Feminism, Lesbianism and the Hidden Consequences of Anti-Male Rhetoric

Posted on | July 30, 2015 | 53 Comments

“Women are a degraded and terrorized people. Women are degraded and terrorized by men. … Women’s bodies are possessed by men. … Women are an enslaved population. … Women are an occupied people.”
— Andrea Dworkin, 1977 speech at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, in Letters from a War Zone (1993)

One of the strange things about feminism is how this movement, built upon hateful slander, has acquired the power to silence its critics. In 1977, when a few dozen women turned out to hear Andrea Dworkin speak in Amherst, it was still possible to oppose feminism on an American university campus. Today, dissenting voices are almost never heard in academia, where feminists exercise the kind of controlling power wielded by the mullahs in Tehran or by Kim Jung Un in Pyongyang.

What has happened is that the pursuit of “equality” — enforced by federal authority under Title IX — has made university officials fearful of claims of “discrimination” under the so-called “hostile environment” doctrine. No one in academia dares to challenge feminism directly. Remember that Larry Summers was forced to resign as president of Harvard after he suggested there are “innate differences” between men and women. Feminists stage tumultuous protests whenever a dissident like Christina Hoff Sommers or Wendy McElroy appears on campus.

Silencing opposition is necessary to feminism’s success in reducing educational opportunities for males. Females are already 57 percent of college enrollment and in some fields, such as psychology, women outnumber males more than 3-to-1. As the percentage of males on campus dwindles, feminists in academia become ever more vehement in their denunciations of male students as rapists and harassers. Colleges now “teach women that men are the enemy and men are treated as such on campus,” as Helen Smith explains in her book Men on Strike. “Many men have just decided that they don’t belong in college . . . more and more men drop out of college or never attend.”

Feminist hegemony in academia has fostered an implacable hostility toward males on campus, and perceptive young men recognize feminism as the source of this hatred. The problem is that there are few if any male professors on the faculty of the modern university who are willing to criticize feminist ideology. With no good examples to follow, young men tend to express their opposition to feminism in ways that are crude and inarticulate, transparently motivated by personal resentment. This tendency, in turn, inspires feminists to become even more militant, as when Helen Lewis declared in 2012 that “the comments on any article about feminism justify feminism.” Such circular reasoning — that opposition to feminism proves the need for more feminism — points us toward a future of endless hostility, as feminism becomes more and more anti-male, and men become more and more anti-feminist.

We can only avert such an escalation of hostility by understanding its origins and history, which requires us recognize the actual source of this conflict, namely feminist aggression. Consider, as an example, the role played by the radical provocateur Andrea Dworkin. In her 1993 collection Letters from a War Zone, Dworkin includes her 1977 speech at Amherst denouncing pornography:

Fascist propaganda celebrating sexual violence against women is sweeping this land. Fascist propaganda celebrating the sexual degradation of women is innundating cities, college campuses, small towns. Pornography is the propaganda of sexual fascism. Pornography is the propaganda of sexual terrorism.

Rather than to describe pornography as immoral and obscene, you see, Dworkin characterized it as expressing male “sexual fascism.” This is an important distinction. A Christian must deplore pornography as sinful, yet Dworkin was a radical atheist who hated Christianity at least as much as she hated pornography. Rather than condeming pornography on moral grounds, Dworkin made pornography Exhibit A in her political indictment of males. Introducing the text of that 1977 speech (“Pornography: The New Terrorism,” page 197 of Letters from a War Zone), Dworkin tells us that she subsequently “gave this speech on lots of college campuses.” She also describes the immediate effect this speech had the first time she gave it to University of Massachusetts students:

They mobilized on the spot to demonstrate against the pornography being shown on campus: a film advertised in the school newspaper . . . that had been brought on campus by a man who had just been arrested for beating the woman he lived with.

Porno films being shown on the campus of a state university? That never happened when I was in college in Alabama back in the 1970s, but then again, Alabama is not Massachusetts. However, there was an interesting denouement to Dworkin’s speech at U-Mass. A few months later, undoubtedly incited by her radicalism, feminists on the staff of the student newspaper began quarreling with males on the staff over editorial policy and, in May 1978, feminist protesters seized control of the newspaper’s offices:

