For the sake of archiving (Heterodoxy magazine)

Additional Resources

Heterodoxy magazine was established by David Horowitz and Peter Collier in April 1992, at about the time when Bill and Hillary Clinton were first rising to national prominence while radicals whom Collier and Horowitz had known in “the Movement” during the ’60s were rising to prominence in American universities. According to Collier:

“Back then their deepest ambition had been to burn the university down. Failing in that objective, as in so many others, they had dived back into academia and gotten onto the tenure track when the revolutionary going got rough in the late 70s. They had accomplished the destruction of the university firelessly, so to speak, by marrying the thoughts of fascist leaning foreign intellectuals such as Paul De Man (who denied the objective existence of truth) to the thoughts of Marxists like Antonio Gramsci, in the intellectual equivalent of the Hitler-Stalin Pact. This putsch, which had taken place silently and in slow motion, had produced a new and sinister phenomenon opponents were calling political correctness, which spread outward like an airborne toxic event into the larger culture. . . . A cultural war had broken out, but our side didn’t have an army in the field.  We decided that there was only one antidote for the new orthodoxy: Heterodoxy.”

Collier continued:

“It could have been an intellectual journal. But it occurred to us that those of us who opposed this new treason of the clerks were in a position similar to the one we had been in [during] the early 60s — a counter-culture fighting against an establishment. (Except that in the historical turning of the tables this ruling elite was now leftist with a deconstructive agenda.) And our publication should therefore resemble the counter cultural underground papers of our wicked youth — irreverent and provocative and willing to enter the house of power and rearrange its furniture. Heterodoxy therefore set out, in the famous formula of A.J. Leibling, to comfort the oppressed and oppress the comfortable. For the next eight years, we attacked the world of PC relentlessly, fingering its villains and forcing them to do the perp walk. We named names. We ridiculed the fatuous. We constructed an intellectual CT-scan of the malignancy that was spreading throughout high culture. Heterodoxy was funny and brash. It took no prisoners.”

After the Clinton presidency ended, Heterodoxy ceased publication because, as Collier puts it, “it seemed to us that the plague had lifted — or that our little combat journal was no longer required.”

This section of Discover The Networks contains numerous issues of Heterodoxy magazine. The link for each issue is followed by a table of contents listing all the articles contained therein.

Additional Resources:

---

Heterodoxy (January/February 2001)
Contents:
“Remember the Revolution”
“The Anthropological Association Meets”
“A Letter to Our Readers”
“Politically Seasick On a Nation Cruise”
“The Napalm Girl and Historical Memory”
“America’s Re-education Camps”
“Couple Guilty of Labor Law Violation”

Heterodoxy (November/December 2000)
Contents:
“The Bad Fight”
“What Do Women Want In Politics?”
“Fighting to His Last Breath In Wisconsin”
“A Gay Political Schism”
“Hot Times In Brown Town”
“A Very Politically Incorrect Young Man”
“Communist China Trashes Its Catholics”
“Supermarket Execs Face Indictment”

Heterodoxy (September/October 2000)
Contents:
“A Tour of Goredom”
“Confusing the Swoosh With the Swastika”
“Missionaries’ Position In China”
“The Lessons of Hiroshima Yet Again”
“The Mainstream Press Goes Alternative”
“Former Beauty Queen Charges Physician With Harassment”

Heterodoxy (June/July 2000)
Contents:
“Borderlines”
“The Cold War On the Reference Shelf: Victory Into Defeat”
“A Hard Egg to Crack: Senator Hillary”
“Night of the Living Dead: The Left Waves the Bloody Shirt In Berkeley”
“Education 451”
“Hanging Up On the Hammer and Sickle”
“Court Ruling Extends Concept of Public Accomodation”

Heterodoxy (April/May 2000)
Contents:
“Mathematically Challenged”
“Taking Aim at the Control Freaks”
“Vagina Madness In Oklahoma”
“Monologue, Not Dialogue, at Georgetown”
“Death Comes to the Cardinal”
“Couple Avoids Jail: Will Keep Record Store Open”

Heterodoxy (February/March 2000)
Contents:
“Bones of Contention”
“A Handshake, Not a Hand, from Al Gore”
“Glass Ceilings and Foggy Science”
“Affirmative Action by Any Other Name”
“Overheated Kitchen Puts Family In a Pickle”

Heterodoxy (January 2000)
Contents:
“PC Madness In Hollywood”
“Lino Graglia’s Ongoing Alamo at the University of Texas”
“To Cuba with Love”
“Leonard Peltier Is No Political Prisoner”
“Why “The Hurricane” Is Hot Air”
“Three-Year-Old Seeks Reinstatement to Preschool”

Heterodoxy (November/December 1999)
Contents:
“Happy Kwanzaa”
“The Victory of the Conservative College Press”
“Death On Demand”
“Tempest In the Rutgers Teapot”
“Joan of Arc—Guilty as Charged”
“Animal Rights Advocates Protest Law, Create Monster Traffic Jam”

Heterodoxy (October 1999)
Contents:
“PC Preschool”
“The Moral Fallout of Clintonism”
“To Publish and Perish”
“Prohibition Returns to Campus”
“Ethnic Politics Gets Nasty”
“Cancelling Third World Debt”
“More Adventures In Pamplona”
“Tenor Makes Met Debut”

Heterodoxy (September 1999)
Contents:
“Not Back to School”
“The End of the Cold War Comes to Canada”
“Earth First, Dirty Tricks, Eco-Mayhem”
“Global Warming Among the Congregations”
“Neighbor Feud Tests New Hate Legislation”

Heterodoxy (June/July 1999)
Contents:
“Present Dangers”
“Slouching Toward Clinton”
“Ethnic Studies In Our Time”
“A Really Bad School”
“The Newest Racial Oppressor? Standardized Tests”
“Court Rules Landlord Must Pay Tenant’s Medical Bill”

Heterodoxy (April/May 1999)
Contents:
“Bigots for the American Way”
“A President Rich In Enemies”
“The Decline of the West at Duke”
“Pastors for Castro”
“Feeling Stalin’s Pain”
“Limo Driver Fighting Aggressive Driving Conviction”

Heterodoxy (March 1999)
Contents:
“Anti-Prison Movement”
“A Real Academic Dialogue at Last”
“It Isn’t Girls Who Are at Risk”
“The Reds and the Blacks”
“Feminist Fibber”
“Board of Ed Says Teacher Must Have Surgery or Lose Job”

