The War Against Human Nature: Feminism and the Mirage of ‘Equality’

Posted on Comments

“As far as feminist endorsements are concerned, this was the holy grail: A word with a complicated history reclaimed by the most powerful celebrity in the world. . . . Beyoncé would become the subject of two-thirds of all tweets about feminism in the 24 hours after her appearance [at the 2014 Video Music Awards].”
— Jessica Bennett, Time magazine, Aug. 26, 2014

“Beyoncé is . . . idolised for her feminist credentials in the November 2013 [Australian] edition of Cosmopolitan. The ‘first lady of awesomeness’ is praised for her ability to ‘influence the global conversation on feminism, race, sexuality, philanthropy, justice, marriage, love and friendship’ via the ‘booty-popping’ way that she gets her fans involved in the politics of empowerment.’ . . .
“The fact that she ‘still reserves the right to be a Feminist in Heels’ . . . is presented as the main reason to love her.”
— Kate Farhall, in Freedom Fallacy: The Limits of Liberal Feminism, edited by Miranda Kiraly and Meagan Tyler

“Feminism teaches women that to be normal is to be inferior.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Sex Trouble: Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature

No intelligent person imagines it was mere coincidence that one of the world’s biggest pop singers decided to help “re-brand” feminism in 2014. Two years earlier, feminism had proved a valuable political weapon that helped re-elect President Obama after the accusation that Republicans were waging a “war on women” enabled the Democrat to score the largest “gender gap” advantage among female voters ever recorded by Gallup. With Hillary Clinton generally coinsidered a shoo-in favorite to be the Democrats’ presidential nominee in 2016, a relentless push to popularize the “feminist” label has been underway in the liberal media, who are always willing to tell any lie that will help elect Democrats.

As much as any Republican might be offended by the media’s dishonest marketing of “pop feminism,” however, there is another group even more offended — actual feminists, the kind who believe in the movement’s political philosophy and radical egalitarian theory. This kind of feminism, the academic dogma promoted by professors in university Women’s Studies program, has nothing to do with the “booty-popping” celebrity “Feminist in Heels” act that Beyoncé displayed during her 2014 VMA performance. Determined to fight back against this vacuous “re-branding” of feminism, a group of radical scholars have published a new book Freedom Fallacy: The Limits of Liberal Feminism. Edited by two Australians, author Miranda Kiraly and university researcher Meagan Tyler, the book is a collection essays by the editors and 17 other writers, 11 of whom are Australian, three Canadian, two British and one American. Of the 19 contributors to Freedom Fallacy, 14 are associated with universities either as faculty or as graduate students. The others work for non-profit organizations, except Meghan Murphy, proprietor of Feminist Current, “Canada’s leading feminist website.”

Freedom Fallacy got a rather ironic plug last week when #GamerGate scourge Anita Sarkeesian tweeted out a link with this message:

“Feminism is about the collective liberation of women as
a social class. Feminism is not about personal choice.”

This rejection of “personal choice” contradicts everything most people who call themselves “feminist” claim to believe, of course, but as I explain in the introduction to Sex Trouble:

Almost everyone claims to accept feminism if they can be permitted to define it in the most commonly accepted understanding of “equality” as basic fairness. Especially in terms of educational and employment opportunity, no one argues in favor of discrimination against women. Yet this widely accepted idea of feminism, as a concern for equality in the sense of fairness and opportunity, is not the goal of the feminist movement today, nor was this the goal of the movement when it began in the late 1960s. The leaders of the Women’s Liberation movement were radicals — many of them were avowed Marxists — who advocated a social revolution to destroy the basic institutions of Western civilization, which they denounced as an oppressive system of male supremacy, often labeled “patriarchy.”

So-called “Second Wave” feminism burned hot and then flamed out, even as its radical ideas were misunderstood by many of those who embraced the Women’s Liberation banner as a trendy political fashion statement.

