Taking Feminism Seriously

Posted on Comments

 

In 2009, we began National Offend a Feminist Month, which always ends on Mother’s Day (because feminism is about killing babies, that’s why) and which is generally celebrated with cheerful good humor, mocking the hateful humorlessness of distaff Marxism.

The jokes are fun, but this doesn’t mean that feminism is not a deadly menace to everything good and decent in America — it is.

Some of my fiercest arguments over the years have been with Republican women who argue on behalf of an oxymoron, “conservative feminism,” a thing that is as ridiculous as it is impossible. Real feminism is entirely a left-wing phenomenon, and Republicans who think they can cherry-pick seemingly inoffensive items from feminism’s radical agenda are deluded. “Me, Too” Feminism will win no votes for the GOP, while assisting the Left in its destruction of America.

Trying to disabuse Republicans of this “conservative feminist” delusion doesn’t make me popular with certain feeble-minded superficial people, but that’s OK. I know what feminism is, I know what conservatism is, and the two things are fundamentally incompatible, no matter what anyone tries to tell you. For the sake of enlightening certain fools, let’s quote a little information about an actual feminist:

[University of California-Santa Cruz Women’s Studies] Professor Bettina Aptheker is the daughter of a famous American Communist, the late Herbert Aptheker . . .
Professor Bettina Aptheker is by her own proud admission both a Communist and a self-described “lesbian activist.” . . . Aptheker’s course syllabus describes lesbianism as the “highest state of feminism” . . . In other words, change in sexual orientation is an inevitable final stage in the development of the socially conscious individual.

And who can disagree? Professor Aptheker is exactly right: If you want to be a true feminist, you must be a Communist lesbian. This is by no means a fringe view among feminists:

Allison Jaggar is professor of philosophy and a former chair of the Women’s Studies Department at the University of Colorado, Boulder  . . . Integrating Marxism and feminist theory, Jaggar describes herself as a “socialist feminist” and “activist,” who seeks to combat “the male-dominant structure of everyday life.” . . .
“The political economy of socialist feminism,” writes Jaggar, “establishes that, in contemporary society, women suffer a special form of exploitation and expression. . . . The distinctive social experience of women generates insights that are incompatible with men’s interpretations of reality . . . The validity of these insights . . . must be tested in political struggle . . .”

In other words: ALL MEN EXPLOIT AND OPPRESS YOU! REVOLUTIONARY SOCIALISM IS THE ANSWER!

Feminism is socialism, and is also lesbianism. If you are not part of this revolutionary Marxist-lesbian “political struggle” against the “male-dominant structure,” then you are not a feminist.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Understanding feminism as inherently radical, a phenomenon of the extreme Left, is necessary to understanding that there can be no such thing as “moderate feminism,” much less “conservative feminism.” Insofar as it is possible to speak of “mainstream feminism,” this is only because the social/political mainstream has become so radicalized in the past 20 years that actual feminists (i.e., radical Marxist lesbians) have been accepted as legitimately speaking on behalf of all women. And insofar as Republicans have failed in regard to this development, it has been either a failure of courage or a failure of understanding: The GOP is either too stupid to recognize feminism as dangerous, or too cowardly to speak the truth about feminism.

Stupidity or cowardice, but quite possibly both.

A cheerful good humor in opposing feminism’s radical menace, therefore, does not mean that we don’t take feminism seriously. I have quite likely read more feminist literature than your average Women’s Studies major, but unlike those deluded fanatics, I have also read a good deal of anti-feminist literature, including Carolyn F. Graglia’s Domestic Tranquility, Wendy Shalit’s A Return to Modesty, and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead’s The Divorce Culture. (I doubt Whitehead would call herself an “anti-feminist,” but her valuable historical insights directly contradict feminist claims about marriage.) Idiotic adherents of “conservative feminism” find me arrogantly opinionated on this subject, but there’s a reason: I actually know more about this subject than most feminist do.

