The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Feminism Is a Journey to Lesbianism

Posted on | May 6, 2014 | 45 Comments

“It became obvious that men didn’t want to interact with me or with women in general on an equal level, and that what ‘attracted’ them in women was subordination to them — as soon as we wanted to be their ‘equals’ they were repelled by it, lost interest or tried to thwart the feminist drive in me some way or another.”
Radical Wind, April 28

(WARNING: Graphic language and mature subject matter.)

Radical feminists are both (a) insane and (b) basically correct in their understanding of the psychology of sex. Which is to say, a careful study of what is today called “gender theory” does show that inequality between men and women — collectively, under the systematic male dominance that feminists call patriarchy — is inextricably linked to heterosexuality. Even if every conceivable reform were enacted that could rid women of discrimination in education or employment, male dominance would continue to be expressed through sexual intercourse, through manipulation or abuse within relationships, through pregnancy and through women’s greater burden in parenthood. Women who desire long-term male romantic companionship of any kind must do what is necessary first to attract, and then to maintain, his sexual interest.

Radical Wind — the wacko feminist whose rant “PIV is always rape, OK?” inspired widespread mockery — is actually very close to an important truth when she describes how men were “repelled” by her “feminist drive.” We may suppose she was hanging out with a loutish crew of young left-wing idiots when she experienced this; therefore it must have been a shocking revelation when these allegedly egalitarian men expected her to enact the “subordination” of femininity.

News flash: Men are men.

“Male dominance is sexual. . . .
“A feminist theory of sexuality would locate sexuality within a theory of gender inequality, meaning the social hierarchy of men over women. . . .
“To be clear: what is sexual is what gives a man an erection. Whatever it takes to make a penis shudder and stiffen with the experience of its potency is what sexuality means culturally. . . . All this suggests that that which is called sexuality is the dynamic of control by which male dominance . . . eroticizes as man and woman, as identity and pleasure. It is also that which maintains and defines male supremacy as a political system.”

Catharine MacKinnon, “Sexuality, Pornography, and Method: ‘Pleasure under Patriarchy'” (1989)

Yeah, baby — keep talking sexy like that and I might buy you a drink.

Isn’t it weird how we smile at such a discussion, even by an ultra-serious radical feminist like MacKinnon? Talking about the erotic nature of male dominance is enough “to make a penis shudder and stiffen with the experience of its potency,” you might say.

The arguments of radical lesbian feminists are, to me, preferable to the liberal “pro-sex” feminists like Amanda Marcotte, whose objective seems to be to defend women’s “right” to shame-free promiscuity. Radical feminists see the “pro-sex” embrace of heterosexual hedonism as a dishonest betrayal of feminism: How are women fighting the patriarchy by sucking cock? The paradox is self-evident.

The “subordination” of women in their traditional roles as wives, mothers and homemakers was the original target of the Women’s Liberation movement, but as soon as women divorced their husbands, aborted their babies and pursued careers, they discovered that this “liberation” subjected them to new forms of oppression. Made “equal” by federal laws that forbade discrimination, newly liberated women learned that the egalitarian regime did not improve the quality of their relationships with men. To the contrary, the “liberated woman” was subjected to harassment, insults and the selfish predatory sexual behavior of men whose “respect” for women as equals proved to be far crueler in practice than anything that the stereotypical 1950s suburban housewife had ever been expected to endure.

From this recognition — the misleading promise of “liberation” in a man’s world — sprang the radical feminism that identified men as the enemy, and made lesbianism a political statement, arguing that male sexuality was inherently harmful to women.

“Radical feminism has completely transformed me. . . . I have no male friends, and limit my interaction with males . . .
“With patriarchy, men are constantly dictating what women’s bodies should look like. . . . A woman’s body is meant for male viewing. He wants . . . to confirm his stupid beliefs that women are fuck objects.”

Formulations of Oppression, April 16

Yeah, baby — keep talking sexy like that and I might buy you a drink.

