The Other McCain

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

The Intellectuals and Feminism: Why Do Fantasies of Sexual ‘Equality’ Persist?

Posted on | August 12, 2016 | 1 Comment


Men and women are different — biologically, as a matter of science — and the differences between the sexes are socially significant. Feminism seeks to impose a politically constructed regime of “equality” between men and women. This project is essentially destructive, resulting in the loss of social cohesion and an increase of sexual hostility. In fact, the “equality” imagined by feminists is impossible, for the same basic reasons that socialism is ultimately impossible (which Ludwig von Mises explained in 1922). Given the proof of socialism’s ultimate impossibility, why did this misguided ideal continue to be championed by many in the West despite the catastrophic failure of the Bolshevik experiment? Mises’ student Friedrich Hayek, who went on to win the 1974 Nobel Prize in economics, addressed this in a 1949 essay, “The Intellectuals and Socialism.”

If any reader is unfamiliar with Hayek’s argument, it is neither my duty nor my purpose at this time to remediate your ignorance. Neither do I feel any obligation to recite the case that Hayek made against the Rawlsian conception of equality in The Mirage of Social Justice. My purpose, rather, is to call the attention of the well-educated reader to the failure of feminists either to study or comprehend the arguments made by Mises and Hayek. We must begin, of course, by pointing out that there are libertarian women like Christina Hoff Sommers and Cathy Young who certainly do not consider themselves anti-feminists, just as no one familiar with Ayn Rand would label her an opponent of “women’s rights.” Nor, for that matter, do most conservative and/or libertarian men conform to the misogynist stereotype that feminists imagine us to be. As I explain in my book Sex Trouble, however, the feminist movement is controlled by adherents of a radical egalitarian ideology, propagated in university Women’s Studies programs by the intellectual heiresses of Shulamith Firestone, Mary Daly, Andrea Dworkin, et al. This anti-male belief system is implacably opposed to the principles of a free society embraced by Dr. Sommers, who in her 1994 book Who Stole Feminism? describes the radical view as “gender feminism,” which she distinguishes from her own ideal of “equity feminism.” More recently, Dr. Sommers has used Freedom Feminism as the title of a 2013 book, and produced a popular YouTube video series called “The Factual Feminist.”

Nothing is detracted from the tremendous value of Dr. Sommers’ research and advocacy by pointing out that feminists deny that she has any claim to be part of the feminist movement. Prominent feminists like Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte absolutely despise Dr. Sommers, considering her to be an anti-feminist, a “neoconservative” stooge of patriarchy. And it has long been my opinion (influenced by the arguments of such conservative women as Phyllis Schlafly, Carolyn Graglia and Wendy Shalit) that we ought to let anti-male hatemongers like Valenti and Marcotte keep the “feminist” label to themselves, rather than trying to wrangle this term from their vice-like grasp and redefine it as a sort of Republican Feminism Lite™ brand. Disagreements about terminology (or rhetorical strategy, as I would say) can be left aside, however, for the sake of the point I wish to make here. If you consider yourself an “equity feminist” or a “freedom feminist,” do not consider what follows to be an expression of any antipathy toward your own views.

Insofar as men and women are different, they can never be made “equal” in the collective sense that feminists have in mind. Therefore, feminism seeks to eradicate behavioral manifestations of sexual difference that feminists call “gender.” The goal of feminism, as pioneering “Second Wave” theorists like Firestone and Dworkin stated clearly, is a regime of androgyny, where male-female differences have no social significance. It is easy to demonstrate the basic problem with this bizarre ideology, beginning with the fact that the laws, regulations and policies necessary to bring about androgynous equality are inimicable to individual freedom, and have harmful economic effects. The threat of lawsuits claiming sexual discrimination discourages capital investment, requiring companies to spend money in non-productive ways just to protect themselves against such claims. Burdens of regulation and litigation are a major factor in the “offshoring” of jobs and the de-industrialization of the American economy. While feminists continue shouting slogans of “equality” and “diversity,” companies keep building factories in Indonesia, the Dominican Republic and other developing countries where those slogans lack any legal or political power.

