<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Mike Adams</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/author/mike-adams/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Feminists for Rape</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mike-adams/feminists-for-rape/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=feminists-for-rape</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mike-adams/feminists-for-rape/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2012 04:02:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Adams]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feminists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rape]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stieg Larsson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women's Studies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=170112</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Is brutal and sadistic vigilantism really a pathway to social justice? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/mike-adams/feminists-for-rape/tril/" rel="attachment wp-att-170113"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-170113" title="tril" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/tril.jpg" alt="" width="320" height="480" /></a>Last summer, a group of feminist scholars published a collection of essays exploring themes of violence and retribution in Stieg Larsson&#8217;s millennium trilogy (<em>The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo</em>, <em>The Girl Who Played with Fire</em>, and <em>The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet&#8217;s Nest</em>). The essays, edited by Professors Donna King and Carrie Smith, appear under the title <em>Men Who Hate Women: And Women Who Kick Their Asses</em>. A more accurate title might have been <em>Feminists Who Promote Vigilantism: And Leftists Universities that Promote Them.<br />
</em><br />
It is difficult to imagine a more unusual subject for a set of scholarly essays. Those familiar with the plot of the Larsson Trilogy know that it centers on Lisbeth Salander, a feminist heroin who is sexually harassed by Bjurman, a lawyer and social worker. Early in the first movie, he makes her perform oral sex on him in exchange for a welfare check, which she needs desperately. Later, she hatches a plan for revenge against Bjurman. Things go downhill rapidly.</p>
<p>In the original revenge plot, Salander burglarizes Bjurman&#8217;s home in order to plant a hidden camera. She returns to perform oral sex on him again in exchange for another welfare check &#8211; only this time on hidden camera. This is done for the purpose of blackmailing him. But, predictably, the plan backfires. In fact, Bjurman binds and brutally rapes her in front of the hidden security camera. It is among the most graphic scenes of violence in the trilogy. But it isn&#8217;t the only one.</p>
<p>Later, Salander goes back to his home &#8211; again seeking extralegal revenge. This time, Bjurman is handcuffed by her. While he is handcuffed, she brutally sodomizes him with inanimate objects. Next, she tattoos &#8220;I am a sadistic pig and rapist&#8221; on his chest. Before leaving, she blackmails him with threats of putting the video of his rape of her online.</p>
<p>Before proceeding further, does anyone think we need an entire book exploring the question of whether such sadistic violence is empowering for women? Apparently, Vanderbilt University Press thought so. And editors King and Smith seem to have been unable (or unwilling) to find a single scholar to condemn this brutal vigilantism as being immoral &#8211; or at least potentially bad for women. (They should have called me. I would have brought some diversity to the collection).</p>
<p>In fairness, some of the feminist contributors to <em>Men Who Hate Women</em> seem ambivalent toward the movie&#8217;s vigilantism. But Professor De Welde endorses it wholeheartedly. That is to say, she deems the violence both legally and morally permissible.</p>
<p>De Welde&#8217;s essay, &#8220;Kick ass feminism&#8221; actually reads more like the script of a reality TV show than a work of scholarship. For example, when De Welde discusses the reaction of one of Salander&#8217;s assault victims she notes that he &#8220;nearly shits himself.&#8221; When I found out De Welde had tenure, I had a similar reaction. But De Welde really gets down to business when she discusses the rape of Bjurman.</p>
<p>It is important to note that De Welde characterizes what happened to Bjurman as a rape. Jurisdictions are split on this matter. Some refer to forcible sodomy and/or sexual assault with inanimate objects as &#8220;felony sexual assault&#8221; and handle their prosecution under separate statutes. It is irrelevant here in North Carolina where the aggravating factors and punishment schemes are identical for both offenses. Nonetheless, as soon as De Welde admits it was a rape, she claims it was also an &#8220;act of self-defense.&#8221;</p>
<p>In her essay, De Welde also discusses another vigilante scene wherein Salander tried to kill her dad with an axe &#8211; first with a blow to the leg, then with a blow to the head. He survived the attack. That&#8217;s too bad, according to De Welde. She says it was merely self-defense. (By the way, her dad did not rape her. She just tried to kill him because he was abusive toward her mother when Lisbeth was a child.).</p>
