RadFem: ‘No Woman Is Heterosexual’

Posted on Comments

How many times have I explained that feminism is an ideology of man-hating Marxist lesbian baby-killers? This is what feminists themselves say, if you bother to study feminist theory:

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

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

Are we clear about this? Lesbianism is the “highest state of feminism” and feminist insights “are incompatible with men’s interpretations of reality.” This isn’t what I say about feminism. This is what feminists say about themselves. And if you think they don’t take themselves seriously, you’re not paying attention.

OK, so last night — I blame you, Kim Jossfolk — I was compelled to pay attention to the radical feminist (radfem) blogger who says all heterosexual intercourse (penis-in-vagina, PIV) is rape, and that when men read her blog, “they view it with the intent of harming radical feminists and women in general.”

One of my women-harming readers pointed out that the aforesaid radfem blogger has commenters on her blog who are equally crazy, if not more so. And I noticed this comment:

The first paragraph in your second post on heterosexual grooming is one of the best quotes I have ever found.

Oh, really? Let’s quote the first paragraph of “Grooming / pimping into heterosexuality: politics of love pt II“:

No woman is heterosexual. What men call heterosexuality is an institution where men make women captive for PIV, to control our reproductive functions and steal our labour. Heterosexuality, or sexuality with men does not exist, because the only relationship to men that exists is men’s violence, physical and mental invasion — one that men have so well crafted and disguised for so long that we can mistake it for attraction, sexual urges or love. All women’s “attraction” to men is 100% eroticised trauma bonding / stockholm syndrome. There is no other form of attraction to men possible than that. None. Any woman “sexually” or “sentimentally” attached to a man is ONLY trauma-bonded to him. This is a universal rule under patriarchy.

If any of you women think you are attracted to men, this can only be because you have been brainwashed, the radfem explains:

Men know how we react to their violence and deliberately manipulate our responses to increase their control over us, and to decrease the efforts it takes them to do so. It’s in men’s interest to disguise their violence as much as possible. It’s not for nothing that modern western patriarchy has perfected “psycho” and “behavioural” (brainwashing and mind-control) sciences for centuries as a powerful anti-women’s liberation tool, and that men rely so heavily on it to keep us at their knees, or rather, below their dicks. It’s part of the global male infrastructure that ensures men a constant supply of ready-tamed and pre-possessed women to effortlessly stick their dicks in, impregnate and abuse. The more it grows, the easier it is for each individual man to break any woman’s will and trick her into PIV and being owned by him — and maintain submission level with the help of men’s institutions.

Men “deliberately manipulate” women’s responses, to provide a “constant supply” for the “global male infrastructure.”

Read the whole thing — she’s got an entire theoretical infrastructure to explain all her zany assertions. And yes, there is a Part III:

When we define an act of violence and a system of oppression, we look at what the abuser or oppressor class does to the victim that qualifies as violence or oppression in any form. . . . When we define patriarchy we look at the structure, the pattern of what men do to us. All this is always external to us, outside of the victims. It doesn’t have anything to do with women and our individual choices as free beings but with men, patriarchy. Their violence is about them.
The very purpose of violence is to inflict something on you that you don’t want and that’s against your interest: the point is to harm, destroy you or go against your will. . . . The only reason we seem to be drawn to subordination to men is because men’s violence functions in a way that turns our survival impulse against ourselves . . .
Consent is meaningless and irrelevant with regards to defining men’s violence and describing the objective reality of it. The only ones to choose and want are those who do the violence: men. They choose to resort to violence because they want to obtain something from us that they wouldn’t otherwise be able to obtain (using us as their dick receptacles, control our reproduction). Will, calculation, intent and choice of means to achieve their end are all on their side. Saying that we choose and want it is a reversal and lie. The illusion of our choice protects men not us, because deception and reversal is in part how they maintain their rule.

