“Radical Feminism is, and has always been a political movement focused on liberating girls and women, those who are born into the sex caste female, from the unnatural, yet universal roles patriarchy has assigned.”
— Radicalmamaw.tumblr.com, July 26, 2014
“Women who are sane, normal and happy do not become feminists, because such women do not need feminism.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Aug. 25, 2014
One of the things you recognize, if you pay close attention to feminist rhetoric, is how the “patriarchy” or “male supremacy” — and other concepts like “misogyny,” “the beauty myth,” etc. — function as all-purpose scapegoats for whatever any woman may be unhappy about.
We could revisit the original skepticism that confronted feminists after the rise of the Women’s Liberation movement in the late 1960s. Feminism arose within the extreme fringe of the New Left, and a majority of American women emphatically rejected this crypto-Marxist movement’s attack on marriage, motherhood and Christian morality. Whatever the dissatisfaction women might have felt with their lives, most American women were aware that they were living in the most free and prosperous society in human history. The radicalism of Kate Millett and Shulamith Firestone was directly hostile to the beliefs and interests of most women and this is still true today. The American woman views herself as an individual, not as a member of a collective “sex-caste” (to borrow the Marxist jargon of radical feminism) and she not only rejects feminism’s claim of collective female victimhood, she also rejects the claim of collective male guilt that feminists imply by reference to “patriarchy” and “male supremacy.”
We could revisit the arguments of the 1960s and ’70s — were my mother and aunts and grandmother oppressed by the patriarchy? — but this is not 1975. No, it’s 2015, and we now live in a society that has been changed by more than four decades of feminist “progress.” Because of societal changes, young women in 2015 have new problems that are not the same as the problems that were the original grievances of feminists circa 1968. And many of the problems experienced by young women today are arguably caused by feminism’s “success.” If feminism is the cause of your problems, the solution is not more feminism. Let me quote one young feminist’s complaint:
“i wish men understood that when women are talking about feminism and rape culture and sh–t, it’s not just a political conversation. it’s not about being a ‘social justice warrior’ or whatever. it’s about our actual lives being shaped by misogyny since childhood, and the daily reality of living in fear of violence. this isn’t a f–king game or philosophical debate. this is our f–king lives.”
The author of that colorful prose identifies herself on Tumblr.com as “Kina Penelope, gay femme fairy, writer, traveler, feminist, college student living in WA.” If she is a college student, she is about 20 years old, which means that Kina was born circa 1995. What was the “misogyny” that shaped her life since childhood? Who is responsible for the “fear of violence” she confronts as a college student in Washington State? How does a “gay femme fairy” experience “rape culture”? Why can’t she be bothered to capitalize properly?
We are now six years into the presidency of Barack Obama. During the 20 years or so of Kina Penelope’s young life, Democrats have controlled the White House for 12 years. She may say that “talking about feminism” is “not just a political conversation,” but it was feminists who declared the personal is political. If she is merely talking about her own personal problems, or the personal problems of women in general — “our f–king lives” — without any political purpose, is this really feminism at all? Or is it just unhappy women complaining because they are unhappy?
Many of the social pressures that cause young women’s unhappiness in 2015 are clearly caused by the tension between the careerist pressures of liberal feminism — the striving ambition to “have it all” — and their own psychological need for a more traditional womanhood.
That is to say, most women don’t identify as a “gay femme fairy.”
Most young women would like to find a man who loves them, a man who wants to marry them, a man who is willing and able to provide them with a better life than a woman can have by herself.
No matter how much satisfaction she obtains from career achievement, she needs (and no, “need” is not too strong a word for her profound psychological urge) to have the love and support of a man. She wants babies. She wants to find a strong man, a masculine man who loves her so much that he is willing, for her sake, to shoulder the responsibilities inherent in the titles “husband” and “father.”
Feminism is not the solution to that young woman’s problem.
If you are a normal young woman — desiring a life that includes men, marriage and motherhood — you need to recognize how modern feminism is directly hostile to your own self-interest.
Feminism is a formula for unhappiness, an ideology conceived by unhappy women who were unwilling to take responsibility for their own unhappiness. Instead they promoted a false crypto-Marxist worldview in which all men oppress all women. This belief — feminism’s Big Lie — is how unhappy women justify their envy-driven attacks on the actual sources of happiness in other women’s lives.
