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: Why Does ‘Equality’ Require Promoting Perversion?

Posted on | October 30, 2015 | 53 Comments

 

Boston University’s Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program “fosters interdisciplinary research and teaching related to the intersections of gender, sexuality, race, nationality, and other categories of identity that organize and disorganize our lives.” The director of the program, Associate Professor Carrie Preston, describes her “research and teaching interests include modernist literature, performance, and dance, feminist and queer theory, and transnational and postcolonial studies.” Boston University’s annual tuition is $48,436. Their web site outlines the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program’s history:

Our program began in the 1970s and emerged in the 1980s as the Boston University Women’s Studies Program, a site of intellectual inquiry and feminist consciousness-raising concerning women’s lives. . . .
Scholars began to problematize the very notion of sex as a biological given or social reality and focused concern on topics in sexuality that could not be reduced to concerns with gender. Current scholarship in the field examines the extent to which sexuality and gender have been linked together historically (through the recruitment of sexuality as the “performance” or “proof” of gender, for instance) as well as aspects of sexuality that are distinct from gender.

To “problematize the very notion of sex as a biological given,” you see, is what feminist theory requires. Part of the “interdisciplinary” exploration of gender, sexuality and identity is the annual Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick Memorial Lecture, a tribute to one of the early leaders of Boston University’s program, whose 1990 book Epistemology of the Closet is “widely considered a founding text of queer theory.”

How do Boston University students get their $48,436 of queer theory?

Faculty moderators held two workshops for undergraduate and graduate students on Sedgwick’s 1991 essay “How to Bring Your Kids Up Gay: The War on Effeminate Boys.” This short, accessible text focused attention on the alarming rate of suicide among gay and gender non-conforming youth, and critiqued the failure of psychotherapists in the US to address this crisis with queer-affirmative interventions.

Anyone may read the “short, accessible text” named:

I am especially interested in revisionist psychoanalysis including ego-psychology, and in influential developments following on the American Psychiatric Association’s much-publicized 1973 decision to drop the pathologizing diagnosis of homosexuality from the succeeding Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-III). What is likely to be the fate of children brought under the influence of psychoanalysis and psychiatry today, post-DSM-III, on account of anxieties about their sexuality? . . .
That one woman, as a woman, might desire another; that one man, as a man, might desire another: the indispensable need to make these powerful, subversive assertions has seemed, perhaps, to require a relative de-emphasis of the links between gay adults and gender-nonconforming children. To begin to theorize gender and sexuality as distinct though intimately entangled axes of analysis has been, indeed, a great advance of recent lesbian and gay thought.
There is a danger, however, that that advance may leave the effeminate boy once more in the position of the haunting abject — this time the haunting abject of gay thought itself.

You may read the whole thing, and note that Sedgwick assumes as her premise that any psychiatric problems (including suicide) experienced by homosexual or “gender-nonconforming children” can only be explained by society’s homophobia. According to Sedgwick, the psychiatric community’s “pathologizing diagnosis” of homosexuality as a mental disorder prior to 1973 was nothing but an expression of anti-gay bigotry and, in 1991, Sedgwick perceived a “danger” that psychiatry might continue to view “the effeminate boy” in this way.

Is there a direct cause-and-effect relationship between homophobia and teen suicide? No. Most homosexuals do not commit suicide, and most people who commit suicide are not homosexual. Furthermore, we cannot simply discard as obsolete (or “regressive”) the basic psychological insight that views homosexuality as a tendency arising from childhood problems often associated with family dysfunction. You don’t have to be a bigot or an advocate of “reparative therapy” to interpret homosexuality as a matter of psychosocial development. The same issues correlated with homosexuality are also correlated with problems like drug abuse and depression. Trying to make “homophobia” a simple cause-and-effect explanation for the gay teenager’s suicide is an error of logic, even if it is the suicidal teen who offers this explanation. (To climb up on the cross of martyrdom — to blame “society” for your personal problems — can be a temptation for anyone with a disposition to self-pity, and troubled teenagers are unusually prone to self-pity.)

