The Other McCain

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

What Self-Hatred Looks Like

Posted on | October 24, 2014 | 75 Comments

@LisaKudrow expresses #feminism by obverse reaction:

Lisa Kudrow: ‘Gay Men Are
Superior Beings In My Mind’

. . . Although she notes that “the people I work with are gay,” Kudrow says her love of the gay community extends beyond the confines of Hollywood, too.
“I don’t know who I’m going to offend by leaving them out, but I need to say that I think gay men are superior beings in my mind,” she said. “The two sides of the brain communicate better than a straight man’s, and I think that has to be really important. They’re not women — they’re still men — and women also have thicker corpus callosums, so I think it’s the combination of those qualities that makes them like a superhuman to me.”

Think hard about this. Feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology tells women that a normal life is an inferior life.

To be conventionally feminine — to pursue a normal woman’s life of men, marriage and motherhood — according to feminist theory is to cooperate in one’s own oppression by the male-dominated society. By contrast, feminism teaches, the woman who pursues “sexual equality” (i.e., androgyny, where men and women are viewed as identical and interchangeable units) is “empowered” by preferring professional careerism over the inferior normal life of the woman who views her family role as more rewarding than whatever wage-earning work she may do (her job, rather than a career) to augment her family’s income.

This weird set of feminist premises — the power-oriented fixation on male “supremacy” and women’s alleged “oppression” by patriarchy, particularly identifying traditional family life as the source of inequality — can be used in syllogisms leading to any number of possible conclusions, one of which Lisa Kudrow has expressed quite clearly: If normal sexuality and the (patriarchal) culture produced by a (male-dominated) society are inherently oppressive, then gay men are “superhuman” creatures who are preferable to normal males.

However, what Lisa Kudrow is also saying (perhaps without realizing it) is that what makes heterosexual men the lowest form of human life on the planet is specifically the fact that they find women sexually attractive. Women are never to be desired by men as sexual partners — for male desire reduces women to an inferior role as mere “sex objects” — and females must always only be viewed as androgynous career-achievers whose sexuality has no socially normal or biologically natural purpose.

Such is the logic of feminism’s categorical imperatives, where sexual equality (androgyny) is the ideal, and where anything short of this utopian ideal is condemned as social injustice. The problem is that Lisa Kurdrow (unlike Andrea Dworkin, Marilyn Frye, Dee Graham and other outspoken radical feminists) neither clearly states her premises nor pursues her argument to its logical conclusion.

Instead, as for most women who have absorbed feminist ideas by a process of osmosis rather than through rigorous study, Lisa Kudrow’s worldview is expressed in incoherent and inadequately articulated statements which, while appearing quite odd from a common-sense perspective, are difficult to refute. An argument may be refuted, but a mere prejudice resists logical rebuttal, and expressions of vulgar feminism like Lisa Kudrow’s pseudo-scientific praise of “superhuman” gay men are nothing more than prejudice.

Readers of the “Sex Trouble” series understand that my arguments are not a matter of ignorance or male chauvinism. Rather, I am exploring the inherent radicalism of feminist gender theory, developed over the course of many decades and institutionalized within the curricula of Women’s Studies programs at colleges and universities. Most people who call themselves “feminists” are vastly more ignorant of feminism’s intellectual history and core philosophy than I am and, when they are exposed to the truth of what feminism actually is, the self-declared “feminist” will typically react in three ways:

  1. Dismissal — The startling quote you have just cited is dismissed as “not real feminism.” This quote must be out of context, the soi-disant feminist will say, or you are citing some obscure “fringe” extremist who is not representative of “real feminism.” Never mind that the quote is from a best-selling author or a distinguished professor. Never mind that the radical you’ve quoted has served as an officer of a major feminist organization, an editor of an influential academic journal, or headed the Women’s Studies program at a public university. It doesn’t matter how many times the feminist you quoted has had her works included in anthologies or textbooks, or cited in the “research” of her fellow feminist intellectuals. No, the startling quotation must be dismissed as “not real feminism,” or otherwise it might undermine the overall prestige of feminism. And your typical ignorant feminist calls herself a “feminist” for the precise reason that she thinks it is prestigious to label herself in this way.
  2. Denial — Your attempt to show a cause-and-effect correlation between feminist theory and harmful real-life consequences requires the feminist to deny that there is any such correlation. Are female college students being sexually victimized because they are trying to live according to feminist ideas about “empowerment”? If you try to show this correlation by anecdotal evidence, statistical data or logical inference, the feminist will deny it all — anecdotes, statistics and logic — rather than permit your argument to contradict the preferred feminist narrative. Can it be shown than the decline of marriage is both a goal highly sought by feminists and harmful to women and girls? “Deny! Deny! Deny!” answers the feminist. Encountering the feminist in denial mode is like watching an episode of the true-crime documentary series The First 48. Homicide detectives have video surveillance of the convenience store where the clerk was killed in an armed robbery. They identified the make and model of the getaway car from the video. When surveillance images of the robbers are shown on local news TV broadcasts, a call comes in to the Crimestoppers hotline, naming one of the suspects, who happens to own a car of the same make and model as the one used in the robbery. Patrol officers pull over the car, arrest the driver and find in the trunk of the car a ski mask, of the same type as worn by one of the robbers. This suspect confesses his role and names his two criminal cohorts, including the gunman who fired the shot that killed the store clerk. The suspected gunman is arrested and a search of his apartment turns up (a) blood-spattered sneakers of the same brand as those worn by the gunman, and (b) a 9mm pistol like the one used in the fatal robbery. Now, there is a mountain of damning evidence against this suspect, to say nothing of his accomplice’s statement naming him as the gunman. Once the DNA lab gets the results on the slain clerk’s blood on those sneakers, and the ballistics lab matches the pistol to the bullet that killed the clerk, there will be an airtight case for capital murder against this perp. Nevertheless, the detectives want to give the gunman a chance to confess his crime. Every viewer of The First 48 has seen this scene play out over and over. Detectives bring the perp into the interrogation room and say, “Look, we know you did it. You want to tell us what you did?” But no, says the killer, he wasn’t there and he doesn’t know anything about a robbery and that ain’t his gun. Deny! Deny! Deny! Feminists can never admit responsibility for the harms caused by their bad ideas.
  3. Demonization — Anyone who directly criticizes feminism, per se, or who contradicts the preferred feminist narrative of some contemporary issue, is vilified, demonized and scapegoated as a Misogynistic Enemy of Women’s Progress. This is where the Alinsky Rules for Radicals tactics are employed to marginalize and discredit the critic with ad hominem slurs and unsubstantiated accusations of mala fides (“bad faith”). No actual evidence of your hateful motives is needed by feminists to justify these attacks, and what they offer as “evidence” is irrelevant to the validity of your criticism, but by their coordinated, ruthless and persistent campaign of character assassination, feminists will turn the targeted critic into a Demonized Scapegoat whom all feminists are obliged to denounce. During the Cold War, the pro-Soviet defenders of Marxism did this to a succession of their critics and opponents — Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover and Ronald Reagan, to name a few — and feminism’s totalitarian kinship to Communism is demonstrated by their predictable use of Soviet-style propaganda tactics to impugn their enemies.

Once you recognize feminism as a totalitarian ideology, everything else about it becomes transparent, including the incoherence of liberals who call themselves “feminists” without bothering to understand the philosophy they embrace by claiming that label.

Thus we return to Lisa Kudrow’s praise of the “superhuman” gay male brain and her Neurobiological Theory of Female Supremacy via the greater thickness of women’s corpus callosum. While an eminent scientist might be able to explain for us exactly what the hell Kudrow is talking about — assuming that the social significance of human brain differences is generally known to science — let me instead make this point: LARRY SUMMERS DESERVES AN APOLOGY.

Remember that Summers lost his job as president of Harvard University as a direct result of feminist outrage after Summers suggested — merely suggested — that “innate” differences between men and women might explain the relative paucity of women among the top rank of research scientists. Yet here we have a Hollywood celebrity claiming that these innate differences are a biological reality, so that (a) gay males are “superhuman,” and (b) the thicker corpus callosum of women’s brains is socially significant in some way that Lisa Kudrow failed to fully explain. Let’s be logical, eh?

