Tucker Carlson Has the Audacity to Blame All Women for the Actions of a Male Mass Shooter – Which is not “Based”

Tucker Carlson Has the Audacity to Blame All Women for the Actions of a Male Mass Shooter – Which is not “Based”

Robert Crimo III, the Highland Park (July 4th) mass shooter, is to blame for Robert Crimo III’s actions.

One can possibly argue Crimo’s parents played a role in matters, as they helped him obtain one or  more of his weapons. But in the end scheme of things, Crimo is responsible for Crimo’s choices and Crimo’s actions.

The fact remains that women are not to blame for Robert Crimo III’s shooting spree, where he killed seven individuals at a July 4th (Independence Day holiday, 2022) parade in Illinois.

Contrary to what some liberals have been saying, who’ve been claiming that Crimo was a “MAGA supporter,”
it is not clear at this time what Crimo’s political beliefs are (he was photographed at a Trump rally, but some were saying he mocked Trump supporters, that he was not showing up to the rally to support Trump),
nor is it clear if any political views motivated his shooting spree.

Others found that Crimo followed a lot of Democrats on his social media and voiced some support for Democrat or progressive views.

I will include either tweets with videos of the Tucker Carlson segment under discussion and/or embed much farther below, videos from You Tube, where you can see and hear for yourself Carlson blaming not only women for Crimo’s actions, but also, weirdly, video games and several other factors.

Please note that some of the videos or tweets I embed in this post may not necessarily be from sources I agree with on every point. It’s usually left-leaning content providers who will hold guys like Carlson accountable for his unhinged, unfounded sexist comments against women.

I’m a conservative, but I rarely see other conservatives calling out sexism when it’s bandied about by other conservatives.

I have never identified as a feminist, but I do not blame all feminists or feminism for the July 4th shooting.

Story Background / Summaries

Here’s some background and/or descriptions about the situation:

(Link): Tucker Carlson pins Highland Park shooting on ‘lectures from women on male privilege’ while furious Bill O’Reilly attributes atrocity to ‘minority gangs which, like drug gangs and drug crime, you’ll never stop’

(Link): Tucker Carlson Points Finger At Women And Weed For Latest Mass Shooting

(Link): Tucker Finds a Way to Blame Women for Young Male Mass Shootings

July 5, 2022
by William Vaillancourt

On the heels of yet another mass shooting, Tucker Carlson identified what he believes to be one contributing factor in young men using firearms on innocent bystanders: women “lecturing” them about “their so-called privilege.”

Carlson opened his Tuesday show discussing the shooting at a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, Illinois, allegedly by 21-year-old Robert “Bobby” Crimo.

The Fox News host mentioned how authorities said Crimo had appeared on their radar twice before: in April 2019 after a suicide attempt and a few months later after he threatened to “kill everyone” in his immediate family.

After the second incident, police confiscated knives, a dagger, and a sword from his home. No complaint was filed, and no arrest was made.

[Carlson said:]
“And yet the authorities in their [the male mass shooters] lives—mostly women—never stop lecturing them about their so-called privilege. ‘You’re male, you’re privileged.’” Carlson imitated. “Imagine that. Try to imagine an unhealthier, unhappier life than that. So a lot of young men in America are going nuts. Are you surprised?”
— end excerpts —

No Motive Given As of July 12, But Tucker, Without Evidence, Listed Motives on July 5

It’s dishonest and inaccurate for Tucker Carlson or any other conservative to blame women as a group or feminism or feminists for the shooting.

As to the date of me composing this post – July 12, 2022 – I have not yet seen a motive for the shooting.

Crimo did not mention that “women in authority” drove him to shoot a group of people.

As far as motive, what we do have is this (from July 6, 2022):

Authorities would not go into Crimo’s possible motive but did acknowledge he “had an affinity for the numbers 4 and 7” — which, when reversed, point to the date he carried out the massacre. (Source)

Even if Crimo were to issue a statement to police tomorrow that he hates women and believes that “women in authority” drove him to shoot and kill several people, that still does not mean that he would be correct, that women are culpable, or that police would magically say,

“Why, you’re right! Women are such nags! It’s totally fine that you felt so nagged by women that you murdered seven people. We will set you free instantly, with no charges pressed, you poor, dear victim  you!”

A lot of liberal women have said for years that conservatives or Republicans are waging a “war against women,” and while I think that rhetoric is fairly untrue (though some conservatives and Republicans do, regrettably, adhere to sexist beliefs),
it sure does not help to dispel liberal paranoia about the extent of conservative (or Republican) sexism when a conservative talk host like Tucker Carlson unjustly accuses women as a group (and without citing any evidence) as being to blame for the actions of a male mass shooter.

Critique of Federalist Editorial “There Is One Pro-Women Camp In American Politics, And It’s The Right by Elle Reynolds” – Do Federalist Magazine Members Realize There Are Single, Childless Conservative Women?

Critique of Federalist Editorial “There Is One Pro-Women Camp In American Politics, And It’s The Right by Elle Reynolds” – Do Federalist Magazine Members Realize There Are Single, Childless Conservative Women?