Fifty women took over the offices of the student newspaper of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst at 2 a.m. [May 1], demanding that women’s news receive more coverage in the paper.
The protesters, who were still in the building last night, said they will not leave until their demands are met in a “legally binding document.”
The students are demanding guaranteed space for women’s news, editorial control over women’s stories and the right of women’s staff members to pick women’s news editors.
William Sundstrom, the editor-in-chief, said the paper will probably not change its policies “because news should be integrated, not segregated.” . . .
Sit-in leaders said yesterday they decided to occupy the building when provious negotiations “accomplished nothing.”
“In the past, women’s news staff attempts to provide high quality coverage of women’s issues have been consistently sabotaged by staff members of other departments,” Julie Melrose, women’s editor and a sit-in leader, said yesterday.
She alleged that the staff arbitrarily cuts news stories about women, censors feminist editorials, omits articles submitted by women, runs sexist ads, and harasses female staff members.
Michael Smolens, sports editor and one of the paper’s negotiators, said yesterday the newspaper covers women’s issues fairly, adding the protesters are upset because the news “lacks a feminist bent.”
The only time he remembers that the staff censored a feminist editorial was when the editorial attacked staff members by name, Smolens said.

Whether the claims of censorship and harassment were true is perhaps irrelevant at this late date. The point is that feminists resented the authority of the male editors, either in terms of editorial content or staffing decisions, and insisted that women on the staff should be permitted to exercise control independent of the male editors.

This incident demonstrated the teleological purpose of feminism, to abolish male power, per se. As long as any man occupies any position in which he exercises any authority over any women, feminism’s work is not accomplished. Viewing the world through the distorted lenses of radicalism, the feminist sees herself as oppressed — a member of “an enslaved population . . . an occupied people,” as Dworkin said — and resents any man who possesses superior status, prestige or influence. Feminist ideology portrays males as parasitical usurpers, and thus denies that any man can ever deserve respect for his achievements, because his success is always the result of unfair “male privilege.” Nor can any authority exercised by a man ever be recognized as legitimate by feminists, because male power is inherently harmful to women.

What emerges from this resentful worldview is a feminist rhetoric that is deliberately insulting toward males. No man is trustworthy, no man deserves praise and no man possesses any ability that can entitle him to feminist admiration. This is why the “male feminist” is such a pathetic figure, imagining that he can earn respect from women by endorsing an ideology that denies any intrinsic basis for such respect. (Feminism’s first rule for men is “SHUT UP!”) Feminists reserve a particularly venomous hatred for liberal men like Noah Berlatsky, whose “Playboy Feminism” has made him a target of Canadian feminist Meghan Murphy’s ire.

Confronted by the characteric hatefulness of the feminist, a young man is likely to deduce that this angry woman — who seems to despise him merely because he is male — is a lesbian. Certainly this deduction is not unwarranted, when we consider, inter alia, that the leading introductory Women’s Studies textbook is edited by three lesbian professors, and that the communications director of the Feminist Majority Foundation described herself as a “raging lesbian feminist.” To quote the title of a 2010 textbook written by Professor Mimi Marinucci, Feminism Is Queer, and who am I to disagree? Despite all evidence, including Professor Bonnie Zimmerman’s declaration that “historically, lesbianism and feminism have been coterminous if not identical social phenomena,” any man who points this out is met with angry condemnation. You are a misogynist, a bigoted homophobe expressing ignorant stereotypes, if you mention the remarkable prevalence of lesbianism among feminists.

“To the extent that women harbor negative attitudes toward lesbians and lesbianism, we demonstrate identification with men. To the extent that women express negative attitudes toward lesbians in our words and deeds, we strengthen patriarchy.”
— Dee Graham, Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives (1994)

Recall that Professor Graham’s theories about “sexual terror” were a chief inspiration for the feminist blogger Radical Wind’s rant “PIV is always rape, OK?” The well-informed researcher thumbing through the notes, bibliography and index of Professor Graham’s 1994 book notices that she cites a veritable all-star lineup of Second-Wave lesbian feminists: Charlotte Bunch, Mary Daly, Adrienne Rich, Sarah Lucia Hoagland, Audre Lorde, Sonia Johnson, Pauline Bart, Marilyn Frye and, of course, Andrea Dworkin:

Dworkin, A., 87, 93, 116, 123, 162, 200, 206, 275, 276

That’s an index entry from p. 310 of Professor Graham’s book, which includes citations to Dworkin’s Woman Hating (1974), Right Wing Women (1983) and Intercourse (1987). This is certainly not a coincidence, any more than the 1978 feminist takeover of the U-Mass student newspaper was a coincidence. Andrea Dworkin knew exactly what she was doing when she incited feminist hatred against males,, and on page 27 of Letters from a War Zone,, Dworkin describes what happened after the U-Mass takeover, “The male editors especially aroused anger against the women by calling them lesbians.” Describing this as a “hate campaign these male editors waged,” Dworkin provided the text of a speech she gave at a rally in support of the U-Mass feminists in which she compared the student newspapers male editors to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels:

