The Other McCain

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

Feminism’s Radical Transvaluation

Posted on | August 17, 2015 | 127 Comments

Amy Austin (@amymarieaustin) is mentally ill and bisexual, and also a feminist, but I repeat myself. Last year Ms. Austin, a British university student, wrote a rant entitled, “Patriarchy and the Problem of Being Born Female”:

Social constructions of gender, like power, stem from patriarchal ideologies . . .
Environmentally speaking, gender is independent of sex . . . and signifies the social constructedness of what maleness and femaleness mean in a given culture. The hierarchy that implicitly positions men above women due to reproductive difference, is a harmful one.

Her 995-word rant went viral in the feminist blogosphere, which attracted my notice, and when I wrote about Ms. Austin, her Twitter admirers then came after me like the Furies pursuing Orestes, which prompted me to write a second post entitled “The Madness of ‘Gender Theory’“:

Attempting to explain gender theory to normal people is like attempting to explain a schizophrenic’s delusions to sane people. Normal men are masculine in the most common-sense understanding of that word, and normal women are feminine. Because the meanings of male/masculine and female/feminine are so obvious, from a common-sense point of view, normal people take these categories for granted.
However, radical feminists are not normal people. They are intellectuals, and the most eminent feminist intellectuals have spent the past four decades denouncing the common sense of normal people when it comes to men, women and sex. Anything that normal people believe about sex is a myth, according to feminist intellectuals, and in place of our oppressive patriarchal myths, they offer us feminist ideology and gender theory. . . .

You can read the rest of that. That was a year ago, and since then I’ve plunged even deeper into the Mariana Trench of radical feminism which is, as I’ve said, a totalitarian movement to destroy civilizationa as know it. Sunday afternoon, my Twitter feed erupted after Ms. Austin saw me retweeted (sarcastically) by a British writer named Emily Stockham (@Emily_Camilla), who mocked me as an ignorant bigot. You see, feminists are so morally and intellectually superior to everyone else that to disagree with feminism proves that you are a stupid and hateful person. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Because I was just procrastinating, I ping-ponged tweets back and forth with Ms. Austin and Ms. Stockham a while. At some point, Ms. Stockman mentioned witchcraft, and I tweeted to her my recent post, “Feminist Tumblr: Justifying Hatred With Radical Ideology and Also, Witchcraft.” The point being that it is not me saying that feminists advocate witchcraft, it’s feminists, including eminent Women’s Studies professors. And then I called their attention to a provocative post by Ashton Blackwell, who described “a mainstreaming of dark, gothic, alternative culture” among some feminists:

These young women think they are “feminists” because feminism appeals to their frustrations, insecurities, and their bitterness over being used for casual sex. . . .
[Y]oung women in general have become darker and more bitter, and with good reason . . .
The dress style of the alternative scene — piercings, black apparel, combat boots, and surly expressions — broadcasts, “Stay away from me, I’m dangerous.” . . .
Septum piercings and unnatural hair colors have become so common that they have lost their whiff of punk subversion . . . The witchy, neo-pagan look is trendy . . .
I posit that it stands to reason that young women are attracted to alternative culture because the social breakdown and erosion of sexual decorum over the past half century or so has fostered conditions that make it more likely that they will have traumatic experiences. . . . Female psychology does not respond well to licentiousness, as much as feminists peddle so-called “sexual liberation.” Sadly, this dysfunction has been fully imbibed by the culture, and of course the consequences explain women’s receptivity to feminism — an ideology that purports to empathize with their pain, gives them a scapegoat, and thereby eclipses feminism’s own pivotal culpability in their plight.

Ms. Blackwell illustrates this with photos posted by self-proclaimed feminists, some of whom display pentagrams, crescent moons and other symbols associated with neopagan Wicca. The significance of this should not be dismissed because, you see, I have studied the history of feminism far more deeply than have these young feminists.

Mary Daly’s 1973 book Beyond God the Father not only celebrates witchcraft, but has a chapter called “Transvaluation of Values: The End of Phallic Morality,” in which advocates rejection of Judeo-Christian morality in favor of a “revolutionary morality.” Daly denies that “the life of the fetus is an absolute value,” denies also that there is such a thing as “nature” involved in human reproduction, and calls for “social change . . . to eradicate sex role socialization and the sexual caste system itself,” an “overturning of the sex role system.” In the next chapter, Daly speaks of “the significance of the women’s revolution as Antichrist . . . a spiritual upraising that can bring us beyond sexist myths” and as “the Antichurch . . a communal uprising against the social extensions of the male Incarnation myth.” Daly urges feminists to express “the witch that burns within our own true selves.”

