The Other McCain

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

Feminism: Death Cult Chaos

Posted on | December 30, 2015 | 150 Comments


“Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It” — this is a truth that cannot be repeated often enough as we watch the Democrat-Media Complex mobilize all its resources to elect Hillary Clinton president. Monday night I found myself assailed on Twitter by Clintonistas who resented my characterization of feminism as a totalitarian ideology as rigid and intolerant as the neo-Stalinism of the North Korean regime. The one thing Democrats cannot tolerate is the truth, and suppressing the truth about feminism — a movement that is not about “equality,” but instead is about power — is therefore necessary to Democrat success in the 2016 election campaign. If the truth is known, Democrats lose. Meanwhile, in England . . .

A student has spoken out about the challenges of identifying as neither male or female and also being attracted to both genders.
Speaking with the Liverpool Echo, Amy Toon – who studies modern history and politics at the University of Liverpool – described a feeling of relief at being able to self-identify as being non-binary and pansexual after years of being in the unknown.
However, despite being generally treated with respect, Amy told the site being referred to as “a girl” is upsetting and that many people think gay marriage is enough, but insisted the opposite. Amy also added how the option of hormone replacement would mean having to wait for up to five years, and said: “You have to live for quite a while being very unhappy with who you are.” . . .
Amy, originally from Leeds, described having to sign on as being female, however, services like the NHS provide the option of ‘Mx’ instead of the usual ‘Miss/Mr/Mrs’, and also told the news site “they/them” is a preferable way of being addressed, whereas others may opt for “ze, hir, hirs, and xe, xem, or xyr.”
Even though Amy has received support since self-identifying with both groups, the undergraduate highlighted feelings of anxiety and depression when being called a “girl” and added how students at the university “can be really transphobic.” Amy added: “They make stupid statements and our LGBT posters were torn down.” . . .

Amy Toon is a victim of society, oppressed by pronouns. How dare you call a girl a “girl,” you heteronormative transphobic bigot?

As easy as it is to laugh at such products of feminist ideology, we must not overlook the tragic dimension — what if it were your daughter who had been brainwashed by the transgender cult? — and the disastrous social consequences. A couple of weeks ago, I interviewed a parent whose child had been captured by this movement. It was a story familiar to anyone who has paid attention to this trend: A tomboyish daughter, a good student, generally well-behaved but somewhat socially awkward, quite suddenly becomes hostile and defiant, announces that she is “he,” denounces her parents as bigots for questioning the decision to “transition,” and pursues a new persona based on an extreme alienation from her female identity. Only after this dramatic and heartbreaking departure — their daughter not merely renouncing her identity, but rejecting her family — did the parents discover the precipitating cause. Their daughter, trying to cope with an adolescent identity crisis, had gone exploring the corners of the Internet where advocates of transgenderism celebrate “transition” as a miraculous cure for every confused teenager’s problem. These FtM (female-to-male) transgender blogs feature photos and videos showing the effects of testosterone injections and weightlifting in developing a masculinized physique, and the results of “top” surgery (i.e., mastectomy) by which tomboys turn themselves into simulations of men. Inside the transgender cult’s online echo chamber, the teenager encounters a very one-sided message.

“Propaganda” is not too strong a word to describe the transgender cult’s carefully calculated campaign to convert the confusion of an adolescent crisis into the certainty of “transition” into a new identity. Much like a porngraphy addict, the vulnerable teenager who is at first merely curious about transgenderism may quickly become obsessed, and parents whose children fall prey to the transgender cult often report that their teenager went from normal to weirdo to fanatic in a matter of months.

Laughter is not the appropriate response to these tragedies, and it is not just Christian conservatives who are raising concerns about the transgender cult’s recruitment campaign. Radical feminists have been warning about this trend for years. The blog 4th Wave Now was started by a feminist who watched in horror as her daughter was captured by the transgender cult. Understand that the feminist mom responsible for 4th Wave Now enthusiastically approved of her daughter’s lesbianism; it was when the teenage lesbian rejected female identity that her mother became alarmed. Feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — denies that there is any such thing as “human nature,” and feminists condemn heterosexuality as “the ideology of male supremacy.” Teaching girls to hate and fear men is what feminist motherhood is all about, so when their daughters want to become men — identifying with the hated male oppressor — we understand why feminists panic. Instead of smashing patriarchy, their daughters want to be the patriarchy.


