The Other McCain

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

How Feminism Actually Works

Posted on | March 6, 2012 | 47 Comments

“The quintessential example of this is of course Ted Kennedy, whose career stands for the proposition that you can allegedly assault women and even leave a woman to die and be reelected for eternity so long as you vote the right way.
“That is to say, for all of the left’s bleeding-heart smugness about ‘good intentions,’ they’re remarkably bottom-line on this: So long as you support abortion and the rest of their packet on social issues, your actual intent when calling a woman a ‘mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick’ is irrelevant. It’s an irrebuttable presumption of feminism, a de facto ‘get out of misogyny free’ card.”

Allahpundit, Hot Air, “Kirsten Powers on Rush and Sandra Fluke: Where’s the outrage at misogynistic liberal men?”

This goes toward confirming my repeated (and strangely controversial) analysis of feminism as a phenomenon deeply rooted in the radical-egalitarian worldview of the Left.

No matter how much historical fact I pile up in support of that analysis, Joy McCann will inevitably come back at me in a raging fury for having trod upon whatever sort of “mainstream feminism” she believes Christina Hoff Sommers has rescued from the leftist ash-heap. But the fact that the Left never stopped defending the contemptible Ted Kennedy — a man who was permitted to shamelessly abuse his inherited privilege simply because of his political posture as a defender of the downtrodden — and that Kennedy was especially a hero to feminists, would seem to demonstrate the validity of my analysis.

Feminism’s embrace of the vile Kennedy very much resembles the way the Left celebrates such monsters as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, et al., who have ruthlessly slaughtered innumerable innocents in pursuit of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. That the Left’s heroes butcher (actual) peasants and workers as an alleged means of advancing the (theoretical) rights of peasants and workers is one of those contradictions that the Left can never explain to the satisfaction of any honest observer.

The first successful Marxist revolution resulted, within 15 years, in the totalitarian dictatorship of Josef Stalin, whose bloody personal despotism exceeded every evil deed attributed to the tsarist regime during the entire history of the Romanov dynasty. The most loyal and heroic leaders of the Bolshevik revolution were marked down for especial humiliation by Stalin, forced to “confess” in show trials to crimes they had never committed, and then executed as “enemies of the people.” Meanwhile, many millions of peasants were liquidated in a terror-famine deliberately induced for the purpose of crushing rural resistance to the Stalinist agenda.

Western ap0logists for the Soviet experiment, even when they could bring themselves to admit the nightmare reality wrought by adherents of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, always insisted that these evils were not intrinsic to the philosophy. What was happening in Russia — or China, or North Korea, or Cambodia, etc. — was not “true socialism,” the apologists said, but was always explained away as the result of bad leadership or unfortunate historical circumstances.

However heinous might be the acts of flesh-and-blood socialists, their crimes could never be counted in the ledger against socialism as an egalitarian ideal.

You might have thought these idealists would have been disabused of their illusions in 1939 when Stalin made his deal with Hitler to divvy up Poland, and Communists in the West, who had spent years loudly clamoring for a “popular front” against fascism, suddenly began denouncing as “warmongers” anyone who proposed aiding Hitler’s adversaries. But the idealists learned nothing from that experience, and have learned nothing  in all the decades since.

Likewise with feminists. However cruel or selfish actual flesh-and-blood feminists might be, their misdeeds are never accepted as evidence of the wrongness of feminism as an ideal.

Ted Kennedy, Bob Packwood, Bill Maher, Alec Baldwin, Keith Olbermann — there is a long list of men who have been embraced as heroic defenders of “women’s rights,” but whose personal behavior toward women has ranged from exploitative to abusive to arguably criminal.

And is there no one in the feminist movement who will admit that the deaths of 40 million innocents — aborted babies whose historical misfortune it was to be conceived in The Age of Choice — is rather a steep price to pay for “equality”? Or are we not supposed to blink at this ghastly carnage, once it has been draped in the sacred mantle of “women’s rights”?

Never mind, I guess. Start talking like that and they’ll write you off as a religious extremist, even while they continue offering up their bloody sacrifices at the smoldering altar of Moloch where they gather to sing worshipful hymns of praise to their idol, Equality.

We are still two months away from National Offend a Feminist Week, but it is perhaps not too early to offer this definition:

Misogynist: A man who disagrees with a feminist.