In 2014, the British edition of the women’s magazine Elle promoted a fundraising campaign by offering a T-shirt with the slogan “This Is What a Feminist Looks Like” for £45 ($72), of which £36 ($63) was supposed to go to a feminist group, The Fawcett Society. Among those promoting this campaign was Harry Potter actress Emma Watson. The campaign ended after it was revealed that the T-shirts were made in a sweatshop in the island nation of Mauritius where women employees were paid about $1 an hour and slept 16 to a room. Poor women working so that rich women can make statements about “equality” — this is what feminism looks like.


Destructive economic policies are entirely acceptable to socialists feminists like University of Colorado Professor Alison Jaggar, who are opposed to capitalism in principle, and who have a particular prejudice against the kind of industries (e.g., auto manufacturing) where the labor force is both relatively well-paid and predominantly male. Of course, because the United States is so demonized as a symbol of capitalist evil, socialist feminists are also emphatically anti-American. During this year’s Democratic presidential primary campaign, a Tumblr blog called Proletarian Feminism lashed out at Hillary Clinton’s rival:

The “socialism” of Bernie Sanders is no different than the social democracy and labor parties of Europe. It represents an attempt to save capitalism from itself in the imperialist core. It represents an attempt to save capitalism by insulating the populations of the First World from the worst excesses of capitalism. Bernie Sanders speaks to income inequality within the United States, but only in the United States. He says nothing to challenge the imperialist system that has created the American way of life. Bernie Sanders wants to “restore the American middle class,” to increase the American standard of living, a way of life bought at the expense of the exploited peoples of the Third World. His “socialism” is that of the pirate captain who advocates an equal distribution of treasure to his crew even though the treasure is stolen from others. Like both the social democrats and fascists of Europe, Bernie Sanders is concerned with the problems of his imperialist constituency. He is concerned only with the problems of Americans. He wants to make Americans richer even though the current standard of living in the United States is only made possible by imperialism.

If the United States is an “imperialist” pirate stealing “treasure” from others, the socialist feminist must therefore hate America. Feminism’s irrational anti-American prejudice is a legacy of the Cold War and the origins of modern feminism in the radical New Left of the 1960s.

Killing Babies for the ‘Survival of the Planet’

Another discredited idea of the 1960s, the “Population Bomb” hysteria promoted by Paul Erlich, influences the so-called “eco-feminism” advocated by Lierre Keith of Deep Green Resistance:

Civilization . . . props itself up with imperialism, conquering its neighbors and stripping their land, but eventually even the colonies wear out. Fossil fuel has been an accelerant, as has capitalism, but the underlying problem is much bigger than either. Civilization requires agriculture, and agriculture is a war against the living world. . . .
In 1800, at the beginning of the Industrial Age, there were one billion people. Now there are seven billion. Six billion are only here because of fossil fuel. . . .
Nothing we do at these numbers is sustainable. Ninety-eight percent of the old-growth forests and 99 percent of the grasslands are gone, and gone with them was most of the soil they built. There’s nothing left to take. The planet has been skinned alive. . . .
We can do better than mass starvation, failed states, ethnic strife, misogyny, petty warlords, and the dystopian scenarios that collapse brings. It’s very simple: reproduce at less than replacement numbers. The problem will take care of itself. And now we come to the girls.
What drops the birthrate universally is raising the status of women. Very specifically, the action with the greatest impact is teaching a girl to read. When women and girls have even that tiny bit of power over their lives, they choose to have fewer children. . . .
We should be defending the human rights of girls because girls matter. As it turns out, the basic rights of girls are crucial to the survival of the planet.

The specter of “mass starvation” as a result of overpopulation, an idea that originated with Thomas Malthus, is demonstrably false. Julian Simon famously exposed Paul Ehrlich’s error, and anyone who has read Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed knows that it takes only four pages (pp. 67-70) for Sowell to dismantle every major argument made as part of what he rightly calls “the campaign of hysteria” Ehrlich promoted.

Overpopulation is a myth, and yet this myth is absolutely essential to the feminist worldview for the simple reason that feminist hate babies.


Going back at least as far as Shulamith Firestone’s infamous denunciation of pregnancy as “barbaric” in The Dialectic of Sex (1970), feminists have condemned motherhood as inherently oppressive to women. This anti-maternal bias is deeply connected to feminism’s utopian vision of a “gender-neutral” androgynous future of collective “equality,” because much of the measurable difference in income between men and women is a result of lifestyle choices related to women’s role as mothers.