The contributors to Freedom Fallacy recognize a similar problem with what Kate Farhall calls the recent “explosion of a new, popular feminism . . . rebranded and marketed to a younger, more pop-culture oriented generation.” A Ph.D. candidate at the University of Melbourne, Farhall examines how “pop feminism” is presented in women’s magazines that “consciously align themselves with this popular feminism, lauding the achievements of openly feminist celebrities, explicitly engaging with feminist issues and applauding strong, empowered women” even while continuing to emphasize conventional ideas of beauty:

Feminist research consistently shows the objectification of women and the pressure of feminine beauty ideals to be problematic and limiting to women. Consequently, the dueal emphases of women’s freedom and adherence to feminine beauty standards seemingly render this popular form of feminism, not only internally incoherent, but counterproductive to women’s equality. . . .
On the one hand, popular feminism applauds strong women and seeks to empower young women to achieve their goals, become educated and attain a greater level of self-respect. On the other hand, beauty ideals that are unattainable for most women are still held up as a standard to emulate and those who vocally support popular feminism are often those who also objectify themselves in order to conform to a male-driven understanding of what is ‘sexy.’ . . .
Feminism in its current, popular form, then, would seem reluctant to confront or criticise male power. These tensions between a ‘sexy’ popular feminism and more substantive challenges to the patriarchy are also played out in women’s magazines.

Permit me to interrupt Farhall here to say that I have always considered women’s magazines to be degrading, insipid trash. Why would any literate person waste their time reading Cosmopolitan?

The very fact that these magazines are so popular with teenage girls tells you something about the failure of public education to inculcate civilized tastes and decent morality in youth. If you want your daughter to be a shallow slut, just buy her a subscription to Cosmo. Being a shallow slut is certainly not “empowering,” yet such is the “feminism” marketed by women’s magazines. Farhall quotes a young columnist from the May 2013 Australian edition of Cosmopolitan celebrating the fashionable popular brand of feminism:

“I shave my legs, I own red lipstick, I wear five-inch heels. I love my job and I love men. . . . I’m a feminist and I’m proud of it. I hope you are too.”

Can the reader guess which part of that declaration is most disturbing to Farhall? If you guessed, “I love men,” you win the prize:

Popular feminism is rebranded as fun, flirty and feminine and actively placed in direct opposition to alternative iterations of feminism that are labelled as outdated and unattractive. . . . It is difficult to see how conforming to traditional notions of heterosexual femininity will bring about equality.

Here we have the radical War on Human Nature, the “gender theory” attack on our understanding of masculinity and femininity as the normal traits of normal people in normal relationships. To distill this theory to its essence (as articulated by Professor Judith Butler) it’s the “social construction” of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix. I explained gender theory in “Feminists Against Heterosexuality”:

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.

This anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology is what students learn in university Women’s Studies classes, where textbooks edited by lesbians are taught by professors who, typically, are either lesbians or Marxists or both. The curriculum is openly hostile to Judeo-Christian morality and the traditional family, and the purpose of this intellectual assault is, as Professor Butler says, “the subversion of identity.” No one should be surprised when a student in an “Introduction to Feminist Theory” course at SUNY-Buffalo leaves the classroom exclaiming, “Every time I walk out of this class I just become more sexually confused!”

If human identity is “socially constructed,” as feminists insist, then it may also be deconstructed and, because opposition to feminism is effectively prohibited within academia, no student on the 21st-century is likely to encounter an articulate criticism of these theories.

“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.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, “What Feminists Mean by ‘Equality,'” April 4

In the atmosphere created by feminist hegemony in academia, sexually normal students (especially those from Christian homes whose worldview has been shaped by biblical teaching) become doubtful and confused because they encounter no intellectually respectable authorities responding to the challenge of gender theory. By contrast, sexually deviant students — including promiscuous heterosexual women as well as everyone whose preferences are officially represented on campus by the rainbow flag of LGBT groups — are incited to an attitude of radical certainty about their own oppression.

No one may “slut-shame” the college girl who sleeps around, for disapproval of promiscuity can only mean you are a misogynist, and any expression of disapproval toward LGBT preference is proof that you’re a homophobe. Within the parameters of Correct Thought established by the rules of acceptable 21st-century campus discourse, the only sexual behaviors that can be criticized are:

  1. The chaste behavior of women who refuse to participate in the booze-and-sex rituals of college “hook-up culture”;
    and
  2. Male heterosexuality.

