The Other McCain

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

The Madness of ‘Gender Theory’

Posted on | August 21, 2014 | 56 Comments

Feminists and friends of Amy Austin (@amymarieaustin) have spent the past day-and-a-half chastising me on Twitter for the tone and content of Wednesday’s post, “Feminism Repeats Itself, the First Time as Tragedy, the Second Time as Farce.” It may help to examine the “gender theory” gibberish piled into Ms. Austin’s 995-word screed entitled “Patriarchy and the Problem of Being Born Female.”

Having spent the past several months immersed in a study of radical feminism, my antennae automatically alert to the word “patriarchy,” a sort of dye-marker for radicalism. Most people who think of themselves as “feminists” are not radicals, defining their understanding of feminism in vague terms of “equality” and “choice,” signifying opposition to whatever it is they consider “sexism.”

However, when people start talking about patriarchy and male supremacy, when they speak of the systemic oppression of women — well, at that point, you can be reasonably certain you’re talking to a radical feminist. And gender theory is a spawn of this radicalism.

Attempting to explain gender theory to normal people is like attempting to explain a schizophrenic’s delusions to sane people. Normal men are masculine in the most common-sense understanding of that word, and normal women are feminine. Because the meanings of male/masculine and female/feminine are so obvious, from a common-sense point of view, normal people take these categories for granted.

However, radical feminists are not normal people. They are intellectuals, and the most eminent feminist intellectuals have spent the past four decades denouncing the common sense of normal people when it comes to men, women and sex. Anything that normal people believe about sex is a myth, according to feminist intellectuals, and in place of our oppressive patriarchal myths, they offer us feminist ideology and gender theory. Their hostile critique of normality (for that it is what it boils down to) is couched in a pretentious academic jargon, with which Amy Austin’s 995-word rant is replete:

Social constructions of gender, like power, stem from patriarchal ideologies . . .
Environmentally speaking, gender is independent of sex . . . and signifies the social constructedness of what maleness and femaleness mean in a given culture. The hierarchy that implicitly positions men above women due to reproductive difference, is a harmful one. . . . .

No normal person talks this way. People must be taught to babble this ideological nonsense, which always reminds me of George Orwell’s aphorism: “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that; no ordinary man could be such a fool.”

It is not necessary, nor is it my purpose here, to dismantle and disprove Ms. Austin’s claims about “the social constructedness of what maleness and femaleness mean.” It is enough to say, in reply, that most educated people are opposed to an excessively rigid system of “gender roles.” We don’t wish to unnecessarily limit people’s career choices, nor do we go around shouting hateful slurs and epithets at people who are, as the feminists would say, gender atypical. At the same time, however, most people are basically normal — masculine men and feminine women — and don’t think of their normality as part of a harmful, oppressive hierarchy.

Radical feminism’s war on human nature is an attempt to redefine what we believe about men and women and sex, and to do so in order to destroy everything normal about men and women and sex. Radical feminism envisions an androgynous future, where human beings are more or less identical and interchangeable units, where there are no meaningful differences between men and women. This is the radical meaning of “sexual equality,” and if it is an impossible goal, its ultimate futility will not prevent feminists from destroying the happiness of normal people in pursuit of this doomed radical project.

So now, here is the concluding paragraph of Amy Austin’s rant:

It is not simple anatomy which is harmful to children, it is the forced gender roles which we assign to the sexes that harm them from birth. It is telling girls that they are inherently inferior; it is telling them that they are responsible for becoming victims of sexual assault or violence; it is teaching them that their vulvas are ‘dirty’ whilst men’s sexual parts are ‘something to be proud of’; it is teaching boys that they need to “man up”; it is teaching them that they are allowed to be violent in certain circumstances; and is it teaching them that women are enticing objects of sexual desire. We must begin to educate our sons, we must stop blaming our daughters for dressing “inappropriately” and encourage our sons to respect not only themselves, but their female counterparts. The term ‘gender’ needs to be abolished. Only then might we be able to move away from a society that fundamentally relies upon patriarchy, to one where we talk freely of female biology and remove the negative connotations that surround the term ‘female.’

Notice anything about that paragraph? First-person plural pronouns — “We must . . . our sons . . . our daughters . . . our sons.”

Yet Amy Austin is an unmarried college student who has no sons or daughters, nor does it seem likely that she will be procreating anytime soon, so that these first-person plural pronouns amount to her lecturing other people about how to raise their children.

Her lecture includes many false accusations; I assure you that my daughters have not been taught “that they are inherently inferior” or “that their vulvas are ‘dirty,'” and exactly who is Ms. Austin blaming for the “negative connotations” of “female”? Perhaps other people are not offended to encounter insulting lectures from these young fanatics who suppose that their ability to mimic the jargon of radical ideologues makes them qualified to pass judgment on the lives of people they don’t know. Perhaps others are content to ignore the fact that the madness of “gender theory” is being promulgated at taxpayer expense at public universities, where no member of the faculty or administration dares speak a word in opposition to the radical feminist agenda.

“PIV is always rape, OK?”

It was necessary, in response to one of Ms. Austin’s defenders, to recall how and why I began this long exploration of feminist theory, and the anti-male/anti-heterosexual rant of “Radical Wind” was the starting point. Of course, I’ve been critical of feminism for many years. (Since 2009, we have celebrated the week before Mother’s Day as “National Offend a Feminist Week.”) But the “War on Women” theme of the 2012 presidential election, the rhetoric about “rape culture” surrounding the Steubenville case, and the 2013 Kaitlyn Hunt lesbian molestation case had the cumulative effect of making clear it was time to begin “Taking Feminism Seriously”:

Some of my fiercest arguments over the years have been with Republican women who argue on behalf of an oxymoron, “conservative feminism,” a thing that is as ridiculous as it is impossible. Real feminism is entirely a left-wing phenomenon, and Republicans who think they can cherry-pick seemingly inoffensive items from feminism’s radical agenda are deluded. . . .
Trying to disabuse Republicans of this “conservative feminist” delusion doesn’t make me popular with certain feeble-minded superficial people, but that’s OK. I know what feminism is, I know what conservatism is, and the two things are fundamentally incompatible, no matter what anyone tries to tell you.

You can read the whole thing. Feminism’s social, cultural and political impact had become newsworthy, a sort of constant background hum that occasionally flared up into the headlines, while the movement’s deeper ideology went unexamined.

“Feminism defines patriarchy as an unjust social system that is oppressive to women. As feminist and political theorist Carole Pateman writes, ‘The patriarchal construction of the difference between masculinity and femininity is the political difference between freedom and subjection.’ In feminist theory the concept of patriarchy . . . often includes all the social mechanisms that reproduce and exert male dominance over women. Feminist theory typically characterizes patriarchy as a social construction, which can be overcome by revealing and critically analyzing its manifestations.”
Wikipedia

Every serious student of feminism is aware of the influence of Marxism and lesbian radicalism on feminist theory, but most conservative political commentators are not serious students of feminism. They are interested in feminism only as it affects elections — the so-called “gender gap” — and do not bother to examine feminist theory as it is developed and promulgated in Women’s Studies programs. This lack of critical scrutiny toward feminist theory results in a failure to ask the key question: “What does ‘feminism’ mean?”

When it is pointed out that, for example, the most widely assigned anthology of feminist literature is edited by three lesbian professors, or that the communications coordinator of the Feminist Majority Foundation is a self-declared “raging lesbian feminist,” many people who consider themselves “feminists” are quick to protest that this sort of radicalism is not what they support. Despite the schisms and factions within the feminist movement, however, the radical influence has steadily gathered strength since the 1990s, when the Clarence Thomas hearings and the Navy’s “Tailhook” scandal focused attention on sexual harassment. And in the wake of the 2013 Supreme Court decision in Windsor v. United States, the most extreme voices of radical lesbianism have become increasingly more persistent in declaring that heterosexuality is inherently oppressive to women:

Sex for men is the unilateral penetration of their penis into a woman . . . 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.
[I]ntercourse 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 [penis-in-vagina, i.e., heterosexual intercourse]. 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.

This was the Radical Wind rant that inspired widespread mockery from conservatives, but despite the laughter — “Was she dropped on her head?” — the doctrine this deranged young woman was expressing is actually taught in nearly every Women’s Studies program in the United States, where some 90,00 students are enrolled annually. Radical Wind was able to list the sources of her anti-male analysis, including Mary Daly, Dee Graham, Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffreys, all of whom are or were tenured professors and feminist authors whose works have been widely cited in the field of Women’s Studies. Radical Wind could have cited any number of other sources (Charlotte Bunch, Adrienne Rich, Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon, et al.) as authorities for her denunciation of heterosexuality. Examine the syllabus of the introductory Women’s Studies class at almost any university, and good luck finding any that don’t include such radical authors. At Berea College in Kentucky, for example, a 2012 syllabus for “Classic Texts in Women’s Studies” (WST 315) included assigned readings by both Adrienne Rich and Mary Daly, as well as other lesbian feminist theorists like Audre Lorde, Judith Butler and Gayle Rubin.

My background familiarity with feminist theory informed my answer to the obvious question about Radical Wind: Is she crazy?

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 become 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.

“The personal is political” has been a feminist slogan for more than 40 years, and it is therefore impossible to separate the personal experiences of these women from their political theories. As I explained Thursday on Twitter to feminist Emily Stockman:

The point is to understand feminist theory as what it actually is, a rationalization and substitute for therapy, i.e., “I’m not a misfit. I’m not unlucky. I’m not overweight. I’m politically oppressed! I’m a VICTIM OF THE PATRIARCHY!

All human beings have problems in life. However, only women have access to the ready-made rationalizations of feminism, an elaborate belief system that offers them a political explanation for their problems, permitting them to believe that their shortcomings, failures, hardships and disappointments can all be blamed on male domination. Whatever problems she experiences in her relationships with men, whatever her career difficulties or her negative feelings about herself, at every turn feminist theory is there to teach an unhappy woman that her heartbreaks and struggles are ultimately the fault of a vast patriarchal conspiracy that oppresses women.

Feminism’s core theory is either true or it’s false. One must either accept and defend radical feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual worldview, or else reject and condemn it. What is happening in our education system today, however, is that radical feminism is being promoted by intellectuals in environments where criticism and opposition are not permitted. The victims of this ideological indoctrination are, in many cases, mentally ill women — like Amy Austin who, while suffering from severe depression, has evidently embraced feminist “gender theory” as the panacea for her problems.

The accusation by Ms. Austin’s defenders that my criticism of her widely-praised essay amounted to “harassment” actually proves my point: Such is the current climate on campus that it is now considered harassment even to disagree with a feminist.

It is not for me to decide for Amy Austin or anyone else whether they should accept or reject feminism. However, I feel an obligation to ensure that no one is mistaken about the core meaning of the feminist idea. As Richard Weaver warned, Ideas Have Consequences, and the consequences of radical feminism — for individuals, as for our society as a whole — may be very serious indeed.




 

 

THE ‘SEX TROUBLE’ SERIES:

 

Comments

56 Responses to “The Madness of ‘Gender Theory’”

  1. maniakmedic
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 1:46 pm

    I would be considered “gender atypical.” I love typically male hobbies (gaming, shooting, outdoors activities, playing sports, etc.), I have pixie cut hair (think Mia Farrow in Rosemary’s Baby, though a tad shorter), and while I wear women’s clothing, I try to keep it as neutral as possible (it’s hard but doable). While my mother found this uber tomboy mindset to be worthy of derision, I’ve never had any very conservative people treat me like a pariah.

    I’m also hopelessly heterosexual. There may have been a point in my life when I could have been made to believe I was a lesbian, but I doubt it would have ever gone far for various reasons.

    It is entirely possible to live one’s life as the odd one out. Is it comfortable? No. Is it easy? Not usually. You feel alone much of the time and completely invisible to all but the most desperate of the opposite sex, but it is possible to be “gender atypical” without turning into a nutso shrieking harpy.

  2. Phil_McG
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 1:54 pm

    forced gender roles which we assign to the sexes that harm them from birth. It is telling girls that they are inherently inferior; it is telling them that they are responsible for becoming victims of sexual assault or violence; it is teaching them that their vulvas are ‘dirty’ whilst men’s sexual parts are ‘something to be proud of’

    *TRIGGER WARNING!*

    This is, to use a technical term, bollocks. Just an ideological word slurry of preposterous assertions, for which she offers no evidence because there is none to support it.

    So, par for the course for “academic” feminism.

    one where we talk freely of female biology and remove the negative connotations that surround the term ‘female.’

    I believe the word I am looking for is “pish”.

    Who is stopping her from talking freely about female biology? Nobody is.

    Negative connotations surrounding the term ‘female’? Please. Women are exalted – not oppressed – in western societies. The writer of this nonsense is typical – a white, middle class, university educated girl crying about how hard she thinks her life is. Give me a break.

    People like this are so “oppressed” by the patriarchy that they feel entitled to scream “harrassment” when someone calls out their nonsensical screeds, and have an army of e-feminists and white knight manginas appear to defend them from being criticised.

  3. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 2:00 pm
  4. Depression: Personal advice from Robert Stacy McCain to Amy Austin | Batshit Crazy News
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 2:04 pm

    […] The Madness of Gender Theory (seriously Amy, run don’t walk from radical feminism, it is not going to […]

  5. DeadMessenger
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 2:28 pm

    There are some interesting quotes in this article.

    First, from Amy Austin: “The term ‘gender’ needs to be abolished.” This is what happens when you’re a kid and you think you’re so smart and cosmopolitan. Years ago, feminists insisted that we abolish the word “sex” when referring to either male or female, and use “gender” instead. Now Ms. Austin wants to abolish “gender”, too? What would she propose instead? When you inquire about your acquaintance’s newborn, and what you really want to know is whether the baby is a boy or a girl, do you ask what chromosome pairs the child has? Amy doesn’t understand that, like it or not, normal people view themselves through the lens of their “gender”, and no stupid thing she says will change that.

    And while Amy Austin is just an idiot kid who mistakenly thinks she knows stuff, by contrast Breaking Wind is more than likely clinically insane.

    Referring to PIV as “rape” whether the woman (i.e., “receptacle”) “thinks she wants it or not” makes no sense whatsoever. I might point out to her that the same applies to a lesbian who “thinks she wants” to lick carpet or not.

  6. Stogie Chomper
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 2:29 pm

    “PIV is always rape, OK?”

    Feminism is always nuts, OK?

  7. DeadMessenger
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 2:30 pm

    And for that matter, a lesbian is also a “receptacle” when her girlfriend decides to give her a hand job. Or apply any number of various “toys” to the process.

    Perhaps we should now say that “FIV” (fingers in vagina) is also rape.

  8. Jeanette Victoria
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 2:52 pm

    Has anyone listed just how many well known feminists were in fact diagnosed with mental illness?

  9. Dean Esmay
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 3:24 pm

    I used to defend what I called “real” feminists from the “radicals.” Then I realized that in reality, when the “non-hateful” feminists refused to go after the hateful dishonest ideologues who control billions of dollars of very destructive ideological spending, and were content instead to say “well that’s not me” all they were doing was giving cover to and legitimacy to a very powerful and destructive hate movement.

  10. robertstacymccain
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 3:28 pm

    Indeed, it’s like “moderate Islam.” Exactly what are these alleged moderates doing to oppose the dangerous hate-filled radicals?

  11. maniakmedic
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 3:30 pm

    That’s exactly the thought I had.

  12. DukeLax
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 3:36 pm

    I don’t think American gender-feminists are going to be happy, until all females have a sex change operation to be a male…and all males have a sex change operation to be a female….and then after that they will will still find something to complain about.