The so-called “wage gap” between men and women (“77 cents on the dollar,” as it is usually expressed) has been shown to be a feminist myth. Eliminate the real differences (hours worked per week, number of years on the job, etc.) and the “wage gap” between men and women disappears. Women are not being cheated out of 23% of their wages for doing the same work as men on account of sexist discrimination, but are instead simply pursuing different professions or working fewer hours than men. Much of the difference is because women seek jobs with flexible hours that make it possible for them to spend more time with their children. Married women whose husbands earn wages sufficient to pay the basic household bills often choose to stay home (or work part-time) especially when their children are infants and toddlers. Single mothers have less choice in this regard, but still will typically seek employment that permits them the flexibility necessary to accommodate their childcare duties, which in turn may exclude them (at least temporarily) from more high-paying jobs. Feminist rhetoric about the alleged “wage gap” simply ignores this economic reality in favor of the “77 cents on the dollar” myth based on a bogus apples-to-oranges comparison.


What is so misguided about Lierre Keith’s concept of promoting the “basic rights of girls” as a means to achieve “fewer children” and thereby ensure “the survival of the planet” is not only that it is based on the Malthusian fallacy of overpopulation, but also that it ignores the reality of worldwide demographic trends. Simply compare the numbers:

Top Ten Countries by Total Fertility Rate
(Average lifetime births per woman)
1. Niger …………………….. 6.76
2. Burundi ………………… 6.09
3. Mali ……………………… 6.06
4. Somalia ………………… 5.99
5. Uganda ………………… 5.89
6. Burkina Faso ………… 5.86
7. Zambia …………………. 5.72
8. Malawi …………………. 5.60
9. Angola …………………. 5.37
10. Afghanistan …………. 5.33

Total Fertility Rates for
Selected Industrial Nations

South Korea …………… 1.25
Japan …………………….. 1.40
Greece ……………………. 1.42
Italy ……………………….. 1.43
Germany ………………… 1.44
Austria …………………… 1.46
Spain ……………………… 1.49
Switzerland ……………. 1.55
Canada ………………….. 1.59
Denmark ……………….. 1.73
Australia ………………… 1.77
Belgium …………………. 1.78
Netherlands …………… 1.78
United States …………. 1.87

Even if “overpopulation” was a real problem (which it’s not), it is certainly not a problem in the major industrial nations, none of which has a total fertility rate high enough to sustain their population at the current level (what demographers call “replacement fertility,” i.e., an average 2.1 lifetime births per woman). How much impact does Lierre Keith’s rant about “mass starvation” and human beings as a “the survival of the planet” have on birth rates in high-fertility countries like Burundi, Somalia and Afghanistan? None whatsoever. Feminism (like environmentalism and socialism) is popular among college-educated women in affluent communities (like Lierre Keith’s hometown of Brookline, Massachusetts) and not so much in Kandahar or Mogadishu.

“Only when we recognize that ‘manhood’ and ‘womanhood’ are made-up categories, invented to control human beings and violently imposed, can we truly understand the nature of sexism. . . .
“Questioning gender . . . is an essential part of the feminism that has sustained me through two decades of personal and political struggle.”

Laurie Penny, “How to Be a Genderqueer Feminist”

“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

Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” She might have added, the problem with feminism is that you eventually run out of other people’s daughters. Because feminists hate men, marriage and motherhood, they tend not to have very many daughters of their own. Instead, feminists constantly recruit by using the media and university campuses to preach their anti-male doctrine to the daughters of women who had babies, instead of getting abortions as feminism says they should. Feminists are against motherhood, and usually have few children if any, so that the vast majority of children — male and female alike — are born to women who aren’t feminists. Devoted to the Culture of Death, the feminist movement seeks to destroy human life, not create it. This goes a long way toward explaining why the utopia of androgynous “equality” never arrives, because a movement led by baby-haters like Amanda Marcotte and “genderqueers” like Laurie Penny doesn’t produce many offspring. Normal people have babies and raise them with normal beliefs, whereas lunatics who believe “that ‘manhood’ and ‘womanhood’ are made-up categories” are en route to the Darwinian Dead End.

