It isn’t every day that a “Queer Feminist” with a diploma from Bryn Mawr (undergraduate tuition $42,870 a year) decides she needs my attention, but I’m so grateful for Miss Alcid’s encouragement to expand on what I said this morning:
The inherent radicalism of the women’s movement — its theoretical foundation in Marxism, its implacable antagonism to traditional marriage and other institutions of bourgeois society — is not generally understood outside such campus cauldrons as Bryn Mawr.
Feminism is a totalitarian ideology. It cannot be co-opted or moderated. You cannot negotiate or compromise with feminism, because the ambitions of feminism are without limit. They can accept nothing short of the complete overthrow of “hitherto existing society” (Marx and Engels) resulting in their own dictatorial authority. Halfway “reform” (to which the bourgeoisie may agree in its attempt to stave off this upheaval) can never placate the revolutionary, because the radical does not seek reform, but rather destruction. And the problem that most conservatives have, in trying to cope with radical movements, is that the typical conservative cannot imagine how fanatical — how rigidly unreasonable, how full of passionate destructive hatefulness — the radical really is. Notice how Sara Alcid illustrated her Valentine’s Day article:
“Heteronormativity and gender roles also rear their ugly heads on Valentine’s Day. Gifts for ‘him’ or ‘her’ are clearly divided and marked and it’s almost impossible to find cards that represent queer couples. . . .
“It’s not hard to see why Valentine’s Day is problematic for many feminists. Celebrated traditionally, Valentine’s Day magnifies many of the very systems of domination that we work to critique and dismantle.”
— Sara Alcid, “Valentine’s Day: What’s A Feminist To Do?” EverydayFeminism.com, Feb. 14, 2013
What does Sara Alcid mean by “patriarchy”? Well, if you live in a normal family — husband, wife, children — she means you.
Sara Alcid wants to smash your family, smash your faith, smash your community. This is what she means in denouncing “heteronormativity and gender roles” and “systems of domination.”
Sara Alcid hates you, she hates every institution you cherish and respect, and she considers your love for these institutions to be hate.
Sara Alcid believes this because she has been taught this. The fact that you cannot afford $42,870 a year to learn to think like Sara Alcid thinks is further proof of your inferiority, and your inferiority in turn justifies Sara Alcid‘s fanatical determination to destroy everything you love — in the name of “liberation,” of course.
This is Sarah Alcid with her radical lesbian heroine, acclaimed “queer theory” feminist Judith Butler, a notorious enemy of Israel:
Butler has devoted much of her academic career to the struggle to eliminate the state of Israel. . . .
Butler denounces Israel’s “arbitrary state violence” and “state racism.” She has been a leader in the campaign to impose a worldwide boycott against Israeli universities. . . .
In February 2010, Butler went to the West Bank to demonstrate against the alleged mistreatment of women by Zionist “occupiers.” She denounced Israel at length for its “mistreatment” of Arab women.
This is not coincidental: Israel is America’s ally and because Judith Butler hates America, she must hate Israel, too. Because feminism!
Why does Sara Alcid love Israel-hater Judith Butler? Because Bryn Mawr taught her to love Judith Butler:
Preeminent gender theorist and philosopher Judith Butler holds the 2011 Mary Flexner Lectureship at Bryn Mawr College, joining the ranks of some of the world’s most influential humanists in presenting significant new work at Bryn Mawr.
During her three-week residency in November, Butler is giving a series of three public lectures titled Bodies in Alliance, the first presentation of new work by Butler that is to be published by Harvard University Press. Bryn Mawr faculty members and graduate students join Butler to discuss each lecture after it is presented. Butler has also visited class meetings of five undergraduate courses that incorporate Butler’s work and are being offered in conjunction with the lecture series this fall. Other activities associated with the Flexner Lecture Series include a film series, several informal opportunities for students to meet and talk with Butler, and “Preoccupations: Looking at Pictures with Judith Butler,” a colloquium sponsored by the College’s Center for Visual Culture.