The radical’s resentment of her status as “fuck object” and the perception that her body “is meant for male viewing” shows that her grievance is not with traditionalism, but rather with the hedonistic culture of “liberation” wherein women are expected to market themselves as sexual commodities. Her problem is not that men fall in love with her, want to marry her, take her to a 3BR/2BA ranch house in the suburbs and make babies together. Her problem is that none of these modes of traditional “subordination” are offered to the liberated woman, who is presumed to exist in a state of constant sexual availability, a woman to be had by many men, but never wholly possessed by any of them.

It is the absence of permanent commitment — of “happily ever after,” of complete uniting of herself with man — that inspires the liberated woman to resent not just the selfish indifference of men who desire her only as a “fuck object,” but eventually also to resent the sex act itself. And when she reaches that point, she will find feminist intellectuals ready to encourage and theorize her resentment.

“There is never a real privacy of the body that can coexist with intercourse: with being entered. The vagina itself is muscled and the muscles have to be pushed apart. The thrusting is persistent invasion. She is opened up, split down the center. She is occupied — physically, internally, in her privacy. . . . .
“There is no analogue anywhere among subordinated groups of people to this experience of being made for intercourse: for penetration, entry, occupation.”

Andrea Dworkin, Intercourse, 1987

Yeah, baby — keep talking sexy like that and I might buy you a drink.

Most women are not radical man-haters like Dworkin and, after reading her description of intercourse — “of being  opened up, split down the center” — normal women reply: “Isn’t it awesome?”

Normal women are delighted to know they are “made for intercourse,” and if they are thereby “subordinated”? Awesome! And if her body is a delight to her man? Awesome! 

Radical feminists perceive everything, including happiness, as a zero-sum game: Anything that makes men happy can only be obtained by a process of subtraction from the happiness of women. This is even true — indeed, it is especially true — when it comes to PIV (penis-in-vagina, i.e., intercourse), as Radical Wind explains:

Separatism started for me in a crossroads of circumstances. It started in part when I decided that I wouldn’t date any men because dating with them had been so painful and traumatising and I wanted to protect myself from that. I was already feminist, had almost perceived that PIV was inherently violent and a way to humiliate women, and that all men wanted was to use us as receptacles for their dicks. So I first thought that if I wanted to date a man, a way to prevent being used by them as their dick-socket to be thrown away the minute after, I’d have to choose one I knew for a long time and could trust he wouldn’t abuse me, had already built an equal, friendly, respectful relationship with him which stood the test of time, and especially, they would have to understand feminism and i should be able to be feminist with them without feeling uncomfortable about it.
Well I very quickly realised that this standard was totally impossible! Once I held this standard for interacting with men, they all disappeared out of my life very quickly. It became obvious that men didn’t want to interact with me or with women in general on an equal level, and that what “attracted” them in women was subordination to them — as soon as we wanted to be their “equals” they were repelled by it, lost interest or tried to thwart the feminist drive in me some way or another. This was a major eye-opener. I’ve said this before in various comments but I found this experience really amazing — just setting the bar high for men made them disappear out of my life.
Also once I saw how everything men do is always directly or subliminally a rape threat and reminds us of our penetrable caste, I couldn’t bear being exposed to anything male, either in physical presence or in mediated ways (religion, ideology, media, art, etc, etc,). It re-triggers unconscious or conscious defence mechanisms to rape, PIV and sexualised invasion. It’s stressful and traumatising.

From this feminist perspective, men pursue intercourse strictly as “a way to humiliate women” by reducing them to the status of “receptacles for their dicks,” so that intimate relationships with men mean “being used by them as their dick-socket.” When she decided to avoid this “subordination,” the radfem found it made men “disappear out of my life.” She finds herself traumatized by exposure “to anything male,” because their mere presence is “subliminally a rape threat,” a reminder of her membership in the “penetrable caste.”

Thus does the experience of the liberated woman — often had, yet never possessed — lead her to radicalism, toward hatred of men who have treated her as just another “dick-socket.” Being unloved by men has destroyed her ability to love them . . .

“She had never been with another woman before, but Draga knew her attraction to women was real. So, she yielded her lovely, long-legged girlishness to a passion she had never before experienced.”
Carol Emery, Queer Affair (1957)

A lifestyle once marginalized, depicted as strangely exotic — the steamy stuff of dancer Draga Hamilton’s “passion” with Jo Stanhope in the 1957 pulp novel Queer Affair — lesbianism is nowadays far more common, especially among young women who have grown weary of pervasive disappointment, exploitation and abuse in the “liberated” world of heterosexual hedonism.