The Impossible Idea of ‘Equality’

If the fatal flaws of feminism are so obvious, then, why does this fantasy of a gender-neutral “equality” persist among intellectuals? Citing the work of Joseph Schumpeter, Hayek pointed out that “it is the absence of direct responsibility for practical affairs and the consequent absence of first hand knowledge of them which distinguishes the typical intellectual from other people.” Hayek described how such people have a habit of “making shibboleths of abstractions”:

It is perhaps the most characteristic feature of the intellectual that he judges new ideas not by their specific merits but by the readiness with which they fit into his general conceptions, into the picture of the world which he regards as modern or advanced. It is through their influence on him and on his choice of opinions on particular issues that the power of ideas for good and evil grows in proportion to their generality, abstractness, and even vagueness. As he knows little about the particular issues, his criterion must be consistency with his other views and suitability for combining into a coherent picture of the world.

Among the “general conceptions” and vague abstractions that intellectuals consider “modern or advanced,” few are more powerful than “equality.”

Apparently, no one can be against “equality,” although nothing like “equality” has ever existed in human history. There is no “equality” now, nor will any political scheme create “equality” in the future. I am not “equal” to LeBron James or Warren Buffett, and neither are you.

Dividing up humanity into groups — white and black, male and female, native and immigrant, etc. — and measuring these collective categories to show some way they are unequal, and then bemoaning this inequality as social injustice, is a ridiculous exercise that reminds me of something George Orwell once said: “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”

More than half a century after the triumph of the civil rights movements, American liberals are still citing statistics about racial inequality which they construe as evidence of prejudicial discrimination, although it is obvious that this “blame whitey” approach to the misfortunes of black Americans simply doesn’t explain these problems. Feminism’s effort to apply this civil-rights mentality to male/female relations — with “sexism” taking the place of “racism” as the oppressive force to be defeated — similarly fails as an explanation for women’s problems. Given that women are now a sizable majority (57%) of U.S. college students and that college education is generally considered the ticket to middle-class success, it becomes increasingly difficult for any honest and intelligent person to accept the feminist claim that women are universally oppressed by sexist discrimination. Nevertheless, feminists are if anything more militant than ever in asserting that they are being victimized by the patriarchy. The more actual “equality” there is, the angrier feminists become.

What is perhaps most astonishing, really, is the “male feminist” phenomenon. Many young men are eager to declare their own devotion to “equality,” even though feminists routinely mock these would-be male allies. (See, for example, “Beware These 10 Types of Feminist Men.”) Feminist men seem almost ludicrous in their determination to ingratiate themselves with women who hate them. Last year, a Canadian film director named Mark Sawers produced a genuinely strange movie:

Samuel Goldwyn Films has acquired worldwide rights (excluding Canada) to writer-director Mark Sawers’ sci-fi comedy satire No Men Beyond This Point, which just had its North American premiere in the Vanguard section at the Toronto Film Festival. The pic is set in a world where women no longer need men in order to reproduce and are no longer giving birth to male babies, leaving the male population on the verge of extinction. A 2016 release is in the works.
The movie follows the youngest man still alive — 37-year-old Andrew Myers, who works as a housekeeper for a family of women, who becomes the center of a battle to prevent men from going extinct. . . .
“Mark has a truly original voice and made a film that is both smart and funny — and is also an incredibly interesting take on gender politics,” Peter Goldwyn of Samuel Goldwyn Films said. “I’m excited to have the opportunity to release it and imagine we will have a lot of fun on this campaign.”

Here is a video of the preview trailer for No Men Beyond This Point:

What inspired this bizarre idea?

Sawers added that men are basically redundant in his view. “I’ve certainly been aware for a long time that men have no purpose,” he said. “I have two kids and the feeling, for me, that at any particular point I could step away for a long time and it really wouldn’t have that much of an impact on the situation? My wife couldn’t do that. On some level, I think men feel it.”

Why would a man feel that “men have no purpose”?

The explanation is as simple as saying that Mark Sawers is an intellectual.

From the perspective of “professional secondhand dealers in ideas,” as Hayek called them, it is possible to view men as “basically redundant.” A movie director does work that could just as easily be done by a woman. For the same reason feminism prevails in academia — no heavy lifting required to be a history professor — so also does it enjoy a phenomenal influence in the field of arts and entertainment. And let’s not forget that Mark Sawers is from Canada, a country where bad ideas like socialized medicine and laws against “hate speech” are wildly popular.

So, yes, in a country where movie production is subsidized by the Canadian National Film Board, which recently announced a “gender parity” initiative (“Canada Bankrolling More Female Directors to Close Gender Gap”), certainly a man like Mark Sawers might feel “redundant.”