Confusion about what “feminism” means leads women to embrace this label, and to consume the feminist movement’s rhetoric without skepticism. It is very easy for any unhappy woman to internalize feminism’s resentments and hostility toward male sexuality, an attitude I have described as “Fear and Loathing of the Penis.” There is also a tendency in feminist rhetoric to blame women’s problems on “society,” so that women are encouraged to develop anti-social attitudes, to feel a self-pitying sense of humiliation in the ordinary hassles of everyday life. Here is another woman’s complaint on Tumblr.com:
Don’t eat too much, don’t eat too little. Don’t be fat, don’t be too skinny. God do you ever stop eating? Woah do you ever eat? The not-so-well-concealed looks of disgust, the not-so-well-concealed looks of concern.
Don’t be loud. Don’t be quiet. Have a voice in society, leave the talking to the big boys. You want something, speak up! No, no, when it’s your turn, sweetie. Ugh, she never shuts up, it’s obnoxious. Have you ever heard her talk? I don’t even know what her voice sounds like.
Make sure your skirt is long enough, but not too long. Don’t make yourself too available, but you don’t want to look like a grandma. Show off what you got, but if you do it’s your fault if anything happens. Was your skirt long enough? How is any boy going to look at you if you wear that?
Have sex, but stay innocent. Give us what we want, but we hate sluts. Virgins are so sweet. What do you mean you want to stay abstinent until marriage? Do you even live in our society? Live without sex is boring. Life with sex is disgusting. God, have you seen her? She’s banged every guy in the school. God, have you seen her? Still a virgin at her age.
Be smart, but not too smart. Boys like a smarter girl. Boys can’t stand it when you know more than them. Play dumb. Ugh, not that dumb, god, weren’t you even listening? They like a smarter girl. No, no, now you just look like a nerd. Girls don’t belong in the classroom, they have to take care of the kids. You want a well-paying job? Take some incentive and study. You can’t slack off because your a girl.
Do what you love, but don’t. Be yourself, unless it goes against what we say. Do you love to do your hair and makeup? Great, you’re good to go. Approved. Do you love videogames and guns? You’re faking it. You’re lying. You’re pretending. You’re wrong
Who is telling her these things? Who are these hyper-critical voices the woman hears, constantly reminding her of her own inadequacy, so that she feels wrong no matter what she does?
Satan is the Father of Lies (John 8:43-45). Satan is the false accuser (Revelation 12:9-11). Satan constantly tells us lies about ourselves and lies about God. If you listen to that satanic voice, you will drive yourself crazy, because the lies are contradictory. Satan will tell you whatever you want to believe, whatever it takes to destroy you. Satan will tell you that your sins are so wicked that God cannot possibly love you. Then Satan will tell you there is no such thing as sin. Satan will tell you that good is evil, and evil is good, and that you should do evil because that will make you happier than doing good. Most of all, Satan tells us to reject God’s law, to instead make our own judgment of right and wrong.
This was the original lie of history: “Ye shall be as gods!”
“See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil . . . I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live.”
— Deuteronomy 30:15, 19 (KJV)
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron . . .”
— I Timothy 4:1-2 (KJV)
Maybe you didn’t expect a sermon when you started reading this, but I didn’t plan to preach a sermon when I started writing it, either. Sometimes it’s like these things just start writing themselves.
The truth is still the truth. Satan is still a liar. If we cannot tell the difference between truth and lies, there is no hope for any of us.
* * * * *
What You Can Do
Did you find this article informative and useful? Why don’t you copy it in an e-mail and send it to your friends, family or church members? You can also e-mail it to your favorite local or national talk radio host. Also, you can help spread the word by sharing it via Twitter or posting it to Facebook. Thanks in advance for your help, and I am always deeply grateful for contributions through PayPal ($5, $10, whatever) as support and encouragement. — RSM
[…] Robert Stacy McCain “Radical Feminism is, and has always been a political movement focused on liberating girls and […]
Well put sir…well put!
“when women are talking about feminism and rape culture and shit”
I can understand if someone was talking and appended a “and shit” to a list of topics, but who writes like this?
An idiot. Or a feminist. But I repeat myself.
People who don’t understand that being eloquent makes their argument better, or think that written language is the same as spoken, when it is not.
Now, there is a place to be profane, but it’s best used for better affect than a simple ‘etc.’ or the like would do. But in the formality that should be used in the written form, it isn’t.
Some women need feminism whereas other women don’t attempt to justify murdering unborn children or suspending the rights of free men.
