The Other McCain

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

More Feminists, More Gender Theory

Posted on | May 22, 2016 | 65 Comments

“When we’re talking about rape culture and idealism, we have to talk about Slut Walk. . . . The fallacy here is not wanting to end rape culture. The fallacy is that marching around with ‘End Rape Culture’ on my back was actually going to end rape culture.”
Rachel Ivey, 2013

In response to Saturday’s post — “‘Feminist Motherhood’ and the ‘Transgender Kindergartner’” — Professor Donald Douglas of American Power complimented me that my “range of citations is extremely impressive.” Contrary to what some people think, the eruption of transgender madness has very deep roots in feminist theory, as I demonstrated with quotes dating as early as 1970, when Shulamith Firestone declared “the end goal of feminist revolution must be . . . not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself.”

Among the other sources I cited was a 2011 Ms. magazine article about feminist motherhood and a 2015 book about campus sexual assault policy which blamed heterosexuality and masculinity for “sexual violence” as an expression of “patriarchal power.” One reason I keep piling up quotations like that is to demonstrate, from a multiplicity of sources over the course of time, that all feminism is fundamentally alike, in terms of its hostility to human nature. For more than four decades, the feminist movement has been against men, marriage, motherhood, capitalism and Christianity — and ultimately against heterosexuality, per se. When feminists speak of “equality,” they do not mean simple fairness; rather, they intend the destruction of all social distinctions between men and women, to bring about a genderless utopia of androgyny. Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It. I keep providing more evidence to further corroborate this conclusion, and will continue doing so until this truth is universally acknowledged.

 

Saturday, I called attention to a 2013 video, “The End of Gender: Revolution, Not Reform,” by Rachel Ivey of the radical environmental group Deep Green Resistance (DGR). About three-and-a-half minutes into this presentation, Ms. Ivey notes the irony that her organization’s position on gender has provoked more controversy than the fact that DGR is “a group advocating the forcible dismantling of civilization.”

This destructive agenda is where radical environmentalism and radical feminism merge to become coterminous phenomena. What most people fail to understand about feminism is that its ideology is essentially destructive, in the same way that Marxist-Leninist ideology is destructive, and that this is no accident, because modern feminism arose from the crypto-Marxist radical New Left of the 1960s. So-called “Red Diaper babies,” the children of Communist Party members, were prominent and influential among early leaders of the Women’s Liberation movement. A crucial moment in the formation of this movement was when Shulamith Firestone used a mailing list of women in the New Left group Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) to organize feminists in New York. (See In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution by Susan Brownmiller, pp. 18-20.) The feminist concept of “consciousness-raising” was borrowed directly from Communist organizing tactics: “In the Old Left,” Red Diaper baby Anne Forer told Brownmiller (p. 21), “they used to say that the workers don’t know they’re oppressed so we have to raise their consciousness.”

“Gender is a hierarchical system which maintains the subordination of females as a class to males through force. Gender is a material system of power which uses violence and psychological coercion to exploit female labor, sex, reproduction, emotional support, etc., for the benefit of males. Gender is not natural or voluntary, since a person is not naturally subordinate and no one chooses to be subordinated.”
Rachel Ivey, 2013

Ms. Ivey here summarizes an idea — that every misfortune, hardship or unhappiness experienced by any woman is the result of a system of oppression — which is the fundamental basis of all feminist theory. This produces an ideology and rhetoric I have described thus:

Feminism justifies anti-male attitudes by promoting an ideological belief that I call feminism’s Patriarchal Thesis:

1. All women are victims of oppression;
2. All men benefit from women’s oppression;
therefore
3. Whatever.

Believing that normal human life is a system of injustice in which all women (collectively) are victimized by all men (collectively), feminists can justify anything they say or do as part of their struggle against historic oppression.

Just as Marxists believe that workers are oppressed by capitalism, feminists believe women are oppressed by patriarchy, and a basic task of feminism is to help women gain consciousness of their oppression.

“Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization . . . to come to see oneself as a victim.”
Sandra Lee Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression (1990)

“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. . . . Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men. . . .
“Being around any man constitutes a threat to us, because they are our oppressors. Being wanted by a man and him treating you as if you were his is inherently violent.”

Radical Wind, 2013

You see that while Professor Bartky and the anonymous feminist blogger are saying different things, they begin with the same premise, namely that oppression (“victimization”) is the universal condition of women. Where the blogger goes further than the professor is in making explicit that heterosexuality is both cause and effect of this oppression. This feminist argument can be traced back to the early 1970s, and was developed into a comprehensive theory by Professor Dee Graham in her 1994 book, Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence and Women’s Lives. It is from Professor Graham’s theory that the blogger Radical Wind derived her claim that women are “hostages” who cannot escape men.