Certainly, any Christian must recognize Daly’s feminist arguments as “doctrines of devils” (I Timothy 4:1), an explicit and deliberate embrace of evil. Knowing where feminist theory ultimately leads, should we be surprised to see that the “witchy, neo-pagan look” is “trendy” with young feminists? And are we surprised that Amy Austin claims her sexuality is gender-neutral:

Personally, I identify as somebody who has a changeable and emotional attraction to people, regardless of gender. Although generally I find women more attractive than men, gender is not really a defining factor in my romantic relationships . . .
The notion that women form relationships with other women as a result of childhood trauma is a harmful, almost laughable, stereotype that lesbian and bisexual women continually face. It is simply untrue . . .

Damaged, you say? How dare you imply Amy Austin is damaged? Despite her claim that gender is not a “defining factor” in her sexuality, Amy Austin is contemptuous of men because she can’t stand to be “a tool for the arousal of men . . . this object of sexual desire.” She finds normal male sexuality inherently repulsive, because “patriarchal ideologies” or something. If feminism is a “spiritual uprising,” as Daly said, what sort of spirits are these? If there is no “absolute value” in life, nor any such thing as “nature” in “the sex role system,” who can say what meaning or purpose there is in life at all?

“See, I have set before thee this day life and good,
and death and evil . . . I call heaven and earth to
record this day against you, that I have set
before you life and death, blessing and cursing:
therefore choose life, that both
thou and thy seed may live . . .”

We live in dark times, my friends. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Loyal readers have been funding my research into radical feminism, thanks to the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!





 

Category: Sex Trouble

Comments

127 Responses to “Feminism’s Radical Transvaluation”

  1. concern00
    August 17th, 2015 @ 1:36 am

    “However, radical feminists are not normal people. They are intellectuals…” If I was a twitter tosser I’d simply post ROTFL. Instead I will posit that investing one’s time in the critical thinking about absolute nonsense does not really equate to intellectualism. I think the word they’re all grasping at, but never quite finding, is mental illness.

  2. mole
    August 17th, 2015 @ 2:20 am

    “…Female psychology does not respond well to licentiousness…”

    This is the core of feminism. Blokes (absent civilizing forces) will stick their wingle in anything as long as it doesnt have teeth (or promises not to bite). This is almost opposed to the female want of a stable resource to assist her to raise a family.

    By celebrating the outliers (sexually uninhibited women) as the norm these theorists of feminism do terrible damage to society. Because they cant find guilt free no strings attached sex with men (without regret or mixed feelings) they theorise they are actually feeling bad because of society, not biology.

    Then they gain 50kg and call themselves lesbians.

    I know one of the few uninhibited ladies, shes my sister in law and her and my brother lead very alternative lifestyles. Id never say she is damaged by whats shes doing, but I also know its unusual in the extreme to be well adjusted and behaving as they do.

  3. Fail Burton
    August 17th, 2015 @ 5:30 am

    Gender feminism was created by the insane for the insane. No normal human being hate tweets daily for months on end about how all men are like aliens who have invaded peaceful Earth.

  4. Quartermaster
    August 17th, 2015 @ 5:32 am

    It is dark times. Alas, they are going to get darker. Much darker.

  5. RKae
    August 17th, 2015 @ 5:40 am

    Actually, I had always thought “intellectual” was a pejorative. I had never viewed it as a synonym for “intelligent person,” but as “a sort of blathering idiot who has a huge vocabulary.”

    It was many years before I discovered that it’s supposed to mean “smart!”

    Every intellectual I had ever heard was an idiot, so, y’know, I just figured…

  6. RKae
    August 17th, 2015 @ 5:46 am

    I think people miss the real rise of homosexual acceptance.

    The stage had to be set first with easy sex, easy divorce, and excused adultery. Only then was there a culture where gays could come out of hiding.

    But it’s not done yet, because the sex and drug culture sets the stage for Satanism’s acceptance. Get ready for them to pop out of the shadows and say, “Hey! Guess who always was onboard with gay and bi sex, and lots and lots of drugs! That’s right! Church of Satan!”

    Once they get some celebrities to come out publicly, it really gets hip, and the ball really starts rolling.

    So, yeah. Dark times getting darker.

