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

  1. You people are apparently unclear on the meaning of “patron goddess”. You don’t just pick one like you’d pick a sports mascot. There are obligations involved.

  2. If you think the movement for “same sex marriage” is just some expansion of bourgeois marital domesticity rights so that same sex persons can fit into the two person marriage model, you really do sell them short. That movement has a far grander objective in mind.

    http://www.beyondmarriage.org/full_statement.html

    And good old Hanna Rosin is already cheering that the normalization of same-sex marriage might start destroying the concept of monogamy.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/06/26/most_gay_couples_aren_t_monogamous_will_straight_couples_go_monogamish.html

  4. I’m assuming that you meant “Alcid’s idea of the patriarchy INCLUDES a traditional family arrangement”. Because most of the feminist stuff I’ve read over the years suggests that they do very much include the standard mother/father/kids as patriarchal, and in need of being changed, and preferably destroyed.
    I’ve had way too many encounters with those telling me that I don’t need my husband, and I shouldn’t want one, and if my job doesn’t pay me enough to be a Murphy Brown (which is just further proof of the sexist world we live in), I can just use the government as my partner and my children’s father. I’ve also been told that it’s somehow wrong of me to wish I my family’s financial situation would allowed me to be a stay-at-home mother rather than work 40 hours a week someplace else so that I could pay a non-family member to do most of the raising of my children. Feminist academics tend to sneer when they discuss women who have opted to stay at home, and they do very much consider women who make that choice to be second class women, and not really part of the informed, enlightened sisterhood. We may be told we can choose anything we want, whether it be a traditional male or female role, but if we choose a female one, while it may not be stated flat out, it is made obvious that we have choosen .. poorly.

  6. If I may: since you are a BMC alum, then you should very well be aware that certain ideologies, certain stances on issues are not just condoned, but applauded while others are nearly verboten. This in turn helps to foster a sort of cult atmosphere which makes the products of the approved ideological stances inevitable, as well as a very bellicose attitude towards any who do not follow lockstep along.
    And that radical, belligerent feminism has nearly become a hallmark of the all women’s liberal art college for many years now (I know because I went to one — many decades ago; the handwriting was on the wall even then).
    Such an environment isn’t really conducive to free thought, and it usually does not disappoint in this regard (don’t think for a minute that this state of affairs does not sadden me; what should be glorious institutions of higher learning have become pale shades of themselves, given to the production of ideological cloning and not free minds).

  7. I asked why he believes Alcid’s idea excludes a traditional family, as he clearly does.

    I concur that this was a traditional view of the feminist movement. However, it is certainly not part of third wave feminism. This is an antiquated understanding.

    I’m going to go make dinner for my family now.

  9. I’ve often complained that BMC is not the most open of places. However, attributing a specific viewpoint to an entire institution is shortsighted.

    You’re not wrong though. Just perhaps not right either.

  11. I doubt there is one single causal agent. However, considering how Alcid frequently references the connections, lectures, encounters, persons, etc. from Bryn Mawr throughout her feminist missives, it is not a big leap to conclude that this college education period had a substantial influence.
    Looks like she’ll be milking the Judith Butler connection every which way.

  14. I don’t see how defending someone equates to talking like a radical feminist. I’ve shared nothing about my views on politics or feminism. Everyone is making all these assumptions that simply aren’t true.

  16. The thing is: the conservatives’s tendency is not to seriously use the ‘Because…..[X]!’ response because we can actually explain why we believe what we believe.

  19. Every human being has an immortal soul for whom Christ suffered, bled, and died, and is therefore infinitely valuable in His sight. But not every human being thinks and behaves in a way worthy of respect. St. Thomas More is worthy of respect. Richie Rich, who perjured himself at More’s trial, is not.

  21. Pardon my French, but: BULLSHIT. Feminists are constantly running-down and mocking women who live traditional [ie: normal] lives.

    Ask Sarah Palin and Michelle Malkin and my wife what they have had to put up with at the hands of you Choice-aholics.