Way below, I will link to and discuss yet another unfortunate editorial from conservative site The Federalist which again incorrectly conflates “womanhood” with motherhood,  as if there’s an assumption that all conservative women are married with children
(hint: we are not. Some of us conservative women are single and childless. I am no less a woman, or no less a conservative, merely because I am childless and single).

It seems as though The Federalist, like many other conservative sites, pumps out at least one of these
“womanhood = motherhood and wife, and if you disagree with this assumption, you must be an abortion-supporting, man-hating, Democrat feminist”
type editorials about once a month to once every three months. And they are so tiresome.

Just a few months ago, I wrote this post:

(Link): Authors at The Federalist Keep Bashing Singleness in the Service of Promoting Marriage – Which Is Not Okay

And now here I am again, having to address another one of their, “rah rah marriage and motherhood, being conservative as a woman means being a wife and a mother!” type pieces.

Some conservative authors may concede that it’s possible to be a woman and be single and also be childless and also be a conservative, but one would not know it, from their unrelenting association of womanhood with marital or parental status.

I’m a conservative woman who was raised a gender complementarian Southern Baptist. I rejected complementarianism years ago and no longer consider myself to be a Southern Baptist.

I am not a progressive, a liberal, or a feminist.

I don’t agree with all views of feminists, but at times, I’ve found that other conservatives, in attempting to “own the libs,” or in arguing against feminist perspectives (some which conservatives occasionally caricaturize, which results in strawman arguments), go too far in the other, and equally wrong, direction.

I have nothing against the nuclear family, marriage, or motherhood. However, there is nothing wrong with a person being single and childless, whether by choice or by circumstance.

Yes, some conservative (and non-conservative) women are single by circumstance, and somehow such women are never considered in these excessively pro-motherhood, pro-nuclear family, pro-marriage pieces. More about that:

(Link):  Otherhood – An overlooked demographic – the Childless and Childfree Women and Singles Especially Women Who Had Hoped to Marry and Have Kids But Never Met Mr. Right (links)

If you’re a Christian – and I think many of the writers at The Federalist are Christian, or at least supportive of Judeo-Christian values – you cannot plausibly defend a hyper-fixation on marriage, the nuclear family, and motherhood (or fatherhood) from the Bible itself.

The Bible actually teaches that spiritual family is of more import than biological family. Jesus of Nazareth taught in the Gospels that if you follow him, you are to place him above your spouse, any children you have, your siblings, your parents, and other biological family.

(See Matthew 12:46-50 and Matthew 10:37,38 for more about how Jesus discouraged his followers from prioritizing biological family or spouse above devotion to God or above spiritual family, as today’s American conservatives tend to do.)

The Bible simply does not teach anyone to “focus on their (biological) family,” nor does the Bible teach that marriage, natalism, parenthood, or the nuclear family will fix a culture or that marriage or parenthood will make a person more godly, ethical, or responsible.

The Bible says that the problem with humanity is sin, that each person is a sinner, and the Bible prescribes belief in Jesus as Savior to be the cure – not marriage or having a baby.

In 1 Corinthians 7, the Apostle Paul wrote it is better to remain single than to marry:

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do …
(28) …But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided.
An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.
35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

That sure doesn’t sounding like a ringing endorsement of marriage, motherhood, and the nuclear family, the kind I regularly hear from secular and Christian conservatives!

However, too many editorials by conservative sites – Federalist is really bad about this, as are BreakPoint and several others – continue to conflate “godly,” “mature,” patriotic, and good with “being a married mother.”

I’m a conservative woman who never did marry. Not because I am “anti marriage,” but because in spite of all the propaganda I was fed by Southern Baptist and evangelical Christians from the time I was a kid and teen (i.e., if I just had faith, attended church, prayed, etc, that God would send me a husband), and although I followed that evangelical and Baptist teaching, I never-the-less was never sent a spouse.

I did not choose to remain single over my entire life; that is just how my life turned out.

By staying single for as long as I have, and I remain right of center politically, I’ve seen that too many other conservatives, in seeking to correct what they see as liberal or feminist mistakes regarding family and marriage, end up going in error by going in the direct, 180 degree opposite direction, by placing an over-emphasis upon marriage and parenthood.

Here’s a link with excerpts to the editorial from The Federalist, and below, I’ll pick apart where I agree or disagree:

The Editorial by E. Reynolds on The Federalist

(Link): There Is One Pro-Women Camp In American Politics, And It’s The Right

Excerpts:

by Elle Reynolds
June 15, 2022

… Even at the height of the feminist movement, the lies that women must become like men to be real women were damaging — but now, all pretenses are up.
— end excerpt —

Women Must Become Like Men To Be Real Women?

When Reynolds writes, “… the lies that women must become like men to be real women were damaging,” what does she mean? What does she mean by women “becoming like men?”

I think I know what Reynolds means, and if I am correct, she is most likely referring to gender stereotypes, that women are, or should be, great at relationships, free to show emotion, nurturing, warm, passive, be risk averse, and docile.

(Note that many of these stereotypes for women are the same as hallmarks of codependency.)

The Bedevilments of Sex: Louise Perry’s “The Case against the Sexual Revolution” by Ralph Leonard

The Bedevilments of Sex: Louise Perry’s “The Case against the Sexual Revolution” by Ralph Leonard

According to the review below – a review of Perry’s book ‘The Case Against the Sexual Revolution,’ she, Perry, to bolster her view, appeals to the concept of ‘evolutionary psychology,’ a discipline or worldview I do not agree with.