You can read the entirety of that, too. To summarize radfem’s beliefs:

  1. All acts of male-female sex are inherently violent.
  2. All women are naturally lesbians.
  3. Patriarchy manipulates women into thinking they want to have sex with men; women’s feelings of “love” toward men are actually the psychological side-effect of violent trauma.
  4. Women’s “choice” in the context of heterosexual relationships is an illusion; the patriarchal system of oppression means that women are always victims of male violence.

This is what feminism is all about: Defining men as rapists, defining women as helpless victims, and promoting lesbianism.

Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
The heteronormative patriarchy
Is raping you.

 

157 comments

  1. If only we men could reach out to these womyn…

    We need to penetrate their soggy empty chthonian spaces with truth and fill them with the love of our manly, masculine, virile manliness—as only men can…

  3. I turned a lesbian between my first and second marriage. Don’t know if that was a worthwhile accomplishment or not.

  6. […] RadFem: ‘No Woman Is Heterosexual’ – OK, we all need Jesus, but radical feminists really, really need Jesus.  My guess is that very, very few of them tried to follow God’s model for sexuality. If they had lots of out-of-wedlock sex I can see how they would get jaded about men.  They are so radical that they even violate the PC nonsense about how gender is fluid (these people are all female, all the time – man-hating females, that is) and they concede that they weren’t “born that way” (they view a change to lesbianism as inevitable). […]

  9. Lord Almighty, how does a woman get so f___ed up? I realize the Commie dad was probably a significant factor, but holy cow, she is off-the-charts insane. Anyone who states that the “highest form” for a species includes the inability to reproduce deserves all the mockery that she has coming. And boy, does she have it coming…

  10. Hmmm, begs the question why ms.Aptheker “allowed” a man to “rape” her twice to procreate children. I’m not sure about ms.jagger, a quick search revealed nothing regarding children, only her bizarre politics. Sheesh these folks are beyond any kind of redemption.

  11. Given that our species, our genus, our phylum, everything in our genetic makeup and history, is heterosexual, that being what is required for reproduction, an obvious question is: when did homo sapiens change from heterosexuality to homosexuality, in such a fashion that no woman is, or apparently can be, heterosexual?

  12. No she’s a professor in women’s… ahem!… gender studies… so she has the pick of all the young quim that falls under her spell.

  13. In a sane world this woman would have been committed to a State Mental Hospital and medicated with anti-psychotics

  14. Good grief. I guess I’m irretrievably brainwashed, because I have NEVER wanted to be with another woman. I even got propositioned by a lesbian once, and turned her down. I am gladly manipulated into the male patriarchy, and am just waiting for the right one. I’m certain no male would actually want one of these nutjobs.

  17. Let me get this straight: If you’re a lesbian, you were “born this way.” If you’re a heterosexual woman, you were brainwashed into it?
    Because shut up, I suppose.

  18. Come on, this is just a evil ploy by the Valentine Day industry to sell more flowers, candy and romantic dinners. Because you guys out there, grooming your gal really takes some time and $$$.

  19. So if women are naturally lesbians, why are women are actually atrracted to “bad boys” who look like men who actually have testosterone flowing in their veins and not pajama clad boys drinking cocoa?

  21. Absolutely, but one of the biggest threats we are facing is a collective blind spot that’s developed among our so-called “mainstream” intellectual and institutional elites, who skew left and overwhelmingly tend to be allied with the Democrat Party and thus the left.

    For the most part, such “respectable” types wouldn’t agree with any of that rad-fem nonsense, yet they’ve been indoctrinated into perceiving the right as being populated by a bunch of crazies, while being blind to the much crazier tendencies on the right (and never mind that many of the crazies that they assign to the right aren’t really on the right).

    It’s tempting to dismiss the rad-fem and other crazies on the left as extreme outliers, etc. They are, but they aren’t. The crazies on the left are given tenure, leadership positions, coddled or ignored (depending on whichever is convenient at the moment for mainstream elites).