There are some people who have read a few books or taken a few classes who think themselves fit to tutor me on this subject, failing to realize I have studied feminism in depth for decades. Feminism is nothing but a variant species of radical egalitarianism — “boutique Marxism” — and is no less deadly in its effects than any other such philosophy. If other people don’t understand this, their ignorance is not my fault. And with that, let’s take a look at SlutWalk DC 2013:

We had turned the corner at U Street and were marching up 14th Street when the woman with the megaphone leading SlutWalk DC started a new chant: “We love consensual sex! We love consensual sex!” Well, OK, but who doesn’t? Is there any actual opposition to this agenda? Is there an Anti-Consensual Sex Movement that someone forgot to tell us about? Oblivious to the absurdity, about 400 women joined in shouting this slogan, which was at least better than their previous chants: “Blame the system, not the victim!” and “One! Two! Three! Four! We won’t take it anymore! Five! Six! Seven! Eight! Stop the violence! Stop the hate!” The “violence” to which that chant referred is rape, and “hate” is any discussion of rape (or any other subject) that doesn’t conform to feminist ideology. To distill their rhetoric to its totalitarian essence: “Shut up, because rape.”
The SlutWalk movement is about rape in pretty much the same sense Nazism was about the Versailles Treaty — it’s the legitimate grievance that empowers a movement of irrational hatred. We may laugh at the carnival sideshow aspect of women stripping down to their underwear to march down the street in broad daylight, carrying deliberately provocative posters and shouting nonsensical slogans. But the leaders of the movement have a radical ideology they take very seriously, and that ideology is sufficiently influential that anyone who criticizes it risks condemnation as being anti-woman, or even pro-rape. . . .

Please read the whole thing at The American Spectator, and don’t ever try to tell me I don’t understand what “feminism” means.

 

67 comments

  1. Ah, so sexual orientation is NOT immutable, like skin color: “In other words, change in sexual orientation is an inevitable final stage in the development of the socially conscious individual.”. Good to know.

  2. Great stuff, RSM. In the 70s I was swayed by some of the early feminist agenda. But I soon realized the real agenda. Female friends noted the stark change in my demeanor away from what they still saw as needed change. A story: I had an exceptional, fun friendship with the secretary of the chief lawyer at my workplace. She was totally irreverent and the farthest thing from a feminist you could imagine. She was totally self-empowered and cursed like a sailor. One of the FEMINIST female lawyers working for the chief lawyer overheard one of our irreverent convos one day and threatened me with a lawsuit because SHE was offended. Blessings to my secretary friend and her boss, this shyster feminist was put in her place and eventually purged from the organization. Saved me from what all real feminists want, to destroy men, freedom and natural relationships and values.

  3. One can deduce all one needs to know about Feminism by studying its reaction to women like Phyllis Schlafly. Genuine achievement is marginalized in favor of a “success” which is oh, so hard to quantify. See, e.g. Hillary Clinton, model Feminist, whose achievement consists of marrying William Jefferson Clinton.

  4. If there is any truth in the claims that lesbians are made, usually through child-rape, and have multiple failed relationships with men, then the rabid anti-male psychology that drives feminism in all its forms makes perfect sense.
    Feminism is not an exaltation of women, but blood-lust for revenge on men.

  6. “I was raped wearing this. Am I a slut?”

    Are you a willing participant in Slut Walk? It seems you’ve self-classified.

  9. “Slut” seems to be the feminist version of “N****r”, i.e. something the PC folks think perfectly acceptable to call yourself, or to joke about with other members of the tribe (those who are also allowed by society to call themselves by that word), but Heaven forbid anyone outside that tight-knit little circle use the term in any context what-so-ever, even direct quotation, for at that point it becomes the Worst. Insult. Ever. proving how unenlightened the speaker truly is.

  10. Not long ago I posited (not here) something I’ve suspected for quite a while, that the concept of sexual fluidity was going to put a serious hitch in political correctness’ getalong. Looks like it’s beginning.

  11. Yes, this is the equivalent of a “white Hispanic.” When you delineate strict societal rules from the viewpoint of the perpetually aggrieved, someone from your “side” is going to cross those lines.

  12. Actually I knew Bettina back in my FSM/ Vietnam Day Committee period and even then she was so overwhelmingly ugly and unkempt that lesbianism was her only future. I’m surprised that she found any women who could stomach her.

  14. Woman have always (in my experience) been quite fluid sexually, which is why I find it ironic to include Lesbians in the whole LGBTQWTF coalition of deviance. They disprove the disingenuous ‘born that way’ agenda.

    But there again the whole coalition of deviance is one big horrible contradiction. G is just a dreadfully unhealthy & unhappy lifestyle, L’s disprove born that way, the reluctantly admitted B’s also disprove born that way, T’s have a mental illness that leads to self mutilation and Q (Questioning) implies recruitment. I know they also call Q as queer but honestly? They’re all extremely queer.

    Not that I have anything against lesbians. They make great porn.

  15. It would have been awesome if the Right had started standing up to Feminism about 50 years ago. Oh well.

  16. The right was pro-women until Feminazis took over the movement and posted a sign: “Christians need not apply.”

Comments are closed.