(In my understanding of it, evolutionary psychology ends up attributing socially conditioned behaviors to hardwired, in-born traits, and is, and has been used, to practice sexism against women, or to try to explain or justify sexist outcomes against women by men.)

I don’t support the history of, and on-going existence of, sexual double standards, where, for example, women get punished for sexual behaviors that men have routinely engaged in.

However, I also don’t support third wave feminist views or sexual excess, where some portions of society advocate for sexual hedonism.

Sexual hedonism, the “there should be no boundaries on sex” type of attitudes promoted by progressives, comes with its own set of problems which hurt people (especially women and children).

(Link):  The Bedevilments of Sex: Louise Perry’s “The Case against the Sexual Revolution” by Ralph Leonard

Excerpts:

June 3, 2022

[The author begins by explaining what by now should be a familiar refrain: the sexual liberation which was supposed to put women’s sexual behavior and choices on an even playing ground to that of men, has in the decades sense, apparently, resulted not in women’s sexual liberation, but in making a lot of women unhappy and straining relationships between men and women and in introducing a whole new set of problems.
The author says this is some of what the new book “The Case Against the Sexual Revolution” by Louise Perry has set out to tackle.]

… she [Perry] questions the notion that the sexual revolution has been a gain or a liberation for women. Quite the opposite. “Women have been conned,” she declares.

The sexual revolution, Perry emphatically argues, didn’t liberate them. Instead, it liberated the libidos of high-status playboys and lechers such as Hugh Hefner and Harvey Weinstein at the expense of women.

… This isn’t your usual traditional religious moralism.

Perry’s thinking is quite secular. It appeals to science (specifically, evolutionary psychology).

But, like religious moralism, which is based on the idea of man as a fallen being, Perry’s use of evolutionary psychology reveals the supposed limitations of our evolved nature.  …

Perry advertises her book as an attempt to reckon with the immense change the sexual revolution has created throughout society and culture. She proclaims that she does not endorse either “the accounts typically offered by liberals, addicted to a narrative of progress, or conservatives addicted to a narrative of decline.”

Instead, she makes the following arguments.

The Sexual Revolution Has Backfired on Women by S. Moore

The Sexual Revolution Has Backfired on Women by S. Moore

Before I paste in excerpts from the editorial, and though I’m a conservative, I’d like to say that I don’t agree with the usual conservative response to the “sexual revolution.”

First of all, too often, too many conservatives blame “women’s lib,” and the 1960s “sexual revolution” with any and all societal ills – conservatives will blame sexual promiscuity and so on for all that, but sexual promiscuity existed prior to the 1960s, and in other cultures.

Secondly, while I am not opposed to parenthood, the nuclear family, or marriage – or to the notion of waiting until marriage to have sex – too often, most conservatives instruct people that the way out of cultural rot is for everyone to marry, marry by the time they are 23, and have ten children. I disagree – for several reasons.

Marriage and parenthood do not keep people from sin, sexual or otherwise (see examples of what I mean in this post and in this post).

If you’re a Christian conservative, you should be aware that the Bible does not say that a “cure” for the individual or for society is marriage and parenthood – for more on that topic, please see (Link): this post, (Link): this post, and (Link): this post on this blog.

The Bible actually advises that singleness is preferable to marriage (see 1 Corinthians 7), and recall that Jesus of Nazareth never married, never had children, and he actually made some anti-nuclear-family-esque type comments (see posts linked to in the aforementioned paragraph for examples of that).

There are adults – like myself – who are single by circumstance (I had hoped to marry but it never came to pass). Some adults are single by choice, which is fine – nobody should be shamed or guilt tripped for being single by circumstance or for choosing not to marry.

The problem is not one’s martial status.

A person can remain single and celibate over a life time and manage NOT to rob liquor stores, not participate in looting and rioting, not pelt police officers with rocks, and not rape and murder people.

The problems stem from lack of self control and choice – do you choose to be a law abiding citizen or not? Being a law abiding citizen is not contingent on being married or on having children.

Hopefully, the editorial below does not fall back on the usual tropes of, “Oh dear me, if only everyone would marry young, have kids, and form their own nuclear families, society would be crime and sin free” fairy tale.

If women of any age are having difficulties getting a mate, or in staying married, the answer is NOT always or necessarily to return to stifling, sexist, 1950s American “pro marriage and pro nuclear family” positions.

Things are not always mutually exclusive or do not have to be – life for women does not have to consist of only two choices (this is a false dichotomy):

1. be a “sex positive” feminist lady who has sex with any body and every body or 2. be a traditional, stay-at- home wife and mother

You can cook up a third or fourth way of living life.  Life does not have to be lived by only one or the other parameter above. I don’t know why most on the right and some on the left continue to depict life as though only two avenues for women are possible.

I don’t entirely fit into either the left’s or the right’s notions of how women should live, and the older I get, I resent individuals, groups, or organizations (whether right, left, religious, or secular) condescendingly trying to define me or tell me how they think I should live, and at that, based on my biological sex.