  1. Men and women either are different or they are not.
  2. Male-female differences are either innate, or they are not.
  3. It either is acceptable to generalize on the basis of innate male-female differences, or it is unacceptable to do so.

From a standpoint of logic (as opposed to the standpoint of feminism), we may discuss male-female differences objectively without always being careful not to offend women, gays or any other protected class of persons who habitually claim victimhood.

However, as every feminist knows, logic is a tool of patriarchal oppression and objectivity is just a synonym for rape.

Lisa Kudrow is permitted by the rules of feminism to generalize about male-female differences as long as (a) her comments are pro-homosexual and (b) her comments are anti-male. Kudrow therefore praises gay men precisely because they are gay, which means that they are metaphysically female, from her perspective. The fact that Kudrow is herself married to a man and the mother of a teenage son does not prevent her from espousing a “scientific” theory which (a) derogates her husband for his heterosexuality, (b) also derogates her son, unless he is a “superhuman” homosexual, and (c) derogates herself — and all other females — as sexually inferior because no woman can be the object of superhuman gay male desire.

“A liberal,” Robert Frost once remarked, “is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel,” and Lisa Kudrow’s argument takes this to its obvious extreme. Her own life is a heterosexual female life, but she must praise the negation of her existence, expressing enthusiastic admiration for gay men (who find females sexually repugnant) and condemning heterosexual males as defective (because, being heterosexual, they find females sexually desirable).

Self-hatred of this kind used to be found only in lunatic asylums. Now we see it in, e.g., Max Blumenthal and the “Jews for Hamas” variety of far-Left anti-Zionism. I do not necessarily expect every Jew to be an ultra-Zionist, but for a Jew to endorse Jew-killing genocidal terrorism (which is what Hamas is all about) takes a special kind of crazy. By the same token, to be heterosexual is obviously not the same as being a homophobic hater, but it takes a special kind of crazy for heterosexuals to impugn their own preference as unworthy, and this is what Lisa Kudrow has done.

Or perhaps I’m wrong. Maybe she didn’t actually intend to demean her husband as the inferior of gay superhumans. Perhaps it is ridiculous of me to subject a Hollywood celebrity’s statements to the categorical rigors of logical analysis. Alternatively, maybe I’m too stupid to grasp the sophisticated beliefs of my intellectual superior, Lisa Kudrow.

If only I had a thick corpus callosum or a superhuman gay brain, all this would make sense to me. But I don’t think so.

The truth is still true, whether you believe it or not.




 

 

 

Comments

75 Responses to “What Self-Hatred Looks Like”

  1. RS
    October 24th, 2014 @ 10:20 am

    Of course, she could be just stating the obvious:

    1. Gay guys are better at selecting the dance music at parties. (Joke stolen from P.J. O’Rourke)

    2. They’re snappy dressers.

    3. They’re great at interior decorating, albeit their ideas regarding “Man Caves” leave something to be desired.

    The sad thing is, there are those who will ponder Lisa Kudrow’s words and think,”Wow. That’s some heavy shit.”

  2. Fail Burton
    October 24th, 2014 @ 10:32 am

    Kudrow skates and Summers suffers for the obvious reason these people don’t use principle or a moral ethos to define right and wrong but instead use race and gender, the very thing they claim they are against. They are daffy, daffy people. Beware neo-Nazi supremacists bearing talk of wheel-chair access and allergies to scented products.

    This is exactly the perceptual trap Orwell tried to address in his SF novel 1984, a thing lost on our great Leftist intellectuals, even though Orwell stops right in the middle of the book to explain “doublethink.”

    Given the complete inability to understand how law, fair play or the U.S Constitution works, gender feminists are actually making the de facto argument it was entirely correct for women to not have the right to vote due to innate stupidity. There is an ocean of difference between creating a thing from scratch and not being able to maintain a thing that already exists even with a blueprint. Luckily I don’t buy into feminist idiocy.

