Self-described "Radical Feminist" Comes Out Against Transgender Bathrooms - Gets Rape Threats, Death Threats: "Bigot! Shut up and go die in a fire!"

Tweet

According to Tucker Carlson of Fox News, "Christian evangelicals and radical feminists are teaming up to fight Barrack Obama's "transgender" bathroom legislation. Last night, Carlson interviewed Kara Dansky, Board Chair for Women's Liberation Front.

Let me make a quick comment before introducing an excerpt from the interview. The video follows at bottom.

There are real feminists and there are fake feminists. By "real" versus "fake" I'm not separating feminists out as to whether they, say, agree with me, or are "right-wing" as opposed to "left-wing" or whatever. Rather, I'm separating those who fight for the rights of women as they honestly see it versus those who are simply conforming to the political zeitgeist of the moment.

I'm sure I would disagree with Dansky on many things. But I think it's clear she honestly cares about women - not women as part of or defined by some larger political cause, but just woman. Or as she puts it, "women and girls."

This has earned her death threats and the appellation, "bigot" from others on the left.

It's also clear that she and her allies are honest enough and brave enough to fight through it. She doesn't care about what other people think.

There is an obvious sense to her position that I'm surprised has not come to the fore earlier. The "transgender" movement , as it currently exists today, is an abomination. And I'm not talking here about, say, morality or even Catholic morality, but rather, biology or more to the point, basic logic. In just a few short years, the movement has gone from, charitably interpreted, a defense of mentally or sexually troubled people (or, to put it neutrally, "different" people) to an outright denial of objective facts and the very meaning of objective thought and language.

That doesn't help "transgenders," women or anyone else.

Kara Dansky: ...If we define sex under title IX to mean gender identity, what we're essentially saying is that "women" and "girl" can mean anyone who self identifies as women and girl, which renders the category, "women and girls" meaningless as a category. And it goes further than that. We see this in language all throughout society. We see, for example, women are no longer allowed to talk about body parts. We're not allowed to talk about pregnant women - we have to talk about pregnant people. We're not allowed to say that women have certain kinds of body parts. Language is degrading. We're seeing the erasure of women and girls as a meaningful category.

Tucker Carlson: Language and thought along with it. So acknowledging biological reality is now hate, in other words.

Dansky: Yes.

Carlson: So, how, I mean, as someone on the left, I think it's fair to say, what is your life looking like since you've said something like this publicly?

Dansky: Well, what most of us who say things like this publicly receive is a lot of hate online, and threats. We're called "transphobic bigots" because we ask questions about gender identity. And it goes further. We are often threatened with rape and death. We're told that we need to shut up and go die in a fire because we're asking questions and we're standing up for women and girls. And that seems to be not permitted. It's interesting to me that specifically the word "bigot" is used, because the word bigot means someone who is intolerable (sic) toward another's views. And I'm open to other views . . like, I am open. If I'm wrong about this, I will own it. If I, if someone can demonstrate to me that there is some legitimacy to gender identity ideology, then great, I'm completely . . .

Carlson: Like, for example, science.

Dansky: Sure. Sure. I'm completely open to that. But instead what we see is when women and girls stand up and say, wait a second, what to you mean by gender identity. Like, I am a woman because I am an adult human female, which is the dictionary definition of "woman," we are shut down immediately and told that we are transphobic bigots.

Carlson: I just want to . . . I never thought I would say anything nice about a radical feminist group, but you said, "we exist to protect all women and girls, regardless of political affiliation." And I just want to say, thank you for that.

Dansky: Because it's true.

PURE EVIL: Speaker at Women's March Was Convicted of the Kidnap, Torture, Rape and Murder of a 62-Year-Old Man - "He was a homo, anyway"

Tweet

Activist Donna Hylton made a five-minute speech on the featured stage of the DC Women's March. She spoke in-between Cecile Richards (the head of Planned Parenthood), Kiera Johnson (the executive director of URGE - wearing the white "abortion" smock), the reggae-folk-singer (I didn't get her name) and Stephanie Schriock (president of Emily's List). Like many of the speakers, Hylton also was interviewed by and appeared on various television shows where she was given the opportunity to make the case for the March.

As far as I know, no one asked about her past. If they knew of it, they didn't speak about it.

Ms. Hylton spent 27 years in prison for participating in a horrific crime. But as far as I can tell, she's not repentant. Indeed, judging from her speech at the Women's March, she wears her imprisonment as a badge of honor against "injustice."

