The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Access to a Sexuality Autonomous from the Male’

Posted on | October 21, 2014 | 30 Comments

Left to right: Andrea Dworkin, Teresa de Lauretis, Diane Richardson

“We want to destroy sexism, that is, polar role definitions of male and female, man and woman. We want to destroy patriarchal power at its source, the family; in its most hideous form, the nation-state. We want to destroy the structure of culture as we know it, its art, its churches, its laws . . .
“We are born into a world in which sexual possibilities are narrowly circumscribed. . . . We are programmed by the culture as surely as rats are programmed to make the arduous way through the scientist’s maze, and that programming operates on every level of choice and action.”

Andrea Dworkin, Woman Hating (1974)

“[T]he seductiveness of lesbianism for feminism lies in the former’s figuration of a female desiring subjectivity to which all women may accede . . [T]he erotic charge of a desire for women . . . unlike male desire, affirms and enhances the female-sexed subject and represents her possibility of access to a sexuality autonomous from the male. . . .
“Some women have ‘always’ been lesbians. Others, like myself, have ‘become’ one. As much a sociocultural construction as it is an effect of early childhood experiences, sexual identity is nether innate nor simply acquired, but dynamically (re)structured by forms of fantasy private and public, conscious and unconscious, which are culturally available and historically specific.”

Teresa de Lauretis, Lesbian Sexuality and Perverse Desire (1994)

“[C]entral to radical feminist perspectives is the belief that if sexuality is socially constructed then it can be reconstructed in new and different ways. . . .
“[H]eterosexuality is socially instituted and maintained, creating the prescriptions and the conditions in which women experience sexual relations.”

Diane Richardson, in Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed, edited by Diane Bell and Renate Klein (1996)

Most people speak of “sexual equality” as if that phrase can mean something other than what Andrea Dworkin said it meant, i.e., the destruction of our culture, including family and religion.

The abolition of “role definitions of male and female, man and woman” is necessary to “destroy sexism,” Dworkin explained 40 years ago, because “sexual possibilities are narrowly circumscribed,” as people are “programmed by culture” according to those roles. What Dworkin advocated for, what she offered as the antonym of “sexism,” is androgyny — a social condition in which sex roles do not exist, where male and female are essentially identical and interchangeable.

Sexual equality = androgyny.

It is actually that simple, you see, and when people call themselves “feminists” — when they declare themselves advocates for “sexually equality” — the question is, do they realize what this entails? Would they want to live in the world that would result if their egalitarian principles were enacted? Ideas Have Consequences, as Richard Weaver explained, and what are the consequences of feminism’s ideas?

Well, #GamerGate, among other contemporary phenomena. Last month, Robert Mariani wrote about the Left’s “intellectual bullying”:

The tactic of dishonestly re-framing a viewpoint into something outrageous in an attempt to discredit those who hold the viewpoint is known as intellectual bullying. . . .
With enough voices dishonestly insisting that someone holds all those beliefs that everybody hates, the person in question will either be shamed into silence or suffer from character assassination. . . .
A lot of of the tactics of the anti-GamerGate intellectual bullying campaign were famously codified in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

Read the whole thing. You see how feminists have made the accusation of “sexism” one of “those beliefs that everybody hates,” so the accusation that someone is “sexist” is an attempt to discredit them — to engage in character assassination in an attempt to effectively silence them — and no one even bothers to explain what “sexism” means or why it is so bad. This is remarkable, when you think about it.

What does “sexism” mean? It means to hold the opinion that men and women are different, that “masculine” and “feminine” describe natural qualities, and that these innate differences have social significance.

“Sexism” does not mean “says rude things to women.” Many sexists are extraordinarily courteous and mild-mannered. In fact, many sexists are female because — hello! — contrary to what feminists would have you think, men do not have a monopoly on sexism.

Sexism is not a synonym for “male chauvinism,” a term popular about 40 years ago that now sounds quaintly old-fashioned. Male chauvinism is (or was) a belief in the general superiority of men, particularly in matters of intellect and temperament. There are very few educated men nowadays who are (or who will admit to being) male chauvinists, but I think sexists like me are far more common than most intellectuals realize and (to repeat) many women are also sexist, i.e., they believe in natural differences between men and women.

