The Other McCain

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

Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Rapists Serve All Men by Enforcing Male Supremacy’

Posted on | September 21, 2014 | 70 Comments

Left to right: Kate Millett, Ann Jones, Jenny Kitzinger

“Patriarchy’s chief institution is the family. . . . [T]he family effects control and conformity where political and other authorities are insufficient. As the fundamental instrument and the foundation unit of patriarchal society the family and its roles are prototypical. . . .
“The concept of romantic love affords a means of emotional manipulation which the male is free to exploit, since love is the only circumstance in which the female is (ideologically) pardoned for sexual activity. . . .
“We are not accustomed to associate patriarchy with force. So perfect is its system of socialization, so complete the general assent to its values, so long and so universally has it prevailed in human society, that it scarcely seems to require violent implementation. . . .
“Historically, most patriarchies have institutionalized force through their legal systems. . . .
“Significantly, force itself is restricted to the male who alone is psychologically and technically equipped to perpetrate physical force. . . .
“Patriarchal force also relies on a form of violence particularly sexual in character and realized most completely in the act of rape. The figures of rapes reported represent only a faction of those which occur. . . .”

Kate Millett, Sexual Politics (1970)

“When we consider the family, we have to talk about child sexual abuse, incest, and the area of family violence that I’ve focused on: wife abuse, marital rape, and battering — often culminating, in the cases I’ve looked into, in homicide. . . . Exploring our sexuality requires freedom, and for women the family structure is still a prison. . . .
“Family ‘stability’ in a patriarchal system depends upon sexual repression of women. …
“We know that men beat women because they can. No one stops them because to do so would be to interfere with the family. . . .
“Violence has always been an important tool for maintaining the family to serve the purposes of patriarchy. . . .
“Susan Brownmiller’s [1976] book, Against Our Will, is a milestone in the women’s movement because it demythologized — desexualized — rape. We learned . . . that sexual and physical violence against women is not ‘sexual’ at all but simply violent. Men use it to dominate women. . . .
“Susan Brownmiller showed us that the rapists serve all men by enforcing male supremacy. . . . [W]e should be clear that our quarrel is not only with certain abusive men but with male supremacy. Our goal should be not merely to redefine our sexuality but to redefine the world and our place in it.”

Ann Jones, “Family Matters,” in The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism, edited by Dorchen Leidholdt and Janice G. Raymond (1990)

“The professionals who diagnose women’s sexual maladjustments never question the politics of these ‘problems.’ They rarely address fundamental issues such as: Why should women get married? Why should we enjoy ‘feminine’ clothing? What is wrong with ‘homosexual tendencies’? . . . Indeed, why should women want sex with men at all? . . .
“Radical feminist practice is concerned about recognizing our fear, and anger, and refusing to dismiss those reactions as simply ‘dysfunctional.’ It is about organizing collectively to challenge the institutions that deny women’s rage and pain. It is about questioning ‘common-sense’ understandings of the world. Radical feminists have examined the institution of heterosexuality, the social construction of desire and the links between rape and ‘consensual’ sex. These analyses question the existence of ‘truly chosen’ and ‘egalitarian’ heterosexual relations by focusing on the compulsory enforcement of heterosexuality; they are suspicious of appeals to some ‘authentic female sexuality,’ hidden deep within ourselves and uncontaminated by the rule of heteropatriarchy.”

Jenny Kitzinger, “Sexual Violence and Compulsory Heterosexuality,” in Heterosexuality: A Feminism & Psychology Reader, edited by Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger (1993)

Men are to feminism what Jews were to Nazism. As a species of hate propaganda, feminist literature is remarkably resourceful in the ways that these ideologues demonize — and otherize, as post-modernists might say — all males as the universal scapegoats on whom all evil is blamed.

Rush Limbaugh’s famous term “feminazis” is usually seen as crude sarcasm. On page 13 of Susan Faludi’s 1991 book Backlash, she credits Limbaugh’s “broadsides” against feminism for making “his syndicated program the most popular radio talk show in the nation.” Nearly a quarter-century later, we might update Faludi’s phrase to say more accurately that Rush Limbaugh is the most successful broadcaster in radio history, period. And we ought not be so quick to dismiss Limbaugh’s coinage of the word “feminazi” as merely a joke.