There were a few aspects of this I didn’t agree with, but most of it seems okay enough:

(Link): The sexual revolution has backfired on women

Young women today are more sexually liberal than ever, but this could be extremely damaging – as the modern Mary Whitehouse has warned us

by Suzanne Moore
May 31, 2022

Who wants to be thought of as uncool, uptight and no fun? Certainly not young women who have been brought up to be “sex-positive”. This means being open, tolerant and progressive about sex, removing all judgment and shame and believing anything goes as long as those involved consent to it. It’s a beautiful idea: sexual freedom and enjoyment for all and personally I cannot wait for this revolution to happen.

It’s something of a shock, then, to be reminded that we are supposedly living in post-revolutionary times. As feminist author Louise Perry makes plain in her clear-sighted new book, The Case Against the Sexual Revolution: A New Guide to Sex in the 21st Century, what this actually means is a flood of pornography and hook-up culture, where a few swipes lead to casual encounters, “rough sex” is seen as routine, prostitution is viewed as just another career choice and we have the lowest rate of conviction for rape in a decade.

… It certainly is “progressive” for some men, who get to sleep with women who have been taught that all desires are acceptable and transgression is erotic, but the number of young women who tell stories of being choked and spat on or pushed into sexual acts they were not sure of, during what used to be called “one night stands”, is disturbing.

…But there is a case to be made that today’s aggressively sexual culture does not make many women happy; indeed quite the opposite. Some are paying such a high price for our so-called freedom that we might question what it all means.

Men Are Actually Blaming All Women for The Misogynic Progressive ‘Transwoman’ Lunacy – and not crediting feminists who’ve been speaking out on the issue for years – Men Like Rufo and Walsh Don’t Seem to Want to Share the Credit with Women

Men Are Actually Blaming All Women for The Misogynic Progressive ‘Transwoman’ Lunacy – and not crediting feminists who’ve been speaking out on the issue for years – Men Like Rufo and Walsh Don’t Seem to Want to Share the Credit with Women

I am a conservative. I am not a feminist.

I do not support the “woke” agenda, which would include things like denying the biological reality that there are two biological sexes, male and female.

I do not support men who “identify as women” (usually referred to as “transwomen”), especially if they have not undergone “bottom surgery,” being allowed into women’s only spaces, such as women’s prisons, bathrooms, and so forth.

Regardless if some of the wacko gender ideology we see today can be traced back to individual women writers of the 1990s or earlier (who were feminists), not all women can or should be blamed for that in particular, or for today’s out-of-control trans-activism.

Today’s trans activism insanity is, by and large, being carried along by MEN.

There are biological men with autogynephilia (a sexual fetish) and a large, first class case of Narcissism, who are hiding under the fig leaf of Gender Dysphoria to claim, “I’m a woman!,” and to also claim victim status and demand special rights.

That position is being helped along by male and female progressives.

But there are also biological women – of whatever political beliefs – who are opposed to biological men being allowed access into women’s only spaces, and some of them having been speaking out against trans activism going back years now.

And I have no idea what it matters if the numbers are more or less -ie, if there are more woman promoting trans activism or less.

No Studies, Polls, or Stats

One doofus or two who were arguing with me on Twitter earlier today (June 12) were blaming all women, women as a class, with no distinction, and saying the “numbers of women support trans activism outnumber those who speak out against it,” but neither individual cited me or linked me to any studies or polls (reputable or otherwise) to back up these assertions.

Based upon my anecdotal experience, I’ve seen a lot of biological women, and a few men, speaking out against progressive trans activism quite a bit the last few years – on twitter, on blogs, and in online magazine articles.

I’ve personally encountered very few biological women defending trans-insanity, and most of the women I’ve seen are opposed to progressive transgenderism, so I just tweeted back at one of those clowns,
“No, the women who are opposed to it outnumber those who support it.”

I’m sure some women who support leftist trans-activism may exist (there are progressive women (and men) crack pots who also support the quackery that is “anti racism” and “BLM,” after all), but I’ve seen far more speaking out against than in favor.

Some women have been speaking out against trans ideology for years, some for decades.

Ultimately, I’m not sure what difference it makes to argue that there may be more women supporting Trans Lunacy than oppose it… because it’s still unfair and inaccurate to blurt out, to suggest, that “women support it.” No, women are not a monolith on this subject.

As to the women who do oppose Trans Lunacy, some of them have been fighting it for years, before conservative men like Rufo and Walsh jumped on the band wagon.

Irreversible Damage by Abigail Shrier

One well known speaker and author against trans-insanity is a woman author, Abigail Shrier, who wrote a book about this issue, Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, in 2020, and it was banned from a few online book stores for awhile, if I recall correctly.

From a review of Shrier’s book on Psychology Today:

The book posits that a sudden surge in the number of teen girls identifying as trans boys is due not to gender dysphoria or transgenderism but rather to girls with other mental conditions who are mistakenly self-identifying as trans because there is social capital built into marginalized identities.
— end excerpts —

Carlson gave Shrier credit for being among the first to discuss this in the United States (show date; June 14, 2022), see the video in the tweet below:

.@AbigailShrier comments on a report which shows that the number of young people who identify as transgender has recently doubled, and is higher in blue states:

"If this were organic, we would expect to see it evenly distributed across the population." pic.twitter.com/Gm3bzxdD2i

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) June 14, 2022

Men Helped Usher In Trans Activism, Too!

