Skip to content

Caught In A Bad Romance

Caught In A Bad Romance published on

After months of diligently ignoring this Lady Gaga person, I finally got down to listening to her stuff and have found her to be both a delightful discovery and a bit of a worry.

Her music, which she apparently writes herself, is catchy, addictive and just plain exciting, but that alas is where Gaga’s virtues end. This horse-faced bastard daughter of Marilyn Manson and Madonna Ciccone differs from other pop tarts only in that she has some serious songwriting ability, a head full of intellectual and artistic pretensions, and hasn’t yet put out a sex tape.

Not only are the former Stefani Germanotta’s videos replete with the bacchanalia so beloved of contemporary youth, but like so many of today’s empty headed young women, little Stefani insists on telling us what she thinks, and what she thinks is pretty much the dark crap one would except from a girl who spent her school years being the class weirdo.

From glamorizing dysfunctional relationships in “Bad Romance”, to excusing female sexual dishonesty in “Poker Face” ( a song apparently inspired by Gaga’s habit of fantasizing about women while getting it on with men ) to declaring career to be more important than relationships (which of course marks her as strong and independent rather than as “commitmentphobic”) to her promotion of the worst aspects of gay culture, in Lady Gaga we have the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the modern feminist woman: a delusional sense of self-importance that makes Ted Turner look like a shrinking violet; an obsession with sex that makes Wilt Chamberlain look like a eunuch; and a fixation on external appearance that makes Donatella Versace look like Mother Teresa.

And yes, contrary to her previous statements, Little Ms Empty Vessel now identifies herself as “a little bit of a feminist” and is starting to spout a lot of unsurprising rhetoric such as claims that the video for “Bad Romance” is about “how the entertainment industry can, in a metaphorical way, simulate human trafficking — products being sold, the woman perceived as a commodity,” and whining about women in the music industry not being allowed to sing about sex!

Then there’s her AIDS charity work which of course is all about the wiminz, her claims that her sexuality is commented on because she is a woman rather than because her ass is constantly in everyone’s faces, and her supposed bisexuality, something which could previously have been seen as catering to male fantasies but which now takes on the covert separatist message of “I don’t need men.” Before you know it, little Stefani will  be whining about the wage gap and opening a girls-only school in Africa!

So as Mamma Ciccone gets gnarlier and older and starts to stink up the castle, the Feminist Pop Icon crown seems about to be picked up by this little chippie, and the postmodern feminist blitherings will continue for at least another twenty years. Perhaps we’ll get lucky this time, maybe Gaga will live up to her name and go mad like Britney Spears or use her very real talent to become another Kate Bush or Patti Smith, but we all know where the smart money is and as usual it is not with the sane alternative.

No doubt there are people who will say this is all harmless, that Lady GaGa is being ironic and everyone knows it, or that pop culture doesn’t have that big an impact on kids anyway.

To the former I say that a bunch of adult music critics may see her shenanigans as irony, but that the average teenager consuming Gaga’s product can’t tell the difference between postmodern irony and warm apple pie, especially not when their hormones have just been kicked into hyper-drive.

To the latter I would say that the impact of popular culture on youth can’t be overstated. Here in Australia we have wiggers, but you know what we don’t have? We don’t have black Americans, just aboriginals and a few African immigrants. Yet we have thousands of kids in Sydney who act and talk like members of a subculture that they have only ever experienced through, you guessed it, the media.

The Jacques Derrida wannabes may be able to see different layers of meaning in GaGa’s lyrics and interviews, but the intellectuals of the world aren’t a bunch of teens looking to the media for their life’s philosophy. What the ordinary teenager sees and hears from Little Ms BlahBlah is simple – get laid, get famous, be superficial, and don’t worry about who you lie to or who you cheat on, it’s all good. And that’s a message that does nobody any favors, except maybe Lady GaGa and her bank account.

In case you have no idea who i’m talking about, here’s the video for Bad Romance. At the time of writing it has been viewed over 160 million times and that’s on YouTube alone – ignore her at your children’s peril.