  7. RKae
    August 17th, 2015 @ 5:48 am

    Legal Insurrection has a good feminist bit today:

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/08/the-war-on-white-feminism/comment-page-1/#comment-609231

  8. Dana
    August 17th, 2015 @ 6:39 am

    Well, it’s not s’posed to mean smart; it’s s’posed to mean educated and employed in intellectual pursuits. Thus, having a college degree, and engaged in — though not employed in — intellectual pursuits, I is not a intellectual.

    Of course, if professional employment in an intellectual pursuit is a qualification for being an intellectual, then the vast majority of the tumblrina are also not intellectuals, but mere poseurs at feminist thinking.

  9. Ola Sanders
    August 17th, 2015 @ 7:14 am

    ??????????????????????????????????????

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    >?>?>?>?http://tinyurl.com/Cyber0EmploymentSpot11

    Start workiing with google & make 693.2_usd_daily…….
    Read work details
    find out here

    >?>?>?>? http://tinyurl.com/Cyber0EmploymentSpot11

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    ??????????????????????????????????????

  10. Dana
    August 17th, 2015 @ 8:12 am

    A self-appointed intellectual wrote:

    Environmentally speaking, gender is independent of sex . . . and signifies the social constructedness of what maleness and femaleness mean in a given culture.

    Really? While it’s certainly true that gender — the concepts of masculine and feminine — don’t always align with biological sex, has Miss (not Ms) Austin, or anyone else, proved that there is no linkage whatsoever, which is the meaning that the word “independent” conveys?

    If masculine and feminine are independent of biological sex, then we ought to see a reasonably random distribution of masculine vis a vis feminine males, and masculine vis a vis feminine females; do we?

  11. Bob Belvedere
    August 17th, 2015 @ 8:27 am

    Wikipedia’s explanation of the Transvaluation Of Values reads, in part:

    Nietzsche’s enthusiasm for what he called “the transvaluation of all
    values” stemmed from his contempt for Christianity and the entirety of
    the moral system that flowed from it: indeed, “contempt of man”, as
    Nietzsche states near the end of The Antichrist. Nietzsche perceived the moral framework of Christian civilization to be oppressive….

    So…these Feminists are the followers / admirers of a man – a madman named: Friedrich Nietzsche.

    Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha….

  12. RS
    August 17th, 2015 @ 8:27 am

    Given that for feminists, all relationships are political statements and viewed through the lens of biology, i.e. female, good; male, bad, how then do they incorporate the concept of socially constructed gender “fluidity” into this? Stated differently, is it males they loathe or socially constructed “maleness.” You cannot have both. If “maleness” and/or “femaleness” is socially constructed, it is independent of biological sex. Therefore, the feminists should despise “maleness,” wherever it appears, e.g. the “butch” segment of lesbians. Alternatively, if “maleness” and “femaleness” is biologically determined, then the feminists rantings are the functional equivalent of complaining about gravity.

  13. DeadMessenger
    August 17th, 2015 @ 9:02 am

    Logic and reason doesn’t really apply in the context of feminist brain vomit, I’m afraid. Until you start gibbering like a monkey on crack, RS, you’re just not going to fit into the feminist Bizarro World.

  14. DeadMessenger
    August 17th, 2015 @ 9:11 am

    Feminists feel bad not because of either society or biology, but because of conscience. Which is why they’re forced to establish a rationalization in order to excuse away the unexcusable, and force us all by law to participate with them so that they don’t feel bad, thus searing their consciences.

    Also, no offense, but isn’t this what your sister-in-law is doing too, i.e. searing her conscience? That she is not actually well adjusted, but good at acting that way?

  15. DeadMessenger
    August 17th, 2015 @ 9:14 am

    You can’t bludgeon them with statistics, Dana. There’s no logic in Fairyland, doncha know?

  16. Dana
    August 17th, 2015 @ 9:15 am

    Would bludgeoning them with statistics be a microaggression? Should I be denounced for this?

  17. Dana
    August 17th, 2015 @ 9:23 am

    If:

    Social constructions of gender, like power, stem from patriarchal ideologies . . . (and) Environmentally speaking, gender is independent of sex . . . and signifies the social constructedness of what maleness and femaleness mean in a given culture. The hierarchy that implicitly positions men above women due to reproductive difference, is a harmful one.

    then does that not concomitantly mean that sexual preferences are not rigidly assigned by your genes, but are the function, at least partly, of culture and conditioning?

  18. Dana
    August 17th, 2015 @ 9:24 am

    What does she look like? 🙂

  19. Gunga
    August 17th, 2015 @ 9:25 am

    So many pseudo-intellectuals have affected the ethos of intellectualism (without any actual scholarly rigor) that the term has become a pejorative (said the hick from the sticks). I remember a time when it wasn’t so.