Enemies of women, those who are determined to deny us freedom and dignity, use the word lesbian to provoke a hatred of women who do not conform. . . . This hatred is sustained and expressed by virtually every insitituion. . . The threat is that this hatred will explode into violence. The threat is omnipresent because violence against women is culturally applauded. . . .
It is horrifying, but not surprising, that the males on the [student newspaper] . . . have used the word lesbian in the malicious way I have just discribed. With contempt and ridicule, they have been waging a furtive, ruthless propaganda campaign against the feminist occupiers. They are using the word lesbian to rouse the most virulent woman hating on this campus.. . . They are using the word lesbian to hide the true history of their own woman-hating malice in running that corrupt, pretentious, utterly hypocritical newspaper.

These were serious accusations and, in comparing the male student editors to Goebbels, certainly Andrea Dworkin intended to inflame women’s hatred against them. One thing Dworkin did not do, however, was to deny that the feminist protesters at U-Mass were in fact lesbians.

Were they? In the wake of the protests, U-Mass hired Janice Raymond (a lesbian protégé of Mary Daly) as a professor of Women’s Studies, where she remained until her retirement in 2002. In the acknowledgements for her 1986 book A Passion for Friends: Toward a Philosophy of Female Affection, Professor Raymond thanks Andrea Dworkin (“a source of inspiration and strength”) and also thanks another woman whose name may you might recognize: “Julie Melrose dauntlessly read the proofs of this book aloud with me.” Professor Raymond’s personal proofreader, you see, was the same Julie Melrose who as a U-Mass undergraduate led the occupation of the student newspaper. However, don’t speculate why Ms. Melrose would be proofreading a lesbian professor’s lesbian book years later, or you’ll be called a Nazi who wants to “provoke a hatred of women who do not conform.”

So, whatever happened to the male editors of the U-Mass Collegian? In her 1978 speech, Dworkin said these young men “used words to foster ignorance and to encourage bigotry”:

It is shameful to continue to tolerate their flagrant contempt for women, for lesbians; for words, for news, for simple fairness and equity. It is honorable and right to take from them the power they have so abused. I hope that you will strip them of it altogether.

Down with men! Strip them of their power! This is the sum and essence of radical feminism — males can never be trusted with power, because males will always use power to oppress women.

Dworkin’s denunciation, however, failed to persuade university officials to act against the Collegian‘s male editors. William Sundstrom, the editor-in-chief, went on to get his Ph.D. in economics from Stanford and is now a professor at Santa Clara University in California. Meanwhile, the Collegian‘s sports editor — the paper’s negotiator during their standoff with the feminist protest mob — has gone onto an illustrious career in journalism. Michael Smolens has been government and politics editor at the San Diego Union-Tribune since 1992.

Feminists foster hatred against men, and it should not surprise us that men resent this hatred. Nor should we be surprised by the association between feminism and lesbianism, which feminists themselves have done so much to encourage. This is a real phenomenon, as I explain in the final chapter of Sex Trouble:

In 1980, Australian feminist Denise Thompson described how “countless numbers of lesbians” joined the feminist movement because it offered them “the possibility of a cultural community of women whose primary commitment was to other women rather than to men.” Furthermore, Thompson added, the rise of the feminist movement produced a “mass exodus of feminist women from the confining structures of heterosexuality” in such numbers as to raise questions about “the institution of heterosexuality in the consciousness of those feminists who, for whatever reason, chose not to change their sexual orientation.” And why shouldn’t this have been the expected result?
Women “changed their sexual/social orientation from men to women,” Thompson explained, “in response to the feminist political critique of their personal situations of social subordination.” If the personal is political (as feminists say) and if women’s relationships with men are “confining structures” of “social subordination,” why would any feminist be heterosexual?

You can buy Sex Trouble at Amazon and read the whole thing. It is not yet illegal to tell the truth about feminism, nor is it “hate” to say that a lesbian is a lesbian. It is feminists, and not their critics, who are promoting hate by inciting hostility between men and women.

Cathy Young described Andrea Dworkin as “a relentless preacher of hatred toward men.” Dworkin has been dead for more than 10 years, but the hatred she encouraged lives on, and the only weapon with which we can fight feminism is the truth.