In the United States, we have male Presidents (Obama and Biden), and Governors, (and likely some male Congressmen and Senators) who are pushing for bills or laws to allow biological males who identify as women to be allowed into women’s prisons, locker rooms, and so on.

A small sampling:

(Link):  California Dishing Out Condoms To Female Inmates After Democrat Newsom [who is a man] Forces Them To Live With Men By Gabe Kaminsky

(Link): 20 States Sue Biden Administration For Corrupting Title IX With ‘Gender Identity’ Mumbo Jumbo

(Link): Biden’s [Joe Biden, a man] Title IX Rewrite Could End Women’s Sports, Let Men In Locker Rooms 

(There are also a few male (Republican) governors, such as Stitt and De Santis who are pushing against trans ideology.
But we also have male Democrats, such as Joe Biden and others, futzing around on the definition of “woman” so as to make permissible biological males being legally permitted into women’s bathrooms, sports teams, etc.)

Post Modernism and Gender Ideology

Gender ideology is also part of post-modernism and today’s progressive love of neo-Marxism, which biological men helped to usher in.

Karl Marx, who got this bus rolling, was a man. Marx’s belief in group identity and putting everyone into oppressed classes undergirds a lot of today’s far left’s gender ideology and “woke” politics.

Do I then blame all men of today for the lunacy of progressivism, of the neo-Marxist group identity politics, or say, “men are to blame for Marxism”? No, I don’t. Because that wouldn’t be fair or accurate.

In the past 60 or so years, in the United States, there have been both male AND female authors, intellectuals, and pundits who have helped craft ideas that led to CRT, queer theory, and so on.

So I don’t appreciate the clowns I run into on Twitter blaming all women (women as a group) for the actions or views of SOME women, and for causes that are neither wholly attributed to one sex or the other, such as leftist trans-activism.

All Men: Michael Foucault, Pat Califia, Gayle Rubin, Alfred Kinsey, John Money, Erwin Gohrbandt

Feminist women who dabbled in Gender Ideology over 20 years ago were joined by progressive men who love Marxism, who were opposed to the idea of objective truth, who support group identity politics, and Queer Theory (which men (and some women) had a large hand in, such as Michel Foucault, Pat Califia, and Gayle Rubin – again, those are men).

Even Matt Walsh, in some of his videos and commentary about wacko, leftist Gender Ideology advocates, occasionally name drops MEN who have aided and abetted this queer theory, pro-trans-agenda world view, such as Alfred Kinsey and John Money.

According to the person(s) at this Twitter Account, a man is behind the design of the Transgender “pride” flag, and that man (biological man) is named Robert Hogge but goes by “Monica Helms.”

Then we have John Money. I believe Walsh has mentioned Dr. John Money a time or two.

(Link): Dr. John Money, Father Of Gender Theory, Was A Pedophilia Apologist

Excerpts:

Would it surprise you to know that the normalization of gender fluidity is rooted in the same ideology as Critical Race Theory? You won’t be surprised once you understand the whole story.
— end —

(Link): John Money: The Pro-Pedophile Pervert Who Invented “Gender”

(Link): John Money

Excerpts:

John William Money (8 July 1921 – 7 July 2006) was a New Zealand psychologist, sexologist and author known for his research into sexual identity and biology of gender.
He was controversial for his conduct towards vulnerable patients, including sexual abuse and endorsing conversion therapy aimed at young children.
He was one of the first researchers to publish theories on the influence of societal constructs of gender on individual formation of gender identity. Money introduced the terms gender identity, gender role and sexual orientation and popularised the term paraphilia.
He spent a considerable amount of his career in the United States.

Recent academic studies have criticized Money’s work in many respects, particularly in regard to his perpetration of the involuntary sex-reassignment of the child David Reimer,[3] his abuse of Reimer and his twin brother (also a child) by forcing them to simulate sex acts that Money photographed,[4] and the adult suicides of both brothers.[4]
— end excerpts —

So, some of the key influential figures leading us down the path to today’s current Trans Insanity are all men:
Michel Foucault, Pat Califia, Gayle Rubin, and John Money.

Twitter Continues To Suspend Any Person or Group Who Mentions Rachel Levine’s Actual Biology or Original Name

Twitter Continues To Suspend Any Person or Group Who Mentions Rachel Levine’s Actual Biological Sex (Which is Male) or (His) Original Name (Which is “Richard”)

Since I first published this post, Twitter has gone on to suspend yet another individual over the biological male, Rachel “Richard” Levine. Post edited below with new link(s)

---

I already have a post or two about this subject.

I myself was suspended from Twitter over a year ago for pointing out that Richard Levine (who goes by “Rachel”) is a man who makes for one unattractive woman (which is true; he’s not an attractive person whether he presents as a man or a woman).

Since that time, Twitter continues to suspend or block any person or group who makes similar comments on their platform.

Progressives (other than Twitter) just do not like it when anyone disagrees with their leftist views of biological sex or their views on sexuality.

In the past week, Twitter has suspended conservatives Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk, and right leaning satire account The Babylon Bee for stating the truth: Rachel Levine is actually Richard Levine, a biological man who likes to wear skirts, lipstick, and his hair long.

