The Other McCain

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

Because Feminists Know Everything

Posted on | June 28, 2016 | 27 Comments

 

“Who is Elleke Boehmer?”

That question crossed my mind while I was reading another one of those “masculinity in crisis” essays that are nowadays a dime a dozen (see “The Myth of the Masculinity Crisis,” May 9). This tsunami of hand-wringing about the plight of men has emerged from academic feminism in recent years and, like everything else that emerges from postmodern academia, is usually 180 degrees opposite of truth. Anyway, I had done one of those Google searches — using feminist buzzwords like “sexuality” and “hegemony” — that is guaranteed to turn up interesting results (and by “interesting,” of course, I mean crazy), when I came across a column in the U.K. Guardian by a left-wring writer named Owen Jones:

Being a man is not static: it can change and be redefined. “Masculinity is a performance that has a deep relationship to power,” says Gina Heathcote, a senior lecturer in gender studies at London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). “There are a lot of rewards from it, even if you think of it as a continuum of experience.” . . .
An estimated 1.4 million women suffered domestic violence last year in England and Wales; 400,000 were sexually assaulted and as many as 90,000 were raped. Why do men commit these crimes? “Because they can,” says Elleke Boehmer. “It’s still in some senses socially sanctioned. Male violence against women is triggered by feelings of defensiveness, threat and insecurity.” She links some of the phenomenon to men losing their position as breadwinner, or their sense of power. “So you lash out in the way you know best, that has been socially sanctioned in the past.” Deindustrialisation, change of political regime, conflict – “In the end, it leads to women’s bodies bearing the brunt of male violence.” . . .
What it means to be a man has changed in some sections of society but Gina Heathcote is troubled by how “hegemonic masculinities” have not been so influenced. . . .

Upon reading the name Elleke Boehmer, my first thought was that she must be a sociologist or some other sort of “expert” on domestic violence, but in fact she’s an English literature professor at Oxford whose work, according to Wikipedia, “has been seen as foundational to the field of Postcolonial Studies,” whatever the hell that means.

Why did Owen Jones ask Professor Boehmer to comment on domestic violence statistics? Apparently she’s an all-purpose expert:

Elleke Boehmer, a professor of literature at Oxford University who specialises in gender, says that workforce changes in the UK have brought about an “incredible undermining of masculine self-confidence” and have “induced severe and troubling feelings of insecurity”. . . .
Elleke Boehmer offers a note of caution. The rise of LGBT and feminist movements has “thrown masculinity on to the defence”, she says. Indeed, you can see a “male backlash” against the chipping away of traditional masculine power . . .
Boehmer hopes that she has brought up her two sons as feminists but she realises that there is countervailing pressure in the playground, at school, on the football pitch. This might “militate against the feminism which is, in any case, quite irritating coming from their mother”.

There are obvious contradictions here. First is Professor Boehmer’s ostentatious concern for “masculine self-confidence,” a concern exposed as phony by her assertion that “she has brought up her two sons as feminists,” which would require destroying both their masculinity and their self-confidence. Feminists are united in their implacable hatred of masculinity and, as success is the usual basis of self-confidence, there can be no reason that Professor Boehmer could be in favor of men having self-confidence, because the prevention of male success is necessary to the destruction of patriarchy. Feminism is derived from Marxism, and approaches male/female relations from the perspective of class struggle, a zero-sum game in which whatever economic success or social prestige any man possesses is presumed to be illegitimate — a product of male privilege, derived by the unjust exploitation and oppression women. There is no such thing as a good man, according to feminist ideology, and why would Professor Boehmer suppose her sons should be exempt from the anti-male hatred that the feminist movement encourages?

This raises more questions: If Professor Boehmer is a feminist, why does she have children at all? Feminists hate babies. Feminists are anti-motherhood, so why didn’t Profesor Boehmer get abortions when she became pregnant, especially when she learned she was carrying boys?

Well, feminists “want men to be easily-controlled, neutered lapdogs,” as John Hawkins has observed, and Professor Boehmer probably used her sons as experimental guinea pigs in this feminist project. Professor Boehmer’s boys were likely raised under a regime of psychological tyranny so severe that they will never recover from it.

Professor Boehmer is a Ph.D. who “specializes in gender,” which means that she knows everything, while the rest of us know nothing, so we must sit in silence while the academic expert tells us what to think.

Far be it from me to contribute to the “male backlash” by suggesting that Professor Boehmer is a pretentious academic idiot whose all-purpose expertise in such matters has as much credibility as we might expect from any elite university literature professor, i.e., zero.