<p>Before we proceed, it is important to understand that De Welde is not saying that these acts <em>ought</em> to be self-defense. She&#8217;s saying they <em>are</em> self-defense. And that is simply wrong for three reasons:</p>
<p>1. In order to have a valid claim of self-defense, she must experience reasonable fear at the time she engages in the act for which she is claiming self-defense. Lisbeth isn&#8217;t in fear when she rapes, tortures, and a brands Bjurman. She is experiencing orgiastic ecstasy.</p>
<p>2. In addition to proving that she is experiencing fear, she must show that the outcome feared is imminent. As stated above, she fears nothing &#8211; certainly not the rape that already occurred.</p>
<p>3. Those using self-defense must also show that the act of defense was proportionate to the attack. Although she rapes Bjurman in response to her rape of him, it is irrelevant. She&#8217;s already lost her claim of self-defense for the above stated reasons. Turning to the attack on her father, which De Welde also calls self-defense, amplifies the incompetence of De Welde&#8217;s legal analysis.  Salander tried to murder him in response to anger at generalized abuse toward another individual. It is simply bizarre that De Welde would attempt to stretch the law to excuse such a disproportionate and belated response.</p>
<p>De Welde finishes her essay attempting to sanitize her position on gender-based vigilantism: &#8220;I argue here that feminism can benefit from more fully incorporating women&#8217;s physical aggression as a way of challenging men&#8217;s domination and women can benefit from seeing physical resistance as a possibility.&#8221;</p>
<p>Actually, De Welde doesn&#8217;t argue that position. In fact, she doesn&#8217;t argue any position. She asserts a position. The difference between an assertion and an argument is evidence. And that is what she is lacking. Although she is a tenured sociology professor she provides no social data in her essay. Vigilantism does not work in fiction. And there is no evidence that it works in reality.</p>
<p>This is what happens when a bunch of feminists step out of their respective disciplines to produce a &#8220;scholarly work&#8221; in the area of Women&#8217;s Studies. All standards fly out the window and they end up advocating violence as a pathway to social justice.  Some even brand themselves as sadistic pigs and rapists in the process.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.   </strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mike-adams/feminists-for-rape/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brave New Handbook</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mike-adams/brave-new-handbook/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=brave-new-handbook</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mike-adams/brave-new-handbook/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 04:32:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Adams]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[due process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[respect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech codes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[student handbook]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=169116</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Time to take unconstitutional speech codes out of university student guides. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/mike-adams/brave-new-handbook/studenthandbook2012-2013/" rel="attachment wp-att-169152"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-169152" title="studenthandbook2012-2013" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/studenthandbook2012-2013-422x350.png" alt="" width="253" height="210" /></a><em>Author&#8217;s Note: This column contains extremely offensive language. Keep it away from small children. Come to think of it, you should keep it away from large ones, too.</em></p>
<p>As a professor, I am asked to complete a lot of surveys. A few weeks ago, I received an email from a university administrator asking me to participate in yet another survey. The request began as follows:</p>
<blockquote><p>As part of an ongoing review, the Office of Internal Audit is gathering information on how UNCW employees use UNCW&#8217;s policies and the UNCW Faculty Handbook. You have been randomly selected to complete a survey about policies and the Faculty Handbook. Numerous individuals in each category of employment are being asked to complete the survey, and you have the option of answering anonymously. At the conclusion of Internal Audit’s review, summarized answers will be shared with management to aid management in improving UNCW&#8217;s policy process.</p></blockquote>
<p>This was an odd opening paragraph. Put simply, the university administration doesn&#8217;t need information about how employees use the university&#8217;s policies and handbooks. They already know the answer. They use them to trump the U.S. Constitution, particularly the First Amendment as well as the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.</p>
<p>Those familiar with the work of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and readers of my weekly column know what I am saying. Often times, there is a conflict between a university handbook policy and the U.S. Constitution. Whenever those conflicts occur, the university resolves the conflict in favor of the university handbook. It isn&#8217;t that the university really considers the university handbook to be the supreme law of the land. They just resolve the conflict in their favor because they can. It is simply a raw exercise of government power.</p>
