Feminism’s Radical Transvaluation

Posted on | August 17, 2015 | 127 Comments

Amy Austin (@amymarieaustin) is mentally ill and bisexual, and also a feminist, but I repeat myself. Last year Ms. Austin, a British university student, wrote a rant entitled, “Patriarchy and the Problem of Being Born Female”:

Social constructions of gender, like power, stem from patriarchal ideologies . . .
Environmentally speaking, gender is independent of sex . . . and signifies the social constructedness of what maleness and femaleness mean in a given culture. The hierarchy that implicitly positions men above women due to reproductive difference, is a harmful one.

Her 995-word rant went viral in the feminist blogosphere, which attracted my notice, and when I wrote about Ms. Austin, her Twitter admirers then came after me like the Furies pursuing Orestes, which prompted me to write a second post entitled “The Madness of ‘Gender Theory’“:

Attempting to explain gender theory to normal people is like attempting to explain a schizophrenic’s delusions to sane people. Normal men are masculine in the most common-sense understanding of that word, and normal women are feminine. Because the meanings of male/masculine and female/feminine are so obvious, from a common-sense point of view, normal people take these categories for granted.
However, radical feminists are not normal people. They are intellectuals, and the most eminent feminist intellectuals have spent the past four decades denouncing the common sense of normal people when it comes to men, women and sex. Anything that normal people believe about sex is a myth, according to feminist intellectuals, and in place of our oppressive patriarchal myths, they offer us feminist ideology and gender theory. . . .

You can read the rest of that. That was a year ago, and since then I’ve plunged even deeper into the Mariana Trench of radical feminism which is, as I’ve said, a totalitarian movement to destroy civilizationa as know it. Sunday afternoon, my Twitter feed erupted after Ms. Austin saw me retweeted (sarcastically) by a British writer named Emily Stockham (@Emily_Camilla), who mocked me as an ignorant bigot. You see, feminists are so morally and intellectually superior to everyone else that to disagree with feminism proves that you are a stupid and hateful person. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Because I was just procrastinating, I ping-ponged tweets back and forth with Ms. Austin and Ms. Stockham a while. At some point, Ms. Stockman mentioned witchcraft, and I tweeted to her my recent post, “Feminist Tumblr: Justifying Hatred With Radical Ideology and Also, Witchcraft.” The point being that it is not me saying that feminists advocate witchcraft, it’s feminists, including eminent Women’s Studies professors. And then I called their attention to a provocative post by Ashton Blackwell, who described “a mainstreaming of dark, gothic, alternative culture” among some feminists:

These young women think they are “feminists” because feminism appeals to their frustrations, insecurities, and their bitterness over being used for casual sex. . . .
[Y]oung women in general have become darker and more bitter, and with good reason . . .
The dress style of the alternative scene — piercings, black apparel, combat boots, and surly expressions — broadcasts, “Stay away from me, I’m dangerous.” . . .
Septum piercings and unnatural hair colors have become so common that they have lost their whiff of punk subversion . . . The witchy, neo-pagan look is trendy . . .
I posit that it stands to reason that young women are attracted to alternative culture because the social breakdown and erosion of sexual decorum over the past half century or so has fostered conditions that make it more likely that they will have traumatic experiences. . . . Female psychology does not respond well to licentiousness, as much as feminists peddle so-called “sexual liberation.” Sadly, this dysfunction has been fully imbibed by the culture, and of course the consequences explain women’s receptivity to feminism — an ideology that purports to empathize with their pain, gives them a scapegoat, and thereby eclipses feminism’s own pivotal culpability in their plight.

Ms. Blackwell illustrates this with photos posted by self-proclaimed feminists, some of whom display pentagrams, crescent moons and other symbols associated with neopagan Wicca. The significance of this should not be dismissed because, you see, I have studied the history of feminism far more deeply than have these young feminists.

Mary Daly’s 1973 book Beyond God the Father not only celebrates witchcraft, but has a chapter called “Transvaluation of Values: The End of Phallic Morality,” in which advocates rejection of Judeo-Christian morality in favor of a “revolutionary morality.” Daly denies that “the life of the fetus is an absolute value,” denies also that there is such a thing as “nature” involved in human reproduction, and calls for “social change . . . to eradicate sex role socialization and the sexual caste system itself,” an “overturning of the sex role system.” In the next chapter, Daly speaks of “the significance of the women’s revolution as Antichrist . . . a spiritual upraising that can bring us beyond sexist myths” and as “the Antichurch . . a communal uprising against the social extensions of the male Incarnation myth.” Daly urges feminists to express “the witch that burns within our own true selves.”