Government-imposed “gender parity” won’t likely result in Canadian movies becoming global box-office hits. Canadian taxpayers already subsidize crappy movies; what “gender parity” means is that women directors will make half of those crappy Canadian movies — “equality”!

What we must conclude, finally, is that feminist rhetoric about “equality” is actually a fantasy of power. Intellectuals dream of having the power not only to tell other people how to live — as they habitually do anyway — but also to force people to live in ways approved by intellectuals. By empowering government to enforce “equality,” an abstraction whose meaning intellectuals consider themselves qualified to determine, intellectuals thereby seek to empower themselves.

The Failure of ‘Social Justice’ on Campus

However, the institutions where intellectuals have always exercised the most influence in America — colleges and universities — are not necessarily good models for this project of reshaping the nation. Subsidized by taxpayers, the cost of a college education has increased at three times the rate of inflation in the past 40 years. This has created what Professor Glenn Reynolds calls “The Higher Education Bubble,” as students find themselves spending more and more to obtain credentials of dubious real-world value. A college education now “functions more and more as a signaling device for employers and a networking tool for the middle and upper classes rather than as a rigorous educational program,” as The American Interest says. Controlled by intellectuals whose beliefs are formed in “the absence of direct responsibility for practical affairs,” are universities successful in enforcing “equality” on campus?

On Monday, Wagatwe Wanjuki, a former Tufts University student, posted a video on Facebook of her setting a Tufts sweatshirt on fire. “I’m not proud to wear a sweatshirt of an institution that refuses to acknowledge that I exist, that survivors should be helped,” Wanjuki said, her camera pointed at the smoldering shirt.
The following day, Kamilah Willingham, a graduate of Harvard Law School, burned a pair of Harvard University sweatpants and posted a photo of the smoking remains on Instagram. Both posts were labeled with the hashtag #JustSaySorry — the beginnings of a new social media campaign aimed at getting colleges to apologize for mishandling cases of campus sexual assault.
While the last five years of activism and federal intervention have substantially altered how colleges are expected to investigate and adjudicate claims of sexual violence, the campaign’s organizers say institutions are still too hesitant to tell victims who feel that their cases were mishandled that they are sorry.
“Many survivors of campus sexual violence feel ignored and sidelined by their schools,” Wanjuki and Willingham wrote on a website about their new organization, Survivors Eradicating Rape Culture.

Women who say they were victimized on campus certainly seem to think universities are failing to enforce “equality” under Title IX. Activists and the Obama administration have demanded that universities do more to prevent sexual assault. This has resulted in more than 100 lawsuits filed by male students who say they were falsely accused and denied due process in disciplinary proceedings in which unsubstantiated claims of sexual assault were treated as proof of guilt:

The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against a lower court that had dismissed a student’s claim that Columbia University had violated federal anti-discrimination laws when the school found him responsible for sexual assault. The suit brought by the student was based on the Title IX federal statute, which bans sex discrimination in education. The student’s claim was that Columbia University had engaged in an anti-male bias when it had found him responsible for sexual assault.
This pattern of anti-male bias seems to be a growing problem on many university and college campuses across the nation. As K.C. Johnson, a history professor at Brooklyn College, said, “Accused students often have claimed that these new procedures violate [Title IX] in reverse — that effectively they were biased against male students.”
In its ruling, the Second Circuit Court reprimanded the lower court judge, stating that a “university that adopts, even temporarily, a policy of bias favoring one sex over the other in a disciplinary dispute, doing so in order to avoid liability or bad publicity, has practiced sex discrimination, notwithstanding that the motive for the discrimination did not come from ingrained or permanent bias against a particular sex.”

The requirement to enforce “equality” puts universities into a trap where they are caught between competing claims of discrimination. What this problem actually exposes is the subjective nature of “equality” within the context of feminism’s social justice worldview.


Whereas the ordinary requirements of justice are a matter of following processes established by the rule of law, feminists allege that they are victimized because of “male privilege” under the oppressive system of patriarchy. According to feminists, sexual assault is not merely a crime committed by one person against another, but is part of a “rape culture” that pervades a male-dominated society. This in turn leads to a demand to change culture and society, and one of the changes demanded is to strip male students of their constitutional rights.