Sarah Alcid wrote 12 articles about Judith Butler’s lectureship, including one entitled, “Judith Butler: A Superstar at Bryn Mawr“:
A flurry of extended excitement could be detected at Bryn Mawr from the moment Judith Butler’s Mary Flexner Lectureship was announced until many students had their parting words with the scholar at the book signing on November 21st. I shared this excitement with my peers and think it is certainly a testament to the intellectual curiosity and passion that makes the Bryn Mawr student body so unique. . . .
As one of the student coordinators and attendees of the “Coffee Hour with Judith Butler” and “Conversations with Judith Butler” dinner events, I was fortunate enough to witness the humorous and down-to-earth sides of the scholar we mostly associate with lofty theory and sharp intellect. . . . In fact, she told me that remaining engaged with feminist theory will help fuel my activism and advocacy work; she sees academia and activism as collaborative and co-supportive.
Indeed, Judith Butler is a “superstar” in academia. Her books sell thousands of copies every year because they are assigned reading in Women’s Studies classes across the country.
Butler is part of what we may call the Feminist-Industrial Complex, a campus-based intellectual machinery that indoctrinates elite students in these ideas. Every important university in America endorses feminism and “queer theory.” These are part of the de facto official belief system of academia. Anyone on campus who dared speak against such ideas (no one does) would be condemned for hate.
Do you understand why Sara Alcid considers criticism of SlutWalk “disgusting”? She was indoctrinated to believe that being a “Queer Feminist” is a heroic calling, in an environment where the presence of Judith Butler on campus caused “extended excitement.”
And now Sarah Alcid works for a 501(c)3 pro-abortion group, the Reproductive Health Technologies Project:
Sara Alcid – Programs and Policy Associate
Sara is responsible for assisting with RHTP’s reproductive health program areas, including health and wellness and contraception and abortion technologies.
Sara graduated from Bryn Mawr College with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science and Gender and Sexuality Studies. During college, she founded and led a chapter of the Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance and interned at Women’s Medical Fund, NARAL Pro-Choice New York and Cancer Schmancer, Inc. Americans for UNFPA named Sara a finalist for the Student Award for the Health and Dignity of Women in 2011. She is also a guest writer for Everyday Feminism and the State Department’s Women in Public Service Project.
Here is Sara Alcid advocating for the cause:
Full implementation of ACA [the Affordable Care Act, i.e., “ObamaCare”] contraception benefits and affordable access to abortion are LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] issues.
Uh, how so, Sara Alcid? One might think that such people have no need for contraception and abortion benefits. But you see, it is vital to the LGBT agenda not merely to advance their own issues, but to do everything possible to subvert any possible opposition.
Every abortion is celebrated as a radical victory by “Queer Feminist” Sara Alcid: Kill more babies, because feminism.
UPDATE: See? Quoting feminists = HATE!
Ruh-roh! @SaraAlcid says I'm "trying to intimidate" her! https://t.co/5C7AjaYkzG Because … feminism!
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) August 13, 2013
What you discover is that radicals have two discourses: The exoteric discourse, used when speaking to outsiders, is about “choice,” “equality,” “health,” etc. The esoteric discourse, used among fellow radicals, is an entirely different vocabulary: “Smash patriarchy,” destroy “heteronormativity and gender roles” and “systems of domination.”
And when you pull back the exoteric mask to reveal the esoteric truth of radicalism . . . well, that’s intimidation, you haters!
Sara Alcid’s parents spent more than $40,000 a year to have her trained as a “Queer Feminist.” Guess they got their money’s worth.
You to see a bully? Look in a mirror. Then wise up.
RT @SaraAlcid: Online harassment merely proves importance of #feminism. Conservative creep stalked me online & wrote entire article: http:/…
Protip: if you actually believe that disagreement with you is “bullying”, you have never been bullied.
