Posted on | October 1, 2014 | 11 Comments
That’s what @Instapundit might call this story. On the other hand, some people might call it . . . RAAAAACISM!
White Lesbian Sues Sperm Bank
After Having Black Baby
. . . Jennifer Cramblett and Amanda Zinkon, a White couple living in Ohio selected sperm from a White male provided by the Midwest Sperm Bank. Cramblett used the sperm to become impregnated with her first child, but just months before little Payton arrived in August of 2012 Cramblett received a communication from the donor bank informing her she had been given the wrong sperm.
Her baby would be Black.
Unsurprisingly Cramblett is suing the sperm bank for “wrongful birth and breach of warranty.”
One of Jennifer’s biggest fears is the life experiences Payton will undergo, not only in her all-white community, but in her all-white, and often unconsciously insensitive, family. Despite her family’s attempts to accept her homosexuality, they have not been capable of truly embracing Jennifer for who she is. They do not converse with her about her gender preference, and encourage her not to “look different,” signaling their disapproval of her lesbianism. Though compelled to repress her individuality amongst family members, Payton’s differences are irrepressible, and Jennifer does not want Payton to feel stigmatized or unrecognized. . . .
Jennifer’s stress and anxiety intensify when she envisions Payton entering an all-white school. Ironically, Jennifer and Amanda moved to Uniontown from racially diverse Akron, because the schools were better and to be closer to family. Jennifer is well aware of the child psychology research and literature correlating intolerance and racism with reduced academic and psychological well-being of biracial children.
Dude, that’s not a tort complaint. That’s a reality TV scenario. You’re telling me the Bravo network didn’t set up this “accident”?
You know somewhere a Women’s Studies professor is trying to figure out a way to blame this on the heteronormative patriarchy.
Posted on | October 1, 2014 | 31 Comments
This may be one of the few posts this week that has no lesbian content.
In unrelated news, while the pulled pork sandwich at Wendy’s isn’t going to make you forget your local BBQ joint, it doesn’t completely suck either. I had the slaw on the side instead of atop the pulled pork, just in case it was one of those sugary slaws (it wasn’t) and it was okay too. Didn’t quite have the courage to try it piled on their cheeseburger, much less the Baconator which is my default Wendy’s burger, but maybe next time. Wendy’s also joins Checkers in offering a poutine-like fries dish, except instead of gravy or chili, they offer pulled pork. Might could be worth checking out.
Disclaimer: I have a whole ten shares of Wendy’s stock in my Cardboard Box – er, retirement – fund.
Thanks to everyone who bought stuff through my Amazon links in September; I know things are tough all around, but between sales of The Last Falangist and the Amazon links, I kinda sorta qualify as an N- or M-list writer on Larry Correia’s helpful guide to the scale of Author Success.
Posted on | October 1, 2014 | 5 Comments
– compiled by Wombat-socho
Concludes visit with event organized by US Indian Business Council
Lots of sizzle, but where’s the steak?
Come soon before it’s too late, Modi tells US businesses
Working to deepen improving ties
THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Asian Crude Rebounds Slightly After Overnight Slump: WTI $91.57, Brent $95.08
eBay Does About-Face, Announces Spinoff Of PayPal
Japan Firms Fail To Shake Off Tax-Hike Gloom
SEC Charges Two In Herbalife Insider Trading
Asian Factories Slow In September, Push Inflation Ever Lower
Dollar Breaks 110 Yen For First Time In Six Years
Microsoft Unveils Windows 10, Brings Back Start Menu
Intel Pushes Factory IoT With $9 Million Cost Savings At Plant
Nvidia Shield Now Has LTE, 32GB, And $399 Price Tag
Hackers Arrested For Stealing $100 Million In Army, XBox Software
Hong Kong Protesters Targeted With iOS, Droid Spyware
Royals rally late to force extras, beat stunned A’s 9-8
FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
Emily Ratajkowski Doesn’t Understand Feminism
Feels lucky to be able to “wear what she wants, sleep with whom she wants, and dance how she wants, while still being a feminist.”
Hong Kong Marks National Day As Protesters Refuse To Disperse
Taliban Suicide Bombers Kill Seven, Wound 21 In Kabul
Aussie PM Abbott Not Keen On Burqas In Parliament
Death Toll From Japanese Volcano Rises To 48
Kurds Recapture Key Town On Syrian Border With US Air Support
Fourteen Killed, 45 Injured In Uttar Pradesh Train Accident
Thai Tourism Minister Mulls Wristbands, Curfews For Tourists
Syrian Jihadis Release Lebanese Soldier
Spanish PM Rajoy Says Open To Reforming Constitution, But It’s Not A Priority
Former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister To Stay Jailed Until October 7 Hearing
BLOGS & STUFF
Doug Powers: Paging “Vote Fraud Doesn’t Exist” Holder
Twitchy: Inevitable – Newsweek Blames Ebola On Man Made Global Warming
American Power: Doubts About California’s “Affirmative Consent” Law
American Thinker: Government Desperation Is Increasing
Conservatives4Palin: Elbert Guillory – Mary Landrieu Is Not Helping Blacks
Don Surber: I Can Save The Government $31.5 Million
Jammie Wearing Fools: Good News – CDC Issues Ebola Guidelines For US Funeral Homes
Joe For America: “Master Faith” Or “Master Race”?
JustOneMinute: Border Security Begins (Or Ends) At Home
Pamela Geller: Oklahoma Jihadist Beheader Not Fired; Ritual Slaughter Was Premeditated
Protein Wisdom: It’s October 1, And By Golly I’m Going To Resort To Rule 5
Shot In The Dark: Trulbert! Part XIV – Trick Or Death
STUMP: Public Pensions Followup – The Effect Of Assumptions And Materiality
The Gateway Pundit: Jen Psaki Caught In More Lies, Insists Khorasan Is Separate From Al-Qaeda
The Jawa Report: Everyone Wave Buh Bye To Abu Imran
The Lonely Conservatives: Why Won’t The US Help The Kurds In Their Battle Against The Islamic State?
