Why Does Lesbian @SaraAlcid Want to Help More Women Kill Their Babies?

Posted on Comments


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:

“Professor Aptheker is exactly right: If you want to be a
true feminist, you must be a Communist lesbian.”

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!

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.

 

439 comments

  2. I agree with you to an extent–who does care about being a proper member of society? People should be able to live how they want. The problem is that they can’t. In many states, LGBT marriage is still prohibited due to a heteronormative preference for traditional values. There also appears to be a disparity between men and women related to income and employment opportunities. Our current structures seem to encourage this oppression, which makes it systemic. I don’t think that you personally need to change–you’re free to be who you want to be. I do have a problem with public institutions that produce intolerance and inequality, however. If there’s even a chance that that’s happening with our education system, or anywhere else, then I think it should be explored. And there’s no denying that it’s happening to the LGBT community–there are laws in place that give them less rights. I don’t believe that any law-abiding citizen of this country should be stripped of their rights.

    I fail to see how a degree in Chemistry qualifies you to judge the Social Sciences. I did mention that scholars are frequently wrong, and that their validity comes from subjecting their opinions to a wider critique, including sources that are inside and outside the discipline. As a scientist, you clearly are aware that many proposed hypotheses end up to be completely wrong, but that experiementation and peer review are still valuable. The idea that every discovery in the Social Sciences has fallen apart in light of external scrutiny, however, is ludicrous.

  3. Your college major does not equal “education”. “Education” is as much about learning how to study and think as it about mastering a given topic. More so, in fact, as virtually any profession or trade requires constant study to keep up with the state of the art. Ergo, your statement that you study geology is interesting, but not the point.

    Any technical degree requires electives, including those in the liberal arts. You might study geology, but that’s not all you study.

    Further, no college student studies all the time. There non-academic pursuits: sports, social, technical, volunteering, and political.

    Finally, there is what is known as “the learning environment”, where the student is influenced on how to mix the above conditions. This is where the final touches on the graduate are made. The “learning environment” is shaped and formed by the college administration and faculty.

    Liberals know this, which is why they dominate the education system in this country, and why FIRE exists to “defend and sustain individual rights at America’s colleges and universities”.

    And the fact that I have to actually explain this to you means you should re-evaluate YOUR learning environment. Because the simple fact that you are aggressively defending a known, hardcore feminist demonstrates that you live and breath feminism, courtesy of a feminist-based education.

    Studying geology appears to be of lower priority to your instructors, something that you might want to think about.

    And just so you know: I’m a graduate engineer, I am well aware of the academic atmosphere needed to get a professional degree, something that I doubt you are truly getting. I hope it doesn’t interfere with your professional career.

    Good luck.

  4. It should actually be: “Because … FEMINISM!” as in a person trying to come up with a valid point or reason just blurts out feminism because they are so deluded they think that explains all. Usually the young, thoroughly indoctrinated, college age females.

  8. Not bullying. Sound, personal advice without sugar coating, of more value that the tripe fed to young people today by the education system..

  9. Yes I am. The world is full of mean people my little hothouse flower. Exposure to the real world will wilt you utterly, leaf, branch and root. Shut up, grow up and learn reality.

  10. I fail to see how a degree in Chemistry qualifies you to judge the Social Sciences.

    One is actually, yannow, Science.

    The other puts it in its name for the cachet.

  11. No, he is not. He simply does not treat you with respect, because you have not earned it.

    If you don’t like it, well, life in eminently unfair in that regards. Deal with it.

  14. I don’t see you as mean. I see you as being realistic, and communicating with a deluded fool in the only effective means available.

    If that causes some pain, well, pain is an effective teacher. But that does not make you “mean” in the offensive sense of the word. “Harsh” would be better, such as in the fashion of a good drill instructor working on a particularly dumb recruit.

    But, y’know, “mean” works as well. 🙂

  15. Lie? Here’s a color-coded map:

    http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1129483/thumbs/o-GAY-MARRIAGE-MAP-GIF-facebook.jpg

    All the black and grey states are the ones where the LGBT communities don’t have equal status with the straight populations due to legislation that specifically targets them for discrimination. And does their number really matter? Are you really saying that because the LGBT community is in a minority, they shouldn’t be allowed to rally for their equal rights? Regardless of their number, these are citizens of our country who are having their rights stripped away for arbitrary reasons. For all the talk of opposing totalitarianism in these comments, I would think everyone on here would be on the side of the LGBT community for that very reason.

