The Other McCain

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

Reading Feminist Theory …

Posted on | August 23, 2014 | 124 Comments

. . . so you don’t have to!

Shulamith Firestone, circa 1970

“Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. We are exploited as sex objects, breeders, domestic servants, and cheap labor. We are considered inferior beings, whose only purpose is to enhance men’s lives. . . . Our prescribed behavior is enforced by the threat of physical violence. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . .
“We regard our personal experience, and our feelings about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation. We cannot rely on existing ideologies as they are all products of male supremacist culture. We question every generalization and accept none that are not confirmed by our experience.”

Redstockings, “Manifesto,” July 7, 1969

There was a nice boost of tip-jar hitters last week, mostly in response to the complete triumph over Brett Kimberlin in the Maryland state lawsuit. Somewhere, there is online audio of the trial testimony, including me reading from “How to Get a Million Hits on Your Blog.” Readers have also been both patient and generously encouraging with my “Sex Trouble” series about radical feminism. Putting together these long articles (some of them over 2,000 words in length) is time-consuming, because of the amount of research involved. Ultimately, I plan to compile and edit this series into an ebook, but for now, I’m getting so deep into the research that I’m sure I’ve already read more of this stuff than the average Women’s Studies major.

Today, I ordered $108 worth of feminist books from Amazon, including two early classics, Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics and Shulamith Firestone’s The Dialectic of Sex. I’d previously read extensive excerpts of these, but I want to have them both in their dead-tree entirety, simply because that’s how I work best. I’ve also ordered books by lesbian feminists Jill Johnston, Marilyn Frye, Sue Wilkinson and Dana Heller, as well as Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives by radical feminist psychologist Dee Graham.

That last title is important, in terms of the theme of my series, because Graham’s ideas about male “Sexual Terror” provided much of theory behind Radical Wind’s anti-heterosexual rant, “PIV is always rape, OK?” She expanded on Graham’s theory in August 2013:

No woman is heterosexual. What men call heterosexuality is an institution where men make women captive for PIV, to control our reproductive functions and steal our labour. Heterosexuality, or sexuality with men does not exist, because the only relationship to men that exists is men’s violence, physical and mental invasion — one that men have so well crafted and disguised for so long that we can mistake it for attraction, sexual urges or love. All women’s “attraction” to men is 100% eroticised trauma bonding / stockholm syndrome. There is no other form of attraction to men possible than that. None.

This is a categorical claim; one must either agree or disagree. Radical Wind cites Dee Graham by name four times in this single post, elaborating on the esoteric meaning of Graham’s theory:

All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. Men’s world is like a vast prison or concentration camp for women. This isn’t a metaphor, it’s reality. Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men. We are forced to depend on men and male infrastructures for our survival.

Radical Wind says women “are programmed and groomed to react in this way to male threat since birth,” part of what she calls her “female child-grooming theory,” which leads (by the inherent logic of the crazy premises she establishes along the way) to the conclusion that women’s feeling of attraction and emotional bonds to men are actually symptomatic of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Now, there are two things immediately obvious from her claims:

  1. She is comparing the development of heterosexual orientation in women to the way in which pedophiles “groom” their child-victims. Does anyone believe this insulting comparison is accidental? No, of course not. She clearly means to suggest that male sexual interest in women is morally analogous to a pedophile’s interest in children, and that women are victimized by men in the same way that children are victimized by sex offenders.
  2. Any woman who does not reject heterosexuality, who thinks of her own sexual and romantic interest in males as natural and healthy, is suffering from a sort of psychiatric delusion. If a woman believes she genuinely enjoys sex with men, if she is “in love” with her male partner, this simply shows that she is a victim of PTSD — “trauma bonding” — and childhood “grooming.”

Radical Wind makes these arguments with such fanatical certainty that, as I say, we must either agree or disagree. Compromise is impossible.

There is an undeniably totalitarian quality to her ideological rigidity; she declares her doctrines in the manner of a dictator issuing an ultimatum. And if you disagree — as I think every sane person must —  you might say to yourself, “Well, that’s just one kook on the Internet.”