This Ain’t Hell: 2100 Boots Not On The Ground In Iraq
Weasel Zippers: Douche Alert – ESPN Host Feels Sorry For Americans Who Join The Military
Megan McArdle: It’s Normal For Regulators To Get Captured
Posted on | September 30, 2014 | 66 Comments
“I don’t know why people are so reluctant to say they’re feminists. Maybe some women just don’t care. But how could it be any more obvious that we still live in a patriarchal world when feminism is a bad word? . . . Feminism always gets associated with being a radical movement — good. It should be. A lot of what the radical feminists [in the 1970s] were saying, I don’t disagree with it.”
– Ellen Page, interview with the Guardian, July 3, 2013
“I’m here today because I am gay.”
– Ellen Page, Feb. 14, 2014
She was right. It could not be more obvious if it were stated as a declarative sentence: “Feminism is a journey to lesbianism.”
Still, we must not ignore the chicken-and-the-egg question: Which came first, Ms. Page’s lesbianism or her feminism? We don’t know, although when a gay gossip blogger “outed” Ms. Page in 2011, I defended her right to privacy (“‘Outing’ Ellen Page: The Politicization of Sex and the Sexualization of Politics”). The feminist maxim that “the personal is political” has always seemed to me a formula for divisiveness, to say nothing of its explicit invalidation of any idea of social good that transcends narrow self-interest. In feminism, extreme individualism becomes a justification for collectivism, whereby the personal grievances of any woman are transmogrified into political demands delivered as an ultimatum on behalf of all women.
The fact that a majority of women reject feminism, per se, has been claimed by feminists as proof that most women are too stupid to know what feminism actually is. However, when the convergence of feminist theory with lesbian practice is demonstrable — “Could it be any more obvious?” — we must presume that women comfortable with their own lives are fit to judge their own interests, and reject feminism rationally. Under a limited government that protects the liberty of individuals under the Rule of Law, we have no political need of any theory to explain Ms. Page’s homosexuality. Feminism says otherwise.
“The radical feminist argument is that men have forced women into heterosexuality in order to exploit them, and that lesbians, in rejecting male definitions of sexuality, are undermining the patriarchy. . . .
“Lesbianism is . . . fundamentally a challenge to patriarchal definitions of women.”
– Celia Kitzinger, The Social Construction of Lesbianism (1987)
Some have claimed lesbians are “born that way,” a claim rejected by radical feminists who insist that their lesbianism is a deliberate political act of resistance to male sexual oppression. Some feminist psychologists, notably Lisa Diamond, argue that women’s sexuality is flexible and adaptable, so that shifts in female orientation — straight to lesbian or lesbian to straight, or the endless indecision of “bisexuality” — are not surprising. Yet radical feminists, including psychologists like Professor Celia Kitzinger and Professor Dee Graham, insist that women who “choose” heterosexuality can never do so freely, because heterosexual women are either brainwashed into it or coerced by what Professor Graham called male “sexual terror.”
What would be the reaction of a happily heterosexual woman upon being told that her normal attraction to men is a mental pathology akin to post-traumatic stress disorder? We don’t know, because Professor Graham’s theory has never been subjected to the widespread public ridicule it deserves. Yet when an unhinged feminist blogger declared that normal sexual intercourse “is always rape,” it was Professor Graham’s theory which informed her claim. How many other unhappy women have talked themselves into lesbianism with the assistance of feminist theory?
“Sex, love and romance seem like natural events — instinctive, unlearned, and universal. For example, think about a kiss. Perfectly natural, right? . . . Yet in many cultures, kissing is unknown. . . .
“Strange as it may seem, sex, like kissing, is not a natural act. In other words, sexuality is not something that can be understood in purely biological terms. Instead, it is a social construct.”
– Mary Crawford and Rhoda Unger, Women and Gender: A Feminist Psychology, Fourth Edition (2004)
The etiology of Ellen Page’s lesbian preference (or of any other woman’s preference) presents itself as a subject for political debate only because feminists insist the personal is the political. Radical feminism demands that lesbians must come out of the closet, because a woman’s purely private preferences cannot be useful in the political struggle against male oppression. Having made this young woman’s intimate life a public spectacle, however, feminists insist that no theorizing about Ellen Page’s sexuality is acceptable unless it conforms to feminist doctrine. So it is unacceptable to describe lesbianism as a problem. No one can be permitted to explain homosexuality as a socially harmful maladaptive response in the context of developmental psychology. If Ellen Page had sought therapy to help her understand her same-sex attraction and to attempt to learn coping strategies that would make it possible for her to live a normal (which is to say, heterosexual) adult life, the Southern Poverty Law Center might sue the therapist. It is now evidently a hate crime to say that gay people can live straight lives.
FACT: 97.7% of American women are heterosexual.
They outnumber lesbian/bisexual women (2.3%)
more than 40-to-1. Why do feminists believe
it is wrong to call heterosexuality “normal”
or to say what is normal is also natural?