 

To argue that male heterosexuality “is inherently violent” may seem extreme, but this claim has very deep roots in the history of the feminist movement, and continues to influence feminism today. When we see feminists protesting “rape culture,” we must understand that what they mean by this term is quite nearly synonymous with heterosexuality.

“In terms of the oppression of women, heterosexuality is the ideology of male supremacy.”
Margaret Small, “Lesbians and the Class Position of Women,” in Lesbianism and the Women’s Movement, edited by Nancy Myron and Charlotte Bunch (1975)

“This is the essence of so-called romance, which is rape embellished with meaningful looks. . . .
“The traditional flowers of courtship are the traditional flowers of the grave, delivered to the victim before the kill. . . .
“The annihilation of a woman’s personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality . . .”

Andrea Dworkin, “The Night and Danger,” 1979, in Letters From a War Zone (1988)

“I think that widespread heterosexuality among women is a highly artificial product of the patriarchy. . . . I think that most women have to be coerced into heterosexuality.”
Marilyn Frye, “A Lesbian’s Perspective on Women’s Studies,” speech to the National Women’s Studies Association conference, 1980

“In contrast to young women, whose empowerment can be seen as a process of resistance to male dominated heterosexuality, young, able-bodied, heterosexual men can access power through the language, structures and identities of hegemonic masculinity.”
Janet Holland, Caroline Ramazanoglu, Sue Sharpe and Rachel Thomson, The Male in the Head: Young People, Heterosexuality and Power (1998)

“As many feminists have pointed out, heterosexuality is organized in such a way that the power men have in society gets carried into relationships and can encourage women’s subservience, sexually and emotionally.”
Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)

Feminist “rape culture” discourse extends far beyond the crime of sexual assault to condemn practically all male/female relationships as based in the coercive patriarchal system of “male dominated heterosexuality.”

 

The recent protests against “rape culture” on university campuses, demanding the enforcement of policies that effectively criminalize heterosexuality and deny male students due-process protections, must be understood in context of the feminist movement’s history:

The origins of feminism’s “rape culture” discourse can be traced back to the Women’s Liberation movement of the late 1960s and ’70s. Treatises like “Rape: The All-American Crime” (Susan Griffin, 1971) and Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape (Susan Brownmiller, 1975) depicted rape as an exercise of male power that was inherent in, and necessary to, the system of male supremacy. Brownmiller described rapists as “front-line masculine shock troops, terrorist guerrillas” who served to keep women captive and subjugated under a regime of pervasive sexual fear. . . . Radical feminists denied that heterosexual behavior was “natural.” There was no biological “urge” or “instinct” involved in the observable patterns of male and female sexual behavior, feminists insisted. Instead, all of this was “socially constructed” by an oppressive male-dominated system that proponents of feminist gender theory now call heteronormative patriarchy. Viewing sexual behavior in this political context of systemic and collective male power, it is impossible for feminists to view any sexual behavior as private or personal. No man or woman is merely an individual in feminist theory, but each is viewed as acting within a system where men (as a collective group) exercise power to unjustly oppress women (as a collective group).

This collective mentality, where all relationships are manifestations of an oppressive system of “male supremacy,” makes it impossible for the feminist to view herself (or any man) as an individual, each responsible for his or her own actions. No matter how wealthy, well-educated or influential the feminist may be, she always considers herself a victim of oppression and every man — no matter how honest or kind he is, no matter how lowly his place in the world — is part of the system that oppresses her. Feminism, like Marxism, is a profoundly irrational worldview, a secular religion that claims for itself the authority of science in order to justify a revolution to destroy civilization as we know it.

 

“Women organize to overthrow male power and thus the entire gender system,” Rachel Ivey said in describing the feminist movement’s ultimate goal. “Because without patriarchy there would be no need for gender.”

You may read the transcript of Ms. Ivey’s 2013 DGR presentation on gender and, if you are a student of history and political science, you will notice she insists on a materialist understanding of patriarchal oppression. “Gender is a material system of power,” Ms. Ivey says. “Rape culture, right along with female poverty, lack of education, the trafficking of our bodies — it’s maintained through material structures. Not through people’s ideas.” This is a feminist adaptation of the Marxist doctrine of historical materialism, and its application to “gender” is likely to produce effects quite like what Lenin, Stalin, Mao and other Marxist tyrants achieved in the 20th century, namely catastrophic failure.