What you *have* been, however, is coddled and this might be the first time anyone has called you on your bullhockey. I’d say this is a good learning experience for you, but I don’t hold out a lot of hope for college “educated” who believe they already know everything.
Speaking only for myself…. I worked with informed women every day. It’s a professional pleasure to do so. They call me on my mistakes, compliment my successes, and in general are are intelligent informed women. They are people who do not hate me because I am a typical American white oppressive male.
That does not describe Sarah Alcid, and the feminist movement. They are not “informed”. They are indoctrinated, and it’s well past time to say so in public.
Funny, but the ones who seem to be reacting in fear are feminists who, probably for the first time in their coddled, privileged lives, being challenged.
Fun fact: the whole of the Internet is not your echo chamber, that magical place you laughingly call your “safe space” where nothing but asspats and ~hugz~ exists. If your ideas can’t withstand objective, serious scrutiny, perhaps it’s time to re-evaluate them, or else don’t venture out of your “safe spaces”.
Wake up ppl! This is what lib arts colleges r teaching: http://t.co/xkjdhufdqy
the inaccuracies and slippery slopes in this conservative “takedown” of Judith Butler..I can’t even http://t.co/jtAHZ0Z2NU
I’m actually not sure what you mean by “what you say to each other.” I’m a heterosexual male, I date women, I aim to have a wife and family someday. In no way am I trying to undermine heterosexual values. I just don’t understand why LGBT equality impacts my future as a heterosexual person. If I’m walking down the street with my girlfriend and two men walk down the street next to us, I don’t feel like my values are being threatened.
In terms of the gender gap, the very fact that we have such divergent ideas on it, in my mind, means that we should look into it. Maybe it is full of hot air, but we can’t say that definitively until it’s addressed in an objective fashion by trained experts. The reason we know things like phrenology are incorrect is that we subjected these ideas to scientific scrutiny and they didn’t hold up–why can’t we do that with modern social phenomena?
“Sara graduated from Bryn Mawr College with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science and Gender and Sexuality Studies.”
Math and real science are hard!
“The thing that I’m not sure people get when there is talk about dismantling heteronormativity is that no one is trying to dismantle the hetero- part.”
Clearly you have never been to Santa Cruz.
“Also, the existence of the patriarchy is well-established statistically.”
Um, no. The conspiracy theory otherwise called “patriarchy” is merely a conclusion jumped to from statistics. Fun fact: raw data is just that: raw data. It does not actually tell you anything. Any actual scientist will tell you that. Perhaps not any “professor” in a course ending in “Studies”, but those aren’t actually science, just self-referential, navel-gazing circlejerks.
“Women are regularly excluded from positions of power,
Yes, we have never had female Congresswomen, Secretaries of State, Supreme Court judges, CEOS, governors, generals, admirals…oh wait.
“and oftentimes forced to work for lower wages.”
You mean like *everyone else*? I can cite many possible real-life reasons without retreating into paranoia. And most of those reasons can be laid directly at the feet of modern feminism.
“The fact that feminists are sometimes strident, ardent, inflammatory, and opinionated people is obvious”
No, Camille Paglia and Ann Coulter are “strident, ardent, inflammatory, and opinionated”. What you are confusing for these qualities is passive aggressiveness, hypocrisy, self-congratulation, and self-righteousness…at least until they’re challenged. Then our “brave feminists” suddenly transform into a delicate shrinking violets, those “milquetoast activists” you reference. (Perhaps this is why modern feminists haven’t actually done anything for women other than make it harder for qualified women to get well-paying, challenging work?) Whiteknighting the crazies doesn’t make them (or you, for that matter) look like “brave activists”; it makes you look like tantrum-throwing crybabies who are buttmad about not getting your way. You can’t have it both ways..at least, not without being mocked by the people — men *and* women — who see through the fog of your flowery bullcrap.