The young Hylton was one of four women and three men men who participated in the kidnapping, attempted ransom, torture, rape and murder of a white real-estate broker, Thomas Vigliarole. They had been hired by an associate of Vigliarole to extort money from him. But the kidnapping escalated into a deadly session of sexual torture and rape.

The case, notorious at the time (1985) in New York City and Long Island, has some similarities with the recent kidnapping incident in Chicago.

Except that it was a thousand times worse.

From Psychology Today via The American Spectator: 

Vigliarole believed the three girls were prostitutes who were going to have sex with him. Instead, they picked him up on March 8 in Elmhurst, Queens, at Maria’s home, and drugged him to make him drowsy. Then they drove him to Selma’s apartment in Harlem. The apartment had already been prepared for an extended torture session: The closet door had been cut, a pot put in it for use as a toilet, the windows boarded. 

For the next 15 to 20 days (police aren’t sure just when Vigliarole died), the man was starved, burned, beaten, and tortured. (Even 10 years later, Spurling [one of the ten investigating detectives] could recall Rita’s chilling response when they questioned her about shoving a three-foot metal bar up Vigliarole’s rear: “He was a homo anyway.” How did she know? “When I stuck the bar up his rectum he wiggled.”) 

The three girls took turns watching the man. It was Donna who delivered a ransom note and tape to a friend of Vigliarole’s, who was able to get a partial license plate number of the car she was driving. He notified the police, who traced the plate to a rental car facility. On April 6 the suspects were arrested, and detectives spent 36 hours straight interviewing the seven men and women. “We had to keep going back and forth and catch them in lies,” said Spurling. “It was a never-ending circle of lies.” 

Spurling himself interviewed Donna: “I couldn’t believe this girl who was so intelligent and nice-looking could be so unemotional about what she was telling me she and her friends had done. They’d squeezed the victim’s testicles with a pair of pliers, beat him, burned him. Actually, I thought the judge’s sentence was lenient. Once a jailbird, always a jailbird.” 

*** 

But there was another moment, on our second day together, when she slipped verbally, and said in an almost irritable way, “He [the victim] was going to die anyway, so . . .” and then she caught herself. I just looked at her. All her previous protestations that when arrested she’d had no idea Vigliarole was dead were clearly lies. 

...[Hylton had said:] "When they told me the victim was dead I just broke down. I didn’t believe it. Look, I know I did something wrong, but I didn’t kill anybody and I didn’t want anybody killed. I wasn’t out for anything evil, maybe love, maybe acceptance.” 

Hylton’s signed statement, and the recollections of Detective Spurling, tell a different story. “All the girls’s hairs were on the bedsheet they wrapped him in,” recalled Spurling, “so they were all on the bed with him, or maybe having sex with him.” Rita and Theresa recalled hearing Hylton reading the ransom statement, while Vigliarole’s captors held a knife to his throat and tried to force him to repeat it after them into a tape recorder. She was indeed sighted as the deliverer of the ransom note and tape.

Let's not mince words. The Women's March wasn't about women. Nor was it about gays or blacks or immigrants or any other "minority" group. It was, if you are a Christian, about Satan making a frontal attack on human life, while at the same time attempting to taint as many souls as possible by getting them to go along with it. You can just see him listening to the speakers and laughing.

Or if you are not a Christian, it was about the propensity of human beings to cloak irrationality, violence and raw hatred in the language of "rights."

The whole thing dripped evil. Accept it or not. Renounce it or not. Accept part of it (or accept its "ideal") and cover your eyes for the rest. Or not.

But for your sake, I would choose carefully.       

Here is Donna Hylton's speech. It comes between 2:26:00 and 2:31:00.

If I Were Transgender, I Would BE Steven Crowder

Tweet

Dissident YouTube journalist Steven Crowder crashed the Women's March Sister March in Austin, Texas.

The 200+ pound male presenter wore a wig and a pink dress. Crowder pretended to be a man pretending to be a woman.

That's actually not that hard to do these days, especially within a "women's march."

Think about that for a moment.

Crowder scored an interview (in drag) with Texas pro-abortion politician Wendy Davis. They seemed to have a thing going when they laughingly agreed about the political power of women shoppers.

"Charge it!" (as Crowder reminds us Wilma Flintstone and Betty Rubble would cry).  

Crowder also ingratiated himself into a group of topless feminists seemingly attached to a float. They all posed for a bicep photograph together. Crowder pointed out another guy who had also ingratiated himself into the topless group. The guy claimed to be gay but didn't look gay. Whatever works, man.