More to the point, we must recognize how Sedgwick’s “queer theory” employed a sort of radical jiu-jitsu that reversed the entire purpose of psychotherapy. Whatever the troubled young person’s problem, psychology traditionally sought to locate the cause of the problem in order to help the patient successfully adjust to adult life. This emphasis on adjustment — being able to complete school, become gainfully employed, form healthy relationships with others, etc. — is rejected by radicals, who say that instead of helping the patient adjust to society, we should change society for the benefit of the patient.

This is why, when we look at feminism today, it so often seems as if the inmates are running the asylum. Disgruntled kooks and perverse weirdos flock to the feminist banner because it offers them a political rationalization of their personal problems, and gives them a platform from which to express their alienation from mainstream society.

Adjusting society to enable misfits to feel “accepted” — letting little Johnny wear a hairbow and a lacy skirt to school and teaching the other kids that this is perfectly normal — is one of the logical consequences of feminist theory that seeks to “problematize the very notion of sex as a biological given.” Rather than trying to teach little Johnny how to fit in with the other boys, Sedgwick’s “queer theory” rejects as invalid the categorization of children as boys and girls, and condemns as “homophobia” any expectation (by parents, especially) that children should grow up to be normal.

“The view that heterosexuality is a key site of male power is widely accepted within feminism. Within most feminist accounts, heterosexuality is seen not as an individual preference, something we are born like or gradually develop into, but as a socially constructed institution which structures and maintains male domination, in particular through the way it channels women into marriage and motherhood.”
— Diane Richardson, “Theorizing Heterosexuality,” in Rethinking Sexuality (2000)

“If we accept that gender is constructed and that it is not in any way ‘naturally’ or inevitably connected to sex, then the distinction between sex and gender comes to seem increasingly unstable. In that case, gender is radically independent of sex, ‘a free-floating artifice’ as [Professor Judith] Butler puts it, raising the question as to whether ‘sex’ is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps sex was always already gender, so that the sex/gender distinction is not actually a distinction at all. Butler dispenses with the idea that either gender or sex is an ‘abiding substance’ by arguing that a heterosexual, heterosexist culture establishes the coherence of these categories in order to perpetuate and maintain what the feminist poet and critic Adrienne Rich has called ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ — the dominant order in which men and women are required or even forced to be heterosexual.”
— Sara Salih, Judith Butler (2002)

Until I started studying radical feminism, I never thought of “normal” as an achievement, but Feminism Is Queer, as Professor Mimi Marinucci has explained. Feminist theory condemns heterosexuality as “the ideology of male supremacy,” and denies that behaviorial differences between men and women are natural. Any apparent differences between men and women are socially constructed by the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix (see Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, 1990). Feminism seeks to abolish gender in order to achieve “equality” by establishing an androgynous society in which the categories “male” and “female” cease to have any significance. A radical ideology which denies that there is any such thing as “human nature,” feminism requires us to celebrate Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner as Glamour magazine’s “Woman of the Year.”

These bizarre manifestations of radical perversity do not occur spontaneously. They are expressions of a belief system promoted by the academic Feminist-Industrial Complex, the taxpayer-subsidized institutions in which professors indoctrinate students through “feminist consciousness-raising” and train them as activists committed to changing society. Because feminism condemns heterosexuality as “a socially constructed institution which . . . maintains male domination,” feminists encourage homosexuality in order to prevent “male power” from “channel[ing] women into marriage and motherhood.” Feminists therefore “problematize the very notion of sex as a biological given,” promoting the belief that “gender is radically independent of sex,” in order to destroy “the dominant order” of “heterosexist culture.”

What feminists mean by “equality” is “the end of civilization as we know it” (to quote lesbian feminists Sidney Abbott and Barbara Love) and this radical ideology exercises such hegemonic authority in academia that no one is permitted to criticize or oppose feminism on the 21st-century university campus. This is why feminists rant about “rape culture,” in order to demonize heterosexual male students, inciting young women to irrational fear by portraying young men as violent sexual predators.

To do what I have done — to quote what feminists say, to show what feminists believe, to explain what feminism is — would be condemned as a hate crime by the intellectual totalitarians who now control American universities. Opposing viewpoints are prohibited, so that the authority of feminism and “queer theory” goes unchallenged on college campuses.