  16. So they all say, until they found out just what kind of employment a Poli Sci/Moron Studies degree will get in the real world.

  18. And let’s not forget Adrienne Rich’s grand treatise, “Compulsory
    Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.” Though
    it seems her solution to “compulsory heterosexuality” is for every woman to
    undergo a period of compulsory lesbianism.

    http://www.terry.uga.edu/~dawndba/4500compulsoryhet.htm

    “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.””

    Yes, that is what the detractors tried to say so as to
    minimize the importance and influence of the political lesbianism “vanguard.” Those disavowals are about as worthwhile as
    Trotskyists, Stalinists, and Maoists alternatively blaming the other ideology
    for “extremism” and being unrepresentative of the Communist movement.

    “I can’t imagine why
    you would fixate on it and assess the entirety of feminism based on this
    notion.”

    Because the notion
    originates from a group that had (and continues to have) disproportionate and influential
    power over feminist doctrine the feminist academy which produces the doctrine,
    even if the group is supposedly smaller in number. Few movements (radical or conservative) are “democratic”
    in the sense that every ground level protester has equal claim and authority for
    declaring what the movement stands for and what its goals are. What matters more? The ostensibly benign opinion of a generic male-feminist
    ally? Or the opinion of some feminist
    academic doyen who has been polluting the “respectable” intellectual discourse for
    decades? When hordes of feminist
    protesters and campus agitators chirp some slogan, usually they are parroting a
    simplified and dumbed-down version of an argument made decades ago by Catharine
    MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, Ti-Grace Atkinson, etc. in some feminist law journal
    or academic tract.

    “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.”

    Um, liberals do assume that. They are happy to assume that and promulgate
    that belief as a discrediting tactic against all conservatives.

    “It’s often a mistake to judge the wider intentions of a
    group based on its fringe radicals.”

    And here is where another grand double standard comes
    in. Feminism and the other radical
    movements are permitted the privilege of dismissing or disavowing certain
    memberships and attributes if they sometimes appear too unpopular or unsavory
    when revealed. Does your admonition
    about judging “the wider intentions of a group based on its fringe radicals”
    apply to conservative and non-progressive movements? No. The
    feminist and other progressive movements make sure of that.

    If a member of an anti-feminist group says that women
    should be beaten and raped, could that group simply say “don’t judge the wider
    intentions of our group based on him”?
    Of course not. Those fringe
    statements would be broadcasted exhaustively and the group condemned because it
    dared to house such a fringe. Is the gun
    rights movement allowed to disavow people who go on shooting rampages? No.
    Whenever a mass shooting rampage occurs, the gun rights lobby is held
    collectively culpable and is made to answer for the crimes of the fringe actors. Are anti-abortion groups allowed to dismiss
    people who shoot abortionists as just “fringe radicals.” No.
    Whenever an abortionist is killed, the entire anti-abortion movement is
    condemned as complicit in the murder and we are told that if you do not support
    abortion on demand, you share blame with the abortion clinic attackers. When someone like Marc Lepine shoots a bunch
    of woman, are men allowed to dismiss him as an unstable violent extremist? No.
    The feminist movement has declared that all men are collectively guilty
    for crimes like Lepine’s and all men must bow and show contrition for what
    these “fringe radicals” did.

    Since the feminist (and other progressive) movements have
    decided that entire groups and populations can and must be blamed for the
    thoughts and actions of “fringe radicals,” then perhaps they should be held to
    that same standard.

  20. Both apply the same scientific method to their studies. If you read academic studies from Economics, Sociology, Psychology, etc., you’ll see that they approach their topics from a scientific perspective. It’s harder to control the variables when you’re dealing with complex organisms and systems, but that doesn’t invalidate their results. Also, does it follow from your argument that we shouldn’t have the Social Sciences? That we just shouldn’t study cultural trends and the way people/societies function?

  21. “I fail to see how a degree in Chemistry qualifies you to judge the Social Sciences.”
    Lots of feminist and leftist “social scientists” and “humanities” professors think themselves perfectly qualified to judge the natural sciences and mathematics, even though they lack degrees or training in those fields. Perhaps they should not speak out of turn?

  22. Both apply the same scientific method to their studies.

    One’s reproducible. And quantitative.

    The other is – by definition – interpreted and qualitative.

    you’ll see that they approach their topics from a scientific perspective.