Joy McCann to attack me in 3, 2, 1 . . .


47 Responses to “How Feminism Actually Works”

  1. Jeff C
    March 6th, 2012 @ 11:36 am

    Stalin always said you have to break some eggs to make an omelet …  the sad thing is he never actually made an omelet, it turns out he just liked breaking eggs …

  2. Bob Belvedere
    March 6th, 2012 @ 11:52 am

    Regarding the Feminists and Abortion: the Feminists believe you have to break eggs [abort babies] to make the omelet [Egalitarianism].

  3. smitty
    March 6th, 2012 @ 11:55 am

    When we talk about egalitarianism in this context, we really mean hedonism.
    This is not egalitarianism in the sense of “Redistribute power, not wealth.”
    Satan loves to offer the cheap, childish substitute of hedonism in place of a mature liberty.

  4. Steve in TN
    March 6th, 2012 @ 11:58 am


  5. Stan Brewer
    March 6th, 2012 @ 11:58 am

    Every liberal/commie points out that Adolf Hitler was a mass murder. He was, but not to the extent that Stalin was. Hitler murdered at least 6 million people, but he is a piker compared to Stalin, whom by conservative estimates murdered 20 million of his own people. But that is alright, because Stalin was the hero to the commie movement world wide. 

  6. smitty
    March 6th, 2012 @ 11:59 am

    Why wait for Joy, @rsmccain:disqus ?
    I should like to attack you for being a Luddite and a defender of seemingly lost causes. 😉
    Safe travel to Ohio, Stacy.

  7. A Guy From Lithia Springs
    March 6th, 2012 @ 11:59 am

    What is it with conservatives.    Instead of dealing with facts as they are, they always try to change the subject. Always.    The Fluke/Limbaugh imbroglio is a loser for the right…………look! There goes Elvis!   So predictable.   

  8. smitty
    March 6th, 2012 @ 12:05 pm

    always try to change the subject

    The subject is that #OccupyResoluteDesk is the worst POTUS ever, by every metric.
    Changing the subject, indeed. Leftys would be funny, if their silliness was less threatening to all we hold dear.

  9. Huggy
    March 6th, 2012 @ 12:06 pm

    Althouse says you are a big meany saying a nasty four letter c-word (coed).

  10. Sandra Fluke
    March 6th, 2012 @ 12:18 pm

    Shut up and pay for my pills!

  11. JeffS
    March 6th, 2012 @ 12:23 pm

    I remain astounded that feminists are so blinkered by their ideology that they willingly and gleefully endorse genuine misogynists and womanizers solely because they say the “right things” or vote the “right way”  ……. all the while, both categories openly exploit women for their own benefits.  Right under the eyes of the so-called protector of women. 

    It’s like the abused wife who returns to the wife beater because “he loves me”.  Pretty pathetic.

    And all the while, conservative women embrace “feminism”.  That’s like bankers embracing counterfeiters. 

  12. JeffWeimer
    March 6th, 2012 @ 12:24 pm

    The imbroglio IS “change the subject” from a loser for Democrats (religious liberty). And what’s predictable is people like you blaming conservatives for doing exactly what you did.

  13. Joy W. McCann
    March 6th, 2012 @ 1:22 pm

    I’m really relieved that there aren’t any generalizations in this thread . . .

  14. Christy Waters
    March 6th, 2012 @ 1:36 pm

    Man-hating hag, Gloria Steinem and her ilk, have done more damage to women than any man ever could. They care about women’s rights like Al Gore cares about the environment. These glorified harpies, who claim they don’t need men, are more dependent than a worn out hooker, on one particular guy… Big Pimp-daddy, Uncle Sam.

  15. Zilla of the Resistance
    March 6th, 2012 @ 1:40 pm

     I promise that the next time I say what I think about feminists, I will try to say “most” instead of “all” or maybe I’ll add, “except for Joy McCann…” 😉

  16. I’m Pro-Suffrage, and I Vote
    March 6th, 2012 @ 1:42 pm

    […] got another essay up. Of course, every time I criticize one of his efforts he gets very hurt, so I just want to […]

  17. Janet C
    March 6th, 2012 @ 1:43 pm

     Joy, you can’t teach algebra to a dog. Whether or not equal opportunity of men and women under the law is defined as feminism consumes much energy. Meanwhile Obama is still POTUS. Will he remain as such after November 6th?

