Feministe’s Favorite Fraudster

My favorite fraudster is back to pontificating at Feministe and she is as stupid and dishonest as ever:

Is the Russian government homophobicYou know, all of the evidence I have points to “nope.” The government was initially just trying to ride the wave of popular sentiment directed against sexual minorities – and it expected a Western backlash, because a Western backlash actually makes Russian officials seem tougher and more courageous (you can blame this on the disastrous 1990s, when the Russian economy and society suffered tremendously, when many people died, when there was no hope – and economic liberalization a la the West was blamed).

This is, of course, nothing but a bunch of stupid lies. Watch the members of the Russian Duma, listen to the President or any of the Ministers, and you will see that they practically foam at the mouth with homophobia. The “popular sentiment” is actually getting more enlightened and open to sexual minorities, especially if we are talking about people of my generation and younger. Yes, it’s a slow and painful process but more and more Russians are awakening to the ideas of tolerance. The reason why the government in Russia lags behind the rest of the population in this sense is that everybody in power is a remnant of the Soviet times. The same people who were in power when homosexuality in the USSR was punished by a prison sentence are in power now. They are not letting younger, more progressive folks to come to power.

As for the “disastrous 1990s” when “people died”, this loser chooses to disregard that this was the decade where an economy was actually created out of nothing and people finally started conceiving hope after decades of suffering in a country that was one enormous Soviet prison camp. That was also a decade that allowed her to make a living by chirping idiotically on American websites. I’d really like to see her try to do that if the 1990s had not happened.

The hatred of all things Western in Russia dates back not to the 1990s (when “America” was code word for “everything wonderful, enviable and amazing) but to the post 2000 era when Putin came to power and began spouting his anti-Western rhetoric.

72 thoughts on “Feministe’s Favorite Fraudster

    1. I listened to Putin’s recent comments about gay rights in Netherlands. His facial expression, the emotional charge of the unscripted vocabulary he was choosing, his gestures – everything pointed to extreme homophobia. His hands were shakin, he was obviously in a grip of profound emotion. He is not that good of an actor to fake this.

      Like

      1. Exactly what does a person have to do to earn the title of “homophobic” in the eyes of this person? Do they have to physically go out and bash queers with their own two hands? Or are they off the hook if they wear gloves and avoid getting any blood splattered on their person?

        Like

  1. “for people who are concerned about the situation around sexual minorities in Russia, it may be more helpful to come and express their views at the Games, rather than staying home.”
    Yeah, you do that honey. I am too poor to do something as obscenely expensive as travel to a foreign country for the Olympics, and too concerned with keeping my skull intact, to boot.

    Like

    1. ” I am too poor to do something as obscenely expensive as travel to a foreign country for the Olympics, and too concerned with keeping my skull intact, to boot.”

      – Exactly. It’s the height of irresponsibility to suggest that people travel to a homophobic country where they don’t speak the language, don’t know how things work, have no support network, and will be in a highly vulnerable state.

      Like

  2. Tarot cards, jesus fucking christ. She should get a medal for daring to peddle this garbage in front of a supposedly educated audience. And actually succeeding!

    Like

    1. And look how we’ll she is manipulating this particular audience. “Bad people are showing me pictures of scary penises. I’m a damsel in distress but for a low price you can save me from this persecution!” Genius.

      Like

  3. This hits upon another pet peeve of mine; the idea that your actions aren’t really representative of your ‘real’ or ‘true’ self. It’s such hogwash. There’s no such thing. You are your actions.

    So in the face of the Russian parliament passing laws punishing gay people we need this person to spread out her tarot cards, peer into the russian politicians’ souls and proclaim that we’re mistaken, these are all just good people responding to the wishes of their constituents. As if it makes a difference to the gay kid being abused in jail whether he’s in jail because of noble people playing politics or homophobes who ‘really’ hate gays.

    Like

    1. I’m actually very puzzled by what she is saying because if you just listen to the members of the government and Duma speak about gay people, you can easily see that they are motivated by very real hatred. Why would anybody want to deny this?

      Besides, none of the current persecution of gays in Russia was initiated by the regular citizens. Every single new anti-gay measure is cooked at the top and then communicated to the people. On TV, the people ranting against gays are all government officials.