  25. But isnt that exhausting after awhile? Liberals (true liberals) are immune to facts and reasoning. As Chesterton said, if you argue with a lunatic, it’s quite likely you’ll get the worst of it, since his mind is un-encumbered by common sense, a sense of humor (e.g. Ms Hay), or the dumb facts of experience. But thanks for the further explanation.

  27. Well said, madam. Would that the bulk of liberals were a reflection of you. We would disagree, but less often than we would agree, or at least come to a reasonable compromise.

    I miss the old Democratic Party, for whom I often voted against, sometimes voted for, but generally respected.

    Today, there’s no respect at all. None.

  28. It’s not just WHAT you do, it’s HOW you do it.

    If you don’t want to be seen as a radical feminist, wash off the green paint, stop croaking, and walk like a human being.

    And permit me to say, that I even have to explain this is clear evidence that you are dogmatically blinkered and indoctrinated to the level of a drone worker.

    “Unknown Jane” had wonderful advice for you up above. Follow it, and you may well turn out to be a decent human being.

  30. Because sweetie, may I call you sweetie? Mockery is the greatest form of ridicule and you should feel privileged to have been the butt of it.

  31. That’s been my impression as well, UJ. I work with a great many college graduates of many different majors, young and old, and there’s a definite change in (for example) critical thinking skills in the alumni of some majors. Mostly, those changes are a decline in capability and quality. It’s quite disconcerting.

    It’s anecdotal evidence, of course. But from that and other sources, I believe that Stacy is not generalizing based on one institution.

  32. Like I said, flawed premises. Ideologies are primarily premises, compiled into a working hypothesis, which is then applied to the real world.

    Usually with tragic consequences. Such as we see with feminism and liberalism.

  33. OK, it’s an inside joke, but Athena is most certainly shaking her head. And maybe considering borrowing some lightning bolts from Zeus.

  35. Gender is another theft of a word by the intellectually vapid. Gender was used language for verb and nouns. Sexual identification definition is something the perverts have added to the

  36. Oh dear gawd, no they don’t. The scientific method and language of science and needs for proof are completely different. As someone currently taking a science degree and old enough to know better, even brushing elbows with the humanities exposes, for one thing, the notion of “theory”… which is simply a choice to view all reality through a particular ideological lens. Feminist “theory” and all the “Studies” that look… not for the Truth but for ways to view any event through their preferences.

    In geology if I say… “this rock formation on Mars could have been formed by water erosion” SCIENCE demands a search for alternate explanations and my hypothesis is not accepted as anything other than a good guess, even if everyone agrees with me, if it can’t be proven… and since it’s on Mars it can’t.

    OTOH, feminist theory, or preferentially viewing facts through a feminist lens, gives us correlation as proof and if you present an alternative you’re a hater, bigot and worse. Oh, it all makes *sense* but that’s enough to run with it.

    This preferential interpretation rule resembles the fiction spinning elements of art class more than any science class… “The opposing colors and lines of motion in this piece represent the essential struggle between our need for self actualization and the patriarchy trying to keep us down blah blah blah.”

    “Groovy, man. That is so DEEP.”

  37. According to that Alcid person… the fact that there are not LGBT Valentines Day cards in every Wal-Mart is proof of oppression.

    Because, you know, carrying an item that almost no one wants to buy means… something. Because this lack of commercially produced LGBT Valentines Day cards is being viewed through the lens of “Gender Theory” or some-such, any alternative explanation of how no store can afford to carry something there is not adequate demand for is just silly talk.

    No… it’s hate talk and oppression. It’s the Patriarchy trying to force everyone into a state of man-woman love on account of they hate gay people.

    Availability of greeting cards has nothing to do with which events and relationships are common enough to create adequate demand. Smash the Patriarchy!!

    In short and without the sarcasm: “Theory” means, essentially, that you let your brain drop out of the back of your head.

  38. Because it has no useful meaning.

    It’s merely an untoward attack on existing structures used to make it seem as though the speaker is part of a certain academically fashionable group.

  39. My apologies, I am not a liberal — nor am I a conservative. Not by today’s standards for either anyway. I find myself quite in the middle — and I have never identified with either political party. I like being an independent.
    I’m sorry if I gave off any signals that I was of either branch.

