each first-year law student is assigned to a 16- or 17-person small group. Those students take all of their courses together, including one course with just their group that’s led by one professor.) Until that April late-night meeting, Linda had generally considered Rubenfeld her advocate. She was counting on him to be one of her references on her clerkship applications, which she needed to submit soon after returning to campus in the fall. She worried that if she made a report or even told the Title IX coordinator his name, it could get back to Rubenfeld and she’d lose his support. This could undermine her chance to earn a prestigious clerkship with a federal judge—which would then make it harder for her to continue to pursue competitive opportunities, like the holy grail for Yale Law School students: a clerkship on the Supreme Court.
Linda was left with two terrible options: She could protect her clerkship prospects by subjecting herself to more unwelcome flirtation, or she could ask Yale to investigate Rubenfeld.
When I was at Yale, I had a professor who had a wonderful voice and a superb accent in the poetry of another language. His seminar was filled with gorgeous female grad students beautiful enough to be models, who were commonly visibly aroused, breathing heavily, as he read aloud. He was a lady-killer, with a glint in his eye. The girls adored him, and he made one of them after another his lover. I suspect he left behind a lot of happy memories, but, it’s a good thing he’s gone. Boy! they’d string him up today.
Ian Buruma, the 66-year-old Dutch-born writer and only the third editor in the history of the New York Review of Books, was forced to resign this week.
His crime? Buruma published a self-pitying essay by Jian Ghomeshi, a Canadian musician, writer, and talk show host of Iranian descent, who lost his job in 2014 when an ex-girlfriend accused him of non-consensual rough sex.
Buruma was quickly mobbed on social media where critics complained about the absence of fact-checking (NYRB employs no fact checkers), pointing out that, even though Ghomeshi was acquitted in court, a large number of women had come forward to accuse him of similar bad behavior and that one case was dropped on the condition that he apologize and post a peace bond promising to avoid future misbehavior.
Buruma told Slate:
I’m no judge of the rights and wrongs of every allegation. How can I be? All I know is that in a court of law he was acquitted, and there is no proof he committed a crime. The exact nature of his behaviour — how much consent was involved — I have no idea, nor is it really my concern. My concern is what happens to somebody who has not been found guilty in any criminal sense but who perhaps deserves social opprobrium, but how long should that last, what form it should take, etc.
In the end, Buruma chose to fall upon his sword for the good of the publication when university publishers, whose advertising was vital to NYRB, began talking about a boycott.
Toby Young, at Spectator USA, notes the left’s insanity, but seems to blame it on their 2016 defeat.
My own theory is that a small minority on the identitarian Left have used various Maoist tactics, including public shaming on social media, to persuade people that their doctrinaire positions on #MeToo allegations and a range of other issues … are much more ubiquitous than they really are, thereby stifling dissent. …
Who knows how long this paranoid atmosphere will continue. America seems to go through periodic bouts of hysterical puritanism, which partly accounts for the enduring appeal of The Crucible, Arthur Miller’s play about the Salem Witch Trials. I think it largely depends on what happens in the mid-terms. If the Democrats emerge the victors, Trump Derangement Syndrome will start to fade and reason may creep back into America’s liberal institutions. But if the Republicans win the day, the Democrats will likely descend into civil war and the identitarian Left may capture the Party, just as it’s captured the UK’s Labour Party. If that happens, don’t expect this hysteria to die down any time soon.
I don’t think the left’s appetite for blood is the result of losing. I think it comes from too much winning. The radical left flagrantly abuses the power it enjoys due to the cowardly spinelessness of the liberal establishment because it can. The more the American institutional establishment grovels to its demands the more extravagant those demands are going to get. Leftist Reigns of Terror do not stop because the Left side won an election. They only stop after the Revolution is done devouring its own.