Man jailed for thinking of cheeseburgers

Man jailed for thinking of cheeseburgers published on

Homeless man Michael McLaughlin was arrested and thrown into jail for, wait for it –holding up a piece of cardboard on which had been scrawled the grossly offensive sentence  “I’m Thinking Of A Cheeseburger”. What a bastard!

Apparently such behavior is considered a form of begging and is therefore against the law, especially for homeless people with built-in hot dogs. According to the article, the law states that one has to a “force oneself upon the company of another” for this to be illegal, yet all this guy seems to have been doing is standing by the road holding up a sign  so it could be argued that strictly speaking he wasn’t violating the law.

And even if he had been, what the hell kind of asshole makes begging illegal? Not only is it inhumane, but it probably increases the chances that the homeless will commit crimes just in order to eat, but hey that’s even better – you can give them longer sentences for theft than for mere begging!

As it is, the  enforcers settled for unlawful solicitation and demanded a $500 bond, which it  is safe to say McLaughlin can’t afford to pay or he wouldn’t be begging for cheeseburgers!

Found it as I often do, at the Weekly Vice

Chaos Reigns

Chaos Reigns published on

Having previously been tortured by Lars Von Trier’s “Dogville” and “Dancer In The Dark”, I elected to see “Antichrist” only because of the evil woman theme. Let me make this clear – Lars Von Trier is a hack. He is an Ed Wood with pretensions to Ingmar Bergman’s throne, nothing more.

In “Antichrist” however, Von Trier’s dream-inspired and depression-driven script and cinematographer Anthony Mantle’s gorgeous and hallucinatory imagery make for one of the most remarkable horror movies of the last ten years, a slab of nightmarish atmosphere not easily forgotten.

The focus of this article however, is not on the artistic merits of the movie but rather on the way it was received. I must point out that this piece is being written for those who have already seen the film. If you have not yet seen it, please stop reading now as major spoilers are included. And if you are planning to see it, beware of the scene in which the female lead gives herself an impromptu clitorodectomy – there’s also a scene where the male lead’s penis gets hit with a huge piece of wood, but alas we’re all too inured to that by now.

(Those who haven’t seen the movie are probably asking themselves what’s up with the creepy fox and the title “Chaos Reigns.” The fox is one of the animal characters, and at one point he stops eating his own guts, looks up at the male lead and in a deep, distorted voice utters the words “Chaos Reigns!”. It’s that kind of movie.)

Most of the attention the film received focused on its transgressive aspects, aspects supposedly embodied in the scenes of genital violence. This however, is the mainstream media being disingenuous – while Antichrist is an extremely transgressive film, what makes it so are not the scenes of genital violence, but rather the representation of women as evil at a time in history when women are the only sacred cows left in Western society. I think it is clear that Antichrist is a statement about female evil, not merely about one evil female. This is shown not only in the female lead’s belief that the female sex is evil, but more importantly at the end of the movie, when the husband is passed by dozens of women apparently making their way to Eden, presumably to learn whatever dark lesson his wife learnt on her previous stay.

Imagine if you will a hypothetical version of this film in which all violent acts are retained but in which it is the male sex which is portrayed as evil. Would the outrage have been there? I doubt it. Most writers for the mainstream media already believe men are violent trash, so why would there be any great outcry that Von Trier was agreeing with them? What happened with Antichrist is that a mere man stepped outside the rules and made a movie portraying women as evil. Not a woman, as in Basic Instinct or Misery, but women as a group, and it is this forbidden act of rebellion which begat the outraged reaction to the film.

Do I agree that women are evil? No, but the way the message was received is a good illustration of the cultural rules as they stand – when it comes to women, we must hear no evil, see no evil, and above all, speak no evil.

Psycho Woman’s Shooting Rampage

Psycho Woman’s Shooting Rampage published on

It had to happen, and now it has – a female academic has finally decided to do literally what her kind have been doing symbolically for decades by shooting up a university.

Amy Bishop turned up at a faculty meeting at the University of Alabama this past Friday, pulled out a 9mm handgun and killed everyone she could get her deranged mitts on. Three people were slain, three were wounded, and if the Alabama authorities fail to notice the murderous neurologist’s gazongas, she may get a one way ticket to a nice cozy hole in the ground courtesy of the Alabama penal system.