"Human nature cannot be eradicated by ideology." - SEX TROUBLE, p. 115 http://t.co/VzMNGhyLZ1 pic.twitter.com/nyp5tDBK2W

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) June 30, 2015

Please keep me in your prayers as I continue toiling away at this project. Please buy my book, help promote it to others and don’t forget the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

Category: Sex Trouble

Comments

53 Responses to “Feminism, Lesbianism and the Hidden Consequences of Anti-Male Rhetoric”

Evi L. Bloggerlady
July 30th, 2015 @ 12:34 pm

Insane women need a leader!
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1m1m9nFPoeE/VbmhnLEOxxI/AAAAAAAAxbM/-VJgaghV3rg/s1600/Screen%2BShot%2B2015-07-29%2Bat%2B8.59.54%2BPM.png
Gunga
July 30th, 2015 @ 12:48 pm

“It is not yet illegal to tell the truth about feminism, nor is it “hate” to say that a lesbian is a lesbian.” The lynchpin of that statement is the word “yet.” How sad it is to admit that it doesn’t take much imagination to see a time when it will be illegal… Preach on, McCain. Preach on while you still may…
Finrod Felagund
July 30th, 2015 @ 12:57 pm

Like pretty much all leftists, the true goal of feminists is power.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
July 30th, 2015 @ 1:55 pm

https://twitter.com/MsEBL/status/626822304312397824
marew
July 30th, 2015 @ 2:17 pm

It may be frowned upon to comment on a woman’s looks with regard to her political views but they are absolutely related. The picture you show of Dworkin is repulsive. I can’t imagine how she’s been ignored by men and for good reason.
RS
July 30th, 2015 @ 2:28 pm

It will be interesting to see the inevitable hand-wringing which will occur when colleges and universities which embrace a hostile atmosphere toward men, begin to really suffer the affects of reduced student populations. Don’t think that these sorts of issues are not a factor in college searches. And for every male college freshman there is a mother. Not to mention, parents will become leery about sending their daughters to colleges where the loons maintain you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a rapist.

By succumbing to the hysteria in hopes of placating the mob, college administrators are setting themselves up for all sorts of unintended consequences, only some of which are foreseeable. Title IX lawsuits by males denied due process are only the tip of the iceberg.
theBuckWheat
July 30th, 2015 @ 2:29 pm

YY is not an “artificial construct”. And don’t attempt to force me to be an enabler for your fantasy FAIL called “feminism.”
Kaiser Derden
July 30th, 2015 @ 2:44 pm

that female in the picture has never been possessed by a man … fat and disgusting and pissed is no way to live …
Evi L. Bloggerlady
July 30th, 2015 @ 2:48 pm

Actually she claims to have been abused as a child or teenager (RSM correct me if I am wrong). [By an unknown man at a movie theater when she was 9] Giving her the benefit of doubt that happened (stuff like that does happen) she has managed to use it to go after all men. It is insanity (with evil mixed in). I am going to assume her looks in the photo are a result of a life out of balance and a lot of internalized anger than just the bad luck of the genetic looks lottery.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
July 30th, 2015 @ 2:50 pm

She did have a “husband” of sorts. A gay man who was her spouse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin#Relationship_with_John_Stoltenberg
robertstacymccain
July 30th, 2015 @ 2:57 pm

I’ve mentioned this before, but I’ll mention it again: I’ve seen photos of Andrea Dworkin when she was about 20, living in Greece, and she wasn’t bad-looking. It was only after her experiences in Europe (where she described being savagely beaten by her Dutch anarchist lboyfriend) that Dworkin became the Jabba-the-Hut monstrosity at which everybody laughs as “unfuckable.”

However, Dworkin was always an angry radical. She was arrested at an anti-war protest in 1965, when she was a college freshman. One perceives that, like so many other feminists of that era, her anger toward men was inspired by the hypocritical behavior of the left-wing men with whom she habitually associated. The men of the 1960s Left talked constantly about equality, about the evil power of the “Establishment,” about overthrowing the “System.” And yet, in their own personal lives, those men were just as power-hungry and domineering as the men of the “Establishment” they aspired to overthrow. Their talk about “peace” and “love” was just a hustle, a scam.

As I once said, in explaining why I quit the Democrat Party, “At least when Republicans fuck you over, they don’t call it ‘social justice.'”
Evi L. Bloggerlady
July 30th, 2015 @ 3:12 pm

So if she was abused at nine, it helps explain why she went off the rails.

She was also a big fan of Allen Ginsberg and his crew and look what those bastards did to Jack Kerouac.
We burned this city
July 30th, 2015 @ 3:31 pm

It’s
S&M for Ph.D.s: Cuckolding, in which men watch their wives have sex
with other guys, is catching on among people with high IQs who revel in
the psychological agony.