Ask yourself this: Why did Margaret Thatcher hate feminism? Was she in favor of rape and oppression? And why did feminists hate her? One might think that feminists would celebrate as a heroine of their cause a woman who had fought her way to the pinnacle of political power, as the first woman ever to become Prime Minister of the British empire. Yet feminists knew, as did Lady Thatcher, that their movement was not her movement, for feminism is exactly like Communism, in that it is implacably hostile to individual liberty and human dignity. Lady Thatcher famously said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” She might well have added, the problem with feminism is that eventually you run out of other people’s daughters.

 

How many children does the typical feminist have? Not many. Insofar as they do not eschew heterosexual intercourse altogether, feminists are more likely to have abortions than to have children.

“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
Amanda Marcotte, March 2014

Feminism is a totalitarian movement, a systematic ideology of cruelty inspired by hatred — not only hatred of men, but of human life itself.

Feminism is poison. It is not merely wrong, but also evil.





 


Comments

65 Responses to “More Feminists, More Gender Theory”

  1. RS
    May 22nd, 2016 @ 4:49 pm

    . . . and ye shall be as gods.

    All things old are made new.

  2. TheOtherAndrewB
    May 22nd, 2016 @ 5:06 pm

    I find that, when I am trying to decide whether or not to take someone’s opinions on society seriously, the tie-breaker is a nasal piercing. I always say “Hey, this woman took the time to lessen her already limited appeal with a piece of jewelry more appropriate to Ferdinand the Bull. She MUST know what she’s talking about.”

  3. Mike G.
    May 22nd, 2016 @ 5:09 pm

    What about genital… err, never mind.

  4. Dean Esmay
    May 22nd, 2016 @ 5:22 pm

    My old friend Alison Tieman used to say that feminism is mental footbinding for women. She was right.

  5. Steve Skubinna
    May 22nd, 2016 @ 5:37 pm

    If these deep thinkers ever pondered the question of how the Patriarchy ever mandated the gender binary onto all of nature, they might then consider what kind of power it must take to do so.

    And then they would tremble.

  6. robertstacymccain
    May 22nd, 2016 @ 5:56 pm

    Mammals. Human beings are mammals.

    I keep repeating this, hoping that sooner or later the meaning of the words will penetrate the skulls of these feminists, but so far, no luck.

  7. NeoWayland
    May 22nd, 2016 @ 6:06 pm

    If male heterosexuality is inherently violent, then so is female heterosexuality since one cannot exist without the other. If female heterosexuality is inherently violent, then so is female homosexuality since gender theory says there is no fundamental difference. If female homosexuality is inherently violent, then for the safety of all strictly enforced celibacy is the only possible solution.

    Or alternatively, male heterosexuality is NOT inherently violent.

  8. Steve Skubinna
    May 22nd, 2016 @ 6:08 pm

    Take your hateful male logic and expunge yourself from our circle of love and tolerance, hater!

  9. Steve Skubinna
    May 22nd, 2016 @ 6:10 pm

    Nonetheless, how did we patriarchs enforce that gender binary construct on mammals? And avians? And reptiles? And arachnids?

    Maybe they don’t know what a mammal is? They might have missed the day they taught science at Gender Studies School.

  10. Fail Burton
    May 22nd, 2016 @ 6:16 pm

    Did the pre-Classic Maya have G.I. Leopard Paw dolls for the boys and pink clam shell leg shavers for the girls?

  11. Daniel O'Brien
    May 22nd, 2016 @ 7:23 pm

    McCain, I bet your reference/cross-reference library/system is quite impressive? Computerized or index cards or sticky notes or other?

  12. WarEagle82
    May 22nd, 2016 @ 7:28 pm

    I’m not sure a well placed LAW could pent rate those skulls.

  13. WarEagle82
    May 22nd, 2016 @ 7:29 pm

    Damn autocorrupt!!!!!

    Penetrate.

  14. robertstacymccain
    May 22nd, 2016 @ 7:43 pm

    Cross-indexed in the synapses of my brain.

  15. Steve Skubinna
    May 22nd, 2016 @ 8:33 pm

    Well, first you shave it into a heart, and then…

    Okay. As one may guess from my picture, I don’t shave. Not actually true, every two days or so I shave my cheeks and neck. But I have a beard because I don’t like shaving, especially my upper lip and the chin.