She’s just that “real.”
I now know what a ”femme fairy” is. I’ll not thank you for that.
“The American woman views herself as an individual”
Here’s where we disagree. The American woman views herself as a member of her family. Which includes fathers, brothers, sons, and if she gets married, husbands. No sane woman will ever consider a strange woman to whom she is genetically unrelated as more important than her own family.
I think American conservatives are way too focused on the individual.
Pardon, but sometimes I think you are not sure if you want to persuade proto-feminists or just build a huge wall to keep them at bay.
I think the sermon bit will be just one more reason to ignore you. The folks reading here are not the ones who need convincing.
The wall to keep the left at bay has already failed. The land is full of TWANLOC because the gates were left ajar with the hinges rusted immobile. I doubt Stacy has any illusions of persuading the dingbats though he may hold hope for the less thoroughly indoctrinated. His main purpose seems to be to educate us about one form of the enemy within.
I saw more than a few notionally straight women out in Washington when I lived there who were of much the same mold.
Piercings, tattoo, dyed hair, and petulantly left wing politics.
I’m glad I left that area.
Pardon, but they are not “within” by your definition or theirs.
I often wonder what it’s like to live in an SJW’s head. As I see it, they think that the world is little better than a jungle with white men as the undisputed apex predators. According to SJW’s, we go about killing black people (“people of color” when they want to try to rope in Latinos and Asians) without provocation or fear of consequence, we rape women without provocation (other than having a d!ck) or fear of consequence, &c. Seriously, a small, lame rat tossed into a cage full of starving pythons has a more optimistic outlook than these folks.
Worse, they recognize NO progress. It’s still 1859 as far as they are concerned: black people are either slaves or tremble in fear lest a fugitive slave patrol kidnap them and send them south; women are nothing more than breeding stock / domestic servants who tremble with fear lest their husbands beat them to death or gangs of other men (including their husbands, I suppose) rape them the moment they step foot outside their houses.
Worst of all, even as they yap about protest and progress, they claim that it CAN NEVER BE BETTER. The country always has been and ALWAYS WILL BE raaaaacist. The country always has been and ALWAYS WILL BE “misogynist”*.
Oi!
I’m surprised that more “feminists” and other SJW types don’t just kill themselves and get it over with rather than just wait for the white killer cop or the rape gang that will inevitably show up. Because White Privilege.
=====
(*) Um… ladies, you DO realize that all us nasty ol’ misogynist male wannabe rapists have mothers and grandmothers, right? And most of us have (or want to have) wives and daughters?
”I’m surprised that more “feminists” and other SJW types don’t just kill themselves and get it over with rather than just wait for the white killer cop or the rape gang that will inevitably show up. Because White Privilege.”
Have you considered becoming a motivational speaker?
Perhaps not ”within” by your definition by mine they are indeed within and must be extirpated.
I think that we all see ourselves variously in our lives as part of some group: family, military unit, company, sports team, &c.
But I think you put your finger on it:
No sane woman will ever consider a strange woman to whom she is genetically unrelated as more important than her own family.
This is where feminists / SJW types part company with the rest of us: they DO see the relationship between them and other people who happen to look like them but are otherwise unrelated as more important than family or even self. Race / gender trumps self for them.*
As for focus on the individual, I am all for it: a person ought to be seen in light of his character and his behavior, not what he looks like or who he’s related to. His sense of self and his priorities in life may well include family (I’ve been a father for about nine months and I LOVE it), but this is his decision to make. This is the difference between, say, an American woman who freely chooses to marry a man and freely chooses to have children, and a woman in some other part of the world who is a veritable chattel slave, is seen as her husband’s property and has no choice in the matter of bearing children.
====
(*) I had a female SJW type once tell me, hard on the heels of a rant about white privilege and raaaaacism, that she wanted to be seen as “an Asian woman”. It occurred to me that it might be better to be seen as an individual, but, hey, whatever she wants: it’s her life.
I have way too much modesty and humility for such a job.
Think of the good you could accomplish.
“Piercings, tattoo, dyed hair, and petulantly left wing politics.”
This is one sense of what I mean when I say “Feminism Is a Journey to Lesbianism.” Women who get involved in feminism tend to wall themselves off in the political Left, where the selection of males … Well, if you are a woman dreaming of romance, marriage and motherhood, you’re unlikely to find many prospective husbands among Democrats. Their agenda is anti-marriage, anti-motherhood, anti-morality and anti-work-ethic.
