The rhetoric about sexual assault emanating from college and university campuses has confused many people who have not realized how the exaggerated claims of a “rape epidemic” are related to the larger objectives of radical feminism. Every day, the headlines bring reports of fresh outrages, including this one from Cornell University:
Julius Kairey, an openly conservative student columnist for the Cornell Daily Sun campus newspaper, was viciously smeared in a recent mass public attack, with fliers spread around the Ivy League university that unfairly and inaccurately labeled him a “Racist Rape Apologist.” . . .
The ad hominem attack is likely drawn from a few columns written by Kairey, notably “The Truth About ‘Rape Culture’,” published in April, which questioned the stats behind the so-called campus rape epidemic and defended due process for those accused of sexual assault; and more recently “Should California Redefine Campus Sexual Assault?” published last Thursday, when the fliers were discovered.
California’s new law has made this a subject of widespread interest:
This weekend, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that makes universities redefine consensual sex. From now on, students must effectively obtain the “affirmative consent” of their partners, which must be “ongoing” every step of the way. Those accused of violating the consent rule will be judged on the preponderance of the evidence. Perpetrators face suspension or expulsion, and universities face heavy penalties for failure to enforce.
The new measure is designed to stem a tidal wave of rape on campus that, in fact, does not exist. (Violent crime, including sexual assault, has been in decline for 20 years.) Even so, universities across North America have set up vast new administrative apparatuses to deal with the crisis. Many of them have also expanded the meaning of “sexual violence” to include anything that makes you feel bad.
To anyone following the news, it is obvious enough that the Sex Police are also the Thought Police; their aim is not merely to modify student sexual behavior, but also to control the way students talk about sex, as a means of changing how students think about sex. Increasingly, words are classified as sexual assault:
Examples of abuse listed on the University of Michigan’s domestic violence awareness website say “sexual violence” includes “withholding sex and affection” and “discounting the partner’s feelings regarding sex” — definitions that have come under fire by some men’s rights activists.
The terms, found under the heading “definitions,” also suggest verbal or psychological abuse include: “insulting the partner; ignoring the partner’s feelings; withholding approval as a form of punishment; yelling at the partner; labeling the partner with terms like crazy [and] stupid.” . . .
Currently the higher education world is gripped by the so-called campus rape culture, in which the widely touted yet largely unsubstantiated stat that one in five women will be sexually assaulted or raped while in college is oft repeated during mandated sexual assault seminars at universities nationwide.
Expanding the definition of “violence” to include commonplace non-violent words and actions is not a gender-neutral enterprise. Janet Bloomfield of A Voice For Men explained to the College Fix: “Normal relationship behaviors are pathologized and framed as abuse when MEN do them. . . . I am unaware of a single case in which the accused student is a woman and the victim is a man.”
The control centers of this Orwellian project are the departments of Women’s Studies, where radical professors indoctrinate students in an anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology. Fewer than 1-in-20 U.S. college students ever enroll in Women’s Studies courses. The total annual enrollment in these programs (including students who take just one introductory class as an elective) was fewer than 90,000 during the 2005-06 school year, according to the National Women’s Studies Association. Scattered across the country in some 900 programs, the number of Women’s Studies majors was only 4,300, while 10,500 were minoring in the subject.
Socially Constructing an Intellectual Racket
The small number of students in these programs, however, does not reflect the oversized influence exercised within the university by young feminist acolytes and the ideologues who instruct them. Women’s Studies is an interdisciplinary field, where courses are taught by faculty from other departments. The professor of Women’s Studies commonly has a Ph.D. in psychology, sociology, political science, history, literature or some other area of the humanities and social sciences. Thus, the professor who is teaching radical “gender theory” in a Women’s Studies class on Tuesday will be teaching an introductory psychology class on Wednesday. The interdisciplinary nature of these programs means that feminist ideology bleeds over from Women’s Studies into other fields, permeating the curriculum by a process of intellectual osmosis.