In effect, the feminist influence on college sexual attitudes amounts to a direct reversal of the old sexist double-standard that celebrated the promiscuous male “stud” while denigrating the promiscuous female “slut.” Now, feminism’s insistence on female “sexual autonomy” justifies the woman in being as promiscuous as she pleases, while the attitudes of the promiscuous male are condemned as “rape culture.” Under no circumstance, however, do feminists endorse or advocate the most obvious alternative to the hook-up culture — chastity within a system of courtship directed toward the goal of lifelong monogamous heterosexual pair-bonding, i.e., traditional marriage. In the climate that currently prevails in academia, a woman can be celebrated for being either a slut or a lesbian, but is targeted for ridicule as a “prude” (or a religious bigot) if she is a virgin. Meanwhile, the only males whose sexual behavior merits praise on campus are gay men. Male heterosexual college students are classified by feminists into three categories:

  1. Rapists;
  2. Potential rapists waiting for a suitable opportunity to rape;
    and
  3. “Rape apologists” who, while lacking the masculine appetite for predatory violence necessary to commit rape themselves, nevertheless are alleged to admire rapists as sexual outlaws enacting all men’s secret fantasy.

The feminist conception of male sexuality involves a paranoid hostility I call Fear and Loathing of the Penis, so that it is impossible for them to imagine that men’s attraction toward women can be inspired by sincere admiration. Nor, for that matter, can feminism accept as “natural” a woman’s pleasure in being romantically pursued by a male suitor. No, the academic feminist tells us, all that wooing and courtship — moonlight walks and intimate dinners, hugs and kisses, etc. — is a deliberate illusion that conceals the true nature of male supremacy, an oppression that obtains its most direct expression in phallocentric sexuality.

“PIV is always rape, OK?”

Feminist gender theory ultimately boils down to this lunatic derangement infamously expressed by the radical blogger Witchwind. Normal men enjoy having sexual intercourse with women. Because normal sex makes normal men happy, the radical feminist must believe, therefore normal sex is wrong. Abolishing male happiness is an essential goal of the feminist movement, which is why gender theory must exclude the possibility that normal women can also enjoy normal sex with normal men. You will never find a Woman’s Studies professor who endorses traditional female behavior oriented toward finding herself a good husband, having babies and providing domestic happiness for herself and her family. Any time a man comes home from work to find his wife has cooked a nice family dinner, the patriarchy wins.

Returning to Kate Farhall’s critique of heteronormative “pop feminism”:

Despite their recent engagement with feminist ideas, the majority of the content of contemporary women’s magazines remains grounded in mainstream understandings of femininity with an emphasis on content relating to appearance and relationships. . . .
A significant body of research addresses women’s magazines notes their focus on successful heterosexual relationships that lead to marriage as the ultimate goal for women.

Marrying men is bad for women, according to feminist theory, which has for many decades condemned women’s role in marriage as a form of slavery. Criticizing the “centrality of beauty and heterosexual relationships” in the content of women’s magazines, Kate Farhall rejects “pop feminism” as a self-contradicting sham:

Put simply, the goal of women’s equality and the achievement of beauty ideals, as defined within a patriarchal system, are incompatible. It is not possible for women to advance, to become the empowered women popular feminism both applauds and envisages, if ultimately their value is still based on their physical attractiveness and sexual attractiveness to men. An emphasis on the achievement on feminine beauty ideals is thus incompatible with women’s equality, as it serves to limit, rather than empower, women. . . .
Feminism should aspire to fight the overarching patriarchal structures that limit women, rather than teach women how to achieve success in a man’s world. Thus, a popular liberal feminism that remains committed to objectification, ultimately cannot achieve women’s freedom.

You see? Encouraging women “to achieve success in a man’s world” — the way Beyoncé did, by making millions of dollars, marrying Jay Zee and having a baby daughter — “serves to limit, rather than empower” feminists like Kate Farhall, who have no commercially valuable talent, who don’t like men and who, even if they did like men, could never develop the kind of “sexual attractiveness to men” that Beyoncé has.