      Like

      1. Whatever you do, don’t read the comments.

        One commenter chiding someone who dared to critique her post. “I trust Natalia for all things Russia”.

        Like

        1. “One commenter chiding someone who dared to critique her post. “I trust Natalia for all things Russia”.”

          – Well, sure, since she has access to the true wisdom of Tarot!

          Like

    2. // This hits upon another pet peeve of mine; the idea that your actions aren’t really representative of your ‘real’ or ‘true’ self.

      Very religious idea: pure soul vs. sinning body / human state after the Fall.

      The True Reality beyond this one, in which you are more than actions.

      Like

      1. He is much bigger danger to society than any “freaks” are to him. Btw, those freaks haven’t killed (*) a person yet, unlike Z, and I bet don’t share Z’s long history of violence, sexual and otherwise.

        (*) I said “killed”, not “murdered”, so it is an indisputable fact.

        // the weapon in Zimmerman’s possession was initially strapped to his body. It was the police officer who instructed Zimmerman to put it in the glove compartment.

        He is preparing to shoot more (not white) people, and claim they were threatening him later, whether or not the not- imagined- by- paranoid- Z threat existed or was of the level to warrant applying deadly force.

        I bet if he shoots somebody else, the person will be dead, not wounded.

        Like

        1. “Btw, those freaks haven’t killed (*) a person yet, unlike Z, and I bet don’t share Z’s long history of violence, sexual and otherwise.”

          – We can’t know that. People who are threatening Zimmerman with violence are just as unhinged and dangerous as he is. There is no justification for threatening people in this way.A normal, healthy response to the situation is to join the political struggle against unstable people’s right to carry weapons.

          Like

      2. When I read “A fugitive on the run from mob justice” and “stopped for speeding … on his way to parts unknown” , I thought the article was poking fun at Z. The second expression does sound funny, and since I haven’t heard about any mobs coming to his house and did hear about Z being paranoid (**) (about black men) all his life, so did the first.

        (**) Actually, he wasn’t paranoid about them. He thought they were The socially acceptable target for his abnormal levels of aggression. Looking at Z’s life history shows that clearly, without connection to the killing he committed.

        Like

      1. It’s rather pathetic biologism. He implies that women have to pop out babies. He’s combating US liberalism in all his remarks, which is interesting, because that was one of the forces that put him in power.

        Like

          1. It’s very weird that Western liberals continue to defend these guys. Or at best, they remain silent. It’s some kind of ideological need to side with something that is definitively non-Western. In a way, and I know this sounds odd, but it seems to be related to having too cerebral a perspective and not really being able to imaginatively put oneself on the ground where the action is taking place. Being a few steps removed from the experience of living in Russia or Zimbabwe, and viewing these issues through a lens of abstract morality, means the conclusions one draws are kind of crazy. I think a lot of this is caused by binary thinking about good and evil. American liberals like to feel generous, so they do not want to label a third world leader as doing wrong. The default position is “Western colonialism is evil, therefore third world leaders are good.’

            As Nietzsche said, if you start your measurements with designations of evil, and good is only an afterthought, then there is probably something really messed up with you. Healthy people begin with a feeling (not necessarily a concept as such) of good, and then consider unfavorable actions as “bad”, but only as an afterthought, and not with much focus or obsession.

            Like

  4. People at Feministe will be so outraged they won’t buy a new iPad for three weeks in protest. It’s just another story that will be buried and forgotten in a month.

    Like

  5. I do not think Russian government is “lagging behind the general population” re tolerance. Unfortunately I have a feeling that liberal and tolerant worldview got overrepresented in the 90-ies (overrepresented in relation to the actual percentage of people who share it… at best couple tens of millions of younger, more educated more urban people… and people like you and me and even the author of the paper you criticized erroneously believe there are more of those tolerant people since most of our friends are like that). So now we just have a better agreement between the views of the public and of the government…
    Also note that recently there were violent confrontations between LGBT and religious activists all other FSU, including such places like Georgia and Lithuania. Which are definitely not ruled by Herr Oberst Putin…

    Like

    1. This is uncanny because I was just wondering what you were up to and why you hadn’t commented in a while.

      I really think Putin represents the dying and unsustainable ideology that looks increasingly ridiculous to the younger generation. And all of these obese bearded priests he promotes are just silly clowns.

      Like

      1. I am on vacation and do not read internet every day. But thank you for thinking about me. 🙂 The following does not belong here but on the homeschooling thread, but since it follows the theme of me being on vacation… I agree with you in theory. But traveling in a very beautiful and very depressed rural areas of Northwest (including Forks, of Twilight fame) made me feel that in some cases our enlightened attitude and attaching such a high value to socialization may sound like suggestion to “eat cake instead”….
        And returning back to LGBT issues – maybe, if one has to generalize at all, it would be more useful to imagine average Russian not as an allegedly worldly Muscovite, but as someone from Forks… (I apologize in advance to people of Forks if there somewhere is a thriving LGBT community which I did not notice.)

        Like

        1. “But traveling in a very beautiful and very depressed rural areas of Northwest (including Forks, of Twilight fame) made me feel that in some cases our enlightened attitude and attaching such a high value to socialization may sound like suggestion to “eat cake instead”….”

          – You think it would be better for children in this area to be locked at home all day with unemployed parents??

          Have fun on vacation!

          Like

      2. I am saying that there are situations where all solutions are bad. And a person who is actually living in the middle of that bad situation may fell we are playing Marie-Antoinette here, in our ivory tower.

        Like

        1. I’m not sure what you are talking about specifically, so I can’t imagine how being locked up with a depressed hysteric all day long can be as bad as playing and learning with your peers. Besides, if people chose to have children while living in a certain area, they must have envisioned the consequences of that decision.

          Like

    2. 100% agree with valter07. Lots of young people are or pro-Putin or pro-neo Nazis or pro – nothing. I found great statistics here:

      http://politrash.ru/1033/

      Don’t see 21 vs 17 as a huge difference. Any hope for brighter future for gays is minimal.

      Like

      1. “Lots of young people are or pro-Putin”

        – A tiny number and only for pay.

        “or pro-neo Nazis”

        – A very small number.

        “or pro – nothing.”

        – That’s more like it. But as long as they watch MTV, Hollywood movies, and European TV shows, they do not stand a chance against imbibing liberal values.

        “Any hope for brighter future for gays is minimal.”

        – Let’s not become like a typical immigrant who passionately needs things in the former country to be horrible. Just 15 years ago, gays were jailed and nobody dared to breathe the word “gay.” Now there is significant gay rights activism, there is a multitude of LGBT organizations, there are crowds of young people who know what the word “queer” means and who use it to self-identify. The progress has been enormous and overwhelming.

        Like

  6. musteryou: “It’s very weird that Western liberals continue to defend these guys. Or at best, they remain silent. It’s some kind of ideological need to side with something that is definitively non-Western”

    I like the term Steve Sailer came up with “leapfrogging loyalties”.

    The best description of it is here:

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/04/liberalism-as-leapfrogging-loyalties.html

    excerpts:
    “Meyer is embracing Mohammed Merah, an anti-Semitic mass murderer, as a handy club with which to beat the majority of the French for their insensitivity”

    “even by the standards of anti-Semitic terrorists, Merah seems like nasty, dismal company, but he appeals to Meyer and to the editors of the New York Times because he’s The Other. He’s not like all those terrible people whom Meyer and the editors strive to be seen as better than, so that makes him useful”

    Like

    1. Very interesting. I’ve been noticing for a long time now that morality is not practical morality but symbolic, in the Western world. I think this also applies to the right. This seems to have to do with an aversion to too much reality. If you stay above it, in the symbolic realm, you can manipulate meaning so that you always look good, and the risk of any kind of engagement is almost entirely eliminated. Those who live in a post-industrial society seem to be able to afford this indulgence of playing with other people’s lives.

      Like

  7. el: “He (Zimmerman) is preparing to shoot more (not white) people, and claim they were threatening him later,”

    All of the evidence pointed to Martin initiating physical violence that night. Unfortunately Martin didn’t realize Zimmerman was armed.

    Like

    1. “All of the evidence pointed to Martin initiating physical violence that night. Unfortunately Martin didn’t realize Zimmerman was armed.”