My wife, for example, is a sexist. She was raised in a family with three bothers and three sisters, and she is the mother of two girls and four boys and she knows from direct experience that boys and girls are different. They simply are born different, naturally.

Not all males are equally masculine and not all girls are equally feminine, but in general boys are masculine and girls are feminine.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

That boys and girls are different does not mean that one sex is superior to the other, but yet their differences actually matter. To try to wish away these differences, or to create political, legal and social incentives to impose an artificial equality on the sexes, well . . .

“Believe me, sir, those who attempt to level never equalise. In all societies, consisting of various descriptions of citizens, some description must be uppermost. The levellers therefore only change and pervert the natural order of things; they load the edifice of society, by setting up in the air what the solidity of the structure requires to be on the ground.”
Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France

Political and legal coercion — including the use of lawsuits to punish corporations and public institutions that do not hire or promote women in sufficient numbers to satisfy feminists — can indeed bring about greater equality between men and women, but these measures “load the edifice of society,” as Burke said. This artificial equality, imposed by quotas and other coercive incentives, distorts the social structure in ways that produce results that are in many ways ironic without necessarily being unpredictable.

A sort of Newtonian principle of equal-and-opposite reactions can be observed. Under a regime of coercive equality, many men will actually become more rudely hostile to women — more “sexist” in the vulgar usage of that term — and many women will actually be much less happy than they were when women were less “equal.” And yet, because intellectuals are committed  to the abstract ideal of equality, these “smart” people will not be able to figure out that it is the pursuit their cherished ideal that is causing the harms they denounce.

Instead, when men react badly and women are less happy as the result of greater equality, these harms will be blamed on “sexism,” so the answer to any new problem is always the same: More equality!

People forget where feminism began. They forget (or never bothered to learn) what feminists advocated when the Women’s Liberation movement started in the late 1960s. How many people, when confronted with an angry feminist, ever bother to ask her whether she agrees with Andrea Dworkin? Trapped in the present tense — where only the latest outrage is discussed — we let feminists get away with a lack of ideological clarity. Do you, ma’am, want to destroy the family, destroy religion, destroy culture, destroy the nation-state?

“Well, that’s not fair! Dworkin was a radical extremist!”

Yes, but this 1974 book of Dworkin’s I’ve quoted bears cover blurbs by Audre L0rde, Kate Millett and Gloria Steinem. Does our contemporary feminist — while denouncing Dworkin as an extremist — also want to repudiate these other feminists who praised Dworkin? I doubt very much that any 21st-century feminist would denounce Audre Lorde (who has been beatified by the Women’s Studies cathedral), yet Audre Lorde called Dworkin’s Woman Hating “much needed and long overdue.” So, does the 21st-century feminist wish to accuse Audre Lorde of bad judgment or does she want to attempt to defend Dworkin’s book that Audre Lorde praised?

Hint: Woman Hating is indefensible.

Feminists are never challenged that way. Why? By calling themselves “feminist,” they have declared their allegiance to a political ideology that has a canon of books outlining ideas that are taught at universities by professors of Women’s Studies, and this ideology — including its extremist expressions by radicals like Dworkin — is what feminists are enforcing when they accuse the videogame industry of “misogyny.” So why aren’t these dots connected? Why aren’t these latter-day heiresses of Dworkin’s legacy asked if they agree, inter alia, that “sexuality is socially constructed [and] can be reconstructed in new and different ways,” as Professor Diane Richardson explained?

Isn’t that relevant? After all, what does Amanda Marcotte mean when she declares that #GamerGate “is a full-blown reactionary movement aimed at preserving male dominance”?

[Deadspin’s Kyle] Wagner explained that #GamerGate is driven by angry young white men who are threatened by demands that gaming be inclusive of women, people of color, and LGBTQ people, and who are lashing out in an attempt to keep the white male dominance they enjoy. . . .
[I]t’s quickly shaping up to be a potent way for conservatives to reach out to previously apolitical young men and turn them into devoted, hardened misogynists.

Accusations of “all those beliefs that everybody hates,” you see. But what does Marcotte mean by “male dominance”? What is a “hardened misogynist”? These terms are never defined. They are merely epithets hurled at demonized enemies. Also, while we’re at it, what are these “demands that gaming be inclusive”? How are these “demands” formulated? Who is “threatened” and how?