Whether or not life “within a patriarchal system” is unfair to women in general, it is more unfair to some women than to others. Some women — the kind of women who get college degrees in Women’s Studies and consider that an “achievement” — can’t stand the fact that other women make more money in tips on a good weekend waiting tables at Buffalo Wild Wings than Kate Farfall gets paid for writing a 5,000-word essay about “objectification.” Then the waitress meets a guy with a good job and marries him and, by the time she’s 25, she’s living with her husband and their baby in a house in the suburbs, while the academic feminist is still grinding it out in grad school, living in a tiny apartment.

Winners win and losers lose, and guess who denounces the “system” and demands “equality”? Hint: Not the winners.

Kate Farhall is correct in saying that celebrity endorsements from Beyoncé don’t really do anything for the feminist cause, because truly successful women don’t actually need feminism. Anyone who has read Carolyn Graglia’s Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism understands that the kind of “equality” feminists demand is one that would actually limit, rather than increase, opportunities for women. In particular, feminism seeks to limit opportunities for women to become what Beyoncé is — a married mother — because if women can choose that kind of life, most women will choose that kind of life, and feminists hate women for choosing that kind of life.

This is what should bother us most about feminism, its claim to speak for the interests of all women, implying the obverse, that (a) any man who criticizes feminism is “anti-woman,” and (b) any woman who rejects feminism is too stupid to know her own interests.

It is this hideous contempt for the normal lives of normal women which inspires feminists in their campaign of hateful vengeance. Consumed by frustration and resentment, feminists condemn normal women as inferior and wage War Against Human Nature in order to destroy the happiness of others by creating a totalitarian Utopia of Misery where everyone will be equally unhappy.





 

66 comments

  1. They may claim to speak for all women, but the reality is they speak for a small handful of the mentally unbalanced. Women without these mental issues are capable of making up their own minds.

  4. If human identity is “socially constructed,” as feminists insist, then it may also be deconstructed

    Yes, but then what? Damn rational constructivists.

    Gender roles, marriage, the market, religion… these institutional forms (or, at least, our understanding of these forms as expressed in language) are ALL socially constructed, refined, torn down and recreated over time by the collective actions of countless individuals.

    These institutional forms are the winners of a fierce competition in the course of societal evolution. These are the products of human action but not human design. Each one represents the sum of our collective wisdom in a particular form of social being. They are not perfect, they are simply survivors and are therefore “fit”.

    Other, less adaptive social forms came into being and vanished back into nothingness while these forms lived on, embued with a natural, dare-I-say-it, libidinal energy that these institutional forms HARNESS rather than create.

    Gender roles, and all other well-adapted institutional forms, come into being and endure because they are efficient and serve a genuine desire/need; like windmills, they harness unseen forces for material (empirically verifiable) benefit. They “work” because they typically produce outcomes that closely correspond to the preferences of those who employ them.

  5. Lola Bunny Retro 7

    assisting chances A good friend got tog Air Jordan 7 Lola Bunny ether a visitor off elsewhere then also told her d Jordan 5 Metallic ad: Like to tells you about Opher, he could be a trained of this. paid at a nearby commercial location, developed a che…

  6. {cheap jerseys wholesale

    Hardest omission: Frank PaulR {China Wholesale Cheap Design Basketball Jerseys Online From China With Top Quality Guarantee?duke blue devils basketball jerseys ick Brunson,{China Wholesale Cheap Design Basketball Jerseys Online From China W {wholesale…


  7. “…Republicans were waging a “war on women” enabled the Democrat to score the largest “gender gap” advantage among female voters ever recorded…”

    The reason why women should not be allowed to vote (I am a woman and would eagerly give up this right, in order to stop idiot and “prom queen popularity” voting):

    “And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result.” (1 Timothy 2:14 NLT)

  8. marcjacobs.com

    marc by marc marc by marc jacobs natasha bag jacobs natasha bag marc by marc jacobs percy marc jaco marc by marc jacobs percy bs wallet marc jacobs classic q francescamarc by marc jacobs classic q natasha marc jacobs lommebokveske marc jacobs marc jaco…

  10. Feminists are right about some things… namely, normal heterosexualilty does indeed lead to male happiness, babies, economic inequality and female subordination (à la Ephesians 5:22). Inasmuch as conservatives and traditionalists have been reluctant to recognize and address these points from the traditionalist perspective, they have empowered radical feminists by giving feminists almost unlimited freedom to distort these facts and by allowing feminists to appear to have the market cornered on certain truths about heterosexuality.