When
he hears his wife moan with pleasure while she has sex with another
man, Paul Pines feels bad—then good. When Paul’s wife tells him that the
other man is much better at sex than he ever was, Paul feels worse—then
better. But of course he does: He arranged this encounter, in which he
watches in agony as his wife makes love to another guy. And almost as
soon as it’s over, he’ll start planning the next one.

Cuckoldry is
defined as a wife’s infidelity. Chaucer and Shakespeare characterized
it as the ultimate shame. So perhaps it’s no surprise that today it’s
developed into a fairly popular fetish. The Internet is rife with
husbands enthusiastically soliciting other men—often larger, hotter,
sexier men than themselves—to have sex with their wives while they
watch.

“The high point of cuckolding is when your wife says she wants the other guy all the time and never wants you.”

This
isn’t like swinging, and it’s not a threesome. Cuckolded men (aka
“cucks”) only observe their wives’ infidelities, they don’t participate.
And that’s why they find it a turn-on: They’re left out, looking on as
the woman they love climaxes with a better man than them. It’s a form of
psychological sadomasochism. Some people get turned on by whips,
chains, and physical pain. Cucks get aroused by
mental anguish.

Cuckolding is rapidly emerging as the
alt-sex fetish of choice for American intellectuals. Just check out the
online forums like OurHotWives.org/forum, where letter-perfect postings
celebrate cuckoldry as a cerebral pursuit, transcending ordinary
voyeurism and S&M as a dangerous game involving jealousy, misery,
gratitude, shame, sharing, sublimation, lust, and trust.

Once a
month, Drs. Paul and Sally Pines, a pair of New York City-area Ph.D.s
who have been married 25 years, check into a hotel suite with another
man. As Paul looks on, Sally and the man snuggle up together on the
couch like lovebirds. Soon their clothes are off, and before long, she’s
wailing in ecstasy as the man has aggressive, passionate sex with her.
Paul, helpless, can only watch and suffer. Afterward, Paul serves lunch
to his wife and the man in the suite’s dining area; they eat in the nude
before launching into another long, loud, sweaty session.

For Paul, this sort of suffering feels like heaven.

“Imagine
looking at the guy who’s about to go to bed with your wife. Imagine
hearing the man crying out in bed with your wife,” says Paul, who
pleasures himself “like a madman” during these encounters. “The high
point of cuckolding is when your wife says she wants the other guy all
the time and never wants you. Sally’s body makes it very clear that this
is true. It hurts me worse to know this, so it’s better to know.”
Worst/best of all is watching Sally bond with the other man not only
physically but emotionally—when, as Paul puts it, she’s “masturbating
him with her mind.”

This emotional bond that women form with the
third party is a topic of excited discussion on cuckolding forums. One
member of OurHotWives.org/forum admits being “more afraid of Susan going
for a walk to the ice-cream store with a lover then [
sic] her having three different men in a week.”

“If he just
fucks her and goes home, that’s one thing,” Paul says. “But if they
fuck for an hour, then have an intellectual relationship where they sit
and talk for two hours afterward, it hurts a lot more.”

In this
respect, cuckolding attracts “the very highly educated,” Paul says,
adding that it’s “truly intellectual in its enterprise because it
replaces sexual touch with humiliation and emotional pain, both of which
are psychological. Most of what gives me physical pleasure has to go on
in my brain. I’m totally being classist, but this isn’t like people in
redneck bars asking each other, ‘You wanna fuck my wife?’ It’s much more
complex. It’s pleasure on a different level.”

When, after years
of pleading, he finally convinced Sally, whom he describes as “dignified
and proper,” to cuckold him, Paul posted a notice at
AdultFriendFinder.com that began: “Seeking an intelligent man to be my
wife’s lover.” He picked the four smartest candidates. That was 12
years ago. Watching Sally having sex with another man, “I realize how
bad I am at it. And this is really hard for me to say”—at this point,
his voice cracks—”but I get off on it.”

Although he doesn’t know
precisely why he’s wired this way—”I’ve told all my therapists I’m happy
to talk with them about this as long as they promise they won’t try to
cure me”—Paul remembers walking in on his parents once when he was too
young to realize what they were doing in bed.

“They said, ‘Get
out!’ And I knew it was something very exciting, and that when it’s
going on, Paul belongs outside—that my place should always be outside of
it, which is a really cool place to be.”

For other cuckolds, pain
isn’t the point. Some are closeted husbands who want to see naked men,
whether they admit it or not. Others like the idea of their wives
attracting other guys.