    Were Kirk Douglas to descend from Heaven he’d say to me “Whoa, nice chin dimple, dude!”

    So shaving an area you don’t need to? Like, say, the genitals? What the hell is wrong with these people? They not only shave it, but they pierce and tattoo it!

  16. Kirby McCain
    May 22nd, 2016 @ 8:34 pm

    These Fups wouldn’t be able to do all of this if it weren’t for the very system they seek to destroy. If they do that they will go the way of Pussy Riot.

  17. Steve Skubinna
    May 22nd, 2016 @ 8:35 pm

    Ooh, good point. Let me call Patriarchical Operations and get then started on the fake fossils…

  18. Steve Skubinna
    May 22nd, 2016 @ 8:36 pm

    As I like to say, if what these people claimed was true, they wouldn’t dare say what they do.

  19. Steve Skubinna
    May 22nd, 2016 @ 8:37 pm

    Bourbon can help with that.

    So can the love of a good woman.

    Me, I’d go with both.

  20. rambler
    May 22nd, 2016 @ 9:27 pm

    Feminists are such sorry excuses for human beings. Not an ounce of humanity can be found in that self-absorbed group.

  21. Inez Johnson
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 12:23 am

    “my room mate Lori Is getting paid on the internet $98/hr”…..!te499urtwo days ago grey MacLaren. P1 I bought after earning 18,512 Dollars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over hourly. 87 Dollars…Learn. More right Here !te499u:?:?:.?.?.?.? http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsCoachGetPay-Hour$98…. .????????????????????????????????????????????????????::::::!te499u….,…

  22. Jim Christian
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 2:26 am

    Just one old guy’s take, Slut Walks are just an Attention-Fest for the ugly. They are actually a protest of rapes that have never happened to the participants, inspired perhaps by the participants’ lack of any sexual interest from either sex other than the very bottom of the barrel. They and feminists in general, are the Fuggly-Girls in High School that no one wanted to be seen with, ever. They were the reject-nicks.

    Why we, starting in the 60s and 70s, started entertaining and listening to the Fuggly-Girls is inexplicable. All along, as in high school, quite without any consequence to society or family, we could have flipped them the bird and ignored them. They weren’t strong, nor smart, nor capable really, of anything. Yet we men weakened and allowed this monstrosity. And so began the decline. It wasn’t the women that were strong, it was the men, who weakened, grew soft and fat, and ceded power to them. The men of the Greatest Generation must be proud.

  23. Fail Burton
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 3:58 am

    The reason gay feminists push comics like Lumberjanes is because they don’t produce children but instead prefer to harvest those of others. As you say, eventually a civilization will run out of children to turn into an alphabet squad of weird genders and the birthrate falls below that capable of sustaining a civilization. Naturally, you will then be raided and conquered by some other civilization which has not learned to hate itself. But then, feminists aren’t the brightest lightbulbs when it comes to figuring out how all this sustains itself in real world terms. I’m having trouble seeing a cult of transvestites harvesting sugar cane using donkeys in central Egypt.

  24. Mike G.
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 6:23 am

    Yeah, the piercings was where I was going with that in an attempt at sick humor.

    I also don’t shave…myself. about once a week I go to sports clips men’s salon and get the “all-star” treatment. That’s a hot towel treatment, shampoo and temple massage. After which the stylist will trim my neck, eyebrows, blow-dry my long hair and finish off with a neck and shoulder massage. Quite therapeutic and the stylists are easy on the eyes. Also, every station has a flat screen TV showing sports.

  25. Mike G.
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 6:29 am

    I have seen Stacy’s library of feminist tomes. If you piled them all up and set fire to ’em, the conflagration would be visible from Mars…or Venus, as the case may be.

  26. Quartermaster
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 6:42 am

    The good woman will cause you to cut back on the Bourbon.

  27. More Feminists, More Gender Theory | Living in Anglo-America
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 7:23 am

    […] More Feminists, More Gender Theory […]

  28. DeadMessenger
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 8:56 am

    You are one spoiled patriarchal misogynist, dude.

  29. DeadMessenger
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 9:00 am

    The patriarchs enforced the gender binary construct on mammals through mamppression and mammagyny, that’s how. Now stop mamsplaining, rapist.

  30. DeadMessenger
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 9:07 am

    If I’ve learned anything from 32 years of marriage, it’s that men prefer a short sentence from women, then want them to just shut up before they miss the next play-by-play commentary. And feminists just won’t shut up. I’m not a patriarch, and even I want them to shut up. They were appeased in the hopes that they’d shut up, but no. Now we see once again the value of necessary physical conflict over appeasement. Namely because crazy people can’t be appeased, and non-crazy people never seem to learn that.

