The Other McCain

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

Anti-Marriage and Anti-Motherhood: Feminism’s War Against the Family

Posted on | June 29, 2016 | 53 Comments

 

Feminism is the ideology of the Darwinian Dead End. It is a rationalization of human extinction, a philosophy that justifies self-imposed sterility as more personally fulfilling than motherhood. Because feminists hate babies, they advocate abortion, promote contraception, and encourage hatred of men, marriage and heterosexuality, per se.

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women’s Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.”
Sheila Cronan, “Marriage,” 1970, in Radical Feminism, edited by Anne Koedt, et al. (1973)

“We want to destroy . . . polar role definitions of male and female, man and woman. We want to destroy patriarchal power at its source, the family. . .. We want to destroy the structure of culture as we know it, its art, its churches, its laws . . .
“The nuclear family is the school of values in a sexist, sexually repressed society.”

Andrea Dworkin, Woman Hating (1974)

“The first condition for escaping from forced motherhood and sexual slavery is escape from the patriarchal institution of marriage.”
Alison M. Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature (1988)

“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)

“Heterosexuality and masculinity . . . are made manifest through patriarchy, which normalizes men as dominant over women.”
Sara Carrigan Wooten, The Crisis of Campus Sexual Violence: Critical Perspectives on Prevention and Response (2015)

Feminism is a movement devoted to destroying the family. Feminist theory condemns marriage and motherhood as institutions of “male domination,” which is why taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood is sacred to feminists: The road to “equality” is paved with dead babies.

Misery loves company, and the leaders of this anti-male hate movement therefore encourage young women to pursue lifestyles that will lead them to the same attitude of embittered resentment that defines feminism. Crucial to this project is the promotion of abnormal sexual behavior.

“Sex is about reproductive biology,” as I have previously explained. “Human beings are mammals, and any eighth-grader can figure out what that means in terms of sex. Once you understand this scientific definition of sex, everything else is just details.” Rejecting this normal common-sense understanding of sex, feminists adopt intellectual theories that are directly hostile to the reproductive purposes of human sexuality. One obvious reason for this hostility is because so many leaders of the feminist movement are lesbians:

Australian feminist Denise Thompson described how “countless numbers of lesbians” joined the feminist movement [in the 1960s and ’70s] because it offered them “the possibility of a cultural community of women whose primary commitment was to other women rather than to men.” Furthermore, Thompson added, the rise of the feminist movement produced a “mass exodus of feminist women from the confining structures of heterosexuality” in such numbers as to raise questions about “the institution of heterosexuality in the consciousness of those feminists who, for whatever reason, chose not to change their sexual orientation.” . . .
Women “changed their sexual/social orientation from men to women,” Thompson explained, “in response to the feminist political critique of their personal situations of social subordination.” If the personal is political (as feminists say) and if women’s relationships with men are “confining structures” of “social subordination,” why would any feminist be heterosexual?

That quote from my book Sex Trouble is worth repeating because it helps explain why so many young women who mistakenly believe they can be both feminist and heterosexual discover that attempting this only results in personal misery. Heterosexual feminists become permanently unhappy in their romantic lives, because the movement’s ideology — a paranoid anti-male conspiracy theory — was so significantly influence by lesbians.

Left to right: Jill Johnston, Mary Daly, Marilyn Frye, Sheila Jeffreys.

Women who had no interest in marrying men or having children (Jill Johnston, Mary Daly, Marilyn Frye, Sheila Jeffreys, et al.) could demonize men as patriarchal oppressors and be celebrated by their feminist comrades for doing so. Yet any heterosexual woman who adopts this hateful ideology will find that her feminism causes decent, honest and intelligent men to avoid her. She is forced to seek boyfriends among the vile dregs of the “progressive” movement, and she will not find good men among the corrupt adherents of socialism and other immoral causes.

 

Heterosexual feminists like self-proclaimed “Shameless Slut” Paloma Brierley Newton are notoriously promiscuous. All decent men shun such women, so that in seeking male companionship, the heterosexual feminist invariably finds herself scraping the scum from the bottom of the barrel. This in turn leads to profoundly unhealthy outcomes.

“I am able to embrace my herpes positive status. . . .
“I have no shame in who I am. . . .
“I have sex, great sex. I write about sex. I talk openly about sex.”