“Competition gets them hard,” says sex therapist
Susan Block,
who operates a phone-therapy program especially for cuckolds to
fine-tune their fantasies and strategies. “There are so many forms of
substitute competition among men in our society, such as sports, that
take the place of the real competition inside a woman’s body,” in which
rival males’ sperm engage in “wars” to fertilize her eggs.

“Winning
isn’t even that important. What’s important for a man in terms of his
arousal is the competition. If you’re a married man, you might love your
wife, but you won’t get as strong an erection for her or have as strong
an ejaculation if your testicles know that this woman is yours alone.
Nature is conservative, so your testicles won’t work any harder than
they know they have to. But if your wife has been away at a conference
and there’s a chance that she’s had sex with another man, you’ll get a
stronger erection when she comes home. If she
has had sex with another man, that makes you
really hard.”

Turning this dynamic into reality through
cuckolding is a mental workout “because it involves getting your mind
past the jealousy”—past that
touch her and I’ll blow your head off reflex. Jealousy, Block
theorizes, is a social construct based on the notion that husbands own
their wives, and is thus “much more recent, evolutionarily speaking,
than the competition that turns guys on. That’s why it’s mostly
intellectuals who are into cuckolding: because other guys are crippled
by jealousy. They’re aroused and upset and don’t know why.”

Think
your way around that, and “this is a simple and safe way to find a
lover,” ventures the San Francisco-based Webmaster who calls himself
DotInfo and operates Cuckold-Forum.net. “Not only does a woman want it,
but also her husband wants to share his wife. And they don’t have to
hide it from each other. It makes their relationships more clear and
open.”

But there’s also a somewhat uncomfortable racial angle to
cuckolding. Cruise the galleries at cuckolding Web sites and you’ll see
the same dynamic again and again: white husband, white wife,
African-American other man. In cuck slang, these black men are dubbed
“mandingos” or “bulls.” Some sites, such as InterracialCuck.com,
CuckoldHoes.com, and BigBlackBull.com, cater solely to this.

“It
harks back to the notion of the forbidden,” says Paul, who doesn’t
pursue this fetish-within-a-fetish himself, “and to that monstrous old
stereotype in which all black men have two-foot cocks.”

For Paul, it’s enough that the guy makes him feel pathetic, but he warns that the emotional scarring isn’t for everyone.

“You’re
playing with fire” he says. “Don’t do this unless you understand that
you can’t take it back. Even if you never do it again, your wife will
have always had that great time, and you’ll both know.”
Wombat_socho
July 30th, 2015 @ 3:40 pm

Off-topic. Welcome to the ranks of the banned.
Wombat_socho
July 30th, 2015 @ 3:41 pm

You should try actually reading the post. Dworkin was allegedly abused as a child, and later had abusive relationships with left-wing men.
Daniel Freeman
July 30th, 2015 @ 3:52 pm

Come look at our beautiful campus!
trangbang68
July 30th, 2015 @ 4:29 pm

Using my new found self control, I won’t comment on Sister Dworkin’s appearance.
If you study the history of the left wing cretins known as the Weathermen; it seems one of the later manifestations of their acid fueled revolutionary fervor was radical feminism. As all revolutionary movements have always focused on, they were intent on destroying tradition, religion and the family.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
July 30th, 2015 @ 4:43 pm

The GOP Establishment call you a “wackobird”
mole
July 30th, 2015 @ 5:18 pm

Poor Andrea, can you imagine living life that twisted and unhappy? I suppose that the only justice in this world, that these females are by their own definition so paranoid, so quick to take offense and so “oppressed” by normality thier lives are truely as good as they deserve to be, thats to say, hellish.

Oh, and the subtitle for the pic Stacey has put up is “The invisible rapist strikes again”.

Also big shout out to Amazon reviewer for her “Meninist rants” post, it finaly tipped me over the edge into buying Staceys book. You are hated by all the most fashionable people.
FenelonSpoke
July 30th, 2015 @ 5:56 pm

And actually she was quite attractive as young woman. Her abuse at the hands of her husband probably didn’t help her attitude towards men:

http://tinyurl.com/ozfpfo8
CaptDMO
July 30th, 2015 @ 6:11 pm

NOT GOOD ENOUGH!
Let’s have a look at the Battered Alien Spouse amendments to the
Fraudulent Alien Spouse laws.
Much like “rape culture”/Title IX “special Social Justice courts, the mere accusation of battery/cruelty is the golden ticket to alimony, “express citizenship”, and all SORTS of “special” rules concerning
defense against such claims.
Oh yes, If you care enough t o “look it up”, you might as well look up the sweeties who petitioned, and “wrote” the laws, as well as who sponsored them, and the usual suspects of outrageous claims (and impossible “math”) involved.
Men got tired of the radical feminist crap and sought out women who weren’t “victims” of indoctorination for the week minded, and sought out wives/GF ELSEWHERE!
CAN’T HAVE HAPPINESS THERE EITHER!
Now that the Alien spouse fraud laws have had fraud RETURNED to the institution, I can’t wait to see how the well known high percentage of violent domestic battery turns out for the bigoted “gay “community” (as distinct from merely homosexual) and our (US) new crop of (insert nicer sounding, more complicated to sat, disingenuous, Orwellian preferably with a hyphen,
RS
July 30th, 2015 @ 6:21 pm