By the time they are in their mid-20s, many liberal women — with zero prospects of attracting a man for a long-term relationship — begin identifying as “bisexual.” What this means, really, is that they are beginning to realize NO MAN REALLY WANTS THEM.
So in order to avoid being viewed as total rejects, they call themselves “bisexual,” usually meaning that their female roommate is something more than a roommate but (because they are unwilling to close the door to hooking up with a cute guy if they ever meet one who’s interested) they don’t want to call themselves “lesbian.”
Such women I call failed heterosexuals, or alternatively, lesbian-by-default. Basically, whatever their original value in the romantic market, they chose a poor sales strategy and have now passed their sell-by date. It’s sad.
Actually my logic doesn’t recognize either “within” or “without” in this context.
If you fight this “battle” on their terms you will lose. You can’t win by eradication and neither can they.
I’m not a Christian yet I will assert that Christianity addresses the issues of morality and of Good and Evil as well, if not better, than any text or lecture on psychology or criminology I’ve ever suffered! Sometimes Truth is just Truth, regardless of the source…
Hmmm… You may have something there…
Ever see Serenity? There’s a scene where they’re passing through a cluster of Reaver ships, and the speakers on the bridge are blaring with inarticulate screams and other noises, broadcast by the Reavers.
That’s what it’s like to live in a SJW’s head.
Seems to me Satan needs to be stopped.
My purpose is to explain feminism, to show what feminism actually is and how feminism operates, so that no one will have any excuse for embracing feminism without full awareness of what it is they are embracing. If anyone is so full of insane hatred as to to organize their life around a belief system like feminism knowing what it actually is, then there is little hope to persuade them they are wrong.
As for the biblical exegesis at the end, like I say, it just started writing itself. Perhaps some backslid Baptist or lapsed Catholic will encounter that, experience a twinge of conscience and repent. But it was written spontaneously — I just had the sudden urge to include the biblical references — and when things like that happen, I figure God has some purpose in mind.
As long as Christians don’t demand that I declare Christianity “THE” Truth, I see no need to criticize either Christians or Christianity.
Try economics.
You and I disagree on the direction that feminism is taking. Many of today’s RadFem writers will find themselves considerably less respected, it’s just going to take a while to “blow the gunk out of the plumbing.”
I approve of the work you’re doing, just not your reasons. One reason why I trust you to do it is because generally conservatives are upfront about what they are doing and why they are doing it. Whatever else people may say about you, you write your passion and you stand by your principles and faith. That shows honor and character.
I wish you understood that character came from your choice and not a religious text, but that is minor. It shapes you but it doesn’t define you.
Just in case you’re interested, Why I MARGINALLY prefer conservatives over liberals.
Ima let you finish…
Thanks for the Bible quotes.. I constantly need things like that to bolster my faith.
So what do you always notice about the ‘protestors’?
They do not worry about paying their own way. Always mom and dad oops patriarchy taking care of them.
I’ma product of the birth of Feminism. I was around when it began. I’ve the seniority to talk to you bout it. All thru High School counselors, principals, teachers would ride my ass and say ‘why can’t you be like your sister?’ Her junior year she was student council President, Senior year- Senior class President. Salutatorian, Principle remarked she should have been Valedictorian but she took harder classes than the one who made it as such. I loved Feminism when it began. That ment my trying to get some tail was gonna be a lot lot easier.
Well I did my 2 years in college and left and finished my career by using my hands and have no complaints. She did 5 years, Licensed Pharmacist, and runs a hospital pharmacy, not once but twice. Lives in a middle-class mansion, has a wonderful daughter – puts Marsha Stewart to shame and turned out to be an absolute genius.
Her achievements suggest feminism while her lifestyle dictates otherwise. She is probably the glue that ended up holding my family together.
When people have to fend for themselves.. then they change their tone. You see it in professionals. College today will do and say anything, as long as they get a check from anyone to teach whatever drivel. Pick your career wisely, or else pick a good husband.
The bottom line in all of this is the Radical Feminist have constructed the perfect counter=factual reality. It relies upon assertions and dismisses counterarguments based upon logic and reason as being merely tropes of the unseen “Patriarchy” which controls the world behind the scenes. All contrary evidence is dismissed as being fabrications or the result of “false consciousness.”
What’s fascinating is that these people have obtained power and influence instead of those similarly situated, i.e. those who rant about the machinations of the Rothschilds or Trilateral Commission.
