The Other McCain

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

The Queering of Feminism

Posted on | February 17, 2015 | 64 Comments

A few recent headlines from

Let Them Eat Cake:
On Being Demisexual

— Cara Leibowitz, Feb. 10

5 Ways to Stand Up to Toxic Messages
and Accept Yourself as a Bisexual Person

— Erin Tatum, Jan. 25

Powerful Photos Fearlessly Redefine
What It Means to Be LGBTQIA+

— Sarah Deragon, Jan. 25

How to Respectfully Love a
Trans Woman: Navigating Transmisogyny
in Your Romantic Relationship

— Kaylee Jakubowski, Jan. 19

Cis Privilege and Identity Policing
in the Bi and Pan Community: 3 Harmful
Tropes and 3 Ways We Can Unite Instead

— Adrian Ballou, Jan. 16

How Stereotypes About What
Queer Women Look Like Erases Femmes

— Joy Young, Jan. 9

You get the general drift here. Feminists today enthusiastically advocate every form of sexuality except normal sexuality.

Perhaps you’re wondering what “LGBTQIA+” means, or maybe you don’t understand how “the Bi and Pan Community” is suffering from “Harmful Tropes.” Why even waste time defining exotic labels like “demisexual”? Instead of adding extra letters to the LGBT acronym, couldn’t we just label this entire coalition W for “weirdo” or F for “freak”?

This exotic 21st-century rainbow of queer feminism is to sexuality what Baskin-Robbins is to ice cream, offering 31 flavors of abnormal perversion to those seeking escape from the gender binary and the heterosexual matrix that define oppression under patriarchy.

Now everybody is an oppressed victim, except normal people, because whatever feminists are, they are never normal people.



  • DeadMessenger

    When do ypu suppose they will add P for pedo, and P+ for polygamist?

  • Zohydro

    The “P” most certainly belongs there: pansexual, polysexual, polyamorous, pomosexual, etc.— I could go on!

  • DeadMessenger

    Actually, they could just sum up the whole lot with P for perv.

  • Fail Burton

    It seems to be all the same stuff: the abolition of gender distinctions they see as including “compulsory heterosexuality” whose aim is to artificially oppress women and steal their goodness or whatever the hell they’re talking about. The funny and dangerous thing is how many accept this assumption without knowing where it came from or why it’s such a good thing. Gender feminists have successfully linked this end game to an anti-oppression narrative akin to Jim Crow with devastating results in the public arena. These folks use lots of words where the goodness is simply assumed but without any explanations as to why, like “underrepresented” and “diversity.” The dead giveaway is these things only ever have men as a target along with straights and whites. Everyone else skates, which brings us back to a much simpler assumption based on their own rhetoric: intersectionalist gender feminism is a lot of smoke and mirrors hiding a racist, sexist, supremacist cult of lady-worship minus the “lady.” Butler mentions a version of the word “incest” almost 70 times in her text which shows how much it’s just more fluff to rationalize perversion and the sexual liberation of children. There seems to be an unhealthy grooming of children which reminds one of a lesbian version of NAMBLA.

  • Fail Burton

    PCP is grate. Luk wot eet deed 4 mee.

  • Fail Burton

    Well they need that to offset the 7,000 years men have taken classes to learn to be men and oppress women by using tactics like having taboos against incest.

  • Fail Burton

    Smash the Patriarchy, end white privilege and abolish gender. Then whatever’s left of the Constitution – or Hammurabi’s Code for that matter – just wipe your hind end with it.

  • Pingback: Maggie's Farm()

  • Grandson Of TheGrumpus


    I was commenting on her statement sardonically, but didn’t think the “/sarc” tag appropriate: I was attempting some slightly more subtle.

    From the “parting shot” of your comment, I can see I failed miserably.

  • Finrod Felagund

    A friend of mine described PCP as such, paraphrasing:

    “It’s like you’re partying with Jesus and the angels– but if anything annoys you, you have this tremendous desire to pound the living crap out of it until it can never ever ever bother you ever again.”

    Given that I’ve had some anger issues in the past, that description was a gigantic DANGER WILL ROBINSON sign to me.

  • robertstacymccain

    Let me say that if taken orally in a pill or tablet, or if snorted as a powder, PCP is more or less a sedative — like doing Qaaludes or barbituates. During the ’70s, what was called “angel dust” was often a mixture of PCP with other drugs, including meth or hallucinogens. At one point in late 1976/early ’77 — remember, I’m invoking my Fifth Amendment rights here — there was some “brown” angel dust going around that I know for a fact was laced with brown Mexican heroin. Still, as long as you were just snorting it, dust was a mellow drug, a downer, good for giving you a body high while you smoked weed and listened to Pink Floyd.

    What caused a violent reaction — the “King Kong” freakout — was if you smoked angel dust. Some guys would “dust” a joint (or lace an ounce of weed with a gram or two of PCP) and if you didn’t know what you were smoking, after about three tokes, WHAM! The whole world was spinning and either you could barely move or you were reeling out of control. Not a mellow high at all.

    “Street drugs” are always a risk, one way or another. Even if you can avoid the bad stuff, you can get hooked on the good stuff.

  • Pingback: An Infinite Rainbow of Oppression : The Other McCain()

  • Rick Caird

    Considering what a tiny percentage of the nation the LBGT community actually is, they sure make a lot of noise.

  • Pingback: The Rainbow Of Feminism | Living in Anglo-America()