Feminists Against Heterosexuality

Posted on Comments

Jenika McCrayer (@JenikaMc) has “a BA in Women and Gender Studies from The College of William and Mary” and is currently working on her master’s degree in the same field. This means she understands feminist theory, e.g., the “social construction” of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix. To translate this to plain English, if you are a normal (feminine) woman who feels normal (heterosexual) attraction toward normal (masculine) men, this means that you have been brainwashed by society into accepting your own oppression under the system of male supremacy. Feminists believe that heterosexuality is imposed on women by the patriarchy — women are “coerced into heterosexuality,” as Professor Marilyn Frye explained — and feminine behavior is simply the performance of inferiority. Gender “glamorizes the subordinate status of females” and creates an artificial appearance of male-female difference in order “to clearly mark the subordinate class [i.e., females] from the privileged class [i.e., males].”

Thus, there are no natural differences between male and female, according to feminist theory, only the oppressive hierarchy of “gender” by which society enforces male supremacy.

“The threat of violence alone affords
all men dominance over all women.”

Thus saith the feminists. Quod erat demonstrandum.

So, Jenika McCrayer wrote an article for Everyday Feminism, which was called to my attention by Aurelius Pundit:

Indeed, it’s a special slice of crazy:

Jenika McCrayer explains why men who are sexually attracted to women with breasts are misogynists.
McCrayer explains that “under a patriarchal system… we’re taught to believe that the female body exists solely for a man’s sexual pleasure and entertainment.” She then explains several reasons why liking breasts is a bad thing.
First, “It Dangerously Conflates Attraction and Fetishization.” She explains, “breasts are not solely for aesthetic or sexual purposes. They have a function. And there are painful consequences to fetishizing body parts associated with womanhood.”
More than that, “it’s cisnormative to equate breasts with femininity and womanhood. Not everyone who has breasts is a woman, and not all women have breasts.”
Second, “Fetishization Leads to Objectification and Dehumanization.” McCrayer writes, “Reducing people to their anatomy creates this space that some if not most of us exist outside of because we don’t fit into the male gaze’s narrow categories of what it means to be attractive or a woman.” . . .
McCrayer wrote this article because she received a letter from “a reader” whose husband wants equal rights for her, but also finds her breasts attractive, which she found “problematic.”

Normal men like normal women in a normal way. Normal women take this for granted, but feminists aren’t normal women.

Feminists want to abolish gender, because gender oppresses women. Therefore, normal male attraction to normal females is “objectifying,” “cisnormative,” “fetishizing,” etc. Male sexuality is phallocentric and heterosexual intercourse is male violence against women, according to feminist theory. Thus, the only reason any man could ever want to have sex with a woman is because he hates her.

Feminists believe normal sexual desire is dehumanizing to women.





 

70 comments

  1. “Reducing people to their anatomy creates this space that some if not most of us exist outside of because we don’t fit into the male gaze’s narrow categories of what it means to be attractive or a woman.” . . .

    But endlessly rhapsodizing The Vagina Monologues, which I seem to recall reduces women to an opening between their legs, is Okey-dokey.

    Got it.

  5. Actually I think I saw that Vagina Monologues is badthink now because “not all women have vaginas.”

  7. there’s a new feminazi org devoted to PC: Communitarians United for Neutral Terminology and Sapphism.

  8. So, we’ll now have The Vagina & Dick Monologues? Or are they technically dialogues now? If it’s the latter, the “Dick” role needs to voiced by Señor Wences.

    “S’awright?”

    “S’awriiight!”

  9. Hmm, yes, why on earth would a prominent erogenous zone and indicator of fertility be appealing to members of the opposite sex…? Oh, I know, it’s The Patriarchy(tm)!
    “cisnormative”
    Cissexuals make up, what, 99.9% of the population? Sounds pretty “normal” to me.

  12. What are we going to do tonight, Brain?

    The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Objectify and dehumanize women.

  13. Thanks for the link, Lady. I’m getting a bang out of that awesome “power of absence” thing. If only more of these types would use that power – for the good of the world, I mean!

  14. “Reducing people to their anatomy creates this space that…”

    Does anyone know where the leftist fixation with “creating spaces” came from, or why they think that inserting that stupid phrase into their online babblings makes what they’re saying sound clever and important?

    Whoever came up with the idea is long overdue a slap.

  16. How do these loony tunes rationalize the “binary sexuality” of animals? Insects?

    Do they not see a pattern there? Or do they claim that every damn male of any species on the planet is out to subjugate every female?