Some women can’t handle the battle, and that’s fine. But that means they need to know they can’t and not make asses out of themselves in public. And they need to quit whinging when they get singed, because they’re only getting in the way of those of us women who *can*.
Poli sci is not “science.” It is, however, perfect for those who find math hard. Feminists, apparently.
Actually dear, we’re laughing at you, and your worthless, meaningless pursuits.
That would be ideal, but it might be asking too much so soon. The kind of brainwashing she was subjected to takes a while to de-program.
Say the magic word, win a free whack with the banhammer!
Did you really dedicate a whole blog on a young woman who disagrees with you? Get a life.
Did you really just make a comment whining about someone making a blog post you disagree with? Get a life.
RT @SaraAlcid: Online harassment merely proves importance of #feminism. Conservative creep stalked me online & wrote entire article: http:/…
Good. We need a punching bag.
I know you are but what am I? Seriously. Walk away.
“I didn’t say a thing about Internet Bullying. I’m not sure who you’re quoting, but it isn’t my post.”
Sorry. Disqus bug. I forgot that if you click on “new comments” the Javascript will sometimes times pick the wrong ID.
When I replied, it had the same moniker as the one calling this “internet bullying” on the previous post.
My apologies for the error.
I got the sense that RSM was linking the destruction of heternomrativity with the destruction of hetero- values.
Yup. Which is the case.
Hetero- lifestyles should be welcomed just as freely as an LGBT lifestyle.
S’not. Not in the circles we’re discussing. It’s quite often specifically denounced as “Patriarchal”. Remember, we’re smashing that.
Secondly, I never claimed to be saying a universal truth.
Yes, you did, insofar as saying that these things were “regularly excluded from positions of power, and often times forced to work for lower wages.”
That might happen. It’s not “regular”, it’s not “often”. You saying that it’s the norm is a “universal truth”. One that my experience doesn’t back.
Many scholars have quantified the “gender gap,” which makes it a salient topic for investigation, at the very least.
Many “scholars”, I think you should say. You can study it, but you need to be very clear what you’re studying, and what you’re comparing. Almost every study I’ve seen does a horrible apple/oranges job of comparison and in the end, ends up comparing equality of result instead of equality of opportunity.
“Many scholars” often have lots of studies that are utter bunk. Fer instance, “Vaccines cause Autism” has had “many scholarly papers” written in its defence.
It’s still BS of the highest order.
Again, WE LISTEN TO WHAT YOU SAY TO EACH OTHER AS WELL AS THE BS YOU TRY TO FEED US.
Rob, Rob, Rob.
This is why you’re not SMART enough to UNDERSTAND. You’re only supposed to listen to what they tell you!
I just don’t understand why LGBT equality
Tell ya what. Define “LGBT equality” – aside from any and all political motivations (the “T” will cause problems with that) – and we’ll see if we can agree.
I saw something like this play out first on LJ, then on its competitor Dreamwidth. A lot of mostly young college-age women enjoy roleplaying fictional characters on online journals (not always sexual, mind you) and the whole RP community seems to be a microcosm for how feminists act around each other. (See the latest “check your privilege” #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen explosion on Twitter for more details)
There’s a lot of personality clashes and disagreements, with a couple of anonymous communities specifically meant for consequence-free venting about games and other players. (Due to the largely passive-aggressive pseudo non-confrontational nature of the community) The whole OMGBULLYING thing was hilarious to watch, because on one side you had the whiteknights like the buttmad ones who’ve showed up here who seem to think anything less than fuzzy asspats is bullying. On the other side, you had the just as nutters but somewhat more practical “anons” who pointed out that the anonymous communities are the equivalent of gossip and talking behind someone’s back, not bullying.
One of the two eventually got banned because someone from it *did* in fact cross the line into bullying (also known as harassment, i.e., contacting the target *directly* through email or their journal or instant message, or posting personal information such as addresses) but until that point, the ones who insisted the anonymous communities were “bullying” were mocked outside their circlejerks. (Cliques made up of people who aren’t necessarily friends so much as RPers who prefer to RP with each other) So I will say this for Lunatic Group #2: they at least knew where the line was between gossip and bullying. And that whiteknights are funny.