Lesbianism as a political expression of feminist consciousness is less interesting than lesbianism as an exotic perversion. To be honest, radical politics doesn’t induce the kind of “shuddering and stiffening” reaction described by MacKinnon. Thus it is that feminists ruin everything: Having first ruined marriage by convincing women they were oppressed as suburban housewives, next they ruined fornication by their idiotic talk about “empowerment” and “liberation” until now, at last, they have even ruined lesbianism, which used to be weird, wild and sexy, but has become just another tedious political pose.

Hey, did I mention it’s National Offend a Feminist Week?

 





 

\

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • Cactus Ed

    Well, I certainly need to ‘bone up’ on these matters — to use an expression calculated to ‘stick it to’ any crazy feminazis who may be reading this, in keeping with my rule of no day without political incorrectness and in keeping with my growing realization that we need more pushback against the extremists and less civility, civility being reserved for the civil.

  • maniakmedic

    Yet again I would like to point out that if women would keep their legs shut the problems Radical Wind was complaining about (i.e. being thrown away after being used as a “dick socket”) would be almost non-existant. Sure, there will always be guys who are jerks, who would find a way to take advantage anyway, but most men don’t fit that description.

    The degradation of the concept of family, of growing up with the assumption that one will marry, have children, and watch their children repeat the cycle, has been the single most destructive force that has been brought to bear in our culture. Make sex a trivial thing and there is no reason to marry, no reason to sacrifice for someone else and learn that the sacrifice actually draws you closer together because it builds trust and love. It’s a depressing thing to see so many people be so selfish and then have the gall to blame it on other people when they aren’t happy.

  • Zohydro

    This!

  • concern00

    Yeah, I must admit, when I s?e?e? ?a? ?p?a?i?n?t?i?n?g? read an article like this, I get emotionally… erect.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Bloody brilliant – one of your best, Stacy.

  • Good Stuff

    Whatever advances female supremacy – THAT, for them, is the ticket! It needn’t be coherent or philosophically consistent, just so long as it licenses women to do whatever the hell they please

    radical feminism, to denigrate and imitate men

  • RKae

    There’s power in modesty. Real, life-changing, civilization-building power.

  • Patriot

    Damn that is some damn good gosh darn writing there McCain! Loved this piece.

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Adjoran

    Up until half a century or so ago, unhappy and maladjusted people had a number of choices. They could seek help through religion or counseling. Additionally, they could rededicate themselves to their families, their work, or another interest they held dear, and help in their own recovery. Or, of course, they could just dwell on their unhappiness, keeping them unhappy and darkening the existence of those around them, too.

    Feminism, while it has its unique and sordid history and artificially constructed philosophy (as McCain has been so meticulously explicating in recent weeks), is just one form of “identity politics.” For the identity groups, it’s not so much about a positive program as a simple formula:

    1. We have problems, we are aggrieved, we are unhappy.
    2. Our problems are NOT OUR FAULT!
    3. So they MUST be SOMEONE ELSE’S FAULT
    4. We must find them, blame them, and MAKE THEM PAY!

    Unfortunately for the identity bearers, this process is wholly unsatisfying. Even when the blameworthy have been identified and roundly blamed, and even in those circumstances where the blamed actually do pay in something besides their annoyance, it just isn’t enough. The pain doesn’t go away.

    So they redouble their efforts. They become louder, more shrill, more single-minded.

    They get all lathered up, never rinse, and keep repeating.

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Adjoran

    The following isn’t as off-topic as it might appear, because the effect of the test on the fields of Wymyn’s Studies or Gender Studies would be roughly equal to the last panel (Lit Crit having the distinction of having created an entire nonsensical jargon to no real purpose at all).

  • robertstacymccain

    Your analysis is correct. If sex is “liberated” — freed from all sense of obligation — there can be no incentive or expectation of sacrifice. To be “liberated” within a regime of “equality” means that men and women are constantly haggling over the price of sex as a commodity, yet never actually closing the deal. Sex is exchanged in the market, but the people never possess each other wholly.

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    Interesting how “patriarchal” these Lesbian Feminists are about penetration. Which is why in the classical world, male male interaction definitely looked down on the “bottom” position.

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady
  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady
  • Kirby McCain

    Would you say that these feminist professors are wise cracks?

  • scarymatt

    Whenever I read something like this, I recall all of the nature shows I’ve watched in my life, and I think how they must hate them. It seems like all leftist thought involves denying reality / nature at some level. These geniuses have just decided to deny the stuff that keeps life going.

  • Mm

    Why, it’s almost as if male-female dynamics were the result of a PLAN or something. “16 To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.” Genesis 3:16. And THIS is why many people hate God.

  • Mm

    Spot on. This is also why they hate religion, specifically, Christianity. Part and parcel of so-called modern reformations always involve the elimination of gender roles.

  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana

    The lovely Miss Dworkin wrote:

    There is never a real privacy of the body that can coexist with intercourse: with being entered. The vagina itself is muscled and the muscles have to be pushed apart. The thrusting is persistent invasion. She is opened up, split down the center. She is occupied — physically, internally, in her privacy. . . . .

    “There is no analogue anywhere among subordinated groups of people to this experience of being made for intercourse: for penetration, entry, occupation.

    That even our friends on the left agree with this is obvious, when you look at their oft-denied but nevertheless rather frequent attempts to ridicule male conservatives as having secret — or not-so-secret — homosexual longings. The conservative is ridiculed because he submits to having his muscles pushed apart in a persistent invasion.

    And, among male homosexuals, there is a definite pecking order — pun most definitely intended — where a “bottom” simply doesn’t get as much respect as a “top.”

  • texlovera

    MAJOR DITTOES.

  • texlovera

    They hate the “system”.
    They reject the “system”.
    Then they bitch because their is no replacement “system” that works.

    Boo-fuckin’-hoo, “ladies”….

  • jakee308

    “as soon as we wanted to be their ‘equals’”
    Translation: Started acting like bossy bitches

    If they don’t like men so much or believe men are afraid of them, why do they bother to worry about what men do or think?

    It’s like Atheists. They claim they’re better than those they descry. They claim they’re smarter and stronger than those they claim abuse them.

    They claim they have the answers.

    But what it really is is they’re driven by fear, rejection and anger that NO ONE CARES what they think or do or say.

    That’s what really has got them steamed up and on the warpath.

    I pretty much don’t like hipsters but I don’t go around making a big deal out of what they do or say because I DON’T CARE!!!!

    And that’s how rational people act.

  • Jeanette Victoria

    Damn I’m OLD I remember when gender was grammatical term

  • richard mcenroe

    I wouldn’t call it “shuddering”… unless a Mae West life preserver “shudders” when you pull the tab.

  • Quartermaster

    Still is. The left is misusing the term like they misuse everything else.

  • Quartermaster

    I denounce you.

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    But, what if his dick is a monster?

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    I tell my kids that, as recently as in the early sixties, when you saw a motorcycle goin’ down the highway with two guys on it, nobody made ‘gay’ jokes. It was normal and not considered to mean anything other than “Look, those guys are on a bike.”

  • Pingback: The Daley Gator | Are Feminist crazy? Wait, what am I saying, of course they are crazy

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    Just don’t joke about rape.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    As long as it dances, who cares…

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    Look an older guy and a younger guy, who are not related, are sleeping together.

    I guess that was normal in the 19th Century (just because most people could not afford their own hotel room), but still…

  • Bridget

    As maniakmedic sad below, the problem is women who screw men who can’t care about them.

    ““There is never a real privacy of the body that can coexist with intercourse: with being entered.”

    Stupid question: is there “real privacy of the body” for men during intercourse? Pardon my Catholic naïveté, but isn’t the entire point of the act that two people are naked before each other in body and in spirit? That there is a vulnerability that neither would permit with any other person save the spouse to whom they swore their very lives?

  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana

    Windy wrote:

    Also once I saw how everything men do is always directly or subliminally a rape threat and reminds us of our penetrable caste, I couldn’t bear being exposed to anything male, either in physical presence or in mediated ways (religion, ideology, media, art, etc, etc,). It re-triggers unconscious or conscious defence mechanisms to rape, PIV and sexualised invasion. It’s stressful and traumatising.