 

Comments

  • Pingback: Because Feminists Know Everything | Living in Anglo-America()

  • RKae

    The rise of LGBT and feminist movements has “thrown masculinity on to the defence”

    Golly. Whatever happened to their sneering question “How does it affect YOOOOOOUUUU!?”

    Weren’t we told forever that the gay rights movement wasn’t going to take anything away from us?

  • jolly green

    Two Twitter feminists who are a goldmine of material: @AvaGraceVip, @AmyJoRyan. Bonus: they’re both Australian. They put Canadians to shame in terms of crazy, and radicalism, and that’s really saying a lot.

  • http://www.paganvigil.com NeoWayland

    Parity.

    If males aren’t equipped to understand the female psyche, then females aren’t equipped to understand the male psyche.

  • Steve White

    If men rape “because they can”, why do we put rapists in prison? Shouldn’t we be giving them high fives and cigars?

  • Daniel Freeman

    I notice that she likes to make a series of assertions and then stop. No evidence to support them, and no logical deductions from them. Just assertions arranged in a series, like a cargo cult of reason.

  • DeadMessenger

    Well, no evidence needed, Daniel. As you know, all assertions must be supported by feelings, nothing more. Well, except maybe ouija boards.

  • DeadMessenger

    I might’ve said “feminists” instead of “females”.

    From observation, I believe male psyches are simplistic and primal. It’s female psyches that can’t be understood. Even I can’t do it. I can’t even understand myself from day to day.

  • DeadMessenger

    Rational questions have no place in this discussion.

  • http://www.paganvigil.com NeoWayland

    I distinguish between females and women. The best women are ladies.

    I like the ladies.

  • Daniel Freeman

    Rule #1: SJWs always lie. Therefore, it’s pointless to apply reason to their words. I mean, what would we say to them? “Your lies not only contradict each other and observable reality, they’re internally incoherent!” I don’t think they care.

  • DeadMessenger

    “An estimated 1.4 million women suffered domestic violence last year in England and Wales; 400,000 were sexually assaulted and as many as 90,000 were raped.

    Because we’re talking about statements made by feminists, now we’re forced to stop here, and wonder about the source of these figures. And the definition of terms, such as how many of these sexual assaults and rapes turned out to be post-coital regret? Or false accusations? Or committed by certain “groups” as individual (or not) acts of terrorism (which represents a different issue than the equally bogus issue that Ms. Boehmer is fronting for).

    Because I’m a mathematician, I can confidently say that studies have shown that fully 99.63% of statistics quoted by feminists are false, so now I have to wonder what the true story is?

    This is the problem in dealing with known liars and Riefenstahl-like propagandists. (Godwin’s Law does not technically apply here, btw, so let me just stop you right now, QM. Bwahahaha!)

  • DeadMessenger

    Perhaps it would be ill-advised to ask which one you think I am. =)

  • http://www.paganvigil.com NeoWayland

    I haven’t met you. I’m pretty sure you qualify as a woman. Beyond that, I don’t know.

  • DeadMessenger

    Even though the SJW in question is allegedly an English professor, she is unlikely to be able to correctly define “lies”, “contradict”, “observable”, “reality” and “incoherent,” so that blows the whole argument anyway.

    Perhaps the more existential argument: “I know you are, but what am I?” would hit the mark with laser-like precision.

  • DeadMessenger

    My gynecologist agrees that I am actually a woman, so there’s that, anyway.

  • Jim Christian

    It isn’t a “zero-sum” game, either. It’s really a 2 or 3-for-1 loss. For every woman cop, a man wasn’t hired, sure. However, that woman cop now needs a man or two to back her up. Same in the fire department, someone is devoted to watch out for them on fire and accident scenes. Same for the military. In all these scenarios, truthfully (and thankfully), the women aren’t really all that operational, they’re HR, they’re spokeswomen, they aren’t “out there” risking their precious, delicate and weaker asses. That’s fact. That isn’t misogyny, it’s truth.

    Feminism is a lying, weasel-like, White-Female tyranny and now a privileged ideology at war with men. Notice, it’s all the privileged White women, always. Somehow, their racism escapes notice even though THEY have divided men with their manufacture of race-issues even as the White women divided up the spoils. So fight back. In the end, the ladies grabbed the easy jobs and the tyranny is now so complete, so all-encompassing, the very mention of simple truth is cause for self-destruction if you’re a male vulnerable to said tyranny. They’re weaker, not smarter, not strong, but they were clever enough to convince a goodly number of men to do their bidding. Enough already. Time to raise the middle finger and to stop enforcing their tyranny. One day, stronger cultures will supplant this tyranny with another.

