Mental Illness and Radical Feminism

Posted on | January 3, 2014 | 47 Comments

'Was she dropped on her head?' Feminist shrieks about sexual intercourse; Mockery ensues http://t.co/HrpX56QLjC

— TwitchyTeam (@TwitchyTeam) January 3, 2014

A remarkable uproar has been inspired by a radical feminist’s opposition to heterosexual intercourse, which she terms “PIV” (penis in vagina) and denounces as always rape:

First, well intercourse is NEVER sex for women. Only men experience rape as sexual and define it as such. Sex for men is the unilateral penetration of their penis into a woman (or anything else replacing and symbolising the female orifice) whether she thinks she wants it or not — which is the definition of rape: that he will to do it anyway and that he uses her and treats her as a receptacle, in all circumstances — it makes no difference to him experiencing it as sexual. That is, at the very least, men use women as useful objects and instruments for penetration, and women are dehumanised by this act. It is an act of violence.
As FCM pointed out some time ago, intercourse is inherently harmful to women and intentionally so, because it causes pregnancy in women. . . .
Men, by whom we are possessed, colonised and held captive, are the sole agents and organisers of PIV. Men dominate us precisely so we can’t opt out of sexual abuse by them; intercourse is the very means through which men subordinate us, the very purpose of their domination, to control human reproduction.

Every sane person’s first reactions:

Is she crazy?
and
Who is this woman?

The second question is unanswerable, because the absence of any biographical information on her “Radical Wind” blog makes it impossible to know anything about the author. This serves an ideological purpose: Her claims about her own experience cannot be fact-checked, so that she is free to tell any self-serving lie. Anonymity also serves the useful purpose of concealing anything in her biography that might undermine her credibility.

We do not know the author’s age, education or occupation, although we can deduce from linguistic clues (e.g., “organizers” and “behavioural”) that she is British; we can deduce from a reference to “mass” that her family was Catholic; and we know that she attended university. She also offers a tendentiously anti-male sexual history of herself, using “trauma-bond” as a term for “falling in love” with a man:

When I was really young I always wondered what it meant to “be in love” . . . I never “fell” in love with anybody when I was young, and was always wondering whether I was normal or not. . . .
Anyway, a few rapes / PIV / abusive relationships later, as I was still adolescent, I “fell in love”, or so I thought. . . .

(What she discloses here is that her earliest sex acts with men, as a teenager, did not involve romantic feelings on her part.)

Needless to say, this first experience was extremely painful. The guy was something like 13 years older than me, I was still a minor, and my “love” to him would be all the more strong that he was very fleeting, would contact me only every now and then when he needed to fuck (rape) me. I was too grateful for him paying any attention to me to be even aware of his abusive behaviour, or understand what it meant. I was confused that he only wanted to see me sporadically, instead of starting a relationship, which is the way in which this love is supposed to be expressed. If he liked me enough to “desire” me, why didn’t he want a relationship?

(So, after a series of loveless sexual relationships as a teenager, and while still underage, she became involved — and “fell in love” — with a man about 30 years old. The rather unusual nature of her early sexual/romantic history is not explained, nor does the author even seem to realize that her particular experience was so extraordinary as to be quite literally abnormal.)

Not knowing whether he “loved” me or not made me constantly anxious. The emotional distance, neglect and constant waiting for him made the pain acute.
Fast forward a year, I finally realised that he’d used me and had no respect for me. I decided to give up on hoping that he’d “fall in love” (= get into the promised relationship). The instant i’d done that, I felt such an amazing sense of freedom. It felt like all the weight of the world had suddenly disappeared!! I wasn’t tied, bonded to him anymore. I was independent. I didn’t have to live my entire life according to him, waiting and yearning for him. The illusions suddenly fell apart and I saw him as some useless guy. I told myself: never again will I be so naïve with a man! I was unlucky I thought, and I should just have picked a better man, and been more careful.

(Again, note the lack of awareness that her experience was abnormal, and the inability to see her unusual situation objectively.)

The problem was, that over the next five or six years, this pattern kept repeating and repeating and repeating itself. Every man I trauma-bonded to either was only interested in using me for PIV (rape) or had no interest in me at all. I thought something was wrong with me, maybe I wasn’t pretty enough, skinny enough, boobed enough, outward going enough, mature, seductive, whatever. I couldn’t get it what it was that I lacked. I didn’t understand why I accumulated so many failures. Why did they never stay? Why was I so unlucky in “love”? Alternatively, I wouldn’t trauma-bond but then i’d be fully aware that I didn’t want the PIV and physical invasion (when I wasn’t so much aware of it with the others, because of the trauma-bonding) and it would be even more humiliating. I was still too grateful for the attention though to ward them off, so it would be painfully disgusting and i’d hate myself for what I perceived was self-betrayal.
When I was “attracted” they didn’t want, but when I didn’t want, they wanted. It didn’t make sense.