Isn’t it a fact that these demands are part of a larger effort, as Dworkin said, to “destroy the structure of culture as we know it”? And aren’t these demands also an attempt to shake down a multibillion-dollar industry, to get some of that money into the hands of self-described “Social Justice Warriors,” and to change the (hugely successful market-driven) gaming culture into something acceptable to the tastes and ideology of the arbiters of political correctness?

Feminist authors whose books surround my desk declare that “male dominance,” to use Marcotte’s phrase for what others call “male supremacy” or “patriarchy,” is part of the “heterosexual matrix” of the “sex/gender binary,” as Judith Butler called it. Nearly all of these feminist theorists are lesbians, and they insist that “compulsory heterosexuality” (Adrienne Rich) is integral to women’s “oppression” under patriarchy — to which sexists like me answer, “So?”

We need not argue that radical feminists are wrong about these connections — between sex roles, male supremacy and heterosexuality — in order to say that they are wrong to attack these (necessary and natural) elements of our civilization. Normal women are heterosexual and feminine, and these heterosexual feminine women prefer masculine men. Normal women prefer also that their male mates be able to provide a sufficient income to support the women (as wives) and their children (procreation being the  biological purpose of sexual dimorphism in mammals). So here we having the hugely lucrative videogame industry, where reportedly males are 78% of the employees, under attack by feminists: MISOGYNY!

Is this targeting of the allegedly misogynist videogame industry coincidental? Is there any male-dominated institution in our society which has not been attacked by feminists in this way?

The attack on “male domination” — the attempt to lower the social and economic status of men — will have the effect of making it more difficult for women to find husbands and making it more likely that marriages will end in divorce. Women’s happiness will be diminished, and when these women complain about the dissatisfactions of their lives, feminists will say . . . MORE EQUALITY!

Feminists are quite specific about what they don’t like about videogames. They complain that depictions of female characters are examples of heteronormativity and the male gaze, i.e., the female characters are conventionally feminine and sexually attractive.

Christina Hoff Sommers asked an obvious question: “If playing violent videogames doesn’t make people violent, how does playing sexist videogames make people sexist?” But wait! What feminists are saying about videogames is that cultural representations produce in real life what they depict? Doesn’t this sound like every social conservative criticism of pop culture, ever? I mean, remember when jazz music turned us all into degenerate heroin-addicted sensualists? More recently, gangsta rap turned us all into ghetto thugs.

So now, according to feminists, playing videogames are making us all misogynists? Isn’t this tantamount to an admission by feminists that Disney’s Frozen is a plot to turn our daughters into lesbians?

Two can play this Culture War game, you see.

The trend in our culture and society desired by the intelligentsia is toward more “equality” and more acceptance of homosexuality, and we are not supposed to notice now closely this reflects the analysis provided by feminist gender theory, where women are oppressed because they’re heterosexual, and vice-versa. If, as feminists insist, male supremacy depends on the “heterosexual matrix,” then what is the opposite value system? The derogation of men, the deliberate stigmatization of masculinity and especially the demonization of male sexuality. Notice how, in the quote above, Teresa de Lauretis says that lesbian “desire for women . . . unlike male desire, affirms and enhances” women, by offering them “a sexuality autonomous from the male.”

In other words, lesbian supremacy — men bad, lesbians good.

Professor De Lauretis is a renowned feminist credited with coining the term “queer theory,” and I am waiting for Amanda Marcotte to denounce her — but of course, she won’t. You see my point?

The lesbian feminists are constantly derogating males and heterosexuality, while a heterosexual feminists like Marcotte is ranting about “white male dominance,” despite the fact that (a) Marcotte is white and (b) her boyfriend is a white male, so that in effect, Marcotte is denouncing herself and her own lifestyle. Yet never once is Amanda Marcotte required to address the whole argument — i.e., that male sexuality is inherently oppressive and lesbianism is therefore the key to women’s liberation — which has been the underlying message of feminist ideology for 40 years!

“Hey, Amanda, what do you think about Teresa de Lauretis? Why are you still tolerating your white male boyfriend’s oppression?”

