The Other McCain

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

‘The Enslavement of Women’

Posted on | March 10, 2016 | 41 Comments

“Sex is compulsory in marriage. . . . It is clear that the compulsory nature of sex in marriage operates to the advantage of the male. . . . The enslavement of women in marriage is all the more cruel and inhumane by virtue of the fact that it appears to exist with the consent of the enslaved group.”
Sheila Cronan, 1970

Marriage is slavery, “cruel and inhumane.” This is a fundamental tenet of feminist ideology. No feminist would consent to marriage, because this involves “compulsory” sex. Feminists are against marriage because they are against sex, which “operates to the advantage of the male.”

Sheila Cronan was a prominent member of a group co-founded by Ti-Grace Atkinson and Anne Koedt. Atkinson, who had been handpicked by Betty Friedan as president of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW), walked out in 1968 in a dispute with NOW’s national leadership and formed what she called “The October 17th Movement.” This was subsequently renamed “The Feminists,” thereby giving a name to the movement they led. They announced their goal and described their ideology in their June 1969 manifesto, “The Feminists: A Political Organization to Annihilate Sex Roles”:

The class separation between men and women is a political division. . . . The role (or class) system must be destroyed. . . .
Men . . . are the enemies and the Oppressors of women. . . . Both the male role and the female role must be annihilated. . . .
The pathology of oppression can only be fully comprehended in its primary development: the male-female division. . . . The sex roles themselves must be destroyed.
(Radical Feminism, edited by Anne Koedt, et al., pp. 369-370)

This view of “the male-female division” as a political system, a “pathology of oppression” which “must be destroyed” and “annihilated,” has defined feminism for more than four decades. To disagree with The Feminists — to doubt their claim that men are “the enemies” of women, to deny that marriage is slavery, etc. — is to reject feminism as it has existed since the 1960s. Attempting to evade this history, to define the movement as having some goal other than what The Feminists declared in their founding manifesto, has the effect of depriving “feminism” of any useful definition, making it possible for any woman to call herself a “feminist” without bothering to know what this word actually means.


What does Beyoncé Knowles mean when she calls herself a feminist? Does she mean that her marriage to Jay Z is “enslavement”? Is her husband her enemy and an oppressor? Does she believe “sex roles themselves must be destroyed”? Has Beyoncé ever studied feminist theory? Probably not.

One of the earliest protests staged by The Feminists in 1969 was at the marriage license bureau in New York City. Ti-Grace Atkinson told a Time magazine reporter: “Love has to be destroyed. It’s an illusion that people care for each other. . . . It may be that sex is a neurotic manifestation of oppression. It’s like a mass psychosis.” Other leading members of The Feminists were Pam Kearon and Barbara Mehrhof. Kearon had participated in the Women’s Liberation Movement’s first public protest in September 1968 against the Miss America pageant. In a 1971 paper called “Rape: An Act of Terror,” Mehrhof and Kearon declared:

There is no group other than slaves that has been singled out for such systematic and total exploitation and suppression as the class of women. . . .
Sexual intercourse . . . provides sexism with an inimitable act which perfectly expresses the polarity male/female. . . . Rape adds the quality of terror.
Terror is an integral part of the oppression of women. Its purpose is to ensure, as a final measure, the acceptance by women of the inevitability of male domination. . . . There are no actions or forms of behavior sufficient to avoid its danger. There is no sign that designates a rapist since each male is potentially one.
(Radical Feminism, edited by Anne Koedt, et al., pp. 228-230)

Another one of Pam Kearon’s contributions to The Feminists was a defense of “man-hating” as “the realization of our past and continued subjugation,” in which she denounced men as “misogynists” and declared: “Our whole society (including too many of the women in it) hates women.”

Is this true? Was it true in 1969? Was my mother in “continued subjugation” to my father? Has every wife in human history been a victim of “cruel and inhumane” enslavement by her husband, the oppressor?

“And it’s not just rape that’s the joke — it’s women. Our very existence is presented to young men as fodder for sex and laughs, our humiliation and pain as goal posts for their masculinity. Basically, we’re anything other than people deserving respect and humanity.”
Jessica Valenti, 2013

Is this true? Does it apply to Jessica Valenti’s husband? Does her husband treat women as a joke? Does he enjoy inflicting “pain and humiliation” on her? Does her husband view her as not “deserving respect and humanity”? If this is not the case, then why does Jessica Valenti expect us to believe her husband is better than other women’s husbands? Why would Jessica Valenti think she can libel my sons — and every other young man included in her categorical denunciation of masculinity — and expect me not to resent her recklessly hateful anti-male rhetoric?