So, to summarize: After a few loveless adolescent sexual trysts, but while she “was still a minor” — perhaps 17 — the author fell in love with a man about 30 years old who exploited her and did not reciprocate her romantic feelings. Then she entered into a pattern of relatively short-term sexual relationships with men (a) toward whom she was “attracted” and who did not reciprocate; or (b) for whom she had no such attraction, but with whom she had sex because she felt “grateful” for their attention.

From this sketchy (and unverifiably anonymous) history, we can approach an answer to the first question: Yes, she is crazy, which is to say her behavior has been irrational and self-destructive, and her inability to cope with disappointment — “I didn’t understand why I accumulated so many failures” — led her to adopt an extreme anti-male worldview, i.e., radical feminism. But this is all radical feminism actually is, the elaboration of mental illness as a political philosophy. Sane, normal and happy women don’t become feminists. However, as the realities of sexual behavior in our culture becomes increasingly abnormal — and widespread sexual promiscuity is, historically speaking, abnormal — fewer women are sane and happy, so feminist beliefs become more commonplace and abnormality is thereby normalized.

Returning to a sane culture, however, would require both sexes to abandon much that we have been taught to consider “progress” and, therefore, feminist insanity will become more common.

Remember pro-abortion “Queer Feminist” Sarah Alcid?

“Heteronormativity and gender roles also rear their ugly heads on Valentine’s Day. Gifts for ‘him’ or ‘her’ are clearly divided and marked and it’s almost impossible to find cards that represent queer couples. . . .
“It’s not hard to see why Valentine’s Day is problematic for many feminists. Celebrated traditionally, Valentine’s Day magnifies many of the very systems of domination that we work to critique and dismantle.”
— Sara Alcid, “Valentine’s Day: What’s A Feminist To Do?” EverydayFeminism.com, Feb. 14, 2013

Anyone who is not a feminist would describe this as the word-salad gibberish of a lunatic, but because feminism has become so commonplace, fewer people have the sanity necessary to recognize it for the madness it actually is, and it is now widely considered “hate” to disagree with these baby-killing lesbian man-haters.

It's not satire, @seanhackbarth. The author is an actual feminist disciple of Andrea Dworkin. http://t.co/b7gHA3U4zP

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) January 3, 2014

Category: Feminism

Comments

47 Responses to “Mental Illness and Radical Feminism”

Evi L. Bloggerlady
January 3rd, 2014 @ 9:45 pm

Who knew?
M. Thompson
January 3rd, 2014 @ 10:05 pm

I think I’ll bring this up with my girlfriend, and see what she thinks…
The Evolution of Feminism: You’ve come a long way baby… | Batshit Crazy News
January 3rd, 2014 @ 10:15 pm

[…] TOM: Until the dream was finally realized! […]
Evi L. Bloggerlady
January 3rd, 2014 @ 10:17 pm

You H8er you!
M. Thompson
January 3rd, 2014 @ 10:38 pm

Thank you!
Evi L. Bloggerlady
January 3rd, 2014 @ 11:07 pm

That’s what she said!
bridget
January 3rd, 2014 @ 11:07 pm

“Then she entered into a pattern of relatively short-term sexual relationships with men (a) toward whom she was “attracted” and who did not reciprocate; or (b) for whom she had no such attraction, but with whom she had sex because she felt “grateful” for their attention.”

Like all modern feminists, this chick thinks that it’s someone else’s fault if she’s hurt after screwing a guy who does not care about her.

Problem is, having ditched the concept of morality and personal responsibility, these women have no way to describe a bad sexual choice, so they reach for “rape”. They so firmly believe that a one-night stand is the same as marital sex that they cannot fathom that men might treat their wives differently than some drunk chick.

Sex Ed 101: thoroughly vet people before engaging in intimate acts with them.
Steve Skubinna
January 4th, 2014 @ 12:35 am

When you’re mired in self loathing the easiest way to deal with it is to externalize your hatred, because nobody can long live under that sort of self imposed burden.