What a silly notion. Admittedly it’s a zero sum game but one sum or the other can be reduced to zero. It’s called subtraction.
An excellent analogy. There are many to be found in the Firefly/Serenity series regarding leftism.
I’m ugly, I hate myself, nobody loves me, so now I will destroy you all so says the feminist. I really do miss the days of locking up the insane in actual asylums. When they say we want to go back to the 50s this is the one thing I can say yes I do.
Or someone who’s writing dialogue.
” counter=factual reality”
It’s the common thread running through leftism.
You GoOgled it like I did, dincha? ????
Admittedly it’s a zero sum game…
Both groups are gaining members but not at the expense of the other group.
…but one sum or the other can be reduced to zero.
Except neither group has been able to do this. If this is the goal of both, there won’t be enough of either left to make a difference.
Yes I’d thought the term ”fairy” had fallen from usage because it was a slam on gay men. Apparently it’s been retasked.
Why?
Because it’s a reflective game.
Because the beam and the mote are the same, just from different perspectives.
Because a knife wound heals, but a tongue’s wound festers.
The general political and military strategy that Bolsheviks (communists) and feminists have used and are currently using are: 1. Terrorism (political correctness in the USA-Political, economic, social, cultural, and legal discrimination and oppression of individuals and/or groups that oppose their totalitarian means and ends); 2. Political indoctrination ( for example, the many women’s study groups, clubs, and political organizations in universities, in government, and otherwise); and, 3. Sustained guerilla warfare (in many forms-political, economic, cultural, legal) against the Caucasian European male culture (affirmative action-for example).
“Cultural Marxism” and ” Political Correctness” have become the norm in the USA and the West in general.
The internet article, “The Origins of Political Correctness” by Bill Lind which appeared in Accuracy in Academia describes and defines both “Political Correctness” and “Cultural Marxism”.
The URL for the web page for this article is: http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/
A partial quote from the same article states:
“Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. ”
Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.”
Misandry is the hatred or dislike of men or boys.
Though the concept is ancient, the word did not appear in most dictionaries until the second half of the 20th century.
It was commonly seen as a neologism in the early 1970s.
Misandry was formed from the Greek misos (hatred) and andros (man),
Misandry is the antonym of philandry,the fondness, love, or admiration of men.
Julie M. Thompson, a feminist author, connects misandry with envy of men, in particular “penis envy”, a term coined by Sigmund Freud in 1908, in his theory of female sexual development. (Misandry-Wikipedia)
Nathanson and Young argued that “ideological feminism” has imposed misandry on culture.
Their 2001 book, Spreading Misandry, analyzed ” pop cultural artifacts and productions from the 1990s ” from greeting cards for what they considered to be pervasive messages of hatred toward men.
Legalizing Misandry (2005), the second in the series, gave similar attention to laws in North America.
In 2002, pundit Charlotte Hays wrote “that the anti-male philosophy of radical feminism as filtered into the culture at large is incontestable; indeed, this attitude has become so pervasive that we hardly notice it any longer.” (Wikipedia-Misandry)
Wendy McElroy, an individualist feminist, wrote in 2001 that some feminists “have redefined the view of the movement of the opposite sex” as “a hot anger toward men seems to have turned into a cold hatred.”
She argued it was a misandrist position to consider men, as a class, to be irreformable or rapists.
McElroy stated “a new ideology has come to the forefront…radical or gender, feminism,” one that has joined hands with [the] political correctness movement that condemns the panorama of western civilization as sexist and racist: the product of ‘dead white males’. ” (Wikipedia-Misandry)
Religious Studies professors Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young made similar comparisons in their 2001, three-book series,Beyond the Fall of Man, which treats misandry as a form of prejudice and discrimination that has become institutionalized in North American Society
Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., in his article.”Why Radical Feminists Concern Us.” begins by noting the schizophrenic nature of feminism-it is, at its root, a departure from reality.
He states, “Feminist theory is an unstable dialectic.
Truth, justice, logic, history, scientific evidence, repeatable results, reproducible research, observations of natural phenomenon, all these are simply words to radical feminists. Words that they believe are designed to cover up a monstrous oppression of women under the masks of religion, marriage, and motherhood that cloak the patriarchal family. “Psychologists call this need to have reality match your preconceived notions regardless of the evidence “fantasy thinking.” More down-to earth folk call it “building castles in the air.”Therefore, says, Corry, “The only acceptable theories are those that give power to women.”