“Spanking and Poetry”: A Conference
on Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick
Annual English Student Association Conference
February 25-26, 2010
The Graduate Center
The City University of New York
365 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10016

This two-day conference seeks to extend the work of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick by bringing together junior and senior scholars to examine her critical, literary, and artistic work.

That conference, “Spanking and Poetry,” incidentally, derived its title from a paper Sedgwick presented at a 1986 conference “Feminism, Sexuality, and Power,” at Mount Holyoke College, which erupted into a controversy over the issue of lesbian sadomasochism (see Gayle Rubin, Deviations, p. 213 and p. 399, note 72). So, what sort of topics do you suppose are discussed at a conference devoted to the legacy of Eve Sedgwick? Would you believe “queer theory in Classical studies”?

Michael Broder discussed the (almost non-existent) state of queer theory in Classical studies, arguing that despite brilliant foundational work by David Halperin and Amy Richlin, classicists have become curiously resistant to queer theory. And who doesn’t like hearing about Priapus, the Roman god of gardens who’d fuck any intruder, man or woman, in any available orifice?

Who, you may wonder, is Michael Broder?

My name is Michael Broder and I am The Queer Classicist, a freelance writer with a PhD in Classics from the City University of New York and an MFA in Creative Writing from NYU. I write about sex, gender, and kinship from my own perspective as a same-sex married gay man but also informed by perspectives including queer theory, feminism, and cultural materialism (this list is representative, not exhaustive). That means I’m going to write a lot about tops and bottoms, butches and fems, poz and neg, cis and trans, porn, hustlers, drag queens, divas, and queer fads and fashions of all sorts, including theater, film, television, music, and art. You may also find me writing about other aspects of culture and society including race, class, age, ability, religion, and more. I live in Bed-Stuy, Brooklyn with my poet husband and too many feral and domestic cats.

You need a Ph.D. to write about that stuff, obviously.

Feminism’s ironclad grip on academia means that parents who pay $48,436 a year to send their sons and daughters to Boston University can be certain that their children will never be exposed to any perspective on “sexuality and gender” that contradicts the “feminist and queer theory” advocated by Professor Carrie Preston.

Professors at Boston University, like practically every other university and college in American, reject “the very notion of sex as a biological given.” No American university student is ever exposed to any cogent analysis of human behavior based on the premise that males are naturally masculine and females are naturally feminine, and that family formation on the natural basis of heterosexual pair-bonding serves any legitimate or useful social purpose. Achieving feminism’s goal of “equality” means that “How to Bring Your Kids Up Gay” is now the essential task of parents who want to abolish the “socially constructed institution” of heterosexuality that “maintains male domination.”

Thank God, I can’t afford $48,436 a year. Maintaining “male domination” isn’t always easy, but it’s a lot cheaper than “equality.”

(Hat-tip: Wagner Clemente Soto on Twitter.)

+ + + + +

Unlike feminist professors, whose salaries are subsidized by taxpayers in the name of “education,” this blog is an exercise in shameless capitalism. My research into radical feminism is funded by readers in response to the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

It’s been a rough month and my wife expects me to do my patriarchal duty by paying the electricity bill, so whatever you give — $5, $10, $20 — would be most sincerely appreciated.




 

Category: Sex Trouble

Comments

53 Responses to “The Queering of Feminism: Why Does ‘Equality’ Require Promoting Perversion?”

  1. Mike G.
    October 30th, 2015 @ 10:10 pm

    So Michael Broder has the deluxe cat lady starter kit…imagine that.

    What a good reason to start working for untraceable cash. Less money to the government to pay for useless crap like this.

  2. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    October 30th, 2015 @ 10:22 pm

    Why you ask? Because PIV is always rape!

  3. Renaissance
    October 30th, 2015 @ 10:54 pm

    Notice how few of these “problematizers of sexuality” are actually scientists or experts on human sexuality. Most are professors of English (or of other liberal arts that they have bastardized).

    A quick look at the animal kingdom SCREAMS heteronormativity–at least for reproductive purposes.

  4. BSR
    October 31st, 2015 @ 12:39 am

    I showed my 4 year old son that black and white picture of “Caitlyn” Jenner on this blog post and asked him (without any further prompting) if it was a picture of a man or a woman.

