Feminism as Totalitarian Ideology

Posted on Comments

“If we accept that gender is constructed and that it is not in any way ‘naturally’ or inevitably connected to sex, then the distinction between sex and gender comes to seem increasingly unstable. In that case, gender is radically independent of sex, ‘a free-floating artifice’ as [Professor Judith] Butler puts it, raising the question as to whether ‘sex’ is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps sex was always already gender, so that the sex/gender distinction is not actually a distinction at all. Butler dispenses with the idea that either gender or sex is an ‘abiding substance’ by arguing that a heterosexual, heterosexist culture establishes the coherence of these categories in order to perpetuate and maintain what the feminist poet and critic Adrienne Rich has called ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ — the dominant order in which men and women are required or even forced to be heterosexual.”
— Sara Salih, Judith Butler (2002)

“Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston. You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.”
— George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (1948)

Feminist gender theory, explained by Professor Salih in her synopsis of Professor Butler’s influential 1990 book, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, is totalitarian in two senses of the word. First, it is a political invention, a belief system that claims to define reality in order to advance the claims of a group to exercise complete power. Second, feminism is a totalitarian movement in that its adherents employ methods of terroristic intimidation to silence those who dissent from feminist ideology. This is most evident in academia. On those rare occasions when any critic of feminism appears on a university campus, they are met by angry mobs of feminist protesters.

In October 2014, when columnist George Will gave a speech at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, more than a thousand students signed an open letter claiming that hosting this Pulitzer Prize-winner “sends the wrong message . . . about the tolerance of rape culture and predatory sexual behavior at Miami University.” Chanting and waving signs, dozens of students protested outside Will’s speech, angry about a column he’d written four months earlier. Will’s column explained how the Obama administration was coercing universities to comply with policies based on the bogus 1-in-5 campus rape statistic.

What none of the protesters did (because they could not do) was to refute the facts as Will stated them in his column.

Facts mean nothing to feminists because they are determined to use political power to force others to accept their ideological claims: “Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth.”

A decade ago, feminism’s hegemonic power in academia was demonstrated when Larry Summers was forced to resign as president of Harvard University after he had dared to suggest that there are “innate differences” between men and women. Like Winston Smith, he believed “that the nature of reality is self-evident” — men and women are different — and yet feminist ideology denies this self-evident reality.

Feminism declares that the categories “male” and “female” are fictional constructs through which people are “forced to be heterosexual.” This claim of oppression by the “dominant order” of a “heterosexist culture” is a core principle of feminist theory.

“In terms of the oppression of women, heterosexuality is the ideology of male supremacy.”
— Margaret Small, “Lesbians and the Class Position of Women,” in Lesbianism and the Women’s Movement, edited by Charlotte Bunch and Nancy Myron (1975)

“The radical feminist argument is that men have forced women into heterosexuality in order to exploit them . . .”
— Celia Kitzinger, The Social Construction of Lesbianism (1987)

“There are politics in sexual relationships because they occur in the context of a society that assigns power based on gender and other systems of inequality and privilege. . . . [T]he interconnections of systems are reflected in the concept of heteropatriarchy, the dominance associated with a gender binary system that presumes heterosexuality as a social norm. . . .
“As many feminists have pointed out, heterosexuality is organized in such a way that the power men have in society gets carried into relationships and can encourage women’s subservience, sexually and emotionally.”
— Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)

Feminists see normal sex roles as “oppression” by “male supremacy,” and deny that heterosexuality is natural. These claims predictably lead feminists into hopeless confusion. The UCLA student newspaper published a column “calling for the government to provide women with free tampons in order to promote gender equality.” However, in order not to offend transgender activists, the editors of the UCLA Bruin felt the need to include a disclaimer:

Editor’s note: This blog post refers to individuals who menstruate as women because the author wanted to highlight gender inequality in health care. We acknowledge that not all individuals who menstruate identify as women and that not all individuals who identify as women menstruate, but feel this generalization is appropriate considering the gendered nature of most health care policies.

Winston Smith could not be reached for comment.




 

58 comments

  2. In addition to this pernicious nonsense being offensive intellectually and politically, it is also a menace in another way. It stands in the way of finding out the truth about the acquisition of sexual response.

    I had always had an instinctive disgust at homosexual behaviour. The first gay guy I got to know grew up in a rough suburb and thought he was the only person on earth who was gay. I know that sounds like a BS POL.COR narrative, but I actually believe him. He and I are both disgusted by poncy f@ggots but very simpatico to ladyboys. I asked him about this one time and he said “I am a homosexual. I am attracted to MEN not pansies” I never thought about it before but it is obvious really. Both of us regard lady boys as women and we behave towards them in a gentlemanly fashion. They don’t give out “male energy” whatever that is. Why do some guys like kind girls and others pouty slutty psycho nasty ones that end up hurting them? ala Jonathon Richman. Baffling.