A free society can tolerate disagreement, but feminism is implacably hostile to freedom. Feminist pioneer Simone de Beauvoir once made this clear, after Betty Friedan remarked that women should have the choice to stay home and raise their children. “No,” replied Beauvoir, “we don’t believe that any woman should have this choice. No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
Beauvoir said this in 1975, and you might think that her declaration of feminism’s totalitarian aspirations — seeking the power to abolish the traditional family by decree — would be more widely known. Yet if that 1975 quote is taught in any Introduction to Women’s Studies course, it has escaped my notice. The fact that Women’s Studies textbooks are edited by lesbians has not escaped my notice, but this potentially significant correlation is not generally acknowledged by college administrators. One suspects that American University’s proficiency at indoctrinating “raging lesbian feminists” isn’t something they advertise to the parents of prospective students. Honesty is perhaps not the best policy if your business model involves charging parents $20,000 a year to fill their children’s heads full of radical ideology.
Yet we return to the chicken-and-egg question of Ellen Page: Which came first, lesbian sexuality or feminist ideology? You think about this when you see lesbian feminist Carmen Rios describe herself as someone who “failed at being normal.” This is the sort of frank admission I truly appreciate; feminists are rarely so honest. Did Ms. Rios earnestly try to find happiness in heterosexuality before she became a Women’s Studies major? Has she ever tried, outside the framework of feminist theory, to explain her failure to become normal? It is vain to ask for such an explanation; feminism has long since become the only framework within which anyone talks about female sexuality. Even the defenders of “traditional family values” often speak the rhetoric of feminism, however unwittingly. You’re more likely to find a college student fluent in ancient Greek or Latin than to find one who can discuss sex in a way that doesn’t conform to feminist ideology. To speak of romantic love between men and women nowadays requires us to learn a lost language.
Thanks to the tip-jar hitters, today I ordered from Amazon ($98.24) five more books about radical feminism, including Theorizing Sexuality, a recent academic textbook by two British feminist professors, plus Michel Foucault’s The History of Sexuality, Volume 1, An Introduction, which is essential to understanding Judith Butler’s theory of gender. My intention to dismantle Professor Butler’s theory presents a challenge that is both daunting and mystifying.
On the one hand, it is daunting in the way that any multi-thousand word writing project is always daunting. My career as a journalist required me to orient myself to cranking out daily bylines in a hurry, not spending several days on one massive treatise. However, what is mystifying about the challenge of dismantling Professor Butler is that no one has ever debunked Gender Trouble before, as the key to doing so seems to me so obvious. Three key sources — Foucault, Monique Wittig and Gayle Rubin — form the intellectual crux of the theory that Professor Butler turned into a 200-page bestseller.
Each of these sources is flawed and biased and, except as a sort of special pleading for the social and political acceptance of homosexuality, Gender Trouble cannot be viewed as a useful contribution to the understanding of “gender” (sex roles) or human sexuality. Certainly, Professor Butler’s Big Idea about the performativity of gender is an intriguing concept, but it is really only a restatement (in gay-friendly terms) of what any careful student of developmental psychology has always known. To be a man or woman, to take on the adult duties and responsibilities of manhood and womanhood — especially as husbands and wives, fathers and mothers — requires young people to psychologically adjust themselves to those roles. Conversely, if one wishes to avoid these adult roles, to find a justification for not marrying or becoming a parent, then your psychological need must find an argument to rationalize your unwillingness or inability to perform those socially necessary duties. And this is what Gender Trouble really is, a psychological defense mechanism (rationalized self-justification) dressed up in intellectual theory.
Because the fundamental problems of Professor Butler’s theory seem so glaringly obvious to me, and because Gender Trouble is one of the most influential texts of the past 25 years, I am mystified that no Ph.D. — a psychologist, biologist or anthropologist — has undertaken the task of dismantling her argument. To say that “gender is a social construct” (as Professor Butler’s insight is usually phrased) is really no different than saying “sex roles are socially necessary.” That is to say, if we wish men and women to form stable families through marriage, to procreate and care for their young, then boys and girls must learn the behaviors and attitudes necessary to success in this work. Adulthood requires us to escape the egocentric selfishness of childhood. We cannot be successful adults if we are unwilling to suppress infantile narcissism and do what is good for others (for society), and the responsibilities of adulthood — marriage and parenthood — are certainly incompatible with reckless sexual hedonism. Because the social good conflicts with our immature selfishness (the imperious “I-want-it-now” demands of our inner Veruca Salt), then what society requires of boys and girls in their growth to becoming men and women can be said to be “socially constructed.” However, it is an error to say that, because the duties of adulthood limit our egocentrism, society is wrong and our ego is right.
Once upon a time, people sought psychological counseling to help them cope with the demands of adulthood. Nowadays, the hopelessly maladjusted enroll in Women’s Studies courses, where professors teach women they are unhappy because they are oppressed.
As a substitute for therapy, perhaps feminism is useful. As politics, it’s divisive. As a basis for public policy, it’s insane. Believing you’re a victim of heteronormative patriarchy — “gender roles,” “the male gaze,” etc. — may help unhappy women feel better about themselves. Yet their sense of entitled victimhood leads them to denounce the rest of us as haters for not joining their feminist pity party, and these denunciations require a response. What we say in response is likely to hurt their feelings.
My response? Baby, I get paid to bring the pain.
Posted on | September 30, 2014 | 6 Comments
– compiled by Wombat-socho
Urges protesters to clear the streets for public safety
Hong Kong Police defend handling of protests
State Department reacting cautiously to protests
Protesters turn deaf ear to Leung, pep up “Umbrella Revolution”
All Eyes On The Outcome Of PM Modi’s Visit With Obama
India Inc. has high hopes
Ghani’s Administration To Sign US/NATO Troop Deal
Would allow allied troops to stay in-country after this year
Swift backlash from lawmakers, intelligence officials to Obama’s 60 Minutes blame-shifting
THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Ample Supplies, Weak Demand Continue Pushing Asian Crude Lower: WTI $92.82. Brent $96.39
Asian Stocks Follow Wall Street Down
Ford Shares Tumble On Lower Profit Outlook For 2014-5
Supervalu Reports Fresh Hacking Incident
American Apparel Names New Interim CEO
Gold Poised For Worst Month In Fifteen On Strong Dollar
Behind Ello Hype, A Facebook Rebellion Brews
Alleged Mobile Spyware Sellers Cuffed In US
FCC Expected To End Sports TV Blackout Rule
Is HP’s $200 Stream Laptop The Future Of Windows Computing?
