October 30, 2013
File this under Feminists Gone Nuts. And cc it to Liberalism of course.
Here’s the headline:
Comedian commits misogynistic thought crime.
Paul Joseph Watson,
October 29, 2013.
Feminists are angry at comedian Russell Brand over a recent New Statesman editorial in which Brand referred to a woman as “beautiful”.
… Apparently, feminists now think that even referring to a woman’s good looks is a hateful and derisory dismissal of the entire female species.”
Feminist liberals hate Barbie. She’s beautiful and she’s a lady.
In this one instance, they aren’t feigning feminist outrage merely to hide the real reason for their hatred – that Russell Brand is a conservative – a phenomenon we see way too often. No, Brand is actually a strident socialist who is so militantly so, that he espouses a global socialist “revolution.” I mean this guy is a commie in fancy clothes (he’s worth $15 MILLION, and no the sick irony doesn’t escape me – this phenomenon is also common amongst low-information humans).
…Although most of the debate over Brand’s involvement with the magazine centered around his call for a “revolution,” Salon.com’s Natasha Lennard said she couldn’t bring herself to jump on the “Brandwagon” because the actor’s “framing of women is nothing short of the most archetypal misogyny.”
So, what — she’d be totally cool with a socialist/communist “revolution,” if not for his wrecking that great idea by calling a woman “beautiful.” Those are some kind of principles. Liberals’ lack of principles or adherence to utterly bizarre principles make predicting their various outrages or their reactions to events, or even to define them, nearly impossible – or certainly to justify rationally. For example, I have no clue what in tarnation her problem is.
But just to clarify (not), she said this at her own left-wing web site, Salon.com:
…And, like Brand, I refuse to say what I propose instead when badgered by staunch defenders of capitalism. … But the point is, I’ve learned to leave conversations when the “what do you propose instead?” question is posed to me qua anti-capitalist. If you had a blood-sucking monster on your face, I wouldn’t ask you what I should put there instead. I’d vanquish the blood-sucking monster. …
So she’d end capitalism, and replace it with… well she’d rather not say. On principle.
I think she’d rather not say because she’s a communist. She’s anti-capitalist, at best. And yet she’s an assistant news editor at Salon.
But the liberal-left feminist day isn’t done yet:
By Sterling Beard
October 29, 2013 1:47 PM
Former governor Thomas Kean, a Republican, said last week that Barbara Buono, the New Jersey Democratic gubernatorial nominee and a state senator, was “a nice lady, but not a strong candidate and not qualified to be governor.”
Buono took umbrage with the remark, blasting it as “outdated” and “an anachronism.” She charged that the Garden State has a long history of marginalizing women, but such behavior is now hidden in backrooms. …
Maybe her particular problem is not with the word “lady,” but rather “nice.” She objects to be called “nice.” Yeah, that’s the ticket.
No, she’s just nuts.
The comments to this article at NRO are some of the fumiest comments you’ll read all day. Like this:
If “nice lady” is considered insulting now, why not go all in and use a more accurate description: “shrill, gender-focused harpy”?
I agree. I find it discouraging for the cause of sane, sensible people everywhere, that Kean cowered to the possible violations of liberal political-correctness and the pop-idiocy and sheepishly quasi-apologized, saying he “probably should have said person.”
Wrong. He probably should have laughed and made a total mockery of the nasty lady.
This article was posted: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 at 5:58 am