    I think that this deserves more attention, because it tells us something about the push toward lesbianism by the radical feminists. (I thought that the left had said that our sexual orientation was hard-wired into us from birth, immutable and unchangeable, but I suppose that’s only when it’s useful to their arguments.) Windy is saying that she cannot bear to interact with men, even in the least sexual of circumstances, because she cannot get sex out of her head.

    I’m of normal sexuality, but there are plenty, plenty! of women with whom I interact with no hint of sex involved: the teller who takes my weekly bank deposit, the check out person (can be male or female) at the grocery store, just lots of people, because I realize that not every, and really, not even most, intercourse with other people is not sexual in nature.

    But, not for Windy! If she takes her car into the garage for work, why that mechanic is thinking about copulating with her! If she goes to the grocery store, and the clerk is male, his mind’s eye is in her panties, mentally ravishing her, while the 77 year old pensioner waiting in line behind her is leering at her shapely ass. Is Windy just so supermodel good looking that no man can see her without wanting her?

    I’m not a psychologist, so I can’t put the right pathology name to it, but Windy has described reactions which would constitute some form of paraphilia; she just can’t get sex out of her head, regardless of the situation, and regardless of other people’s reactions.

  • Kirby McCain

    But but but it’s offend a feminist week.

  • Moneyrunner

    On a serious note, my take-away from the description of heterosexual intercourse provided by women like Dworkin is that they have never experienced good sex.

  • Pingback: ‘Homo Rapiens’: Anti-PIV RadFem Goes Total Moonbat on Climate Change : The Other McCain

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    Hey, it’s okay, man! The dood was like, his ward. So that makes it all totally appropriate and stuff.

  • robertstacymccain

    “I’m not a psychologist, so I can’t put the right pathology name to it . . .

    The name is “feminism.”

    Some crazy women go to therapy. Some of them go to feminism. It’s as simple as that, I think.

    But I definitely see what you mean about the pathological nature of her man-o-phobia. She is seriously damaged, psychologically, and I’m thinking she was probably crazy a long time before she ever became a feminist.

    If you’ll closely read her stuff where she talks about her past (and I’ve read all of that I could find), you know that the first time she really “fell in love” with a man (or “trauma-bonded,” as she would say, channeling Dee Graham) she was still a teenager and the guy was 13 years older than her.

    OK, what kind of 16-year-old (and the age is just a guess, because she doesn’t say) falls in love with a 29-year-old? Answer: A crazy girl.

    And what kind of teenage girl carries on an affair with this older boyfriend, on-and-off, whenever he gets a mind to see her, for two years? Same answer: A crazy girl.

    It seems to me she probably came from a dysfunctional family background, probably her parents were divorced or never married, and however much “parenting” she got, it didn’t involve good role models or clear guidelines.

    So she grew up crazy, and had a wretched life as a heterosexual, discovered feminism somewhere along the way, and all this theoretical stuff that she has been writing about became the script by which she rationalized who she was and what happened to her. But the bottom line is still: She’s crazy.

    But there are no sane feminists, are there?

  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana

    Which begs the rather obvious question: if they’re all just plain nuts, when you closely “read all of that (you) could find,” what does that do to you? :)

  • Emery Calame

    I think they are in twin beds though. At least they have two head boards. In any case one is supposed to be the traumatized and recently orphaned ward of the other.

  • Emery Calame

    “just so long as it licenses women to do whatever the hell they please”

    It doesn’t do that at all. In fact it attempts to herd all women into a class and then directs them to either follow whatever fads and trends are approved of by the radfem leadership or be labeled as pernicious enemies of the class, patriarchal dupes, and obstacles to “liberation” and the aims of the revolution.

  • Pingback: #NOAFW Want to get a ton of hipster ass? Make a video about how much wite guys suck | Critical Mass

  • Blackened144

    “But, not for Windy! If she takes her car into the garage for work, why that mechanic is thinking about copulating with her!”

    Not only that, but driving her car into the garage, is too much like PIV.

  • Pingback: University Shuts Down Women’s Center After ‘How to Be a Lesbian’ Controversy : The Other McCain