Wasn’t that a book and movie? Voyage of the Banned?
Daniel Freeman
July 30th, 2015 @ 6:24 pm

I knew a guy who got hit with fraudulent accusations under the alien spouse laws. He was the nicest guy you’d ever meet, a black man working for Child Protective Services, who went to the trouble of getting an actual African from Africa for his bride.

They had a couple of kids, she wanted to move to a different city and he didn’t, and then apparently she discovered all the goodies that could be hers for the low low price of her soul: all she had to do was lie and say he was abusive.

If even someone in the system can’t beat it — even with the State-delegated power to judge your parenting, he hadn’t gotten to see his own kids in years — what hope would you have?
CaptDMO
July 30th, 2015 @ 6:28 pm

Also SEE: Legalizing Misandry
Also SEE: Erin Pizzy, AFTER she had done all the actual heavy lifting for ACTUAL domestic violence sanctuary,
RS
July 30th, 2015 @ 6:29 pm

What are these laws? Are you talking about sham marriages for purposes of obtaining residency? Or is there something else? Usually, the downside of marrying an alien is that s/he can depart with the kids and his/her home country will refuse to honor an American custody judgment. I’ve seen that a number of times.
Daniel Freeman
July 30th, 2015 @ 6:31 pm

If an alien spouse claims abuse, they can get fast-tracked for every welfare bennie under the sun, and even get put at the front of the line for citizenship, IIRC. (IANAL)
RS
July 30th, 2015 @ 6:39 pm

IAAL, but those never came up when I did domestic stuff, though in fairness, I stopped doing domestic work 20 years ago. These must be since then, as they were not in existence when I married my alien some 28 years ago.
Bo
July 30th, 2015 @ 7:15 pm

It’s not uncommon for women who have suffered sexual abuse to gain weight and in a sense “get ugly” to repel male attention, which they now see as threatening.
Bo
July 30th, 2015 @ 7:16 pm

Jack Kerouac did that to himself. He was also the least interesting Beat.
Daniel Freeman
July 30th, 2015 @ 7:20 pm

Yes, it’s fairly recent. I think it came before the most recent VAWA renewal, so perhaps it was in 2005.
truth
July 30th, 2015 @ 7:23 pm

Women who claim to be feminists either lack the ability and/or
have never learned to think in a critical manner. If they had been able to do so they would know that a man and a woman were never meant to be “equal” (and obviously so). Nor was one to have power over the other.
Man and Woman are to “complement” one another; not compete with each other.

If one delves deeply into the origins of the “feminist movement” you
shall find a pattern emerging. The originators, these psychopathic misanthropes, consist of a group of, “dare I say, human beings” who belong to a certain “off-shoot” branch with a common “tribal affiliation”, who feverishly work with a pathological, supremacist mindset of evil intentions to foist upon society their need to satiate their hunger for destruction of all that is good and beneficial on the Earth.

BTW not to change the above extremely important subject but I truly believe that if USURY were abolished and our government began to “coin our money as originally intended and spelt out in
our Constitution [ Coinage clause – Article I, Section 8, Clause 5], Feminism would soon cease to exist. Along with the majority
of the problems we face today. Feminism is just one of the many “divide and conquer” techniques used for control; it being
a result of a private ”for profit” banking cabal controlling the economies and benefiting the few, at the expense of true freedom and what was meant to be a “public” trust to benefit all the world.
Bob Belvedere
July 30th, 2015 @ 8:00 pm

Yup – Power & Control.
Wombat_socho
July 30th, 2015 @ 8:39 pm

Another deranged whackjob.
M. Thompson
July 30th, 2015 @ 10:56 pm

That duck seems to drop a lot around here.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
July 31st, 2015 @ 12:09 am

That is true.
Dystopia Max
July 31st, 2015 @ 12:10 am

And if you read Roissy, you’d realize that reflexively blaming beta everymales for the bad behavior of the alpha badboys they chased after is classic unreconstructed female behavior, not just feminist behavior.