They are not “informed”. They are indoctrinated
Nicely said.
And it’s easy to tell the difference.
Ask a question. If they’re informed, they can answer/argue/understand it.
If they get mad automatically, well, that’s an answer in a way.
Equality of result MUST BE THE SAME OR IT IS UNFAIR!!!!
Good idea!
milquetoast activist rarely makes
any ground.
Yet, when they get publicity outside their insular world – they don’t like it.
Just like Ms. Alcid. Wouldn’t this be marvellous publicity if she truly held the strength of her convictions?
Why would it require Immaculate Conception? Please, enlighten me on what you’re trying to suggest.
“Instead, it’s about creating an inclusive-normativity that welcomes alternative lifestyles into a collective norm. The acceptance of LGBT rights doesn’t require the destruction of the hetero- family unit.”
Nonsense. Feminism is not about some mushy pluralism in which all sexual-conjugal decisions are equally validated and respected (though that would be bad enough in its own right).
As Professor Aptheker declared, lesbianism is considered the required fulfillment of feminism and female political enlightenment. This is not some pluralistic, “live and let live” standard, but a hierarchical one. In the feminist political formulation, heterosexuality does not stand as some equally valid or respectable condition. It is condemned as an inherently violative, oppressive, regressive, and counterrevolutionary behavior to be combatted. Some feminists go so far as to say that heterosexuality is the model and origin of all oppression. One does not expect feminists to be happily tolerant of the “hetero-family unit” when they view it as foundational evil.
And this notion of compulsory lesbianism being a required tenet of feminism is not isolated to obscure academics at women’s colleges. Mainstream Media rags like “The Guardian” publish propaganda tracts from Julie Bindel. There was no room for misinterpretation because Bindel explicitly and repeatedly argued that heterosexual relationships undermine and contradict the feminist mission, and that all women can and should be lesbians.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/30/women-gayrights
As ridiculous Bindel and company are, if a person proceeds from the feminist ideological premise, their conclusion of compulsory lesbianism makes perfect sense.
I got to be honest – I went to Bryn Mawr.
I’m a conservative.
I hate Judith Butler.
You’re right, I haven’t been to Santa Cruz. I’ve spent my life in the Mid-Atlantic states, the Northeast, and the Midwest. So I’ll qualify my statement and say that I haven’t met or heard of any liberal activists in the regions I’m familiar with who are trying to demolish hetero- values in their campaigns to dispose of heteronormativity.
I understand your point about raw data, but I wasn’t actually referencing raw data. I’m talking about instances where the raw data has been compiled and analyzed to search for trends within the data. I’m not saying that it’s “proved” anything, only that statistically-significant trends have been observed that indicate systemic inequalities. Of course, correlation isn’t causation, but I think the idea of recurring, statistically-significant results is a valid basis for further inquiry.
The reason I used “regularly” and not a stronger word like “ubiquitously” is because I acknowledge that women have made strides in the world. There are powerful women in powerful positions. They are in an overwhelming minority, however. Women also tend to be underrepresented in highly technical or scientific fields. This isn’t necessarily due to a genetic difference, but may be the result of cultural standards, in the ways in which we inculcate our children with certain values of what a man or woman should or shouldn’t be. It also might not be that, but we won’t know without testing it.
In terms of the wages, I meant they’re paid less to do the same work. Again, this is a phenomenon that has been shown to be statistically-significant.
I’m not trying to be a white knight–I consider myself to be a feminist, and wish to advocate for the cause. I would argue that I’m not transforming into a delicate shrinking violet, though you’ve challenged many of my points. In no way am I “buttmad”–I’m trying to have an informed discussion between people with opposing viewpoints. I haven’t used inflammatory language or resorted to any personal attacks. In what way does that make me a “tantrum-throwing crybaby”? There’s a great deal of discussion in these comments about how no feminists will simply come in and offer their opinion and talk sensibly. Well, here I am.