    Economics is a different beast than the others.
    What Economics did was to establish it’s own set of methods, terms, procedures.

    The “Social Sciences” attempt to take the scientific cachet, by using the same terms and concepts (such as highly establishing “peer review”, and thus it’s good and true).

    Also, does it follow from your argument that we shouldn’t have the Social Sciences?

    Not at all. Just stop trying to call them science, come up with terms and concepts that aren’t stealing from the authority of known, established, trusted ones (because they’re not the same), and have at it.

    Oh, and stop trying to use “Social Science” as proof of Political Issues.

    Then we’d be good.

    It’s harder to control the variables when you’re dealing with complex organisms and systems, but that doesn’t invalidate their results.

    Conceptually, it does. Unless you can reproduce the results, and/or predict future behavior based upon the complex interactions, you’re not really doing anything at all. (This is also where Economics is a different animal. It does that quite nicely.)

  23. “Do you have children? Would you want someone to talk to your children the way you’ve talked to me?”
    If their children came to adopt your attitudes and viewpoints, then, yes, they might want that. In fact, they might even want to hire some of those people who break down and “decondition” cult members.

  24. – For the record, I disagree with you, but I do think you’ve practiced what you preach and you’ve been polite on this blog.
    – Would I want someone to talk to my kids this way? Yes, if by “this way” you mean telling them the truth, no matter how much it hurts.
    – When you use hyperbole to describe normative behavior, you dilute the word and give it less impact. Writing a couple of posts about Ms. Alcid and holding her accountable for what she advocates is not harassment, nor is it bullying. McCain and others who you are criticizing have been the victims of true internet bullying, harassment and cyberstalking. Last year, he literally had to flee from his home with his wife and kids because a convicted domestic terrorist and alleged pedophile WHOM HE WROTE ABOUT started to harass him. Search this blog for “Bill Schmalfeldt” and “Brett Kimberlin.”

    – You’ve never addressed my question: is it fair for feminists to expect to be treated with kid gloves when they constantly make assumptions about those who disagree with them? If I think Slut Walks are stupid, that makes me a rape apologist? How do you know I’ve never been sexually assaulted (both men and women are raped) and find such a comparison to be infantile and insulting?

  25. Movie recommendation: Rent “The Paper Chase,” a movie from the early 1970s. It will make your hair stand on end if you think that all of this is bullying. If you are considering law school, it will make you think twice about that, too.

    PS – Just think of commenter Mr. NixonDeceased as the cyber equivalent of Simon Cowell.

  27. Not a damned thing libelous about what he wrote. Nothing – now if the truth really bothers you, then go the hell away!

  28. Or a geologist, especially in a regulatory environment that shuts down the responsible exploitation of natural resources in lieu of a political agenda.

  34. Got it! Thanks. However, I must admit that while I’ve never actually done so, I’ve been tempted to say to libs “because…Christian orthodoxy!” In other words, my point at the moment is an easily deducible consequence of my world view which does, in fact, explain all. When I was a lib (20 yrs ago), I used to argue, “because…Bertrand Russel!” Thanks again… you have my vote, sir.

  36. Spoken like a true liberal, as though everything in life is free.

    Respect is “a feeling or attitude of admiration and deference toward somebody or something.”

    Using that definition, here’s a test question for you: Do you respect Stacy McCain?

    If “yes”, you have an odd way of showing it. If “no”, you need to buy a new dictionary; the one issued by NOW is wrong.

    Let me suggest that you have been polite, not “respectful”. Big difference.

    And that’s why I can BS on your “You don’t have to earn it”, because everyone does. Even lefties.

    Which is why I point out that everyone deserves a chance to earn respect. From there, they are on their own. This is a fundamental human interaction behavior, right up there with love. Indeed, “respect” is tied to love. Ask any member of an Oriental culture about “face”.

    And if a bunch of sheep want someone to tell them who they should respect, instead of deciding on their own, said sheep get no respect from me.

  39. We are applying basic identification techniques here. You post like a radical feminist, using their terminology, therefore we identify you as one and treat you accordingly. You do deserve credit for not flipping out and descending to ad hominem arguments and obscenity, though. Perhaps if you hang around the blog long enough, you’ll learn from others’ experiences and avoid the trap of radical feminism.

  41. Wrong. Unearned respect is an oxymoron, a no-prize for no accomplishment. It is a poison to the soul.

Comments are closed.