Having spent the past several months immersed in the study of radical feminist literature as research for my “Sex Trouble” series, I know that Rush Limbaugh was speaking the literal truth.

It is not merely that feminists are devoted to an ideology of hate that is analogous in many ways to Hitler’s anti-Semitic worldview, but also that feminism is clearly totalitarian in its methods. Never is this more evident than when feminists are talking about rape. You would think, to hear the rhetoric that emanates from our nation’s colleges and universities, that sexual assault is now at an all-time high on campus. Yet all actual evidence indicates that quite nearly the opposite is true.

According to the Justice Department, the rate of sexual violence against females declined 64% between 1995 and 2005: “In 2010,
females nationwide experienced about 270,000 rape or sexual assault victimizations, compared to about 556,000 in 1995.” Do feminists want us to believe there has been a recent uptick of rape under the Obama Administration? I’m dubious. As far as rape on college campuses is concerned, however, every attempt to verify the widespread claim that 20% of college females are victims of sexual assault has failed, because the actual numbers don’t add up. But if Women’s Studies majors were good at math, they wouldn’t be majoring in Women’s Studies.

Once you understand that there is nothing like an “epidemic” of rape on college campuses, and that feminists are engaged in statistical dishonesty about the frequency of such crimes, a skeptic is immediately prompted to wonder, “What’s this really about?” In a word, power.

This is the classic totalitarian method: Whip up an irrational frenzy about an Issue, and convince people The Enemy is to blame. Your followers, a motley collection of dupes and crackpots who are predisposed to believe whatever you say, are willing to blame The Enemy not only for the Issue, but also for all problems experienced by The Movement, which you lead and in which they are fanatical followers. Your leadership is dependent on their followership, and vice-versa.

In the symbiotic relationship of totalitarian movements, your status as leader requires you to keep your followers convinced that any failure of the Movement is to be blamed either on (a) The Enemy, (b) the enormous challenges inherent to the Issue, or (c) the deficiencies, faint-heartedness and/or possible disloyalty of the followers. You must constantly reinforce these beliefs in the minds of your followers or else, given a quiet moment to reflect on the situation, they might wise up and begin to suspect that failure is due to (d) the incompetence of their leaders who have (e) deliberately misrepresented the Issue and misled the Movement. If ever those doubts begin to occur in the minds of your followers, they might even start to wonder if The Enemy isn’t really an enemy at all.

What I have just recounted are the psychodynamics of every radical movement since the French Revolution, a predictable phenomenon best illustrated by the career of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. A sociopathic thug who managed to shove aside every other rival to succeed Lenin as leader of the Bolshevik regime, Stalin turned his nearest rival, Leon Trotsky, into a scapegoated figure whose alleged conspiratorial perfidy was a permanent source of the paranoid suspicion necessary to the rationale of a police state. Within a decade of assuming power, Stalin began to turn this suspicion against those original Bolshevik leaders who had loyally served the regime since before the October Revolution and who, as such, were in a position to recognize the bloody failures of Stalin’s leadership. During the infamous Moscow Show Trials, one after another of the Old Bolsheviks were accused of wildly improbable crimes — treason! sabotage! Trotskyism! — to which they were forced to confess and then, in most cases, summarily executed.

As it was with the Bolsheviks, so it is with the feminists. Patriarchy serves in the feminist ideology that purpose which capitalism served for the Soviet revolutionaries. Anyone who questions the ideology of the movement becomes an ally of the Enemy. The duty of every True Believer is to echo the slogans of the movement leadership, as if the movement could be carried to victory merely by the fervor of its followers. The repetition of falsehoods, the faith in erroneous ideology — all the wrongs and failures of a totalitarian movement devoted to The Big Lie, which must ultimately be doomed to the ash heap of history — these are familiar tactics, and once you realize they are merely tactics, they lose their power to intimidate and terrorize you into silence.

For this is exactly the power that feminists seek with their deliberate lies about men, about patriarchy, about “rape culture”:

To distill their rhetoric to its totalitarian essence: “Shut up, because rape.”
The SlutWalk movement is about rape in pretty much the same sense Nazism was about the Versailles Treaty — it’s the legitimate grievance that empowers a movement of irrational hatred.

So I said last year after finding myself amid that rabble. I’d call them “brownshirts,” but they weren’t wearing shirts. Or pants, either.