      – I don’t understand how it is physically possible to initiate violence against somebody in a car when you are not armed. A person sitting in the car can easily drive away the very second he feels even remotely threatened. If Zimmerman hadn’t been in a car, I’d consider his version of self-defense. But as long as he was, I don’t see what there is even to discuss. He is absolutely 100% guilty of the entire situation.

      Like

      1. “A person sitting in the car can easily drive away the very second he feels even remotely threatened”

        He didn’t feel threatened at the sight of Martin, but he was suspicious of him and Zimmerman committed no crime before Martin physically attacked him.

        “He is absolutely 100% guilty of the entire situation”

        Yes, he was guilty of being on the ground on his back while Martin was striking him. And he was guilty of wanting that situation to stop.

        Like

        1. How can you attack somebody sitting in a car? Seriously, how does this happen? A person approaches, lifts his fist to strike you, and you drive away. How does a confrontation happen if you don’t want it to?

          “He didn’t feel threatened at the sight of Martin, but he was suspicious of him ”

          – Then why didn’t he drive away and call 911? Why stick around a suspicious person? This just makes no sense.

          Like

  8. Cliff

    You make it seem so simple. Poor Zimmerman got attacked by the black boy he was stalking. He did nothing to provoke the altercation and his only crime was to bring a gun and shoot a younger male who weighed 20-30 pounds lighter than him. At worst, I guess we can just call him a freaking pussy for letting a kid kick his ass. Well, good thing he had a gun to put a stop to the big bad hoodie wearing criminal.

    Like

    1. Both Zimmerman and Martin showed very poor judgement that night.

      It was very unfortunate and I might have been on board for manslaughter as a charge but murder2 seemed excessive and the prosecutors put on a very poor case. The judge adding manslaughter as a last minute possible verdict was unethical.

      Given the poor performance by the prosecutors and the obvious overcharging ‘not guilty’ seemed like a reasonable verdict.

      Like

      1. Of course its manslaughter. The prosecutors were morons for charging him with 2nd degree murder. In my mind, Zimmerman freaked the kid out. Like any tough kid who has been around violence most of their lives(he is black in America), he had 2 choices. 1. Run 2. Address the threat. He made the wrong choice. Im sure Zimmerman didn’t plan on shooting him and he probably had his gun out already and during the scuffle he panicked and shot the kid. Stupidity all around. Add a gun to that and you have dead bodies. Very sad and unfortunate scenario!!! 😦

        Like

        1. If Zimmerman got out of the car, that’s evidence of intent. I would absolutely vote for 2nd degree murder based on that. There was no other reason for him to get out of the car with his weapon.

          “Im sure Zimmerman didn’t plan on shooting him and he probably had his gun out already”

          – These 2 statements contradict each other. The only reason to have a gin out is to shoot somebody. So he obviously intended to shoot. And if he intended to shoot, he intended to kill.

          Like

  9. No Clarissa, you can threaten with a gun with no actual intent to shoot. That is how many accidents happen.

    Like

    1. Those are not accidents. Those are murders. It is a person’s responsibility to realize that waving a deadly weapon at people can lead to death. They should be convicted of murder because they freely chose to point loaded weapons at people and the consequences belong to them.

      Like

      1. Manslaughter is the legal definition if there is no intent. You cant prove intent with Zimmerman which is evidenced by the juries decision.

        Like

        1. “Manslaughter is the legal definition if there is no intent. ”

          – Why did he get out of his car holding a gun if he had no intent to shoot? What would be the alternative explanation of his actions?

          “You cant prove intent with Zimmerman which is evidenced by the juries decision.”

          – I wasn’t there, so what I can prove did not influence that jury.

          Like

    1. It doesn’t matter what he had where. He was an armed person who freely chose to get out of the car and engage in a confrontation. He survived, so he is responsible for the result.

      And once again, I’m noticing that nobody is even trying to answer the question of why he didn’t simply drive away. I think this is the most crucial question here.

      Like

  10. “I’m noticing that nobody is even trying to answer the question of why he didn’t simply drive away”

    The same reason he didn’t just drive on when he saw the overturned vehicle a week or two ago.

    Like

    1. “The same reason he didn’t just drive on when he saw the overturned vehicle a week or two ago.”

