What Self-Hatred Looks Like

Posted on | October 24, 2014 | 75 Comments

@LisaKudrow expresses #feminism by obverse reaction:

Lisa Kudrow: ‘Gay Men Are
Superior Beings In My Mind’
. . . Although she notes that “the people I work with are gay,” Kudrow says her love of the gay community extends beyond the confines of Hollywood, too.
“I don’t know who I’m going to offend by leaving them out, but I need to say that I think gay men are superior beings in my mind,” she said. “The two sides of the brain communicate better than a straight man’s, and I think that has to be really important. They’re not women — they’re still men — and women also have thicker corpus callosums, so I think it’s the combination of those qualities that makes them like a superhuman to me.”

Think hard about this. Feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology tells women that a normal life is an inferior life.

To be conventionally feminine — to pursue a normal woman’s life of men, marriage and motherhood — according to feminist theory is to cooperate in one’s own oppression by the male-dominated society. By contrast, feminism teaches, the woman who pursues “sexual equality” (i.e., androgyny, where men and women are viewed as identical and interchangeable units) is “empowered” by preferring professional careerism over the inferior normal life of the woman who views her family role as more rewarding than whatever wage-earning work she may do (her job, rather than a career) to augment her family’s income.

This weird set of feminist premises — the power-oriented fixation on male “supremacy” and women’s alleged “oppression” by patriarchy, particularly identifying traditional family life as the source of inequality — can be used in syllogisms leading to any number of possible conclusions, one of which Lisa Kudrow has expressed quite clearly: If normal sexuality and the (patriarchal) culture produced by a (male-dominated) society are inherently oppressive, then gay men are “superhuman” creatures who are preferable to normal males.

However, what Lisa Kudrow is also saying (perhaps without realizing it) is that what makes heterosexual men the lowest form of human life on the planet is specifically the fact that they find women sexually attractive. Women are never to be desired by men as sexual partners — for male desire reduces women to an inferior role as mere “sex objects” — and females must always only be viewed as androgynous career-achievers whose sexuality has no socially normal or biologically natural purpose.

Such is the logic of feminism’s categorical imperatives, where sexual equality (androgyny) is the ideal, and where anything short of this utopian ideal is condemned as social injustice. The problem is that Lisa Kurdrow (unlike Andrea Dworkin, Marilyn Frye, Dee Graham and other outspoken radical feminists) neither clearly states her premises nor pursues her argument to its logical conclusion.

Instead, as for most women who have absorbed feminist ideas by a process of osmosis rather than through rigorous study, Lisa Kudrow’s worldview is expressed in incoherent and inadequately articulated statements which, while appearing quite odd from a common-sense perspective, are difficult to refute. An argument may be refuted, but a mere prejudice resists logical rebuttal, and expressions of vulgar feminism like Lisa Kudrow’s pseudo-scientific praise of “superhuman” gay men are nothing more than prejudice.

Readers of the “Sex Trouble” series understand that my arguments are not a matter of ignorance or male chauvinism. Rather, I am exploring the inherent radicalism of feminist gender theory, developed over the course of many decades and institutionalized within the curricula of Women’s Studies programs at colleges and universities. Most people who call themselves “feminists” are vastly more ignorant of feminism’s intellectual history and core philosophy than I am and, when they are exposed to the truth of what feminism actually is, the self-declared “feminist” will typically react in three ways:

Dismissal — The startling quote you have just cited is dismissed as “not real feminism.” This quote must be out of context, the soi-disant feminist will say, or you are citing some obscure “fringe” extremist who is not representative of “real feminism.” Never mind that the quote is from a best-selling author or a distinguished professor. Never mind that the radical you’ve quoted has served as an officer of a major feminist organization, an editor of an influential academic journal, or headed the Women’s Studies program at a public university. It doesn’t matter how many times the feminist you quoted has had her works included in anthologies or textbooks, or cited in the “research” of her fellow feminist intellectuals. No, the startling quotation must be dismissed as “not real feminism,” or otherwise it might undermine the overall prestige of feminism. And your typical ignorant feminist calls herself a “feminist” for the precise reason that she thinks it is prestigious to label herself in this way.
Denial — Your attempt to show a cause-and-effect correlation between feminist theory and harmful real-life consequences requires the feminist to deny that there is any such correlation. Are female college students being sexually victimized because they are trying to live according to feminist ideas about “empowerment”? If you try to show this correlation by anecdotal evidence, statistical data or logical inference, the feminist will deny it all — anecdotes, statistics and logic — rather than permit your argument to contradict the preferred feminist narrative. Can it be shown than the decline of marriage is both a goal highly sought by feminists and harmful to women and girls? “Deny! Deny! Deny!” answers the feminist. Encountering the feminist in denial mode is like watching an episode of the true-crime documentary series The First 48. Homicide detectives have video surveillance of the convenience store where the clerk was killed in an armed robbery. They identified the make and model of the getaway car from the video. When surveillance images of the robbers are shown on local news TV broadcasts, a call comes in to the Crimestoppers hotline, naming one of the suspects, who happens to own a car of the same make and model as the one used in the robbery. Patrol officers pull over the car, arrest the driver and find in the trunk of the car a ski mask, of the same type as worn by one of the robbers. This suspect confesses his role and names his two criminal cohorts, including the gunman who fired the shot that killed the store clerk. The suspected gunman is arrested and a search of his apartment turns up (a) blood-spattered sneakers of the same brand as those worn by the gunman, and (b) a 9mm pistol like the one used in the fatal robbery. Now, there is a mountain of damning evidence against this suspect, to say nothing of his accomplice’s statement naming him as the gunman. Once the DNA lab gets the results on the slain clerk’s blood on those sneakers, and the ballistics lab matches the pistol to the bullet that killed the clerk, there will be an airtight case for capital murder against this perp. Nevertheless, the detectives want to give the gunman a chance to confess his crime. Every viewer of The First 48 has seen this scene play out over and over. Detectives bring the perp into the interrogation room and say, “Look, we know you did it. You want to tell us what you did?” But no, says the killer, he wasn’t there and he doesn’t know anything about a robbery and that ain’t his gun. Deny! Deny! Deny! Feminists can never admit responsibility for the harms caused by their bad ideas.
Demonization — Anyone who directly criticizes feminism, per se, or who contradicts the preferred feminist narrative of some contemporary issue, is vilified, demonized and scapegoated as a Misogynistic Enemy of Women’s Progress. This is where the Alinsky Rules for Radicals tactics are employed to marginalize and discredit the critic with ad hominem slurs and unsubstantiated accusations of mala fides (“bad faith”). No actual evidence of your hateful motives is needed by feminists to justify these attacks, and what they offer as “evidence” is irrelevant to the validity of your criticism, but by their coordinated, ruthless and persistent campaign of character assassination, feminists will turn the targeted critic into a Demonized Scapegoat whom all feminists are obliged to denounce. During the Cold War, the pro-Soviet defenders of Marxism did this to a succession of their critics and opponents — Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon, J. Edgar Hoover and Ronald Reagan, to name a few — and feminism’s totalitarian kinship to Communism is demonstrated by their predictable use of Soviet-style propaganda tactics to impugn their enemies.

Once you recognize feminism as a totalitarian ideology, everything else about it becomes transparent, including the incoherence of liberals who call themselves “feminists” without bothering to understand the philosophy they embrace by claiming that label.

Thus we return to Lisa Kudrow’s praise of the “superhuman” gay male brain and her Neurobiological Theory of Female Supremacy via the greater thickness of women’s corpus callosum. While an eminent scientist might be able to explain for us exactly what the hell Kudrow is talking about — assuming that the social significance of human brain differences is generally known to science — let me instead make this point: LARRY SUMMERS DESERVES AN APOLOGY.

Remember that Summers lost his job as president of Harvard University as a direct result of feminist outrage after Summers suggested — merely suggested — that “innate” differences between men and women might explain the relative paucity of women among the top rank of research scientists. Yet here we have a Hollywood celebrity claiming that these innate differences are a biological reality, so that (a) gay males are “superhuman,” and (b) the thicker corpus callosum of women’s brains is socially significant in some way that Lisa Kudrow failed to fully explain. Let’s be logical, eh?

Men and women either are different or they are not.
Male-female differences are either innate, or they are not.
It either is acceptable to generalize on the basis of innate male-female differences, or it is unacceptable to do so.

From a standpoint of logic (as opposed to the standpoint of feminism), we may discuss male-female differences objectively without always being careful not to offend women, gays or any other protected class of persons who habitually claim victimhood.

However, as every feminist knows, logic is a tool of patriarchal oppression and objectivity is just a synonym for rape.

Lisa Kudrow is permitted by the rules of feminism to generalize about male-female differences as long as (a) her comments are pro-homosexual and (b) her comments are anti-male. Kudrow therefore praises gay men precisely because they are gay, which means that they are metaphysically female, from her perspective. The fact that Kudrow is herself married to a man and the mother of a teenage son does not prevent her from espousing a “scientific” theory which (a) derogates her husband for his heterosexuality, (b) also derogates her son, unless he is a “superhuman” homosexual, and (c) derogates herself — and all other females — as sexually inferior because no woman can be the object of superhuman gay male desire.

“A liberal,” Robert Frost once remarked, “is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel,” and Lisa Kudrow’s argument takes this to its obvious extreme. Her own life is a heterosexual female life, but she must praise the negation of her existence, expressing enthusiastic admiration for gay men (who find females sexually repugnant) and condemning heterosexual males as defective (because, being heterosexual, they find females sexually desirable).

Self-hatred of this kind used to be found only in lunatic asylums. Now we see it in, e.g., Max Blumenthal and the “Jews for Hamas” variety of far-Left anti-Zionism. I do not necessarily expect every Jew to be an ultra-Zionist, but for a Jew to endorse Jew-killing genocidal terrorism (which is what Hamas is all about) takes a special kind of crazy. By the same token, to be heterosexual is obviously not the same as being a homophobic hater, but it takes a special kind of crazy for heterosexuals to impugn their own preference as unworthy, and this is what Lisa Kudrow has done.

.@LisaKudrow Too bad I don't have a superhuman gay brain. http://t.co/TBu6ePoISr Guess my corpus callosum is inferior. #feminism #tcot

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 24, 2014

Or perhaps I’m wrong. Maybe she didn’t actually intend to demean her husband as the inferior of gay superhumans. Perhaps it is ridiculous of me to subject a Hollywood celebrity’s statements to the categorical rigors of logical analysis. Alternatively, maybe I’m too stupid to grasp the sophisticated beliefs of my intellectual superior, Lisa Kudrow.

If only I had a thick corpus callosum or a superhuman gay brain, all this would make sense to me. But I don’t think so.

The truth is still true, whether you believe it or not.

Category: Celebrities, Feminism, Gays, Hollywood, Sex Trouble

Comments

75 Responses to “What Self-Hatred Looks Like”

theoldsargesays
October 24th, 2014 @ 6:29 pm

‘As I’m sure you’re aware, the corpus callosum is a …”

Oh yeah, I knew that.
theoldsargesays
October 24th, 2014 @ 6:34 pm

Upvoted despite….ewwwww!
theoldsargesays
October 24th, 2014 @ 6:36 pm

Oh no you di’int ?!

I denoun…..ah….never mind.
DavidD
October 24th, 2014 @ 6:46 pm

And what does her husbandthink of comments like this?
RKae
October 24th, 2014 @ 8:00 pm

In medieval times, they would imprison or execute court fools that weren’t funny.

We just give them another sitcom and let them try again.
Quartermaster
October 24th, 2014 @ 8:15 pm

He’s getting plenty of practice.
WarEagle82
October 24th, 2014 @ 8:47 pm

Lisa never struck me as the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Frankly, I am not sure Lisa was “acting” when she portrayed Phoebe Buffay in “Friends.”
Mm
October 24th, 2014 @ 8:50 pm

Sometimes, this makes my corpus callosum ache, and that’s not good.
K-Bob
October 24th, 2014 @ 9:31 pm

Ayyep!
trangbang68
October 24th, 2014 @ 10:23 pm

Yeah baby it sure takes a super brain to insert things in all the wrong orifices. R-i-g-h-t….
Memento Mori
October 24th, 2014 @ 10:38 pm

I think this was alluded to above but to the extent that Gay men in general are uninterested in Lisa Kudrow she may have a point.
LLC
October 24th, 2014 @ 10:40 pm

Thank you for plotting out my next novel! 😀
Fail Burton
October 25th, 2014 @ 1:10 am

OMG the Friends cast are Bell Curvers!!!
RKae
October 25th, 2014 @ 3:20 am

If I like to eat by spooning food into my ear, would that make me a superior life form, too?
Fail Burton
October 25th, 2014 @ 5:35 am

I eat salads with a hammer.
Wombat_socho
October 25th, 2014 @ 3:49 pm

The Gilttery Hoo-Has are welcome to the rotting core ghetto of SF and its sterile classrooms too. The Human Wave is out in the ‘burbs and countryside, quietly walling them in -for the love of God, Montresor!- while we build the ships that will take us to Circum-Terra, Vulcan, Grainne, Friesland…to infinity, and beyond!
Wombat_socho
October 25th, 2014 @ 3:50 pm

You got a million dollar idea there, Weedlord. Better write it up before someone else steals the plot. The GHHs have no honor, you know.
Wombat_socho
October 25th, 2014 @ 3:51 pm

You meant prolapsed, right?
concern00
October 25th, 2014 @ 4:03 pm

I think there might be a variety of unique conditions.
marew
October 25th, 2014 @ 5:24 pm

Einstein wasn’t gay. So…
marew
October 25th, 2014 @ 5:25 pm

It’s like they bumbled into into it…so to speak.

Dummies.
Kirby McCain
October 25th, 2014 @ 5:35 pm

Almost Halloween and Stacy’s doing some of that paranormal stuff. With Kudrow it’s mind over matter, she ain’t got no mind so she don ‘t matter.
Zohydro
October 25th, 2014 @ 5:56 pm

It gets worse…

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gay+bowel+syndrome
marew
October 25th, 2014 @ 7:06 pm

Feminists and radical lesbians are making me like men even more!

How do lesbians do it? I mean, how do they listen to women all day?
Saturday Shorts – 10-25-14 | Designs on the Truth
October 25th, 2014 @ 9:43 pm

[…] What Self-Hatred Looks Like ~ Robert Stacy McCain takes on the sad illogic of the radical feminists […]