It’s probably kind of hard to goosestep while wearing 3-inch heels and fishnet stockings, but the fascist vibe was so overwhelming I could almost hear the sound of hobnailed boots marching over broken glass. My memories of the rally at the end of the march have faded, and I can’t find my notes of the speeches the SlutWalk leaders made, but then again, why bother translating them into English? Their speeches were much better in the original German. They made a documentary about SlutWalk. It was directed by Leni Riefenstahl.

Ah, I could keep riffing like this all night, you see. But why should I making jokes when it’s so much funnier just to quote feminists?

“This account of the politics of lesbianism locates it firmly within the framework of radical feminist ideology. The role of heterosexuality as an institution of patriarchal control, and the potential of lesbianism for subverting male domination are made explicit. . . .
“It is argued that a relationship between any individual woman and man cannot be understood without reference to the political structure of male supremacy and male domination, which invests each man with power over each woman. . .
“Thus the ‘personal’ (including romance, falling in love, sexual attraction, fantasy, and personal relationships generally) is ‘political’ in at least two senses: firstly that it is the personal experience of women that generates and informs feminist theory, and secondly in that feminist theory offers a structure within which individual experience can be interpreted and understood. . . . .
“In this account, men (rather than merely ‘society,’ ‘institutions’ or ‘conditioning’) are seen as the enemy. . . .
“In this account, the blame is put squarely on men, and separatism is represented as a legitimate strategy. . . .
“These are the views which underlie the theory of political lesbianism — the theory that women can and should choose lesbianism as part of the political strategy of feminism — and this account endorses constructionist theories of sexuality. . . .
“This factor, then, involves a constructionist version of sexuality in which heterosexuality is seen as imposed by men on to women, and in which lesbianism represents a challenge to male supremacy.”

Celia Kitzinger, The Social Construction of Lesbianism (1987)

OK, that’s not funny so much as it is deranged and frightening, but perhaps you see my point. Radical feminists have a clear ideology — a theoretical framework — which informs their rhetoric, and they have spend decades erecting this edifice of error, so that it is now deeply embedded in the belief system of elite academia. This one 1987 book by Professor Kitzinger, for example, has been cited nearly 900 times in scholarly literature. If Professor Kitzinger is wrong, her errors are widely popular among her academic peers.

Professor Kitzinger is not describing a “born-that-way” theory of lesbianism, and she explicitly rejects (as do radical feminists, in general) the claim that heterosexuality is natural. You can trace a direct narrative arc from Kate Millett’s claims in 1970 — where the patriarchal family “effects control and conformity,” where romantic love is simply “a means of emotional manipulation,” where rape is a political weapon of patriarchy — to the claims of Professor Kitzinger in 1987. And we see this direct line of thought continued forward to the present, expressed in feminist slogans which now emerge spontaneously from the Twitter account of Nancy Pelosi’s daughter Christine:

You can see the New York Times account of Chrstine Pelosi’s marriage to Peter Kaufman and conclude that heteronormative patriarchy has been very good to her. Why, therefore, does she feel the need to speak as if “reinforcing heteronormative patriarchy” were a hate crime? Because these are the ideas that prevail within the culture of the elite, to which Christine Pelosi so clearly belongs. If this were 1962, she’d be talking about modern art and civil rights, but it’s 2014, so she’s talking about heteronormative patriarchy.

Meanwhile, I’m still trying to figure out how “rapists serve all men by enforcing male supremacy,” as was explained by the eminent Ann Jones. She’s got all kinds of honors: “Her work has received generous support from the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University, where she held the Mildred Londa Weisman Fellowship in 2010-11, the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation (2011-12), and the Fulbright Foundation (2012).” Obviously, she’s so much smarter than the rest of us (especially me) that she understands how I am “served” by the crimes of rapists. Some creep I never heard of rapes a woman I never met in a distant place I’ve never been and don’t plan ever to visit — Boulder, Colorado, for example — and I am thereby “served,” you see, because this criminal is “enforcing male supremacy.”

While you’re trying to figure that one out, let me ask you to ponder another question: “Who benefits from feminism?”

Who profits, who is empowered, whose social prestige is enhanced by the promulgation of this anti-male/anti-heterosexual propaganda?

“Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.”
Rush Limbaugh

You got that one right, Rush. You damned sure got that right.




 

 

Comments

70 Responses to “Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Rapists Serve All Men by Enforcing Male Supremacy’”

  1. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    September 21st, 2014 @ 1:03 am

    These women are raping my mind.

  2. Angry Harry
    September 21st, 2014 @ 1:37 am

    @Robert

    “Men are to feminism what Jews were to Nazism.”

    Correct!

    Here are 30 points of similarity between feminism and Nazism …

    http://www.angryharry.com/esFeminismandNazism.htm

  3. Wombat_socho
    September 21st, 2014 @ 3:02 am

    So we’re talking sans-culottes here and not Brownshirts? Not much of an improvement – or difference.

  4. Razedbywolvs
    September 21st, 2014 @ 3:34 am

    Well put together article.

  5. Captain Obvious
    September 21st, 2014 @ 4:24 am

    When you’re ready for a book title a little catchier than “Sex Troubles” you can use “Fem-inanities”, but you owe me a beer.

  6. TefExpat
    September 21st, 2014 @ 6:44 am

    Non-rapist never-rapist college men protect themselves and avoid feminist scrutiny when they #dateoffcampus

  7. Paul Johnson
    September 21st, 2014 @ 7:26 am

    Go to school off campus.

  8. Andybob
    September 21st, 2014 @ 8:21 am

    Queer theory is feminism in a thong.
    Substitute the ‘Institution of Heteronormativity’ for ‘The Patriarchy’, and it becomes clear that they are, fundamentally, interchangeable constructs designed by the same bigots intent on demonizing straight – usually white – men in order to achieve political, social and judicial hegemony. Gotta have some targets to despise while ideologues go about silencing dissenters via bullying and censorship.
    Radical lesbian separatists hate gay and bi men almost as much as they hate straight men. Go on, ask them. They’ll be more than happy to tell you that you are as much a part of the patriarchy as every other penis owner and that you should sit down, shut up and check your privilege, you evil, sexist, women-rejecting fag.
    Gay men who don’t know that their own rights movement is controlled by radical lesbian feminists who hate them is either a complete moron, has never actually read any feminist literature or, even worse, have sold out themselves – and their straight brothers – by colluding with feminists for the sake of political expedience.
    Even worse, at a time when gay men have finally secured the right to enjoy free and happy lives, radical lesbian feminists want us all to climb onto their victim bus and sit quietly at the back while they try to run over anyone who gets in their way. While there are many gay men who are spineless and lazy enough to be content with such an existence, there are many, like me who are not.
    Message to gay men: feminists hate men, you are a man – get a clue, and give these hate-mongering parasites the bum’s rush out of your movement that they so richly deserve. Your willingness to associate with the hate movement that is Feminism Inc. should be a source of shame, especially for people who make as much noise as you gays do about bigotry and discrimination.

  9. Mm
    September 21st, 2014 @ 8:42 am

    I think that the root of all this “smash the patriarchy” is hatred of the ultimate Patriarch, God. Hatred of Him for having created what these women believe, deep down, to be an inferior being, the female. Why take on the demeanor, dress and behavior of your alleged oppressors unless you deem them superior? Why the constant attacks on Christianity, particularly Catholicism?

  10. RS
    September 21st, 2014 @ 8:58 am

    We are not accustomed to associate patriarchy with force. So perfect is its system of socialization, so complete the general assent to its values, so long and so universally has it prevailed in human society, that it scarcely seems to require violent implementation. . . . (My emphasis)

    Yet, the possibility that she’s wrong and an idiot has not occurred to her. Well, we can’t let reasonable conclusions drawn from the evidence stand in the way of the noble struggle, can we? Whether the status quo is divinely ordained or the result of physical/social evolutionary processes allowing for the survival of the species, these women are fighting against the Natural Order. Good luck with that.

  11. JadedByPolitics
    September 21st, 2014 @ 8:58 am

    Damn Stacey when I think it cannot possibly get any crazier you do another write up pushing the insanity boundary. I as a woman am calling for a day of culling feminists from the Earth to save mother Earth. Its for the childreeeeeeeeeen!

  12. RS
    September 21st, 2014 @ 9:01 am

    We Christians see the truth in your comment quite clearly. Yet even without appealing to the authority of scripture, it’s quite easy to demonstrate the destructive nature of Feminism, as our host has ably done.