When boy meets girl on the 21st-century campus, “equality” means that she has all the power and he is entirely at her mercy. Every interaction between boys and girls now occurs under the shadow of their knowledge that she can have him banned from campus by accusing him of sexual wrongdoing. His expulsion is a more-or-less automatic consequence of her accusation. No evidence is necessary to prove his guilt, and boys who say they were falsely accused complain that they were prohibited from presenting exculpatory evidence in the Title IX disciplinary proceedings.

This bias against male students appears to be a reaction to claims by self-described “survivors of campus sexual violence” like Kamilah Willingham, whose status as a victim featured in the controversial CNN documentary The Hunting Ground appeared quite dubious to Slate’s Emily Yoffe:

The filmmakers present what happened between Kamilah Willingham and Brandon Winston as a terrifying warning to female college students and their parents, and a call to arms to government officials and college administrators. They offer the case as prima facie evidence that draconian regulations, laws, and punishments are required to end what they say is a scourge of sexual violence. But there is another story, which the filmmakers do not tell. It’s a story in which Willingham’s accusations are taken seriously and Winston’s actions are thoroughly investigated, first by Harvard University and later by the Middlesex County district attorney’s office. It’s a story in which neither the school nor the legal system finds that a rape occurred, and in which Willingham’s credibility is called seriously into question. It’s a story of an ambiguous sexual encounter among young adults that almost destroyed the life of the accused, a young black man with no previous record of criminal behavior. It’s a story that demonstrates how deeply the filmmakers’ politics colored their presentation of the facts—and how deeply flawed their influential film is as a result.

To make the story of this allegation as short as possible: Winston and Willingham were romantically interested in each other. She invited him to visit her at her apartment, where a woman who was Willingham’s friend from high school was also visiting. They were all drinking. Winston and Willingham did cocaine together, then all three of them went out to a bar, where Winston ran up a $160 tab for their drinks. Winston danced with Willingham’s friend. After going back to Willingham’s apartment, Winston briefly fooled around with the friend. The next day, Willingham and Winston exchanged online messages in which she accused him of assaulting her friend. Winston denied it, but said, “I was seriously wrecked and I went too far. . . . I’m sorry.” Three months later, weeks before she graduated, Willingham complained to Harvard officials. After a six-hour hearing, Winston was suspended for “sexual harassment,” not assault. He missed a full year of school until, after re-examining the testimony, the law school faculty voted to reinstate him.

There was no rape and sexual intercourse was not involved. When Winston said he “went too far” he was being apologetic for unsuccessfully trying to initiate a sexual encounter with Willingham’s friend by waking her up, kissing and fondling her, activity that he says was consensual, although both of them were so badly intoxicated that their memories were unclear. A plausible reading of the case is that this accusation was inspired by jealousy, and that Willingham acted out of revenge because Winston had shown more interest in her friend than in her. Yet the case is presented in The Hunting Ground as if Willingham and her friend were both brutally assaulted, and it is on this basis that Willingham describes herself as a “survivor of campus sexual violence.”

Whatever the facts of this case may be, if Harvard Law School cannot successfully implement “equality” between students at one of the most prestigious institutions of higher education in the world, is there any possibility that the rest of American society could ever be molded into a regime of “equality” that would be satisfactory to feminists?

The pursuit of “social justice” is about destroying society itself in hope of building an ideal utopia from the human wreckage. For more than 40 years, feminists have sought to gain power through this destructive process, disregarding evidence of the harmful consequences. What feminists have done to our nation’s universities shows that there is never an end to this destruction, because there is no limit to their insatiable craving for power. As I said in my presentation earlier this month: “No matter how much progress or equality actually exists, feminists always insist that the prevailing conditions are unjust. Despite the fact that women are now a 57-percent majority on university campuses, and despite the fact that feminists have their own departments, their own professors and their own curricula, their own textbooks and budgets and salaries, it’s never enough. Feminists always demand more! More! More!”



One Response to “The Intellectuals and Feminism: Why Do Fantasies of Sexual ‘Equality’ Persist?”

  1. News of the Week (August 14th, 2016) | The Political Hat
    August 14th, 2016 @ 3:08 pm

    […] The Intellectuals and Feminism: Why Do Fantasies of Sexual “Equality” Persist? Men and women are different – biologically, as a matter of science – and the differences between the sexes are socially significant. Feminism seeks to impose a politically constructed regime of “equality” between men and women. This project is essentially destructive, resulting in the loss of social cohesion and an increase of sexual hostility. […]