  18. Joy W. McCann
    March 6th, 2012 @ 1:59 pm


  19. Joy W. McCann
    March 6th, 2012 @ 2:00 pm

    And Roxeanne de Luca! (And Always Fired Up, Darleen Click, and a few others.)

  20. SDN
    March 6th, 2012 @ 2:07 pm

    If only equal opportunity was what feminists were after…. they wouldn’t be Leftists.

  21. Zilla of the Resistance
    March 6th, 2012 @ 2:14 pm

     I’ll try to remember them.

  22. K-Bob
    March 6th, 2012 @ 2:17 pm

    This is where everything goes all “Ron Paul” shaped.

  23. Adjoran
    March 6th, 2012 @ 3:13 pm

     And Stalin was a piker compared to Mao.  From the bloody Long March to the Great Leap Forward to the Cultural Revolution and beyond, he ruled by shedding the blood of millions who can never be counted, but are most certainly at least 50 million.

  24. Adjoran
    March 6th, 2012 @ 3:14 pm

     Honey Bottom, you DO realize you don’t need to take one of those pills every time you hop into bed/coat closet/bushes, right?

  25. richard mcenroe
    March 6th, 2012 @ 3:14 pm

     Generally speaking, I’d agree with you.

  26. Adjoran
    March 6th, 2012 @ 3:15 pm

     Get a smarter dog.

  27. richard mcenroe
    March 6th, 2012 @ 3:16 pm

     Yes, but their slogans got me laid a lot in the 70’s, so go easy on the old biddies…

    “Yeah, baby!  Empower yourself!  Take charge of your sexuality!  Here, I’ll help; let me hold your ankles…”

  28. Adjoran
    March 6th, 2012 @ 3:17 pm

    We better go out for a beer before Zilla and EBL say, “Whaddya mean, ‘WE,” Kimosabe?”

  29. JeffS
    March 6th, 2012 @ 3:21 pm

    Well, not wanting to offend people, I have to ask….

    Does “feminist” have a different pronunciation when applying it to a conservative versus liberal?  Such as when the same word is a verb or a noun?  The dictionary shows only one pronunciation for “feminist”.  You must have some way of telling the difference. 

    For example, look at the word “use”, where “yooz” is the verb form, and “yoos” is the noun form.  Perhaps the use of danger quotes would help?  Sandra Fluke is a “feminist”.vis-à-vis
    Joy W. McCann is a feminist.This has potential, but would be awkward during a conversation, especially at a bar, where having a drink in one hand precludes the ready deployment of the hand sign for danger quotes.  But having some way of telling the difference would certainly cut back on the generalizations. 

    Just a thought.

  30. Taxpayer1234
    March 6th, 2012 @ 3:25 pm

    The subject is OZero telling the Catholic Church it must violate its beliefs in order to satisfy the state. 

  31. Joy W. McCann
    March 6th, 2012 @ 3:34 pm

     Fluke is a female supremacist, and a statist to boot; both feminists and conservatives believe that we are all equal in the sight of God. You could call her a statist, or a femi-fascist, perhaps.

  32. Sandra Fluke
    March 6th, 2012 @ 4:07 pm


    Are you sure?

  33. K-Bob
    March 6th, 2012 @ 5:28 pm

     Good Idea.  They better serve something stronger’n beer, though.  We need a “whisky summit.”

  34. DYSPEPSIA GENERATION » Blog Archive » How Feminism Actually Works
    March 6th, 2012 @ 7:23 pm

    […] The Other McCain blows the whistle. But the fact that the Left never stopped defending the contemptible Ted Kennedy — a man who was permitted to shamelessly abuse his inherited privilege simply because of his political posture as a defender of the downtrodden — and that Kennedy was especially a hero to feminists, would seem to demonstrate the validity of my analysis. […]

  35. Taxpayer1234
    March 6th, 2012 @ 8:54 pm

    I like “feminazi” better.  The “supremacist” part is already built in.

  36. Bob Belvedere
    March 6th, 2012 @ 9:02 pm

    By any means necessary is their mantra.