Feminism is an insult to the intelligence of everyone who has two eyes and a brain. Feminism’s ideology and rhetoric are insulting to every honest man who ever lived and to every honest woman who ever loved a man. Why do feminists today constantly denounce men as “misogynists” for disagreeing with them? Why do feminists claim to be victims of “online harassment”? Why do university students engage in disruptive protests whenever anyone who dissents from feminism’s anti-male ideology — George Will, Wendy McElroy, Christina Hoff Sommers, Milo Yiannopoulous — dares to speak on campus?

Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement
to Destroy Civilization as We Know It

Liars hate the truth, and feminists therefore seek to silence those who tell the truth about feminism. When I undertook the Sex Trouble project in 2014, at the behest of readers who urged me to write a book about radical feminism’s War Against Human Nature, I had already studied the movement’s history and ideology for years. Readers are encouraged to consider a few of the books (including accounts by feminists themselves) that explain how feminism began and what feminism means:

This brief list of 11 books would suffice as the syllabus for an introductory course, “Critical History and Theory of Modern Feminism.” The histories by Brownmiller, Evans and Echols — all feminists who were directly involved in the movement in the 1960s and ’70s — are particularly useful in understanding how modern feminism emerged from the radical New Left of that era. The works of Professor Goldberg (a sociologist), Professor Tiger (an anthropologist) and Dr. Smith (a psychologist) serve as learned discussions of male/female differences and the consequences of feminism’s demand for “equality.” Professing Feminism and Heterophobia both examine the influence of feminism in academia. Professor Sommers and her landmark 1994 book perhaps need no introduction. Graglia’s book is a defense of traditional womanhood, and Lukas offers a comprehensive survey in an easy-to-read format.

“All that is necessary to discredit feminism is to tell the truth about feminism.”
Robert Stacy McCain, Sex Trouble: Essays on Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature

Feminists know this as well as I do. Feminists refuse to engage in dialogue with opponents and do not even acknowledge informed criticism, instead engaging in efforts to silence dissent. Feminism is always a lecture, never a debate. The First Rule of Feminism is “Shut Up!”

Ordinary men and women who attempt to express their disagreement with feminists find themselves accused of “harassment.” This is a dishonest tactic by which feminists smear their critics as dangerous and violent, falsely implying that it is a crime to criticize feminism. These propaganda tactics function to marginalize anyone who calls attention to the radical ideology and deranged rhetoric of feminists. If everyone who criticizes feminism is a misogynist, and if it is “harassment” to express disagreement, the critic of feminism is a Thought Criminal.

Because feminism exercises hegemonic authority in academia, 21st-century college and university students are never exposed to any opposing perspective. This is why students now claim to be “invalidated” and “traumatized” when critics of feminism appear on campus.

Men are enemies and oppressors of women, sexual intercourse is an act that “perfectly expresses” male domination, every male is potentially a rapist, male and female roles are the “pathology of oppression,” and sex roles must be destroyed — this is what feminists believe. If you do not believe these things, guess what? You are not a feminist.



  • Fail Burton

    Conservatives should take some that incredible amount of money they raise and use it to file lawsuits against the 50 largest universities with women’s and gender studies programs for violating Title IX if not hate crime legislation. More importantly, we need senate hearings to shed light on this can of insanity. The Office of Civil Rights in the Dept. of Edu. needs to be sued as well.

  • Unreliable Consent

    “Feminists are against marriage because they are against sex, which “operates to the advantage of the male.”

    “Basically, we’re anything other than people deserving respect and humanity.”

    — Jessica Valenti, 2013

    Campus feminists refuse to advise women to avoid sex despite this male advantage. Removing the male advantage means women get the respect and humanity they deserve (which theoretically reduces other societal inequities caused by male advantage). Therefore, feminists really do want women to participate in sex as long as its in a male-expulsion-fearing environment so they can get men to change. That’s what the yes-means-yes Title IX cocktail is all about.

  • robertstacymccain

    Jessica Valenti wrote an entire book attacking what she called “The Purity Myth.” She has written about losing her virginity at 16. Her forthcoming book is called, “Sex Object: A Memoir.”

    Gosh, I wonder why women are disrespected …

  • Adobe_Walls

    No the Dept. of Education needs to be abolished along with it’s civil rights office.