Heterodoxy (February 1999)
Contents:
“Best Witness”
“The Diversity Hoax”
“Fear and Loathing of Cold War America”
“More Mumia Madness”
“Who Is Left?”
“President Creates New Agency: Names Woman First Director”

Heterodoxy (December 1998/January 1999)
Contents:
“First Fem President Impeached”
“The Anti-war Movement Had It Wrong”
“Black Quotas”
“I, Rigoberta Menchu, Liar”
“The Way We See It”
“Court Rules On Flag Display”

Heterodoxy (November 1998)
Contents:
“Kafka In Utah”
“Marginalizing Conservative Ideas”
“Jonestown 20 Years Later”
“Graduation Segregation”
“Columbia Ends Free Speech”
“Couple Charged Under Federal Responsible Families Act”

Heterodoxy (October 1998)
Contents:
“Fashionably Left”
“Battle In Seattle”
“How a Compromised President Embraced a Dictatorship”
“Lesbian Rape”
“Sex and Affirmative Action”
“Katuria’s Bravura”
“Problems from the Socio-Math Classes In San Francisco Schools”

Heterodoxy (September 1998)
Contents:
“Back to PC School”
“Utopia’s Grave”
“A House Divided”
“Houston Votes Again On Race Preferences”
“Animal Rights Extremism at Princeton”

Heterodoxy (May/June 1998)
Contents:
“Nitwit Feminism”
“Diversity Hits the Beach at Monterey Bay”
“Walter Cronkite Doesn’t Tell It the Way It Is”
“A sketch of Intellectual Liberation”
“Confessions of a Republican Academic”
“Bar Owner Appeals Employment Ruling”

Heterodoxy (April 1998)
Contents:
“150 Years of Evil”
“Racial Cubism”
“Prop 226: Put Up Your David Dukes”
“Prop 227: The Guru of Bilingualism”
“Eldridge Cleaver RIP”
“A Glossary of Hate Words”

Heterodoxy (March 1998)
Contents:
“Modern Slavery”
“The Duty to Die”
“The Rage of a Privileged Class”
“Karl Marx at the L.A. Times”
“Apologizing for Slavery”

Heterodoxy (February 1998)
Contents:
“The Last Panther”
“The Dark Side of Dogpatch”
“The Tasks of Exile”
“The War In Central America Continues”

Heterodoxy (January 1998)
Contents:
“Get Whitey”
“In Deep Winter a Memory of Red Summers”
“15 Tips on How to Be a Good Leftist”
“Up from Multiculturalism”
“Revisionists and the Cold War”
“Assistant Attorney General for Civil Wrongs”
“Supreme Court to Decide Whether Vote Goes to the Dogs”

Heterodoxy (November/December 1997)
Contents:
“Gay Second Thoughts”
“Gag Order for a Black Conservative”
“Commie Dearest”
“Fem-Cons Kick-Up Their Heels at Georgetown”
“The Campaign for Larry Elder”
“Sun Headline Writer Sues to Regain Job”

Heterodoxy (October 1997)
Contents:
“Free Matt Drudge”
“Who’s For Abortion and Against the Bible?”
“How I Wrote About Puerto Rico and Lost My Job”
“Post Modernism & Its Discontents”
“Religious Fright Over Promise Keepers”
“Court to Rule On New York Ebonics Vote”

Heterodoxy (September 1997)
Contents:
“Johnnie’s Other O.J.”
“A Walk On the Dark Side at the Hellfire Club”
“Affirmative Action In Action”
“Remaining Questions about Vince Foster”
“Fostering Doubts”
“Mother & Daughter Face Dumping Penalties”

Heterodoxy (June 1997)
Contents:
“Why Did AIDS Happen to Gay Men?”
“The Karl Marx of the Animal Rights Movement”
“Where the U.S. and Mexico Come Together and Come Apart”
“All the Crap They Taught In High School”
“Many Thousands Gone”

Heterodoxy (April/May 1997)
Contents:
“Weird Feminist Science”
“Gay Clones”
“Booty Camp”
“In the Field with G.I. Jane”
“Scientific American Goes PC”
“Pop Anti-Science”

Heterodoxy (March 1997)
Contents:
“Burned Churches Commissar”
“Ophelia Self-esteem Problem”
“Crime Is Going Down and Getting Worse”
“Tales from the Black Studies Ghetto”
“Police Mom Gets Bravery Medal”

Heterodoxy (January/February 1997)
Contents:
“Modern Mata Hari”
“False Rape Outrage at the University of Hawaii”
“Treason of the Heart”
“Plumber Facing Trial for Child Neglect”

Heterodoxy (December 1996)
Contents:
“Dressed to Kill”
“Déjà Voo-Doo”
“The Long Goodbye of Alger Hiss”
“Justice Denied: The Fate of Proposition 209”
“CCRI Masochist”

Heterodoxy (November 1996)
Contents:
“It’s a War, Stupid”
“The Question of Pilot B”
“God and Man at Princeton”
“Solidarity for a Little While”

Heterodoxy (October 1996)
Contents:
“Affirmative Racism”
“Kafka In Vermont”
“Give Me Your HIV-Positive”
“The Corruption of Criminology”
“A Member of the Victim Class Speaks Out”
“Connerly Keeps the Faith”

Heterodoxy (September 1996)
Contents:
“Just Say Yes!”
“The Horror! The Horror! Into the Heart of Lit Crit Darkness”
“The Assault on the Smithsonian”
“The Venona Project: When the USSR Occupied the USA”
“Historians Scramble for New Party Lines”
“Political Cross-Dresser: Michael Lind Perpetrates a Hoax”
“Smaller Alligator Organs, Lower Human Sperm Counts, and Other Scares”
“Symphony Violinist in Fight to Regain Job”

Heterodoxy (May/June 1996)
Contents:
“Downtrodden Dads”
“Johnnie Cochran’s First OJ”
“Clarence Page’s Race Problem, and Mine”
“Feminism Is Not the Story of Their Lives”
“Crits and Bloods”
“They Make it Sound So Ugly”
“Demanding Death-On-Demand”
“Remembering William Appleman Williams”
“Winner Chosen In Historic Miss Globe Contest”

Heterodoxy (April 1996)
Contents:
“Comrade Chaplin”
“Hooked On Institutional Racism”
“The Affirmative Action Lobby Fights Back”
“The Other Minority”
“Are Lesbians Taking Over NOW?”
“Speaking In Tongues about Religion”
“City Loses Negligence Case”

Heterodoxy (March 1996)
Contents:
“Slipping Through the Crack”
“Noam Chomsky, Punk Hero”
“Enola Gay Controversy – Last Words”
“Destroying the Children to Save Them”
“The Race Card In Oakland”
“School Board Tough On Crime”

Heterodoxy (February 1996)
Contents:
“Black Hate Crimes”
“The Fire This Time”
“P.C. Corps”
“This Postman Always Brings Vice”
“Murder Conviction Reversal On Arkansas ‘Kill Bill’”

Heterodoxy (December 1995/January 1996)
Contents:
“The Left Colonizes the Net”
“Lost in Space: Weird Science at the Jet Propulsion Lab”
“Anthropomorphic Pronouns: Guidelines for Bias-Free Writing”
“Chancellor Chuck: The Very Model of a Modern College Administrator” (article about UCLA’s Charles Young)
“Wiring the World of Media Studies”
“I Hear America Typing: Cybersex in Inner Space”
“President Honors First Welfare Reform Act College Grad”

Heterodoxy (November 1995)
Contents:
“Olfactory Correctness”
“Cornell’s Crucible: Expanding the Frontiers of Sexual Harassment”
“Queen of Afrocentrism: Frances Cress Welsing”
“Putting Vince Foster Back Together Again”
“Piano Teacher Ordered to Change Advertising”

Heterodoxy (October 1995)
Contents:
“The Race Card”
“The NEA and NEH are DOA”
“The Traitor”
“Great Goddess Almighty”
“Building a Shrine In Beijing”
“Hester’s Breasts”

Heterodoxy (September 1995)
Contents:
“Free Mumia — Not!”
“UC Regents Perform Euthanasia on Affirmative Action”
“Great Books Triumph in Beer City”
“How the West Was Lost at Stanford”
“Afro-Centric Education”
“Sour Patch Kids”
“Parents Lose in Child Divorce Case”

Heterodoxy (June 1995)
Contents:
“Feminist Forced March”
“New National Standards Blame America First”
“Race, Crime, and Merle Haggard”
“Government Subsidies for the Nation of Islam”
“A League of Their Own” (Title IX)
“Opera Premieres Amid Controversy”

Heterodoxy (May 1995)
Contents:
“The Locked Box: Sexual Harassment”
“Class-Based Affirmative Action: The Liberals’ Desperate Fallback Position”
“Real Compassion: Welfare Reform Begins at Home”
“Madness in Their Methodism: The Religious Left Has a Summit”
“Politically Incorrect Collectibles”
“Making Black Supremacist NOIse”
“Auto Mechanic Fighting Charges of Animal Cruelty”

Heterodoxy (March/April 1995)
Contents:
“A Death in Berkeley”
“Something Amiss Among the Misses: Texas Woman’s University Faces Coedness”
“Heeeere’s Johnnie!” (Johnnie Cochran)
“Dancing with the Elephant”
“George Orwell’s Secret”
Book Review of Making Monsters: Repressed Memories, Psychotherapy, and Sexual Hysteria
Book Review of The Myth of Repressed Memory: False Memories and Allegations of Sexual Abuse

Heterodoxy (February 1995)
Contents:
“The Red and the Black”
“Status Quota: Affirmative Action, An Idea Whose Time Has Gone”
“Barry Goldwater, the Beach Boys, and Me”
“More American Graffiti”
Review of Art Exhibit titled “Black Male: Representations of Masculinity in Contemporary American Art”
Book Review of Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas

Heterodoxy (January 1995)
Contents:
“PC Agit-Prophet”
“Diversity at Columbia U: When ‘Chocolate’ and ‘Vanilla’ Are Fighting Words”
“The Birth of a Nation” (article about the Ford Foundation)
“Pete Seeger’s Communist Hootenanny”
“Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies” (book review of this title)
“Mural Unveiled at Arts Center”

Heterodoxy (November/December 1994)
Contents:
“Underground Frats”
“Educaton Thugs: Jimmy Hoffa Move Over, Here’s the NEA”
“Gay-Bashing by Homosexuals”
“Woodstock: The Last Word”
“Chess Rules Changed”

Heterodoxy (October 1994)
Contents:
“Mickey Marxism” (article about Walt Disney Company and Professor Eric Foner)
“The Hollywood Ten Revisited”
“Sex, Lies, and Penile Cuffs at the University of Michigan”
“Politically Correct Jim Crow at Cornell University”
“FAIR: The Media’s Favorite Media Watchdogs”
“The Hijacking of C.S. Lewis”
“Dictatorship of Virtue: Multiculturalism and the Battle for Americas Future” (book review of this title)

Heterodoxy (September 1994)
Contents:
“Man-Boy Love”
“Steven Goldberg, Iconoclast: The Most Controversial Professor in America”
“Writing About Black Panthers and Black People”
“Clinton’s Dr. Demento”
“Affirmative Action Foreign Policy”
“Student Expelled Because of Diversity Problems”

Heterodoxy (May/June 1994)
Contents:
“The Conscience of a Gay Conservative”
“Who Invented Political Correctness?”
“Four Chapters in the Decline and Fall of the American University”
“Sadker-Masochism: Adventures in the Sexism Industry”
“Strange Times at the Black Caucus”
“The Unbearable Lightness of Being in Cuba”
“Deconstructing Jesus: Book review of Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography”
“Court Rules Paraplegic Can Keep Athletic Scholarship”

Heterodoxy (April 1994)
Contents:
“Bodies of Evidence: Vincent Foster and the Whitewater Puzzle”
“Lost Horizons: A Professor Looks Back at the Radical Years”
“Half-Price Hispanics: CBS and the Writer’s Guild Make a Barrio in Hollywood”
“Tailhook: The Last Word”
“The Stupid Club”
“Law Firm Head Faces Ouster; Associate Charges Sex Harassment”