  11. marc jacobs classic q francesca

    marc jacobs nettbutikk marc jacobs nettbutikk marc jacobs classic q percy marc j marc jacobs classic q percy acobs ballerina classic q natashamarc jacobs francesca marc jacobs skomarc by marc jacobs clutch marc jacobs jacket marc jacobs vesker oslo ves…

  12. “To translate this to plain English, if you are a normal (feminine) woman woman with a mental illness who feels normal (heterosexual) no attraction toward normal (masculine) men, this means that you have been brainwashed by society the voices in your head into accepting your own oppression under the psychosis as a system of male supremacy.”

    Fixed that for ya, McCain.

  13. Our understanding of gender roles is socially constructed, in the same way that an argument is constructed, i.e. put together with words. But those words must be carefully chosen to ensure the ideas from which these words are constructed correspond to something real.

    The corruption of man is followed by the corruption of language. When simplicity of character and the sovereignty of ideas is broken up by the prevalence of secondary desires, the desire of riches, of pleasure, of power, and of praise, — and duplicity and falsehood take place of simplicity and truth, the power over nature as an interpreter of the will, is in a degree lost; new imagery ceases to be created, and old words are perverted to stand for things which are not; a paper currency is employed, when there is no bullion in the vaults. In due time, the fraud is manifest, and words lose all power to stimulate the understanding or the affections. Hundreds of writers may be found in every long-civilized nation, who for a short time believe, and make others believe, that they see and utter truths, who do not of themselves clothe one thought in its natural garment, but who feed unconsciously on the language created by the primary writers of the country, those, namely, who hold primarily on nature.

  14. I agree, and what women don’t seem to understand about Biblical subordination to another is that it means the buck stops with someone else (the husband) and actually leads to a freer, less stressful life for the wife.

    If I could have a life-long “do over”, I wouldn’t have had a career, but would have been a stay at home, full time wife and mother, even if we had to live in a trailer park. (Which, by the way, is not considered a bad thing by Southern standards, LOL!)

  15. “In effect, the feminist influence on college sexual attitudes amounts to a direct reversal of the old sexist double-standard that celebrated the promiscuous male “stud” while denigrating the promiscuous female “slut.””

    That particlar double-standard never actually existed when our society really was patriarchal: it is itself an earlier invention of feminism.

  16. marc by jacobs vesker

    marc jacobs natasha pris veske marc by marc jacobs marcbyma marc jacobs natasha pris rcjacobs marc jacobs pouchmarc jacobs net veske marc by marc jacobs tbutikk marc jacobs walletmarc jacobs computer case marc jacobs veske pris marc by jacobs vesker ma…

  17. mulberry vesker

    marc jacobs purse marc jacobs kjoler marc jacobs klær marc by marc jacobs marc jacobs purse hoboclassic q francesca tote marc by marc jacobs glassesipad mi marc jacobs kjoler ni marc jacobs marc jacobs lommebok pris marc by marc jacobs wallet marc by m…

  18. Every ship needs a commander; every team a leader. Assigning accountability to any more than one person is a great way to ensure that no-one is accountable, with predictable results.

  22. veske marc jacobs

    marc jacobs marc jacobs francesca francesca marc jacobs clutch pris marc jacobs clutch pris hillier hobo marc jacobs marc by marc jacobs laptop casemarc jacobs hillier hobo marc by marc jacobs percymarc jakobs marc jacobs percy marc by marc jacobs nata…

  23. In 20 years the faceless guy in shorts representing order and calm seen in the film adaptation of Lord of the Flies is transformed to faceless morons in E.T. who don’t quite understand plucky kids who are bicycling around a possible disease vector who wants to communicate its abuse at the hands of humans to a powerful alien civilization. 30 years on faceless men are considered a positive drag on civilization reminiscent of powerful aliens who’ve used fake heterosexuality to oppress the only real humans on Earth: women. Meanwhile those women lady of the flies are deconstructing law by openly proclaiming they don’t care which whites are racist and which men rapists and inciting and then cheering on riots while providing covering fire for Islamists who enslave women and throw gays off of buildings.