Except you’re wrong. She’s not alone in believing this. In 2011, a radical feminist known as CherryBlossomLife cited Dee Graham in asking, “Can Women Escape From Men?” The answer was no, and you can go check the comments to see whether any of her feminist readers disagreed with her radical analysis. She was enthusiastically praised:

“First of all,that’s an excelent post Cherry!. . “

“Thanks, Cherry, for summarizing this. . . .”

“Courageous post. Keep telling the truth! I really wish womyn understood that it’s in their best interest to leave men. . . .”

“Fantastic, measured, informative post – as always, Cherry. Thanks so much for taking the time to write this. . . .”

Are there feminists who disagree with this extreme anti-male doctrine? Where are they? Where are the harsh denunciations of radical feminism from “moderate” feminists? And if they don’t denounce such extremism, aren’t they tacitly endorsing it?

Moderate feminism is a myth. One might as well believe in unicorns or leprechauns as to believe in moderate feminism. What feminists believe today, what they will believe tomorrow and forever, is the same thing that Shulamith Firestone’s group Redstockings declared in 1969: “Women are an oppressed class. . . . We identify the agents of our oppression as men.” The minute a woman says that she does not believe this — if she rejects the claim that men (collectively) oppress women (collectively) under the system of male domination known as patriarchy — then she is not actually a feminist, no matter what she may call herself.

If there are, however, women who call themselves “feminist” who wish to argue against the anti-male/anti-heterosexual doctrines of radical feminism, how would they go about making such arguments? With facts? With logic? With empirical data? Impossible!

“We regard our personal experience, and our
feelings about that experience, as the basis
for an analysis of our common situation.”

If each woman’s own “personal experiences” and her “feelings about that experience” are the only possible basis for analysis, there can be no objectivity, no neutral facts, no empirical method.

If it is her experience that 2 + 2 = 5, if a woman feels that 2 + 2 = 5, then anyone who says 2 + 2 = 4 is obviously trying to enslave her to the oppressive mathematics of male supremacy.

Feminism tells women that if they feel oppressed, they are oppressed. If a woman doesn’t feel oppressed, feminism tells her she’s wrong.

Flip a coin: Heads, feminists win. Tails, you’re a victim of the patriarchy.

+ – + – + – + – +

At any rate, the folks at Amazon — greedy capitalist exploiters! — demanded that I pay actual money for those feminist books, refusing to accept my Patriarchal Express Platinum Card. Therefore, in order to continue my campaign of male supremacist oppression, I must remind you of the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:







124 Responses to “Reading Feminist Theory …”

  1. Orson OLSON
    August 26th, 2014 @ 4:54 am

    And yet “rape culture” isn’t culture at all – only determinism. Thus ceasing to be serious analysis at all.

  2. JohnD
    August 26th, 2014 @ 7:29 am

    1+1=10 in binary
    1+1=2 in decimal

    Those are absolute truths. Just because you changed the definition of a word, in this case “2” to “10” by using a different dictionary, doesn’t change the truth of the original statement.

    BTW, there is no such thing as “2” or “4” in binary. Those symbols simply don’t exist. The concept of 2 and 4, (10 and 100, respectively) does exist. And mean exactly the same thing as it does in decimal.

  3. Aletha Kuschan
    August 26th, 2014 @ 10:02 am

    I haven’t been living under a rock, but I have been raising a child and I spent many years caring for my elderly parents before their deaths. And I meet idealistic young people and find them to be very charming and know that of course they’ll have to learn about life by experience like everyone else. Events look different when your face is stuck in a newspaper verses when you are simply living. And as I noted already, I don’t find feminism at all pervasive in the culture though it has been influential in the current White House politics. However, given the stagnant economy, I suspect that people are growing weary of the current brand of politics.

  4. Aletha Kuschan
    August 26th, 2014 @ 10:08 am

    I have never been afraid to challenge feminist ideas, it’s just that I rarely encounter them in real life. As far as I can judge, feminism is a tempest in the academic teapot. Outside of the university, it has little influence.