  20. Gunga
    August 17th, 2015 @ 9:33 am

    Most people lead lives of quiet despair. Celebrities lead lives of loud despair.

  21. Grandson Of TheGrumpus
    August 17th, 2015 @ 9:35 am

    Besides, bludgeoning them w/a five-day old flounder seems more profitable in the time investment/useful results equation– in addition to being more satisfying emotionally and karmatically…
    ;~)?

  22. Gunga
    August 17th, 2015 @ 9:37 am

    As a native speaker of gibberish, I resent that remark Madame! Oh, sorry. I meant, “I ‘represent’ that remark…” …never mind.

  23. JoeBee
    August 17th, 2015 @ 9:40 am

    “Its laughable to suggest that bisexuality in women is the result of childhood trauma”, yet Ms. Austin was raped at 14, and as someone who has been involved in numerous artistic circles wher bisexuality among women is common, I’ve never known a single one who didn’t suffer from childhood trauma involving a man, usually the father. What’s laughable is to suggest that’s a coincidence.

  24. JoeBee
    August 17th, 2015 @ 9:53 am

    Feminist opposition to Christianity is in no way Nietzschean. It’s wholly, 100% Marxist. And yes, there’s a huge difference between the two thinkers.

  25. Finrod Felagund
    August 17th, 2015 @ 9:56 am

    My ex-wife is bi and had no childhood trauma involving a man, unless you’re going to count her parents divorcing when she was 10 or so.

  26. JoeBee
    August 17th, 2015 @ 9:57 am

    In Neitzsches philosophy, Marxism, and Christianity share common traits: namely forced altruism, and envy of the powerful, and free, therefore he had a contempt for both. You could say his criticism of Christianity is closer to that of Ayn Rand.

  27. JoeBee
    August 17th, 2015 @ 10:00 am

    I said, “in my personal experience”, but are you then saying childhood trauma as a factor in bisexual women is purely coincidence, or are you just defending yourself?

  28. Quartermaster
    August 17th, 2015 @ 10:05 am

    Or ‘resemble’

  29. Quartermaster
    August 17th, 2015 @ 10:06 am

    He had contempt for Christianity because he didn’t understand it. There is nothing ‘forced’ about Christianity.

  30. Quartermaster
    August 17th, 2015 @ 10:08 am

    Gender and sex are independent as they refer to two much different concepts. Gender is a grammatical term. Sex is biological. The crazies are partially correct for the wrong reason.

  31. Quartermaster
    August 17th, 2015 @ 10:09 am

    Probably. It would be best if you performed a prophylactic denunciation, just in case.

  32. Quartermaster
    August 17th, 2015 @ 10:12 am

    The majority of “intellectuals” are poseurs. there are too many to count, but some regarded as “public intellectuals” are simply idiots. Dawkins and Nye are two that come to mind.

  33. JoeBee
    August 17th, 2015 @ 10:31 am

    Of course, he didn’t “understand it”. He only spent most of his life researching it, and was a former devout Lutheran. And what about “obey these rules, or suffer eternal damnation” doesn’t sound forced to you? Remember, the Christian Church was once responsible for the Inquisition, Witch burnings, anti-semitism, and forcing Jews into ghettos, etc.

  34. Dana
    August 17th, 2015 @ 11:08 am

    Suggesting the use of “a five-day-old flounder” could imply that it smells like fish. I denounce you for the wholly insensitive brute that you are!

  35. Dana
    August 17th, 2015 @ 11:10 am

    Alas! While you might have been right in the past, the definition of gender has been expanded to include:

    Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs.

    Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine.

  36. Chance Boudreaux
    August 17th, 2015 @ 12:31 pm

    The only good thing about the coming collapse is that feminists will have to start being feminine again if they want to survive.

  37. Finrod Felagund
    August 17th, 2015 @ 12:44 pm

    No, I’m merely pointing out an example from my experience that’s different from your experience.

  38. Finrod Felagund
    August 17th, 2015 @ 12:46 pm

    “We must get rid of our arrogant assumption that it is the masses who can be led by the nose. As far as I can make it out, the shoe is on the other foot. The only people who are really dupes of their favourite newspapers are the intelligentsia. It is they who read the leading articles: the poor read the sporting news, which is mostly true.”

    — C.S. Lewis

  39. DeadMessenger
    August 17th, 2015 @ 1:05 pm

    You speak crack monkey gibberish? 😀

  40. DeadMessenger
    August 17th, 2015 @ 1:08 pm

    >:( That was very naughty. I’m telling Mrs, Dana on you.

