A Triumph For Feminism

Let’s see:  because #feminismrules, you assign a female guard to an all-men’s prison.  What could possibly go wrong?

Quite a lot, apparently.

Lauren McIntyre, 32, is accused of having a sexual relationship with convicted double murderer Andrew Roberts over a four-month period at HMP Isle of Wight, Metro reported.
Prison guard McIntyre — believed to be a mother-of-two— is accused of willfully and without reasonable excuse or justification misconducting herself in a way which amounted to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder because she had secret sex with murderer Roberts.

And the choirboy?

Roberts was convicted of strangling girlfriend Louise L’Homme, 23, and their eight-month-old daughter at the home they shared in 2003. He is serving a life term in prison.

This is what happens when you mix men and women together in a closed environment.  (And for the benefit of the dense:  whether it’s in a prison, a co-ed campus dormitory or on board a Navy ship, they’re gonna have sex.)  ‘Twas ever thus, and no amount of Feministical Theory or Woeful Handwringing will prevent it.

In the old days, prison guards were called “screws”.  Nowadays, that nickname seems to have a whole different meaning, dunnit?

Blacklists Matter

Over the past weekend I watched Trumbo, the story of the Marxist screenwriter blacklisted by Hollywood during the Red Scare back in the 1950s.  To say that I watched it with a jaundiced eye would be a very big understatement, because I suspected (just from the trailer) that the movie would just be one big blowjob for both Dalton Trumbo and his merry little band of Commiesymps who infested Hollywood back then.

And it was.  Needless to say, the movie made villains of the conservatives who opposed the Marxist infiltration:  people like John Wayne and Hedda Hopper in particular, Wayne because Wayne, and Hopper because she had a son serving in the U.S. Navy during the Korean War.  Of course Wayne was made out to be a bully and Hopper a vindictive bitch — and the Senators and Congressmen who haled the Commies in front of the Senate and House Un-American Committee (HUAC) were depicted as ideological purists who saw Communists behind every bush — even though, in the case of Hollywood, there were Commies behind every bush at the time.

Of course, much was made of the fact that being a Communist wasn’t actually illegal (then, and now), and Trumbo made a great show of this being a First Amendment issue — which it was — and how these Commies all wanted to improve America, but of course there were evil right-wingers like Wayne, Joe McCarthy and HUAC harassing them at every turn.

The execution of the traitors Julius and Ethel Rosenberg got a little puff piece in the movie, which didn’t — couldn’t — actually say they weren’t not guilty of treason espionage, so it was brushed over with the throwaway that it was the first execution for esionage in peace time, as though peace time should give espionage a pass.  And if that wasn’t enough, the Rosenberg children were paraded around as sympathy magnets — as they still are — because Communists have no problem using children to serve their own purposes.

Anyway, it all ended well because a few courageous moviemakers flouted the blacklist and finally posted Trumbo’s name in the screenwriting credits for Exodus and Spartacus.

Which brings me to my main point.  I think we can all agree that blacklists are iniquitous — essentially, blacklists mandate the suppression of people’s livelihoods just for holding unpopular opinions or beliefs.  It’s a good thing that Trumbo never wrote the word “nigger”, “queer” or “lesbo” in any of his screenplays, or else his work would be on another blacklist, this time drawn up by the humorless and wokey censors that are everywhere prevalent in show business, academia, government and corporations.  (That these sensitive, censorious souls are proud to call themselves Communists — I’m sorry, democratic socialists or anti-fascists — is an occasion for mirth, irony and satire, but of course ideologues, Marxists most of all, are characterized by a singular lack of a sense of humor.)

So here we are, in a full circle:  people are denied consideration for employment for their political beliefs;  employers get rid of people with contrary political beliefs;  and institutions are being forced to implement policies that parrot the “party line” or The Narrative (take your pick).

But here’s the essential difference between the 1950s-era blacklist and that of the 2010s.  When people fought back against Communism encroachment into the American polity and culture, it wasn’t because they were “fascists”  or “right-wingers”;  it was because the truths of life under Communism were everywhere to be seen:  gulags and the KGB in the Soviet Union, poverty, murder and corruption in socialist Third World countries, and rampant misery in all — all — the countries behind the Iron Curtain.  There was a very good reason to prevent Communism from taking hold here.

Now?  There are no examples of actual “fascism” in America, and to any Black person from the 1880s through the 1950s, the wokeist accusations of modern-day “systemic racism” would cause loud laughter and a shaking of the head.  The only ills that modern-day Communism would seek to cure are largely imaginary, a product of a mindset that demands “safe spaces”, “freedom from hate” and “Black(-only) Lives Matter”.

One thing that does interest me, purely as an intellectual exercise:  would the late Dalton Trumbo agree with what’s going on with the modern-day blacklist?  If he didn’t — assuming he could see the parallels between his predicament in the 1950s with “wrongthinkers” of today — I would hope that he’d employ the same passionate arguments and his legendary scorn against today’s blacklist as he did for his own.