To put it bluntly, Women’s Studies is a racket. Surveying the curricula vitae of faculty, one sees how the proliferation of feminist academic journals (and low standards of scholarship) enable younger faculty to comply with the “publish or perish” mandate that can make the difference between grabbing a coveted tenure-track position or being relegated to the lowly ranks of itinerant adjunct instructors. Much of feminist “research” is described as qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, so that surveys of women talking about their feelings and experiences are more common than studies that require the measurement of actual data. Much of what is counted as “research” by Women’s Studies faculty — the academic publications by which their careers are evaluated — is not really research at all. Essays that consist primarily of comparing approaches of different feminist writers to a topic, and deriving from the comparison some theoretical synthesis, are a common product of the Women’s Studies “research” factories.
Scholars and laymen alike may wish to scrutinize, for example, the 2008 Ph.D. dissertation of Janice Mary Habarth, “Thinking ‘Straight’: Heteronormativity and Associated Outcomes Across Sexual Orientation.” Particular attention should be paid to her sources, a few of which I list here to provide readers a general idea:
Allen, D.J. (2001). The role of personality and defense mechanisms in the adjustment to a homosexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 45-62.
Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baumeister, R.F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 347-374.
Butler, J.C. (2000). Personality and emotional correlates of right-wing authoritarianism. Social Behavior and Personality, 28, 1-14.
Cole, E.R., Zucker, A.N., & Ostrove, J.M. (1998). Political participation and feminist consciousness among women activists of the 1960s. Political Psychology, 19, 349-371.
Duncan, L.E., Peterson, B.E., & Winter, D.G. (1997). Authoritarianism and gender roles: Toward a psychological analysis of hegemonic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 41-49.
Elia, J.P. (2003). Queering relationships: Toward a paradigmatic shift. Journal of Homosexuality, 45, 61-86.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality. New York: Pantheon Books.
Jackson, S. (2006). Gender, sexuality and heterosexuality: The complexity (and limits) of heteronormativity. Feminist Theory, 7, 105-121.
Jost, J.T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A.W., & Sulloway, F.J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.
Kitzinger, C. (2005). Heteronormativity in action: Reproducing the heterosexual nuclear family in after-hours medical calls. Social Problems, 52, 477-498.
Mohanty, C.T. (1992). Feminist encounters: Locating the politics of experience. In A. Phillips & M. Barrett (Eds.), Destabilizing theory: Contemporary feminist debates (pp. 74-92). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs, 4, 631-660.
Rust, P.C. (1997). ‘Coming out’ in the age of social constructionism: Sexual identity formation among lesbian and bisexual women. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 1, 25-54
Unger, R.K. (1998). Resisting gender: Twenty-five years of feminist psychology. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Vicinuns, M. (1989). They wonder to which sex they belong: The historical roots of the modern lesbian identity. In D. Altman, et al (Eds.), Homosexuality, which homosexuality? International Conference on Gay & Lesbian Studies (pp.171-198). London: GMP Publishers.
These items are culled from a list of approximately 150 sources cited in this dissertation submitted by Habarth to obtain a doctorate in Psychology and Women’s Studies at the University of Michigan. What does this tell us? Among other things, it tells us that there is a vast literature of such “research” that has steadily accumulated over the years in academic publications the non-specialist never heard of, journals whose standards of scholarship may be less important than their political biases. The Journal of Lesbian Studies, the Journal of Homosexuality, Feminist Theory, Social Behavior and Personality — you’re not going to find copies of these publications in the magazine racks at your local pharmacy. It is in the pages of such academic journals, however, that scholar/activists build the intellectual infrastructure of social change, and the reader probably shares my suspicion that the editors of these journals did not vote for Mitt Romney in 2012.
The biases of Women’s Studies programs can be ascertained merely by glancing at the titles of books and journal articles in the bibliographies of dissertations. Readers may wonder how Janice Habarth — and now that’s Doctor Habarth to you, ignorant peasant — has fared in the six years since she submitted her dissertation.
Dr. Janice Habarth is an Assistant Professor for the Ph.D. program in Clinical Psychology at Palo Alto University. She leads a student research group that investigates topics related to Personality and Social Contexts of Health. During the 2013-14 academic year, she is also acting director and supervisor for the Inner Resources Center supplemental practicum run through the Kurt and Barbara Gronowski Center. Dr. Habarth is co-director (with Dr. Teceta Tormala) of the PAU Ph.D. Academic Advising Center (PAAC), which helps students navigate the Ph.D. curriculum and achieve milestones such as application to research groups during the first year. She is also a principal investigator through the Center for LGBTQ Evidence-Based Applied Research (CLEAR), which conducts research to directly impact the mental health and wellbeing of LGBT individuals and their families. . . .
Dr. Habarth’s ongoing research interests include personality (tolerance of ambiguity); heteronormative attitudes and beliefs (including measure development); and health psychology (clinician wellness, mindfulness interventions).
How many times is this process replicated annually? How many Ph.D.s are awarded each year on the basis of tendentious research like this? What is the total output of publications — books, articles, op-ed columns, blog posts and so forth — by the credentialed experts whose academic authority is created through this process? How many students are mentored by these academic activists? Exactly how large, in other words, is the influence of Women’s Studies within academia? How big is the “intellectual footprint” of radical feminism, and how much does this activism shape the climate on campus?
No one has compiled and analyzed the quantitative data necessary to answer those questions, yet we can study the qualitative content of their anti-male/anti-heterosexual rhetoric:
- Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Most Women Have to Be Coerced into Heterosexuality’
- Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Rapists Serve All Men by Enforcing Male Supremacy’
- Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Lesbianism and Feminism Have Been Coterminous’
What we are looking at, I contend, is not a conspiracy, but rather a consensus within academic feminism, a shared belief system developed within an academic community that has been, as the gender theorist would say, socially constructed. When the first Women’s Studies programs were established in the 1970s, their faculties were cobbled together in an ad hoc manner, as women who already held advanced degrees — including female professors who had established scholarly careers before the onset of the Women’s Liberation movement in the late 1960s — were hired (or assigned from other departments) to teach Women’s Studies classes. Many of these women were married and, however sympathetic they may have been with the feminist cause, few of them could have been called “radical feminists.” Still fewer, in the original faculties of Women’s Studies, were lesbians.
From ‘Lavender Menace’ to ‘Lesbian Chic’
Although militant lesbians like Rita Mae Brown, Artemis March, Karla Jay and Ellen Shumsky had been foremost among the radical feminists of the late ’60s and early ’70s, their feminism was not generally the feminism of the established female academics who became the first faculty of Women’s Studies departments. This was noted early, and with much bitterness, by the radical lesbian minority in the burgeoning field.
At the 1980 conference of the National Women’s Studies Association, lesbian Michigan State University Professor Marilyn Frye complained of a “predominance of heterosexual perspective, values, commitments, thought and vision.” Professor Frye lamented as “deeply disappointing” what she called the “pervasively heterosexual character of women’s studies.” These complaints recurred occasionally for many years. No matter how many lesbians were hired to teach Women’s Studies, it was never enough to satisfy the radicals who, to all intents and purposes, were committed to the abolition of heterosexuality, if not indeed the abolition of men. (In 1981, San Francisco Sate University Professor Sally Miller Gearhart notoriously proposed to reduce males to 10% of the population.) Despite their own successes, lesbian professors feared they were losing the war against heterosexual feminism within Women’s Studies. In her introduction to a 1997 book she edited (Cross Purposes: Lesbians, Feminists, and the Limits of Alliance), Old Dominion University Professor Dana Heller wrote:
[In the late 1980s] I had become increasingly frustrated with the unquestioned assumption of a normative female heterosexuality that informed much of the women’s studies research and teaching at the southern university where I had recently taken a job. As a new assistant professor of women’s literature and feminist literary theory, and as the only ‘out’ lesbian faculty member in the college, I frequently found myself at odds with feminist colleagues who were either reluctant to address sexual differences, let alone lesbian differences, or who would address lesbianism as a “separate but equal” category, a distant relation of feminism whose significance remained tied to a subjective process of “coming out” . . .
Such was the status quo of Women’s Studies prior to the 1990s. Whatever their representation within the field, lesbian professors were certain there needed to be more of them, and that their perspectives, their interests and their politics deserved greater attention in the curriculum. So as the older heterosexual Women’s Studies professors — the ones who had been recruited from existing female faculty in the 1970s — began to retire, and as younger lesbian professors advanced up the academic ladder, who do you suppose was favored in the hiring process of junior faculty in Women’s Studies programs?
On college campuses, lesbianism became less important as a sexual preference than as a professional resumé-enhancer. By the late 1990s, former Women’s Studies professor Daphne Patai was able to demonstrate the prevalence within academic feminism of a phenomenon she called “heterophobia.” In popular culture, this hostility to heterosexuality appeared with a more glamorous (and usually smiling) face: Lesbian Chic was suddenly born.
What was once shockingly radical now seems to have become ubiquitous. Perhaps few nowadays are surprised when an elite school like Emory University (annual tuition $45,008) considers it good public relations to list its “LGBT” faculty and staff on a web page. Nor are we surprised that Emory’s list includes, as self-proclaimed lesbians, both the Program Director (Anne Rector) and the Director of Student Affairs (Deb Floyd) at Emory Law School. This is clever academic marketing in 21st-century America: Want to be a lesbian lawyer? Emory is the place to go! Also among the 20 self-described lesbians at Emory is Patricia Del Rey, an adjunct professor of Women’s Studies, while the 11 women on the university’s faculty and staff who prefer the label “queer” include Lynne Huffer, a professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, and Dona Yarbrough, director of the Center for Women at Emory. The trend so obvious at Emory is apparent at many other colleges and universities, especially in the departments of Women’s Studies.
If there are still any heterosexual feminists teaching Women’s Studies, they have been meekly tolerant as their own preference is routinely stigmatized — and their own male partners are universally demonized — by their militant lesbian academic peers. In the feminist discourse that now prevails on American campuses, heterosexual men only appear as oppressors, abusers and rapists. The possibility that a man and woman might fall in love with each other and form a relationship characterized by mutual voluntary cooperation? No Women’s Studies major could believe such a male-supremacist “myth.”
Still less does any academic feminist believe that teenage girls who get drunk at college parties do so with the specific purpose of hooking up with whatever college boy might be drunk enough to give them an evening of hedonistic heterosexual passion. So if the freshman girl wakes up with a crushing hangover the next morning, in bed with a creep she barely knows and fuzzy memories of what they did the night before, you can be sure that her regrets will be interpreted — theorized, as the professors would say — as victimhood, within the prevailing campus climate of feminist hysteria about a “rape epidemic.”
Feminism: Winning Through Intimidation
Only a complete fool (or a Women’s Studies major, or Joe Biden) could believe the statistics manufactured by feminists to support their claim that 1-in-5 female college students will be raped during the four years between freshman orientation and graduation. And yet anyone who tries to speak from a perspective of facts and logic about the realities of sex on campus is denounced as “slut-shaming” and “victim-blaming” or, like Cornell’s Julius Kairey, branded a “rape apologist.”
What the rhetoric about sexual assault on college campuses really represents is a continuation of radical feminism’s war on human nature. Despite four decades of feminist activism, the vast majority of American women (97.7%) continue to be heterosexual and, quite naturally, these normal women continue to reject feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual belief system. Feminist theory cannot explain the persistence of normal women’s sexual attraction to men, yet the possibility that feminist theory is wrong . . .
Well, to suggest this is to provoke an existential crisis for radical lesbians who have convinced themselves that gender is a social construct and “compulsory heterosexuality” is imposed on women by the patriarchy.
Once again, #feminism meets its natural enemy: TRUTH http://t.co/ZnjRTzmNgN #tcot pic.twitter.com/WEjMniVe23
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 2, 2014
By constantly yelling about rape, feminists simultaneously promote their core ideology (i.e., males are violent oppressors) and intimidate their critics, who are afraid to seem unsympathetic to actual victims. The purpose and effect of feminism’s phony “rape epidemic” discourse is to silence all discussion that doesn’t conform to feminist ideology, as I explained last year about the “SlutWalk” movement:
To distill their rhetoric to its totalitarian essence: “Shut up, because rape.” . . .
[T]he leaders of the movement have a radical ideology they take very seriously, and that ideology is sufficiently influential that anyone who criticizes it risks condemnation as being anti-woman, or even pro-rape.
Isn’t it time to stop running scared from these radicals? Isn’t it time to confront them, to expose who they really are and what they really want?
Feminists don’t want “equality.” They want uncontested power.
Another of the reasons for the ramping up of rape hysterics is that 40 years of research has been piling up and year after year it’s less and less deniable: feminists have perpetrated massive fraud on the Domestic Violence issue. Increasingly, no credible person believes them, especially the young women coming into the field now. They have used this cash cow of “violence against women” to generate billions for 40 years, but the research is catching up with them and the lies are too obvious to anyone who looks. For the moment, rape hysterics is where they’re retreating because people are even more emotional on the subject and it’s easier to obfuscate and lie with phony definitions.
Once the jig is up on rape, a ton of the sleazoids running the “rape crisis” centers will be out of jobs, because they’re lying, they’ve been lying all along, hurting innocent people–women and men alike–for decades. Of course the average feminist doesn’t see this money or see the lies, but those at the top increasingly know they’re being caught out, and instead of going for integrity they’re going for job protection.
Rape hysteria is a financial racket. Once you get that, you really see just how ugly and evil this stuff is. They’re actively working to hurt real victims and manufacture fake ones–because there’s money in it.
It isn’t a conspiracy by the way. You can’t call it that when you can point right at the data and right at the funding, most of it “hidden” in plain sight for anyone who looks, and once you realize all they need is to use emotion to get most people unwilling to look at the data.
Once the bubble bursts on their lies about rape, an entire mutlibillion$$ empire is in trouble.
I hope you are right. The new definition of sexual assault has caused so much confusion, it is almost impossible to have a coherent discussion. In these online discussions, no distinction is made between the horrible crime of rape and regretted consensual hookup sex.
You touch on a point that’s important to emphasize with respect to all “research” in the Humanities, but especially in the modern “Grievance Studies” departments. It is simply the FMJRA writ large. You publish me in your obscure academic journal and I publish you in mine. You cite me in your paper with approval and I return the favor. When one further realizes that the papers and “research” consists primarily of POMO gibberish, one quickly realizes the entire edifice is built on sand. As you point out, the entire “discipline” is based upon the premise “Men bad. Booo Men!”
“Isn’t it time to stop running scared from these radicals? Isn’t it time
to confront them, to expose who they really are and what they really
want?”
Yes lets get at them each and every damn day! Lets fight them where they live, in the gutter!
I thank you Mr. McCain for the exposure you give them to people who may not have an inkling of what the hell has happened to their America!
What they are doing in California and other state universities, too, is to make to where a consenting couple just have to murmur or shout yes yes yes during the whole act or else it’s considered sexual violence or rapey rape.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZluzt3H6tk&w=560&h=315%5D
There’s an app for that…
http://good2goapp.com/
Hmmm…what will they think of next?
So what does the app do…put it on “paper” that there was mutual consent in case there is any recriminations later?
I object to the comparison. The FMJRA is happily heterosexual in its content, especially where Rule 5 is concerned!
Consent can be withdrawn at any time, so technically even a written agreement wouldn’t prove consent.
Practically speaking, it would likely mean no chance of a criminal conviction. A “conviction” in a campus proceeding, on the other hand…
But… but… Super Bowl Sunday!
Y’know what always drives me crazy about the “Woman Are Beaten Up On Super Bowl Sunday” Eternal Myth? They never try to provide any city-by-city stats. I mean, if you can show us that more women were beaten last SB Sunday in Denver than in Seattle, then you might be on to something. But nope. Just repeat the old myth again and again like there HAS been a study… somewhere… by… someone.
Here’s some esoteric weirdness, you know, considering the feminist position (heh) on the heteronormative patriarchy and all.
Bees are considered holy insects, and represent goddesses (for example, Artemis), as well as high priestesses (for example, the Oracle of Delphi). You can frequently find likenesses of bees or beehives as part of ancient stone statuary or art, from pre-Minoan (or even antediluvian) civilizations, and through at least the second century a.d. (and possibly even to this day, as we shall see!)
Also, queens and male drones reproduce according to the Fibonacci Sequence, which is considered part of “sacred geometry”, thus increasing the “holiness” of this insect.
OK, so here’s the point that’s salient to a discussion of feminism and patriarchy: queen bees require two parents, but male drones are the product of parthenogenesis. The disposable worker males spring from the queen WITHOUT MALE FERTILIZATION, and it is she who runs the show.
Guys, this is how feminists – the “goddesses” – see your future, I’m afraid. You better stop them now, before it’s too late! hahaha
It was pointed out on one of this week’s Trifecta episodes that apparently the law requires the male to, no matter his level of intoxication to determine whether or not his prospective female partner is or is not too intoxicated to give informed consent. Isn’t the intoxicated “evaluating” the intoxicated similar to the blind leading the blind?
http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2014/10/02/hot-wet-american-campus/
“You never can tell with bees.” – Winnie the Pooh.
All radicalism is a financial racket.
Pooh is a philosophical genius, as is Popeye: “I yam what I yam, and that’s all that I yam.”
I gather “consent” is stored electronically… I don’t know how it actually works to guarantee consent though!
I note at the link the app queries the parties as to their current state of intoxication—which is a nice feature!
Still, that there is a mobile app for this sort of thing is a rather sad commentary on the current state of affairs, which was my point…
I’m glad now I didn’t name my daughter “Deborah”! (“bee”, from Hebrew…)
Deborah was the awesomest of the Hebrew Judges. Maybe she was God’s answer to all the false female goddesses of the time?
I’ve not forgotten about the time you put up a link to the spurious “Thai push-up bra” ad…
Mrs Z and I settled on “Zolpidem”…
I’m sure this will do even more for the art of seduction than pantyhose did.
Yeah, yeah I know I’m a Patriarchyist.
It’s telling that a card carrying socialist like myself has to come to an ostensibly right wing site for decent social commentary truly sad
I would say Pooh is just practical but Popeye is more of a philosopher.
Also I’d like to take this moment to congratulate all of us for keeping this discussion focused and on point as it regards the seriousness and gravity of this article.
Well…if she looks anything like your avatar, perhaps that was an apt choice.
p.s. Please convey my sympathy to the no doubt appalled and flabbergasted Mrs. Z.
May one assume this is because your child has the opposite effect?
I think intoxication is probably necessary to be able to sit through the lectures of clinically insane hypocrites, and then to be able to subsequently regurgitate their random gibbering on tests and in papers. So wouldn’t it be cruel and unusual to curtail the intoxication? I mean, I’d have to be on hallucinogenic drugs to tolerate college these days.
The only thing they could do then is to stop boffing each other, I suppose.
It’s not our fault that Popeye and Pooh Bear are smarter, more cosmopolitan, and indeed, certainly more coherent than, say, Judith Butler or Shulamith Firestone.
You and me both. I consider myself socialist as well.
However, do not forget that the disease of feminism also exists in the right wing.
It is obvious to all fair minded people from the left, right, liberal and authoritarian axes, that feminism has become poisonous to men, women, boys and girls. I wonder if the most vigorous adherents have a medical condition. It is the only way I can believe that they can believe their own twaddle (I am not including those that make money out of the feminism industry).
We must all stand against them and those that idiotically support them.
You seem fascinated with my avatar, “El Burro Loco”… You would have been perhaps delighted by the “Gay Zombie Clown” avatar I used to use!
It will be interesting to see what happens when a man who gained ‘enthusiastic consent’ presses for sexual assault because the female participant did not do the same during the same tryst.
I doubt many women will think of gaining enthusiastic consent.
So we will then see the ‘law’ and feminists tie themselves in knots explaining why women do not need to comply with the ‘laws’ that are claimed to be gender neutral.
Just wait and see…
I’d bet dollars to donuts that somehow or other it is.
If you mean alcohol you’re probably right as concerns the lectures. Acid would definitely not be the way to go
In addition, you have to come here because feminist-controlled media organs censor out non-feminist views or prevent commenting on feminist pieces altogether.
However, the truth will be out regardless of their suppression.
Feminism is a decidedly left ideology. While there are those on the right, whether they are or not is another matter, who claim to be feminists this is usually because they think it means “equality under law”. Once they are made to understand, and this is Stacy’s purpose education, they no longer make that claim or dispute the truth of what Feminism is. Radical Feminism is merely the logical and inevitable development of the movement. If you are increasingly drawn to the conclusion that “Feminism” has and continues to become, increasingly insane perhaps you should reconsider your first premise
That was Goodstuff. I merely passed on the information. And it was Rule 5 Monday, anyway, so there. :p
It is nice to finally see others at least begin to scratch the surface on what men’s rights activists have been swimming in for decades.
This kind of article is a great start, but the rabbit hole is very deep and very dark.
Keep digging.
I love that avatar. I’m not sure if it’s because it’s an accurate representation of most of the people I see in society, or my response to same.
I am left wing and I reject feminism. Feminism uses its surroundings to disguise itself. If you do not realise this then you are vulnerable or part of the problem.
Feminism has lost any pretense of seeking equality. This is now coming to light as men and women realise how they are being set against each other by a group that has an interest in maintaining their current doctrinal dominance.
The internet is opening people’s eyes. It cannot be stopped.
Radical Feminism is corrosive and anti-gender.
I would recommend that Americans go to universities that do not have these campus regulations and local courts. I am sure Europe would welcome America’s brightest minds with open arms.
All is fair in love and war. In war only one thing matters. Win or lose. Kill or be killed. So what she is after, or rather what she’s had for ages is the ability to destroy.
Preponderance of evidence, guilty til proven innocent, women never lie bout rape, etc, “scholar/activists build the intellectual infrastructure of social change.”
All she has to do is crook her finger bone at any man, and mouth a single word. Guilty or innocent he’s screwed and she mostly gets her way.
Feminism will keep moving until testicles are illegal.
http://www.vocativ.com/world/india/delhi-all-female-police/
A.k.a. “woozles” from the story of tracking your own footprints, round and round.
We’ve already seen that with other laws, and the reaction has been a great big “yeah, so.” If you expect sex laws to be adjudicated in a neutral way then you’re just an idealistic fool.
It will be more evidence of gender bias. Eventually, the feminists will not be able to make their ‘victim status’ claims and be believed.
It is as if then are nailing their own dogma coffin shut.
There are only so many sons, fathers and husbands that can be falsely accused before the dam bursts.
Entire countries like Spain have been devastated in that way. Hegemonic gynocentrism is an incredibly powerful force. Without active pushback, your “eventually” might be a very long ways away.
This article is less of a start and more of a middling. The Sex Trouble series is a predecessor to a promised book, which I am very much looking forward to.
It’s at least Bush’s fault. Some how.
“…surveys of women talking about their feelings and experiences are more common than studies that require the measurement of actual data.”
Feminist academics justify this kind of research by promoting the breathtakingly stupid concept of ‘womyns’ ways of knowing’. It is based on the narcissistic premise that women’s feelings and perceptions, however idiotic and subjective, trump all evidence-based approaches to examining social phenomena.
In other words, women are always right, so shut up. Of all the intellectual inanities produced by post-modern deconstructionism, ‘womyn’s ways of knowing’ must rank as the most vacuous and self-serving. Little wonder feminists embrace it such enthusiasm.
Leftists use Radical Feminism as a tool to denigrate the country in the direction they wish it to go. You may reject feminism, but you would be an outlier among leftists if you actually do so.
Radical Feminism is, indeed, corrosive. It is also, like homosexuality, dehumanizing.
“Feminism has lost any pretense of seeking equality.”
You do realize that most of us here would say the same about leftism in general? In any case one doesn’t have to agree with all leftist dogmas to be a leftist. Take racial equality or anti-colonialism for instance. National Socialism made no pretenses to racial equality. While the Soviets never abandoned colonialism they certainly pretended anti-colonialism was their guiding light. You know like when they invaded Afghanistan or refused to withdraw from Eastern Europe after “liberating” those countries in WW2.
There is something that needs to be pointed out, given all the attention that is being called to “feminism.”
There are two basic types of feminism, Radical Feminsim, which is the corrosive, dehumanizing form that simply hates, and Family Feminism, which is the traditional form, and has existed since time immemorial. Family feminism is the sort that keeps hubby in line, and rewards him with the love and care of a wife that loves her man. Radical Feminism simply hates anything that smacks of love and family, and is interested in power in its purist, undiluted form.