    Semantic and intellectual post-structural gibberish like Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble is the desert island that drives the ladies of the flies into a moral tailspin. The irony is the unintelligible insanity feminists have constructed to explain away the reality women don’t build pyramids does only too good a job of making their civilizational talents even worse. In the end, feminism not only denies biology, but sanity. It’s not a surprise so many feminists admit to severe mental health issues. They may have driven themselves mad listening to iconic figures who started out that way. The lesson is it is not possible to reverse engineer success and failure using rhetoric so that they exchange places. Acting on the assumption one has successfully done that will destroy success and elevate failure and destroy whatever it touches, whether it’s literature of colleges.

  24. Unfortunately, that is not entirely true, for the same reason why I comment here: words change brains, which makes a difference. They are making a very smart ploy by going for the young ones.

  25. Some of these feminists act like men are the Alien who will impregnate them and destroy their REAL selves with a baby alien popping out.

  26. Yes, I needed to qualify women in my second sentence. Gen Y seem to have been brainwashed to a dangerous degree and thus it continues.

  27. I’m an optimist: I believe that what has been done, can be undone. However, I only have faith.

  28. Christian faith would suggest that the outcome may not be quite so optimistic. We are ultimately doomed to fall, as a civilization.

  29. This is true, but we are all expected to do our best in the meantime, as in the parable of the talents. I think that the flaming rage nozzles of tolerance have really overstepped their bounds this time, and even the people that normally don’t pay attention will notice.

  30. I have good Christian friends that are blind to the obvious. They bundle me up as a right wing conspiracy theorist. I think it has moved well beyond conspiracy.

  31. More specifically, assigning headship to the woman ensures unhappiness — for the man and the woman.

  32. Davos. Not all conspiracies are theories. Sometimes they do it right out in the open. That will be the crowbar that pries their minds open.

  33. I support the right of both sexes to vote, if they pay net taxes (minus benefits).

    ETA: Social insurance (like Medicare) doesn’t count. You already paid for that.

  34. I agree it’s a good post. The reason the subject is so confusing is this is an ideology that puts the cart before the horse; disdain precedes any event, or even reality itself. It’s like making a fake alibi to excuse failure: it doesn’t hang together.

  35. Yes, I believe!!! I believe Hillary Clinton is equally evil as her husband! What, that’s not what they meant?

  38. I don’t understand about “normal heterosexuality” leading to “female subordination.”

    Nothing could look more traditional than my parents 64 year long marriage (still going). Mom was SAH for majority of it, but my parents have always been partners and divvied up areas of responsibility. e.g. dad was the ‘breadwinner’ but mom did all the household accounting.

    My husband and I are a TEAM. We go with our strengths & talents and that person takes the lead on the project at hand. (I do the taxes & insurance, hubby does the bills, I make home decorating/gardening decisions, he plans vacations)

  39. “Semantic and intellectual post-structural gibberish like Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble …”

    The question never asked: How did Butler obtain her amazing influence in the field of gender theory? The answer:

    A. Because political correctness in academia has effectively silenced criticism of the feminist/LGBT movement; and
    B. Because students nowadays lack the kind of curiosity that would lead them to examine Butler’s sources.

    Once you recognize the tendentious nature of Butler’s sources — e.g., Monique Wittig, Michel Foucault, Gayle Rubin, Luce Irigay — you understand that she is engaged in special pleading. Having spent a great deal of time studying the history of the American Civil War, I know what a one-sided argument looks like, and I know that it is not an ad hominem fallacy to say, for example, “This person making arguments for the continuation of slavery is, himself, deeply and personally invested in the institution of slavery, from which he derives enormous financial benefits.” This does not necessarily negate his argument, but the question of motive is certainly relevant. Likewise, when I find homosexuals arguing on behalf of homosexuality — which is what Butler’s Gender Trouble actually is — I am understandably skeptical of both the evidence offered and the logic employed to make the argument. Certainly, no reasonable person should hear an argument claiming that ordinary human behavior (“gender roles”) amounts to a cruel system of oppression, without considering the fact that those complaining of this alleged oppression have “a stake in the game,” so to speak.

    Also: Don’t bullshit a bullshitter.

