What Feminists Mean by ‘Equality’

Posted on Comments

She is a 21-year-old “biracial Cubana radical feminist” who calls herself a “PERF (penis-exclusionary radical feminist),” and let’s read her explanation of feminist gender theory:

Gender creates the differences between the sexes. It celebrates inequality and it glamorizes the subordinate status of females — therefore gender is the embodiment of sexism. . . . Gender’s intended purpose is to clearly mark the subordinate class from the privileged class. . . .
Gender abolition and women’s liberation go hand in hand because by doing so we are breaking down the tools of oppression while still conscious of the root cause.

You can read the whole thing. It is not my intention (because it seems to me unnecessary) to prove that she is wrong. Rather, my purpose is to show that (a) “gender abolition” is what feminists mean by “equality,” and (b) these beliefs are widespread among young feminists, because these theories — the “social construction” of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — are taught to them by the radical faculty who operate university Women’s Studies programs. And if you do not agree with them, you will be denounced as an ignorant bigot, a misogynist, a heteropatriarchal oppressor and perhaps also a rape apologist.

The fanatical rigidity of the feminist worldview can permit no dissent. Critics must be silenced and opponents must be demonized as “haters.” Feminism encourages the young True Believer to think of herself as intellectually and morally superior to others. She possesses the extraordinary insight necessary to obtain the radical gnosis, and is therefore qualified to enlighten others. Thus we find the 21-year-old Cubana feminist lecturing on environmentalism:

I mean, basically capitalism is a system that operates by sucking money from the poor to the rich. . . .
How can anyone support an ideology that says its OK that 1% of the population control the majority of the world’s resources? . . .
Right now, patriarchy is the ruling religion of the planet. Women are just another resource for men to use in their endless quest to prove their toxic masculinity and breed soldiers for civilization’s constant state of war. . . . This is why militarism is a feminist issue, why rape is an environmental issue, why environmental destruction is a peace issue. . . .
Misogyny and ecocide are connected — Misogyny is at root the hatred and prejudice of females, it is used to justify systems of male supremacy such as patriarchy. . . . The same themes of violation and extraction are seen in ecocide. . . . Ecocide is the murder of entire ecosystems and all life within, human ownership of and domination over the Earth. Ecocide is the ideology of progress functions to justify and rationalize the destruction of non human living things and of indigenous cultures.

Read the whole thing. Again, I do not consider it necessary to disprove her claims, and instead quote her merely to show how feminist theory informs a radical critique of capitalism, private property, masculinity, etc. All feminism is ultimately radical feminism, because the leaders of the movement are radicals who embrace an esoteric doctrine of “equality” that is at war with human nature.

Darleen Click bring us the news that California taxpayers have been ordered to pay for a murderer’s sex change surgery. Some advocates of feminist gender theory might argue that this is wrong, but the basic idea — gender is a fiction, an artificial “social construct” of patriarchy — is entirely consistent with the androgynous “equality” promoted by university Women’s Studies faculty. Meanwhile, Scott Ott reports:

A high school student in Emmaus, Pennsylvania, was compelled to change out of yoga pants which the school deemed too revealing.
The student, a physiological male who prefers to be treated as a female, was required to put on a pair of gym shorts and a polo shirt, because the principal apparently determined the clingy yoga pants displayed too vividly the form of “her” male genitalia.
The school has no qualms with students or staff self-identifying as the opposite sex, and accessorizing to suit the sex du jour, yet with a modicum of modesty. Bio-males may wear dresses.
But friends of the newly repressed student feel sure that the long arm of transgender hate has come to their small town in suburban Allentown.

The Emmaus High School principal will meet with students amid an outcry of discrimination that arose after a transgender student was told to change out of yoga pants that administrators felt were inappropriate.

Even the Allentown Morning Call complied with the student’s desire to be identified as a girl despite obvious evidence to the contrary.

(Hat tip: @GraceGabriel51 on Twitter.) Feminism’s radical gender theory necessarily leads to demands for official approval of deviant behavior. Once compulsory approval is achieved, no one can be permitted to criticize the lunacy of a “female” student wearing yoga pants displaying the bulge of “her” penis for everyone in high school to see. We all must participate in the lunatic’s delusions, because otherwise how can we ever abolish gender and the oppressive system of heteropatriarchy?