  13. robertstacymccain
    September 21st, 2014 @ 10:07 am

    “you evil, sexist, women-rejecting fag.”

    See, this is something I always knew. People have forgotten that I used to be in show business (at a very low level). If you’re in theater or music — or musical theater, especially — you must be able to get along with gay men. All these idiots who accuse me of homophobia because I’m a conservative? Bullshit. And when they presume I am “ignorant” about homosexuality? Double bullshit.

    Neither irrational fear nor ignorance have ever been a factor in my critique of the gay-rights movement. Knowledge and logic, rather, have informed my opposition to this movement, and no amount of angry name-calling has ever deterred me from Speaking Truth to Gay Power.

    Having said this, do I need to explain that I know exactly how gay men talk about women when there are no women within earshot? The phenomenon of the “Fag Hag,” the woman who hangs around gay men because she has some kind of psychological/social issues that make her avoid heterosexual companionship, is something I privately observed and analyzed decades ago. And I pity such women, who cannot seem to recognize that her gay male “friends” view her with thorough contempt. The Fag Hag treats these men as if they were a bunch of girlfriends with whom she can exchange gossip . She enjoys the frisson of being in the company of these men, deriving a vicarious thrill from their male-oriented sexuality, a secondhand enjoyment that fills the void of the failures in her own experiences with men. Of course, their homosexuality makes gay men a psychologically “safe” choice of companionship for the Fag Hag: Because they reject women generally, they do not reject her personally.

    This desire to avoid rejection, to have the companionship of males who won’t further damage her badly damaged self-esteem, is the psychological key to understanding the Fag Hag, who is the glaring example of the type of heterosexual people (especially women) who are outspoken sympathizers of the gay-rights movement. You see that, for such heterosexuals, this “cause” is not about the predicament of gay people: “It’s about me!”

    And what the Fag Hag doesn’t understand — what none of the type of people she represents ever seem to be able to comprehend — is HOW MUCH GAY PEOPLE HATE THEM.

    I remember those months in 1986 when I was the only straight man working in the menswear department of a retail department store. I remember the girls — the ones with low self-esteem, “Daddy issues” and a history of failed relationships — who used to hover around, swapping gossip with the gay guys. And I used to think to myself, “Does she have any idea how ridiculous she is? Does she really think these guys are her friends? Does she have any idea of the awful things they say about her behind her back?”

    Look, ladies: Gay men prefer men, both sexually and as their social companions. And when some woman with self-esteem problems comes hovering around them, seeking to boost her ego by obtaining the only kind of male friendship she’s able to get, the gay man is not so stupid as to overlook the psychological subtext. Sweetheart, if your gay male “friend” had what you’ve got — i.e., a vagina — he sure as hell wouldn’t be hanging around a bunch of dykes, hoping to be “friends” with them. So the fact that you have a vagina, and yet prefer to hang out with gay guys — yeah, it’s not like he doesn’t see what your problem is, and a “friendship” based on pity isn’t much of friendship. The gay man has zero respect for you, because you obviously have no respect for yourself.

    This dynamic I understood by direct observation nearly 30 years ago, And this understanding helps explain why, for example, I’ve always viewed the acronym “LGBT” as a Big Lie, implying a political unity that doesn’t exist. It’s not just that lesbians and gay men have fundamental antagonisms toward each other, but bisexuals? Give me a fucking break. Every actual gay person I know harbors a profound contempt for bisexuals. Oh, sure, the gay men are always up for a sexual encounter with the nominally straight guy who’s got a shameful secret, and there are some dykes who keep a keen out for good-looking women who might be “open-minded” toward a same-sex hookup. But in the long run, you’re either gay or you’re not, and most gay men and lesbians despise people who can’t make up their minds, who try to hold onto some souvenir of “hetero privilege” by calling themselves bisexual.

    Yeah, sure, gay people might want to hookup for a weekend with a “bisexual” (the word practically begs for scare-quotes), but there is no way any gay person would get themselves into an actual relationship with a “bisexual,” whom they view as either (a) indecisive, (b) untrustworthy, (c) cowardly or (d) all of the above.