Samsung Courts Gamers With 27″ Curved Monitor
Facing the slumping A’s tonight for the AL wild card
FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
The Girl Next Door Finds Her Edge
Vogue’s October cover girl – the real Reese?
India’s Central Bank Holds Interest Rate Steady For Fourth Straight Meeting As Inflation Fight Rages On
ISIS Jihadis Within Two Miles Of Baghdad
Netanyahu Links Hamas, ISIS
Spain’s Constitutional Court Nixes Cataloonies’ Independence Referendum
Japan Suspends Search For Volcano Victims At Mount Ontake
Rebel Attacks Threaten Ukraine Truce
Australian Police Arrest Man For Funding Syrian Terror Group
Modi: Indian Muslims Will Fail Al-Qaeda
Japan PM Shinzo Abe Vows To Keep Close Watch On Tax Hike Effects
Sunday Mirror Facing Probe Over “Sex Sting” Of Tory MP
BLOGS & STUFF
Doug Powers: Who’s Up For A Human Rights Lecture About Ferguson From The Ayatollah Khamenei?
Twitchy: “Dear Bestie” – Ace Gives Lefties A Taste Of Their Own Creepy Medicine
American Power: Dead Dunkin Donuts Worker Touted As Symbol Of America’s Low-Wage Workers
American Thinker: Poverty In The Black Community Is The Result Of Culture, Not Racism
BLACKFIVE: The Paradox Of The “Advisor”
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: Rule 5 Monday With Anna Kendrick
Conservatives4Palin: Governor Palin – “Obama’s Praise Betrays Us”
Don Surber: Obama Realizes He Was All Wrong
Jammie Wearing Fools: Oklahoma Headchopper’s Family Speaks Out – He’s A “Good Kid” And A “Great Person”
Joe For America: How’s That “Yemen Strategy” Working Out, Barack?
JustOneMinute: Who Didn’t Let The Dogs Out?
Protein Wisdom: MSNBC’s Harris-Perry Cruises Down That River In Egypt
Shot In The Dark: Liberal Math
The Gateway Pundit: O’Keefe Strikes Again – Drops Election Fraud Investigation, Promises More October Surprises
The Jawa Report: Second Oklahoma Beheading Threat And Firing Is Utter And Total Coincidence
The Lonely Conservative: Nearly $100 Million Spent On Stage Production For One 18-Minute Obama Speech
This Ain’t Hell: Fighting Ebola
Weasel Zippers: NC Democrat Overcome With White Guilt Says He’s Ashamed Of His “Whiteness”
Megan McArdle: Obamacare’s $73 Billion Question
Posted on | September 29, 2014 | 4 Comments
– compiled by Wombat-socho
Welcome to another edition of Rule Five
SundayMonday; I wish I could claim that it’s late because I went out and partied too hard after Jordan Zimmerman pitched a no-hitter for the Nationals yesterday (it was the first time I’d seen one, live or on TV) but the truth is I was just too tired by the time I got home. Insert standard disclaimer about scantily clad women, responsible link clicking, etc.
First Street Journal leads off this week with Our Secret Weapon Against ISIS, followed by Goodstuff’s examination of Asian women and their non-GMO melons. Ninety Miles from Tyranny has Girls with Guns, Hot Pick of the Late Night, and Morning Mistress; while Animal Magnetism recovers from server issues with Rule 5 Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon.
At A View from the Beach, it’s Rosario Dawson – Because I Owed Her One, Ladies Night, Fight On, Fight On, Redskins!, Morning Concert – Sarah Jarosz, Curses, Fooled Again!, Let Me Think About It, Women In the News, New Boring Fish Fossil Found Nearby, Canadian Taliban Object to Lady Sports Fans, Beware the Polygamous Ninjas, and, from an alternate universe: Redskins to Ground the Eagles, “It Was Me”.
Soylent Siberia brings your morning coffee creamer, Monday Motivationer Lynna, Speaking of Clams, The Future Ex-Mrs. Soylent, Humpday Hawtness Lifeguard, So Then I Shouldn’t Order Fish?, Overnighty Lenka, Fursday Fleur-de-lis Julia, Fursday Afternoon Art Awesome, Corset Friday Harvest Festival, T-GIF Friday Candy Is Dandy, Overnighty Reflection, Weekender Tail, and Bath Night Weekender.
Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Denise Quinones, his vintage babe is Polly Bergen, Sex in Advertising is covered by Adriana Lima, and of course there’s the obligatory 49ers cheerleader. At Dustbury, it’s Danielle Dax and Viola Davis.
Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat
mailbox for next week’s Rule 5 Sunday is midnight on Saturday, October 4.
Posted on | September 29, 2014 | 34 Comments
Left to right: Judith Butler, Bonnie Zimmerman, Diane Richardson
“Is there some commonality among ‘women’ that preexists their oppression, or do ‘women’ have a bond by virtue of their oppression alone? Is there a specificity to women’s cultures that is independent of their subordination by hegemonic, masculinist cultures? . . .
“Is the construction of the category of women as a coherent and stable subject an unwitting regulation and reification precisely contrary to feminist aims? . . . To what extent does the category of women achieve stability and coherence only in the context of the heterosexual matrix?”
– Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (1990)
“[Charlotte Bunch's 1972 manifesto] ‘Lesbians in Revolt’ argued one powerful and uncompromising principle: because sexism is the root of all oppression and heterosexuality upholds sexism, feminists must become lesbians and lesbians must become feminists if we are to effect a revolution. . . . To state that feminists must become lesbians assumes that lesbianism is a matter of choice and conviction, not biological conditioning or sexual behavior. Moreover, lesbians must also become feminists, that is, they must ground their sexuality in a political discourse if any social change is to occur. . . .
“Lesbian criticism of any and all varieties was constructed by flesh and bone lesbians starting in the early 1970s. For us, feminism was not a distinct discourse that spoke ‘for’ lesbians but an epistemology used by lesbians to speak for ourselves. . . . I believe it can be shown that, historically, lesbianism and feminism have been coterminous if not identical social phenomena.”
– Bonnie Zimmerman, “Confessions of a Lesbian Feminist,” in Cross Purposes: Lesbians, Feminists, and the Limits of Alliance, edited by Dana Heller (1997)
“Heterosexuality is a category divided by gender and which also depends for its meaning on gender divisions. . . .
“The view that heterosexuality is a key site of male power is widely accepted within feminism. Within most feminist accounts, heterosexuality is seen not as an individual preference, something we are born like or gradually develop into, but as a socially constructed institution which structures and maintains male domination, in particular through the way it channels women into marriage and motherhood. Similarly, lesbianism has been defined not just as a particular sexual practice, but as a form of political struggle — a challenge to the institution of heterosexuality and a form of resistance to patriarchal relations.”
– Dianne Richardson, “Theorizing Heterosexuality,” in Rethinking Sexuality (2000)
Many people wrongly believe that the anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology that prevails within Women’s Studies curricula doesn’t have any real impact on the larger culture: “That’s just a bunch of academic eggheads talking to each other. Who cares?”
However, many students are clearly internalizing these radical feminist theories. Critiquing a popular song by Meghan Trainor (“All About That Bass”), University of Pennsylvania junior Katiera Sordjan condemned the dance hit because “it sends a very problematic message . . . framed in the views of the ever-present male gaze”:
Girls shouldn’t have to justify their body types by pointing to what men find attractive. Women also have various sexualities that should not have to be constrained by heteronormativity or a stereotypical view of what femininity should be.
The idea that women are generally heterosexual and therefore wish to be viewed by men as attractive — well, that’s “very problematic” for any college student who has paid attention in her Women’s Studies classes, and who therefore can’t enjoy a Top 40 song because the lyrics are “constrained by heteronormativity.” Or how about Texas State University sophomore Brandon Sams?
Heteronormativity is a detrimental concept and bias that asserts that all people fall into distinct and complimentary genders — man and woman. Many people wrongfully adhere to heteronormativity, which has historically been the impediment to gendered progress and feelings about sexuality. These falsely idealized institutions need to be questioned, indicted and convicted for their problematic manifestations. Heteronormativity also asserts that these purported two genders have naturally determined roles in life. Therefore marriage and sexual relationships, among a multitude of other things, are only befitting for people within these two genders.
Your idea that “men” and “women” are valid categories, and have natural roles? That’s an “impediment to gendered progress”!
Feminism and the gay rights movement are basically the same thing — “coterminous,” as Bonnie Zimmerman says. She is not an obscure fringe figure, but one of the most influential feminists in America, as her biography at San Diego State University makes clear:
Dr. Zimmerman became a founding member of the Women’s Studies College at SUNY Buffalo in 1970, where she created and taught numerous courses in women’s studies, women’s literature, and feminist theory. In 1978, Dr. Zimmerman accepted a position as a temporary lecturer at SDSU’s groundbreaking Women’s Studies department — the first Women’s Studies program in the country. As her career bloomed, she went on to become a professor and eventually chair of the department, and came to be recognized as one of the nation’s top lesbian scholars. Dr. Zimmerman became especially known for her published articles, the best known of which, “What Has Never Been: An Overview of Lesbian Feminist Literary Criticism,” has been anthologized in the Norton Anthology of Theory & Criticism. Dr. Zimmerman has published extensively, including the books, Lesbian Histories and Cultures: An Encyclopedia; The New Lesbian Studies: Into the 21st Century; Professions of Desire; Lesbian and Gay Studies in Literature; and The Safe Sea of Women: Lesbian Fiction, 1969 to 1989. She has also been an active member of the Modern Language Association and the National Women’s Studies Association, of which she served as president in 1998 and 1999. From 2003 until 2010, she was associate Vice-president of Faculty Affairs, having previously served as the chair of the university senate. Dr. Zimmerman has received numerous awards throughout her career, including the Most Influential Faculty Awards in English and Comparative Literature in 1982, and in Women’s Studies in 1985, 1990, and 1999. She was also the recipient of the Lambda Literary Award and Emily Toth Award in 1991, as well as the Positive Visibility Award from GLAAD in 1996. Her contribution and service to the university have been recognized in such honors as the Alumni Award for Outstanding Faculty Contribution to the University in 2003, and the Alumni Association Distinguished Faculty Award in 2004.
What Professor Zimmerman says about the radical lesbian vision of Charlotte Bunch — “sexism is the root of all oppression and heterosexuality upholds sexism” — is echoed in Judith Butler’s description of women’s “subordination by hegemonic, masculinist cultures,” whereby the identity of women is formed “in the context of the heterosexual matrix.”
Professor Butler should need no introduction. Her biography at the University of California Berkeley notes among her honors the Andrew Mellon Award for Distinguished Academic Achievement in the Humanities as well as the Chevalier of the Order of Arts and Letters from the French Cultural Ministry. Her book Gender Trouble is one of the most widely assigned texts in Women’s Studies (currently ranked No. 6 bestseller in the “Gender Studies” category at Amazon).