 

61 comments

  1. A great distillation of gender feminism and why people are so confused when they use the word “equality.” That word, together with the word “feminism” have acted as a Trojan Horse on the American consciousness.

  2. Her unconscious assumption is that gender differences automatically make females inferior. That of course let’s her bleat the victim and demand that solutions come from outside herself.

  4. Some people are crazy, and that’s a fact. They are to be pitied.
    Other people are ENABLERS. They aren’t crazy, and should know better than to play along with people’s delusions.
    The ENABLERS are the ones who should be punished, because their behavior is the most easy to correct.

  5. One implicit premise (women’s universal oppression under male supremacy) is not necessarily contradicted by another implicit premise (differences between male and female are artificial “social constructs” imposed by this systematic oppression), as long as you are willing to ignore all evidence to the contrary. Feminists consider facts and logic weapons of the patriarchy, so that which does not conform to their theory is either ignored or else rationalized as an artificial byproduct of heteropatriarchal oppression. Their argument is perfect — perfectly circular, that is.

  7. Let us stipulate that the Radical Feminists are correct about one thing when they attribute all social ills to “social construction:” Civilization is, indeed, a social construct. The normal state of affairs is not some matriarchal utopia or gender blind existence. The normal state of affairs is barbarism. Our biracial Cubana PERF feminist is too dense to realize that.

  8. “Our biracial Cubana PERF feminist is too dense to realize that.”

    Gullible ignorance is the intended outcome of the government education system.

  11. I remember when I was 21 and I knew everything.

    The difference is that I didn’t go around publicly sharing my delusional idiocies, thus preventing me from being bludgeoned with them later once I grew up and realized that I essentially don’t know squat.

  14. Those damn patriarchal chomosomes!

    I’ll bet even the penis exclusionary chicks demand government-paid abortions and birth control (otherwise known as abortions, since they won’t use birth control).

  15. If you insist on assaulting your reader’s eyes with that frequently used ugly picture at the top of the post, you are obligated to post a link that serves as an antidote – something like this:

    href=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXyI8zwQFyU”>Antidote – Video from when it was OK to ogle pretty women and smoke cigarettes – (Shaking All Over)

    or

    href=”https://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXyI8zwQFyU”>Antidote – VIdeo Before All This Political Correctness/Feminist Crap Took Over (Linda)

  18. Could this be the first ‘Modern’ feminist?

    –

    “The communist economy does away with the family. In the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat . . . the family loses its significance as an economic unit. The external economic functions of the family disappear . . .”

    “Once the family has been stripped of its economic functions and its responsibilities towards the younger generation and is no longer central to the existence of the woman, it has ceased to be a family.”

    — Alexandra Kollontai (USSR), 1921

  20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Kollontai#Social_ideas

    Kollontai raised eyebrows with her unflinching advocacy of free love. However, this does not mean that she advocated casual sexual encounters; indeed, she believed that due to the inequality between men and women that persisted under socialism, such encounters would lead to women being exploited, and being left to raise children alone. Instead she believed that true socialism could not be achieved without a radical change in attitudes to sexuality, so that it might be freed from the oppressive norms that she saw as a continuation of bourgeois ideas about property.

  21. I’m waiting for a penis exclusionary chick to get artificially inseminated so she can “raise a family” with another other penis exclusionary chick that she has a fakey so-called “marriage” with, then the first penis exclusionary chick demands a late term abortion when she discovers that she actually has a patriarchal bun in the oven; i.e., her uterus turns out to not be penis exclusionary.

    Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive. Ourselves.

  23. Based on the pic, I’d say equality must mean walking the streets in your undies. Next thing it’ll mean walking the streets in the altogether. That last would be a crime against humanity.

  24. grief – i listen to WBAI to check up on what the commies are up to – and hear this stuff all the time – there is even an ‘outFM’ which spews this goofy stuff all the time.
    maybe there is something in the food, or air, or water that is causing BRAIN DAMAGE to these nitwits.

  25. and they have been enabling since the sixties
    Alan Ginsburg in particular – and his enablers too.
    They push sex change operations – especially if the Taxpayer foots the bill.