So even if you know your problems are self inflicted and your behavior is self destructive you blame others. You can’t accept the responsibility yourself because then there are only two options – one is suicide, the other is to face and resolve the problem. Neither one is palatable to the progressive mindset (well, the first isn’t really palatable to any mindset). The one thing progressives are absolutely incapable of doing is addressing and solving problems of any sort. That’s why they throw blame instead. Always.

Republicans, Fox News, Teabaggers, Sarah Palin, the patriarchy, Bush, da Jooooooos! Doesn’t matter who you blame, so long as you do it loudly and constantly. Very few people are capable of honestly examining their attitudes, beliefs and actions and choosing to modify them if they are problematic, of whatever ideological bent. I think progressives are even more handicapped in this regard than the rest of us, as they have already abrogated personal responsibility.

So this woman spews poison to avoid swallowing it. For her the only alternative to hating men is to stick her head in the gas oven. Her friends probably have to spend the night sitting up with her at least once a month to make sure she doesn’t hurt herself. They dread getting the tearful phone call with the hysterics and end of the world threats.
Zohydro
January 4th, 2014 @ 12:59 am

She’s afflicted with “Briquet’s Syndrome” aka “somatisation disorder” — hysteria works too!
Political Rift » Mental Illness and Radical Feminism
January 4th, 2014 @ 1:07 am

[…] Robert Stacy McCain ‘Was she dropped on her head?’ Feminist shrieks about sexual intercourse; Mockery […]
Nan
January 4th, 2014 @ 2:14 am

I’m thinking therapy-therapy could help.
Nan
January 4th, 2014 @ 2:18 am

Such a conundrum; pregnancy is a cure for hysteria but if the hysteric equates the traditional method of becoming pregnant with rape…
Steve Skubinna
January 4th, 2014 @ 2:18 am

The new DSM-V lists the diagnosis as “barking batshit nuts.”
Alessandra
January 4th, 2014 @ 3:57 am

I say there’s a 99% chance that this woman had a seriously destructive family environment, possibly abusive, and that her initial sexual relationships were a result of her trying to resolve the deep wounds left by those early harmful life experiences.

Was there anyone parenting this woman as a teenager? What were her teachers doing? What was the media telling her? Was there anyone guiding her to do therapy?

If my suspicion that her parents and/or family was quite destructive, it’s clear that they did great harm with impunity. Total impunity.

“I was confused that he only wanted to see me sporadically, instead of starting a relationship, which is the way in which this love is supposed to be expressed. If he liked me enough to “desire” me, why didn’t he want a relationship?”

Very, very confused kid. And where were the adults responsible for talking, parenting, and helping this kid? Nowhere, I’m sure.

(Again, note the lack of awareness that her experience was abnormal, and the inability to see her unusual situation objectively.)

And you know in what scenario this lack of awareness happens the most? To kids that have been abused over long periods of time (meaning any type of abuse that is profoundly damaging, not that it necessarily must involve sexual abuse).
concern00
January 4th, 2014 @ 3:57 am

Right thread…now…maybe…

These poor snow flakes never had a wholesome relationship in their lives. No wonder they’re damaged goods and take it out on men.
robertstacymccain
January 4th, 2014 @ 4:07 am

What do you think are the odds she was the daughter of divorce? Don’t get me wrong: Crazy people can come from any family background, but it’s hard to explain how a person could have so much trouble forming relationships if their parents had any kind of a decent relationship.
robertstacymccain
January 4th, 2014 @ 4:09 am

Ah, but psychotherapy is itself a form of patriarchal oppressive science.
Alessandra
January 4th, 2014 @ 4:12 am

Exactly. But you can have very destructive marriages too. And step-parents. Whatever the arrangement, it seems very plausible it was terrible.

And, if that’s the case, that part of it is NOT her fault. She was a kid in need of good parents/family. Now she is left to deal with the damage, but who is going to make those adults accountable for what they have done to her?

That’s a huge problem in society.
tlk244182
January 4th, 2014 @ 7:40 am

The adults in her life were probably progressives, who couldn’t have helped her if they wanted to, since they have a faulty view [significantly non-Christian] of life. Living in a universe that one cannot make any sense of is profoundly damaging to a certain type of personality.
tlk244182
January 4th, 2014 @ 7:40 am

Feminism is a perfect storm. The 500 year long assault on Christianity paves the way for casual sex, which results in feminism, which attacks whatever Christian elements still survive, making the culture even more favorable to feminism and hostile to Christianity, and so on, to the saturation point where all susceptible people are infected. They eventually die off, I guess, since they dont reproduce, leaving only traditional Christians, Jews, and Moslems. Problem solved!
Feminists Accused of ‘Transphobia’: Competitive Victimhood Derby : The Other McCain
January 4th, 2014 @ 7:48 am

[…] up on last night’s post, “Mental Illness and Radical Feminism,” I arrived at a feminist blog that rejects […]
Dana
January 4th, 2014 @ 8:20 am

Jeff Goldstein noted that his wife, who actually has a degree in Women’s Studies, said of her, she “sounds like someone who hasn’t been properly fucked.”