The feminist crusade to destroy civilization in the name of “equality” has produced many ironic results, and we may be tempted to laugh when the debris of this destructive project lands on the doorsteps of man-hating fanatics who have fomented this War Against Human Nature. Yes, we can ridicule freaks like Tobias “Tobi” Hill-Meyer, whose career as a transgender pornographer brought shame on his/”her” lesbian feminist mother(s). However, the expanding cultural influence of radical feminism — promoted for decades in university Women’s Studies classrooms, and now increasingly extended to the public school curriculum — is aimed at all children, and every parent concerned for the future must pay attention. “The Queering of Feminism” means that “equality” requires the destruction of morality. All critical dissent must be suppressed while government schools indoctrinate children in the movement’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology. Wellesley College Professor Julie Matthaei credits feminism with exposing “the oppressiveness of traditional heterosexuality” in a movement that “advocated lesbianism as an option for women.” By demonizing males and stigmatizing heterosexuality in this way, feminism seeks to create equality, but what it actually creates is decadence and chaos.

Meanwhile, in England . . .

The number of primary school-aged children, some as young as four, beginning to “transition” their gender is rising rapidly in the UK. The popularity of the fad appears to be clustered, with children copying others in the same schools.
Up to 80 primary school-aged children a year are now seeking help towards potentially changing their gender, the chair of Mermaids, a charity which lobbies for families who believe their children and teenagers are transgendered, has revealed.
Speaking to the Telegraph, Susie Green said that, in some cases, British children as young as four are already in the process of “transitioning” to another sex.
She also described how her organisation has observed a cluster effect across the country, with children following one and another in the same school; a school where there might be a teacher who promotes transgender ideology.
Her anecdotal evidence correlates with the results of a study by Mark Zucker at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, Canada, which found that transgenderism was more prominent and persistent among children when promoted by adults.
Researchers observed that children who saw therapists and others in authority who assume that they belong to the opposite sex can actually become more distressed, exacerbating their “gender dysphoric identity.”

Ask yourself, why is this trend so noticeable in England? One reason may be the 2010 Equality Act which effectively criminalizes criticism of the LGBT agenda. By making “sexual orientation” a protected category, this law not only requires schools to hire gay teachers, but makes it hazardous for anyone to express disapproval of homosexuality. LGBT advocacy in British schools is now ubiquitous and exempt from criticism, as is the case in many American school systems, where such advocacy often takes the form of “anti-bullying” programs. Is it any wonder, really, that many young people are so deeply confused about their sexuality?

Many parents are clueless about what is being taught in their children’s schools, but when we see transgender children in elementary school and LGBT clubs in high schools, it becomes obvious that the education system itself is dedicated to promoting this ideology. However, at the same time, the feminist fanatics who created the phony “rape epidemic” hysteria on college campuses are now promoting “consent education” in K-12 schools — to make sure that all students are warned that males are dangerous and heterosexuality is “rape culture.”

Feminism is a Death Cult, whose only goal is destruction — destroying religion, family, liberty, morality and, ultimately, human life itself.



  • Ilion

    I don’t mean merely that “loyalty is a masculine trait”, but rather that the willingness to sacrifice oneself for the good of the group is a masculine trait.

    This comes naturally to men, but not to women. This is one big reason, even aside from size, speed and strength, why “women in the military” will be a disaster once the real shooting starts.

  • Nan

    First, you have to have a chip on your shoulder, then everything is discrimination. It wasn’t clear if she just wanted to date white men or if, based on the criteria she set, only white men came up as options. What was clear was that she wasn’t getting a good response from online dating.

    When people set their criteria they often have a very specific idea of who would interest them; whether she only dates blondes with blue eyes and a 7 figure income, I don’t know.

  • robertstacymccain

    I actually once interviewed Fred Phelps over the phone for a news article. If you could get past the publicity generated by WBC’s rhetoric, what you found was a very sound Calvinist understanding of sin as rebellion against God. Phelps and his supporters didn’t seem to understand — or perhaps they just did not care — how their public rhetoric caused people to reject the Christian message which it was intended to promote.

    Unfortunately, too many Christians nowadays are more concerned about being “nice” than about preaching the Gospel, and this results in moral confusion, which gets exploited by others.

    It doesn’t have to be this way. It shouldn’t be this way. It is this way because decadence is the ultimate fate of the godless and self-righteous.

  • robertstacymccain

    The problem with trying to distinguish between a Good Feminism (of which Republicans approve) and a Bad Feminism (that Republicans are against) is that FEMINISTS DO NOT RECOGNIZE ANY EXTERNAL AUTHORITY.