    The now half-century old honeymoon with all this stuff has shown it to be a failure. Our Rainbow Coalition has not measured up but instead chosen to become parasitic activists because they can’t really create anything anyone wants and so continue to find analogies to the Elk’s Club to invade and destroy and blame the innate inferiority of white men for all their troubles. In less than a generation gender feminists have eviscerated core science fiction literature and turned it into little more than a platform for hate speech based on the lie old school SF was a woman, black and gay-hating KKK.

  3. Paul H. Lemmen
    October 24th, 2014 @ 10:37 am

    Or not … Those with actual active brain cells dismiss anything from Hollywierd as beneath our contempt.

  4. robertstacymccain
    October 24th, 2014 @ 10:43 am

    1. I used to be a club D.J.

    2. I once sold menswear at a department store, and my wardrobe was stocked with Yves St. Laurent, Christian Dior, Ralph Lauren, etc.

    3. My apartment? Immaculate. Designer linens (220 thread-count) on the bed.

    Then I met my wife, got married, became a father of six, and now I’m a middle-aged slob.

    The vicious stereotype that heterosexual males can never be “creative” nor have aesthetic taste (in music, clothing, art, design) has always offended me. Anyone who has ever seen me dance, sing or act — did I mention I majored in drama in college? — knows better than that, to say nothing of those who are familiar with my youthful cartooning (I minored in art with an emphasis in commercial design).

  5. GrandsonOGrumpus
    October 24th, 2014 @ 10:46 am

    As I’m sure you’re aware, the corpus callosum is a “bridge of neurological tissue” that connects the right & left lobes of the brain
    (there’s some debate on definitions, hence the “scare-quotes” on “bridge…”).

    People whose corpus callosum have been severed, no matter the reason, display two-mind syndrome, now-a-days called alien brain syndrome.

    There’s a theory currently making the rounds that a more extensive corpus callosum is what creates geniuses. The most pointed-to example being Einstein, whose corpus callosum is said to have been at least 3 to 5-times as extensive as the average.

  6. RS
    October 24th, 2014 @ 10:50 am

    I have numbers 2 & 3 in common with you. Classic fashion, exemplified by the well-tailored suit, is a lost art. I recently took my elder son on a “grown-up” menswear buying expedition. The sales dude was most probably batting for the other team. Nonetheless, he was impressed with my sense of style. I also could make decisions on what looked good on my son and why in about three seconds. Valuable lessons taught, father to son, towit: never wear a flippin’ belt with a vest.

  7. robertstacymccain
    October 24th, 2014 @ 11:09 am

    If what you say is true, permit me to suggest that any correlation between male heterosexuality and genius is socially constructed by the increasing feminization of elite culture and the decline of the traditional family.

    Freud’s idea of the “castrating mother” as the cause of male heterosexuality was one of those lamentable near-misses of his. I think he was very close to locating a crucial factor in the development of homosexual identity, but his whole bizarre theory of the Oedipus Complex was misguided. The key, I think, is that the boy must be able to imagine himself in the adult male heterosexual role as husband and father. This requires him to have some role model(s) he can emulate plausibly. It also requires him to have a certain viewpoint or attitude toward females as suitable romantic/erotic companions.

    Whatever was going on in the bourgeois Victorian households of Freud’s patients, it wasn’t just the “castrating mother” who influenced her son’s psychosexual development, and I have always thought the Oedipus Complex was phony nonsense. It may be true that certain problems in the early childhood environment produce homosexual tendencies in the child, but turning this into a grand theory based on an ancient Greek tragedy, and imputing incestuous desire to the infant son, is absurd.

  8. Weedlord BonerHitler
    October 24th, 2014 @ 11:19 am

    The thing what ya gotta keep in mind is that if the future actually is populated by androgynous cybernetic wankers, the feminists are right and we are all wrong. I’m sure dinosaurs didn’t think the mammals could ever take over the world, right? Being so tiny and all?

    That gives me a cracking idea for a sci-fi story: The Adventures of Don Herodotus, the Last Straight Man in the Galaxy. (He only purchases facetime with femmebots, brews an ancient beverage known as “beer,” and once a solar cycle he pits two teams of burly androids against one another in an ancient ritual he calls the “super bowl.”) It is a lonely life, but one full of arcane purpose.