Certainly, any Christian must recognize Daly’s feminist arguments as “doctrines of devils” (I Timothy 4:1), an explicit and deliberate embrace of evil. Knowing where feminist theory ultimately leads, should we be surprised to see that the “witchy, neo-pagan look” is “trendy” with young feminists? And are we surprised that Amy Austin claims her sexuality is gender-neutral:

Personally, I identify as somebody who has a changeable and emotional attraction to people, regardless of gender. Although generally I find women more attractive than men, gender is not really a defining factor in my romantic relationships . . .
The notion that women form relationships with other women as a result of childhood trauma is a harmful, almost laughable, stereotype that lesbian and bisexual women continually face. It is simply untrue . . .

Damaged, you say? How dare you imply Amy Austin is damaged? Despite her claim that gender is not a “defining factor” in her sexuality, Amy Austin is contemptuous of men because she can’t stand to be “a tool for the arousal of men . . . this object of sexual desire.” She finds normal male sexuality inherently repulsive, because “patriarchal ideologies” or something. If feminism is a “spiritual uprising,” as Daly said, what sort of spirits are these? If there is no “absolute value” in life, nor any such thing as “nature” in “the sex role system,” who can say what meaning or purpose there is in life at all?

“See, I have set before thee this day life and good,
and death and evil . . . I call heaven and earth to
record this day against you, that I have set
before you life and death, blessing and cursing:
therefore choose life, that both
thou and thy seed may live . . .”

We live in dark times, my friends. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

"Dark Feminism" correlates with mental illness (e.g., depression) and sexual abnormality. @ashtonbthinks @Emily_Camilla @amymarieaustin

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) August 17, 2015

@rsmccain Feminists are caught in a vicious, confused cycle of blaming "sexism" for the ills of feminism. @Emily_Camilla @amymarieaustin

— Ashton Blackwell (@ashtonbthinks) August 17, 2015

Loyal readers have been funding my research into radical feminism, thanks to the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

<br />

Category: Sex Trouble

Comments

127 Responses to “Feminism’s Radical Transvaluation”

RKae
August 18th, 2015 @ 12:54 am

Technology and capitalism is no excuse for cheating on your spouse.

Sure, the pill allowed people to commit easy adultery and erode the morals of a once-great nation, but it was the left that celebrated it in the culture and egged everyone on.
RKae
August 18th, 2015 @ 12:59 am

However, teaching in a school is somehow socially acceptable and left-wing respectable.

So if you do the same job but in a government building, then it’s OK.
RKae
August 18th, 2015 @ 1:02 am

But now we’re in the age where it’s out in the open and celebrated in the media.

If you really want to look at same-sex attraction studies, look at the ones back in the days when it was in the closet. Back then, the only people who were homosexual were the ones who were compelled beyond the ability to resist.
BozoerRebbe
August 18th, 2015 @ 1:50 am

Well, if you think about it, it was men who gave women the right to vote in the first place.
mole
August 18th, 2015 @ 2:54 am

Just in case anyone thinks its about equality.

“Sweden to abolish affirmative action”
http://dalje.com/en-world/sweden-to-abolish-affirmative-action/289636
Hooray you say about time, but why……

“….Criticism has raged in Sweden recently after male students have been given priority to popular programmes where men are under-represented, in particular the medicine, psychology, veterinary and dentistry faculties.

For those programmes in particular, there are more women applicants with top grades than men, yet the men are admitted because of the affirmative action rule.

Women represent about 60 percent of university students in Sweden, a pioneer in gender equality.

“The current regulations yield a totally unfair result. Last year it was almost only women, 95 percent, who had worked hard to get into their dream programme but who did not get in because of their gender,” Krantz wrote.

A Swedish appeals court recently ruled in favour of 44 women who were not admitted to a veterinary programme because of their gender, awarding them damages of 35,000 kronor (5,000 dollars, 3,400 euros) each.

In another class-action lawsuit currently in the courts, 31 women have sued Lund University in southern Sweden for discrimination for giving male students admissions priority to the psychology programme in 2008….”