Regrettably, her fine site doesn’t have a public sitemeter, so we don’t know how many people have actually heard of “Witchwind,” but she’s got to be loving the additional publicity.
Alessandra
January 4th, 2014 @ 8:27 am

It’s not her fault if her parents/environment seriously damage and impair her emotional structure as she is growing up and abandon their responsibilities in the process.
For a society to abandon such children as well is also not Christian. Which is why I think we need more programs and activities that can counter bad parenting.
Alessandra
January 4th, 2014 @ 8:55 am

The intense level of crudeness and degradation that the f-word has in this particular context shows Goldstein married a woman whose mind is actually a pile of turd. And that he should publish it as if his wife’s view and language were something to be proud of or as if degrading women and sex were right shows that it’s not just the wife that is a pile of turd, but so is her husband.

Consequently, we have a very ironic result with such junk of people as the Goldsteins criticizing a woman for exaggerating that all sex is rape. Their criticism involves no other than the very degradation of the sexual act, making it crude, along with its target, which is exactly what the feminist was saying was the problem in the first place with said act, albeit to a lesser degree,

Their language and their attitude degrade and debase sex and attitudes towards women, and violate the dignity of all women. Rape is just a greater level of degradation.
JeffWeimer
January 4th, 2014 @ 9:04 am

I would be careful about assuming she’s Catholic, Stacy. Since she’s also assumed to be British, it’s possible she’s CoE, which still called services Mass, IIRC.
Kirby McCain
January 4th, 2014 @ 9:04 am

Once again I have to point out the stupidity of terms like ‘sexual orientation.’ This person is clearly disoriented.
Michael Smith
January 4th, 2014 @ 9:17 am

I ran across this a few weeks ago, I think at Ace had it – my take then was that this woman is not a feminist, she is a pathetic little dishrag who made really bad decisions when she was young and allowed herself to become a semen receptacle for a succession of abusive men. She has all the hallmarks of a dependent personality who used sex to get guys to like her and now, looking back, she is trying to excuse her own needy and libertine behavior by transferring the responsibility for her promiscuity to men in general. Her entire post is the antithesis of what feminism purports to be, she is claiming to be superior while at the same time, invoking victim status. This woman needs counseling – and perhaps medication or institutionalization. She is a danger to herself and others.
richard mcenroe
January 4th, 2014 @ 12:17 pm

And you were doing so well there for a minute…
jenny2
January 4th, 2014 @ 1:46 pm

Poor thing is one hot mess.
bridget
January 4th, 2014 @ 1:50 pm

Catholicism teaches that there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with never having been “properly fucked.” There is a problem with having extramarital or non-marital sex (can you even say premarital in the days wherein people have about a 0% chance of marrying their partners?), but there is nothing wrong with not having sex.

Likewise, it’s wrong if a man (or a woman) is being selfish during sex, but that isn’t a cause to be scornful of their partner. You scorn the selfish person, if anyone.
Steve Skubinna
January 4th, 2014 @ 2:19 pm

Shhhhhh! You’ll give the game away. Everything is a form of patriarchal oppressive science, including feminism!
Everybody Hates Cathy Brennan: Troll Under the Bridge on the Crazyville Road : The Other McCain
January 4th, 2014 @ 3:22 pm

[…] Mental Illness and Radical Feminism […]
MrBillwulf
January 4th, 2014 @ 4:05 pm

Her piece is disturbing to say the least, but I’m not sure what the point of psychoanalyzing her is. We don’t need to know anything about her biography to point out the dubious assertions in her post.
Steve Skubinna
January 4th, 2014 @ 5:02 pm

It’s an entertaining exercise to speculate what kind of underlying pathology drives such frothing nonsense.
DaveP.
January 4th, 2014 @ 6:15 pm

We’ll be sure to let her know that she has to run her every utterance by you for approval.
Twat.
Should I be afraid of transphobic radfems who fear PIV? | Shit Gets Better
January 5th, 2014 @ 12:41 am