These questions are never answered because they are never asked, just like nobody asks a feminist, “What do you mean by ‘sexist'”? Does “sexism” (or “misogyny,” as a synonym) actually mean what Andrea Dworkin said it meant? That is to say, are the basic “role divisions” of male/masculine and female/feminine your target? What is wrong with these roles? Are women oppressed by their femininity? Is male heterosexual desire for women inherently offensive and degrading? Does Amanda Marcotte want to “destroy patriarchal power at its source, the family”? And if not, why not?

Feminism is a journey to lesbianism, I keep saying, because it’s true. If “sexual equality” means androgyny (which it does), and if male sexuality is the source of women’s oppression (as all feminists say it is), then why on earth would any feminist be heterosexual? In the feminist future where “male domination” has been eliminated and sex roles have been abolished, wouldn’t all women in this androgynous future society prefer the (superior) female partner to one of those pathetic XY chromosome carriers, the males?

After five decades of activism, feminists are still losing their war on human nature (97.7% of Americans are heterosexual). What feminists have accomplished is to make more women as unhappy as feminists are. Making us all equally miserable is the real goal.




30 Responses to “Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Access to a Sexuality Autonomous from the Male’”

  1. Political Rift » Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Access to a Sexuality Autonomous from the Male’
    October 21st, 2014 @ 12:10 am

    […] Read more here: Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Access to a Sexuality Autonomous from the Male’ […]

  2. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    October 21st, 2014 @ 1:02 am

    You are having way too much fun with this.

  3. Adobe_Walls
    October 21st, 2014 @ 1:08 am

    Your doing good work here though I suspect you’ll have far more success in discrediting the term feminism among conservatives who make the mistake of embracing it than converting the psychos. For that matter what has happened to the commenters who used to regularly chastise you for describing feminism as strictly a Marxist movement? A Marxist movement in both form, process, and terminology.
    You are quite right to make the distinction between male chauvinism and sexism. What the current faux feminists non-lesbians who like the cachet of identifying with the term, fail to understand is that sexism was the construct, but chauvinism that held them back. It was chauvinism that legitimized discrimination.

  4. RKae
    October 21st, 2014 @ 1:55 am

    I’d like the feminists to show me a herd of big horn sheep living in the wild that allow females into the head-butting competition – you know, with surgically-applied antlers because they feel that they “are male sheep trapped in female bodies”; and where the head-butting of the males is actually “kind of homoerotic; they’re putting on a big show about how manly they are, because they’re afraid to come to terms with their true gayness.”


    Male and female roles are the order of nature. Human cultural models flowed right out of nature.

    The feminist fantasy is so unnatural that it would need the biggest tyranny the Earth has ever seen in order to apply it.

  5. Adobe_Walls
    October 21st, 2014 @ 2:35 am

    And the ”biggest tyranny the Earth has ever seen” is what they and the rest of the left will have if we don’t stop them.

  6. Nigel Rae
    October 21st, 2014 @ 3:46 am

    When I first started reading McCain about 4 months ago, I thought “this guy get’s it.” He was saying what I’ve been thinking for 20 plus years and have, mostly, not conveyed to others. The reason I didn’t speak up except within the MRA cohort or to a few friends that also understood, was because of chivalry, the fear of upsetting women mostly (& experienced occasionally), The Husband’s Dilemma – see below & fear of sticking my neck out.

    I think the reason’s “These questions are never answered is because they are never asked, just like nobody asks a feminist, “What do you mean by ‘sexist’”?” are pretty much like mine above. Also, as I’ve mentioned before, conservatives are generally more gentlemanly so have been reticent to speak out against women’s embrace of feminism. The left goes along with it because it’s just another front in the war against “the Man”.

    This is beginning to change in regard to conservative commentary on feminism. Not just here but all over – National Review, Breitbart etc. speak plainly about #GG & other fem issues. 1 big reason is that MSM is losing it’s stranglehold on the discourse because of the internet. Another big reason is knowledge of the true feminist ideology.

    What McCain is providing here is a massive resource for the growing group of people that question the feminist zeitgeist to learn the truth. McCain’s knowledge of feminism has progressed exponentially, as has mine reading it. Thank you McCain – & tip jar will be hit on pay day.

    The Husband’s Dilemma – the man that hopes to stop a woman’s constant nagging by giving in to her all the time. All he gets from this is more & more nagging. Ad infinitum.

  7. Quartermaster
    October 21st, 2014 @ 6:56 am

    “[I]t’s quickly shaping up to be a potent way for conservatives to reach
    out to previously apolitical young men and turn them into devoted,
    hardened misogynists….”

    This conservative certainly not a misogynist. I love women. I love ’em so much I married and have been so for just short of 40 years. The problem for them is I did not marry a misandrist. They can have their problem as life is much too short to spend it miserable.

  8. Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Access to a Sexuality Autonomous from the Male’ | That Mr. G Guy's Blog
    October 21st, 2014 @ 6:57 am

    […] Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Access to a Sexuality Autonomous from the Male’. […]

  9. robertstacymccain
    October 21st, 2014 @ 7:02 am

    Thanks for the kind words. Here is the thing about the Husband’s Dilemma — marriage is a chosen relationship, a personal relationship, in which our participation is voluntary. The Culture War happens without our consent, and involves people over who we have no direct influence. The fear of speaking out against the forces of Cultural Marxism is a political fear, and is imposed deliberately. A sort of psychological terrorism makes people hesitate to question the categorical accusations — “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobe” — and if we do not see others questioning these categories, we may believe we are the only ones who are skeptical.

    “Sexist” is an accusation that hits us specifically as men. It implies that we are unfair and selfish. But the truth is the opposite — it is the person who makes the accusation who is acting unfairly and selfishly. If you are certain of your own good intentions, the false accusation should cause you to interrogate the motives of your accuser. What’s in it for them? What do they gain by making false accusations? Figure that out, and always speak the truth.

    Courage and truth are a powerful combination.

    BTW, remember that the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment are part of the same document. Never let your accusers force you to condemn yourself. You have the right to remain silent and remember that anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion. Careless words can come back to haunt you, so always weigh your words.

  10. robertstacymccain
    October 21st, 2014 @ 7:12 am

    Exactly how much of male chauvinism could be justified, we do not yet know. That is to say, because science has been enslaved by political correctness, since the 1970s there has been little of the kind of research needed to understand the neurological and psychological differences between men and women. Or, I should say, the evidence obtained by research has not been presented in a way that would permit us to know whether the general mental and emotional differences between men and women would justify some “male chauvinist” beliefs.

    During decades of working in an office environment, I noticed general differences between men and women. I think everyone notices such differences. Are these natural differences? This is what we don’t know, and so we can’t draw conclusions about certain observable male/female differences in behavior patterns.

  11. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    October 21st, 2014 @ 8:00 am

    Those ewes would win Darwin Awards.

  12. Escher's House
    October 21st, 2014 @ 8:31 am

    The Andrea Dworkin was rammed by the Stockholm in calm seas, but dense fog, 15 miles off the coast of Nantucket. She capsized and sank 11 hours later. She was the worst maritime disaster in United States waters in the last one hundred years.

  13. RS
    October 21st, 2014 @ 9:00 am

    As you indicate, the vast majority of women’s problems and stresses are caused by other women, because women compete with each other. In the dark Neolithic before 1970, they competed for the men who would be good husbands and fathers. Now they compete to see who can win the title of “UeberFeminist.” How many college educated women in careers would prefer to chuck the career in favor of spending more time with their kids? The can’t or won’t, because they are told by other women, that such behavior is a betrayal of the Feminist Ideals. And even if they make such a change, they still cannot be totally happy, because they are told by other women that they are selling themselves short. Their intelligence, drive and success has no value to other women if it is used to rear successful children.

    And heaven forbid, they should rear a family and then attempt to restart their careers. They are viewed as traitors to the cause and deserving of punishment. At best they are treated similarly to “recovering alcoholics.” Call it “recovering mothers.” No where is this more evident than in academe which is ground zero for this stuff, especially in Humanities Departments. My evidence is anecdotal and based on multiple years of observation, but it is uncanny how often Motherhood is the kiss of death to an academic career.

    But somehow, this all the fault of “The Patriarchy.”

  14. RS
    October 21st, 2014 @ 10:02 am

    *Golf Clap*

    With the Nantucket angle, one could also try for a Pequod reference, as well, given the photo of Ms. Dworkin illustrating this post.

