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

  3. Anassa kata from me as well, another one-time Rider of Brohan! We’re all laughing at your confused internet-stalkers.

  4. While I appreciate your civility, you are naive. Feminism (nihilism) has, as its goal, the destruction of Western Civilization, beginning with its most fundamental element, the nuclear family. It is a form of mental illness, like pyromania.

  5. Please don’t mention these divine conceptions and births. Amanda Marcotte considers them to be acts of supernatural rape and it “triggers” PTSD in all the feminists.

  6. While lines like “smash the patriarchy” are obviously inflammatory and clear oversimplifications of what is an incredibly complex issue, insulting an entire education system on the basis of a disagreement with one member is as well.

    Two questions for the author: why do you believe that Sara Alcid’s idea of the patriarchy excludes a traditional family arrangement? The modern feminist movement, does not believe that being a homemaker or part of a traditional family is an inappropriate role for a woman. What is aimed for is the right to choose that role, and the ability to participate in any other activity or profession that a woman chooses.

    Second, sir, why do you believe that queer individuals have no need for abortions? It is just as possible for a queer woman to be raped as it is for a straight one.

  7. One of the things that was particularly offensive was his insistence that it is the education system that is at fault. I assure you, not all women who attend women’s colleges, such as Bryn Mawr, go around screaming about the patriarchy (except facetiously).

  9. No, cupcake, this isn’t bullying. But if it helps any, consider me a walking, talking trigger warning…and govern yourself accordingly.

  10. Perhaps Stacy (among other people in this discussion) have more experience with the education system than you are giving credit for.

    That’s something to think about, eh?

  12. On the off-chance Sara herself is reading this comment section (although if you are, Sara, I would advise you not to! it’s largely just angry sludge), I’d like to express my pride and solidarity with you.

    Anassa kata! Athena’s rolling her eyes.

  13. Oh, I don’t need to know WHO did it, although that would be interesting as well.

    What’s interesting is the pattern of other down checks in the thread. It’s not consistent, and this particular comment targeted how the education system is (probably) failing Coline, after calling her out on her “I study geology!” line. And that isn’t consistent as well, given that I tried to be, well, “non mean” in delivering it.

    But someone didn’t like it anyway. Hmmmmmm!

  14. Just so. Paint yourself green, jump around, and croak, people will think you’re a frog.

    A crazy frog, but a frog nonetheless.

  16. While lines like “smash the patriarchy” are obviously inflammatory and
    clear oversimplifications of what is an incredibly complex issue,
    insulting an entire education system on the basis of a disagreement with
    one member is as well.

    Another oversimplification is mistaking a single piece for the totality of a body of work based on years of observation.

    Second, sir, why do you believe that queer individuals have no need for abortions?

    1. No one *needs* an abortion because of being raped. 2. The vast majority of abortions are simply birth control. You know how pregnancy occurs, right?

  17. As a fellow BMC student and someone who does not particularly condone many of the things Judith Butler has said, thank you.
    While I am likely far apart from you politically, I appreciate you demonstrating that it is not the institution that is the problem.

  20. If you mean the Goddess Athena, she’s more likely shaking her head, thinking about all that wisdom she spread about, lost to the ages by a bunch of bullying feminists with a flawed agenda.

    If it’s an inside joke for your order, never mind.

  21. I am well acquainted with academia (I’m an English instructor), and if I have to read or hear another word like “heteronormativity” one more time I think I shall scream, or upchuck, or both.
    Young lady, just because some words as this are used does not mean that they should be bandied about like party favors. Indeed, they rather reflect poorly upon the intellectual rigor of the user, but are an extremely good indicator of said user’s hubris (which is massive). In short, they make for poor rhetoric and even poorer critical thinking skills…hence the upchuck and screaming on my end.

  22. Not really. They’re based on flawed premises.

    Pretty much like feminism and liberalism, come to think of it.

  24. I simply think it is unwise to generalize the the degree RSM did in this article. However, I concur that liberal arts institutions do tend to one end of the political spectrum (the liberal end). It is, however, unwise to assume that the education system is at fault when someone says something a writer disagrees with (as Sara Alcid has done).

  25. It is fair to say that criticism of the higher education system as overly liberal is not a new or unique one here. However, directly attributing Sara Alcid’s views to her education is an oversimplification.

    Perhaps the abortion question is one on which we should agree to disagree. I simply wished to inquire why – if one believes abortions should be legal – queer individuals should be excluded? If one does not believe that abortions should be legal, why attack queer advocates in particular?