    No wonder everyone of them has psychological issues. If they’re not crazy before becoming a feminist, it’s guaranteed that the insanity they’re taught will destroy any rationality they may have.

  18. Apparently these maladjusted, antisocial misfits think that everyone else on the planet is as obsessed with sex as they are.

  19. I’m pretty sure they believe “The Patriarchy” has existed for a long time. Further, I assume they do not believe in a Divine Creator of any sort, because such a Creator would obviously have created the nefarious patriarchal construct they abhor. (Unless, of course, they wish to admit the satanic nature of their little kaffe klatsch right now.)

    This leads to the problem of that dead white guy Darwin and his theory of evolution and natural selection. If they believe those things, then it’s obvious that “The Patriarchy” socially evolved as a survival tool for homo sapiens. That is, without “The Patriarchy,” your average 20 year old Radfem at Wellesley wouldn’t flippin’ exist because humans would’ve died out trying to be all cooperative and matriarchal with the saber tooth tigers.

    This is where feminist heads start getting all ‘splody and such.

  22. Granny Zed always said that there was no better way to propitiate oneself before the Commentariat than a sincere* public acknowledgement of one’s own thought crimes…

  24. I would guess that insects are OK with them…

    Bees, ants, termites, and the like (the “socialist insects”) are down with their program!

  25. “…we don’t fit into the male gaze’s narrow categories of what it means to be attractive or a woman.”

    First, all but an infinitesimally small percentage of feminists deliberately and with malice aforethought cause themselves to be unattractive. It’s not hard to look ugly when you’re trying to look ugly.

    I say this because second, the male gaze’s what categories? Did you say narrow? Bwahahahaha! I’ve seen some skanky and freakish-looking broads, but yet have seen dudes giving them the once-over, or saying outright “I’d hit it”. In reality, it’s women who have a narrow gave when it comes to the attractiveness of other women. And that’s a fact, Jack.

  26. And a lot of them have tyrannical queens who run the show. They’re matriarchal. (See Clinton, Hillary Rodham.)

  28. There’s only one thing for it:
    Radical dual ELECTIVE mastectomy. Twice as badass as the Amazons.

  29. Lizzy is bad, sure, but Hill is pure evil. Satanic. She’s like Irma Grese, “the Hyena of Auschwitz”.

  31. And she’s planning elective hysterectomy, salpingectomy, and oophorectomy now, too! She should do the right thing here and see if Bruce Jenner would like to have these organs…

  32. She can’t tell the difference between mocking and crying, and making people cry makes her feel powerful. She comes across as an autistic bully — and doesn’t seem to be aware of it, which is consistent.

  33. No,no,no.
    You see, she only likes breasts because the cishetero patriarchy has conditioned her to do so.
    Jeesh! Pay attention will you?!

  38. These feminists have never heard the terms “beer goggles” or “closing time.”

    Pretty much ANY woman has a chance, given the right circumstances.

  41. I was taken to an on-campus production of ‘The Vagina Monologues’ at the University of Pittsburgh about 15 years ago. I was smoking a lot of weed then, and somebody’s girlfriend had “free tickets to something.”

    They passed out pink buttons that read “I Love Vagina!” to everyone that attended. (I still have mine – my wife won’t let me wear it anywhere)

    I can’t see feminists approving of that

  42. “Feminists believe that heterosexuality isimposed on women by the patriarchy”

    I’m guessing this means feminists don’t believe in evolution.

  45. Jenika McCrayer’s tweet was so unintentionally revealing that at first I doubted that its source was a feminist. Note that its essential point is that she writes what she writes with the hope of humiliating and frustrating men, to the end that it will increase her feeling of personal power. It’s all about her, and her pleasure is in the discomfort of others. This is the kind of thing that a person might point out as a withering criticism of another’s philosophy, not a writer’s personal explanation of it.

  47. …guess that angry and sad Feminist use big words, more than five syllables to demean the male gender…still boils down to -they don’t have a penis-, so they are envious and miserable…
    <:-B

  48. Being “unintentionally revealing” is par for the course for feminists. Half the time, you can figure out their deal just by putting their words in a mirror and looking to see if it’s projection.

  49. Feminists have a distinctly poor understanding of _____, fill in the blank with almost anything.

  50. Have our feminist friends ever managed to explain how humans managed to be different from every other primate, every other mammal, every other animal above the single-cellular, in that heterosexuality is not a normal, natural biological function, but is societally imposed? How, I wonder, do mostly solitary animals, who meet the opposite sex only to mate, not have a heterosexual drive conditioned in them, rather than female cheetah somehow subordinated by the male cheetah with whom the associate only for mating by cheetah society?

Comments are closed.