    Nonetheless, it is good to see them, tens of millions of them, withered on the vine, pining in the advice columns, on talk shows, everywhere the discontented females gather, complaining over their solitude, their lack of marriage material, their empty, lonely holidays. Of course, it is the men, our fault, this after women having contributed to the destruction of men, to their own profit. Best of all, however, after the abortions, decades on birth control, their wombs toxic and inhospitable, they are childless. And when they’re gone, when their kind passes away, only their fleas will mourn them.

  • robertstacymccain

    “… fully 99.63% of statistics quoted by feminists are false …”

    Uh, you’re 0.37% too low there.

  • Lachelle Johnson

    <.
    ??:??:??:??:??:??:??:??:??:??:??:??:??:??:??:??:??:??:??:??:??:??:??::::::!bg426mm:….,…

  • Quartermaster

    heh! It was RSM that called you, not me! 😛

  • Quartermaster

    We always knew the queers were lying to us.

  • DeadMessenger

    Roundoff error?

  • Joe Joe

    ““has been seen as foundational to the field of Postcolonial Studies,” whatever the hell that means.”

    That’s your next research project. Start with Franz Fanon, Gaytri-Spivak, and Edward Said (“Orientalism”). Essentially, it began as a critique of European colonialism of places like Africa (see also, the “negritude” movement which was roughly contemporaneous with the Harlem Renaissance). Now, it can refer to any real post-imperial situation (like former African colonies, India, etc.) or “hegemonic” situation in which there may not be imperial power but there is strong cultural or economic influence. It can also refer to the condition of Palestinians in the West Bank or urban blacks in high crime, policed neighborhoods. Essentially, it’s about oppression.

    What Elleke Boehmer does is literary criticism–not science–and fiction writing. Literature and the arts is where a lot of postcolonialism lives.

    Essentially, it’s “West/whites/men, bad; Everyone Else, good.” It’s a bedrock of victims’ studies and relies a lot on ideology, especially Marxism, and critical theory. It also includes the field of “Indigenous Studies,” which explains how a Palestinian like Steven Salaita can get hired by UCIC for a Native American Studies position–all indigenous-ness is the same, after all–while posting vile anti-Israel rants on Twitter.

    In essence, Elleke Boehmer is a poison pill and I wouldn’t let her near any male within 200 miles.

    BTW, have you seen this:

    http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7778

  • Daniel Freeman

    That link is disgusting (California university seeks to ‘deconstruct’ masculinity). However, if they decided to focus on immigrants in general and Muslims specifically, I would approve, since it looks like a great way to prevent men from procreating.

  • Joe Joe

    I thought the same about that link.

  • DeadMessenger

    I was agreeing wholeheartedly with your first paragraph. Then came paragraph 2, and you lost me there.

    You say: “They’re weaker, not smarter, not strong.” But I say, weaker, yes. Not strong, yes (assuming you mean physically). But not smarter? Sorry, my friend, but that trait is not based upon sex. Now, if you’re talking about feminists only, I might agree, in the sense that having an irrational ideology proves that you are “not smarter.” But if you mean women in general are not smarter, well, that’s just wrong. Some people are smarter than other people, generally.

    Which brings me to the second thing I disagree with in P2, and that is, the claim that “ladies grabbed the easy jobs,” which I also believe is not sex-dependent. For instance, most physicians are men, and most nurses are women (though this mix is changing, it’s true). One might claim that the physician has the harder job, and if so, one would be wrong. It’s not the doctor in the hospital room cleaning people’s butts, mopping up vomit and blood, sponge-bathing people, etc. Watching over really sick or dying people, including children, is not in any way “easy.” Sure, doctors work hard, and sure, they have to go to a lot of skool, but I’d rather be the doctor than the nurse, that’s for sure.

    As for P3, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that where you say “women”, you actually mean “feminist”. Because otherwise, the majority of your entire comment is actually misogynistic. Kind of like one of my profs in engineering skool who said that I didn’t deserve to be an engineer, that I was keeping a man out of a job, and that I should be pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen. (To which I said, “Up yours, old man,” which I believe was the proper response.)

  • DeadMessenger

    I’m not a dude, but that article was offensive, even to me.

    I always thought that the optimal “masculine safe spaces” were home garages, surrounded by tools, partially rebuilt engines, carburetors soaking in a parts washer, cold beers in a crappy old refrigerator, expired Nascar calendars with a different semi-clad woman for each month, and neon beer signs on the walls. (Extra points for Danica Patrick and old 70s Farrah Fawcett posters.)

    As opposed to feminine safe spaces, which are home sewing rooms, kitchens, craft and fabric stores, shoe stores, makeup counters in high-end mall anchor stores, hair and nail salons, and anyplace children congregate.