The question is not whether people will speak against ugly feminists, but whether people will willingly empower beta everymales, as the patriarchs they once were. If husbands, fathers, and brothers have no recognized legal, moral, or political agency in these matters, then they they check out or cuck out when their women start behaving destructively.

Corollary: If women aren’t in under the supervision/tutelage of their fathers, brothers, and husbands from a young age, their chances of becoming McCain fodder go up %1000.

Sanity and common sense is not inborn, it must be taught, and learned.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
July 31st, 2015 @ 12:11 am

Another swing of the ban hammer!
http://sites.williams.edu/cthorne/files/2011/06/IB-Bear-jew1.png
Evi L. Bloggerlady
July 31st, 2015 @ 12:14 am

Kerouac had his demons and contributed to his own demise. While Ginsberg definitely had talent, Ginsberg was an evil destructive force to others.
Daniel Freeman
July 31st, 2015 @ 1:03 am

Good rant with a couple of quibbles.

1. I think that Alpha Game has a better delineation of types. Your beta everymales are probably equivalent to delta males, just ordinary average guys.

2. We have to check our preconceptions against reality, and I’m only aware of good stats on bio fatherlessness.
Daniel Freeman
July 31st, 2015 @ 1:16 am

It is entirely probable that I have the details wrong, getting them second-hand from a friend with resentments, long enough ago that I don’t have a clear memory. But I trust his big picture.
LoneSage
July 31st, 2015 @ 2:59 am

It is these feminists that are doing the degrading and terrorizing of women.
Art Deco
July 31st, 2015 @ 5:18 am

The word ‘attractive’ does not mean what you think it means.
CaptDMO
July 31st, 2015 @ 7:38 am

That “domestic stuff” has become quite a different industry, and opportunity for outright fraud, in the 20 years you’ve been gone, (but hopefully still paying attention)
IE, look up “Parental Alienation”, “obstruction of shared custody scheduling” and “forensic recovered memories” as they pertain to “experts” in the Family Law field.
TRIGGER WARNING: Have some
swigable antacid at hand.
CaptDMO
July 31st, 2015 @ 7:49 am

Nope, you’re right.
Except you left out the alimony/property transfer (house)/”expenses ” bits..
I can’t remember if there’s a little “record expungement” scheme as well, much like “Rape Shield” extensions are abused to “protect” serial false “victim” accusers
Ilion
July 31st, 2015 @ 7:58 am

1) I disagree with Art Deco (*)

2) Now see, *you* are part of the problem of feminism — as long as the the rest of us keep looking foe excuses to avoid holding these women responsible for their own decisions to dive into the crazy, what incentive do they have to not do so?

(*) It always amazes (and amuses) me how so many people insist on trying to equate ‘attractive’ with that pernicious image that is these days called “hot”.

Part of what amuses me about it is that I naturally “rate” women’s attractiveness using many of the women in my family as the yardstick. By that measure, not only was the young Jabba not attractive, but neither are most is the women in Hollywood, nor most of the ones whom the rest of you fantasize as being “hot”.

If I can scale it back to a realistic level related to what women actually look like, so can the rest of you who didn’t grow up around take-your-breath-away women.
Quartermaster
July 31st, 2015 @ 12:43 pm

When you are hated by the right people, it is a good thing.
Quartermaster
July 31st, 2015 @ 12:46 pm

“Hot” simply means good looking. She may be willing to expose her body in skimpy bathing suits, or other revealing clothing, but that’s not a necessary condition.
Beauty is a much different thing. A woman can be beautiful, but not all that pretty. The most important aspect of a woman that makes her a beauty is the spirit she has about her. Beauty is sexually attractive.
Ilion
July 31st, 2015 @ 1:09 pm

Quartermaster: ““Hot” simply means good looking.”

If that were so, then this commercial which I discuss here wouldn’t even make sense. The commercial is sensible precisely because “hot” does not simply mean good-looking … and everyone knows it doesn’t, and knows what it does mean.

“She may be willing to expose her body in skimpy bathing suits, or other revealing clothing, but that’s not a necessary condition.”

“Hot” means “good-looking AND (expectedly) easy, with an emphasis on easy”.
Quartermaster
July 31st, 2015 @ 2:48 pm

You’re entitled to your opinion. I’ve known a good many “hot” women that dressed modestly and were faithful wives. Perhaps your world is populated with whores, but mine is not.
Ilion
July 31st, 2015 @ 4:14 pm

How is your reaction any different from that of the typical “liberal” when he doesn’t want to acknowledge some truth he knows is true?

If *you* are calling a woman “hot” then *you* are treating her as though she were a slut.