If, however, Trumbo didn’t come out against today’s blacklist and even supported its aims, then I would suggest that his blacklisting in the 1950s was fully justified.

Replacement

I see that the Usual Suspects are demanding the removal of all those Rebel hero statues in Tennessee.  But where it gets funny is that they’re talking about replacing them with “real” Tennessee heroes — or in this case, a heroine:  Dolly Parton.

Now, I have to say, the idea has a certain appeal.  I mean… Dolly?

[sigh]

The problem, of course, is that dues-paying members of the Insane Clown Posse are also the feminazis, to whom a statue featuring Dolly’s ummm  assets would be yet another victory for the Eeevil Drooling Patriarchy or some such bullshit.  Which means that Dolly’s “approved” statue would be more likely to look something like this:

…for a twofer, in that the Extremist Muslim Asshole Mob would also be appeased by the covering up of The Whore Parton’s body.  Ugh.

I think I’ll just post another pic or three of Dolly, just to make us all feel better.

Yeah, the hell with that old Klansman, Nathan Bedford Forrest;  in fact while we’re about it, let’s dynamite that stupid Statue Of Liberty, and put up a Statue Of Dolly, using that last pic as a model.  Because if that pose doesn’t say “Welcome!”, nothing does.

Bite Me

I noted the disappearance of Chris “Tingles Up And Down My Leg” Matthews from some Commie TV network (don’t watch any, no idea which one), but while I’m not sorry to see the asshole go, the reason why he “retired” (sexual harassment) just makes me want to reach for a new bottle of J&B.  Here’s part of his farewell statement:

“Compliments on a woman’s appearance that some men, including me, might have once incorrectly thought were OK, were never OK. Not then and certainly not today.”

Apparently, Matthews said to some TV totty:  “Why have I never fallen in love with you before?”

To me, that’s just about as big a compliment a man could pay a woman.  Also, the fact that the septuagenarian Matthews said that signals that he was obviously not hitting on her — I mean, old guys say that kind of stuff to younger women all the time (“If I were thirty years younger, I’d ask you for a date” etc.) — and let me be crystal clear about this:  such declarations are, and always have been, a compliment.

Of course, in today’s fucking ultra-sensitive #MeToo #KillAllMen #BelieveAllWomen #AndreaDworkinWorld, that’s seen as no different from pushing a woman against a wall and forcing her to feel your dick.  (In another milieu, that outlook is little different from PETA’s “a rat is a dog is a boy” extremist equivalence.)

All I can say is that I’m glad that I don’t work for a modern corporation, nor will I ever again;  and I’m also glad that I live in the South, where women still understand (and indeed practice) the subtle art of flirtation.

Because I’m not going to quit.  As I’ve said many times in the past, I live for harmless flirting and complimenting women — it establishes my love for women and, more importantly, it stops me from treating women the same way I tend to treat men — harshly (because, duh, we’re men  and that’s how we treat each other).

Even more than that:  I can’t quit behaving with women the way I do;  it’s as deeply ingrained in my character as my table manners — maybe more so — and without that subtle interplay with the other sex, I’d just become a caricature grumpy old man who hates everybody.  (As it is, that attitude is never far from the surface at the best of times.)  I’m not going to change just because it’s no longer acceptable to some women:  I’m going to open doors for them, help them stow their luggage on an airliner, walk on the street-side of a sidewalk and yes, compliment them on their appearance and all the other stuff that I’ve done my entire adult life.

And quite frankly, if any woman has a problem with that, she can fuck right off.  (That’s just a little taste of — to coin a phrase — the other side of Kim, and it’s not very pleasant.)

Oh, and to Chris Matthews:  it’s always been okay to compliment a woman on her appearance;  it’s just that in today’s pussified world, some self-appointed arbiters of Acceptable Behavior have changed the rules on us.  Fuck ’em.

Asking For It

Here we go again:

A Belgian sports journalist has sparked fury after making a crude comment about a young reporter’s top on Twitter. Sven Spoormakers posted a picture of Belén Mendiguren interviewing cyclists during a race in Argentina, adding the caption: ‘Is it cold in Argentina?’.
The comment prompted a backlash from fellow journalists who took aim at the Belgian for ‘objectifying’ the young reporter. Spoormakers, a former junior cycling champion, initially defended his comment but later backed down and admitted it was ‘offensive to a lot of people’.

Here’s a pic of the “reporter” in question:

I remember our band’s favorite question when faced with an outfit like this:  “Is it cold, or are you just pleased to see me?”

A more pertinent question would be this:  “Why did you put that top on this morning?”  And don’t give me that “It’s so hot!”  bullshit;  she wore it to attract the attention of the men she wanted to interview, and any other reason is a fucking lie.

Sorry, love;  if the goods aren’t to be looked at, don’t put them in the window.  And as for all the other scolds:  FOAD, and take your “fury” with you.