  26. i was going to explain that back in 1967 to someone, but an ENABLER got in the way and said he would get me FIRED if i said anything.

  27. I’m waiting for one to get artificially inseminated just so she can get an abortion. Come on, tell me that wouldn’t be out of character for some of the people McCain profiles.

  28. Cousin It was stereotyped as an actor. I’m not surprised it got a haircut and moved onto youtube.

  30. Gender creates the differences between the sexes. It celebrates inequality and it glamorizes the subordinate status of females — therefore gender is the embodiment of sexism. . . . Gender’s intended purpose is to clearly mark the subordinate class from the privileged class. . . .

    Why not try and pin it on the CIA-backed Jewish Illuminati bankers from outer space? I mean, if you’re going to appeal to conspiracy theories to prop up your worldview, you might as well go all out.

    Darleen Click bring us the news that California taxpayers have been ordered to pay for a murderer’s sex change surgery.


    So wait, if gender is just an artificial social construct with nothing to do with your physical sex, what’s the point of all this intrusive surgery to get yourself the “proper” organs? And doesn’t the fact that people *are* willing to have all this surgery indicate that they gender and sex are in fact intimately connected, not merely loose and separate like the feminists would have?
    Hmm, maybe we’ve stumbled across the reason feminists and transsexual activists get along so poorly.

  31. Logical consistency is quite problematic for these people. The only “logic” they espouse is that of personal expediency occasioned by their basest instincts.

  34. …I’m very, very confused…how about this, you are a Lesbian and you hate everything that has to do with maleness, from sex, music,
    education, business, art, cooking, etc….so I say stay out of my face I have no intention of being nice nor accept you bull crap…have no use for your crazy view of the world, your are abnormally sick and insane!
    >:-B

  35. Oh, if only George Carlin were around! I remember a bit he did once about the “semi-boneless ham”.

    “What is it?”

    “It’s a semi-boneless ham”

    “Is it without a bone?”

    “No, it is semi-boneless.”

    “So, it has a bone?”

    “Yes, it has a bone.”

    “But it is only semi-boned?”

    “No, it has a bone.”

    What could he have done with the starting line:

    “Does she have a penis?”

  36. That certainly would be in character for some idiot broad trying to show that she was down with the struggle, or some such nonsense.

  38. Where do these dislikeable women get the money to live? Judging by the photos, some of them are quite expensive to feed, let alone provide shelter for. Who, or what, is providing for them?

  39. I’ve never felt subordinate to anyone in my adult life who didn’t sign my paycheck. She needs more real world experience.

  42. I have a friend, very leftist in most ways, who tells people considering sex changing anything, “Everything works because it is supposed to. The substitutes will only sort-of work.”

    She is right.

  43. They usually have been propagandized within an inch of their lives. The scariest thing is watching when some poor soul discovers that they are no happier, but there is no going back.

  44. “Equality” is sameness. “Gender” is biology denial. “Reproductive” is anti-natalist. “Justice” is statism, not the redress of wrongs; but if it were, then “environmental” would be their pre-crime unit. “Marriage” is shacking up and a “wedding” is a party.

    I could go on and on. Political correctness leads to Orwellian speech. We need a translation dictionary.

  45. “… maybe there is something in the food, or air, or water …”

    Maybe it’s call WBAI. Or public education.

  48. See, this is where I reveal my economic stupidity:

    “I mean, basically capitalism is a system that operates by sucking money from the poor to the rich. . . .”

    Okay, how does that work, exactly? How does one become rich by “sucking money” from the poor, who by definition, have no money? You know, because they’re poor? Willie Sutton is supposed to have explained why he robbed banks with “Because that’s where the money is.” Likewise Robin Hood is supposed to have “taken from the rich to give to the poor.” Did those worthies have it backwards? How, in short, does one take stuff from people who don’t have the stuff to begin with?

  49. Civilization is learned, by every generation. We are always only one generation away from barbarism. The SJWs either don’t realize that or…

    No, I’m going with that explanation. These precious blossoms and special snowflakes cannot really want to destroy civilization and supplant it with barbarism. If they can’t deal with hearing a contrary opinion expressed, how will they manage life under the Lord Humungous?

Comments are closed.