    He said, “That’s a man.”

  5. Fail Burton
    October 31st, 2015 @ 5:14 am

    We have a bizarre cult almost entirely powered by lesbian queer theory which is some strange way sees itself as a back to nature movement. They wish to return society to that indeterminate time in the past when men somehow globally imposed the heterosexual gender binary in order to control women, including men instituting a taboo against incest in order to facilitate arranged marriages where women could be spent like coin. This derives from one single quote from the famous proto-gender feminist Simone de Beauvoir in 1949: “One is not born a woman, but rather, becomes one.”

    But hold on; if one is not born heterosexual, how is one born gay, or transgender? One is permitted to “cure” heterosexuality by employing “performative” genderblindness but not gays. If getting rid of “Mr” and “Mrs” is a cure for heterosexuality, isn’t imposing them a cure for gayness? None of this makes any sense and that’s because the cart precedes the horse, ironically in Derrida’s “performative” fashion, where a thing anticipates itself and so becomes reality by sheer persistence. Lesbian academics wave away their own contradictions while pretending there is some historic and anthropological basis for all this they’ve cherry-picked from the dabblings of Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan and Claude Levi-Strauss.

    There are no contradictions in heterosexuality because there can be none in nature. A pair of mating tigers don’t put on a post-structuralist show by chanting themselves into heterosexuality anymore than Dorothy did by chanting “I do believe in ghosts.”

    What a crew of nutters. They clothe this is fake academic lingo just enough to give this shit the surface sheen of plausibility to confuse kids and then claim it’s animals who are actually confused. My head spins every time I try to piece this all together.

  6. Peggy Higginbotham
    October 31st, 2015 @ 5:29 am

    ???

    .…my companion’s relative makes $97 working on a PC onIine……..A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $83, p/h..Learn More right Here….
    2qnb…..
    ??
    ??? http://GlobalEmploymentReportsTopStarJobsLine/Get/$97hourly… ?????????????????????????????????????????????????

  7. LIbtardian slayer
    October 31st, 2015 @ 5:56 am

    Not when lesbians do it

  8. robertstacymccain
    October 31st, 2015 @ 7:56 am

    “Lesbian academics wave away their own contradictions while pretending there is some historic and anthropological basis for all this they’ve cherry-picked from the dabblings of Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan and Claude Levi-Strauss.”

    Ab, so I see you’ve actually read Butler. What I can’t grasp — it defies explanation — is why no conservative scholar in the 1990s ever bothered to write the definitive takedown of Gender Trouble. Once you take a cold, hard look at Butler’s sources, the three-card monte hustle becomes transparent. The anthropology is profoundly suspect. Gayle Rubin’s “The Traffic in Women” (cited by Butler) treats Levi-Strauss as definitive, in order to attack the incest taboo as a way of advocating the “liberation” of women. And never mind, of course, Rubin’s known enthusiasm for sadomasochism. This is insane, as is Butler’s deployment of Foucault and Wittig as authorities. A gay man who died of AIDS and a woman notorious for her science-fiction fantasy novel of a lesbian revolution to overthrow patriarchy — you’re going to make these sources the basis of a theory about sex and gender? Really?

    Yet this is what Butler did, and her book has since become the Ur-text of Third Wave feminism, and nobody seems to blink twice about it. We are living in crazy times, my friend.

  9. robertstacymccain
    October 31st, 2015 @ 8:01 am

    Most are professors of English (or of other liberal arts that they have bastardized).”

    Exactly. Sedgwick was an English professor, and the Modern Language Association became — in the 1980s and ’90s — a primary venue for the advancement of feminist/”queer” arguments. It really is remarkable how feminists created their own authority. Adrienne Rich was a poet who nevertheless made herself into an “expert” on subjects far beyond the province of poetry.

  10. CrustyB
    October 31st, 2015 @ 8:14 am

    Homosexuality: The new norm in America.

  11. CaptDMO
    October 31st, 2015 @ 8:20 am

    Tough slog to go through……
    Money quote…(as it were)
    “Thank God, I can’t afford $48,436 a year. Maintaining “male domination” isn’t always easy, but it’s a lot cheaper than “equality.””
    Too bad you tip jar DEMANDS association between Debit card and
    phone#, web address, “real” name”, etc.
    I no longer “do” pay pal for similar reasons.
    Alternatives?