    I am not a naive bumpkin. I know a hustle when I see one, and when feminists act as if I’m too stupid to figure out their “social justice” hustle, it insults my intelligence.

  40. “… it is itself an earlier invention of feminism …”

    Not “feminism,” per se. Predatory male sexuality was celebrated and condoned by the bohemian intelligentsia in the immediate post-WWII era. This sexual counterculture — including everyone from Alfred Kinsey and Hugh Hefner to Norman O. Brown and Herbert Marcuse and much of the entertainment/arts industry — was celebrating promiscuity for about two decades before the “Sexual Revolution” of the 1960s began. And it was in reaction to this hedonistic “if it feels good, do it” frenzy of the 1960s that the “Women’s Liberation” emerged from the radical New Left circa 1968.

    The one thing the feminist movement never considered was a return to the customs and traditions of Judeo-Christian morality, which had hitherto offered protection to women by restraining male sexuality within a widely understood system of social incentives toward monogamy.

  42. RSMcC: “In effect, the feminist influence on college sexual attitudes amounts to a direct reversal of the old sexist double-standard that celebrated the promiscuous male “stud” while denigrating the promiscuous female “slut.””
    ?
    Ilíon: “That particlar double-standard never actually existed when our society really was patriarchal: it is itself an earlier invention of feminism.”
    ?
    RSMcC: “Not “feminism,” per se. Predatory male sexuality was celebrated and condoned by the bohemian intelligentsia …”
    ?
    The “bohemians” were not advocating a “sexist double-standard that celebrated the promiscuous male “stud” while denigrating the promiscuous female “slut.”” They were advocating that everyone be promiscuous.
    ?
    RSMcC: “This sexual counterculture … was celebrating promiscuity for about two decades before the “Sexual Revolution” of the 1960s began. And it was in reaction to this hedonistic “if it feels good, do it” frenzy of the 1960s that the “Women’s Liberation” emerged from the radical New Left circa 1968.”
    ?
    And what was the *first* thing the “Women’s Liberation” liars did? They created and peddled the lie that traditional moral society “celebrated the promiscuous male “stud” while denigrating the promiscuous female “slut.”“

  43. Right. It’s like they’re saying after the fact “I’m gay on purpose,” or it’s like an alibi, or they’re saying being heterosexual is not only unnatural it’s oppressive or all at once and seeing what sticks for good measure.

    Just be gay. You don’t have to marshall the forces of all of Europe’s intellectuals or pretend incest is a Machiavellian plot to insure male alliances and otherwise mom and apple pie. At some point one just has to say “I have pimples” and “No, they’re not on purpose” and not “Everyone should have pimples cuz they look so nice and why don’t you have them – jealous? Here’s a pimple formula.”

  44. Right. It’s like they’re saying after the fact “I’m gay on purpose,” or it’s like an alibi, or they’re saying being heterosexual is not only unnatural it’s oppressive or all at once and seeing what sticks for good measure.

    Just be gay. You don’t have to marshall the forces of all of Europe’s intellectuals or pretend incest is a Machiavellian plot to insure male alliances and otherwise mom and apple pie. At some point one just has to say “I have pimples” and “No, they’re not on purpose” and not “Everyone should have pimples cuz they look so nice and why don’t you have them – jealous? Here’s a pimple formula.”

    My favorite part is when they say women have to convince themselves to be heterosexual, like they’re broken. They seem to be against anything normal by default, as long as they can confuse the issue. The chances heterosexuality is fake is about the same as planes flying by willpower or trickery. “Oh, look! A plane. I don’t have a plane. They can’t be real and I didn’t want one anyway.

  45. The weirdos are not at war with us; they’re at war with Mother Nature, with the universe, with natural biology, with Reality itself.

  46. “I have pimples” and “No, they’re not on purpose”

    Wayne “The Brain” McClain?

  47. Our esteemed host wrote:

    Any time a man comes home from work to find his wife has cooked a nice family dinner, the patriarchy wins.

    And the alternative, that both the husband and wife work outside the home, and one of them has to stop at Boston Market or Taco Hell or Pizza Slut, and bring home a meal, already cooked, most probably by teen-aged girls making minimum wage, is feminism?

  49. I’m reminded of an old politically incorrect expression: “Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians”.

Comments are closed.