So equality means men should not get equality, or something, im so confused..
Lulu
August 18th, 2015 @ 6:48 am

You may be right about western men, but the cowardice involved in what decision makers have allowed to happen at universities, in K-12, in family courts, in government bureaucracies, etc. is truly amazing — and frankly has damaged our society/country terribly. Here’s the thing (and of course I’m generalizing) men are far more likely to think in terms of the larger society, posterity, a cause or even an idea/ideal beyond themselves (which can lead to enormous achievements and great societies even empires — both good and bad) women are far more pragmatic and focused on their individual needs, families, small world. What this means, admittedly in my probably poorly informed opinion, is that a society (say western society) that becomes feminized and does not encourage and enable masculine traits and ideals is doomed to conquest or to simply disappear.
Ilion
August 18th, 2015 @ 6:48 am

“Daly urges feminists to express “the witch that burns within our own true selves.””
So, the whole problem with feminists comes down to a typo?
Ilion
August 18th, 2015 @ 6:57 am

Ah! But that, too, is a microaggression that calls for denunciation, for it assumes and stated that the money is *his* in the first place.
Ilion
August 18th, 2015 @ 7:00 am

Right! That’s why you’re so “hot” to deny what “hot” means.
Ilion
August 18th, 2015 @ 7:05 am

“Christianity: Here is the Gospel. Now, if you believe and repent, and are born again, you will go to heaven. If you don’t, you will live out your life on earth just as you expected to, but then you will suffer punishment for rejecting the gift of mercy from the “mythical” God you rejected and mocked. (Like what you’re doing now).”

Or, to put it a different way —

“Christianity: Here is the Gospel … the Truth about yourself and about your place in the world. Now, if you believe and repent, and are born again, you will dwell forever in the presence of All Goodness. If you don’t, you will live out your life on earth just as you expected to, but then you will *NOT* dwell forever in the presence of All Goodness, but will instead punishment yourself for having rejecting the gift of mercy from the “mythical” God you rejected and mocked. (Like what you’re doing now).“
Gunga
August 18th, 2015 @ 8:03 am

Nietzsche actually contracted Syphilis while he was in college, which is sort of the mid-point of his life. Every single assertion in your statement is just as wrong. For example, claiming to be the son of God the Father, was not exactly uncommon in first century Judaism…or a lot of other religions for that matter. Using that to claim he was mad is just ignorant. Jesus actually claimed to be God, which is what led to his crucifixion. A lot of madmen claim to be God. Do the teachings of Jesus seem like insane rantings to you?
Quartermaster
August 18th, 2015 @ 8:19 am

The only place I did that is in your fevered imagination. I do reject your definition of it, however. It seems to mean something different to you than it does in my circles.
Gunga
August 18th, 2015 @ 8:21 am

Bullshit. I made statements about what I believe and my personal experience, based on readily available facts. The degenerative effects of syphilis are well documented. People who knew Nietzsche well described him as “mad” long before his death in a mental institution. Modern forensic psychologists have written volumes on the impact of the disease on his writings. Still, you are free to follow the ravings of any syphilitic of your choice with my blessings.
Finrod Felagund
August 18th, 2015 @ 9:24 am

“Before Abraham was, I AM.”
Ilion
August 18th, 2015 @ 9:45 am

“Then it was me who was surprised. “Isn’t that what dating is?””

?

No, actually: “shopping for a wife” is *not* what dating is — that is courting.

Dating is, “oh, whatever; let’s see that happens” … knowing full-well that “what happens” is non-committal pre-marital sex, generally followed by the “break-up”, and sometimes by the marriage-by-inertia. Dating is the man using the woman as a slut … and the woman making of herself a slut so as to use sex as a tool to manipulate the man into marrying her … and then — until she divorces him — resenting him for being manipulable and for allowing her to make of herself a slut.
I’m Joining Trump’s Oreos Boycott | Regular Right Guy
August 18th, 2015 @ 12:02 pm

[…] Feminism’s Radical Transvaluation […]
Chance Boudreaux
August 18th, 2015 @ 12:31 pm

Seems like article after article about women bitching how they can’t have it all like men did with career and family-life but NEWSFLASH, men NEVER had it all either, everything is a trade-off and women are biologically made to have kids. Most women would be happier having kids. I’m not saying women HAVE to stay home and be pregnant, just that Feminism has sold them a pack of lies.
Prime Director
August 18th, 2015 @ 4:54 pm

I’m not sure if I believe in this static thing called “human nature”

If there ‘s no such thing as human nature, then there is no possible moral objection to FGM, ethnic cleansing/racial genocide, religiously-motivated execution of homosexuals, infanticide… Without a well-defined human nature, how can you object to any moral evil?

