Posted on 06/15/2018 9:19:09 AM PDT by reaganaut1
American women live under a suffocating patriarchy. Rape culture flourishes in the United States. Toxic masculinity stunts the emotional and professional growth of American females. Sexual harassment and predation are ubiquitous in American workplaces. College campuses are maelstroms of sexual violence. Female students need safe spaces where they can escape abusive male power.
These propositions are self-evident to a large, interlocking establishment of government bureaucrats, progressive politicians, college administrators, faculty, “activists,” professionals, and journalists. Yet this same establishment is up in arms over a recent declaration by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions that female aliens caught trying to enter the country illegally will no longer be automatically considered for asylum by dint of claiming that they are victims of domestic abuse. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accuses the Trump administration of “staggering cruelty” in condemning “vulnerable innocent women to a lifetime of violence and even death.” The American Bar Association charged that Sessions would “further victimize those most in need of protection.” The executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Benjamin Johnson, denounced “this shameful chapter in our country’s history,” and promised a lawsuit.
Sessions was right to return asylum law to its original intent: offering protection to individuals persecuted by their government for membership in a socially distinct group. Domestic violence is a private crime, not a public one, and does not reflect general persecution of the sort that international law has codified as appropriate for asylum petitions. Asylum petitions have mushroomed 1,700 percent from 2008 to 2016, according to the New York Times, driven in significant part by domestic-abuse claims, often underwritten by extensive coaching and encouragement by hard-left advocates.
(Excerpt) Read more at city-journal.org ...
Read it first
“Surely, a Third World person of color would be better off staying in his home country, where he is free from genocidal whiteness and the murderous legacy of Western civilization and Enlightenment values.”
Notice the question mark?
Her thesis is amusing
Folks, you are wildly misunderstanding Heather’s point.
Go to City Journal and you’ll see a single small paragraph encapsulate her point:
——————-
America the Horrible?
Progressives say that the United States is racist and misogynist, but they still want everyone in the world to come here.
Heather Mac Donald
June 14, 2018
Read it before you comment
“Surely, a Third World person of color would be better off staying in his home country, where he is free from genocidal whiteness and the murderous legacy of Western civilization and Enlightenment values.”
I’m equally shocked. Heather MacDonald is required reading.
See post 13.
We didn’t misread anything. We were misled.
If people will not properly post an article, then the result is what it is.
Chaos and misinformation.
Probably intentional.
What they actually think of the U.S. isn't "land of opportunity" but "land of redistribution", and the people who the progressives want to come here are not intended to contribute, but to consume a surplus that was illegitimately constructed off the efforts of the usual victim classes. Wealth is theft, goes this line of thought, and theft must be punished.
There is, in addition, a sort of level of abstraction going on with this ideology - such inequalities are intolerable on a national level but perfectly permissible locally. Many of the proponents are, after all, residents of comfortable academic enclaves and gated communities, more or less immune from the thunderbolts of righteousness they are calling down upon others. When one is, heaven help us, "woke" to the injustice of inequality, one has transcended any guilt for participation. Convenient doctrine.
So yes, those of us in coveralls do occasionally find the stern lecturing from people in thousand-dollar suits to be a bit tiresome. These are the real privileged in this society, wealthy, immune, and utterly convinced of their own moral superiority. It's often a permanent affliction.
Responsibility2nd wrote: “Wrong. IF the intent was to ridicule the femi-nazi drivel that is spewed out in that first paragraph, then reganaut1 is to blame for not posting a more accurate excerpt. You know the rules here.
If you had bothered to read the 3rd paragraph, it would have been clear that your, and most other comments, were nothing more than ill-advised knee-jerk reactions.
Reading before you type will help prevent your looking ill-informed.
:)
“I’m laughing at all of the FReepers who can’t read.
This site has gone full retard.”
I’m always disappointed when I see FReepers fall into groupthink, which is what happened here. The first few comments were from people who obviously did not read beyond the first paragraph (you only had to read two sentences beyond that to know it was sarcastic), then most everyone else fell right into line. It took way too long for people to realize their mistake, and then some of them blamed the poster for their not reading the article!
I read that 3rd paragraph. It is as far removed from the train of thought she started in with the first paragraph as Trump is from Obama.
How she can jump from a pro-feminazi POV to thoughts about immigration asylum is amazing.
Absurdly amazing.
It is NOT the average FReeper’s responsibility to click the link to get the big picture.
Those three paragraphs were bad enough. Why would I want to waste more time?
Well said ... As I read the first few comments I wondered if those commenters had even read past the first paragraph.
Fair enough
That question mark should have been your first clue.
First sentence of 2nd paragraph:
"These propositions are self-evident to a large, interlocking establishment of government bureaucrats, progressive politicians, college administrators, faculty, “activists,” professionals, and journalists. Yet ..."
That should have given you inklings #2, 3, and 4. Bureaucrats do not call themselves "bureaucrats." (They call themselves "people dedicated to public service.") 'Activists' don't put scare-quotes around the word 'activists'. And if this isn't setting up a paradox, your next sentence wouldn't begin with the word "Yet"
From there on, your keen, incisive intelligence would have carried you swiftly to Heather Macdonald's well-thought-out conclusion about progressives destroying lawfulness, and denying our legacy of tolerance and justice.
Ready Readers' Rule #1: Be Alert to Context Clues.
Is there anyone left at FR who can read and understand an article?
Those three paragraphs were bad enough. Why would I want to waste more time?
I suggest sticking with coloring books, which are obviously more your speed.
Mrs. Don-o. Did you read the entire thread before posting? No you did not. For if you had, you would have seen additional comments by me defending my position. If you had read the thread, you would have seen arguments that would have prompted you to forego your lecture on reading. Or at least addressed those relevant points.
Rather presumptious of you to criticize others from reading. When you clearly didn’t read either.
Perhaps you ought to limit your criticism to writing. Ms. Macdonald should be made aware that there was no possible connection between her first paragraph and the rest of the article. You might think she tied the two disparate trains of thought together. But she failed.
LMAO.
Heather is a brilliant researcher and writer. It isn't her fault that morons can't understand what she writes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.