    This vast panoply of human sexuality is mystifying. I am sure these questions have proper scientific answers and, one can only imagine many lives, and relationships would be far more harmonious if the underlying mechanisms were properly understood. There must be an underlying “grain”. What hope that well balanced scientists can research what constitutes “putting from the rough” given this cacophony of bullsh1t from these sickos?

  3. My fathers new wife is a Vietnamese lady.
    To tease her one day i mentioned ladyboys in Asia and Vietnam (there had been a show on TV about Vietnam that had some on the night before).

    She replied to the effect that most people didnt think about them because they were mad.
    Why waste time trying to work out why a person is mad, they just are.

    Which struck me as a clever way of looking at it, if someone calls themselves Napoleon and wears a bicorne hat Im not going to demand they lead my armies against the enemies of France. Similar with ladyboys Im not going to waste any time wondering what they are thinking/what they want/why they are doing it because they are MAD!

    Dont focus on the person, focus on the behaviour, and if its insane, then thats all it is.

  4. Congratulations to your Father and your family. Vietnamese that I have ever met are a fine people. I hope your folks will be very happy.

    With respect I would contend there are very good reasons to try to figger out what motivates behaviour that is mystifying and sometimes very dangerous.

    I once knew a person who was a psychopathic murderer. I had this individual sussed. I knew as soon as he got out of jail he would “ice up” and murder a slight asian women. The more defenceless and terrified the better. I only gleaned this from my gut feel and a few conversations. His close friends proffessed to be shocked. My experience was that, as a Catholic we were taught that every human has a soul. Whatever that means. This guy just didn’t, any more than an 8088 uProccesor does.

    Long story short it played out exactly as I predicted.

    All I had was a few hints and a superstitious religious niggling hunch.

    As a species we are becoming far more aware of the Universe around us and the cures for all manner of bodily and spiritual maladies. It is only clear sightedness and curiosity that we have to underpin our effort to stay ahead of the risks our environment offers up to us.

  6. If we accept that gender is constructed and that it is not in any way ‘naturally’ or inevitably connected to sex, then the distinction between sex and gender comes to seem increasingly unstable.

    What does this even mean? Stipulate that Judith Butler is psychotic. Sara Salih is then that and more!

    Here, let me try this game: If we accept that the moon is made of green cheese and that it is not in any way ‘naturally’ or inevitably connected to orbital dynamics, then the distinction between party appetizers and the moon comes to seem increasingly unstable.

    The fact is, everything after “If we accept” is not only wrong, it’s insane. You could make any argument after “If we accept” without regard to logic or rationality! Who says crazy stuff like this, for pity’s sake?

    Here, let me quote myself in an article I posted lasted week:

    “Our conscience is overruled by rationalization. Divorced from discernment, the unacceptable becomes acceptable because we excuse it away…Moral disorder perverts reason, and reality becomes inverted. A false reality is established…Frankly, if you are going to perform or celebrate morally objectionable acts, and indeed, define yourself by them, you’d better have a way to plausibly persuade yourself and others that it is right. Convincing yourself that your actions are acceptable is rationalization; convincing others involves the bludgeon of political correctness. Both are components of the false reality.”

    (http://blogos.org/christianlifeandgrowth/rationalization-conscience.php)

    Seriously. I feel like I’m living in Bizarro World. It’s not that crazy feminists say stupid stuff; I expect that. It’s that people publish it and treat it as if it’s not the rantings of lunatics and imbeciles. People who ought to know better totally buy into the rationalization lock, stock and barrel.

  7. I think her point was more “I dont care about their abnormality as it doesnt affect me’, rather than “I hate you because you are weird’ if that makes sense.

  8. Feminist physics:

    If we accept that down is constructed and that it is not in any way ‘naturally’ or inevitably connected to gravity, then the distinction between gravitational pull and down comes to seem increasingly unstable. In that case, down is radically independent of gravity, ‘a free-floating artifice’ as [Professor Judith] Butler puts it, raising the question as to whether ‘gravity’ is as culturally constructed as down; indeed, perhaps down was always already gravitational pull, so that the gravity/down distinction is not actually a distinction at all. Butler dispenses with the idea that either down or gravity is an ‘abiding
    substance’ by arguing that a gravity-bound, gravity-normative culture establishes the coherence of these categories in order to perpetuate and maintain what the feminist poet and critic Adrienne Rich has called ‘compulsory gravity’ — the dominant order in which men and women are required or even forced to be down with gravity.