      – If he saw a suspicious person, why did he not leave and call 911, which is the only normal, reasonable thing to do? Why did he choose to get out of his car? With an overturned vehicle, there might be a hope of saving somebody, although it is still supremely stupid to try to approach such a vehicle instead of calling 911.

      Like

      1. Very good muster, its not like you don’t have a history of conspiracy theory. Can you say patriarchy, lol.

        Like

      2. No, there are no conspiracies, Titfortat. Everything is neatly in its place. There is no capacity to create a system or to plan ahead. There are no thoughts that are not spontaneous. Impulse is the only reality.

        Like

  11. “Both Zimmerman and Martin showed very poor judgement that night.”

    This rhetoric drives me bananas. “Poor judgment” is when someone drinks too much red wine with dinner and has to go to work with a headache the next day. This is WAY more than poor judgment. An unarmed minor is dead. He was shot by an armed adult who had no to pursue or investigate him. If Martin did show poor judgment, he certainly did not do anything so horrible that warranted an execution. What Martin did and what Zimmerman did are not even on the same planet in terms of wrongdoing. And the fact that Zimmerman is allowed to roam the streets with a gun completely floors me. At the very very least, his weapon permit should have been suspended.

    Like

    1. ““Poor judgment” is when someone drinks too much red wine with dinner and has to go to work with a headache the next day. This is WAY more than poor judgment. An unarmed minor is dead. He was shot by an armed adult who had no to pursue or investigate him. If Martin did show poor judgment, he certainly did not do anything so horrible that warranted an execution.”

      – I agree completely. Zimmerman could have avoided the confrontation altogether. Yet he is the only one remaining alive after it. He actively pursued somebody and now that person is dead. What else is needed to see that he is guilty?

      Like

    2. The contemporary trend is to make out that both the victim and the instigator or bully have emotional problems and didn’t deal with them sufficiently to escape whatever happened to the victim. This is a decline in the ability to conceptualize justice or a form or reality that is not one chaotic event after another. Why do people feel this way? More pertinently, why is there not a system in place that teaches them to feel differently, or is that too hard to arrange?

      Like

      1. People find it increasingly hard to pass judgment even on actions that are very obviously wrong. “You are judgmental!” they tell me like there is something wrong about it. I’m convinced that the terror of judging comes out of the fear that their own actions will be judged. I have no such fear, so judgment comes easily.

        Like

        1. But isn’t it linked to Christianity? Judge not that ye be not judged? Or is it due to life feeling unstable, so that nobody can imagine any situation where people were not constantly infringing on each other’s space?

          Like

          1. “But isn’t it linked to Christianity? Judge not that ye be not judged?”

            – This is an issue that fascinates me at this point. People in Russian-speaking countries repeat “I cannot judge, I have no right to judge” like zombified monkeys. Yet there is not a whiff of religion in their lives. In the meanwhile, people in the religious USA have an easier time passing judgment.

            I’m still trying to figure this out, so I have no answer.

            Like

            1. I have found that the judgmental instinct quickly kicks in when people want to defend themselves and those who they identify with. Judgments have devolved into a form of tribalism. People can’t grasp abstract justice.

              But as Nietzsche said, real justice is a curtailment on the will to power of the powerful, hence devolving into tribal affiliations is no justice at all, just self-interest.

              Like

      2. “Judge not, that ye be not judged.
        For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again”

        You may not fear it, but, you sure as shit don’t like it. 😉

        Like

        1. No, it is terrible not to be an angel on a cloud. In compensation for not being such a cloud dwelling member, I don’t care if somebody murders you. We all have impulses.

          Like

        2. ““Judge not, that ye be not judged.
          For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again”

          – This is precisely what I’m saying. I don’t fear being judged, so I feel free to judge. Only people who set for others the standards that they can’t meet themselves should fear judgment.

          Like

      3. I’m still trying to figure this out, so I have no answer.(Clarissa)

        Im thinking in Russia, especially in the past, if you decided to judge something(government) or another person you probably had to worry about waking up swimming with the fishies.

        Like

      4. Oh Muster, the idea behind the fishies makes sense in every culture. Its called fear of reprisal. But, you know that. You just like playing chess. Are you the Queen or just a pawn?

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.