People used to think that a man pretending to be a woman was funny. Generations of people watching movies or television shows from Some Like it Hot to Monty Python found it funny.

Now, it's not funny. Not funny at all. Laugh and we'll "out" you as a Trump supporter.

One brilliant thing in the video is how Crowder gets all his left-wing "comrades" to laugh. The ideologue who claims all white people are really "white supremacists" cracks a smile. The  Muslim women in the hijab who can't quite formulate why she dislikes Trump, beams at Crowder's infectious good-will.

We're all just people. Why can't we all get along?

Because the left won't let us.

When a Feminist Threw Off Her Chador While Interviewing a Muslim Leader: "I'm going to take off this stupid, medieval rag right now. There. Done."

Tweet

Oriana Fallaci in 1963, with ever-present tape recorder and cigarette

Oriana Fallaci was arguably the premier interview journalist (male or female) of her time. Her Interview with History (1976), a compilation of her most famous interviews from the 1960's and 70's, was an almost required accessory for liberal coffee tables.

Fallaci self-identified as a feminist and indeed lived a sort of ideal feminist life as a successful, independent and outspoken writer, speaking truth to (usually male) power.

Most of her targets were "right-wing" leaders and governments. Famously, she had a romantic relationship with a leading member of the underground resistance during the dictatorship of the Greek Colonels.

But by the time she died in 2006, she was vilified by most of the left, including the "official" feminist movement.

What happened?

Not much happened with Fallaci. It's true that at the end of her life she became more socially conservative on some issues, opposing abortion, for example. But the main thing is that she came to be identified as one of Italy's foremost opponents to Islam and the Islamization of the West.

Her views on Islam hadn't really changed. You can see the outlines of them in her interview with the Ayatollah Khomeini, below.

Rather, it was the left, and along with it, the feminist movement that had changed.

On the left, while it's true that there had always been an element that romanticized "third-world" ideologies and certain sorts of authoritarian movements, for a time those were kept in check by a general libertarianism, albeit its left-wing version. But over the years, as we we all know, most of that libertarian commitment faded.

The left used to champion free speech. Gradually it came to stand for censorship.

The left used to extoll the use of reason against all monotheistic religions (including Islam). That evolved into a hostility almost exclusively towards orthodox Christianity.

At the same time, feminism become less about "women's issues" per se, and much more about adhering to and promoting the entire leftist line. Today, for example, you can be fervently "pro-choice" but be drummed out of the movement if you happen to be a contrarian on, say, the climate change issue.

Or if you are opposed to Islam.

As a Catholic, I obviously wouldn't agree with much of the leftist or feminist agenda of the 1970's. But there was a consistency, principle and, yes, honesty to it which the current leftist and feminist movements lack. In addition, back then, to be accepted as a member of either movement, you didn't have to follow the party line on everything. You could be Nat Hentoff (a social-justice activist and writer who opposed abortion).

No more.

Fallaci was disowned by the left. But in her last years she was adopted and welcomed by the anti-Islamization political opposition. She described herself as a "Christian-atheist," meaning, I think, that while she never publicly came to Christ or the Church, she came to appreciate what Christian civilization had brought to Europe as well as how much of what it created was at risk.

Read her two seminal books on Islam, The Rage and the Pride (2001) and The Force of Reason (2004). It's sharp stuff. Think of them as two book-length no holds barred interviews with Muhammed.

Then read Interview with History.

The following excerpt is from Fallaci's interview with the Ayatollah Khomeini, eight months after he took power in the 1979 Iranian Revolution. I should say that one almost has sympathy for the aged tyrant as he keeps trying to retire from what has become a quite contentious grilling. "Now that's enough. I am tired, that's enough," Khomeini pleads, towards the end of the interview (shortly after the beginning of the portion quoted, below). But Fallaci keeps at it: "Please, Imam, there are many things I still want to ask you...."

The interview was published in the New York Times on October 7, 1979. This portion comes at about the two-thirds mark:

FALLACI: Death to Bakhtiar also (a transitional figure in the revolution), therefore. Imam Khomeini, haven't you ever forgiven anyone? Have you ever felt pity, sympathy for someone? And while we are at it, have you ever cried?

KHOMEINI: I cry, I laugh, I suffer. Do you think I'm not a human being? With regard to forgiving: I pardoned the majority of those who caused us harm. I granted an amnesty to the police, to the gendarmes, to a lot of people. That is, to those who were not involved in torture or serious crimes. just granted an amnesty to the rebel Kurds. Thus I believe that I have demonstrated pity. But for those that we discussed before, there is no pardon, there is no pity. Now that's enough. am tired, that's enough.