Perhaps I’m not a member of the circles you’re discussing, then. I consider myself to be a committed liberal activist who promulgates the causes of equal rights for all, including women, the LGBT community, and heterosexuals. I’ve read several of Sara Alcid’s articles and strongly agreed with them without compromising that point of view in any way. The “patriarchy” that requires “smashing” as far as I can tell is the idea of standardized, traditional, value-laden roles for men and women that seeks to limit what someone should or should not do in order to be a proper member of society. Some lessons along these lines are certainly good–don’t kill, don’t steal, etc.–but the idea that women should be caregivers or that men should be providers is an enforced norm that some people are no longer onboard with. It seems unfair to denigrate those people for choosing alternative lifestyles that accommodate their beliefs.
I didn’t claim a universal truth. A universal truth is one that is universally true. Using language like “regular” or “often” is, by definition, something that is not universally true, because it implies circumstances where it isn’t the case. I’m citing trends that have been shown to be statistically-significant.
I wouldn’t put scholars in quotes. These people are scholars, in the sense that they’ve gone to school, gotten advanced degrees, and have been judged by a panel of their peers to be qualified to study the subject they have chosen. An important part of academia is to study things that are mistakes, as well as to study things that are correct. If a scholar notices a correlation in his or her data, it would be irresponsible to ignore it. By reporting on that information to the wider scholarly community, the scholars are putting forward new ideas to be subjected to the critical reception of their peers both within and outside their discipline. I’ve read many papers that argue authoritatively for the “gender gap”–that doesn’t mean it exists, but it’s an anomaly in the data that is being explored. I see no reason why it shouldn’t continue to be explored, until a corrective solution can be found–whether that’s gender-related, or related to some other variable that has yet to be discovered.
Tsk, tsk! Was your sense of humor exorcised during your feminist based education? Innuendo is merely nuance in a different form, and liberals are all about nuance. Enlightenment should be unnecessary.
Or is it simply that you retain some shreds of dignity after being dragged through the torture chambers of our “modern” liberal education system?
Well, if I indulge in all my flower-power fantasies, LGBT equality would be a paradigm where it doesn’t matter whether you’re gay, straight, or somewhere in-between because everyone in society is treated as a human being in a consistent and fair way.
Setting aside that bit, though, I would define equality as an equal consideration under the law. There shouldn’t be special circumstances put into our legal system to specifically give the LGBT community fewer rights than a straight person has. If you can do something, legally-speaking, then an LGBT person should also be able to do it. That’s equality.
Congratulations on surviving with your intellect and integrity intact!
Did you really use “blog” when you should have used “post”? I should ban you just for being that stupid, but I’ll be merciful. This time.
The “patriarchy” that requires “smashing” as far as I can tell is the
idea of standardized, traditional, value-laden roles for men and women
OK, standard roles, smash them!
that seeks to limit what someone should or should not do in order to be a
proper member of society.
Seeks to limit?
Who cares about “proper member of society?
So what? Do what you want.
Unless your “Smashing the Patriarchy” is about making other people change.
Which is, really, what we were saying at the start and you said we (at least Rob Crawford 2 and I) were wrong.
Some lessons along these lines are certainly
good–don’t kill, don’t steal, etc.
Wait, why are those good but others bad? Why not smash ’em all! They’re outdated! Historical relics!
Or, in other words, based upon what do you value those as “good” and worthy of retention? And by what means might someone else value “good” and want to retain? Remember, you’re declaring your preference over “Society’s”.
but the idea that women should be
caregivers or that men should be providers is an enforced norm
Enforced by?
It seems unfair to denigrate those
people for choosing alternative lifestyles that accommodate their
beliefs.
