The Other McCain

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

Queer Feminism: Doing It Wrong

Posted on | April 25, 2018 | 2 Comments

‘Lara Americo’ (left) and Joanne Spataro (right) at DragCon in New York.

“I have found some lesbians to be the worst, most binary, most intolerant of them all. Some of them have no concept of another identity. They have this lesbian code of never having sex with another man and they have no idea of what pansexuality is or anything like that.”
Joanne Spataro, August 2015

There is a right way to do things, and then there is the Queer Feminist way of doing things, and Joanne Spataro is a queer feminist. She claims to be a “cisgender lesbian,” but she is engaged to marry a man, albeit a man who thinks he’s a woman and calls himself “Lara Americo.”

“Don’t be a weirdo,” I tell my kids. “And don’t hang around weirdos.”

Until I started studying radical feminism, I never thought of “normal” as an achievement, but amid the proliferation of 21st-century weirdness, it takes a tremendous effort to be ordinary and boring.

 

Feminism Is Queer, to quote the title of a textbook by Professor Mimi Marinucci, who teaches Women’s and Gender Studies at Eastern Washington University. To be a feminist in the 21st century means you cannot be normal. Perversion is now obligatory for feminists, and relationships like Joanne Spataro’s engagement to “Lara Americo” are what we can can expect as typical consequences of this ideology.

 

It is no surprise that Ms. Spataro’s attempts to become pregnant — “trying to have a baby the old-fashioned way” — are “complicated.” To begin with, both she and her, uh, partner had to stop taking synthetic hormones. Yes, in case you didn’t realize it, birth-control pills are synthetic hormones which prevent pregnancy by obstructing a woman’s normal hormone production. It is a well-known scientific fact that hormones influence mood and behavior, and it is therefore perhaps no coincidence that Queer Feminism flourishes among a generation of young women raised on “safe sex” ideology, many of whom began taking contraceptive pills as teenagers. What are the possible long-term consequences of deliberately causing an abnormal hormone-induced state of sterility in adolescent girls and young women?

 

Ms. Spataro evidently wasn’t contemplating questions like that when she was rallying in support of taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, nor did she wonder why Planned Parenthood should be such an important cause for a homosexual man like Tad Mack. “Intersectionality” is the buzzword by which Queer Feminism rationalizes every puzzling contradiction and non sequitur of the movement. And her efforts to become pregnant are quite puzzling indeed:

Over the last several months, I’ve spent evenings watching my fiancée, Lara, inject herself with smaller and smaller doses of estrogen. I’ve watched her stand in front of a mirror, singeing each hair out of her face with a secondhand electrolysis machine.
The return of her testosterone hasn’t resulted in just the resurgence of facial hair; her pants now fit differently, too. My own skin has been plagued by acne since I got off the pill six months ago, and my default states are angry, hungry or sleeping. Such are the perils of trying to have a child the way Lara and I are trying, without in vitro fertilization, or cryogenically frozen sperm. The way fertile cisgender people do: They simply couple up, and boom — a child is born. . . .

(This is so strange to Queer Feminists. Normal people doing normal things the normal way — where’s the “intersectionality” in that?)

Not long after we met, Lara, who transitioned at the wise old age of 30, told me that with each year she takes estrogen injections, her fertility declines. Like many trans people, Lara wasn’t interested in having children when she transitioned. We got together in May 2015; last fall, she told me it was, essentially, now or never, as she wanted her transition to continue moving forward. By then, the thought of not being able to have my own biological child could make me tear up in front of my happily childless friends, who encouraged me to try if it was something I really wanted.
Here we are, over seven months later: she’s off her hormones; I’m off the pill; we’re engaged and enraged from our respective hormonal shifts. The early stages of this process make me wish for more time; we didn’t realize we wanted children together until we fell in love. . . .

You can read the rest of that, if you’re not concerned weirdness might be contagious, transmitted by New York Times op-ed columns.

Ms. Spataro’s lack of curiosity and caution about long-term consequences (e.g., the loss of normal emotional range as a result of ingesting synthetic hormones) is typical of feminists and other “progressive” ideologues. Discontinuing her contraceptive regimen leaves her dysfunctional, so that her “default states are angry, hungry or sleeping,” and yet this doesn’t arouse Ms. Spataro’s curiosity about what other abnormalities she might have experienced as side-effects of these drugs. In the same way that socialists don’t concern themselves with the consequences of market distortions produced by their policies — the continuing disaster in Venezuela, for example — feminists don’t worry about how their idolatrous devotion to “choice” might ultimately hurt women.

A concern for long-term consequences is necessary for those of us normal people who “simply couple up, and boom — a child is born.” In becoming parents, we are not only responsible for the short-term safety of our children, but also acquire a sense of responsibility for the society in which our children are raised. Our babies will one day become adults, and what kind of world will they inherit? My oldest three children are now married with children of their own, and it is to be hoped that my grandchildren will grow up, get married and have their own children. Certainly, I would not want my descendants to associate with the misbegotten offspring of weirdos like Joanne Spataro and “Lara Americo.” Perhaps the madness of Queer Feminism is not so contagious that it can be transmitted through New York Times columns, but we cannot disregard the possibility that Queer Feminism is a hereditary disease. Recall the case of Tobias “Tobi” Hill-Meyer, the “turkey-baster” offspring of lesbian feminists Jennifer Meyer and Kate Hill, who grew up to be a “Queer Trans Multiracial Sex-Positive Activist” and also, a producer of pornography. Of course, as a statistical proposition, Queer Feminist motherhood is rather rare. Being a fanatic for “choice” isn’t very compatible with high birth rates, after all.

 

Even if a feminist is not adamantly opposed to heterosexual intercourse (“PIV is always rape, OK?”), she still faces the problem of attracting a male partner in order to reproduce “the old-fashioned way.” How many men are so desperate (or utterly lacking in self-respect) that they would voluntarily have sex with a feminist? Well, there’s Jessica Valenti’s Harvard-educated husband, and also Bill Clinton, but most normal men avoid feminists for the same reason that Jews avoid Nazis.

It is no coincidence that Joanne Spataro’s only prospect for becoming a mother “the old-fashioned way” involves a relationship with a self-described “activist . . . for social justice and LGBTQ rights.” She could not have randomly ended up with someone like “Lara Americo.”

 

You see that it is partisan politics — the prevailing “social justice” ideology of the Democrat Party — which explains this weird relationship. To be a Democrat in the 21st century is to be alienated from and hostile to everything that is decent, honest and wholesome in life. The only people invited to the 2016 United States of Women Summit were Democrats like “Lara Americo.” Transgender “women” with penises were welcome at this White House event, but Republican women were not. According to Democrats, “woman” is no longer defined by biology, but by politics.

Therefore, Joanne Spataro is a “lesbian” in a relationship with a “woman” with a penis, which is feminism, because they’re Democrats.

And they still can’t understand why Hillary lost . . .



 

Comments