  41. DeadMessenger
    August 17th, 2015 @ 1:11 pm

    at this point, what difference would it make? As you know, you deserve denouncement for everything you say, white privilege patriarch. Unless it’s “Here, take my money”.

  42. DeadMessenger
    August 17th, 2015 @ 1:17 pm

    The Bible itself says it cannot be understood unless God explains it to you. After He calls you to Jesus.

    “Professing” then, is totally different from actually “being”.

    “And what about “obey these rules, or suffer eternal damnation” doesn’t sound forced to you?”

    Islam: Convert and I will chop your head off right now.

    Christianity: Here is the Gospel. Now, if you believe and repent, and are born again, you will go to heaven. If you don’t, you will live out your life on earth just as you expected to, but then you will suffer punishment for rejecting the gift of mercy from the “mythical” God you rejected and mocked. (Like what you’re doing now).

    Christian Church != Catholic Church

    Christians have no control over the actions of professors. Non-Christians perform heinous crimes every day. Shall I blame you personally for their actions?

  43. Mike G.
    August 17th, 2015 @ 1:31 pm

    You got that right. Either that or its back to clubbing them in the head and dragging them back to the cave by their hair.

  44. joeBee
    August 17th, 2015 @ 2:03 pm

    I didn’t claim it’s a simple one to one, but to say there isn’t a corralary between childhood trauma, and bisexuality, and lesbianism when 90% of the bisexuals you knew had suffered childhood trauma at the hands of either their father, or other man would be absurd. That’s all I’m saying.

  45. JoeBee
    August 17th, 2015 @ 2:11 pm

    Why is it a good thing though for a woman to seek her security through a man? How is this good for men as a whole, too? I guess it’s good for wealthy men, but even they’re being viewed as a human wallet? Ironically, one of the biggest complaints amongst MRA’s, MGtOW’s, and other members of the “manosphere” is female hypergamy, but yet they want to keep the conditions in place that condition women to view men in this way. It’s not like we’re in a tribal hunter/gatherer society where physicality is one of the main factors for survival anymore.

  46. Gunga
    August 17th, 2015 @ 2:18 pm

    I have a passing acquaintance with it. Granted, the gurgling slur of the Northeastern Crack Monkey is difficult to emulate, but the the slow melodious mumblings of the Midwestern Crack Monkey following a three-day bender are child’s play… Jabizgetme?

  47. JoeBee
    August 17th, 2015 @ 2:20 pm

    Was I defending Islam? Christianity has at least had its reformation, while Aspects of Islam still think it’s the 8th century. Yes, the Catholic Church was the worst offender, but it was also the most powerful, so there is something to be said for that. it’s well known though that the Lutheran Church was also anti-semetic.

    Isn’t Christian doctrine still threatening punishment for non-compliance?

    Look, I don’t want to attack the Christian faith here, and even though I’m a non believer I won’t act like so many militant leftists and atheists who live to demean Christians. I really dislike that. My only point was Nietzsches attacks on Christianity are not the same as Marxist/Feminist attacks on Christianity, and stem from a radically different perspective.

  48. Finrod Felagund
    August 17th, 2015 @ 2:21 pm

    Cue the Monty Python fish-slapping dance.

  49. Gunga
    August 17th, 2015 @ 2:58 pm

    I personally have a healthy distrust the lifelong research of syphilitics out of principle, but that’s just me. Heck, I can’t even find this list of coercive rules that leads to damnation. …and try as I may, I just can’t twist “Love the Lord your God” and “Love your neighbor as you love yourself” into a desire to burn a witch, torture a ‘heretic’ or force anyone into a ghetto. But then, I probably draw a false distinction between people who have a form of religion and people who love Jesus. Then again, I don’t have terminal syphilis…as far as I know…

  50. JoeBee
    August 17th, 2015 @ 3:10 pm

    Oh, is that it? His entire thesis is flawed because he contracted an STD toward the end of his life? Now that’s some weak sauce, buddy. really, that’s literally the most mindless, dismissive kind of piss poor argument you could make, and intellectually bankrupt. Oddly enough, you follow the words of a man who claimed to talk to God, and be his “son”. I think in modern parlance we call that a schizophrenic, or simply delusional. But hey, that’s just me..second, he’s referring mainly to the Church, and concedes the gospels have been bastardized to some degree, but there is no Church without Jesus, and the source is just as flawed.