The Other McCain

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

Social Justice vs. Heterosexuality (and the Problem With ‘Male Feminists’)

Posted on | February 18, 2017 | 2 Comments

“We must recognize that heterosexuality is also part of the structure of the oppression of women. Sexual repression is one of the ways in which women are oppressed and one of the ways in which patriarchy is maintained.”
Jane Flax, “Women Do Theory,” 1979, in Feminist Frameworks: Alternative Theoretical Accounts of the Relations Between Women and Men, edited by Alison M. Jaggar and Paula S. Rothenberg (Third Edition, 1993)

“It is a curious fact that feminists who live heterosexual lifestyles — who are happily married to, living with or having sex with men — often find it difficult or impossible to accept the identity ‘heterosexual.’ . . .
“For some heterosexual feminists . . . the contradictions between political ideology and lived experience are acute and painful, and involve constant compromise. . . . No wonder, then, that the identity ‘heterosexual’ is hard to sustain.”

Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson, “The Precariousness of Heterosexual Feminist Identities,” in Making Connections: Women’s Studies, Women’s Movements, Women’s Lives, edited by Mary Kennedy, Cathy Lubelska and Val Walsh (1993)

Oppression, repression, patriarchy — guys, if you ever encounter a woman who talks like this, just walk away. She’s deranged, and nothing you say to her is likely to cure her paranoid anti-male delusions.

Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and the only way anyone can hope to escape this destruction is to avoid being anywhere in the vicinity of a feminist. Why do feminists hate men so much? Perhaps because the only men with whom feminists ever interact are men too stupid to avoid hanging around feminists. Or even worse, they get mixed up with a “male feminist”:

I thought dating someone who called himself a feminist — who considered himself a “social justice warrior,” who was accepted in these communities, who was introduced to me at a feminist event by a trusted friend, and was sensitive — would be the safest choice I could make for a boyfriend. Instead, he was emotionally and psychologically abusive and manipulative. . . .
He bemoaned how predatory men can be. He was “concerned for me” — not jealous. . . .
He cried when I described my past rape. He hurt for me. He told me about how he hurts for all the women he knows who have been assaulted. I slowly found out that the women he has recently pursued are all assault survivors. . . .

You can read the rest of that, but you get the drift: Left-wing guys are sexual scavengers, always looking for easy prey, and their ostentatious concern for “social justice” issues is a three-card monte hustle that could only deceive a complete fool. However, complete fools are a dime a dozen in the kind of “communities” where feminists gather like wildebeests grazing on the Katanga Plateau, stalked by packs of “male feminists.”

Here’s a clue: Social justice is a mirage, as the Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek said. Anyone foolish enough to pursue the progressive fantasy of an egalitarian utopia is a chump, and getting involved with a political movement of chumps is always a bad idea, because bad causes attract bad people, and the worst get on top:

From the collectivist standpoint intolerance and brutal suppression of dissent, deception and spying, the complete disregard of the life and happiness of the individual are essential and unavoidable consequences . . .
To be a useful assistant in the running of a totalitarian state it is not enough that a man should be prepared to accept specious justification of vile deeds, he must himself be prepared actively to break every moral rule he has ever known if this seems necessary to achieve the end set for him. . . .
Yet while there is little that is likely to induce men who are good by our standards to aspire to leading positions in the totalitarian machine, and much to deter them, there will be special opportunities for the ruthless and unscrupulous.

The anarchist mobs of thugs who engage in vandalism and violence to protest the election results and to silence dissent on university campuses are symptomatic of this problem, and what kind of woman would get involved in such a movement? A fool or a feminist, but I repeat myself.

A woman who denounces heterosexuality as “the structure of the oppression of women,” to quote the Women’s Studies textbook, is free to avoid this oppression. If the feminist is not a lesbian, however, she must wonder if her politics can be reconciled with heterosexuality. In this, I agree with radical feminists, including Professor Kitzinger, who declare that feminism and heterosexuality are ultimately incompatible.

What does a normal woman want? The American Dream — a nice house in the suburbs, two or three kids running around in the backyard on a Sunday afternoon while her husband grills some burgers. Getting to that American Dream scenario in the 21st century may require different domestic arrangements than it did during the Eisenhower era, but a woman won’t get there through “social justice,” unless her husband happens to be a Democrat politician or a bigwig in some tax-exempt “progressive” foundation. No, ma’am, the way to the American Dream is capitalism. Smashing windows at Starbucks or marching around in pink “pussy hats” waving signs denouncing patriarchy isn’t likely to get you that nice house in suburbia. Reality does not conform to feminist theory.

 

 

 

While the progressive mob keeps marching toward their egalitarian mirage, the people who make America work are busy . . . well, working.

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money,” as Margaret Thatcher famously said, and how many anti-Trump protesters have jobs in the profit-making private sector? Not a lot, I’d bet.

Anti-Trump rage is an epidemic on college and university campuses, and why? Because so many of the students are living on borrowed money while they pursue useless liberal arts degrees, and are therefore part of a major economic problem in America:

The Department of Education recently released a memo admitting that repayment rates on student loans have been grossly exaggerated. Data from 99.8% of schools across the country has been manipulated to cover up growing problems with the $1.3 trillion in outstanding student loans. New calculations show that more than half of all borrowers from 1,000 different institutions have defaulted on or not paid back a single dollar of their loans over the last seven years. . . .
The policies of intervention haven’t stopped at federal aid, and loan forgiveness is now being offered to those willing to work in the public sector or at a non-profit for ten years. This perverse incentive only serves to drive those desperately in debt further towards government dependence. Productive jobs are created when the needs of others are met in the free market, not by joining the ranks of the state for self-preservation.
The idea that success comes exclusively through attending a university has created a stigma against some of the most valuable occupations. The lack of real skill sets has lead to a shortage of welders, electricians, carpenters, and other trade workers. Instead of learning through experience with apprenticeships, many students have embraced four years of sleeping in, drinking heavily, and getting an increasingly useless degree. While there are many fields that require specialized training, the surge in popularity of degrees like sociology, anthropology, and communications clearly illustrate a disconnect between the needs of the economy and the skills of the incoming workforce.

You can read the whole thing at Zero Hedge. How does anyone expect a Gender Studies major to repay her student loans? Isn’t the $1.3 trillion student-loan bubble directly connected to the totalitarian “progressive” mentality demonstrated by the anti-free speech riots at Berkeley?

“Well, that’s Berkeley,” you say. “Those left-wing lunatics have been in charge at Berkeley for decades.” The problem with that reaction is that the Left’s toxic ideology is on nearly every campus now.

What the hell is going on at Marshall University in Huntington, W.Va., that this public university has a department of Sexuality Studies which is hosting a lecture by lesbian feminist Professor Jane Ward? West Virginia is not a wealthy state that can afford to throw away taxpayer money on this kind of academic nonsense. The median household income in Huntington, W.Va., is only $29,873, and I rather doubt “The Tragedy of Heterosexuality” is high on their list of problems. “The Tragedy of My Pickup Truck Broke Down” is probably more relevant to their lives.

Imagine the West Virginia redneck — in his garage, trying to change out the busted water pump on his old Ford F-150 — when he finds out the state university spent his tax money to hire a lesbian professor from California to give a lecture on “The Tragedy of Heterosexuality.” He’s not going to smash any windows at Starbucks, but he’s damn sure not going vote for anybody he thinks is responsible for such foolishness.

Liberalism has become a luxury that only rich people could afford, were it not for the taxpayer subsidies for idiotic professors and administrators and students who sit around on college campuses constantly whining about oppression and inequality, blah, blah, blah. The good news is, all those vile left-wing scumbags are miserable now:

For some liberals in the United States, the presidential election results have been a total turn-off.
Normally in the first month of the year, the dating site Match.com sees an uptick in the number of active users on the site. January, after all, is a popular month for singles to get back out there.
But this January, Match.com noticed something surprising: a decrease in activity among the site’s more liberal users. In January, “people who call themselves liberals were far less likely to sign up with Match” and weren’t contacting potential matches or checking out new profiles as much, says Helen Fisher, the company’s science adviser.
Meanwhile, conservatives flocked to find new partners in droves. Users in counties that voted for Donald Trump seem to be more interested in dating than users in counties that voted for Hillary Clinton. . . .
The results suggested the election really did have an effect on users’ self-reported dating drive: 29 percent of liberals said they felt less like dating since Trump won. . . .
Fisher, a biological anthropologist by training, suggests a simple answer: “They’re depressed.”

Good. Liberals should be depressed, because they’re losers. And no liberal loser is more pathetic than the “male feminist”:

Male Feminism is a social disease, a gross perversion of a feminist movement which has evolved from the philosophical to the political. Do not fall into the trap of believing that Male Feminism seeks to empower women, when it actually does just the opposite. . . .
Instead of understanding that powerful women, just like powerful men, come from a vast range of philosophical and professional backgrounds, the Male Feminist believes that you have to filter your Facebook profile picture with a Planned Parenthood logo and dye your hair blue in order to avoid becoming a “gender traitor.” . . .
Perhaps most obviously, the Male Feminist loves nothing more than to explain how you’re “doing feminism wrong.”

Never mind whether you’re “doing feminism wrong,” why do feminism at all? In a world of freedom and opportunity for women, why not just go with the old-fashioned idea of “the pursuit of happiness”?

 

Yeah, “Love Trumps Hate,” but you’re probably not going to get that house in the suburbs, ma’am. Maybe ask your Gender Studies professor why you’re exempt from “the structure of the oppression of women.” Male feminists are losers, but they can’t be that desperate, can they?



 

 

RELATED:

 

Comments