  15. Escher's House
    October 21st, 2014 @ 10:35 am

    Let’s give it a shot:

    All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy [Stacy], were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in [Andrea Dworkin]. He piled upon the whale’s white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it.

  16. RS
    October 21st, 2014 @ 10:38 am

    My vote:

    “Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee. Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned whale! Thus, I give up the spear!”

    This is why I spent six years studying literature.

  17. Escher's House
    October 21st, 2014 @ 12:16 pm

    Better. I like the obsessive quality.

    And you know I was just funnin’ you, right?

  18. Quartermaster
    October 21st, 2014 @ 12:17 pm

    Are we talking about a Whaler, or Dworkin?

  19. Escher's House
    October 21st, 2014 @ 12:33 pm

    About Stacy’s obsession.

  20. theBuckWheat
    October 21st, 2014 @ 12:39 pm

    It should be noted that when a young woman ruins her life, when she becomes entangled in dysfunctional relationships, when she makes career choices, when she lets her biological clock run out and never can experience the joys of carrying and raising a child all because she was seduced by feminist theory, not a single one of these learned scholars will be able to compensate her for anything she lost. This is a form of holocaust whose victims are mostly women.

    And yet God tells anyone who cares to read, what form of relationships that He defines as moral. Nobody cares. Indeed, to even suggest that there are relationships and behaviors that are immoral, or even “sin”, how dare you! How judgmental. But there is no God, so forget that I brought it up.

  21. Adobe_Walls
    October 21st, 2014 @ 2:33 pm

    I find attempting to to engage in conversation with leftists of any stripe pointless, I suppose this is partly because I regard them as existential threats to be extirpated rather than as pagans to be converted or opponents to be persuaded. It helps that I simply don’t care what any of them think. I do not believe that humanities differences with the left will be settled on the field of debate. I wrote at Bob’s yesterday

    ” You’ll find it far more rewarding and productive explaining gravity to a dog than explaining anything to a leftist. The dog can at least feign understanding and usually won’t interrupt you.”

    I believe that quite literally.

  22. Steve Skubinna
    October 21st, 2014 @ 5:58 pm

    The positive side is that “sexist” is in danger of being entirely devalued, as has almost happened with “racist.” The terms have been so overused, so inappropriately, that they’ve nearly lost all power.

    And so one may simply shrug and go on when these nonsense syllables are flung, or more aggressively laugh, and demand of the accuser “That all you got? Nothing substantive to say?”

  23. Fail Burton
    October 21st, 2014 @ 6:33 pm

    Keep up the ground-breaking work. You’re writing about a cult that never stops whining about group defamation while pretending they don’t know what it is when it comes to whites, men and heterosexuals, since intersectionalists are the only ones doing this on such a massive and public level. Radical feminists violate the Southern Poverty Law Center’s definition of a hate group by quite a long way.

  24. Bullies | Something Fishy
    October 21st, 2014 @ 6:48 pm

    […] to prove that GamerGate gamers are misogynist? NOBODY. She and her feminist troll friends are slinging sewage all over a group of people who are upset that a whore and a bunch of no-ethics-journalism […]

  25. Fail Burton
    October 21st, 2014 @ 6:53 pm

    There are no such problems and stresses. Radical feminists make them up out of their own sick heads.

  26. Adjoran
    October 21st, 2014 @ 9:18 pm

    They are driving men to rape boys instead:

  27. What Self-Hatred Looks Like : The Other McCain
    October 24th, 2014 @ 10:32 am

    […] Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Access to a Sexuality Autonomous from the Male’ […]

  28. FMJRA 2.0: I Can’t Breathe Anymore : The Other McCain
    October 25th, 2014 @ 8:46 pm

    […] Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Access to a Sexuality Autonomous from the Male’ Political Rift That Mr. G Guy Something Fishy Batshit Crazy News […]

  29. The Problem of ‘Equality’ : The Other McCain
    October 29th, 2014 @ 6:25 pm

    […] Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Access to a Sexuality Autonomous from the Male’ […]

  30. The #StreetHarassment Meme and #Feminism’s Kafkatrapping Tactics : The Other McCain
    November 3rd, 2014 @ 9:46 pm

    […] Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Access to a Sexuality Autonomous from the Male’ […]