But is it also unfair to point out when their “alternative lifestyles” are illogical and/or the choices made are resulting in obvious outcomes?
For instance, Alcid’s comments/pictures on “Reproductive choice” – I might need to draw you a picture, but anything related to do with “reproduction” isn’t an issue…
I’d say it’s fully “fair” to make fun of that political/anti-scientific point.
These people are scholars, in the sense that they’ve gone to school, gotten advanced degrees, and have been judged by a panel of their peers to be qualified to study the subject they have chosen.
The bold part is redundant. Aside from that, it’s also part of the problem, and why I’d put “scholar” in quotes. My degree was in Chemistry. What “* Studies” “study” is horrifying.
Yes, there’s “scholars” who study these areas – but it’s circular reasoning to say that because there are, their studies are good, or sensible.
You’d need external validation for that.
And when you get external to the field, things fall apart. Start back over with the top of this article. 🙂
misunderstood you. Got it now. sorry.
As with other radical jargon, the point of a word like “heteronormativity” is to pathologize normality. Same thing with terms like “cisgender” which the transsexual activists invented to create equivalency between them and normally gendered people.
“Feminist-based education?” I study geology.
I’m in college, actually, and not some “feminist institution” like everyone is assuming. All I’m trying to do is stand up for someone because I don’t feel it’s fair to put words in people’s mouths. Yes, there are some direct quotes in the article, but there are plenty of assumptions, especially about Sara’s viewpoints and sexuality. I just think it’s mean, and I think the way many people are treating me now is mean, too. But, of course, admitting this will only garner a response about how I’m a poor little liberal with thin skin. I ask that you all, who appear to be older adults, to reconsider your approach. Do you have children? Would you want someone to talk to your children the way you’ve talked to me? It’s very hurtful and I was up all night on the verge of vomiting because your comments brought up many bad memories. How hard is it to just be nice? And now, of course, I expect even more of an outrage about how I have a “victim complex”.
RT @PaulHair1: @rsmccain is one of the few–FEW–people who realize the left is evil & you cannot negotiate with it: http://t.co/Nb3Yn0eXQt
I don’t think she was calling you disgusting, I think she was addressing the piece of writing. I may be wrong, but that was my interpretation.
That’s an awful thing to say about somebody.
If you’ve read the article you linked to, you will have seen that the political lesbianism you’re so offended by was decried by many feminists as a “position advanced by a tiny band of vanguardist women.” It seems as if this movement exists, but that it isn’t accepted by the mainstream of the feminist movement. I can’t imagine why you would fixate on it and assess the entirety of feminism based on this notion. That’s akin to a liberal assuming that all Republicans are gun-toting, toothless, redneck morons who can’t think for themselves, because some of them are. It’s often a mistake to judge the wider intentions of a group based on its fringe radicals.
In full retreat? How disingenuous of you! You couldn’t stand the heat so now you attempt to qualify and mealy-mouth your way out of the corner you have painted yourself into.
Liars lie and you have just proven yourself to be a liar. You have not the strength of your supposed convictions.
Baa, you are a deluded sheep!
Poor precious little special snowflake!
Grow the fuck up.
All totalitarians demand an equal, “fair” outcome. Mature lovers of Liberty understand that by law, all are guaranteed an equal opportunity (regardless of age, sex, color, race sexual orientation or national origin) but not a guaranteed outcome. That outcome is dependent on your efforts, skill, talent and a hundred other factors, all under your control. The only factor not under your control is luck.
Feminists are by definition, totalitarians.
“All totalitarians demand an equal, “fair” outcome. Mature lovers of Liberty understand that by…” — rmnixondeceased http://t.co/MH145KNkLd
And it is also the law of the land. You are advocating for a battle already won. The LGBT activists keep this lie in front of the public because it allows them to puch far above their weight. About 3% of the population is the LGBT community, yet they paralyze the government, media and educational systems.
Deluded urbanites are their greatest source of both power and funds.