    Of course, none of this truth about gay culture ever gets reported in the mainstream media, which has committed itself to the Big Lie about homosexuality — it’s all happy! happy! happy! in Gayland, according to the media, if only those mean old oppressive straight people would stop hating and fearing gay people. That propaganda message is complete bullshit, and most gay people know damned well it’s bullshit, but gay people are afraid to tell the politically incorrect truth, because they’re intimidated and terrorized by the Official Gay leadership in the same way everybody else is intimidated and terrorized.

    Telling the truth? It’s the New Hate!

  14. Daniel O'Brien
    September 21st, 2014 @ 10:22 am

    “shove aside ever other rival”? perhaps, “every”?

  15. robertstacymccain
    September 21st, 2014 @ 10:31 am

    Thanks for the proofreading. Fixed it.

  16. Memento Mori
    September 21st, 2014 @ 10:36 am

    It is really remarkable that the ‘thoughtful’ crowd in general and the feminist movement in particular has no time for this sort of self reflection or interest in the most rudimentary due diligence about the wholesale changes they demand. If they succeed in destroying the oppressive family, the vehicle for transmitting culture, how will their matriarchal utopia be passed on to the next generation? If they manage to overcome female heterosexuality where will babies come from? They demand a society that cannot survive as demanded and then when anyone asks this question they scream ‘Heteronormative Patriarchy’.

  17. Herbert Purdy
    September 21st, 2014 @ 10:37 am

    Oh wow. Great article. ‘Patriarchy’s chief institution is the family…’ Absolutely! Which is why feminists are tearing down the family and ripping our societies apart.

    Patriarchy means ‘the rule of the father’, not just the rule of men in general. That is why fathers are being kicked out of the family to be replaced by the state. The feminazis are tearing down the family, because they want to tear down capitalist democratic nations. Why? Because they are Marxists. It’s as simple as that. They want the state to control the people’s behaviour, not fathers. I deal with this in my blog here: http://herbertpurdy.com/?p=116

    People rarely seem to get it, that this is what the feminists’ assault on patriarchy is all about. This is what I keep trying to say, for example, here: http://herbertpurdy.com/?p=76

    Keep on guys. Keep on getting this message out there. Sooner or later, ordinary people will see through the work of their feminist politicians, who are working out their purpose on us all.

    And, as to Kate Millett, this is what her sister said about her only a couple of weeks ago. http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mallorymillett/marxist-feminisms-ruined-lives/#comment-1575472425

  18. RKae
    September 21st, 2014 @ 11:08 am

    “…love is the only circumstance in which the female is (ideologically) pardoned for sexual activity…”

    Years ago there was a re-release of “Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs,” which caused a feminist uproar. It was assailed as hateful to women, because Snow White cooks and cleans for the men, then is put in a sleep spell and has to wait helplessly for a prince to save her. It was defended weakly as “a movie from a different time about a fairy tale from an even more different time.”

    The thing is: no one on either side saw that 1.) The men were represented as crude idiots who didn’t know how to clean their own house or wash their hands before mealtime. 2.) The handsome prince is a lousy part with no damned lines and no damned character.

    Negative male stereotypes abounded… and no one noticed. (Except me, because I’m a frickin’ genius.)

    What I’m getting at: the institution of romantic love was set up MOSTLY TO CIVILIZE MEN! The whole idea of courtly love was brought to the court of Eleanor to get men to behave in a genteel way toward ladies. When we talk about “refinement” it is the refinement of men.

    Another movie reference: Fred Astaire dancing in a tux, singing a Cole Porter tune is a near-to-impossible ideal. None of us guys can live up to that. It’s hyper-civilization. Ladies onscreen and off swoon and we are left merely doing our best, which is dreadfully insufficient. NOT THAT I’M HAMMERING FRED, HERE! I think impossible-to-attain ideals are a great idea! That’s why we’re asked to be like Christ and not some flawed Biblical character like Lot.

    My point is that these feminists are completely (and deliberately) ignorant of what expectations and restrictions civilization has placed on men.

    Their perception is skewed, and one side of the story is played in a loop in their heads – which is the very foundation of paranoia.

  19. NeoWayland
    September 21st, 2014 @ 11:08 am

    You should include that in your book too.

    All of it.

  20. RKae
    September 21st, 2014 @ 11:10 am

    While we’re at it:

    “… and they have spend decades…”

    Should be “spent.”