  12. RS
    October 31st, 2015 @ 8:22 am

    Wasn’t it none other than Betty Freidan who publicly fretted about the influence of Lesbians on the course of Feminism?

    As for the balance of your post, the most successful thing Third Wave Feminism has done is to silence actual practitioners of science in this debate. If one holds to a purely materialistic view of the universe (and I do not, BTW) with its emphasis on evolution through natural selection, the inevitable question is why “maleness” and “femaleness” evolved, even if “socially constructed” in some proto-paleolithic way? The answer is obvious: because they had utility necessary for species survival. That is, they were/are beneficial and required. The fact that a Richard Dawkins can write a dozen books about it occurring in lower orders of life but will clam up when its mentioned with respect to human reproduction and attendant attributes is truly marvelous to behold.

  13. robertstacymccain
    October 31st, 2015 @ 8:22 am

    If we ever meet in person, fat envelopes stuffed with cash are cheerfully accepted.

    Sorry to say I know of no other alternative.

  14. robertstacymccain
    October 31st, 2015 @ 8:45 am

    Dawkins has been lashing out at feminists in recent years, but he won’t go on record at any length about the whole “pair-bonding-is-natural” thing — which every social scientist accepted as basic, oh, 35 years ago — probably because that sounds too much like Genesis. Atheist men hate the Bible because it condemns their own sinful appetites, and this leaves them with little persuasive to say in reply to feminist “social justice” challenges.

    My idea — and I don’t know how many of my readers, religious or secular, actually perceive my belief on this — is that God and Nature are really telling us the same thing. There is such a thing as Human Nature and a thoughtful study of the Bible teaches us lessons that are entirely in accordance with what we can learn through Science. There are excellent instructions to be found in, for example, the Book of Proverbs and the Gospel of John, but it takes a sense of reverence to grasp these lessons. Atheists are so prejudiced against the Bible that they simply refuse to accept the possibility that it conveys something transcendent and true. Here we are then, living through The End of Days, and seeing further proof (as if further proof was needed) that Paul’s description of the consequences of godlessness in Romans 1:18-32 were accurate, and still the atheists refuse to repent their error.

    Well, I’m “unscientific” and a “bigot,” you see, for believing what I believe, so I only rarely invoke biblical authority on these matters, and then only as a sort of slap across the face of any secular readers who may be sleepwalking past these frightening omens of impending destruction. People need to pay attention and think very seriously about what we are witnessing. These are not the ordinary events of ordinary times.

  15. marcus tullius cicero
    October 31st, 2015 @ 9:35 am

    …Glamour rag nailed it as the poster for the Cultural decay and decline of American Christian values. Not to mention the decline of sanity and intelligence of a Progressive subhuman mob being “educated” by godless traitors.

  16. Quartermaster
    October 31st, 2015 @ 9:44 am

    There is no need to push perversion if your goal is equality. As you have already noted, however, they are making war on human nature and by doing so are pushing dehumanization of people. Perversion is an effective tool of dehumanization.

  17. Quartermaster
    October 31st, 2015 @ 9:50 am

    Dawkins is a moron who attempts to use science to cover for his own prejudices. The result is, no matter how much he may decry feminists, he has no grounds to criticize them, and his lack of dealing with pair bonding is evidence he knows this viscerally, even if he won’t acknowledge it..

  18. Fail Burton
    October 31st, 2015 @ 10:17 am

    The insane Adrienne Rich is also crucial since she used the phrase “compulsory heterosexuality” long before Butler. Her stinking poem that treats marriage like a dystopian SF novel came out the same year as Friedan’s vunderverk. A quote from that Rich poem – “sleeps with monsters” – is also the title of a column by a lesbian feminist who pushed Ann Leckie’s multi-award-winning novel the month it was published as the best space opera ever at TorCom, the website assoc. of the largest publisher of SF, Tor Books. And why? Well it uses “genderblind” pronouns, which brings us back to Wittig’s novel which uses the same thing and is later supposedly said by Butler to be the linguistic “performative” cure for “compulsory heterosexuality.” Self-declared bi-sexual Hugo-nominated blogger Foz Meadows gave an equally enthusiastic review of AJ at the Hugo-winning blog which hosted Kameron Hurley’s double-Hugo-winning moronic post “We Have Always Fought,” which maintains men have purposefully erased women from military history. Meadows once Tweeted that the gender binary should be fucked with a chainsaw and children allowed to decide. Meadows, being a new mother, is a proto-Adrienne Rich, and I worry for her kid. This bullshit is why everyone is now so nuts about “My pronouns are…”

    But what do they call anyone who talks about “curing” homosexuals”? A bigot. Yet here we have mainstream America openly calling for letting your children decide their gender in the hope they’ll be the proud parents of a whatever. In Australia they have a “No Gender December” X-mas movement. It is a transparent attempt by this sick ideology to “cure” heterosexuality and bring us back to the halcyon days before Conan stole androgyny during the Hyborian Age.

    Butler herself acknowledges this contradiction, especially when she was forced to include transgender or face the prospect of being a bigot. In 2009 she stated there is no feminism that is not also anti-racist so she could be in tune with the now completely fused racial “intersectionality,” a thing Rich, Alice Waler and Audre Lorde pushed in 1974 when Rich refused a prestigious award and brought Lorde and Walker onstage. But the name and biggest push didn’t occur til Peggy McIntosh’s “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” in 1988 and Kimberle Crenshaw coining the term “intersectionality” two years later. And we also have SF author and SFWA president John Scalzi’s famous white privilege piece at Gawker Media’s video-gaming Kotaku site, one of the first blows in what later became GamerGate.

    Round and round we go.

  19. RS
    October 31st, 2015 @ 10:19 am

    There is such a thing as Human Nature and a thoughtful study of the Bible teaches us lessons that are entirely in accordance with what we can learn through Science.

    Quite so. For the believer, Human Nature is the result of Sin. With that as the basis for analysis, human behavior is easily described and predicted. For the non-believer, who seeks insight in all manner of philosophies and literature other than the Bible, one would still think that s/he could obtain some insight about Humanity from the Bible’s pages.

    As an agnostic literature professor of mine once said to a grad student following said grad students gratuitous trashing of scripture: “Two things. First, dollar-for-dollar the Bible is the best piece of literature in human history. Second, believe the Bible or not, it’s still the best descriptor of the Human Condition in existence. If you don’t care to acquaint yourself with it, you don’t belong studying literature.

  20. Renaissance
    October 31st, 2015 @ 11:15 am

    They banked on the fact that the public couldn’t distinguish one PhD from another. This argues for two different terminal academic degrees: PhD (Philosophy Doctorate) and PhSD (Scientist Doctorate). The public could then be trained to take the latter as an authoritative degree on biological matters and the former as more “philosophical”–ie, about ideas with no scientific background. I’d put all of the social “sciences” in the PhD camp along with the English majors.

  21. BSR
    October 31st, 2015 @ 12:52 pm

    I consider myself a very scientific person but I also believe in God. I don’t think that science and religion are mutually exclusive.

    It’s one of the reasons I get very irritated when atheists blare on with assumptions about the religious ignoring scientific fact. I think many religious people do pay attention to science. The difference is the perspective placed on science. Is it THE law and rule of everything or is it one viewpoint of many intended to be taken in context with everything else?

    Science, like religion, can become corrupted by the interpretations of humans so the big picture is always necessary.

  22. Quartermaster
    October 31st, 2015 @ 12:54 pm

    Especially when Lesbians do it.

  23. NeoWayland
    October 31st, 2015 @ 1:11 pm

    I wouldn’t call it perversion, but I do agree that that they’re pushing to celebrate one sexuality to the exclusion of others.

  24. JackLo
    October 31st, 2015 @ 1:11 pm

    Having dealt with a gang of atheist materialists on Twitter over the last few days, it’s clear to me that “rational science” has almost nothing to do with their stance(especially when even theoretical and quantum theory refutes a wholly materialist construction of the universe)and hatred of Christians is their primary motivation. In their minds, religion, spirituality, etc. are simply evil, and has no redeemable qualities whatsoever. In light of this, it’s amusing when they go on the defense and say militant atheism had nothing to do with mass murder, and oppression of Christians in the USSR, and other communist states. Judging by the way so many of them lose their minds, and spit some of the nastiest rhetoric I’ve come across online when confronted with believers removes any doubt that if armed and in power they would quickly liquidate you over your beliefs.