As for me, I am a conservative, but I don’t really like Tucker Carlson or Matt Walsh and a few other conservatives across the board. These are conservatives who I do agree with on some topics while I disagree with them on others. Concerning the left’s lunacy in regards to transgenderism, though, I am in agreement with Walsh and Carlson.

For all the conservative men who keep asking, “Where are all the feminists?”

I’m not a feminist, I’m a conservative, but I loathe sexism, I follow several feminist social media accounts, and yes, some feminists have been calling out the Transgender movement for well over a year now, but they don’t receive much attention.

Such feminists are drowned out by the useful idiots (ie, feminists who support transgenderism). Transwomen refer to the feminist women who speak out against the radical trans agenda as “terfs” (trans exclusionary radical feminists).

Here is a round-up of the latest commentary or news articles about who Twitter has of late suspended for referring to Rachel Levine as being a man named Richard:

update: The Christian Post recently responded:

(Link): Disagreement is not hatred. Censorship is. (by The Christian Post editorial board)by Christian Post editorial board)

Excerpts:

March 29, 2022

The Christian Post was (Link): canceled last week by Twitter, over referring to Biden administration official Rachel Levine with an unsanctioned but arguably accurate descriptive pronoun.

It was both unsurprising and surprising; unsurprising since CP regularly covers the controversy surrounding trans-identified individuals and surprising since Twitter thought this particular story was more “hateful” than other stories, and warranted suspension.

CP appealed, and so far Twitter has been silent. It actually brings a Pink Floyd lyric to mind:  “Welcome to the Machine.”

There is much to say in arguing that our pronoun was accurate, but the larger question is: who is the hater here? Eliminating the voice of a publication because of a description that likely more than half of the world’s population would not object to is, in fact, hating that segment of the world.

Granted, Twitter is a private company and can play by the rules it establishes within the confines of the law. But if we are having a conversation about hate, how is it kind to eliminate a voice that disagrees, especially if there is no rancor involved?

(Link): Twitter Censors Breitbart’s John Nolte over Rachel Levine Joke

Excerpt:

Twitter censored Breitbart News senior writer John Nolte after he made a joke about transgender Health & Human Services Assistant Secretary Rachel Levine.

Nolte was locked out of his account for 12 hours for tweeting that there should be a “Tweet Rachel Levine is a Guy Day.” He is the latest in a growing group of prominent conservative commentators who have been censored by Twitter this week for drawing attention to Levine’s real gender.

In an automated message to Nolte, Twitter informed him that he had violated the Twitter rules and would have to delete his tweet to regain access to his account.

(Link):  BREAKING: Charlie Kirk suspended from Twitter after naming Rachel Levine’s biological sex

“Everything I said was precisely accurate, and yet, Twitter still suspended my account. That should terrify every American, even those who disagree with me,” Kirk said.

Charlie Kirk, founder of TPUSA, talk radio host and outspoken conservative commentator, was suspended from Twitter on Tuesday after identifying President Joe Biden’s assistant health secretary in the Department of Health and Human Services as a man.

“Richard Levine,” Kirk wrote, “spent 54 years of his life as a man. He had a wife and family. He ‘transitioned’ to being a woman in 2011, Joe Biden appointed Levine to be a 4-Star Admiral, and now USA Today has named ‘Rachel’ Levine as a ‘Woman of the Year'[.] Where are the feminists??”

(Link):  Twitter is Punishing Another Account [Babylon Bee] Over Rachel Levine 

Excerpt:

by Rebecca Downs
March 20, 2022

On Sunday night, Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon shared over Twitter that the social media platform informed him that the account for the satirical news site “has been locked for violating the Twitter rules,” when it comes to “hateful conduct.”
The problematic tweet in question is from March 15, and links to a post from that same day proclaiming “The Babylon Bee’s Man Of The Year Is Rachel Levine.”

Secret Service Warns of Domestic Terror Threat from Incels (Involuntary Celibates)

Secret Service Warns of  Domestic Terror Threat from Incels (Involuntary Celibates)

(Link): Report: ‘Involuntary Celibates’ Emerge as Growing Terrorism Threat

The U.S. Secret Service has released a study detailing the growing terrorism threat by so-called involuntary celibate men.

Attacks inspired by the “incel movement” have left dozens dead in the U.S. and Canada since 2014, according to CBS News.

The report said the term “‘incel’ is often used to describe men who feel unable to obtain romantic or sexual relationships with women, to which they feel entitled,” CNN reported.

(Link): US Secret Service says ‘involuntary celebate’ men are a rising threat

March 16, 2022

US Secret Service has released a report which says that men who identify as ‘involuntary celibates’ or ‘incels’ due to inability to form meaningful relationships with women constitute a rising threat to society.

The report, prepared by National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) was released on Tuesday. It also dwells on some common themes found in the history of men who resorted to violence against women.

…The report by US secret service said that though Beierle did not resort to any extremist ideology, his behaviour resembled those who identified as ‘incels’ or ‘anti-feminist’.

(Link): Secret Service Warns of  Domestic Terror Threat from Incels (Involuntary Celibates)

by AP
March 15, 2022

The U.S. Secret Service has warned the public of the growing domestic threat posed by misogynistic extremist or incels – involuntary celibates, reporting that many recent mass shooters have displayed the alarming trait.