The feminists who are saying these things are not marginal figures within academia. They are among the most prestigious and influential professors in the field of Women’s Studies, among whom there is widespread agreement that heterosexuality is “a socially constructed institution which structures and maintains male domination,” to quote Professor Diane Richardson. She has been head of the department of sociology and director of the Centre for Gender and Women’s Studies at Newcastle University in England, also holding visiting fellowships at Columbia and Harvard universities. She and her colleague Victoria Robinson are editors of Introducing Gender & Womens Studies, a widely used textbook in Great Britain.
What you see consistently in the writings of Women’s Studies professors are a set of core ideas: Women are oppressed by men; heterosexuality is the context within which that oppression occurs; and “gender roles,” the expression of common beliefs about the nature of men and women, are necessary to the system of male supremacy (patriarchy) that employs the “heterosexual matrix” to controls women.
Oppression, domination, patriarchy, male supremacy, gender roles, heteronormativity, the male gaze — this is the rhetoric of radicalism, describing the anti-male/anti-heterosexual worldview promoted by Women’s Studies programs at our colleges and universities.
In the two university newspaper articles quoted earlier, both students used the words “problematic” and “heteronormative” together. Why is this? Professor Stevi Jackson, Director of the Centre for Women’s Studies at the University of York in England, provides a clue in her 1999 book Heterosexuality in Question:
[L]esbian feminists began, early in the 1970s, to mount an attack on heterosexuality as a patriarchal institution.
My focus here is on feminist critiques of heterosexuality . . . I am particularly interested in problematizing heterosexuality from within and hence in the ways in which straight feminists have engaged with — or distanced themselves from — this project. . . .
I am situating myself within this narrative as a heterosexual feminist, although that label is in some ways problematic; like others in the same position, I would not want to define my feminism by my heterosexuality. . . . [I]t is impossible to live within a patriarchal society as both a feminist without being aware of contradictions . . .
This is amazing: Although identifying herself as heterosexual, Professor Jackson is “problematizing” her own sexual preferences, because it is “impossible” for her as a feminist to ignore the “contradictions” between her political theory and her sexuality.
Heterosexuality is inherently problematic from a feminist perspective.
Here we return to a basic point that has been confirmed in my research for the “Sex Trouble” series about radical feminism, namely that the theories promulgated in Women’s Studies programs are fundamentally incompatible with heterosexuality. There is a reason, after all, why Carmen Rios said she became a “raging lesbian feminist” after enrolling in Women’s Studies, and why she called these programs “Lesbo Recruitment 101.”
Most people believe feminists are wrong about heterosexuality being “socially constructed” and lesbianism being “a matter of choice and conviction,” so what happens when young heterosexual women at colleges and universities are indoctrinated with the feminist worldview? If they are unlikely to become lesbian, neither will they ever be able to find happiness in a normal life of men, marriage and motherhood.
Taught to view men as their oppressors, and to consider marriage and motherhood the negation of their own identities, how can these women reconcile their feminist beliefs with their own heterosexuality? As Professor Jackson admitted, they can’t.
Feminist theory, you see, tells heterosexual women that their attraction to men — their normal sexuality — is both inauthentic and contrary to their own best interest. Insofar as any heterosexual woman adopts a feminist belief system, therefore, she must hate her male partners (who are oppressing her) and hate herself for her own weakness, being unable to resist this male oppression.
Of course, God help any guy stupid enough to date a Women’s Studies major. One shudders to imagine the feminist’s boyfriend constantly forced to apologize: “I’m sorry for having a penis!”
Posted on | September 29, 2014 | 130 Comments
Emily Heist Moss (@EmilyHeistMoss) is the type of young feminist who inspires readers to ask, “Stacy, how do you find these idiots?”
The short answer is that feminists are herd animals, who aggregate around certain online watering holes, so that wherever you find one zany Gender Studies type, there are sure to be many more. Thus while I was reading an article by Chelsea Bock, I noticed in the sidebar an article by Emily Heist Moss with this eye-grabbing headline:
If crazy were silver, Emily Heist Moss would be the Comstock Lode, and the feminist blog Role/Reboot would be a Nevada mountain, but we’ll have to take these metaphors one at a time, beginning with Ms. Moss’s complaints about the hook-up lifestyle:
You know that thing when you’re about to have sex with someone and you’re feeling all warm and fuzzy and fun things are happening and you anticipate more fun things are coming and you’re in this groove and then, instead of the telltale ripping of a condom wrapper, or the brief pause when he sits back on his heels to assess and discuss the protection situation, he tries to slip it in like you won’t even notice?
And you, upon realizing what the moron down between your legs is doing — or rather, neglecting to do — you hear in your brain that screeeeeeeech like tires slamming to a halt because instead of warm and fuzzy you feel confused and indignant. You feel overlooked, irrelevant to this bodily conversation you were excited to get going just seconds before. You feel, suddenly, like just a hole, and not a person with opinions on the subject of contraception, with aspirations for a baby- and disease-free future, with a 50% stake in what’s about to go down.
Do you know that feeling?
If you have been so lucky as to avoid it, pat yourself on the back, cross your fingers, and continue whatever rain dance you’ve been performing that keeps condoms falling from the sky and conscientious partners in your bed. Because the rest of us? Man, we are sitting out here in the cold and it sucks. . . .
When I polled the Internet about their experiences, I got bombarded with stories of the bareback-pressurers, “Don’t you trust me, baby?” whisperers, and the worst offenders, slip-it-off-mid-coitus-no-condom-ninjas. The issue is so widespread that it seems obvious it’s not a question of a few bad apples, but rather a persistent misunderstanding of the rules of engagement. . . .