  9. Andy Fox
    October 24th, 2014 @ 11:24 am

    Now I have even less sympathy for her losing a $1.6 Million lawsuit for ripping off her manager. Hmm I wonder if he is gay?

  10. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    October 24th, 2014 @ 11:34 am

    Gay men are also superior beings when it comes to caddy infighting and snide cocktail banter.

  11. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    October 24th, 2014 @ 11:36 am

    Yet you were drawn to join the breeders…curious. Funny how evolution just compels some people to do things that tend to further their genetic lines.

  12. RKae
    October 24th, 2014 @ 11:38 am

    While she’s delving into their physiology so intently…

    …is she aware that they use the anus for sex?

    That doesn’t sound all that superior to me.

  13. Sam Kennerly
    October 24th, 2014 @ 11:39 am

    Thank you Lisa Kudrow for explaining what Fag Hag Syndrome is and how it does its work.

  14. GrandsonOGrumpus
    October 24th, 2014 @ 11:50 am

    Agreed.
    Thank you for taking the time to respond: gratifying, though unexpected considering your brutal schedule!

    Personally, Freud’s always left me feeling as sleepy as I did as child when I was told bedtime stories….

    Most of his conclusions seem as plausible as Thumbilina, while having the charm of listening to the “Ring Cycle” operas in sung w/Germanic style in Navajo.

    My opinion, of little worth though it is, is that Freud proves the “blind squirrel” law.

  15. GrandsonOGrumpus
    October 24th, 2014 @ 11:56 am

    It certainly cuts down on the need for contraception, another “sacred cow” of the Proggies.

    In reference to these things, people tend to write that ‘they threw-up a little in their mouth’— me: I’m glad my wastebasket’s close by….

  16. Eponymous1
    October 24th, 2014 @ 12:02 pm

    LOL

  17. Quartermaster
    October 24th, 2014 @ 12:06 pm

    All of Y’all are leaving out make up artistry. Gay men, so I hear, excel at it and the heteronormative cis-patriarchal types of both sexes are just flat left behind.

  18. Matt_SE
    October 24th, 2014 @ 12:06 pm

    I’ve always assumed that elites fetishize the exotic simply out of boredom. In French, I believe the word for this attitude is ennui.

  19. Matt_SE
    October 24th, 2014 @ 12:13 pm

    Yes, but you’re flamboyantly heterosexual.

  20. M. Thompson
    October 24th, 2014 @ 12:24 pm

    Boredom driving oikophobia? Sounds like a way to starty.

  21. Mm
    October 24th, 2014 @ 12:31 pm

    Let’s see if I have this straight:
    1. If you are a gay male who does not find women attractive, you are superior.
    2. If you are a straight male who does not find SOME women attractive, then you’re a hater, a fat shamer, a shill for the patriarchy.
    Is this correct?

  22. Fail Burton
    October 24th, 2014 @ 12:40 pm

    The funniest thing about this whole PC cult is how they go out of their way to say how much they are against supremacy, racism, bigotry and genderphobia and then do versions of all that that are so free-wheeling and over the top it’s truly amazing. Are these just some of the stupidest people who ever lived or what’s the story? If Kudrow is in MENSA, does that mean donkeys are a higher civilization that won’t talk to us?

  23. jerseydave
    October 24th, 2014 @ 12:41 pm

    This is true. For guys who are older and married, other things just become more important. Taking care of kids, mortgages, maintaining the relationship. etc. Well said and big congrats to you pop 🙂

  24. K-Bob
    October 24th, 2014 @ 12:45 pm

    Fabulous!

  25. K-Bob
    October 24th, 2014 @ 12:49 pm

  26. robertstacymccain
    October 24th, 2014 @ 12:50 pm

    The whole jeans-and-a-T-shirt teenage slob style is probably a major cause of lesbianism. Really, what’s so “uncomfortable” about a LONG-SLEEVE SHIRT WITH A COLLAR? But, no, the teenage slob wouldn’t be caught dead wearing anything like that.

  27. Zohydro
    October 24th, 2014 @ 12:53 pm

    Mr. Foxworthy speaks truth!