  31. Steve Skubinna
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 9:19 am

    Just as the wrong one can induce you to increase it.

  32. Steve Skubinna
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 9:20 am

    Is there any other kind?

  33. Steve Skubinna
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 9:22 am

    Damn. I was asking rhetorically, as sort of a “nudge nudge, wink wink” to the other Patriarchs here.

    It never occurred to me that the dames were wise to our game.

  34. Stogie Chomper
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 10:20 am

    You and Lori should ply your ancient trade on some other street corner.

  35. JohnnyL53
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 10:54 am

    Man would never invent the idea of gender just to oppress females when we already have the biological distinction of a person being either female or male. Why would we go through the extra effort? The separation of gender from a person’s biological sex is an artificial distinction created by people such as Ms. Ivey just so they can put forth their arguments. It is they who have created the idea of a separate gender identity and then put the responsibility on man. I think we have much better things to do, especially during football season. I am always guaranteed to get scowls of disapproval whenever I trot out my belief that there are only two sexes and 2 genders. Anything beyond that is just a form of mental illness. Any members of that very small fraction of a percentage with DNA issues are the exceptions that prove the rule…but are still abnormal. I was never much for that old mind-body dualism BS.

  36. Finrod Felagund
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 11:27 am

    There’s a reason to shave the genitals: it’s called oral sex.

  37. Finrod Felagund
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 11:29 am

    Their minds are made up and they refuse to be confused by silly things like facts.

  38. On @MattMcGorry, @MeghanEMurphy and the ‘Male Feminist’ Problem : The Other McCain
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 1:07 pm

    […] Didn’t I just explain this Saturday? Didn’t I quote feminists as far back as Shulamith Firestone declaring that their goal is “the elimination . . . of the sex distinction itself”? Didn’t I quote Catharine McKinnon to the same effect? And didn’t I follow this up on Sunday with an in-depth examination of radical feminist Rachel Ivey’s arguments? […]

  39. MPH
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 1:18 pm

    Yep. Hair will absorb blood, sweat, and urine, as well as any cleaning products used. Not a pleasant combination.

  40. MPH
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 1:23 pm

    I find the basic lack of logical thinking skills in the following argument to be laughable in the extreme: the fact that a woman thinks she is NOT being victimized by the patriarchy is proof that she IS being victimized by the patriarchy. The fallacy in the argument apparently escapes those who espouse it.

    As far as ALL male heterosexuality being violent, I recall that the last time I had sex with my girlfriend, I had one orgasm, she had six. Where do I sign up to have that kind of violence perpetrated upon me?

  41. Finrod Felagund
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 1:58 pm

    I’m told that Marines have discovered that if not shaving, then at least trimming it all the way back, will make the area stink considerably less when they’re out in the field for 3 weeks at a time without access to showers or baths.

  42. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 5:08 pm
  43. Warmongerel
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 6:11 pm

    If “every misfortune, hardship or unhappiness experienced by any woman is the result of a system of oppression”, what is the cause of men’s misfortune, hardship or unhappiness? Or does it just spring from the ether? If one has a cause, so must the other.

    If the Matriarchy ran things for the past 40,000 years, we’d still be living in nicely decorated caves.

  44. Mike G.
    May 23rd, 2016 @ 8:38 pm

    And loving it…as Agent 86 would say.

  45. Quartermaster
    May 24th, 2016 @ 7:46 am

    The concept of Dane Geld extends to any form of appeasement. They take it as their due and expect more.

  46. Quartermaster
    May 24th, 2016 @ 7:47 am

    It’s pretty much a zero sum game.

  47. Quartermaster
    May 24th, 2016 @ 7:47 am

    You misspelled love and understanding.

  48. Quartermaster
    May 24th, 2016 @ 7:49 am

    DM is an infiltrator from the feminist conspiracy. But once she got here that manpower thingy here converted her. She knows, but she’s safe.

  49. Steve Skubinna
    May 24th, 2016 @ 9:27 am

    Wait, let her continue… I want to find out how you can send a BJ through the Internet.

  50. Steve Skubinna
    May 24th, 2016 @ 9:28 am

    It might help if you think of feminism as just another conspiracy theory. Once you buy into the theory, everything that happens is proof of the theory’s correctness. Even contrary evidence.