  13. maniakmedic
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 3:37 pm

    Well, one thing about that is that it would certainly not be a problem anymore after one generation.

  14. Durasim
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 3:38 pm

    One feminist (in this case a “male” feminist) was nice enough to explain that radical feminists must have “intellectual space to be anti-male” so that they can conjure up their brilliant feminist doctrines without patriarchal encumbrance.

    http://amptoons.com/blog/2009/03/30/the-intellectual-space-to-be-anti-male-is-necessary-and-desirable/

  15. maniakmedic
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 3:39 pm

    So I take it he hasn’t been laid in a while and he thinks this is going to get him some feminist nookie.

  16. DukeLax
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 3:40 pm

    Gender-feminist nut jobs ( Google meg Lankers)…are one thing, let them rant in their circle of fellow genders…..But it takes it to a whole other level when gender-feminist hysterics demand that American law enforcement manufacture faulty and inflammatory statistics for them, that they can “Inflame” their way to empowerment with.

  17. concern00
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 3:42 pm

    In her attempts to tell us all how to parent, I do believe Ms Amy Austin is doing an awful lot of projecting.

  18. DukeLax
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 3:45 pm

    So let me get this straight…15 years ago, gender-feminist hysterics demanded society start using the word “Gender” instead of the word “Sez “…and now she’s demanding we no longer use the word “gender”??? I must ask…who has given these gender-feminists the power to demand we use whatever words they tell us to use???

  19. Durasim
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 3:45 pm

    The author of that post is some guy named Barry Deutsch. Google his name. Once you see a picture, we can probably agree that he gave up hope for that decades ago. He is probably perfectly content just being the fat friend who chirps “you go girl.”
    Same thing goes for David Futrelle.

  20. DukeLax
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 3:47 pm

    Who gave American gender-feminists the power to demand we use whatever terms they tell us to use???

  21. Kauf Buch
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 3:54 pm

    OMG OMG OMG that picture SAYS IT ALL:
    feminism is not the end – but the reversal of the “oppression”!

    EAT IT, BITCH…but it seems you’ve eaten more than enough, already.

  22. Eric Ashley
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 5:21 pm

    Welcome. I use to hang my hat at your place.

    Under a pseud, now I just let my tongue and real name hang out the window as I go places…

  23. wakjob
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 5:43 pm

    One gives them the power every time one goes along to get along.

  24. wakjob
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 5:46 pm

    oh but it doesn’t. a lesbian is not a man. a lesbian is a member of the ‘oppressed’ good-guy team, not the ‘oppressor’ bad-guy team. that’s the whole point.

  25. McGehee
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 5:55 pm

    ‘Twould be quicker to list those that haven’t, methinks.

  26. McGehee
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 5:56 pm

    They think they should be able to boss men around without marrying them first.

  27. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 6:00 pm

  28. Jeanette Victoria
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 6:18 pm

    When I was a kid one learned about gender when one took a Romance language. It’s just another wotd hijacked by degenerates and redefined.

  29. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 7:09 pm

    The crazy part is RSM is so mean for dismissing gender theory and the media is ignoring that there is a religious movement out there trying to murder gays (hint it is not Christianity). http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2014/08/american-jihadist-ali-muhammad-brown.html

  30. Gregg Braddoch
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 7:09 pm

    “Years ago, feminists insisted that we abolish the word ‘sex’ when referring to either male or female, and use ‘gender’ instead.”

    The end goal is to not recognize the biological differences between male and female at all. (Everyone should act the same, and from a feminist perspective, the way women want people to act). This is why the term “gender roles” was coined – to separate people’s actions from their biological gender.

    It’s absurd to think that “gender roles” are not influenced at all by biological gender, but this is what Gender Theory holds to be true. (Unless your gender is male, then your biology automatically makes you predatory toward the female gender).

  31. Zohydro
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 7:48 pm

    “FIV” aka foot in vagina… Yes, it’s a thing too, now!

    We did that here at TOM some time ago…

    TIV, DIV, PIA, etc.—the possible permutations were almost infinite!