    Why, at this late date, do I even need to explain this. Study the history of the Women’s Liberation Movement and it came directly out of SNCC/SDS — the New Left of the 1960s. Having originated within the radical fringe, the feminist movement is implacably hostile to any sort of conservative influence. There is no way that Christina Hoff Sommers can speak for a “feminism” that actual feminists will ever recognize as legitimate.

    Rather than attempting to co-opt the term “feminism” on behalf of an accommodationist Republican Party — “Vote for us, because we’re not as bad as you think” — the proper strategy for cultural conservatives is to do what Phyllis Schlafly has always done: TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT FEMINISM, and warn people about the dangers this radical movement poses to their families.

  • NeoWayland

    You already conceded.

    In this particular example, I will remind you that what goes around comes around. If you set someone up today to judge the worth of ideas for society, someone will decide that your ideas aren’t needed.

    Now, you can respond to the point or you can do the silly sniping about me again.

  • NeoWayland

    The point that you quoted is completely different from the rest of the discussion.

    You want to go after someone’s ideas based on their merit, I’m all for that.

    You want to decide what ideas society needs based on some arbitrary standard that likely or not will change next week when someone else is in charge, I’ll challenge you on it.

    See, my ideal is people making their own choices and accepting the consequences.

  • NeoWayland

    You misunderstand.

    I’m not defending feminism or liberalism. I object to classifying people who share labels by the actions of a few.

    Case in point. I do consider myself a “classic liberal.” In the early 20th, that label was usurped by progressives looking to cash in on the reputation.

    I am not by any stretch of the imagination a “modern liberal” mainly because I insist on personal responsibility.

  • NeoWayland
  • NeoWayland

    Now you’re tottering.

    And you’re still ignoring my points.

  • NeoWayland

    You’ve made a logical fallacy.

    You assume that there is an ideal state where your chosen party is “in control” and because of that, everything is hunky dory.

    The people who vote today aren’t the same people who voted yesterday. Yesterday’s liberals may well become tomorrow’s conservatives.

    We’ve changed since 1980. We’ve changed since 2000. And we’ve changed since 2012.

  • NeoWayland

    Would those be the True Feminists® or the Polyester Feminists?

    My point is (and has been) that not everyone who considers themselves feminist follows the books you cite or supports the “leaders.” As you yourself have pointed out, many of the extreme feminists are damaged people who draw power through their victimhood and the attention they get.

    The second wave feminists are less concerned with displaying their wounds and more concerned with making their part of the world a little nicer.

    While attacking the Movement produces plenty of sparks and flames, it enables the victimhood of the Third Wave. It actually justifies the poor little me stuff. It plays right into their hands.

    I admire the work you’ve done, but you can’t confront them head on and come off as anything except the Designated Monster.

  • NeoWayland

    I never spoke with Phelps.

    I don’t believe that moral authority can be backed by force. Even if it’s only the implicit force of the law. I usually sum this up as “If you can’t convince them without force, you’re doing it wrong.”

    I believe that if you have a good idea, the best way to manifest it is showing people the difference it makes.

    I once wrote this about Christians.

    “Where I’m concerned, you could worship anything you choose. Or you could choose not to worship anything at all. As long as it doesn’t affect me or mine, it’s really none of my concern what your beliefs are.

    Yes, I’ve heard the ‘Good News.’ Yes, I know that some of you believe that a man you call Jesus Christ was the Son of God, that he lived, died, and was resurrected to save the world.

    If your beliefs don’t affect anyone except you and and as long as you don’t insist that I have to abide by them, then your beliefs don’t matter to me. If it gives you fulfillment and makes you a better person, then by all means more power to you.”

    Live and let live. You want to show people a better way, then show them.

  • Prime Director

    You misunderstand

    No, your point is rudamentary. I understand, I just disagree; and have my own agenda/priorities for participating in this discussion.

    I’m not defending feminism or liberalism. I object to classifying people who share labels by the actions of a few.

    Who knows what you’re doing with those terms, since you won’t define them.

    You can’t reason consistently without makng some assumptions. I assume our host’s definition is correct and so I use his definition and reason consistently until reaching a contradiction. That’s one way to measure the value of the definition of feminism he employs. If obviously sound premises and valid conclusions cannot be reconciled with the assumption, then it must be jettisoned.

    You aren’t defending feminism directly; you’re just deflecting criticism of the term in an ad hoc fashion.