Heterodoxy (March 1994)
Contents:
“University of Sex”
“Why Joanie Can’t Add: Lies, Damn Lies, and Left-Wing Statistics”
“Notes of a Sensitivity Training Survivor”
“Something Fishy: Stanley Walks the Cutting Edge” (article about Stanley Fish)
“The Real David Brock”
“Debunking Relativism” (book review of Sick Societies: Challenging the Myth of Primitive Harmony)
“Paolo Casorti International Cello Competition Announces Winner”

Heterodoxy (February 1994)
Contents:
“Menendez Mania”
“The Making of a Quagmire”
“Janet Reno’s Family Values”
“Heaven and Earth: Between the Bullet and the Lie”
“Hate Speech Defined: The Ravings of Dr. Khalid Muhammad”
“Anti-Americanism: Critiques at Home and Abroad, 1965-
1990“ (Review of Paul Hollander’s book with this title)
“Fonda/Turner to Unveil People of Colorization”

Heterodoxy (December 1993)
Contents:
“PC Meets the Cold War”
“The Culture War by Other Means: Accrediting University”
“The Second Thoughts of Warren Farrell: The Myth of Male Supremacy”
“The Rape of Due Process: An Incident at Valparaiso”
“PC Camp in the 70s”
“Becoming a Postmodernist Critic: A User’s Guide”
“Past Imperfect: French Intellectuals, 1944-1956” (review of this book, which was authored by Tony Judt)
“Out on a Limb Over The Fugitive”

Heterodoxy (November 1993)
Contents:
“But Is It Art?”
“Counter Coup: When Sensitivity Training Is a Good Thing”
“All the PC That’s Fit to Print”
“The Disgusting Government-Supported Art of Joel-Peter Witkin”
“Cuss Me Kate: The Lunacy of Catharine MacKinnon”
“Aaron Wildavsky: In Memorium”

Heterodoxy (October 1993)
Contents:
“Tailhook Witchhunt”
“Big Girls Don’t Cry” (article on Professor Carol Gilligan)
“Dave and Bill: The President As Film Fan”
“Separating the Men from the Womyn”
“How Ronald Reagan Spread AIDS”
“Doctor Vindicated in Second Malpractice Trial”

Heterodoxy (September 1993)
Contents:
“Afro-Fascism on the Rise”
“School Daze in California: The Battle for Choice”
“The Final Choice”
“Polly Wants a Choice”
“Laughing Matters: Anatomy of a Thought Crime”
“Campus Culture Wars: Five Stories About PC” (review of PBS documentary with this title)
“American Feminist Thought at Century’s End” (review of this book title)
“Landmark Legal Ruling Reverses Bad Luck for Violinist”

Heterodoxy (May/June 1993)
Contents:
“PC Goes to Church”
“An ABC of Modern English Studies: The Death of Criticism”
“Hand-to-Hand Combat in Academe”
“Digging the Grave of Archaelogy”
“Let Us Now Praise Famous Conservatives”
“War By Other Means: Soviet Power, West German Resistance, and the Battle of the Euromissiles” (book review)
“Inmates Settle with Authorities at Rolling Hills”

Heterodoxy (April 1993)
Contents:
“Camelot Correctness”
“Shooting the Messenger: The Revenge of the AIDS Establishment”
“Alien Nation: The Illegal [Immigration] Lobby”
“A Bilingual Horror Story”
“The Academic Asherfeld”
“Political Re-Education at the Whitney” (book review)
“Outercourse: The Bedazzling Journey” (book review of a feminist autobiography)

Heterodoxy (March 1993)
Contents:
“Black Murder Inc.” (article about Elaine Brown and the Black Panthers)
“Growing up Absurd at Wellesley”
“Super Bowl Wife-Beaters: Anatomy of a Hoax”
“Somewhere Over the Rainbow” (article about NYC schools’ “rainbow” curriculum)
“The Academic Asherfeld”
“Conversations: Straight Talk with America’s Sister President” (review of Johnetta Cole’s book of this title)

Heterodoxy (February 1993)
Contents:
“Gays March on Pentagon”
“Frat Attack”
“Does HIV Cause AIDS: The Duesberg Critique”
“AIDS Reporters Snooze”
“Academic Asherfeld”
“The Economics of Panhandling”

Heterodoxy (January 1993)
Contents:
“The Culture, Stupid!”
“My Days and Nights in the Academic Wilderness”
“PC Kidnappers”
“The Remembrance of Crimes Past”
“The Chlorophyll Manifesto”
“Exporting Multiculturalism: Trans-Voices — An Exhibition at the American Paris Center”
“Academic Capitalism and Literary Value” (book review of this title)
“The Liberal Inheritance”

Heterodoxy (December 1992)
Contents:
“War Stories”
“Behind the Myths of Malcolm X: Blackwash”
“Pod People Infest AAUW”
“The Naked Guy”
“Sexual Harassment and Common Sense”
“Spike X: The Movie”
“Beyond the Culture Wars: How Teaching the Conflicts Can Revitalize American Education” (book review of this title)
“High Court Upholds Justice Concept”

Heterodoxy (November 1992)
Contents:
“Women’s Studies Imperialists”
“PC Dorm”
“Three Tales from the Academic Ghetto”
“Ozzie and Harriet in Hel”
“The Nobel Prize for Revolution”
“Exploring New Worlds: A Planetarium Show at the Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian”
“Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation” (book review of this title)
“High Court Backs Hearing Impaired”

Heterodoxy (October 1992)
Contents:
“Multicultural Mafia” (Ford Foundation)
“The Sisters Grim” (Environmentalism aimed at children)
“Philanthropic Correctness”
“The Greening of the Merciless Red Man”
“Campus Victims”
“One Million B.S.”
“Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America” (book review of this title)
“America: What Went Wrong!” (book review of this title)
“The Humanities in the Missionary Position”

Heterodoxy (September 1992)
Contents:
“Treason of the Clerks”
“How They [Academics] Spent Their Summer Vacation”
“Sensitivity Police Brutality”
“The PC Academy: Survivor’s Memoir”
“Old Hose”
“Politics By Other Means: Higher Education and Group Thinking” (book review of this title)
“The Politics of Liberal Education” (book review of this title)
“The Unforgiving”

Heterodoxy (June 1992)
Contents:
“PC Riot”
“Teenage AIDS and Anal Sex”
“LSU’s War Against Men”
“Sex, Lies, and Red Tape at MIT”
“A Day of Infamy at UC Santa Cruz”
“Critical Legal Satires”
“Vassar’s Regiment of Women”
“Mirages in the Arizona Desert”
“Political Correctness off Broadway with David Mamet”
“Anti-Male Discrimination in the Profession”
“God and Womon at Harvard”
“Psychobabble and Its Discontents”
“Misanthropology 101” (book review of Florence King’s With Charity Toward None)