Of course, the question remains-once women are “empowered”, what will they do with all that power?
On my morning walks with my Chow, she occasionally takes off after a passing car, barking with incredible ferocity.
I sometimes mildly rebuke her with the question, “What are you gonna do if you catch that car?”
Feminists are left in the same predicament-because since feminism is an ideology capable only of deconstruction, chaos, and destruction,
Then it follows that feminists with the kind of “empowerment” encouraged by their ideology are capable only of tearing down-not rescuing, building up, or making whole.
Corry quotes that aforementioned Dale O’Leary:Feminists “became convinced that the previous Marxist revolutions had failed because they had failed to target the family. And Corry himself states, “Make no mistake, we are engaged in an epic battle between two incompatible ideologies with fundamental different views of the rights of the individual and the power of the state, with the future of civilization at stake.” Emphasis added.
So feminism is not about equality-it is rather about warfare; a continuing bitter battle to the death in which the enemy is the family and society. Only when the family is completely destroyed, and society with it, will feminism have accomplished its goals.
Then, there is the “The War Against Women” announced by many feminists in many different contexts (The following quote refers specifically to a Royal Canadian Commission on Gun Control in the specific context of violence against women, which was published in 1991 as a government report called The War Against Women):
“——-Consequently, all of history can be seen as a conspiracy of men against women, a conspiracy to keep women helpless by threatening them with violence. Almost by definition, women were classified as innocent victims and men as evil oppressors.. Because the rhetorical gauntlet had been thrown down, as it were, everyone had to take this title seriously.
Unfortunately, not many questioned its legitimacy in the first place.
Obviously,there was no literal war going on between men and women.
Metaphors are analogies, not equations, and on the collective level this metaphor works more effectively in reverse.
It could be argued that ideological feminists acting in the name of women have declared war on men.
The former are heavily armed, as it were, with very sophisticated political and academic weapons.
They have organized themselves politically in opposition to ” the patriarchy.”
More specifically, they have established a wide variety of organizations to coordinate their efforts and achieve their goals.
They have leaders to represent them.
They raise money through private agencies and government bureaucracies.
They are proud to acknowledge their affiliations and goals. And, one of these, for a particular group of women, is to establish the idea that men are responsible for virtually all of human suffering.
This parallels with ideological wars of the twentieth century, albeit metaphorical ones, are not exactly hard to imagine.
The use of military language is dangerous, however, because it encourages people to take extreme positions.
Once war is declared, people have no choice but to defend themselves. And once this rhetoric is endorsed by the state, what had been a psychological and moral conflict becomes a legal and political one.
But raising stakes is a risky business.
The women who proposed this government study wanted to send several messages,
To women they wanted to say, “The best way to defend ourselves as a class is to attack men as a class.”
To the nation, they wanted to say, “Women are justified in attacking men, because we do so in self defense.”
To men, however, they wanted to say, “We consider you enemy aliens, and if the best defense is an attack, then so be it.
In that context, why should men not take legal steps to protect themselves? Do we really want to move into a situation like that?
If not, we will have to abandon the rhetoric of war.” ( Legalizing Misandry, Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young, McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal & Kingston, 2006-no copyright noted, p. 71-72)
And of course, a cursory consultation of the DSM-IV-TR, the diagnostic manual of professional psychology and psychiatry, reveals in the diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder such character traits as ” a pervasive pattern of disregard for an violation of the rights of others…[including] failure to conform to social norms…, deceitfulness.., irritability and aggressiveness.., reckless disregard for the safety of self and others, consistent irresponsibility…[this trait I consider to be the “holy grail” of feminism- the goal toward which feminism as a political philosophy is intended to move all women who imbibe of its teachings],[and] lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.” (Feminism is a Mental Disorder)(Objectify Girls.blogspot.com)
Further, ” These individuals may blame their victims for being foolish, helpless, or deserving their fate; they may minimize the harmful consequences of their actions; or they may indicate complete indifference….
Individuals with Antisocial Personality Disorder frequently lack empathy and tend to be callous,cynical, and contemptuous of the feelings, rights, and sufferings of others.
They may have an inflated and arrogant self-appraisal….
These individuals may be irresponsible and exploitative in their sexual relationships. They may have a history of many sexual partners and may never have sustained a monogamous relationship. They may be irresponsible as parents….”
Could a more cogent evaluation of feminism have been written if feminism were the conscious object of that evaluation?