    Just look at this one: https://twitter.com/sensiblysecular
    Who spends that much free time attacking people of faith? No way you’re a mentally balanced person.

  25. From Around the Blogroll | The First Street Journal.
    October 31st, 2015 @ 1:12 pm

    […] Robert Stacey Stacy McCain: The Queering of Feminism: Why Does ‘Equality’ Require Promoting Perversion? […]

  26. RS
    October 31st, 2015 @ 1:52 pm

    I’ve discovered over the years that those who most loudly profess “science” have tendency to be mathematically illiterate. When one points out the incredibly long, long odds to get from “chemistry set to Kardashian,” their reasoning inevitably becomes circular in the extreme. That is, they say the “fact” of evolution disproves the existence of God, yet dismiss the long odds by saying God cannot be a possible alternative explanation.

  27. Fail Burton
    October 31st, 2015 @ 1:57 pm

    They’re pushing a delusional fantasy they actually think is science. It’s as much science as the middle-earth. Keep in mind, Andrea Dworkin said their were hobbit-sorcerers in England until the 17th century and Audre Lorde signed off on it. These are hateful mental cases.

  28. Earl Scruggs
    October 31st, 2015 @ 3:27 pm

    As I read this it seems that Larry Flynt is very woman affirming on these standards.

    Does it really make sense that feminists would prefer a world run by Larry Flynts rather than on run by, say, Mitt Romneys?

  29. NeoWayland
    October 31st, 2015 @ 4:03 pm

    Pardon, I wasn’t clear. I don’t think their sexuality is perverse.

    Their “gender theories” and their actions are pretty warped. They know this, that’s why they want to suppress dissent.

  30. Micha_Elyi
    October 31st, 2015 @ 5:01 pm

    This argues for two different terminal academic degrees: PhD (Philosophy Doctorate) and PhSD (Scientist Doctorate).

    All philosophy is science, bub. You’ve fallen into the trap of making a false dichotomy.

    What you’re groping for is the idea of naming modern, secular academia’s bogus fields something like contra-Philosophy.

    Pro tip: “Words mean things.”–Rush Limbaugh

  31. Jeanette Victoria
    October 31st, 2015 @ 5:32 pm

    I’m sure here are pleanty of lesbains with penises

  32. Fail Burton
    October 31st, 2015 @ 5:57 pm

    Lesbian feminism promotes perversion because they are more properly a lesbian liberation ideology. They feel the full spectrum of sexuality was stolen by the patriarchy in pre-history and constricted into a gender binary of man and woman as the norm. Therefore any move to eliminate that is “equality.”

  33. Fail Burton
    October 31st, 2015 @ 5:58 pm

    It’s not clear to me they know this at all. They are mentally ill and stupid people.

  34. Renaissance
    October 31st, 2015 @ 7:32 pm

    I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this. Science is directly tied to the Cartesian scientific method, which caused its divorce from philosophy to begin with.

  35. DeadMessenger
    October 31st, 2015 @ 10:56 pm

    As a scientist myself, I 100% agree with your assessment. That would certainly streamline things as I pick through resumes when hiring. : )

  36. DeadMessenger
    October 31st, 2015 @ 10:58 pm

    Your 4 yo is very discerning. Kudos to him. He deserves a manly reward, like a chocolate chip cookie.

  37. DeadMessenger
    October 31st, 2015 @ 11:33 pm

    Wow. What vile commentary on that Twitter thread.

    But I always do get a kick out of it when unbelievers quote Scripture, then proceed to misinterpret it. But I notice how they never seem to notice this one during their extensive Bible studies:

    http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/2-14.htm

  38. DeadMessenger
    October 31st, 2015 @ 11:40 pm

    Dunno, NW…when you look up “perversion” or “perverse” in the dictionary, they do seem to apply. In fact, the definition of “perverse” actually validates the remainder of your comment.