Aesthetics?
Daniel Freeman
August 19th, 2015 @ 2:20 am

Put in slightly less pejorative terms — and taking into account the damage of “kissing dating goodbye” — dating is either for finding someone to court, or for finding a placeholder to fuck.
Daniel Freeman
August 19th, 2015 @ 2:30 am

If you don’t pedestalize women, then you’re a vile chauvinist; if you do, then you’re an oppressive patriarch. Either way, you’re wrong. So shut up.
Ilion
August 19th, 2015 @ 8:43 am

Daniel Freeman: “and taking into account the damage of
“kissing dating goodbye””

No idea
what you mean by that.

Daniel Freeman: “… dating is either for finding
someone to court, or for finding a placeholder to fuck.”

Keep in
mind that when I say ‘you’, I don’t mean *only* you, Daniel Freeman; but I
don’t want to use the stilted ‘one’ construction. And, it should go without saying that I strongly
council “keeping it in your pants” until after the wedding … I mean, assuming
one does not want to bring the resentments spawned by pre-marital sex into one’s
marriage.

If you do
not *explicitly* call whatever it is you are doing when you “ask a woman
out” ‘courting‘, rather than ‘dating‘,
then it will turn out to be nothing more than “fucking a
placeholder”. The odds of
‘dating‘ *not* becoming nothing more than “fucking a
placeholder” are so astronomically low that they’re not even worth
consideration — for, *even if* you are treating the woman
with the utmost Christian concern and respect, by which I mean especially that
you are not “trying to get into her pants”, then *she* will be
pressuring you to be doing so: “Don’t you think I’m attractive? Why aren’t you attracted to me?”

At the
same time, even if you do call it ‘courting‘ – even if you
do both understand and agree that the relationship you are building between you
is one of ‘courting‘, rather than of ‘dating‘
– it’s likely that a time will come when she does start pressuring you to try
to “get into her pants”.

This is
because *every* woman wants to exercise the right of refusal – every woman
wants to know that she *chose* he lover – and our debased culture has likely
convinced her that agreeing to court you didn’t really count as an exercise of
that right, but that only saying “No!” to your sexual advances counts. One of the problems is, of course, that by
that stage in the relationship she will not be saying “No!”; and a related
problem is that if you do have sex with her before the wedding, you increase
the odds that she will constantly say “No!” after the honeymoon is over.

Now, *if*
the woman you are involved with has begun to pressure you to try to “get into
her pants” (and if you are ‘dating‘, rather than ‘courting‘,
it’s pretty much a guarantee that she will), you need to cool both your jets
and have a serious talk about intentions and life-plans – and if you are “too
bashful” to have this talk, then what in the hell are you doing ‘dating‘? What, is life suddenly going to get less
complicated after you fuck?

And, if the
woman you are involved with *continues* to pressure you to try to “get into her
pants”, you need to cut your losses and, to put it in the vernacular, “dump her”.
For she is a woman who sees sex as a tool for manipulating a
man, rather than as the loving mutual giving of the self each to the
other. If you don’t “dump her”, then you’ll
marry her … out of inertia … and your life together will not be pleasant, for
she will not respect you.

====
Always
remember that what you really want, the single most important thing that will
make you (being a man) happy in life, is the respect of the woman whom you cherish.

And,
similarly, the single most important thing that a woman wants to make her happy
in life is to be cherished by the man she respects.

Pre-marital
sex throws sand in the gears of this mutually reinforcing mechanism which is
necessary for a happy marriage.

The
*reason* that our whole civilization is circling the drain is because the pervertarians
managed to convince most of us that those two facts about human beings are “boring”,
and so, as in the joke about the guy who came down with herpes in his eyes,
most of us are “looking for love in all the wrong places”.
JoeBee
August 19th, 2015 @ 1:02 pm

Why is that? Those things clearly cause pain, and harm, so should be minimized. In some cultures though, they’re perfectly acceptable, and not considered evil, and in fact are done in the name of the “good”. So, yeah, maybe it is just aesthetics? I personally believe that an evolving, self reflecting consciousness capable of rational choice cancels out any such thing as a good, and static, “human nature”. Theres an interesting debate from the 1970’s between Chomsky and Foucault on the subject of human nature with Chomsky arguing there is indeed a human nature based off his studies as a linguist and how children come to speak, and communicate with very little instruction, and Foucault obviously taking the structuralist argument, which I should add is not my argument, even if it sounds that way.
Prime Director
August 19th, 2015 @ 8:53 pm

Q: Without a well-defined human nature, how can you object to any moral evil? Aesthetics?