    We can try to reassure ourselves by thinking that these “mainstream” elites will wake up when things go a little too far, that at some point they’ll notice that their insane ideological-fringe compatriots are ever-so-gradually and subtly pulling society in ever more skewed and dangerous directions, but why would we expect them to get a clue? At a certain point, their willful sleepwalking turns into passive aggression, doesn’t it?

  23. Stacy, this woman, and those who think like her, are clearly in rebellion against God. Men did not design the reproductive system. How does she explain heterosexuality in other species? Is the hen a victim of Stockholm Syndrome?There is no shelter to be had by saying that the rooster rapes the hen, given the lengths that the males of many species will go to in order to attract a mate, in order to be chosen by the female.This is not insanity. The insanity is a symptom of the underlying soul-sickness. I pray that God deliver her.

  24. Great point! So, apparently one type of “science” explains gay/lesbian sexuality, another explains heterosexuality?

    Or maybe they’ll say that women are born lesbians, while men are born hetero-misogynists. But they can’t do that because gender is a social construct. Also, their theories won’t be popular at the annual LBGT conclaves. What’s a rad-fem “social scientist” to do?

  31. I’m going to go ahead and denounce Science for telling me that it’s for the best that these crazies have self selected themselves to be evolutionary dead ends.

  33. As those who are hip to paleoanthropology are aware, the pop theory today is that all Homo sapiens are descended from just ONE African woman.

    To Aptheker’s credit, now we know why: all other Homo erectus females of the time must have been naturally lesbian.

  34. I’ve said before… not only are (most) humans bisexual, we’re omni-sexual. We’re suisexual, xenosexual, inanimate-object-sexual, and every last thing inbetween.

    Except for a very few of us who are naturally asexual.

    As for this rad-fem person… ptwie. The rest of us girls will continue to use men for our pleasure inbetween reading NASCAR romances and lusting after tight ends.

  38. Of course, civilization always has a way around nature. She doesn’t need to breed if she can get a job as a teacher.

  39. Honest, I think it’s the shoulders in shoulder pads more than the tight ends, but there you go.

    😉

    (Also, I mostly picked the examples from what was most likely to piss off a rad-fem.)

  40. Seeing as how the right wing spent the previous century feeling comfortable and confident that communists, hippies, abortionists, homosexuals, atheists and drug users would forever be relegated to the “fringe minority”…

    …I hope we’ve learned that we can’t just sit back and giggle at this delusional stuff.

  41. The collective, paranoid psychosis evidenced on Ms. “Wind’s” pages is truly fascinating to behold. Every simple fact of human existence is twisted to fit her and her commentariat’s alternate reality. It must be mentally exhausting for these people to exist in a world where your senses betray you on a minute by minute basis.

  42. Her best statement was:

    I certainly think that once men would disappear we would regain our powers back progressively. That potential is still there in us, I’m sure of that. It’s there in potential, that is, if we seek to reconnect with our senses, with other women and to our living external reality and to do so persistently over time, we can realize those powers progressively. It doesn’t require some great effort. It begins with letting go of and getting out of all situations that are toxic to us, that drain us – saving our lives. Trust that our body is telling this is not ok and act upon it. It is constant life transformation. More and more things become possible over time.

    I certainly think that once men disappear, they would “regain their powers” for exactly one generation . . . and then they would all die, and the human race would cease to exist.

    The lovely Witchwind is either monumentally stupid or certifiably insane . . . or perhaps both.

  49. “Best statement” being a relative term, of course. There’s certainly a surplus of candidates.

    What’s equally fascinating is that she dismisses observations such as yours regarding biological truths as being part of some grand phallo-centric conspiracy to demean women. In other words, they Y Chromosome carries with it the collective ability to shift reality and deceive 7 billion sentient inhabitants on this planet. This woman and her ilk are living in a Feminist version of The Matrix.

Comments are closed.