[…] perhaps I should be afraid of Robert Stacy McCain. (If there is a God, the answer is no.) His post Mental Illness and Radical Feminism quotes “queer feminist” Sarah Alcid and concludes […]
OfficialPro
January 5th, 2014 @ 1:02 am

prolly has some serious daddy issues, that’s for sure.
OfficialPro
January 5th, 2014 @ 1:13 am

Probably Borderline Personality Disorder or something of that nature.
OfficialPro
January 5th, 2014 @ 4:44 am

I’m sure she ate this dworkin crap up with a spoon because the only person that took an interest in her was probably a batshit college prof who validated her feelings and thus caused her to accept this tripe.
Ben
January 5th, 2014 @ 6:42 am

The wife and husband have a
different function. Ephesians 5:30, 22-33

The husband is to love the wife as
Christ loved the church and died for her. Ephesians 5:25

The wife will be safe from evil by
and from the performance of maternal duties by and from FAITH in the Cross of
Christ. 1 Timothy 2:15

The husband yields to the wife
only if the request is not conformed to this world (Romans 12:2) and is pure,
true, honest, lovely, and good report (Philippians 4:8). Ephesians 5:21

Wives yield because it is the
husband’s job by FAITH in Christ to guide the wife to a closer relationship
with Christ. Ephesians 5:22-27

Husbands are to treat the wife
with special kindness and attention. 1 Peter 3:7

The wife is to respect the Husband
in the same manner as to respect God. Ephesians 5:21, 33

The
husband is the provider. Ephesians 5:28-29

The wife and the husband have a
greater responsibility to each other than their parents. Ephesians 5:31

The Husband is a representation of
Christ. Ephesians 5:32

The wife is a representation of the Church. Ephesians 5:32

The husband is to yield to God by
the POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT BY AND FROM THE CROSS. The wife is to yield to the
husband by the Power of the Holy Spirit and the husband is to love the wife by
the Power of the Holy Spirit. God is the head of the Husband and the husband is
the head of the wife. Marriage is a ministry (Ephesians 5:32). The church
yields to Christ and Christ yields to the church. Christ only yields to the
church when it is in God’s will. What is God’s will? Romans 12:1-2 The husband
yields to the wife only if the request is not conformed to this world (Romans
12:2) and is pure, true, honest, lovely, and good report (Philippians 4:8).
Christ loves the church. Marriage is a representation of Christ and the Church:
the bridegroom. God calls husbands to be the spiritual leader. The leader
controls by guiding the wife and ultimately to a closer relationship with
Christ. Feminism undermines the
Husband/Christ and is a lie from hell.

The Bible – Ephesians 5:21-33

21 submitting yourselves to one
another in the fear of God.

22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord,

23 because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of
the church – he himself being the savior of the body.

24 But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their
husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself
for her

26 to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word,

27 so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a
stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless.

28 In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He
who loves his wife loves himself.

29 For no one has ever hated his own body but he feeds it and takes care of it,
just as Christ also does the church,

30 for we are members of his body.

31 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be joined to
his wife, and the two will become one flesh.

32 This mystery is great – but I am actually speaking with reference to Christ
and the church.

33 Nevertheless, each one of you must also love his own wife as he loves
himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

The World System is against the Word of God. Believers go by the Word of God and
not by the culture/society.

• 1 Peter 3:1-7 + Colossians
3:18-21 + Ephesians 6:1-4 + 1 Timothy 2:9-15

• Romans 12:1-2 + Philippians 4:8 + 1 Thessalonians 5:22
Leibfarce
January 5th, 2014 @ 4:08 pm

I can’t believe people thumbs up the insanity that comes from your fingertips.
tlk244182
January 5th, 2014 @ 4:53 pm

It’s a mad world.
Federale
January 5th, 2014 @ 8:57 pm

Sounds like a lot of drugs when she was young and a particular susceptibility to The Game, an obsession with bad boys, or she hated her parents.
Da Tech Guy On DaRadio Blog » Blog Archive » Time to “Rolling Stone” the left
January 6th, 2014 @ 5:00 am

[…] PIV stand for “Penis in vagina” since the dawn of time humans have refereed to this action as “sex”. Stacy McCain points out this is not an anomaly for the left […]
davidvoth
January 6th, 2014 @ 3:06 pm

Wow, that’s messed up.
JohnSkookum
January 9th, 2014 @ 11:13 pm

Calm down, Sugar Tits.
Alessandra
January 10th, 2014 @ 3:16 am

You got me confused with your Dad!