  • Pingback: “Feminism is a Death Cult…” | Lunacy is contagious()

  • NeoWayland

    Again, you want to criticize what an individual has done, go for it.

    On another thread, I said that just because my next door neighbor owned a Miata and let his dog do his business on my lawn doesn’t meant I should hold ALL Miata owners responsible.

    Blaming the label doesn’t solve the problem.

  • Quartermaster

    You need to review logical fallacies. You still don’t see the point of what I said, and that’s not surprising given your status as a pseudo-intellectual poseur.

    Your last 3 sentences may seem profound to you, but they are utterly pointless in the context of the discussion.

  • Quartermaster

    I stayed within the bounds of the subject. That you wish to wander afield is your problem.

  • Quartermaster

    To a pseudo-intellectual poseur I concede nothing. Sniping, to you, is simply pointing out the facts about the manner in which you argue.

    You repeatedly show you are out of your depth and you still expect people to accept your pronouncements with the same feeling of profundity as you imagine them to be. Frankly, I think you’ve repeated crossed the line that has gotten others like you banned in the past. Why Wombat has tolerated you is beyond me, but that’s his choice. But more and more of the discussions are taken up with dealing with the rabbits you choose to chase.

  • Pingback: What’s Wrong With ‘Equality’? : The Other McCain()

  • NeoWayland

    This is what you do.

    You disagree. When you can no longer logically disagree you heckle.

    It’s what you do. You could at least own it.

  • NeoWayland

    The subject was accusing ALL non-Christians?

    I suppose if you really stretched the point, maybe.

    But, as I pointed out, if I had accused all Christians of some despicable behavior, you’d call me on it.

    And rightfully so.

  • NeoWayland

    So tell me, if electing Republicans is the answer, then why can Obama act as Imperious Leader? Even Ryan gave him everything he wanted, and then some.

    The GOP leadership doesn’t want anything to do with the rank and file except at election time. Some of the principles of “evangelical wing” drive away more people then they attract.

    What exactly is it that the conservatives have won?

  • Quartermaster

    Mein lieber freund, you badly misunderstand me. I am normally heckling you. It’s how I treat poseurs.

  • Quartermaster

    I have said numerous times that national salvation will not be found at the ballot box. I’ve even said it on TOM. There are too many idiots who will vote their emotions rather than their brains.

    Your 2nd paragraph is not even relevant to what I’ve said. It may be true that Christian principles drive off more than they attract. Let me tell you what the Christian attitude is on that score:

    We. Don’t. Care.

    God has his ways, sinful man has his. Never the twain shall meet.

  • Daniel Freeman

    Indeed, the male soldiers will be sacrificing themselves to protect the female soldiers. Guarantee it.

    You have to be really smart to have a rationalization hamster strong enough to pretend that won’t happen, or that it’s a good thing.

  • Daniel Freeman

    Next step after enforced interracial dating: enforced gay dating.

    You think I’m joking, but they would if they could. Indeed, one of the several good mental models for feminism is lesbian grooming writ large.

    Anyway, there are two problems that she is going to have to overcome, and I say this as a guy who had a romance with a black girl in college (in the masculine sense of romance as tragic, not the feminine sense of pragmatic).

    First, [color] men want to have [color] babies. We want our babies to look like ourselves, for rather obvious reasons; men who didn’t care about that would be more likely to be cuckolded, and would fail to pass on their careless genes.

    Second, men like youth and beauty (as signs of fertility and good DNA), while women like status and wealth (as signs of security and good DNA). By becoming a college professor, she has greatly reduced her odds of successfully mating, because it’s hard for her to be attracted to a man that she considers beneath her.

  • Daniel Freeman

    I reject the strong version of Goodwin’s law. Of course length equals likelihood, but sometimes it’s actually a good point.

    You’re claiming that you wouldn’t judge anyone for the group they belong to, yes? So NANALT.

  • Daniel Freeman

    You are completely wrong. They are monsters, and need to be stopped by any means necessary, no matter how much it hurts their demonic feelings.

    ETA: One of the good mental models for feminism is a shit test writ large. I predict that they will actually enjoy being told a firm, masculine “No!”

  • Nan

    And the female soldiers will consider that to create a hostile work environment.

  • Nan

    Agreed. The dating pool of black men is limited as many are incarcerated or not educated to her level, thus her frustration that white men aren’t interested in her. Her attitude isn’t going to help.

  • Ilion

    What they’ll be doing is endangering the mission to protect the female “soldiers”.

    Meanwhile, most of the female “soldiers” will endanger the mission by not being willing to sacrifice themselves for the group and its mission.

  • NeoWayland

    And yet you’ve never made it stick to me.

    You might want to think about that.

  • NeoWayland

    NANALT? Pardon, I’m not familiar with that one and I can’t seem to find it on the web.

    What I’m saying is that individuals should be judged by what they do and say.

    I’m also saying that group definitions can be very deceptive.

  • NeoWayland

    “It may be true that Christian principles drive off more than they attract. Let me tell you what the Christian attitude is on that score…”

    Which is precisely why anyone with that attitude, Christian or not, must not be allowed to rule.

  • NeoWayland

    According to this thread, one of your monsters has pink hair, is confused about her feelings, is scared of the world, and has been taught that the only acceptable way to change the world is throwing a tantrum until the rest of us feel sorry enough to give in.

    That is hardly unusual in the young females that RSM picks to showcase here.

    They have power because of pity and the attention they get.

  • Pingback: News of the Week (January 3rd, 2016) | The Political Hat()

  • Quartermaster

    You’re obviously not well socialized. We don’t determine if such things stick to us or not. Everyone else gets that say. There are few here that take you seriously. Read how they respond to you. You can’t be that dense.

  • Quartermaster

    I certainly don’t want anyone like you in power. Anyone that knows so little about human nature would be a disaster. I’ll take a Christian any day over a clown like yourself.

  • NeoWayland

    I don’t want to be “in power.”

    No one person and no one group knows enough to rule others.

    I believe in individual freedom and personal responsibility.

    People shouldn’t be “ruled,” they should choose.

  • NeoWayland

    But you don’t speak for everyone else here.

    You don’t decide for anyone but you.

  • Quartermaster

    I didn’t decide or speak for anyone else. You betray your status as a pseudo-intellectual poseur. I merely stated an observation. That’s why I said what I did.

  • Quartermaster

    Like or not, people will be ruled. It won’t matter if they choose it, or it is imposed. Your whining on the matter is another data point of your intellectual impairment.

  • NeoWayland

    “Like or not, people will be ruled.”


    Notice that at this point on this thread you can’t even make a point without dragging me into it.

  • Quartermaster

    Moron. I’m responding to you, not just anyone. Almost every post you make my point for me.
    Your retort neglects the lessons of history. Once more, human nature is a foreign country to you.

  • NeoWayland

    You presume to speak for everyone here.

    You decided that.

    And yet your ideas and opinions are not universal. Nor did you bother to ask if people wanted you to do that.

  • NeoWayland

    And yet, if you really had paid attention to the “lessons of history,” you’d know that an ordinary individual can make a bigger difference than any Great Man on A White Horse.

    American history especially.

  • Quartermaster

    You obviously haven’t really studied history. People become “great” by rising to challenges. Those people may seem ordinary beforehand, but they show they are anything but. The idea of the ordinary individual doing great things is simply propaganda. The challenge simply shows they were already great.

  • Quartermaster

    No I don’t. I do observe, however, and see how people respond to you. Even as dense as you are, I think you should be able to see how people think of you. You don’t, because you don’t want to see it.

    What you’ve said is anything but profound. I know my “ideas” are not universal, but I’ve found far more people who hold my ideas and ideals than I’ve ever seen holding yours. Frankly, the people I’ve seen holding yours are simply idiots with little attachment to reality, something you demonstrate with almost every post you make. Of course, such things don’t bother you, after all, you’re a certified genius and couldn’t care less what us lesser beings hold.

    OTOH, since you are so good at knowing what I decide, what will I decide to have for breakfast tomorrow?

  • NeoWayland

    The popularity of an idea does not demonstrate if it’s “right” or “wrong.”

    The first tests, as always, should be if it works and if it works better than or as well as anything else that has been tried.

    You can deride it, but if an idea passes those two tests, then it deserves a second and third look.

  • NeoWayland

    Most of the ordinary are already great.

    Even their day to day actions produce wonders.

    That orange juice in your fridge and in fridges all over the country? Absolutely wonderful and put there by everyday people doing everyday things.

    That smartphone you use? We were barely reaching for it twenty-five years ago. Made possible by ordinary people wanting things just a bit better than they were yesterday.

    That food bank downtown? It’s only there because some folks decided to make things a little easier for their neighbors.

    All great things. All wondrous things. All made possible by ordinary people.