  5. submandave
    August 26th, 2014 @ 10:53 am

    And the thing that really ties their panties in a knot is that the only way womyn have escaped this oppression is because MEN voted to allow them to.

  6. KS
    August 26th, 2014 @ 1:24 pm

    I take issue with the idea that keeping someone out of situations where they’ll be tested is “benefitting” them. Everything else you said is right on the money.

    -Karen Straughan

  7. louis_wheeler
    August 26th, 2014 @ 10:52 pm

    If absolute truth exists, it operates independent of our beliefs. It need not prove a thing; it just stings like a bitch when you disobey it. If there is no absolute truth of gravity, then stepping off a 100 story building won’t harm you.

    Other truths are more subtle, they can be the difference between whether you starve to death or not. Or you build a meaningless life for yourself, if you can find someone willing to feed, cloth and shelter you.

    Personally, I think you will perish in the next great depression with all the other worthless people. It isn’t as though you have anything worth trading with another person.

  8. louis_wheeler
    August 26th, 2014 @ 11:14 pm

    Why are you so certain that absolute truth does not exist? How can you prove that?

    We don’t need an absolute picture of physical reality to know that some things will kill you. Stupidity will kill you. Make believe will kill you. False economic theories will kill you. The results of deficit financing will kill you.

    But, you are depending on the fact that rational people in society have removed most of the dangerous items from out of your grasp. And rough men have died to keep the ISIS, and their ilk, from redecorating you throat.

    The problem is that the government over the last century has been dismantling the economic safeguards, removing the social fool proofs, breaking down the rule of law and corrupting the money supply. People with common sense won’t be harmed by that, having prepared. But, idiots can find endless ways of offing themselves. Dangerous times are ahead for people who can’t think.

  9. louis_wheeler
    August 26th, 2014 @ 11:30 pm

    Then the trends say that the only people who will marry and procreate will be Christians in the Red States who are having 3.5 children per woman. The demographics are rather clear. Leftists in the big Blue Cities are having about 1 child per woman. Feminists not only hate men, but children. It only takes two generations of that birth rate disparity to render the Left politically powerless.

  10. louis_wheeler
    August 26th, 2014 @ 11:48 pm

    Child birth, before modern medicine, was risky enough for women, 30% of mothers died.

    Women tend to be risk adverse; that is one of their best qualities. I suggest you look up Plato’s categorizing people as wolves, sheep or sheep dogs. Wolves prey on people, sheep run away from danger, sheepdogs run toward it. Few woman are sheepdogs; not many men are either. Men have always done the risky tasks and still do.

    Feminists are pushing a false sense of equality; It is Marx’s class struggle as applied to the sexes. The Class Struggle is absurd, because the competition is always within a class for the best jobs, best workers, best markets, best customers, etc.

    Men and women have different social roles. Both are necessary.

  11. KS
    August 26th, 2014 @ 11:52 pm

    Agreed. The primary difference between then and now is that then men were called necessary, and now they’re called oppressors.

  12. louis_wheeler
    August 26th, 2014 @ 11:54 pm

    We must thank these women for removing themselves from the gene pool. At birth, 105 boys are born for every hundred girls. They are equal in numbers at one year old and 94 adult males at 20. Things get worse from then on.

    Some women will never marry and have children. Thank you, feminists for removing yourselves.

  13. louis_wheeler
    August 27th, 2014 @ 12:07 am

    Call us anything you like. We’re big boys, we can take it. Do you really think that we listen to you?

    Life has this nasty habit of deciding what is necessary. Political power can often distort an economy and grant special privileges to favored groups, such as Leftist, Homosexuals and Feminists.

    Then, along comes a depression and sets things aright. Who will pay for women’s studies when all the local, state and federal governments are bankrupt?

    What was necessary before becomes necessary again. Uncle Sugar makes for an incompetent daddy.