  32. Zohydro
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 7:51 pm

    P.S. Back to the fleur-de-lis avatar, DM? I like the spray-painted nun now that I understand what it is!

  33. K-Bob
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 7:55 pm

    Someone could write an illustrated book about that. Maybe using something as a stand-in for the issue of Feminism, like, ohh, say a star on the belly.

    Yeah, I’m warming up to this. I just need to find an amusing illustrator of children’s books to help me with the pictures.

  34. K-Bob
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 7:57 pm

    I know what you mean.

    The era of “real” feminists didn’t last very long. The only major holdouts are Phyllis Chesler and to whatever extent she wants to own it, Camille Paglia.

  35. Zohydro
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 8:05 pm

    This rant at the Puffington Host against Michelle Duggar is a scream, if you have the time:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-j-moss/michelle-duggar-transgender-rights_b_5695326.html

  36. jenny2
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 8:12 pm

    Back in the day . . . way back in the day. I considered myself a feminist. . . then I gave birth to two sons. Viva la difference!! What I discovered was feminism is a lot of crap invented to create another victim industry and money stream. It’s always about the benjamins.

  37. maniakmedic
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 8:31 pm

    But Christians think homosexuality is a sin, which is totes worse than stringing them up! Get with the times, Evi! It’s worse to not validate somebody’s choices than it is to kill them for those same choices. Holy crap these really are the end times.

  38. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 9:03 pm

    The insanity is the left loves to judge everyone they disagree with and then freak out if we make any judgments about them. Meanwhile there are groups actually murdering women and gays and there is nothing but crickets from these same feminists and gay groups.

  39. Käthe
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 9:36 pm

    Why are they so obsessed with Michelle Duggar? It’s kind if hilarious in a sad way.

  40. Daniel O'Brien
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 10:08 pm

    She is using strawmen for antagonists (just like our Dear Leader). Must be a Loony Left thing.

  41. DeadMessenger
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 10:30 pm

    On Disqus, it shows up as the nun. But on this site, it shows up as the old one. I’m put out about it, mostly because I can’t figure out why. It’s only when I use my iPad, as I’m doing now. When I use my desktop or laptop, the nun shows up. Stupid Apple! Stupid Microsoft! Stupid computers!

  42. Zohydro
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 10:35 pm
  43. Zohydro
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 10:37 pm

    It’s Disqus, I’m sure…

  44. DeadMessenger
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 10:48 pm

    Yes, it was. Done and done!

  45. MGTOW-man
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 11:23 pm

    They will get by with whatever otherwise sensible people allow.

  46. MGTOW-man
    August 22nd, 2014 @ 11:31 pm

    The phrase “penis envy” sums up their misguided behavior. The compound term should have never been abandoned. I think it was though because it hurts the female’s feelings.

    Eggshells, I tell you.

    We must not let them toss eggshells to our feet.

  47. maniakmedic
    August 23rd, 2014 @ 1:41 am

    She’s the uber antithesis of everything they stand for: a decent Christian woman who loves children and, if you extrapolate from that, apparently loves her husband. A lot. She’s practically a walking advertisement for the patriarchy in the eyes of the “don’t punish me with a kid”/”PIV is always rape” set. And she has the unmitigated gall to be happy about it. And to advertise to the whole world that she’s happy.

  48. concern00
    August 23rd, 2014 @ 4:48 am

    Men and women are equal in much the same way an orange and an apple are equal. Yes, they’re both fruits.

  49. robertstacymccain
    August 23rd, 2014 @ 2:22 pm

    Yep. We had a girl first. Then we had twin sons. The obvious INNATE difference — if you can’t see it, you’re blind. Boys and girls are different and, insofar as they are different, are not “equal.”

  50. Daniel Freeman
    August 23rd, 2014 @ 2:23 pm

    Sane, normal and happy women don’t become feminists.

    That goes double for men. As I’ve said elsewhere, feminist men are basically approval beggars in a Skinner box (ref. operant conditioning); it isn’t the “box” they wanted, but it’s the one they got.