Heterodoxy (May 1992)
Contents:
“Queer Studies”
“Nobody Knows Their Names” (Castro’s political prisoners)
“The Ten Wackiest Feminists on Campus”
“Creating Wackiness at the University of Minnesota” (radical feminism)
“Incorrect English: The Case of Alan Gribben”
“Confessions of a Sex Education Junkie”
“Arthur’s Second Thoughts” (review of Arthur Schlessinger’s book The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society)
“Friedrich A. Von Hayek: Eulogy”

Heterodoxy (April 1992)
Contents:
“P.C. Coverup”
“Homo-McCarthyism”
“Perspectives on Feminism”
“10 Worst College Administrators”
“Oliver Stone, Brownshirt”
“Deconstructing Date Rape”
“Love in the Cold War”
“The Chop Revisited” (a reference to Atlanta Braves’ fans alleged insensitivity to American Indians)

Vaccine mandate supporters: How far would you go to enforce mandatory vaccination for Covid-19?

For those who advocate a Covid vaccine mandate, how far are you willing to tolerate your government going in its enforcement actions?

What should be the goal of said actions?

1) A goal of high compliance, but not necessarily 100%, among people with no compelling objection to receiving the vaccine. (How high?)

 

2) A goal of 100% compliance EXCEPT in cases of legitimate objection such as health contraindications and religious objections.

 

3) A goal of 100% compliance regardless of individual objection, even for those with health contraindications. (Including those for whom the risk includes fatal allergic reactions?)

 

What actions should be taken to meet that goal?

 

4) Widespread, free, easily accessible public information campaigns to provide people who are considering their options with a complete, factual rundown on each vaccine's known effects, possible side-effects, known statistical effectiveness, and comparative effectiveness of natural immunity from overcoming the infection.

Or mandates?
What level of mandates?

 

Perhaps you agree with making receipt of the vaccine a requirement for employment for some workers,  to be administered by employers via mandatory hiring and firing practices? At which group do you draw the line?

 

5) Workers who will be working directly with covid patients?

 

6) Health care workers whose specialization makes high risk patents dependent on their care, regardless of whether they will be working directly with covid patients?

 

7) All health care workers, regardless of who they will be working with?

 

8) All health care workers, and also workers in areas of mandatory attendance by any part of the public, like schools, prisons, and court systems?

 

9) All of the above, and also workers whose job involves regular interaction with the public like childcare, the direct retail sales of goods, home repair or personal services like hair cutting, etc.?

 

10) All workers, regardless of what their job involves?

 

11) All workers, regardless of what their job involves, with the additional stipulation that people who are unemployed due to vaccine refusal should be ineligible for public assistance until they comply?

Of course, if this just made a lot of people jobless, but not homeless, how do you elicit compliance then?

Perhaps you agree with making receipt of the vaccine a requirement for residence in some types of environments, to be administered by facility administrators via admission and eviction practices? At which group of people do you draw the line?

12) Medical care facilities that include other residents in the same building, like nursing and group homes?

13) Nonmedical living spaces that include other residents in the same building, like apartment and condo complexes, dormitories, and fraternity or sorority houses?

14) Medical living spaces that do not include other residents in the same building, like individual homes in retirement communities?

15) Nonmedical but still grouped-together living spaces that do not necessarily include other residents in the same building, like trailer parks and gated communities?

16) Individual houses or other residential arrangements on individually owned property?

17) Would you then also accept making receipt of the vaccine a requirement for eligibility for assistance from homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and food banks, to be administered via mandatory denial of service by the volunteers who operate these services? 

18) Mandatory vaccination for all inmates in detention facilities, to be administrated by facility staff by force if necessary.

How about other services? Perhaps there will be people living with family members, who face no hardship from these exclusions. Which of the following would you support to gain their compliance? How about making receipt of the vaccine a requirement for...

19) Eligibility to enter retail establishments where goods and services may be purchased?

20) Eligibility to receive other medical services?

21) Eligibility for vehicle ownership or any public or private transportation services?

22) Eligibility for banking services?

23) Eligibility to travel in or occupy any public space?

24) Would you support an electronic system enforcers could use to verify your neighbor’s vaccine status before permitting entry into, use of, or to verify a right to continued occupation or use of any of the items discussed above that you have decided are acceptable limitations to place on vaccine refusers?

It’s unlikely that vaccine refusers would be able to survive such a system without getting arrested for trying to do ordinary things that are now forbidden to the unvaccinated, but let’s imagine some have. 

First, what so you, the vaccine mandate advocate, think should be done with arrested refusers who have violated statutes limiting their movement, business interactions, and occupation of various spaces within the community?

What should be done with people who manage to live outside of compliance with the strictest of the standards described above, remaining unvaccinated without getting arrested for violation of any of them? Should they be arrested as well?

Second, what should be done with those who are arrested or rounded up for failure to comply?

Should they be

25) Lectured and released?

26) Jailed and vaccinated by force since they are now inmates in the penal system?

27) Subjected to some form of public humiliation as with people on deadbeat parent or sex offender lists, or forced to wear an identifying symbol of their noncompliance?

28) Placed in vaccine refuser camps to isolate them from the compliant public?

29) Placed in refuser camps and forced to work to pay for their keep at these camps?

30) Just rounded up and forcibly vaccinated without incarceration?

31) Simply be executed for noncompliance?

Heartbeat laws and lousy abortion advocacy strategy

 I'm seeing a lot of false info going around about the Texas hearbeat law. 

There's a couple of things that are blatantly, egregiously false & really need addressed.

 

Claim: The law allows rapists to sue their victims for having an abortion.

Claim: The law provides no exception for victims of rape or incest.

 

Reality: The law does not impose civil liability on the mother - only on the physician and anybody who assists in the abortion or in obtaining the abortion, so no, sex criminals cannot sue their victims. All of the wording of the law makes prohibitions against the physician's behavior and any 3rd party that assists, and all of the penalties are applied to the physician or any 3'rd party participant. This would not even allow the mother to be sued at all.