  14. KS
    August 27th, 2014 @ 12:23 am

    i prefer to call men human beings. It’s up to the individual as to whether they listen to me or not.

    And agreed again, that life has a nasty habit of deciding what is necessary, but when a government can print money at will and still not balance the budget, I can’t imagine the coming wake-up call will be pleasant for anyone.

    Uncle Sugar has put a fourth mortgage on the house to finance his daughter’s Sweet Sixteen. I have two sons and a daughter who are inheriting this mess, and I’m not so sanguine as to say “things will work out according to necessity when the recession comes.”

    Feminists have poisoned the good will of men toward women. It will be regular women who pay the price when the bill comes due, unlike all of history, where men bore the greater brunt. There has never been a time where men did what was necessary for women, and women spit in their faces for it until the last 30-50 years.

    In other words, I’m worried.

  15. KS
    August 27th, 2014 @ 12:40 am

    You (I assume) were typing a few minutes ago, and now you’re not. I’m wondering if you’re worried about what you’ll say?

  16. Wombat_socho
    August 27th, 2014 @ 12:49 am

    Logic is an oppressive construct of the patriarchy.

  17. Wombat_socho
    August 27th, 2014 @ 12:49 am

    Fawn was better looking.

  18. Wombat_socho
    August 27th, 2014 @ 12:50 am

    Faster, please.

  19. louis_wheeler
    August 27th, 2014 @ 12:51 am

    We Men are human beings whether you like us or not; that comes with our biology. Whether we act rational, loving and supportive of a family is another matter.

    I was making a joke about listening to women. I’ve found that the only way to stay sane in a relationship with a woman is to ignore what they say and watch what that do. I don’t try to control her, she does enough of that for both of us, but I control what I do.

    I reward her when she does something which merits it. Naturally, I catch a bit of hell for that. The only way I’ve been able to hang on to a woman for more than five years is to act like I’m ready to leave, in an instant. If she thinks she owns me, she gets bored and her eyes start to roam toward other men. I have to keep replacement women friends ready just in case. That sucks, because I’m a domestic kind of guy. I like stability.

    I never said that the coming currency debacle will be pleasant. It’s just that chaos can become an opportunity for those who have prepared. Great wealth will be changing hands.

    One thing to remember is that the Homosexuals of both sexes are a tiny group: 1.6% of Americans and 0.7% bisexual according to the CDC. They are just very noisy because they have the Left to promote them.

  20. louis_wheeler
    August 27th, 2014 @ 12:52 am

    Why would I worry? I have thought through these matters decades ago.

  21. louis_wheeler
    August 27th, 2014 @ 1:14 am

    We seem to be repeating Jimmy Carter’s administration. The Left, because they control the White House, the Senate and the Media, have pulled out the stops promoting their social agenda. Feminism is a very tiny part. Nothing the Left is doing is sustainable. A reaction is forming.

    This process did not end well for Jimmy Carter. The name “Liberal” became an anathema to ordinary people for 20 years.

    I don’t believe that the Federal Reserve Bank can do what Paul Volcker did back in 1978: allow the interest rate to rise to 16 to 20%. The interest on the national debt would become too large; much larger than taxes. So, I expect a repudiation of the debt, in some way, or the destruction of the US dollar.

    Either way, none of the Left’s social institutions will be funded. The Fed’s are worried about riots in the streets. They won’t have time to punish us for being politically incorrect.

  22. LogicusPrime
    August 28th, 2014 @ 3:47 am

    Another is that they won’t pass their insanity on to their children.

  23. FMJRA 2.0: Out Standing In Her Field : The Other McCain
    August 30th, 2014 @ 8:48 pm

    […] Reading Feminist Theory… […]

  24. Is Rachel @Maddow’s Haircut Waging War Against Heteronormative Patriarchy? : The Other McCain
    September 6th, 2014 @ 3:30 pm

    […] that argument, feminist theory claimed that female heterosexuality was in fact a “social construct,” imposed by a sort of brainwashing — a mental illness akin to post-traumatic stress disorder, […]