  40. Ah, no, it is my bad, I misunderstood.

    Still, it’s refreshing to hear such from a member of academia. Please keep up the good work.

  41. I believe that you know very well what happens to a free society when a place becomes “not the most open of places”, when individuals are not allowed the freedom to openly express their thoughts — stagnation and ossification of critical faculty sets in, belligerence develops over dialogue, and ultimately the free society is lost to everyone. Is this not what is happening right before our eyes?

  42. “I’m pro-smash. We have to smash. … There must be a smash of some sort–just to shake ideas loose.” –H.G. Wells character, 1918

  43. Never forget – race and gender are social constructs that are infinitely mutable and have no basis in biology. What arouses you, however, is immutably fixed at birth and if you believe differently you’re a hater.

  44. Wow, she has a BA in “Political Science and Gender and Sexuality Studies”?

    Isn’t that like saying you have a BA in “Why a Dog Licks it’s own Balls?

  47. First off I do want to say thank you for being civil.

    Anyway, I’ve lived in all those places, as well, to include the West Coast. The lunacy is heaviest there, but it does occur all over the place. This difference of experience is precisely why we don’t use anecdotal data in the sciences.

    My point about raw data is that the conclusion was already decided upon before a single digit was looked at, if at all. The problem with social “sciences” is that it’s the very reverse of actual science: when you’re writing a paper, you begin with a premise and then start researching for what evidence you can find to support your thesis. It’s backasswards and anything but actual scientific method.

    And it’s out of this stew that conspiracy theories such as “patriarchy” arose. Someone had the thought and then went and cherry-picked their “evidence”, throwing out whatever evidence didn’t fit the theory.

    Powerful women are a minority because we ourselves are a minority. (And it certainly doesn’t help that the vast majority of children killed in abortions are female. As one black empowerment feminist told me: “abortion on demand is the genocide of an entire generation of women of color.”) But in any case, it’s certainly not a shadowy cabal of men keeping specifically women out, especially when some “feminists” only gain their positions through political marriages. Contrast that with Admiral Grace Hopper (USN) who gained her rank on her own merits. The field only weakens by shoving women into positions just to fulfil a “diversity” quota.

    The same is somewhat true for lower pay, though a lot of that has to do with an abruptly flooded work pool. You can also see this happen with another group entirely: illegal aliens. (Cesar Chavez famously opposed illegal immigration for this reason: the abundance of cheap labor drove wages down for legal workers)

    “Shrinking violet” specifically applies to those feminists who want to be both “respected” as strong, (though there seems to be some confusion about the difference between “respect” and courtesy”) but at the same time they want to be a perpetual victim and for the entire Internet to be their “safe space”. If they truly want the former, they need to learn how to take their lumps and deal with the fact that not everyone is going to give them asspats just for having an opinion. If they want the latter, then locked forums/journals are the way to go. Alcid seems to have realized this to some degree and (belatedly) made her Twitter a “safe space”. (This public sharing of information you don’t want the whole world reading isn’t a problem specifically about feminists: Millennials seem to have a TMI problem when it comes to things like Facebook) I’ll credit Miss Hay for coming into the latter, the flaws in her critical thinking skills aside. (And I don’t fault her for those, she’s never been taught, the blame of which I lay entirely at this abysmal “education” system)

    My big gripe with the flowery tripe coming out of college students is this: have any of you really and truly questioned what you were taught, or did you merely accept it because it was different from what you were used to? You might have had professors who urged you to question your backgrounds and various privileges, but did any of them ever ask you to question their own deeply-held nearly religious beliefs? I was taught critical thinking by an admitted leftist who, to her credit, would grill us even when we agreed with her. If you have, great and congratulations on the rarity of true critical thinking, because it seems to be a lost art in the universities. And this is why I rag incessantly on college students, because the hard questions are never asked of the ones doing the teaching. You won’t learn unless you start grilling them. And if they’re even halfway decent teachers, they’ll welcome the challenge.

Comments are closed.