A: yeah, maybe

I appreciate the clarification
Prime Director
August 19th, 2015 @ 9:09 pm

I personally believe that an evolving, self reflecting consciousness capable of rational choice cancels out any such thing as a good, and static, “human nature”.

I know this one guy (he’s so cool), he actually supports his assertions with a premise or two.

Anyways…
Renaissance
August 21st, 2015 @ 11:11 pm

The witchcraft thing has been going on a very long time. Since you are developing a reading list, may I suggest the following:

Starhawk, “The Spiral Dance”
http://www.amazon.com/Spiral-Dance-Rebirth-Ancient-Religion/dp/B001J723BW/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1440215161&sr=8-2&keywords=The+spiral+dance

Z Budapest, “The Holy Book of Women’s Mysteries: Feminist Witchcraft, Goddess Rituals, Spellcasting and Other Womanly Arts … Complete In One Volume”
http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Book-Womens-Mysteries-Spellcasting/dp/0914728679/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1440215188&sr=1-1&keywords=z+budapest

Barbara Walker, The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets
http://www.amazon.com/Womans-Encyclopedia-Myths-Secrets/dp/006250925X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1440215245&sr=1-2&keywords=book+of+myths+and+secrets

Scott Cunningham, Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner
http://www.amazon.com/Scott-Cunningham/e/B000APBR5W/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_12?qid=1440215316&sr=1-12

Ruth Barrett, Women’s Rites, Women’s Mysteries: Intuitive Ritual Creation
http://www.amazon.com/Womens-Rites-Mysteries-Intuitive-Creation/dp/0738709247/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1440215376&sr=1-1&keywords=Ruth+Barrett

The first four are Wiccan “classics”. The first three as well as the last by Ruth Barrett discuss so-called “feminist” or “Dianic” Wicca. This is where many lesbian feminist witches are coming from.

Notice that the first 4 are all from the 80s. The Wiccan movement was very active in the 1980s and 90s, though it was under the radar, unless you knew people. In fact, remember this quote by Pat Robertson:

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft,destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.
— Pat Robertson, fundraising letter, 1992

Well, I happened to be at a party with some Dianic Wiccans (long story) who just laughed and laughed at that quote because the witchcraft part–which sounded like the most bizarre part of the statement–was true. At least for them and their circle.

When you look at that quote now, it’s very prescient. Of course, all of those things were going on.

Yet a 1992 political campaign used that quote and laughed at it to get support for Democrats. Sometimes, the most unlikely things are the truest.

You might also try some lesbian Wiccan favorites like:

Merlin Stone, When God was a Woman
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/015696158X?redirect=true&ref_=s9_simh_gw_p14_d0_i3

Marion Zimmer Bradley, The Mists of Avalon
http://www.amazon.com/Mists-Avalon-Marion-Zimmer-Bradley/dp/0345350499/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1440216088&sr=1-1&keywords=the+mists+of+avalon+by+marion+zimmer+bradley

The Bradley book is a feminist retelling of the King Arthur myths. In this book, the Christians are ignorant and evil, while the Druids are gentle and friendly, and the worshippers of the goddess (who live on Avalon) are female psychic spell-weavers and political movers and shakers behind the scenes.

The interesting thing is that Bradley’s “The Forest House”, originally written over a decade later, (though it seems to have been republished) was a prequel to Mists of Avalon, but Bradley’s loyalties seemed to have changed, at least in the version I read in the 1990s. Suddenly it was the Druids who were evil and the Catholic priests who were gentle and kind. A real shift. I remember chatting about the book in the early 2000s with a Zimmer Bradley fan who mentioned that Bradley had become disillusioned with the real Druid/Male pagan movement and had come to appreciate some better points about the Catholic priesthood.

And yes, there is a real Druid movement, Lord help us.
FMJRA 2.0: God Bless Saturday : The Other McCain
August 22nd, 2015 @ 5:20 pm

[…] Feminism’s Radical Transvaluation Regular Right Guy Batshit Crazy News […]
News of the Week (August 23rd, 2015) | The Political Hat
August 23rd, 2015 @ 5:07 pm

[…] Feminism’s Radical Transvaluation Amy Austin (@amymarieaustin) is mentally ill and bisexual, and also a feminist, but I repeat myself. Last year Ms. Austin, a British university student, wrote a rant entitled, “Patriarchy and the Problem of Being Born Female”. […]