  37. DaveO
    March 6th, 2012 @ 9:02 pm

    Progressive, leftist feminists exhibit a familiar psychology. They remind me of Battered Wives of incestuous monsters. They sacrifice their children to the predator that lives in the house. The Predator gives them a portion of power so long as he’s fed. There is no moral reasoning, only rationalizing why the Battered Wife eagerly sacrifices the weaker around her.

    No matter what science says, a fetus will never be a human being – even after birth. We’re calling Obama’s maneuver for infanticide “Post-Birth Abortion.” Considering S-CHiP defined a child as under 36, what is the age limit on Post-Birth Abortion?

    Weaker women will always be fed to the monster so that the Elite of Feminism can be left alone – to look away. light a cigarette and congratulate herself that it’s not her, while a Kennedy allegedly rapes a waitress, or a Lewinsky takes the blame for Clinton.

  38. Bob Belvedere
    March 6th, 2012 @ 9:03 pm

    Or a cat.

  39. Bob Belvedere
    March 6th, 2012 @ 9:09 pm

    The thing is to adopt the term ‘feminist’ means, whether you are on the Right or the Left, that you are an ideologue.

    No one can be a true conservative and be an ideologue, for, as Russell Kirk said:
    …For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

  40. Pathfinder's wife
    March 6th, 2012 @ 9:17 pm

    But the interesting tidbit they always forget is that their hero spoke very highly of Hitler, and Hitler’s national socialism had a platform that contained many of the same things as international socialism, as both were (suprise!) socialism.
    They seem to leave that part out.

  41. Pathfinder's wife
    March 6th, 2012 @ 9:24 pm

    How about this: get rid of the word feminist; it is a word too long in the left’s vanguard anyway.

    “Human being” — that’s far better, more succinct, and drives the message home in a very powerful way.

    Let those harpies and their usual idiots on the left have “feminist”; when asked perhaps it would be better to say “I am a human being.”

  42. Pathfinder's wife
    March 6th, 2012 @ 9:27 pm

    I prefer to consider them more as einsatzgruppen.
    Come on? Why give them yet more victimhood mantle?  These broads are not victims (but they are more than ready to victimize others to make a nice soft bed for themselves).

  43. Malcolm Mor
    March 7th, 2012 @ 7:37 am

    Here is where conservative women miss the boat on this feminism stuff.

    Go on campus to the “Womyn’s Studdies” departments.  Go to every major Feminist organization or convention.  Who are the feminists who have chops?  Traction?  Get cited, quoted, held up as deep thinkers, exemplars, and icons?

    Hint:  It won’t be Joyce McCann or Sarah Palin or anyone of that august company.  Hell, they’ll be lucky to be recognized as authentic women.

    For all the mumbling about not being able to judge or pull feminist cards or not being monolithic when feminists get caught making the SCUM manifesto required reading in their indoctrination courses, the howls of outrage when Sarah Palin claimed to be a feminist from Marcotte, Steinem, Valenti, et al was deafening.

    You’re not in the club, ladies.  When all is said and done, that’s bottom line.  They may let you come through the servant’s entrance and graze at the leftover hor d’ouvre trays if they feel you are a “useful idiot” for a one-off, but other than that your Feminist card is scanned in, with your name and pic photoshopped in.  

    One quesion – where is your link from the mainstream feminist blogs?  And by mainstream, I mean the usual collection of far-left misandric harpies who are the go-tol gals when “Teh Wimminz Perspecktive” is needed in the Mainstream Makebelieve Media?

    They have the fine sorority house on campus.  You’re somewhere off campus in a run down duplex with a plywood sign out front.

  44. Tennwriter
    March 7th, 2012 @ 10:37 am

    There is only like ten of them.  Just write each Decent Feminist’s name on a finger so when you type the names are ready at hand.

  45. Zilla of the Resistance
    March 7th, 2012 @ 10:54 am

     Bad day here, cut me in on one of those beers and I will try not to beat anybody up for a few hours. Actually, fuckit, whiskey sounds better.

  46. richard mcenroe
    March 7th, 2012 @ 6:30 pm

     Good Heavens, Man!  Are you saying Conservative feminists are *gasp*

  47. Todd
    March 8th, 2012 @ 12:57 am

    Obvious troll is being obvious. (i.e. this entire blog.)