Often times, well-documented hatred toward women and warning signs are dismissed because relatives, friends and law enforcement ‘don’t look at the big picture,’ officials said.

I Guess The Southern Baptist “Biblical Womanhood” Site Is No More – Many Other Complementarian Blogs Now Inactive – and I’m Not Sad About It

I Guess The Southern Baptist “Biblical Womanhood” Site Is No More – Many Other Complementarian Blogs Now Inactive – and I’m Not Sad About It

I wrote about this Southern Baptist site a few years ago, here:

(Link): Southern Baptist’s New Sexist “Biblical Woman” Site – Attitudes in Total Face Palm of a Site One Reason Among Many This Unmarried and Childless Woman Is Saying Toodle-Oo to Christianity

Biblical Womanhood mast head screen shot

That site was hosted here at one time:

(Link): Biblical Womanhood (Southern Baptist site – www.biblicalwoman.com)

However, as of February 2022, the site is not loading. I guess it was taken down?

I’ve done some web searching, but I cannot find another site about Biblical Womanhood like this one by SWBTS, or written by them.

Their site was an off shoot of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (their site: swbts.com).

Their site’s affiliated Twitter, account, @BiblicalWoman still exists, but they removed all Tweets – well, the Twitter account must’ve been newer than the site, because the Twitter page says they started their account in 2019, but their site goes back to at least around 2014.

Apparently, the last that site was active was May 15, 2021, if the (Link): Wayback Machine site: Biblical Womanhood Site Archived is any indication.

On another look, 2015 was the date on Wayback Machine’s last available date for them, but a few of their blog posts are time stamped 2019.

Edit. I think somewhere on the archived “Biblical Womanhood” site is a notice that says they will be shutting their Christianized Martha Stewart site down and moving content over to Facebook.

Let me see if I can find them on Facebook. Their archived site states that their Facebook group address is (Link): facebook.com/BiblicalWoman. I tried that link, but it goes to a blank page, except for this text:

This Page Isn’t Available
The link may be broken, or the page may have been removed. Check to see if the link you’re trying to open is correct.
— end —

So even their Facebook presence was deactivated at some stage.

But where ever, and how ever, will I get content to shame me for being single into my adulthood (the TGC or Desiring God sites maybe)?

Where else will I get content like, “55 Feminine, Biblical Casserole Recipes with Hamburger Meat as an Ingredient,” -?
or, “17 Feminine, Godly Handi-Crafts Using Popsicle Sticks Glued Together” -? Where?! 

Can I make it through life without gender stereotyped dating, cooking, and arts- and- crafts advice from complementarians?  What ever will I do?🤔🙄

From the Southern Baptist Biblical Womanhood’s (Link): archived “About” page:

Whether it’s parenting your teenage daughter, finding purpose in your singleness ….
— end excerpt —

Oh please. 99.9% of the time, 100% of complementarians are only interested in three, four areas areas in regards to women(*), and NONE of them have to do with single women, because complementarians, beyond giving their presumptuous “practice being a good homemaker NOW, while you’re living alone in your own apartment, to prepare yourself for the day, when you’re 25 and get married and have children!” articles (presumptuous because some women never end up marrying), they never have anything meaningful to say about adult female (or male, for that matter) singleness.

The areas most complementarians harp on 100% of the time include:

• convincing women it’s not biblical for them to preach,
• brainwashing them to think the complementarian form of codependency (“submission”) is good and godly,
• and constantly harping on “marriage and motherhood.”

Pop Singer Billie Eilish Calls Porn A ‘Disgrace’ To Women, Says It ‘Destroyed’ Her Brain

Pop Singer Billie Eilish Calls Porn A ‘Disgrace’ To Women, Says It ‘Destroyed’ Her Brain

(Link):  Billie Eilish says watching porn from age 11 ‘really destroyed my brain’

Excerpts:

Grammy-winning singer Billie Eilish has spoken about an addiction to watching pornography, starting at age 11, and how it gave her nightmares and messed her up when she started dating.

Eilish, who turns 20 on Saturday, was speaking on “The Howard Stern Show” on Sirius XM radio on Monday.

“I think porn is a disgrace. I used to watch a lot of porn, to be honest. I started watching porn when I was, like, 11,” the “Bad Guy” singer said, saying it helped her feel as if she were cool and “one of the guys.”

“I think it really destroyed my brain and I feel incredibly devastated that I was exposed to so much porn,” she added, saying she suffered nightmares because some of the content she watched was so violent and abusive.

Eilish, who was homeschooled in Los Angeles and has seven Grammy Awards, is known for her often dark lyrics.

(Link):  Billie Eilish Talked About How The First Few Times She Had Sex Were Negatively Impacted From Watching Porn At A Young Age

(Link): Billie Eilish Calls Porn A ‘Disgrace’ To Women, Says It ‘Destroyed’ Her Brain

Dec 14, 2021
By Madeline Osburn

The 19-year-old Grammy award-winning singer Billie Eilish said pornography warped her views of sex and relationships after she began watching it when she was just 11 years old. “It destroyed my brain,” she said on “The Howard Stern Show” on Monday.

