Posted on | September 11, 2013 | 73 Comments
Andrew J. Patrick is blaming me for his being harassed by a notorious left-wing troll blogger, after Andrew quoted me:
What people used to mean by the word “rape” has been revised in recent decades because of college women complaining about date rape. . . .
Date rape is an apparently common campus crime that usually involves two drunk young people, one of whom has an erect penis, and the other of whom is unable to avert what the erect penis typically does.
That quote from my Aug. 12 American Spectator column “SlutWalk Insanity,” expresses facts and common sense, not ideology.
Feminism is an ideology advanced by a political movement and is totalitarian in both its purposes and methods. It is distaff Marxism, substituting “women” for the “proletariat” — and the “patriarchy” for “capitalism” — in the ancient Marxian rhetoric. The goal of feminism is not equality, but female supremacy: Gynocracy.
Advancing this totalitarian cause requires feminists to exacerbate hostility between men and women, by accusing men (collectively) of wrongfully oppressing women (collectively), so that all women are inspired to a sense of shared grievance against men.
Once you understand feminism as an ideology, you are no longer an intellectual hostage to the categorical syntax of their progaganda, in which skepticism toward their rhetoric is automatically denounced as thoughtcrime, where dissent is “hate” and we can only talk about women in ways approved by feminists. After decades of militant activism, people now unconsciously monitor their words lest they give offense to the feminist sensibility, so that arguments which directly contradict feminist ideology have the power of shocking outrage:
We had turned the corner at U Street and were marching up 14th Street when the woman with the megaphone leading SlutWalk DC started a new chant: “We love consensual sex! We love consensual sex!” Well, OK, but who doesn’t? Is there any actual opposition to this agenda? Is there an Anti-Consensual Sex Movement that someone forgot to tell us about? Oblivious to the absurdity, about 400 women joined in shouting this slogan, which was at least better than their previous chants: “Blame the system, not the victim!” and “One! Two! Three! Four! We won’t take it anymore! Five! Six! Seven! Eight! Stop the violence! Stop the hate!” The “violence” to which that chant referred is rape, and “hate” is any discussion of rape (or any other subject) that doesn’t conform to feminist ideology. To distill their rhetoric to its totalitarian essence: “Shut up, because rape.”
The SlutWalk movement is about rape in pretty much the same sense Nazism was about the Versailles Treaty — it’s the legitimate grievance that empowers a movement of irrational hatred. We may laugh at the carnival sideshow aspect of women stripping down to their underwear to march down the street in broad daylight, carrying deliberately provocative posters and shouting nonsensical slogans. But the leaders of the movement have a radical ideology they take very seriously, and that ideology is sufficiently influential that anyone who criticizes it risks condemnation as being anti-woman, or even pro-rape. . . .
That was the lead of my SlutWalk column and the reader perceives that, if feminists were offended, it was because they hate the truth.
Andrew J. Patrick finds himself harassed by a notorious troll blogger who is not a woman and has never been raped. This left-wing troll blogger instead positions himself as a male “ally” of feminism, draping himself in the borrowed mantle of indignant victimhood so that he may point the finger of blame. Like Hugo Schwyzer, in other words, the male feminist exploits women’s grievances to empower himself.
Sic semper hoc — Marxism was always a matter of intellectuals empowering themselves by exploiting the grievances of the “proletariat.” And in those nations where Marxist-Leninist regimes gained power, the result of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” was generally a dreadful slaughter whose victims included not only many workers who had somehow failed to conform to the revolutionary agenda, but even revolutionary leaders themselves whose only “crime” was to pose a threat to the paranoid monsters in charge of the regime.
Trotsky was ultimately killed by the revolution he helped make.
See those protest signs from the 2012 L.A. “War on Women” march? “VotePSL.org” is the Party of Socialism and Liberation, a Marxist radical group, and this is the context that is often overlooked by those who speak of a “moderate” feminism or “mainstream” feminism. From its beginnings in the 1960s, modern feminism has always been led and controlled by leftist radicals who see their movement as part of a wider revolutionary struggle against bourgeois capitalism. The problem is that people are not taking feminist rhetoric seriously:
[University of California-Santa Cruz Women's Studies] Professor Bettina Aptheker is the daughter of a famous American Communist, the late Herbert Aptheker . . .
Professor Bettina Aptheker is by her own proud admission both a Communist and a self-described “lesbian activist.” . . . Aptheker’s course syllabus describes lesbianism as the “highest state of feminism” . . . In other words, change in sexual orientation is an inevitable final stage in the development of the socially conscious individual.
Allison Jaggar is professor of philosophy and a former chair of the Women’s Studies Department at the University of Colorado, Boulder . . . Integrating Marxism and feminist theory, Jaggar describes herself as a “socialist feminist” and “activist,” who seeks to combat “the male-dominant structure of everyday life.” . . .
“The political economy of socialist feminism,” writes Jaggar, “establishes that, in contemporary society, women suffer a special form of exploitation and oppression. . . . The distinctive social experience of women generates insights that are incompatible with men’s interpretations of reality . . . The validity of these insights . . . must be tested in political struggle . . .”
If you are not a socialist lesbian, you’re not actually a feminist at all, and people who think they can tame such radicalism — to co-opt this revolutionary movement in the oxymoronic name of “moderate feminism” — are blinded by their own naive delusions.
Either the radical feminists must triumph and “the male-dominant structure” must be destroyed by “political struggle” or . . . not.
There is only one question here: Whose side are you on?