    Because I know you’re putting all this brilliant writing into a book for us… right?

  21. RKae
    September 21st, 2014 @ 11:17 am

    “…love is the only circumstance in which the female is (ideologically) pardoned for sexual activity…”

    My addendum: Loose, freewheeling sex without marriage always empowers men. How stupid that “feminists” hate marriage (and subsequently all contained, controlled sexual behavior), when that’s the very thing that forces men to behave themselves.

  22. Andrejovich Dietrich
    September 21st, 2014 @ 11:41 am

    Well that was informative. The fact that Feminism as a hate movement is not widely known is kind of disturbing. Especially if you logically think through how they try to redefine any and all discourse to show such abject hatred towards men.

  23. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    September 21st, 2014 @ 12:25 pm

    That should be a post! You should also expand on your past thespianism.

  24. Federale
    September 21st, 2014 @ 1:06 pm

    Is this the same Christine Pelosi that the RINOs fawn over?

  25. Rob Crawford
    September 21st, 2014 @ 1:08 pm

    Because Marx told them to.

  26. Rob Crawford
    September 21st, 2014 @ 1:10 pm

    I’m both amused and enraged the way these klowns ignore that most men would execute a rapist — even an attempted rapist — and never regret it.

  27. Federale
    September 21st, 2014 @ 1:15 pm

    Appears to be a contradiction with the others who claim the patriarchy, blessed be its name, is based on overt and continuing violence. But I think that is just their sexual fantasies coming out. I am quite certain that the less attractive a woman is and the more she expresses hatred of men, the more likely that is an expression of her rape fantasies.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psyched/200805/why-do-women-have-erotic-rape-fantasies

  28. RS
    September 21st, 2014 @ 2:21 pm

    Ah, but you forget the maxim that all conspiracy theories worth their tin-foil hats, but be able to incorporate and/or explain away facts which seemingly contradict the conspiracy. Thus a male’s protection of his mother. wife or daughter is not because of love or altruism, but because he objects to another male stealing his property. Because men are defined as “evil,” all their actions must be explained as such. I truly believe that were a typical RadFem to be rescued from an assault by a male bystander, she would react, not with thanks, but would conclude the “white knight” was trying to assert control over her.

  29. Chris
    September 21st, 2014 @ 2:37 pm

    The only reason radical feminism got out of the starting blocks is because it was deemed useful by the upper .000001%,(the real patriarchy). Without NGO and foundation funding/political support feminism would consist of a small scattered number of fringe loonies. Instead the crazies are running the asylum, eliminating due process, supporting eugenics, and generally helping bring in the next totalitarian regime.

  30. Steve Skubinna
    September 21st, 2014 @ 3:21 pm

    The vast majority of use of force doctrines (as employed by law enforcement) put protection of life and prevention of grievous bodily harm at the top of the list as justification for use of deadly force. Generally the second justification is prevention of serious crimes against persons – including rape.

    So we have most law enforcement jurisdictions, backed by the force of statutory law, permitting and even expecting use of deadly force against rapists, and yet the “heteronormative patriarchy” enforces rape culture?

    How is it possible to argue against such concrete realities? How is it possible not to be challenged constantly when so arguing?

  31. Steve Skubinna
    September 21st, 2014 @ 3:30 pm

    Okay, I am going to drag out my own little soapbox and climb atop to declaim on one of my favorite bits of historical trivia. The throwaway line about the Versailles Treaty used as an excuse for Nazism is my starting point.

    While Versaiiles was a punitive and unjust treaty, it was nowhere near as bad in that regard as the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk which the Germans imposed upon Soviet Russia. I have never heard anybody blame Brest-Litovsk for Soviet excesses. Likewise it tends to numb me to German whining about how mean Versaiiles was to them.

    But then I have no patience with laments that the Soviets suffered grievously in World War Two. The USSR conspired with Nazi Germany to begin that war, and now they get to complain how tough it was on them? Especially since the aftermath had them conquer Eastern Europe?

    Whenever I hear somebody grousing about great historical injustice I always look to see whose ox is being gored.

    Okay, back to insane hateful feminists. I’ll get the popcorn.

  32. Steve Skubinna
    September 21st, 2014 @ 3:31 pm

    And now after submitting my thoughtful and in no way off topic post I see that I misspelled Versailles twice.

