The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Feminism’s Attack on ‘Institutionalized, Normative Heterosexuality’

Posted on | August 11, 2015 | 19 Comments

If you’ve read my book Sex Trouble, you understand how I focus on the gap between feminism’s exoteric discourse (what feminists say when seeking support from the general public) and feminism’s esoteric doctrine (the beliefs shared among intellectuals and activists who lead and control the movement). Like other movements of the radical Left, feminism preaches one thing to outsiders while teaching something else to insiders, and this deception is both deliberate and necessary. Feminists must conceal the truth about their agenda, because if taxpayers knew the ideology that is being propagated in our universities, this would cause such a political uproar that legislators would zero out the budgets of Women’s Studies programs and eliminate funding for much of the “research” done by academic feminists. Please read this very carefully:

Over the last decade and more . . . feminists have been analysing how normative heterosexuality affects the lives of heterosexuals (see Wilkinson and Kitzinger, 1993; Richardson, 1996; Jackson, 1999; Ingraham, 1996, 1999). In so doing they have drawn on earlier feminists, such as Charlotte Bunch (1975), Adrienne Rich (1980) and Monique Wittig (1992), who related heterosexuality to the perpetuation of gendered divisions of labour and male appropriation of women’s productive and reproductive capacities. Indeed, Rich’s concept of ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ could be seen as a forerunner of ‘heteronormativity’ and I would like to preserve an often neglected legacy of the former concept: that institutionalized, normative heterosexuality regulates those kept within its boundaries as well as marginalizing and sanctioning those outside them. The term ‘heteronormativity’ has not always captured this double-sided social regulation. Feminists have a vested interest in what goes on within heterosexual relations because we are concerned with the ways in which heterosexuality depends upon and guarantees gender division. . . . [T]he analysis of heteronormativity needs to be rethought in terms of what is subject to regulation on both sides of the normatively prescribed boundaries of heterosexuality: both sexuality and gender. With this in mind, this article re-examines the intersections between gender, sexuality in general and heterosexuality in particular. How these terms are defined is clearly consequential for any analysis of linkages between them. There is no consensus on the question of definition, in large part because gender, sexuality and heterosexuality are approached from a variety of perspectives focusing on different dimensions of the social. . . . Sexuality, gender and heterosexuality intersect in variable ways within and between different dimensions of the social — and these intersections are also, of course, subject to historical change along with cultural and contextual variability.

That is from a 2006 article in the journal Feminist Theory by University of York Professor Stevi Jackson. It is one of 77 citations that Google Scholar shows for The Male in the Head: Young People, Heterosexuality and Power, a 1998 book by Janet Holland, Caroline Ramazanoglu, Sue Sharpe and Rachel Thomson. The authors are not “fringe” figures within academic feminism. Professor Holland (London South Bank University) and Professor Ramazanoglu (Goldsmiths College, University of London) co-authored the 2002 textbook Feminist Methodology: Challenges and Choices, while Professor Thomson (Director of the University of Sussex Centre for Innovation and Research in Childhood and Youth) is author of the 2009 textbook Unfolding Lives: Youth, Gender and ChangeThe influential academic authors of The Male in the Head describe their work as a “detailed investigation of the social construction of sexuality” in which they “develop a feminist theory which shows the power of heterosexuality as masculine” — a theory that is certainly not new. Let’s recite a few examples 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)

“I think heterosexuality cannot come naturally to many women: I think that widespread heterosexuality among women is a highly artificial product of the patriarchy. . . . I think that most women have to be coerced into heterosexuality.”
Marilyn Frye, “A Lesbian’s Perspective on Women’s Studies,” speech to the National Women’s Studies Association conference, 1980

“Since sex is something men do to women . . . men dominate and control women. . . .
“In other words, heterosexuality is the foundation of the social structure of male dominance, and successfully attacking it could bring down the whole house. . . .
“The need for a unified feminist theory of sexuality is clear. If one concludes, as many feminists have, that heterosexuality is the primary and most powerful mechanism of social control, then understanding its meaning in all forms is imperative if male dominance is ever to be overcome.”

S.P. Schacht and Patricia H. Atchison, “Heterosexual Instrumentalism: Past and Future Directions,” in Heterosexuality: A Feminism and Psychology Reader, edited by Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger (1993)

“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)

Feminism’s anti-male ideology necessarily becomes an anti-heterosexual ideology. When I describe feminism as a war against human nature, I’m not exaggerating. The final chapter of The Male in the Head — as I’ve shown, a widely-cited book by respected academic feminists — is entitled, “Unnatural Heterosexuality,” and these eminent British professors advocate resistance to heterosexuality:

Men are routinely accessing male power over women, whether or not they . . . intend to exercise such power, but they are also constrained by the construction of adult heterosexuality as masculinity. We argue that sexually young people are all in the same boat, in that heterosexuality is masculinity only thinly disguised but . . . that resistance is possible and heterosexuality could be otherwise. . . .
Resisting heterosexuality is not only a question of how young people choose their sexual partners; resistance includes a critical exploration and disruption of desire, embodiment and gender. Although very few of the young people in our studies identified themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual, such identities, while not freeing them from the gender relations of heterosexuality, can afford them a degree of freedom in the invention and negotiation of their sexual relationships.
Some young people are clearly resisting the pressures of heterosexuality and searching for other ways of being sexual. . . .
While young people’s resistance to heterosexuality can be socially constructed in varying ways . . . the potential for young people to have a subversive or transformative effect on sexual relationships appears to be limited. Analysis of the strategies of resistance . . . became important in our understanding of the location of male power in heterosexuality.