Emily Depasse, April 18, 2016

The disease-infected feminist Emily Depasse boasts of her “herpes positive status.” She is proud to call herself “The Carrie Bradshaw of Herpes” and seeks to “destigmatize” her disease, because otherwise someone might think irresponsible promiscuity is a bad thing. No one is really surprised to read Emily Depasse’s declaration on her blog: “I do not foresee myself having children, nor do I really want them. . . . Yes, I am self-admittedly too selfish to have children.” The Death Cult ideology of feminism celebrates selfishness for the same reason feminists celebrate lesbianism, abortion, and sexually transmitted diseases. Anything that leads young women toward the Darwinian Dead End is good, from the perspective of feminism, which is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It.

This destructive purpose explains why feminists are never content merely to ruin their own lives and wallow in their misery. No, the feminist must encourage others to emulate her self-destructive example.

Having made such a disastrous public spectacle of her life — her name is now practically synonymous with herpes — Emily Depasse’s future romantic prospects are obviously rather bleak. In addition to justifying herself with sour-grapes rationalizations, she must also disparage the aspirations of other women for whom marriage and motherhood are major sources of happiness. At her blog, Emily Depasse describes her decision to cease associating with a former friend who “became toxic” to her. What happened?

I think the one phrase that echoes in my head (probably more often than it should) was when this person said, “If you met the right man, you’d want to drop everything to get married right now. But you have goals and dreams and things, don’t you, Emily.” . . .
This person feels that her sole purpose in life is to be a wife and mother . . . But along her path to becoming a wife, she seemed to lose herself in the process. . . . Your quest for happiness and lack of self-esteem eventually manifests itself in all facets of your personality, and thus, you became a draining and toxic individual. . . .
From the moment I cut this person out of my life, I felt such a weight lifted from my shoulders. It felt freeing that my lips no longer had to mouth her name, or voice one more remark regarding my negative feelings towards her.

Translation: “Only women who lack self-esteem want husbands and families. Getting married and having children makes you toxic.”

The belief that marriage is incompatible with “goals and dreams and things” has been a central theme in feminist discourse for more than 50 years, since Betty Friedan compared suburban housewives to inmates of Nazi concentration camps (which implies that every husband is Hitler). Feminists have spent decades declaring that marriage is “slavery,” a prison of “male domination” from which women must “escape,” and this anti-marriage ideology has come to define the feminist movement to such a degree that young feminists now simply take it for granted. The young woman who calls herself a “feminist” in 2016 thereby effectively declares she has no desire for a husband or children. Having thus rejected human sexuality in its normal manifestation (i.e., as reproductive biology), the feminist may next begin to wonder, “Why bother with men at all?” Considering the low quality of men available as partners for the herpes-infected feminist, this is not an unreasonable question. No one would be surprised if Emily Depasse decided to reject the “subjugation of women by means of a phallocentric sexuality,” to quote Denise Thompson’s argument for “Lesbianism as a Political Practice.”

Feminism requires an all-encompassing contempt for men, based on a fanatical belief in male inferiority, and Emily Depasse has a proper scapegoat on which to focus blame for her misery. “The man who infected me just spat me out,” she writes, after she let him use her as “a living sex toy.” Alas, this was her choice, her decision. She practically stalked him for two years from the time they met until they finally had sex, and yet she is so invested in her victimhood that she cannot acknowledge her own bad judgment or her responsibility for having pursued him. Nothing that goes wrong in a feminist’s life can possibly be her fault, you see. The blame must be externalized, and every man in the world must be made to suffer in her campaign of sadistic revenge — “Male tears!”

 

Perhaps they are tears of pity, or maybe her father’s tears of shame at the way his daughter has brought such disgrace on herself and her family.

Anyway, today was #HeterosexualPrideDay on Twitter, and no one can accuse me of failing to do my part for the cause.




 

Comments

  • Steve Skubinna

    Scotch, Bourbon or Irish? I keep some of all three on hand.

  • Quartermaster

    Ossifers took more orders than I ever did.

  • DeadMessenger

    Scotch, of course. Ancestral Scot, so, you know, I HAVE to drink that. The best scotch I ever tried is the Glenmorangie aged in Sauterne casks. I can’t afford to buy it, though. That type costs a pretty penny.