 

Further, the law specifically states, regarding rape or incest:

Sec. 171.207.  LIMITATIONS ON PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT.

(a)  Notwithstanding Section 171.005 or any other law, the requirements of this subchapter shall be enforced exclusively through the private civil actions described in Section 171.208.  No enforcement of this subchapter, and no enforcement of Chapters 19 and 22, Penal Code, in response to violations of this subchapter, may be taken or threatened by this state, a political subdivision, a district or county attorney, or an executive or administrative officer or employee of this state or a political subdivision against any person, except as provided in Section 171.208.

 

Section 171.208 says

(j) Notwithstanding any other law, a civil action under this section may not be brought by a person who impregnated the abortion patient through an act of rape, sexual assault, incest, or any other act prohibited by Sections 22.011, 22.021, or 25.02, Penal Code.

 

Since, in order to file the civil complaint needed to collect (from the doctor - you can't sue the mother) one would have to know 1) that the mother had an abortion, 2) where she got it done, and 3) that the physician either failed to comply with the heartbeat testing & documentation requirement or aborted after a heartbeat was detected. There's no way for a 3rd party who to have all of the information they need in order to sue unless the doctor or the mother gives them that information. People who are not in positions of authority don't have the legal power to force the doctor or the mother to do that, and the doctor CAN'T even disclose that information to them without a court order or he'll be in violation of HIPAA.

Therefore, only family - and in particular the father - is even likely to be able determine that information, based on the required logistics, and the law bars a perpetrator of a sex crime from bringing a civil action against anybody involved if the pregnancy is a result of his criminal sexual misconduct.

That is your rape or incest exception.

https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961 (heartbeat law)

https://casetext.com/statute/texas-codes/health-and-safety-code/title-2-health/subtitle-h-public-health-provisions/chapter-171-abortion/subchapter-h-detection-of-fetal-heartbeat/section-171205-exception-for-medical-emergency-records Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.205

 

https://casetext.com/statute/texas-codes/health-and-safety-code/title-2-health/subtitle-h-public-health-provisions/chapter-171-abortion/subchapter-h-detection-of-fetal-heartbeat/section-171208-civil-liability-for-violation-or-aiding-or-abetting-violation#:~:text=Download-,Section%20171.208%20%2D%20Civil%20Liability%20For%20Violation%20Or%20Aiding%20Or%20Abetting,this%20subchapter%3B%20(2)%20knowingly Tex. Health & Safety Code § 171.208

 

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.171.htm Health & safety code title 2, health, subtitle H, public health provisions, chapter 171, abortion

 

The one thing I see in this that is disturbing is the possibility that any abortionist might try to pressure a patient to make a false allegation of rape to prevent the father from suing him or her for performing the abortion, so I hope the courts will not allow allegations alone to halt any lawsuit, but instead only rule that a party who has been criminally convicted cannot sue... and that Texas judges will enforce laws against false complaints to police, lying during an investigation, and perjury, including the accompanying penalties.

 

Claim: This is men trying to control women's bodies. No uterus, no opinion!

Claim: This is the pro-life minority trying to impose their beliefs on the pro-choice majority.

 

Reality: 

Gallup in 2019 reported that 51% of women identify as pro-life, while only 43% identify as pro-choice.

More men are pro-choice - 48% as opposed to 46% who identify as pro-life. So per-capita, more men are pro-choice than women, and women are more pro-life than pro-choice.

Among other things, this makes it slightly less believable that if a physician performs an abortion in violation of this law, the father of the baby will sue him. Chances are lower that any given father will be pro-life than that any given mother will be.

https://disrn.com/news/gallup-more-women-than-men-are-pro-life

 

Arguments regarding the value & validity of legislative responses to the abortion controversy are one thing. Creating hysteria by promoting false claims about legislation is another entirely. I think that undermines the pro-choice position just as much as it undermines the pro-life position when some idiot claims sex crimes cannot lead to conception because of trauma.

 

Personally, I think the current attitudes of abortion providers and seekers are such that if the procedure was outlawed, those who wanted it or wanted to get paid for performing it would just break the law. If the goal is to prevent the practice, education and a change of social attitudes are going to be far more effective than legislation & should be the priority of the pro-life movement. Especially, ensuring that young women and girls old enough to conceive to understand that they are the sole gatekeepers of their own fertility & have 100% control over whether the conditions that lead to conception get to happen with their consent; 100% of the power to take the guesswork out of it. If sex education in the public school system is effective, there is no reason why any girl or woman who was exposed to that curriculum should find herself unable to totally prevent herself from becoming pregnant as a result of consensual sex. She should come out of it knowing 1) exactly how conception occurs, 2) the effectiveness of abstinence, and 3) solid information regarding the full spectrum of birth control and infection prevention options that are available to her, including advice regarding their proper use, what could interfere with their effectiveness, and how to combine two forms to make one a safety net in case of failure in the other. So armed, she should be able to create a 0% chance of unplanned pregnancy, thus eliminating the need for her to have to consider abortion. 

 

If the goal is vengeance against providers, this law is moderately effective, because it can hit them in the wallet IF someone has the information needed to sue... but aside from that it's basically just lip service & at worst it might lead to an increase in false sex crime allegations against men. I view it as being meant to feel like a pro-life victory without actually achieving one.

Personally, I think vengeance is useless to the living and would rather see the procedure become unwanted enough that providers cannot attract enough of a consumer base to stay in business. It could still be done in hospitals under emergency circumstances such as when complications of maintaining the pregnancy to the point of viability are a threat to the mother’s life. There just would be no need for abortion clinics, not because women’s interest in them is being thwarted, but because it has diminished to the point of making the industry unsustainable. 

Troll in the dungeon!

A while back I wrote a post about red herring trolls. Thought I'd give a few illustrations as a supplement.
Consider the following:

You - Look at muh shiny new truck!

https://www.carlblacknashville.com/Nashville-Trucks

He - A red truck hit my dog! Trucks are bad! You have a truck! You are bad!
You - I didn't hit your dog.
He - So you're ok with my dog getting hit by a truck? You're a bad person!
You - I'm sorry your dog got hit but I still am not bad for owning a truck.
He - You don't care about my dog. You only care about covering your truck-driving ass!

You are now in the position of justifying why you should have the right to even own a truck, even though there is nothing wrong with owning one. No matter what argument you make, the troll can now loop back to calling you a truck apologist for owning a device that has mechanical function in common with the one with which, according to him, someone else hit his dog, and you are stuck defending trucks and yourself despite the fact that neither you nor trucks are inherently anti-dog.

Or, he may answer "I didn't hit your dog" differently.

You - I didn't hit your dog.
He - So you're saying it didn't happen? I'm lying about my dog's lived experience?
You - I didn't say that, only that your dog's unfortunate experience isn't everyone's experience with trucks.
He - You're calling dogs liars!

Troll has just moved the goalpost from his specific dog and the specific truck that hit it to all dogs and all trucks. If that is not pointed out the argument will devolve into you defending against #BelieveDogs.

Another:

You - I didn't hit your dog
He - What's wrong with you? You didn't condemn the truck that hit my dog!
You - I don't even know the whole story. Was it a deliberate act?
He - OMG! YOU HATE DOGS! MUTTSOGYNY!
You - I didn't say I hated dogs.
He - Oh, sure, you just don't condemn trucks that kill them! You approve of hitting dogs with trucks!

You're now in the position of defending yourself against a ridiculous, meritless accusation of muttsogyny. No matter what you say, your troll will continually loop back to asserting that your failure to condemn the truck that hit his dog proves you hate dogs.

Another:

You - I didn't hit your dog
He - Oh, I see. No sympathy because he is not a cat, right? Your cat is better than my dog?
You - I don't have a cat.
He - Cat supporters are evil, bro.
You - I don't have a problem with cat people, but I don't have a cat.
He - It's ok to be ashamed of your cat, dude. I'd be ashamed if I had a cat instead of a dog, too.
You - Why do you hate cats?
He - Cats eat babies.
You - What? What the hell are you talking about? I have friends with cats and babies and that's not true!
He - See, I knew you were secretly a cat fanatic! How many babies have you killed for your cat?

Notice how your troll just took the conversation entirely out of the realm of trucks and dogs? By first accusing you of being a cat-supporter and then making a ridiculous accusation against cats, he's manipulated you into a loop between defending cat people & denying being a cat fanatic.

I could go on... but I bet you can already identify trolls you've argued with on social media who have used these tactics. When it's not so blatant as cats, dogs, and trucks, it's easy to get sucked into debating these ridiculous assertions. And that's why these kinds of arguments are made. The goal is not to arrive at a logical conclusion, or persuade. It's to confound you, distract you, discombobulate you, or cause an emotional response.

Nothing pisses this type of troll off more than if you don't give them any of those things... except maybe if you make fun of their pitifully substandard effort to get them from you. The key is to watch for really ridiculous leaps in logic, unreasonable demands, catastrophic failures at understanding cause/effect relationships, misrepresentations of your assertions, etc.

Try substituting trucks, dogs, cats, etc. for the subjects of the arguments being made, and you'll immediately see the ridiculousness being thrown at you. Then it's up to you to decide whether to call it out or decide the troll isn't worth your time.

2017 Mix-up meetup

This year's mix-up meetup will be the weekend of September 23-24.

At last year's meetup, we visited the Wright Patterson Air Force museum in the morning, and then after it closed, adjourned to a local retro-games arcade for pizza, snacks, and drinks. I was able to host people who needed a place to crash afterward, but don't have the same situation this year.

This year we will be reserving a party room at the same retro-games arcade, and some cabins at a local campground. This will cover the night of the 23rd. On Sunday, the 24th there will be a trip to the Ohio Renaissance Faire.

Needless to say, three of those things will involve expenses and there will be a fundraiser to cover them. This will determine how much food & drinks and accompanying tokens are prepaid at the arcade, how many campers-worth of cabins will be rented, and how many advance-purchase tickets to the Ren will be bought.

Aside from that, everywhere we are going is open to the public. Anyone who only wants to participate in part of the weekend's events can visit the museum with us, buy Ren tickets & visit the Faire with us, or go to the arcade with us and buy their own food and tokens... but space at the cabins will be limited, with fundraiser donors getting priority.

I will update as soon as there is more information, except that the name of the arcade and the name of the campground will not be announced until closer to the event, for the usual reasons.

Transcript for my video "What is feminism (a response to @antifempraxis)"

The video:

Transcript:
In his video, at anti-fem praxis, Nick Reading asked 3 questions and challenged 3 youtubers to each answer one of them.
Those questions are:

• What is feminism
• Where to nonfeminist people stand
• What is to be done

The about page of the Anti-feminist Praxis website (linked to in the lowbar of that video,) asks that question of its readers.
Having read it, I've decided to share my answers, each in its own video. This first video answers the question, "What is feminism?"
Feminism is a political movement designed to capitalize on society's naturally gynocentric outlook by gendering human rights issues to exclude men from consideration as human beings, and women from any related obligation or accountability should they violate another person's human rights.

To achieve this, the movement portrays women (and only women) as victims of everything, including the direct consequences of their own choices. Their written ideology blames this manufactured victimhood on men as a group and as individuals, treating them in social, legal, and psychological terms as both all-powerful, all-comprehending gods, and as devils who are responsible for all of the world's evil. This supports their promotion of the view that female experiences and interests are uniquely relevant, meaningful, and impacting, women and girls are uniquely deserving of relief or protection from discriminatory law and policy, and men and boys are uniquely guilty of being the cause behind any grievance feminists name as a women's issue and therefore accountable for providing relief.

This is fleshed out via some of the movement's ideological concepts, such as Patriarchy.

While different feminists will articulate the concept differently, the various descriptions all have in common a reliance on the belief in a social structure comprised of legal and social environments and practices created by and geared toward accomodating men, which by that very nature oppress women. Essentially, it is a term created by the second wave to expand the concept of male chauvanism from an individual behavior to a chronic, society-wide issue.

Belief in Patriarchy theory relies heavily on circular reasoning which uses the aforementioned gendered view of human rights issues as evidence that women are oppressed, and the claim that women are oppressed to justify gendering one's view of human rights issues.

The feminist movement itself is divided between its establishment, (or its archetects, leadership and organizations,) and its grassroots.

Among both of these sets, the movement can be further divided into activists, academics, media, grunts and warm bodies.

Activists include legislative lobbyists or leaders who direct grassroots campaigns to influence legislators... policy lobbyiests, or leaders who direct grassroots campaigns to influence policy, and propagandists... or leaders who direct grassroots campaigns to influence public perception and attitudes.

Academics include the composers of feminist theory, feminists working in research fields who produce statistics and conclusions to back that theory, administrators in educational institutions who ensure that feminist theory is part of the institution's curriculum, feminists working in education to train students in that theory, and students who absorb feminist theory as part of their studies such that it affects their interaction with others in society.

Media involves broadcasting and publishing - this would be anything from television and movies to news publications to radio to podcasts and blogs.

Grunts are the movement's working grassroots - feminists who don't necessarily have individual power and influence but by following the directives of various leadership, assist in achieving their goals. These are the foot-soldiers in feminist grassroots campaigns,  the students who fill the seats of interdisciplinary studies classes, the distributors of feminist propaganda to their peers in society, and very often the providers of anecdotal evidence feminist activists, academics, and media use to support and perpetuate their beliefs.

Warm bodies are the part of the movement's grassroots who do nothing but wear the label and talk about how great it is. They're useful to the movement in three ways: They spread its propaganda without question, they increase its apparent size, and they provide a loyal but mindless shield against criticism of the movement's malicious acts against men and boys. In other words, these are the movement's useful idiots.

Feminist activists use a gendered approach to human rights issues to push for law and/or policy ostensibly to remedy a social or legal infringement against a human right, written in such a way as to reserve its benefits and protections for only or mostly women and girls, and so that any obligations or restrictions laid out in it only or mostly apply to men. These laws and policies often include funding which benefits the feminist movement through job creation and payment to feminist-run organizations.

Feminist academia and feminist media are used to support this activism by producing and selectively presenting information to support the activists' portrayal of issues and environments in a way that supports the anti-male discriminatory legislative and policy changes they seek.  In some cases, feminists have even lobbied for law which funds research done in facilities that only serve women and then used that research to promote the narrative that the issue in question only or nearly only affects women. Grunts and warm bodies are used to widen the dispensation of related propaganda, and defend against criticism of its content. Their function in the cycle is to make challenging the narrative socially unacceptible.

One example of this is the feminist approach to family and sexual violence.
Despite compelling evidence that these types of violence are a genderless issue, the feminist establishment spent decades getting gendered intimate partner and sexual violence law passed in the United States.

Feminist leadership latched onto the stereotype of the drunken, wife-beating husband and longsuffering, innocently victimized wife, and the existing perception of sexual violence as only a male-perpetrated crime against female victims.

They expanded that type of domestic violence, a minority among cases, and promoted it as the predominant type of case.

They began to push the envelope on sexual violence from an intentional crime of contravening unwilling victim's refusal toward a crime defined by how the female in the interaction felt about it after the fact.

Feminist academia tailored survey-based research designed around existing feminist theory to inflate statistics on male violence against female partners, while ignoring evidence of female violence against male partners.

This research was particularly designed to inflate the apparent incidence of sexual violence by defining instances in which, in the researchers' opinions, the woman should have felt victimized, as sexual violence... a stipulation which treats the intent of the alleged perpetrator and the actions of the alleged victim, including active and willing participation in the sex act, as irrelevant.

Feminist media used the combination of feminist theory and the data, and conclusions from that biased research to promote their "epidemic of male violence against women" narrative.

Feminism's grassroots picked up on that narrative and spread it far and wide. Belief in the supposed epidemic was established, preparing society and legislators for a call for action.

Feminist media increased public pressure by promoting that narrative, along with the data and conclusions from that biased research, and feminist leadership and organizations lobbied for gendered federal law using those media reports. The grassroots was rallied to pressure legislators to comply.
   
During this time, a genderless federal law was passed that provided funding for shelters where victims of family violence could flee their home environments. The Family Violence Prevention and Services act of 1984 strengthened law enforcement's approach to intimate partner and sexual violence by establishing that the victim being a member of one's household or in a relationship with the perpetrator does not excuse any violent crime. Feminists, not satisfied with it, continued applying pressure until it was replaced with the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.

The Violence Against Women Act gendered everything in the Family Violence Prevention and Services act, including the label for the shelters. They were no longer family violence shelters, but women's shelters.

The law also funded training for officers, prosecutors and court personnel to view intimate partner and sexual violence as a an area of crime that is specifically male perpetrated agaisnt female victims, and to interpret all evidence in intimate partner and sexual violence through a filter of feminist ideology.

It funded the creation of special units specifically to focus on the requests of female accusers.
It funded the development of communication and tracking systems around the concept of addressing only violence against women.
It funded the provision of additional crime victim's services, over and above that which is available to the general public, for only women.
It funded agenda-based research intended to quote increase the understanding and control of violence against specifically women.

These grants fund research done at facilities which only serve women, and the data is used to portray intimate partner and sexual violence as a male perpetrated and perpetuated, female experienced issue. The data and conclusions from this research are used to pressure legislators to keep law addressing intimate partner and sexual violence gender discriminatory.

Each of the areas I just mentioned that are funded by grants from the Violence Against Women Act is a fountain of jobs for graduates with an interdisciplinary studies focus or expertise.

Establishment Feminists - the movement's leadership and organizations - use the data and conclusions that come from them, along with that Patriarchy-theory-based filter through which female experiences are seen as more relevant, meaningful, and impacting and all culpability is transferred to men and boys, to perpetuate the public narrative and continue to shape public opinion for the purpose of supporting that pressure.

The movement's grassroots picks their propaganda up and spreads it far and wide, and again, the warm bodies shield it by perpetuating the social unacceptability of questioning that narrative.

So feminism, in a nutshell, is the politically targeted financial exploitation of society's tendency to favor and protect women. In other words, it is a giant scam.

*  *  *

I put my research on feminist activism into blog posts, articles and other videos. In lieu of listing all of those sources, here are the work I did using them (all with sources cited.)

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/more-equal-than-others-bias-in-intimate-partner-and-sexual-violence-victims-advocacy/

http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/2013/01/vawa-is-not-like-that.html

http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/2015/11/17/war-on-victims-of-female-perpetrators-goes-to-back-college/

http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/2016/06/04/nice-feminism-how-a-hate-movement-uses-its-grassroots-against-men/

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/double-standard-rapeib/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6IFLbGkbbA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob4DFbLMbyg

http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/2016/03/01/the-feminist-crusade-against-fatherhood-2/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csGVuuyuYNk