  29. You have to give respect in order to receive it my dear. You have not truly done that now, have you? On top of your morally condescending stance (it shows my dear) you have failed to take into consideration the valid points your opposition makes (always useful in an argument) and thus cannot counter them — in short, you have disrespected the dialogue.
    Now you want sympathy (which in itself is a form of intellectual bullying — you wish to gain points by playing the victim, passive/aggressive card — because people are bullying you. You know nothing of rhetorical argument then (don’t blame me, I’ve been butting heads with the department chairs for quite a while concerning this — I personally would love to fail you all for this shoddy work; that would likely cost me my job and I have bills to pay).
    I’m politically moderate, and I usually don’t jump in to defend hardcore right wingers, but you my dear are what is very wrong with liberalism right now (you are completely blinkered to your own faults and thus unable to see anyone else’s opinion, and you don’t really have one of your own — I’ve heard the same comments from literally hundreds of young people, you are so very not special nor at all unique), and yes, you would be wise to read Paglia, and become more intellectually honest , rigorous, and brave…and write better, by all means please start learning to write better.

  30. Can I just make an aside here, and state how much I hate the current use of “gender”?

    On a bulletin board from 2003 I found this definition from the OED (which of course has bowed to the PC climate in the decade since)
    “b. In mod. (esp. feminist) use, a euphemism for the sex of a human being”

  31. No, Coline, Free speech is not subject to courtesy. It is subject to restraint from libel or incitement. It is subject to rebuttal, but is is not now nor ever should be subject to courtesy.
    While it’s edge may be blunted by the coarse or vulgar, it’s heart is borne out by it’s facts.
    The fact that you have only hurt feelings as a rebuttal implies that you know that Mr. McCain stands on the truth in-spite of your preferences.

  32. Noah, it might be a very good idea to consider the histories of all totalitarian, police states — one of the first things they did was to dismantle traditional family bonds, what they did after that was accomplished was, well, ones for the history books.
    While I have no real rancor with LGBT people in and of themselves, nor do I have a problem with women wanting to live their lives as individuals with free will, it is with the thought in mind that such people could help to create the very oppressive society they say they are fighting against (and there are people who actively pursue such things, because not all people are intrinsically good, nor are people impervious to corruption) I have to consider and to caution: be careful what you wish for, it might end badly.

  34. You, a Leftist, expect courtesy when the goal of Leftism is to reduce The West to rubble?

    You, a Leftist, expect courtesy when you have rejected a belief in Absolute Truth and sneer at those who arn’t as ‘Illuminated’ as you are?

    You, a Leftist, expect courtesy when your seek to destroy the basis of it, which is Morality?

    What I smell here is a heaping helping of high hypocrisy, with ignorance on top.

  38. “It is fair to say that criticism of the higher education system as overly liberal is not a new or unique one here.”
    True, but just because it is not new or unique does not mean that the criticism is inaccurate. And it does not mean this aspect of higher education is not relevant or applicable in this example at hand.
    “However, directly attributing Sara Alcid’s views to her education is an oversimplification.”
    Perhaps Alcid would have still chosen the same ideological and professional path even if she had attended Wheaton College. However, it is not an oversimplification to suggest that college education often plays a tremendous and formative role in a person’s political dispositions (for those who attend it). Without that stage, a person’s views might conceivably take a different path.

  41. The Vapors combined with Hysteria – a classic case.

    Yours…
    Dr. Clyde ‘Fingers’ Proctor OB-SCT [Scatologist], [on my lunch hours and weekends, I practice as Dr. Robert Oswald ‘Bob’ Belvedere, OB-GYN], Chief of Vaginology, The Lord Fatheringay von Whoopsie Memorial Hospital and Tiki Bar

  43. I never said it was invalid. I was simply agreeing with Pablo that perhaps I did oversimplify a little there.

    That is a fair point – college is incredibly influential. As is family upbringing, personal history, even things as small as attending summer camp. Who are we to say what is the causal agent in Sara Alcid’s case?

  47. May I ask you young man, have you considered what will happen to society (which isn’t composed of college students and instructors in the majority), if all standard ways of viewing the world are “smashed”?
    When you smash things you destroy them, there is no evolution…and nature abhors chaotic states, which are risked when things are smashed. Do you consider these things and what repercussions it might have on innocent people in the future? Or is this merely an excercise in hubris? In which case nobody gives a damn about the little people, now do they?
    And if you so much as state that you are willing to continue your argument on figures that have found to be in error or at the least not proven, then I have to regrettably say that you are engaging in hubris and really don’t give a damn about anyone or anything but your own feelings of moral superiority and intellectual worth (of which I am beginning to have a low estimation, and would advise others to have so as well).

Comments are closed.