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

  5. Oh, my. The comments are indeed priceless. Consider this gem:

    One chromosome cannot create a complete oppressive social institution that is heterosexuality. (My emphasis)

    Truly, the lunacy has metastasized.

  6. There may be a surplus of candidates, but there’s no way on God’s heteronormative earth that I’ve either the time or the inclination to read them all. Still, it’s kind of hard to get dumber than a suicide statement.

  7. Nihilists! F’ me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos…
    Also, I still think “RSM Breaks Radical Wind!” would be great headline…

  8. It’s certainly tempting to dismiss such drivel as “Stage 4” stupidity, but we do so at our peril, I think. As was mentioned above, there is a surfeit of such people infesting our educational system. For that reason, as self-evident as the stupidity may seem to us, we must continue to engage and demonstrate to new generations the wisdom and truth of the ages.

  9. My guess is that the lovely Witchwind is really suffering from a huge inferiority complex. She wants to be equal, equal! damn it, with men, but apparently believes that she can never be, on any level.

    Yes, men are bigger, stronger and faster than women, on the average, and few women can compete in those areas. But women make up the majority of university students these days, and have flocked to the degreed professions in huge numbers; something like 40% of married women earn more than their husbands. Leaving aside the obvious physical advantages which accompany male sexual dimorphism, women seem to be competing very well.

    But that’s not enough for Bitchwind. She is simply unable to put aside the physical advantages on men, and compete in other areas, because sexual dimorphism is the shadowy specter which she cannot drive from her conscience; she can’t not think about it, and it haunts her, haunts her.

    Thus, she seeks a world where men are simply no longer present, one in which she is competing only with other women. In that world, she can feel safe and secure. It’s a form of agoraphobia. But it’s also a prescription for slow suicide.

  13. I hear a lot of that. Is it your contention that philosophy is carried on genetically? If my mother believed such nonsense, would I have been better off not born?

  15. Well, of course you’re right!

    And it’s obvious that both Chelie and Jeanette have harmed, harmed! their sisters by turning declining to take a walk on the Wilde side. They should be ashamed, and I denounce both of them.

  19. Wombat needs to add a warning to the splash page warning people not to be eating, or drinking, when reading here due to the hazards to electronic devices. Since RSM, and Smitty will see this too, they are on notice to remedy the problem lest they be sued by the commentariat for damages to screens and keyboards.

  24. I am guessing you were not wearing red footies, drinking cocoa, and talking about healthcare policy.

    Nah, that wasn’t until after I got to know her better.

    I wooed her with my shirtless, buff body in a game of volleyball on a camping trip during which I had consumed a beer or twelve. She was just naturally drawn to my animal magnetism and aura of intellectual prowess.

  25. Sorry ’bout that. That’s why I have an ironclad rule…no drink to lips when reading comment sections of blog articles.

  32. All I know is that if “no woman is heterosexual” than certain ladies have been lying to me for a very long time.

    Politeness demands that I omit the obvious guy response to that claim.

  33. The side-splitting hilarity comes from reading Stacy’s article here, and then reading this one about women in islamic countries, which I’ll admit is probably poorly done, owing to use of facts and data.

    Feminists have like, a superpower or something, where they can be shown what’s actually happening to women in those sorts of cultures, and no matter which way you show it to them, they manage heroically to avoid seeing it.

    Same here in our own culture, with Bill Clinton and A. Wiener type Democrats. I envision these “feminists” putting on some sort of visor like the X-Man, Scott “Cyclops” Summers wears in the movies. Then when they are shown the data and the horrific abuse of women, they grit their teeth and clench their fists and stammer out theatrically, “Must… not…. see!”

  37. This is one extremely damaged and mentally ill individual. Now if only we could find the man responsible and thank him.

  41. Creating their own Matriarchy to oppress those not cis-female. As well as their own god and science. Sadly their god and science are both limited. Their god is no more powerful than the strongest and wisest lesbian and their science is limited to third grade scientific complexity (magic).

  43. The higher state of feminism being species suicide?

    Good thing about that is that it’s self limiting. If we can mitigate or eliminate the damage to a small sample, we’ll do fine.

    Communist Feminists, not so much.

  46. I tried, Robert. I really did. But when I saw the dreaded words, “Part III” I bailed. I’m sorry…i just couldn’t take anymore.

  47. A normal person would be ashamed attempting to equate her own life and largely imagined or self-created problems with the travails of women in non-Western cultures, particularly those dominated by Islam. So strong is the desire to be seen as “oppressed,” that oppression is created from whole cloth. Thus the ever greater contortions to confirm it, including denying absolute biological facts with a straight face. We laugh at this stuff, but in reality lumping oneself–with one’s internet access, three squares per day and an entourage of sycophants screaming “you go, girl”–with a woman who lives in hovel in Bangladesh, gets beaten daily by her illiterate mate while trying to survive on 20 cents a day, is despicable.

Comments are closed.