These claims are based on research that was funded by British taxpayers under the pretext of AIDS prevention (!!!) and let me ask the reader to imagine what kind “research” is produced when feminist professors get taxpayer money to study rape, domestic violence, prostitution or any other subject pertaining to sex (or “gender”) for which they may be able to obtain a government grant. When researchers begin with an ideological bias against men (as all feminists do), we can expect them to find the shadow of sinister “male power” wherever they look. This routinely results in research calculated to influence policy (including policy affecting school curricula) in ways that “have a subversive or transformative effect,” as the professors say, so as to undermine “male power” and “the gender relations of heterosexuality.”

When I quote what feminists actually write in their books and journal articles, most people — including people who call themselves “feminists” — are astonished. What is revealed by these quotes is not merely feminism’s implacable hostility toward “institutionalized, normative heterosexuality” (i.e., what most of us think of as human nature), but also the yawning gap between feminism’s exoteric discourse and its esoteric doctrine. Academic feminists have succeeded in concealing their work from external scrutiny in large measure because critics of feminism have failed to understand the importance of what is being taught in university departments of Women Studies. Even though the total number of students in these programs (about 90,000 annually in the United States) is a small fraction of overall undergraduate enrollment, they have a large influence within the feminist movement. Furthermore, because Women’s Studies is an “interdisciplinary” program, the ideology promulgated by these professors has an influence throughout the curriculum in the arts, humanities and social sciences.

While the adherents of feminism benefit from taxpayer subsidies and grants from major philanthropic foundations, what resources are available to those who oppose this radical ideology? You.

Yes, that’s right: You, my readers, have made possible the months of research that have enabled me to bring to light the inner workings of the Feminist-Industrial Complex. The fact that readers are astonished by what I’ve found — e.g., Women’s Studies textbooks that quite literally promote witchcraft — is a clue to how far behind we are in doing the work that needs to be done to defend our culture from feminism, a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It.

While working on the second edition of Sex Trouble, I’ve frequently felt an uncomfortable sense of loneliness, as if no one else is paying attention to this problem, as if no one (besides my regular readers) understands why this work matters. So I have begun conversations with a few friends to create an organization that can expand and continue this project. However, that’s going to require time to accomplish and — right here, right now — I’m facing a serious cash crunch. The electric bill, the cable bill, and the phone bill must be paid, and amid the annual summer blog slump, this has produced a crisis to which the only solution seems to be a repetition of the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:



Honestly, I hate having to do this, and am working to relieve the necessity of these occasional emergency tip-jar appeals, but right now whatever you can give — $5, $10, $20 — would be deeply appreciated. Thanks in advance, and thanks also for your prayers that reading all this crazy feminist stuff doesn’t melt my brain.



19 Responses to “Feminism’s Attack on ‘Institutionalized, Normative Heterosexuality’”

  1. DeadMessenger
    August 11th, 2015 @ 9:33 pm

    The entire first quote from White Rose is asinine on its face. It sounds like pretentious and incoherent babble used as “filler” for one’s post-grad thesis.

    Frankly, “normal” in terms of sexual behavior is defined as that which is consistent both biologically and mathematically in terms of what is performed by a statistically significant segment of the population (throughout the entirety of human history, in fact). In the case of heterosexuality, this would be 97+%.

    If a thing is not normal, by definition, it is abnormal. If it is also immoral, as judged by societal standards (also throughout the entirety of human history, it turns out), it is also deviant.

    Why in the world wouls anybody be interested in the gibbering of abnormal sexual deviants? Let alone fund such gibbering. It just doesn’t make logical sense to me.

  2. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    August 11th, 2015 @ 9:34 pm
  3. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    August 11th, 2015 @ 9:36 pm

    There are deviations from normal that I would not necessarily define as “abnormal” in a pejorative sense. Celibacy, for example.

  4. DeadMessenger
    August 11th, 2015 @ 9:44 pm

    Indeed, which is why I AM using deviant in the pejorative sense.

    And let’s get real here…even bulls and heifers naturally and intuitively know that Tab A goes in Slot B, for pity’s sake. But feminists have trouble grasping that. Or rather, they don’t. They only seek to normalize their own deviance and perversion so that they don’t “feel bad” about themselves.