Speculation is rife that the shooting was motivated by Bishop having been denied tenure last year, but given that this is the same Amy Bishop who shot her brother dead back in the eighties , and that in the early nineties she was a suspect in a letter bomb plot against a man she had a professional clash with, what we may have here is yet another Natural Born GynoBeast just looking for an excuse to let her inner woman out of the patriarchal cage.

In the 1986 killing of her brother, which took place in her home state of Massachusetts, Bishop was in the process of being booked when the police chief at the time had the process stopped and ordered his subordinates to free her into the custody of her mommy, who purely by coincidence just happened to be a public official who had frequent dealings with the police force! Equally coincidental is the disappearance of the case file on the 1986 incident! Damn them space aliens – anally probing kidnappees and mutilating cattle isn’t enough, now they’re stealing police records as well!

As our trigger-happy moral superior was led away after her latest escapade, she was heard to blither…

“It didn’t happen. There’s no way. They’re still alive.”

Ah, so that’s going to be her defense – she thought the gun was loaded with blanks!

More here.

The Hatred Driving The UN

The Hatred Driving The UN published on

In this disgusting little document from the UN’s  Division for the Advancement of Women , a disgusting little woman called Elaine Enarson gives us all a peek into why things like the UN’s relief programs in Haiti are geared towards helping women. Gone are the claims that the gals are given precedence because that way everyone gets a share, and in their place stands the ugly truth – and as we all suspected, it is indeed  about a feminist agenda.

In a summary of the week’s events for a 2001 meeting of “experts” on “Environmental management and the mitigation of natural disasters: a gender perspective” Enarson tells us that…

“Participants this week were guardedly optimistic (at best!) about the potential for significantly disrupting and transforming gender relations following natural disasters.”

Amazing –  this is about natural disasters, yet the emphasis seems to be not on rebuilding the affected communities but rather on affecting some kind of feminist revolution!

Enarson then outlines successful examples of this strategy, including this one from India…

“Disasters can be great liberators!! (Yeah, shame about all the dead people though ) While witnessing a very vocal meeting of rural women in village Srirampur, Orissa, about a year and a half after the cyclone of 1999, I was informed by the NGO there (Church’s Auxiliary for Social Action) that before the cyclone, women would rarely come out and interact on social issues, let alone interact with outsiders. This changed after the cyclone, because relief packages of most NGOs, and even the government, were targeted at, or through, women. That phase really empowered them, made them amenable to interacting on social issues, and also increased their self-esteem and their status within their families and society!“

And even though Enarson and friends do give us some caveats as regards the woman-focused approach, said warnings focus not on men starving in the streets, but rather on pointing out that  La Revolucion may entail some negatives for the Important Sex, as in the case of  Nicaraguan men being put to work building houses which were then given over to the women! Not only that, but the men were paid for their work with food aid (wonder if the women had to work for theirs? Let’s guess,) but the “payment” was given to the women! Ain’t that great? You sweat all day in the sun building a new house, then not only do they give the house to the wife, they also give her your paycheck! Apparently, as long as leeches like the UN are around, a man doesn’t even have to get a divorce to lose his house! Much to the surprise of our feminist Maos, many of the men reacted by leaving their small communities for fairer conditions in the big cities – gee, those selfish male bastards…

Oh, and here’s an unexpected bit of info…

“As I began a project rebuilding houses for families affected by Hurricane Mitch I worked primarily with women. . . I had spoken to the American Red Cross and Save the Children USA, who had told me that they were putting their houses in the name of the women. They were also, like WFP, giving food assistance directly to women. . . “

So I guess it isn’t just the UN, it’s a bunch of other bastards as well! And that’s just the ones she tells us about, I wonder how many other supposed charities are just fronts for feminist activism?

And just in case you were wondering what kind of  people the UN considers experts on who should live or die, it’s quite a diverse group, consisting as it does almost exclusively of  left-leaning feminist women…

So there you have it. No more pretense about helping the women to help everyone else, Enarson’s summary makes it clear that a huge part of all this is not about helping people in need but rather about further feathering the female nest worldwide. It amazes me that an Assistant Professor should be stupid enough to actually admit these things on the Internet, but that’s affirmative action for you!

The rest of the filthy thing is here.