    Gosh darn it. Excuse my French.

  33. Steve Skubinna
    September 21st, 2014 @ 3:32 pm

    That’s only because it reinforces the heteronormative patriarchy and thus supports their own power base.

  34. PCachu
    September 21st, 2014 @ 3:37 pm

    “Whenever I hear somebody grousing about great historical injustice I always look to see whose ox is being gored.”

    The first rule of understanding politics, as (allegedly) expressed by “Deep Throat”: Follow the Money.

  35. Steve Skubinna
    September 21st, 2014 @ 3:38 pm

    Ever heard the term “breeder” used by gays and lesbians to refer to heterosexuals? It is not a respectful term of endearment, which is why they all strive never to utter it in a straight person’s presence.

  36. Steve Skubinna
    September 21st, 2014 @ 3:42 pm

    Apparently women have this hitherto unsuspected (by men anyway) capability for parthenogenesis. It featured prominently in one of RSM’s earlier posts on a feminist luminary.

    They somehow squeeze their ovaries and Venus springs fully formed into being. I don’t know if an individual woman can do this on her own or if two women are needed. Perhaps some of the distaff commentors here can enlighten us?

  37. Steve Skubinna
    September 21st, 2014 @ 3:43 pm

    As a general rule you can tell what a progressive wants by what they accuse their enemies of doing.

  38. Steve Skubinna
    September 21st, 2014 @ 3:44 pm

    “A man’s reach should exceed his grasp, else what’s a Heaven for?”

  39. Daniel O'Brien
    September 21st, 2014 @ 4:06 pm

    These are Easter Eggs you plant for us to find to prove we read it, right?

  40. Memento Mori
    September 21st, 2014 @ 5:26 pm

    You know, I have never heard the pod-people argument in favor of Radical Feminism before. I’m learning alot on this board. Maybe RSM will elaborate about it in his next post.

  41. Mm
    September 21st, 2014 @ 6:28 pm

    Agreed.

  42. Zohydro
    September 21st, 2014 @ 7:44 pm

    The “bisexual” in the LGBTQETC alphabet soup is rather an obigatory nod to the legions of homosexuals who have, at some point in their “gay-from-birth” lives engaged in actual sexual intercourse

  43. Feminism Gives Me A Headache | The Lonely Conservative
    September 21st, 2014 @ 7:52 pm

    […] should have to endure studying the writings of radical feminists. You can read his latest posts here and here. I don’t know how some of the feminists he quotes have gained such an audience. I […]

  44. Daniel Freeman
    September 21st, 2014 @ 8:08 pm

    Damn, Andybob. I’ve read a lot from you (mostly on AVfM), and that might be your clearest, most passionate statement yet.

  45. Daniel Freeman
    September 21st, 2014 @ 8:22 pm

    They will harvest sperm (like in “A Boy and His Dog”) from their slaves, and raise their progeny in collectivist creches. Superior women will be well-compensated for magnanimously directing the lives of the rest, and at least the worst-off among them will still be better-off than men. A paradise of ” equality!”

  46. wgone
    September 21st, 2014 @ 8:55 pm

    Patriarchy “theory” is bullshit – its has never been proven and its not a theory – a theory is one that has been proven and verified over and over and all the associated corollaries – they’ve never done that – it proves that women’s studies does not belong in academia.

  47. Jeanette Victoria
    September 21st, 2014 @ 9:12 pm

    And the sad reality is lesbians kill each other at an alarming rate far higher than men who kill their spouses. Funny how that is a stat that never gets mentioned

  48. Daniel Freeman
    September 21st, 2014 @ 9:35 pm

    I like to call the disruptive feminists “brownskirts,” like the ones at that Warren Farrell talk at that uni in Canada. I expect them to just be offended by the “skirts” part, and miss the point.

  49. Daniel Freeman
    September 21st, 2014 @ 9:55 pm

    Ironically, that would be a valid criticism of feminist men that parrot rape myths. Putting down potential sexual competitors is an ancient strategy used by both men and women, and most recently by Obama, who is apparently angling for co-eds.

  50. DeadMessenger
    September 21st, 2014 @ 10:03 pm

    Evi L Bloggerlady: They’re not raping your mind, they’re enforcing the supremacy of the sisterhood. It’s for our own good, can’t you see that???