You can read the whole thing. I’ve quoted Ms. Moss at such length to avoid any accusation that she is being quoted out of context. This is how it is with feminists: If you try to briefly summarize their bizarre beliefs, you will be accused of distorting their meaning; on the other hand, if you quote them at length — unfair! You’re infringing their copyright on lunatic gibberish. But I digress . . .
What Ms. Moss seems to be saying is that when she picks up a random stranger for an exercise in meaningless hedonism, she is shocked — shocked, I tell you! — that these semi-anonymous creeps do not always heed her “rules of engagement.” But what do “rules” mean between two amoral fornicators? On what authority does Ms. Moss, an avowed atheist, base the rules for her loveless couplings?
Well, consent, you see. Starting in the 1960s, a coalition of bohemian perverts, porn merchants and civil libertarians fought a grand crusade to vanquish any vestige of morality from our laws governing sexual behavior, replacing it with the “consenting adults” standard. It was no longer sufficient, said these judicial and legislative modernizers, to say that something was wrong and therefore should also be illegal. According to the new regime, concepts like “right” and “wrong,” “good” and “evil,” “vice” and “virtue” had no useful meaning.
You could do absolutely anything, sex-wise, so long as the participants were “consenting adults.” Now all arguments about sex boil down to disputes about two things: Who is an “adult” and what does “consent” mean? I’m pretty sure that if the forces of Progress and Equality continue in the direction they’ve been going recently — because the logic of their argument is consistent — those who refuse to consent will be accused of a hate crime, the legal age of consent will be abolished, and deviants will then organize to demand the “right” to have sex with unborn fetuses. (“Pre-natal sexuality”? Who are we to judge?)
Anyone who thinks we have reached rock bottom on our long slide down the slippery slope simply hasn’t been paying attention. A commission in Germany recently recommended the legalization of incest, a “reform” too late to benefit the multigenerational incestuous clan in Australia where uncle/brothers were habitually sodomizing their sister/nieces before the police finally raided the place. Meanwhile, in England, gangs of Pakistani pimps were raping and prostituting working-class girls as young as 11 while local Labour Party officials looked the other way.
Amid this increasingly frenetic worldwide carnival of sordid sexual atrocities that the advocates of Progress and Equality have let loose upon humanity, you see, Emily Heist Moss is complaining that some of her “friends with benefits” are trying to sneak a bit of unprotected friction into their casual couplings. This is a Major Issue, OK? And if you disagree about the relative importance of her problems, you’re just a hater.
The venue in which Ms. Moss made this complaint deserves critical scrutiny. Here’s how Role/Reboot began a few years ago:
In 2009, Role Reboot co-founder Fran Rodgers was asked to teach a course on Women’s Movements Past and Future at Tufts University. Fran wanted to make sure that her course was relevant to a younger generation, and enlisted Morra Aarons-Mele as her partner in developing the course. . . .
As they prepared the college course, however, Fran and Morra realized that with every new reading they were moved to act, and began to feel a sense of awakening and responsibility to help create change among men and women. . . .
Fran asked her daughter Nicole to help. . . .
Nicole wanted to bring a feminist sensibility to modern debates without relying too heavily on second-wave authors and discussions. Eventually, the three women determined that what they wanted was an online space for thought leadership about how gender roles are changing . . .
This is from Role/Reboot’s mission statement:
We’re a group defined mostly by what we are not. We’re not the Cleavers or Ozzie and Harriet (nor do we want to be). We don’t aspire to the status quo. We’re forward thinking, creative, and counter-cultural. We’re concerned about deeply embedded “traditional” roles and expectations that often dictate how we structure our lives. We’re creating our own rules. We’re naturally a big-tent movement for anyone trying to live a life free from unhelpful “shoulds.”
While others rally for “New Normal,” we will continue to champion the ideal of “No Normal.”
They aspire to a world in which there are no norms. Who is Role/Reboot co-founder Fran Rodgers? A bit of investigation discovers that Mrs. Rodgers’ life has followed a familiar “gender equality” script: Get an elite education and marry an enterpreneurial Alpha Male so that the heteronormative patriarchy can then fund its own deconstruction (cf., Mike Huffington and Arianna, Ted Turner and Jane Fonda, etc.). Role/Reboot is all about postmodern narratives that challenge the discourse of the sex/gender binary, as Judith Butler might say. The site might as well be called “Slouching Toward Androgyny.”
One of the obvious problems with this subversion of gender norms — or, rather, a problem that should be obvious to anyone who hasn’t been drinking the radical egalitarian Kool-Aid — is that masculinity and femininity work, and androgyny fails, when it comes to the crucial social task of reproducing the species. Which is to say that, in general, when viewing cultures in terms of population demographics and over the course of time, traditional sex roles are associated with higher fertility, whereas androgyny is typical of societies that have become decadent and entered demographic decline. This can be demonstrated both historically and in comparing contemporary population groups.
Ceteris paribus, populations typified by what feminists call “male supremacy” (what anthropologists call “normal human behavior”) exhibit reproductive vigor while androgyny (or what feminists call “gender equality”) is typical of population groups with below-replacement fertility levels. Feminists simply have not recognized how their advocacy of the Contraceptive Culture must ultimately doom their movement to failure and, insofar as our nation embraces feminism, so also is our nation doomed. This has been explained by numerous authors. You can read Mark Steyn’s America Alone or Jonathan Last’s What to Expect When No One’s Expecting for timely discussion of these issues. Yet it’s really just common sense, and you don’t need a Ph.D. to understand why the birth rate in Yemen is higher than the birth rate in Denmark, why Orthodox Jews have large families and secular Jews do not, or why Oklahoma Baptists have more babies than Massachusetts liberals. Culture influences demographics and vice-versa, but while decadent intellectuals may dominate elite culture, demographics is a matter of simple math, and no amount of complex academic theory can change a basic fact of nature: The future belongs to the fertile.