    And to them I would say, “Come. Come with me to the farm, and we will observe the animals and you will learn many lessons from them. And you will also learn how to shovel poo, even better than you are now.”

  5. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    August 11th, 2015 @ 9:48 pm

    Well to be fair, those bulls when they get the rut on will screw a well head. But bulls will be bulls.

    The old ones have more sense.

  6. DeadMessenger
    August 11th, 2015 @ 9:56 pm

    Perhaps those bulls are lonely, or maybe have astygmatism. Or are just stupid (my vote).

  7. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    August 11th, 2015 @ 10:40 pm

    When males think with their other head…they are definitely stupid. And most cattle (a few special ones excluded) are not Mensa members.

  8. RKae
    August 12th, 2015 @ 2:49 am

    When I read that rambling of theirs I am struck by how it is only possible when using a highly complex language that took centuries to concoct. Mind you, I’m not praising our language here. I think I’m actually saying that it has jumped the shark.

    Try translating that feminist claptrap into something the Kalahari bushmen can understand. You can’t. Their language is good for “Put more wood on the fire” and “The hut needs a new roof.”

    I think feminism might be evidence that our language has sadly gone around the bend.

  9. Fail Burton
    August 12th, 2015 @ 5:11 am

    The magic word in this con game is “feminism.” For some reason no one questions why a racist version of lesbian paranoia would in any way be mainstreamed in America. The easy answer is people don’t know where it comes from. The Bechdel Test, rape culture, cultural appropriation, colonial gaze, white privilege, patriarchy, misogyny all come from gay feminism. That is an easily documented fact. And yet when one mentions it, one is laughed at. That is a KKK with covering fire.

  10. omicron123
    August 12th, 2015 @ 5:34 am

    Fortunately I went to a good enough Conservative college that I avoided this particular strand of feminism altogether.
    Like so many things about leftism, it reminds me all too much of Robespierre and the French Revolution – Tyranny and Hatred wearing Liberty’s halo and crown.

  11. Trespassers W
    August 12th, 2015 @ 7:08 am

    OK, this is probably not an original observation, but…

    How is it that some people can demand that everybody “celebrate diversity,” and then turn around and insist that, when it comes to male and female, THAT particular diversity is a “social construct?”

    Yeah, yeah, I know: Don’t expect rational thought from a pinko.

  12. Ilion
    August 12th, 2015 @ 7:36 am

    Back in 1982, I met the wife of a new co-worker (I was the newcomer), who described herself as a feminist. I always told her, “You can’t be a feminist. because you don’t hate men”.
    I haven’t had any contact with them for pushing 20 years, but I often wonder whether she still calls herself a feminist.

  13. RS
    August 12th, 2015 @ 8:14 am

    It bears repeating that the most significant issue with post modern academe is that it allows and supports the development of “theories” and hermeneutic frameworks which Insulate themselves from reality. There is no real testing of hypotheses. Rather, a conclusion is drawn and then mighty thwacks are taken pounding every square peg in sight into the round hole of the conclusion. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Humanities in general and Feminist Theory specifically.

  14. Feminism’s Attack on ‘Institutionalized, Normative Heterosexuality’ | Living in Anglo-America
    August 12th, 2015 @ 8:17 am
  15. robertstacymccain
    August 12th, 2015 @ 8:18 am

    It is weird to me to see supporters of feminist hatemongers (e.g., Anita Sarkeesian, Meghan Murphy, Amanda Marcotte, Melissa McEwan) act as if this kind of feminism is compatible with normal life. The total number of children for the four named women? Zero.

    OK, so if barren spinster is a woman’s lifetime ambition, being a feminist is possible, but if she wants a normal life — men, marriage and motherhood — then feminism is directly hostile to her interests. This is not being made clear to young women. The “Have It All” fantasy retains a hold on our culture, and causes ambitious women to identify as “feminist” in contradiction to facts.

  16. Daniel O'Brien
    August 12th, 2015 @ 9:34 am

    Done. Now get back to work! 😉

  17. daialanye
    August 12th, 2015 @ 10:19 am

    I notice some confusion over welcome vs unwelcome flirtation. Let me explain.

    If the male flirter is 1) young, 2) good-looking, 3) nicely dressed and 4) wealthy, his flirtation will be considered welcome.

    For a certain portion of women, #4 by itself is considered adequate. Or even critical.

  18. Nan
    August 12th, 2015 @ 9:37 pm

    A coworker went for lunch one day, sat at a table with a newspaper. She was alone and always wore low-cut tops with short skirts. She typically complained about men hitting on her, not realizing that her attire led them to believe she invited their approach. That day, a nice looking, well-dressed guy approached and asked if that was her newspaper. She was outraged because he met her standards and she wanted his attention.

  19. daialanye
    August 12th, 2015 @ 9:51 pm

    This sounds like a fable but lacks a moral. Was the outrage due to the fact he wanted the newspaper rather than herself?

    Also, did he appear wealthy?