FALLACI: Please, Imam, there are many things I still want to ask you. For example, this chador that they made me put on, to come to you, and which you insist all women must wear. Tell me, why do you force them to hide themselves, all bundled up under these uncomfortable and absurd garments, making it hard to work and move about? And yet, even here, women have demonstrated that they are equal to men. They fought just like the men, were imprisoned and tortured. They, too, helped to make the revolution.

KHOMEINI: The women who contributed to the revolution were, and are, women with the Islamic dress, not elegant women all made up like you, who go around all uncovered, dragging behind them a tail of men. The coquettes who put on makeup and go into the street showing off their necks, their hair, their shapes, did not fight against the Shah. They never did anything good, not those. They do not know how to be useful, neither socially, nor politically, nor professionally. And this is so because, by uncovering themselves, they distract men, and upset them. Then they distract and upset even other

FALLACI: That's not true, Imam. In any case, I am not only talking about piece of clothing, but what it represents. That is, the condition of segregation into which women have been cast once again, after the revolution. The fact that they can't study at university with men, or work with men, for example, or go to the beach or to a swimming pool with men. They have to take a dip apart, in their chadors. By the way, how do you swim in a chador?

KHOMEINI: This is none of your business. Our customs are none of your business. If you do not like Islamic dress you are not obliged to wear it. Because Islamic dress is for good and proper young women.

FALLACI: That's very kind of you, Imam. And since you said so, I'm going to take off this stupid, medieval rag right now. There. Done. But tell me something. A woman such as I, who has always lived among men, showing her neck, her hair, her ears, who has been in war and slept in the front line in the field among soldiers, according to you, is she an immoral, bold and unproper woman?

KHOMEINI: Your conscience knows the answer. I do not judge personal matters, I cannot know whether your life is moral or immoral, whether you behaved properly or not with the soldiers at the front. But I do know that, during my long lifetime, I have always been right about what I said. If this piece of clothing did not exist — the Islamic dress — women could not work in a useful and healthy way. And not even men. Our laws are valid laws.

FALLACI: Even if the law permits man to have four wives, Imam?

KHOMEINI: The law of the four wives is a very progressive law, and was written for the good of women, since there are more women than men. More women are born than men, and more men are killed in war than women. A woman needs a man, so what can we do, since there are more women than men in the world? Would you rather prefer that the excess number of women became whores — or that they married a man with other wives? And let me add another point. Even under the difficult conditions which Islam imposes on a man with two or three or four wives, there is equal treatment, equal affection, and equal time; this law is better than monogamy.

FALLACI: But you are talking about laws and customs that go back 1,900 years ago, Imam Khomeini. Doesn't seem to you that the world has progressed since then? In observance of those laws, you have even resurrected the prohibition against music and alcohol. Tell me, why is it a sin to drink a glass of wine or beer, when you are thirsty or when you're eating? And why is listening to music a sin? Our priests drink and sing — even the Pope. Does this mean the Pope is a sinner?

KHOMEINI: The rules of your priests do not interest me. Islam prohibits alcoholic drinks and that's all. It prohibits them in an absolute way, because drinking makes people lose their heads and impedes clear thinking. Even music dulls the mind, because involves pleasure and ecstasy, similar to drugs. Your music, I mean. Usually your music has not exalted the spirit, it puts it to sleep. And it destructs our youth, who become poisoned by it, and then they no longer care about their country. 

FALLACI: Even the music of Bach, Beethoven, Verdi? 

KHOMEINI: I do not know those names...

Pat Condell: "Feminists are such incorrigible whores to Islam. No offense."

Tweet

Nice girls don't defend sharia

Pat Condell is always righteous. But this five-minute monologue about feminism and Islam is particularly good.

As an extra "treat," I have also attached a one-minute clip of "P**ssy Grabs Back" feminists at a German rally, doing the Allah-Akbar chant to a cheering crowd.

Condell calls it hypocrisy, which of course it is. But in turn, that prompts the question of why?

My feeling is that modern feminism isn't really about women's rights, just as the modern movement to promote and collaborate with Islam isn't about religious or human rights.

Rather, they're both merely about hatred. And one of the things feminism and Islam have in common is that they both embody hatred towards the same set of things - Christian values, liberal (in the good sense) values, tolerance and yes, even that much abused concept, diversity.

A Christian might sum it up by saying they both hate Christ. A non-Christian might sum it up by saying they both hate life.

We're both right.