What anyone could discern from facts, logic, tradition, common sense and elementary arithmetic, however, eludes the minds of those who have been indoctrinated into the beliefs of the intelligentsia. Thus we return to another Emily Heist Moss column:
On Choosing My Own Last Name
At 18, I added my mother’s last name to my signature. . . .
When I first changed my name, people thought it was a joke, that “Heist” was some sort of badass moniker, like “Danger,” that I gave myself to look cool on the Internet. . . .
My mother’s last name is Heist and she, like many in her cohort of second-wavers, kept it when she got married, even in the face of wedding day second-guessing from my traditionally-minded grandmother. . . .
When I was in college, probably with the assistance of a heavy load of consciousness-raising gender studies classes, I realized that my signature felt incomplete. Particularly because my parents were divorced, I wanted the name I put on things I was proud of to reflect both sides of my history. . . .
But what if you get married?! Oh how the naysayers love the What Ifs. What if you marry a hyphenated dude?! You can’t hyphenate forever! You wouldn’t do that to your kids! That’s just cruel!
Is it? Maybe, if you think burdening children with complicated answers to simple questions is cruel. But is it any crueler than explaining to my hypothetical daughter that Daddy’s last name was more important than Mommy’s because he’s a man? Is it crueler than telling her that someday, unlike her brother’s, her identity will probably be considered dismissable, negotiable, non-essential? Is it really any crazier than what we do now? Disappearing one parent’s past into the other parent’s because… chromosomes? Because…tradition? Because…convenience? . . .
But what will I call my children?! Who knows . . . I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it.
Uh, you mean if you get to it, don’t you, Ms. Moss?
There is tremendous irony in her hypotheticals, you see. Is hooking up with random dudes likely to lead to marriage for Ms. Moss? If she can’t even convince them to put latex on their weenies, how does she expect to persuade one to put a ring on her finger? Given how adamant she is about contraception, what do you think the odds are against her ever having that “hypothetical daughter”?
My guess is that both her imagined marriage and imagined children will remain hypotheticals. All those “consciousness-raising gender studies classes” tend to foster anti-male attitudes that are incompatible with marriage. A casual hook-up is one thing, but how many guys want to marry such a ranting fanatic? Even if there were some masochistic male willing to marry her, however, does anyone think Ms. Moss’s feminist consciousness is compatible with motherhood? Abortion is the most cherished sacrament of feminism; it’s impossible to imagine that monomaniacal advocates of baby-killing actually harbor any shred of natural maternal instinct. Yet such is the logic of feminism that we are expected to take seriously what Ms. Moss says about hypothetical marriage and hypothetical child-rearing, and anyone who expresses skepticism as to her authority in these matters . . .
Well, you’re just a hater.
Defining disagreement as hate, so that anyone who does not share their worldview is morally inferior, feminists create the kind of echo-chamber feedback loop we see in totalitarian states or inside paranoid apocalyptic doomsday cults. The possibility that the dictator’s ideology is wrong, or that the cult leader is not divinely inspired — these alternatives must be rejected by the True Believer, and only the voices of True Believers can be heard inside the echo chamber. People who become part of these types of movements typically don’t recognize the nature of the systemic bias built into the information structure that shelters movement members from facts or logic that contradicts the movement’s ideology. Over and over again, intelligent and well-meaning people who join such movements become disillusioned when they encounter the Thought Police who enforce rhetorical conformity. Eventually, therefore, as the honest followers become disgusted and walk away, the movement is more and more composed of followers who are too stupid to understand what’s wrong with their belief system, and who do not recognize that the movement’s leaders are selfish, dishonest or just plain crazy.
Currently reading a biography of Valerie Solanas, the psychotic sexual nihilist whose ideas all other feminists have plagiarized. #feminism
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) September 28, 2014
Judith Butler's 'Gender Trouble' is to postmodern #feminism what 'Mein Kampf' was to the Third Reich.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) September 28, 2014
The postmodern feminist views 'gender' as the Golgotha of womanhood; her vagina is the cross upon which she is martyred by patriarchy.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) September 28, 2014
Feminism is like Jonestown or North Korea, but the totalitarian cult vibe inside the movement is never apparent to True Believers like Emily Heist Moss. They continue parroting the belief system, continue upholding the truth of their ideology, and reject all negative feedback as “hate.” Nothing else can explain why Ms. Moss is willing to humiliate herself by publishing lunacy like this:
What Sex Counts As ‘Real’ Sex?
. . . Penis-in-vagina sex is not on the menu for same-sex couples for obvious reasons. By putting a premium on this one particular sex act as the only one that “counts,” we are implicitly suggesting that the other ones count less. Think about your LGBTQ friends; is your sex more important, more special, more “real,” than their sex?
If it is true for same-sex couples that sex can still occur without a penis penetrating a vagina (and it can, obviously, just ask them), what’s so different about straight couples? Just because you have the specific parts capable of penis-in-vagina doesn’t mean that you must use them in that specific way. If doing the things your gay friends would call “having sex” with your partner gets you going, why wouldn’t you call that “having sex” too?
Do you see what I mean? Ms. Moss insists that the way we talk about sex and think about sex must be changed, lest our “LGBTQ friends” get the impression that we believe there is something “important” or “special” about “a penis penetrating a vagina.”
When you put this weird “LGBTQ” sympathy in the context of her increasing antipathy toward males — those selfish jerks who refuse to wear condoms when their (unimportant) penises are penetrating Ms. Moss’s (non-special) vagina — perhaps you see why I say the odds are that her “hypothetical daughter” will remain strictly hypothetical.
keep looking »