Does not feminism justify its mistreatment of men with a hearty “they deserve it” for the perceived slights of 200 years ago?
Is anything more callous, cynical, and contemptuous of the feelings, rights, and sufferings of others than the woman who will carve a living child out of her womb or slanderously have a spouse imprisoned for mere convenience’s sake?
Is more arrogance possible than that contained in the glib assertion,”Women can do whatever men can do!-while simultaneously having standards lowered across the board so that women can qualify?
Is anything on earth more exploitative of sexual relationships than the woman who uses the family law system to marry and then divorce-divorcing both herself from a man and a man from his wealth?
And many sexual partners-is any comment needed?
Feminism is incapable of building.
It is incapable of making a positive contribution to society because it is, at its root, anti-social.
This is a significant principle from many different perspectives.
From the political perspective, rest assured that there will never come a day when feminism will actually achieve its goals and will turn to build a better world from the strong foundation of its positive accomplishments.(Feminism is a Mental Disorder)(Objectify Girls.blogspot.com)
Restating what was previously stated to add emphasis:
“Metaphors are analogies,not equations, and on the collective level this metaphor (The War Against Women) works more effectively in reverse.
It could be argued that ideological feminists acting in the name of women have declared war on men.
The former are heavily armed, as it were, with sophisticated political and academic weapons.
They have organized themselves politically in opposition to “the patriarchy”.
More specifically, they have established a wide variety of organizations to coordinate their efforts to achieve their goals.
They have leaders represent them.
They raise money through both private agencies and governmental bureaucracies.
They are proud to acknowledge their affiliations and goals. And one of these, for a particular group of women, is to establish the idea that men are responsible for virtually all human suffering.
The use of military language is dangerous, however, because it encourages people to take extreme positions.
Once war is declared, people have no choice but to defend themselves. And once this rhetoric is endorsed by the state, what had been a psychological and moral conflict becomes a legal and political one.
But raising the stakes is a risky business.
The women who proposed this government study (resulting in The War Against Women rhetoric) wanted to send several messages.
To women they wanted to say, The best way to defend ourselves as a class is to attack men as a class. To the nation, they wanted to say, Women are justified in attacking men, because we do so in self-defense.
To men, however, they wanted to say, We consider you enemy aliens, and if the best defense is to attack, then so be it. In that context, why should men not take legal steps to protect themselves?
Do we really want to move into a situation like that?
If not, we will have to abandon the rhetoric of war.”( Legalizing Misandry-From Public Shame to Systematic Discrimination Against Men by Paul Nanthanson and Katherine K. Young, McGill-Queen’s University Press, Ithaca, 2006, p. 72)
Friday, December 12, 2014
”Because the beam and the mote are the same, just from different perspectives.”
Are you assuming a moral equivalence between conservatism/liberty and leftism?
FYI knife wounds don’t have to heal.
It will soon be February, the month when the campus feminists start shrieking about “V-Day” (Valentine’s Day now being a condemned and abolished holiday on college campuses).
Usually, the feminists drown out February with hype and performances of “The Vagina Monologues.”
Except for Mount Holyoke, which will no longer perform “The Vagina Monologues” because it is not “inclusive” of “women” who have penises.
http://campusreform.org/?ID=6202
Feminism turning against itself.
Are you assuming a moral equivalence between conservatism/liberty and leftism?
No.
But I don’t think conservatism equals liberty either.
At best it’s a path.
That woman on tumblr complaining about contradictory messages…
Well, duh. Attempting to find self-worth by pleasing absolutely everyone is doomed to failure. It appears that she thinks women are incapable of discerning for themselves which opinions are useful advice and which should be utterly ignored. The poor dears, they just don’t have the brains to figure such things out, they need society to stop sending them such confusing messages! /sarc
Then you don’t understand either.
Which is extraordinary, given Joss Whedon’s political views.
Sigh. Mr. McCain, watching you go on a religious kick is like seeing a horrible auto accident in progress. It can’t possibly end well, but it’s morbidly fascinating nevertheless. It’s like your brain shuts down and starts spewing duckspeak…
I read somewhere that all good stories, unless deliberately perverted to skew left, are innately conservative.
Whedon’s views usually come out in minor snide asides in dialogue. It’s hard to make conservatives the believable villain without being obviously forced and devolving into cliche and caricature. Standing up for individualism, self responsibility and principles are conservative values and make for more compelling heroes.