Response to the Alex Parker Piece ‘Feminist Rages Against GirlPal ‘Galentine’s Day,’ Says No Women Are Lonely, Praises Group Vomiting’

Response to the Alex Parker Piece ‘Feminist Rages Against GirlPal ‘Galentine’s Day,’ Says No Women Are Lonely, Praises Group Vomiting’

A conservative editorialist at the Town Hall site, Alex Parker (who I assume is a man), mocks an (Link): anti-Galentine’s Day essay written by a secular, liberal feminist named Rachel Hosie.

“Galentine’s Day” is a new holiday where women friends can celebrate their friendships with each other on February 13th.

The secular feminist that Parker is responding to believes that Galentine’s Day is patronizing to single women, so she is not in support of the holiday.

As a never-married woman who is over 45 years of age who had wanted to be married, but it didn’t come to pass for me, I came to terms with being never-married years ago, so Valentine’s Day no longer bothers me the way it used to.

I don’t have strong feelings for or against Galentine’s Day.

While Hosie’s contention may be true that Galentine’s Day is patronizing towards single adulthood (which is a bad thing), I see it as ultimately a harmless day for women to spend enjoying the friendship of their women friends, so I don’t object to the holiday.

I do however object to a few of the points that Parker made while trying to dismantle Hosie’s arguments.

I will provide excerpts from the Parker editorial and then offer my observations:

(Link): Feminist Rages Against GirlPal ‘Galentine’s Day,’ Says No Women Are Lonely, Praises Group Vomiting

Excerpts:

[Hosie the liberal feminist writes,]

Actually, we don’t need your pity — and the whole concept perpetuates the ridiculous myth of the sad, single woman.

[To which conservative Parker replies,]

The ridiculous myth?? How is it a myth, and how is it ridiculous?

Men want women, and women want men; that’s why we have February 14th … Thursday’s gonna find some people without dates; some portion of those will have ovaries; and some of those are gonna be none too thrilled.

Oh, wait — I forgot; this is 2019.

Okay…women aren’t women and men aren’t men and women don’t have to be like men or women, and there are no men or women…
–(end quotes)—-

My comments regarding this portion of the exchange:

Spinsters and Crazy Cat Ladies

I cannot believe Parker is feigning ignorance of the “sad, pathetic” single woman trope.

Being a conservative who is critiquing a liberal or feminist essay does not mean having to act ignorant of certain societal truths in the process.

Conservatives Are Rather Inconsistent About Morals and Women’s Sexuality – Regarding: The College That Considers Valentine’s Day Cards A Form of Sexual Harassment

Conservatives Are Rather Inconsistent About Morals and Women’s Sexuality – Regarding: The College That Considers Valentine’s Day Cards A Form of Sexual Harassment

This post contains one or two “adult” words, towards the bottom.

---

I am conservative. I’ve never been a liberal.

I do sometimes spot troubling contradictions or inconsistencies with other conservatives, however. This is one of those times.

So, I’m glancing at this editorial on a right wing site about liberals at some college campus possibly banning the handing out of Valentine’s Day cards, because they could be considered a form of sexual harassment by some students.

Here’s a link:

(Link): Valentine’s Day cards face ban as ‘sex harassment’

Here are excerpts from that page – I will address the problems I have with this below:

Students at the University of New Orleans should think twice about sending out any Valentine’s Day cards if they don’t want to risk being expelled for sexual harassment, according to a free-speech advocacy group.

The Authors at The Federalist Site Often Don’t Get It: Joy Pullman is Fine With Men Harassing Women Who Wear Headphones In Public – Part 1

The Authors at The Federalist Site Often Don’t Get It: Joy Pullman is Fine With Men Harassing Women Who Wear Headphones in Public – Part 1

I am quoting portions of an essay at The Federalist site in order to offer a rebuttal to it. Link is below.

---

The Federalist is a conservative web site.

I’m a conservative.

However, I am a conservative who is truly and actually repulsed by sexism against women – and yes, many conservatives will say they are as well – but then they go on to mock and ridicule the very legitimate concerns raised by other women, which means, ultimately, they are supporting and defending sexism despite their avowed concern for women and girls.

Let’s examine one example of this very thing. From the right wing site The Federalist comes this editorial written by a Joy Pullman (yes, the author of this appalling piece is a woman – one usually only sees such dreck from conservative male authors):

(Link): Even Women With Headphones May Want A Man To Chase Them

Here is the obnoxious sub-heading on that page, which was published in September 2016:

Back off, uptight whiners, and stop making public and romantic life so much less fun for everyone. Some ladies like a good chase.
–(end quote)–

I’m surprised a woman wrote this piece, because it conveys a lot of the stupidity, the ignorance of women, and wrong, sexist assumptions many men have of women, but this is written by a conservative woman – so maybe I should not be surprised.

A lot of conservative women (I myself am conservative, but please recall, I don’t agree with them on all topics) hold this bizarre and wrong position that the automatic, correct position on any topic pertaining to gender that feminists, or all women as a group (which may or may not include feminists), are championing or upset about, must be to adopt the direct, opposite position.

And that is an incredibly stupid and irresponsible position for conservatives to take, for, like broken clocks, (Link): even liberal feminists are correct at least twice a day.