  • Unreliable Consent

    Valenti and other feminists claim that men have always had ‘sexual freedom’ and now women should as well. Yet, they know full well that very few men can ‘get around’ like most women can. If men were actually able to be ‘sex objects’ women would probably have less respect from them as well.

  • Daniel Freeman

    SJWs always lie, because they use language like an adman: to describe reality as they want it to be, instead of as it is.

    And they describe a world full of rape where it is not. Makes me wonder if their DNA is trying to overcome their barrenness.

  • DeadMessenger

    Cronan v. God

    Cronan testimony, 1970:

    Sex is compulsory in marriage. . . . It is clear that the compulsory nature of sex in marriage operates to the advantage of the male. . . . The enslavement of women in marriage is all the more cruel and inhumane by virtue of the fact that it appears to exist with the consent of the enslaved group.

    God testimony, c. A.D. 54:

    The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. (1 Cor 7:3-4)

    Verdict: Sounds to me like the plaintiff is full of it.

  • Daniel Freeman

    Yes, it’s a combination of the apex fallacy, the feminine imperative, hypergamy and the hamster.

    And yet there’s no particular reason why they should get any other prize at the end of a carousel ride, than a crazy cat lady starter kit.

  • Unreliable Consent

    Feminists don’t come right out and say this, but its coming: “men who won’t commit to a woman who ‘rode’ are slut shaming, even if they never uttered a word.”

  • Unreliable Consent

    “Ordinary men and women who attempt to express their disagreement with feminists find themselves accused of “harassment.” This is a dishonest tactic by which feminists smear their critics as dangerous and violent, falsely implying that it is a crime to criticize feminism.”

    This must be payback for so much pent up anger over supposed oppression for thousands of years: “We have had enough and no one is going to get a word in and attempt to derail our fledgling efforts until we’re done fixing everything”

  • Daniel Freeman

    Ha. They’re already equating refusing to date a nutjob with possessing a psychological disorder of irrational hate (transphobia).

    Don’t want to fuck a chick with a dick? You’re psycho, by leftist terms.

  • Finrod Felagund

    Embrace the healing power of “and”.

  • Fail Burton

    Feminist social justice crusaders in the public arena who use terms like “underrepresented,” the “marginalized” or “diversity” are either too stupid or too dishonest or simply too cowardly to give you to understand they always mean one of three things: whites are a pack of racists, men have a disdain for women and heterosexuals are homophobes. When speaking to each other the naive followers are not present and the dishonest suddenly become brutally vicious and forthright in their hatreds.

  • Unreliable Consent

    On campus, men are enslaved by feminists who arbitrarily decide what is “sexually disrespectful behavior” or other charge worthy of life-ruining expulsion

  • Fail Burton

    If there were a test for civilizational awareness, Valenti would score in the “great apes” range.

  • Dana

    Personally, I am amused by the image our host uses for “Feminist,” complete with a silhouette of a woman in not many clothes, wearing ridiculously-heeled shoes.

  • Dana

    Uhhh, I think that you have that almost completely wrong: most — certainly not all — men are quite capable of finding multiple sexual partners, mostly for the random hook-up, and promiscuous men don’t suffer the still-extant reputation-problems that women do.

    Mrs Golis — Jessica Valenti married Andrew Golis, and thus should always be referred to as Mrs Golis — believes, like the Harvard student about whom our esteemed host wrote recently, that women should be able to copulate with as many men as they wish without being considered sluts, and that lacking that ‘freedom’ oppresses women. Trouble is, God or evolution or Mother Nature, however they wish to look at it, made males and females differently, and copulation imposes different burdens on men and women, something that society can never change.

  • Dana

    Maybe not: there is some (slight) evidence that chimpanzees have some sort of religious impulse, which would put them above Mrs Golis on the evolutionary scale.

  • NeoWayland

    I’m not entirely unsympathetic, but technically your “God testimony” is hearsay and inadmissible.

  • Southern Air Pirate
  • Unreliable Consent

    Extremely few men can EASILY be promiscuous as most women can. That is because most women, on any given day, can EASILY find relatively attractive men willing to have sex (but not necessarily willing to be boyfriends). Even the most attractive and slick man will have a hard time ‘convincing’ a relatively attractive woman he just met on a particular day to have sex with him.