  10. I am not even sure how to make the ecological analogy. The phenomena is a form of parasitism where both participants are resourceless and pathological. Can it not be ignored? If normal folks are in danger of being suckered and and destroyed, perhaps like your kids who are paying big money for education can get warned to avoid the “reevers”. Just let ’em know, school ’em. When was there ever a time no wombat holes existed?

  11. Thank you for your kind reply.

    I certainly never got any “hate weirdness” message from your response. If your step mom has no dealings with an arcane social group (ladyboys) then, good call, why bother to find out what makes them tick? We all have demands on our time and attention.

    My contention is that you are better to understand how to deal in alien cultures lest you find yourself skipping the track. Like the magistrate instructs the jury “Keep an open mind”. However at a certain point, there needs to be a verdict.

    Is this individual a friend or foe?

  12. If we accept that gender is constructed and that it is not in any way ‘naturally’ or inevitably connected to sex, then the distinction between sex and gender comes to seem increasingly unstable.

    But what if we don’t accept that premise? What if we realize that that premise is pure bovine feces, because physical sex and “gender” behavior in every other species is completely linked?

    You can come up with any result you want, if you start from a flawed premise.

  13. If we accept that gender is constructed and that it is not in any way ‘naturally’ or inevitably connected to sex, then the distinction between sex and gender comes to seem increasingly unstable.

    If physical sex and “gender” are not in any way naturally or inevitably connected, then sexual preference ought to be pretty much random; roughly half of the population ought to be homosexual or at least bisexual. When a rational person considers that about 98% of the population are heterosexual, the logical mind would assume that there is some natural link between physical sex and gender behavior and attraction.

    Further, the urge to sex is the urge to reproduce; without it, the species would never have survived long enough to produce educated idiots.

  14. The useful idiots are usually the first people to the wall. The real power never trusts them, only uses them, and they won’t allow such people the luxury of waking up and coming to their senses while at liberty.

  15. Of course, no one will inquire where this new penchant for catering to others’ solipsistic fantasies ends. Why limit our deference to others’ alternate “realities” to only matters pertaining to biology? Why not kowtow to every schizophrenic on the planet? If Bruce Jenner gets a prize and a television speech, then what is the ethical basis for attempting to treat, via medication or otherwise, those people who have voices in their heads beamed to them by CIA satellites or whatever? The fact of the matter is, pretending to accept these alternate realities is the first step down the road to a collective insanity where people are incapable of discerning objective Truth.

  16. Free tampons? I thought tampons were instruments of patriarchic oppression that were invented to make women despise their own natural bodily functions? So, isn’t that sorta like giving free hot dogs to vegans? Also, the desire for a free hot dog generally diminishes in proportion to its proximity to the tongue…so, free tampons? What would a free tampon be made of…recycled post-its and unicorn tears?

    “If we accept that gender is constructed…” then you’re either insane or dumber than a bag of turnips. If you can persuade enough people to believe things that are obviously false, you can do just about anything,,,reclaim the Sudetenland…invade Poland…sign a nuclear inspection treaty that ensures that madmen get ‘the bomb’…release hundreds of thousands of foreign felons onto the streets…

  18. The useful idiots go to the wall, but not in the first load. They send the ones who represent the biggest threat first (people like Stacy and other opinion makers men and women who oppose them), then commentators like us who show a propensity to understand their agenda and oppose it), and then their useful idiots and finally the omega “Male feminists” who do not fall in line or commit some slight to annoy.

  22. Our host’s article title somewhat begs the question: is it feminism which is a totalitarian ideology, or leftism in general? The left hold that you must comply, must support and provide services for homosexual weddings, even if you believe them to be wrong. The left believe that you must pay union dues, even if you don’t want to join a union. The left believe that you must buy health insurance, including coverage you know you’ll never need, and are willing to use the power of government to enforce it. The left believe in freedom of choice on exactly one thing, and many of them criticize those families which exercise that freedom of choice to have more than a couple of kids.

    If feminism is a leftist ideology, it never had a chance to be anything other than totalitarian.

  23. “If we accept that gender is constructed…” then you’re either insane or dumber than a bag of turnips.

    I’m not certain that insanity and stupidity are mutually exclusive.

  24. …roughly half of the population ought to be homosexual or at least bisexual.

    The left are working on that.