  39. Erica Tilton
    November 1st, 2015 @ 3:35 am

    ?

    .like Margaret answered I didn’t realize that somebody can make $25678 in 4 weeks on the web….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $83, p/h..Learn More right Here….
    2akz……..
    ??
    ??? http://GlobalEmploymentAtHomeTopReportsBetaStart/Get/$97hourly… ?????????????????????????????????????????????????

  40. NeoWayland
    November 1st, 2015 @ 7:03 am

    I’m not sure about mentally ill. They’re deliberately exploiting guilt and pity and teaching power through victimhood. They’re choosing to do that, which means they possess some understanding and a way to “better themselves” that has sadly proven effective even as it comes at the expense of others.

  41. NeoWayland
    November 1st, 2015 @ 7:07 am

    I’m just making a distinction between lesbians and these RadFems. The behavior that RadFems show would be destructive no matter who or what was involved.

    On the other hand, not all lesbians are on board with the RadFems.
    http://tammybruce.com

  42. DrGreatCham
    November 1st, 2015 @ 10:19 am

    See if you can find this book, the forward by Isaac Asimov is interesting:

    http://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Modern-Science-Ancient-Renaissance/dp/0306806371/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1446391056&sr=1-1&keywords=dawn+of+modern+science+goldstein

  43. JackLo
    November 1st, 2015 @ 10:46 am

    The worst part is that she’s either completely oblivious as to how vile she is, or she feels justified acting that way because she believes she’s superior. Either way….

    And that is amusing. They all seem to think they’re experts on theology, and the Bible(and of course science)but come up with lazy, shallow, and false interpretations of scripture. They’re “science” isn’t much better, either!

  44. @ImaCarNow
    November 2nd, 2015 @ 9:17 am

    Why can’t you just celebrate the first woman to win the men’s decathlon?

  45. Linda
    November 2nd, 2015 @ 1:47 pm

    “God and Nature are really telling us the same thing.” Yes! I ran into this when trying to decide about Christian New Earth theories.

    For centuries, Christians believed The Rocks Don’t Lie. Nature reveals truth just as much as Scripture. After all, God created both, and He is Truth. Romans 1:19 and 20: “For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen . . . “

  46. University hosts 'How To Bring Your Kids Up Gay' workshops - The College Fix
    November 3rd, 2015 @ 2:25 am

    […] Journalist Robert Stacy McCain, a critic of feminist theory, offered his own take on the talks in a post on his blog The Other McCain titled: “The Queering of Feminism: Why Does ‘Equality’ Require Promoting Perversion?” […]

  47. Robert Widdowson
    November 3rd, 2015 @ 3:11 pm

    I wonder if the other person meant ‘science’ in its literal sense? Science means knowledge.

  48. Renaissance
    November 3rd, 2015 @ 9:14 pm

    You would have to ask the other person exactly what he meant. One always has to be careful about the meanings of words: literal, general, and common use. “Language” for example, can have a general meaning of a code used by humans to communicate. But it can be used figuratively for any kind of communication–i.e., music is a universal “language”–or it can be used very specifically, as in “Watch your language!”

    Science is another such word. In academics, science refers specifically to those fields which apply the Cartesian scientific method and has since the split of philosophy and science in the 19th century.

    There is a lot to be gained by distinguishing between those who use the scientific method to form and test hypotheses and collect empirical data according to established protocol, and those who argue a point from their own logical processes (at best) or emotional needs and political desires (at worst). Much of what is seen in the bastardized liberal arts is the latter, and even the former is suspect when the information going in to a logical process is biased by a political goal. Hence the desire to distinguish types of “knowledge” and “knowing.”

  49. Lab
    November 4th, 2015 @ 4:00 am

    Don’t be fooled Ii hurts all of us when others are suffering, no human is immune to it. We are all in great pain. Our rulers have poisoned the well, propaganda being one of the tools. They increased their own powers and overestimated their ability to lead and now the future is bleak. Look at Sweden. The Russians have already won the war, now we are paying the price. The system is highly flawed as history keeps repeating itself.

  50. Lab
    November 4th, 2015 @ 4:15 am

    None of this is funny. It is painful to watch, laughing at our own misery is not how you fix the suffering.