  • Unreliable Consent

    MANY feminists on the Internet use that exact image. Including ‘mrs golis’

  • SouthOhioGipper

    Part of the problem is that final goals of feminism and evangelical social conservatism are the same. So they often end up helping each other advance. The end of sex and demonization of male sexuality as dangerous to women unless harnessed by an all powerful moral/social force.

    The only difference is the feminists want socialism and authoritarianism to be that moral/social force of control over men, rather than religion.

  • SouthOhioGipper

    Since that isn’t going to happen we need to control the institutions. Destroying them is impossible. Only hope is driving out the current bureaucrats and replace them with our own partisans.

  • Adobe_Walls

    If we can’t destroy them there is no hope. None. No hope for liberty, no hope for our economy, no hope for our society or religious liberty and eventually not even for our right to free speech. The regulatory departments and agencies are the illegitimate and illegal Fourth Branch of government and they rule us as completely and capriciously as any king or kaiser. If we can not destroy them and their power we are doomed.

  • Dana

    You might wish to reread our esteemed host’s article “Hit It and Quit It on Tinder.

    The biggest problem for men is trying to play out of their league; if they play in their league, they can get laid, unless they are just the helpless and hopeless Elliot Rodger types.

  • Unreliable Consent

    ‘getting laid’ and getting laid with ease are very different dynamics. That is why good men (in the US) have to be very careful filtering out the ‘former’ promiscuous women when seeking a wife. They deserve better.

  • robertstacymccain

    “Part of the problem is that final goals of feminism and evangelical social conservatism are the same.”

    So, you’ve been huffing paint thinner again?

    Your claim that Christianity (“evangelical social conservatism”) is the same as radical feminism has no basis in fact or logic. Christian morality sees marriage as a sacred institution, ordained by God, uniting man and woman in a covenant — “one flesh,” as Jesus said. Feminists are anti-marriage, anti-morality and anti-God.

  • Robert What?

    Actually, modern American marriage is slavery – but for the man, not the woman. Or more correctly: indentured servitude.

  • Daniel Freeman

    You didn’t actually contradict him, since “evangelical social conservatism” is oft better described as Churchianity, or feminism with a Bible (which the Devil can also quote). I recommend Dalrock.

  • DeadMessenger

    Good thing we’re not in an actual court of law then. : )

    Besides, I’ll take God’s hearsay over a fool’s any day.

  • Joe Joe

    ““Love has to be destroyed. It’s an illusion that people care for each other”

    Ti-Grace Atkinson’s parents should have been imprisoned for whatever abuse led to their daughter’s twisted beliefs about love. A lost soul, or maybe a destroyed one.

    RSM, your post makes it clear why it largely doesn’t matter to college rape tribunals whether the young man actually assaulted the woman or not. The tribunal is not there to deal with a crime but to push social engineering.

    (And I know I am going to sound like a freaking wimp, but those kittens in the box are cute and shouldn’t be given to any feminist. Ever.)

  • robertstacymccain

    “Ti-Grace Atkinson’s parents should have been imprisoned for whatever abuse led to their daughter’s twisted beliefs about love. A lost soul, or maybe a destroyed one.”

    To put it as bluntly as possible, she was a spoiled brat, a debutante, the pet princess of a prominent Louisiana family who sent her to the best schools and subsidized her degenerate bohemian adventures until she was in her 30s. Anyone who believes Ti-Grace Atkinson was ever “oppressed” is an utter fool.

  • Joe Joe

    There’s a difference between love and financial indulgence.

  • Pingback: ‘The Enslavement of Women’ | Living in Anglo-America()

  • Tanya Carreon

    “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

    two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought 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 days ..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 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Hereoi!468????? http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsHour/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:::::oi!468….

  • IronBrigade

    Then the ENTIRE YALE student body and faculty are four-square against the Clintons?
    Given the legion of “survivors” that Willie Jeff has assaulted, raped or victimized, with Hillary covering up his crimes by ripping the reputations of those “survivors” into shreds for her own devious purposes, right?

  • IronBrigade

    Feminists all picture themselves as this and use this image. They are all “strong, independent” women unless confronted with facts, differing opinions or trouble which they are, by nature, too weak to overcome; then they revert to “little girl” status with the need for safe spaces and daddy figures to protect them!

  • IronBrigade

    Rape accusations are usually “fake, but accurate” under the Dan Rather standard!

  • IronBrigade

    And don’t forget T-Grace was also coyote-ugly! As are most feminists. As Rush has pointed out repeatedly, feminism was invented by really ugly women, because they have NO shot at getting a husband.

  • Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove()