Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It

Posted on | November 2, 2017 | 3 Comments

 

 

Last week, the Internet went wild about Professor Jessie Daniels, who teaches sociology at the Hunter College campus of the City University of New York (CUNY). What did Professor Daniels say?

Jessie Daniels, a self-described “expert on race,” began her tweetstorm . . . by declaring that “what I’ve learned is that the white-nuclear family is one of the most powerful forces supporting white supremacy.”
“I mean, if you’re a white person who says they’re engaged in dismantling white supremacy but…you’re forming a white family [and] reproducing white children that ‘you want the best for’ – how is that helping [and] not part of the problem?” . . .
Daniels notes that she’s not alone in her hostility towards the family. Other scholars have a “feminist critique of The Family as an inherently conservative force in society,” she says, citing the work of feminist scholars Peggy McIntosh and Michele Barrett, who argue in their book that the nuclear family structure is a “fact to be lamented.”
The sacredness of the family also concerns her, Daniels notes, adding that “there’s a whole ideological apparatus to justify how f-cking sacred the family is,” adding that “nothing’s more important” because “Until white people are ready to confront their own family’s racism [and] participation in systemic white supremacy, it’s not getting dismantled.”

Professor Daniels locked down her Twitter account, rather than to defend her wicked arguments. And she has been preaching this hateful ideology at taxpayer expense since 1993. Because higher education in America is extensively subsidized by federal and state taxpayers, everything taught in our universities is a matter of public interest. Even private colleges and universities received direct and indirect subsidies from taxpayers, especially in the form of Pell Grants and government-guaranteed student loans. Taxpayer funding is the financial source of what Professor Glenn Reynolds has called The Higher Education Bubble. Professor Daniels taught at the University of Cincinnati (1993-1994) and Hofstra University (1995-2000) before being appointed research director at CUNY/Hunter College’s Center on Community and Urban Health in 2002, and from there gained tenure as a full professor at the CUNY School of Public Health. Let the taxpayer ask, “How does the hateful message of Professor Daniels promote ‘public health’?” It is self-evidently absurd that such a hate-filled monster as Professor Daniels should be employed in this position, and who is paying her salary? Every taxpayer in New York City, New York state and the United States of America. Professor Daniels is a government employee, and her employment at public expense is tantamount to a government endorsement of her monstrous beliefs.

Professor Daniels has a verified “blue-check” Twitter account. She is a public figure, and not some obscure private citizen. Criticism of her hateful anti-family tirade is not “abuse” or “harassment.” Her arguments were self-evidently indefensible. Everyone with two eyes and a brain could see that Professor Daniels is a demented hatemonger and, by locking down her account, she tacitly admitted that she cannot defend herself in open debate. She waved the white flag of surrender.

Why does Professor Daniels believe what she believes? Because of her devotion to radical feminism, an ideology that emerged from the New Left in the 1960s. Radical feminism derived its methodology (historical materialism) from Marxism and the feminist belief in women’s collective oppression by patriarchy was cloned, so to speak, from the Marxist claim that the industrial proletariat was oppressed by capitalism.

This concept of oppression involves a zero-sum-game mentality, where individual success is condemned as a product of unjust exploitation of others. Because the capitalist system is inherently wrong, according to Marxists, the most successful people in our society are the worst people, and those who fail are the best people — the sainted “victims” of oppression. By equating success with oppression, and celebrating victimhood, this ideology of “social justice” condemns every honest person who works hard and saves their money to try to make a better life for themselves and their families. In the obverse, “social justice” ideology also incentivizes claims of victimhood, encouraging a form of identity politics based on self-pity and an attitude of resentment toward others. It is often the most privileged people in our society (e.g., students from affluent backgrounds attending elite universities) who embrace this identity politics mentality, claiming to be Victims of Oppression.

Feminism condemns “male privilege” as a way of stigmatizing male success. In most cases, the successful man “stands on the shoulders of giants,” so to speak, having been born into fortunate circumstances, inheriting certain advantages. As Malcolm Gladwell explains in his book Outliers: The Story of Success, it may take generations of hard work (and good luck) to produce the great man. A billionaire like Mark Zuckerberg, for example, is the son of middle-class parents, but he is the great-grandson of impoverished Jewish immigrants. The crucial factors that put Zuckerberg in a position to create Facebook while he was a Harvard student could be traced back to his grandparents’ generation, before anyone dreamed of modern computer technology.

Did the “patriarchy” make Zuckerberg a billionaire? This is what feminists would have us believe, with their talk of “male privilege,” but this claim is as paranoid as an anti-Semite claiming that Facebook is a “Zionist” conspiracy. (Incidentally, Zuckerberg’s older sister Randi is also a Harvard-educated success, having left a job at a top advertising firm to work seven years at Facebook before launching her own ventures.) The anti-Semite resents Jewish success in the same way the feminist resents male success, and it doesn’t enhance the respectability of feminism’s anti-male agenda that they have developed an elaborate theory to justify their resentments. Anti-Semites have their theories, too, you know. The main difference between anti-Semites and feminists is that the latter have their own sanctuaries in university Women’s Studies programs.

Feminism is an ideology of rationalized hatred, based in a zero-sum-game worldview that condemns success as the result of unfair exploitation. As Ronald Reagan once observed, “We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one.”

And what of Professor Daniels at CUNY-Hunter College, and her claim that the “nuclear family” is a mechanism of “white supremacy”? Is it wrong for white people to get married and stay married, “reproducing white children that ‘you want the best for’?” Professor Daniels says so, and she cites a “feminist critique of The Family” to justify this claim. Indeed, I have quoted such feminists many times here.

“Certainly all those institutions which were designed on the assumption and for the reinforcement of the male and female role system such as the family (and its sub-institution, marriage), sex, and love must be destroyed.”
— “The Feminists: A Political Organization to Annihilate Sex Roles,” 1969, in Radical Feminism, edited by Anne Koedt, et al. (1973)

“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)

 

Here is how I have previously summarized this “feminist critique”:

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. . . .
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.

Only if you take the time to study feminism as a political theory, and to research the movement’s historic roots in 1960s New Left radicalism, is it possible to comprehend this implacable hostility to the family.

 

Three books by feminist authors — Susan Brownmiller, Sarah Evans and Alice Echols — locate the origins of the Women’s Liberation Movement in the civil rights struggles of the early 1960s. Specifically, it was Mary King and Casey Hayden, members of both the Students for a Democrat Society (SDS) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), who wrote a 1965 paper (“A Kind of Memo”) complaining about the treatment of women in the civil-rights and anti-war movements:

There seem to be many parallels that can be drawn between treatment of Negroes and treatment of women in our society as a whole. But in particular, women we’ve talked to who work in the movement seem to be caught up in a common-law caste system that operates, sometimes subtly, forcing them to work around or outside hierarchical structures of power which may exclude them. Women seem to be placed in the same position of assumed subordination in personal situations too. It is a caste system which, at its worst, uses and exploits women.

Judging their situation as analogous to that of black people under Jim Crow (rather an insulting analogy, really) these radical women were calling attention to the hypocrisy of male New Left leaders, who talked the talk of “equality,” but did not walk the walk. This critique emerged at a pivotal moment in the mid-1960s. First, the SNCC purged whites from its membership and began espousing a rhetoric of “Black Power” (Stokely Carmichael, H. Rap Brown, et al.), so that white radicals were no longer welcome in the civil-rights movement. Their energy was diverted to anti-Vietnam war protests, but these were male-dominated, and radical women complained they were relegated to making sandwiches and doing secretarial duties for their anti-war boyfriends. Meanwhile, the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s was underway, and these anti-war radical men were also at the vanguard of that movement. In 1969, SDS leaders invoked the slogan “Smash Monogamy” to justify orgies as activism, a frenzy of degenerate madness that was simultaneous to the emergence of the Women’s Liberation Movement, which was organized by Shulamith Firestone using a mailing list of SDS women.

Modern feminism’s historic origins half a century ago explain why the movement embraced an ideology derived from Marxist theory, and we now see this radicalism come full circle — returning to the issue of race — in Professor Daniels’ rant against the “white nuclear family.” The poisonous of ideology sexual “liberation” has produced catastrophic results for black Americans. More than 70% of black children are born to unwed mothers, and this is a major factor contributing to black poverty. “About two-thirds of poor children live in single-parent homes. Government spends $300 billion annually to assist low-income single parents,” as Jennifer Marshall of the Heritage Foundation wrote in 2010. “Yet discussions of poverty rarely address the collapse of marriage.” Why is this? Because “discussions of poverty” are dominated by the Left, and the Left is dominated by feminists who are anti-marriage.

Let the reader now go back and examine what Professor Daniels wrote about the “nuclear family” and “white supremacy.” For half a century, the inherent advantages enjoyed by children whose parents got married and stay married have disproportionately accrued to white children, not because their parents are “racist,” but simply because so many black children have been born to unmarried women. Whose fault is this?

In 2011, YouTube video about a Florida woman named Angel Adams went viral. Adams, age 37, was the mother of 15 children by three different men. The Florida Department of Children and Families had become involved with Adams and her children after her boyfriend, father of 10 of her children, was sentenced to prison for dealing cocaine.

Cocaine dealer Garry Brown (left) fathered 10 children with Angel Adams (right).

“Someone needs to pay for all my children in my care. Somebody needs to be held accountable.”

Who is this “somebody”? How do we hold them “accountable”? Who bears the responsibility for Angel Adams’ irresponsible behavior? This is the problem at the heart of liberal Welfare State policy, in that it tends to privatize benefits while socializing costs. As government assumes responsibility for distributing goods and services, at the expense of taxpayers, it creates a situation where reckless behavior is rewarded (and thus incentivized) while virtuous citizens who work hard to provide for their own families are stigmatized as “selfish” or even “racist.”

The white middle class is scarcely without blame in this scheme. Who benefits most directly from government subsidies to higher education? Well, white people like Professor Daniels, for example. All the chatter about campus “diversity” is just camouflage for this racket, whereby the academic elite are employed at taxpayer expense. Yet the children of the middle class, who gain the most from college education, are also beneficiaries of this taxpayer largesse. Why is the federal government subsidizing the Ivy League? These elite institutions have billions of dollars in private endowments, and it’s not as if the wealthy parents who send their kids Yale and Cornell can’t afford the tuition.

Everybody wants a slice of the taxpayer-funded pie, and everybody wants to avoid paying for it. This is why the national debt is now $20 trillion (that’s trillion with a “T,” a 2 followed by 13 zeroes) and we are reminded of Margaret Thatcher’s aphorism: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

Who’s gonna pay that $20,000,000,000,000 debt? Future generations, or at least those members of future generations who aren’t welfare mooches. And would anyone like to guess who that’s gonna be?

Probably not the children of Angel Adams.

The liberal Welfare State is staggering toward a rendezvous with bankruptcy, because the recipients of “free” government benefits are proliferating, while the productive members of society — the ones who pay the taxes for all this — are in increasingly in short supply.

America spent the Obama years in a holiday from history, led by a Democrat who believed the taxpayers could afford an entirely new welfare benefit — ObamaCare — and who didn’t give a damn about future taxpayers or the stifling effect on economic growth caused by an insane tangle of regulations and mandates and subsidies. Anyone who criticized this reckless boondoggle, however, was dismissed as a “racist,” as if the ability to do simple math is synonymous with prejudice. And of course, the biggest cheerleaders for this are academics like Professor Daniels, who has never done an honest day’s work in her miserable life, but who thinks herself qualified to pass judgement on parents for having “children that ‘you want the best for.’” That’s “white supremacy”!

 

Of course, her account is “protected,” and of course, CUNY officials (whose salaries are funded by taxpayers) refuse to comment. God forbid that the higher education elite should have to answer any questions from the people who pay the bills. A professor at CUNY with 10 years’ experience gets an annual salary of more than $120,000, but her account is “protected” because she can’t defend her arguments in public.

It’s the Cloward-Piven Strategy, you see — deliberately bankrupt the system so as to hasten the crisis that leads to revolution. And while you’re piling up costs that the taxpayers can’t afford, why not spend some of that money to hire radical feminist professors to insult the taxpayers?

Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and guess who’s paying their bills? You are, chump.

 

Comments