  28. When I was in grad school, we had to study Butler, and when I challenged one of her invidious ideas re: gender, my prof wrote in my paper, “Butler debunked this” — um, she didn’t debunk anything; she offered an alternative, counter-intuitive position. That’s not the same as debunking. To the left, these ideas sound so amazing; they never work, and they cause suffering, but they sound good.

  29. Exactly. One can “prove” any conclusion one wants, if one starts with false (or insane) premises. And moreso if one doesn’t care to maintain rational relationships as one steps through the “argument”.

  30. QQQ

    “Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston. You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see…

  31. No doubt because she got called out on the fact that it isn’t our culture that makes it uncomfortable to be invisible, any more than it was our culture that made men notice her in the first place. The sociobiology of sex and reproduction gave her power, and she resented it until she missed it.

  34. Pretty much. The CIA determined years ago that they don’t have to do anything else to those brains subjected to course work at UK. : )

  35. I am tempted to suggested to say look in your crotch and tell me if what you see is a “social construct” or biological reality. Then I thought of “transgendered” people who have hired someone to take a scalpel to them in a vain attempt to alter genetic reality.

  36. Strange how gender and sex are social constructs and they want to believe that all people are the same…

    …but to want to behave in a color-blind manner regarding race is “secret code” for racism.

  39. Feminism…eats its own…
    Feminism…eats its own…
    Feminism…eats its own…

    Nice word choice, Daniel. It’s almost as if there’s a secret meaning there, but I’m just not getting it. 😀

  42. “Winston Smith could not be reached for comment.”

    Oh sure he can. He’s writing for the NYT under just about any pseudonym.

  43. They’re more into Quantum Physics because of the uncertainty in it. Gives far more room for the mental meanderings.

  45. You may have invented a new field of study. We could call it Quantum Sexuality. You could formulate the Dana Uncertainty principle and you’d be famous.

  46. You aren’t wearing that aluminum helmet I gave you? You wanting to go crazy or something?

  47. Wow, some bitches can’t even FATHOM that they just “ain’t all that”!
    I know, let’s cut to the never ending Humanities Tenure “studies” lies.
    Because being printed is where it’s at, and saying ridiculous crap get you printed.

  49. Welcome to the matriarchy.
    Rule number one of the matriarchy is to never mention the matriarchy

  50. GRAVITY HOLDS WOMEN DOWN!

    It’s time to discuss the extra burden that gravity places on women, says Colleen Hyphenated-Lastname, president of the Propaganda Organization for Women.

    “Feminist scientists on an archaeological dig in Mesopotamia have discovered illustrations of women who seem to be floating in the air,” Hyphenated-Lastname says. “This cutting-edge research indicates that there once was a time when gravity did not exist. In fact, these artifacts indicate that society was once gender equal, and women held most high offices of power and controlled the television remote.”

    “But all this changed with the onset of western patriarchal societies that wanted to keep women down. If there were no distinctions between men and women, patriarchal oppressors had to invent them. And if there was no gravity, the patriarchy had to invent that, too.”

    “Gravity is designed to benefit men, who have thicker bones and greater upper-body strength. Today, we see the results everywhere of the patriarchy’s efforts to keep women down. Gravity causes women to fall to their deaths out of windows or down stairs. It makes buildings collapse, killing women and children. It damages women’s cars when some inconsiderate construction worker topples from the tenth floor and bounces off the hood. Gravity makes the complete, leather-bound editions of Carrie Chapman Catt fall off my bookshelf and give me such a smack I can hardly see straight.”

    “Navy pilot Kara Hultgreen would not have crashed her jet except for gravity. Clearly, she was set up to fail.”

    “Women seek treatment for depression at far higher rates. Obviously, more women are feeling ‘down.’ Gravity is just another way in which women’s health is being shortchanged.”

    “This oppression is historical, the product of white, western men who wanted to hold onto power. The laws of physics were written long before women had the right to vote. If women had had more input, the laws of physics would have been kinder, and gravity would have been supportive. Instead, we are shackled with the competitive, conflict-oriented mode of men. Isaac Newton, a typical dead white European male, was obsessed with ‘opposing’ reactions, even if he hypocritically admitted that some of them were equal. When he declared that for every action there is opposed an equal reaction, he was doing nothing less than defining the backlash. If women had had a chance to shape these laws, their conflict-free style of interaction would have made sure that there were no opposed reactions. All reactions simply would have been equal.

    “We can undo the oppressive, patriarchal mindset that would have us believe that gravity really represents the ‘natural’ order of things,” says Hyphenated-Lastname. “It will require spending money on programs to elevate girls’ self esteem so that they are not held down by artificial concepts of patriarchy.”

    “This will cost a lot of money,” says Hyphenated-Lastname.

Comments are closed.