The Other McCain

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

Feminists Against Heterosexuality

Posted on | April 6, 2015 | 70 Comments

Jenika McCrayer (@JenikaMc) has “a BA in Women and Gender Studies from The College of William and Mary” and is currently working on her master’s degree in the same field. This means she understands feminist theory, e.g., the “social construction” of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix. To translate this to plain English, if you are a normal (feminine) woman who feels normal (heterosexual) attraction toward normal (masculine) men, this means that you have been brainwashed by society into accepting your own oppression under the system of male supremacy. Feminists believe that heterosexuality is imposed on women by the patriarchy — women are “coerced into heterosexuality,” as Professor Marilyn Frye explained — and feminine behavior is simply the performance of inferiority. Gender “glamorizes the subordinate status of females” and creates an artificial appearance of male-female difference in order “to clearly mark the subordinate class [i.e., females] from the privileged class [i.e., males].”

Thus, there are no natural differences between male and female, according to feminist theory, only the oppressive hierarchy of “gender” by which society enforces male supremacy.

“The threat of violence alone affords
all men dominance over all women.”

Thus saith the feminists. Quod erat demonstrandum.

So, Jenika McCrayer wrote an article for Everyday Feminism, which was called to my attention by Aurelius Pundit:

Indeed, it’s a special slice of crazy:

Jenika McCrayer explains why men who are sexually attracted to women with breasts are misogynists.
McCrayer explains that “under a patriarchal system… we’re taught to believe that the female body exists solely for a man’s sexual pleasure and entertainment.” She then explains several reasons why liking breasts is a bad thing.
First, “It Dangerously Conflates Attraction and Fetishization.” She explains, “breasts are not solely for aesthetic or sexual purposes. They have a function. And there are painful consequences to fetishizing body parts associated with womanhood.”
More than that, “it’s cisnormative to equate breasts with femininity and womanhood. Not everyone who has breasts is a woman, and not all women have breasts.”
Second, “Fetishization Leads to Objectification and Dehumanization.” McCrayer writes, “Reducing people to their anatomy creates this space that some if not most of us exist outside of because we don’t fit into the male gaze’s narrow categories of what it means to be attractive or a woman.” . . .
McCrayer wrote this article because she received a letter from “a reader” whose husband wants equal rights for her, but also finds her breasts attractive, which she found “problematic.”

Normal men like normal women in a normal way. Normal women take this for granted, but feminists aren’t normal women.

Feminists want to abolish gender, because gender oppresses women. Therefore, normal male attraction to normal females is “objectifying,” “cisnormative,” “fetishizing,” etc. Male sexuality is phallocentric and heterosexual intercourse is male violence against women, according to feminist theory. Thus, the only reason any man could ever want to have sex with a woman is because he hates her.

Feminists believe normal sexual desire is dehumanizing to women.





 

Comments

  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana

    How is it, I wonder, that if male and female heterosexual drives among humans are not the result of biology but solely of societal origin, many animals have distinctive plumage or other characteristics designed to appeal sexually to the opposite sex?

    The lovely Miss McCrayer ought to be kind of happy that we do allow some societal conditioning, which apparently allows different ethnic groups and races to be more attracted to members of their own groups than some sort of total biologically-driven attractiveness, where human males only found redheaded, green eyed Irish girls attractive.

    Of course, referring to her as “the lovely Miss McCrayer” may have been a bit of an exaggeration, and explain why she is so displeased with normal men finding some women more attractive than others: https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/1545635_10152298017926874_441721799_n.jpg?oh=1aad8ad5d0f6c52e79fa402f65b1a2e2&oe=55B25393&__gda__=1437063886_89e8c20b7bdf803fb641472899566d20

  • dabhidh

    True, but I rarely see such a perfect and artless reveal as this. I actually thought at first that the comment was meant to affirm McCain. It amazes me that she doesn’t see how it exposes the shallowness of her position.

  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana

    It is a natural function of all species to reproduce; homosexuality is an impediment to reproduction. Is it not possible, therefore, that homosexuality is a birth defect which is designed to prevent beings with undesirable genetic traits from further tainting the gene pool, designed to improve the species by excluding those people with inferior genes from reproducing?

  • Matt_SE

    I think there was a serious risk of cancer in her case.
    What God giveth, God taketh away. : (

  • AdoEdem

    Oh that’s easy. “Safe space” originally meant a place where victims of actual, real trauma such as domestic abuse wouldn’t feel physically threatened. It was a therapy tool designed to help these victims to recover from their trauma and reintegrate back into society.

    The problem is that the Special Snowflake Army felt that “trauma” consists of things such as “being exposed to opposing opinions”. Hence, they co-opted the term (as they have with “triggers”, another psychological healing tool for PTSD victims to overcome their trauma but which special snowflakes now use to protect their feelings) and created online “safe spaces” where they could insulate themselves and their circlejerks from wrongthink.

    Now, “safe space” is little more than what is more commonly known as an “echo chamber”.

  • Quartermaster

    I must say that I do not like breasts! I deeply, passionately, love breasts, and God made me to love them passionately.

  • Quartermaster

    Ave Zohydro!

  • Quartermaster

    That group doesn’t need beer goggle. The beer is an added blessing in that case.

  • Quartermaster

    I lurves me some feminist head ‘splody!

  • Quartermaster

    Going where no one of the male gender has gone before.

  • Quartermaster

    one’s an inny and the other an outy, and they must be equal among women of all stripes.

  • trangbang68

    “Jennika McCrayer makes heterosexual men cry…” Actually she makes this one laugh at what an ignorant, insignificant dope she is, a smashed gnat on the cosmic windshield, spewing the stupid to the gals in the band of miscreants.

  • trangbang68

    Out, out, damn Gennifer Flowers

  • trangbang68

    dang, the article says the old battleaxe died of a neurological disorder. What a surprise!

  • Zohydro

    That might be true, but there are a great many self-proclaimed homosexuals (male and female) who have successfully reproduced with someone of the other gender… I don’t believe this is considered true “bisexuality” within the gay subculture: see “bisexual invisibility” or “bisexual erasure” for more on this…

    It would be beyond my expertise to formulate an explanation of this phenomenon, but I would contend that it is just further evidence that “homosexuality” is merely another paraphilia, i.e. a mental illness!

  • Zohydro

    Since we’re getting all sciency on animal sex now, ponder this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spotted_hyena#Female_genitalia

  • Daniel Freeman
  • Daniel Freeman

    That’s the “after” picture. 😉

  • AdoEdem

    The left seems to specialize in “appropriation”. (i.e. did not do the research and just ran with what they thought sounded good)

  • Pingback: Canadian ‘Education Expert’ Is What You’d Expect Canadian ‘Education Expert’ to Be : The Other McCain()