<p>The 2001 case that initially brought me and FIRE together is a classic example. A socialist student had the audacity to blame the attacks of 9/11 on America just four days after the World Trade Center fell. She sent her unsolicited opinion to me and then asked me to respond. I told her via email that her speech was &#8220;bigoted&#8221; and &#8220;unintelligent&#8221; and &#8220;immature&#8221; right after telling her that it was protected by the First Amendment. Fortunately for the socialist student, her mother worked at the university and was familiar with the university handbook.</p>
<p>Citing a provision of the handbook banning emails that &#8220;berate&#8221; others, the young commie and her mommy went to the administration demanding the university scour my email account &#8211; even to the point of reading private messages and divulging private email addresses to the offended socialist student. The request brought to a head a conflict between a) the Constitution, which allowed me to express my views without being punished (the commie and her mommy had also threatened a libel action), and b) the university handbook.</p>
<p>When the university caved in to the demands of the young commie (and her well-connected mommy) all hell broke loose. I went to FIRE and they went to the national press. Rush Limbaugh defended me. Neal Boortz defended me. Even Alan Colmes defended me. In the end, the university learned its lesson, right? Wrong.</p>
<p>In the midst of intense national scrutiny, the university modified its email policy to prevent another embarrassing episode. But for every bad policy modified, the university creates another that is guaranteed to encroach on constitutionally protected free speech. Their next handbook snafu would take the form of a &#8220;Seahawk Respect Compact.&#8221; The assault on free speech was slow and deliberate &#8211; but it was an assault nonetheless. It happened in three stages:</p>
<p>1. Initially, asking students to voluntarily sign a respect compact promising to respect others and engage in civil discourse.<br />
2. Next, making signing of the respect compact mandatory.<br />
3. Finally, punishing students with expulsion after two violations of the respect compact.</p>
<p>To illustrate, recently one of my own students was placed on disciplinary probation for violating the Seahawk Respect Compact. His offense was using the term &#8220;bullshit&#8221; in reference to a university policy. His criticism of the policy was core political speech clearly protected by the First Amendment. But the term &#8220;bullshit&#8221; was seen as violating the student handbook, specifically the respect compact he was given no choice but to sign.</p>
<p>It is odd, isn&#8217;t it? The university sponsors <em>The Vagina Monologues</em> every single year. And every single year, the play employs terms far more offensive than &#8220;vagina.&#8221; The words they use are, in my view, far more graphic than the term &#8220;bullshit.&#8221; So why do they pretend that profanity is banned under the respect compact? You know the answer. It is all part of an organized effort to ban criticism of the university by a) selectively applying policies from the handbook, and then b) pretending that they trump the federal Constitution.</p>
<p>Next semester, in my First Amendment and Crime class I plan to push back against the university&#8217;s efforts to trump the First Amendment. I will do so right after the class studies <em>Cohen v. California</em> &#8211; a Supreme Court case decided in 1971.</p>
<p>Many students will be surprised to learn that, in <em>Cohen</em>, the Court overturned a disturbing the peace conviction of a man who wore a &#8220;f&#8211;k the draft&#8221; t-shirt inside a Los Angeles courtroom. After we read the decision, I plan to discuss recent university cases attempting to use the respect compact to paper over the U.S. Constitution. The class will certainly ascertain the clear illegality of our respect compact (as applied) in light of <em>Cohen</em> and other important Court decisions.</p>
<p>Next, we will do a little experiment. We will hang posters across campus, which will be adorned with the words &#8220;F&#8211;k the Respect Compact.&#8221; For the record, I do not condone use of the f-bomb. I never use it in conversation and I believe it to be crude and distasteful. But that is not the point of the exercise.</p>
<p>The point of all this should be fairly obvious: we need to put the university in the embarrassing position of using the Seahawk Respect Compact to ban criticism of the Seahawk Respect Compact. This will demonstrate their rank hypocrisy, highlight their constitutional ignorance, and pave the way for a successful First Amendment challenge to one of the university&#8217;s most cherished speech codes.</p>
<p>So that is my response to our latest university survey. It really wasn&#8217;t necessary to circulate that thing in the first place. 92.3% of statistics are made up on the spot anyway. And about 65% of our universities are run by spineless hypocrites who need to be sued back into the Vietnam era.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/mike-adams/brave-new-handbook/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 397/426 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 08:30:24 by W3 Total Cache -->