  28. Zohydro
    October 24th, 2014 @ 12:54 pm

    And you voted Walter Mondale… Twice!

    Crikey!

  29. K-Bob
    October 24th, 2014 @ 12:57 pm

    I don’t wear “suit cut” pants because I can’t stand having pants that rise above my hips. Also, the only vests I wear are western-style. So the belt is de rigueur.

    Big-ass buckle is optional, but usually preferred by serious connoisseurs.

    Of course, these days the haute in my couture is that I wear baggy shorts year ’round, regardless of temperature (or frequently, dress code).

  30. Fail Burton
    October 24th, 2014 @ 1:21 pm

    Yes, I’ll ponder them and figure if one can legitimately make positive stereotypes about gay men then Kudrow is setting a precedent for negative comments. What else can I project about the gay brain: crass stupidity, the random thoughts of a monkey, an addiction to bank robberies?

  31. richard mcenroe
    October 24th, 2014 @ 1:26 pm

    Or who does most of the Hollywood hiring these days?

  32. richard mcenroe
    October 24th, 2014 @ 1:30 pm

    You keep a genius mushroom in the same basement and feed it the same shit as the other mushrooms… and it’s still a mushroom full of shit.

  33. CrustyB
    October 24th, 2014 @ 2:17 pm

    Elaine: “How do you know he’s gay?”
    Jerry: “Simple. He’s thin, neat, and has great relationships with women.”
    George: “Well, that leaves me in the clear…”

  34. DeadMessenger
    October 24th, 2014 @ 2:41 pm

    Heh. The western store near my house has a whole big-ass buckle department.

  35. DeadMessenger
    October 24th, 2014 @ 2:47 pm

    This reply is blog-post worthy. Just sayin…

  36. concern00
    October 24th, 2014 @ 3:20 pm

    Thicker corpus callosums and loose dilated anuses.

  37. RS
    October 24th, 2014 @ 3:21 pm

    Peasant.

    : )

  38. Federale
    October 24th, 2014 @ 4:01 pm

    Well, glad to see the Friends star opened up the door of biology based superiority and inferiority. Let’s just apply that to race. Brain size, IQ, etc.

  39. Quartermaster
    October 24th, 2014 @ 4:06 pm

    You get it.

  40. Quartermaster
    October 24th, 2014 @ 4:09 pm

    Yeah, but you ain’t gonna be middle aged much longer. Then you blame it on being a grumpy old codger.

  41. M. Thompson
    October 24th, 2014 @ 4:31 pm

    My girlfriend loves it when I’m in a suit, so I’ll leave it at that.

  42. Adobe_Walls
    October 24th, 2014 @ 4:32 pm

    I suspect he’ll be good at it.

  43. Adobe_Walls
    October 24th, 2014 @ 4:36 pm

    As good a theory as any.

  44. K-Bob
    October 24th, 2014 @ 4:58 pm

    I never understood that. Even when I was slim I couldn’t stand sitting down with one of them things digging into my ribs.

  45. K-Bob
    October 24th, 2014 @ 5:01 pm

    Hah! I’m part of the Nouveau Bourgeoisie.

  46. richard mcenroe
    October 24th, 2014 @ 5:12 pm

    ZARDOZ, bay-bee!

  47. pragmatist
    October 24th, 2014 @ 5:24 pm

    That’s some world class gibberish there, Lisa. Nothing like being lectured to about sexuality by a Hollywood dipshit. I ask you, would you give credence to someone with no bonafides except playing a fool on a foolish sitcom? Only if you are a navel gazing Leftist, I hope. Thanks America, for producing Lisa Kudrow. I think it’s time for a divorce, myself.

  48. theoldsargesays
    October 24th, 2014 @ 6:20 pm

    Thanks man….that made me chuckle.K- Bob as well it would seem.

  49. theoldsargesays
    October 24th, 2014 @ 6:23 pm

    With six kids I’d say flamingly so.

  50. theoldsargesays
    October 24th, 2014 @ 6:26 pm

    More so than RadFem Womyns Studies professors?
    Patriarchy strikes again!!!