The Other McCain

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

Our Moral Superiors™

Posted on | August 21, 2015 | 113 Comments

 

Bailey Poland (@the_author_) reacted rather predictably to my noticing her typical feminist expressions of sadistic cruelty. You see, if you read what a feminist writes, and then express criticism of what she has written, you are “inciting harassment,” because no one can ever be permitted to disagree with a feminist. Once you understand the rules of feminist discourse, you expect these reactions. Feminists are certain that they are morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us, which is why we are in need of their lectures. You need Bailey Poland to tell you what to think, and if you don’t enjoy being tutored in this manner — if you are a literate adult weary of these jargon-filled gender-theory sermons from 24-year-olds — your objection to her ideological harangues will be interpreted by Bailey Poland as proof that you are an ignorant bigot.

When a feminist deigns to acknowledge the existence of others, it is only so that she may talk down to them.

No feminist ever apologizes for insulting the intelligence of her readers by this high-handed pose of superiority. Bailey Poland knows everything about “toxic masculinity” and “benevolent sexism,” whereas you are obviously a cretinous dimwit who can’t even spell “misogyny.” The young feminist is omniscient, possessed of infinite knowledge, so that we are expected to be grateful that Bailey Poland has condescended to share with us mortals her cosmic and eternal wisdom.

Atop the stack of books on my desk are the following titles: Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation by Mary Daly (1973), Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence and Women’s Lives by Dee L.R. Graham (1994), The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism, edited by Dorchen Leidholdt and Janice G. Raymond (1990), and Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on Campus by Peggy Reeves Sanday (Second Edition, 2007). These titles are among the more than 70 feminist books I’ve read during the past year-and-a-half of research, and certainly there is nothing a 24-year-old can tell me about this subject. The only reason I noticed Ms. Poland at all is because a commenter on an earlier post had mentioned how obnoxiously self-righteous she is. Indeed, Bailey Poland responds to criticism by complaining of “the torrent of misogyny,” which she attributes to the unwillingness of males “to seriously engage with a woman’s opinions.” Her critics are “deliberately misreading content taken out of context,” and I myself am afflicted with a “complete lack of reading comprehension.” You see that feminism must always be a lecture, and can never be anything like a civil conversation, because SHUT UP!

Disagreement is hate, according to Feminist Logic™ and nothing any man says in his own defense is ever valid, because SHUT UP!

Ask yourself, why does any woman become a feminist? Because she is a narcissist who views males as being so vastly inferior to herself that she finds routine social interaction with normal men offensive. This is what Bailey Poland’s “nice guy” column was really about: “How dare these repulsive heterosexual men act friendly toward me in hope of becoming more than friends?”

We may acknowledge that the “nice guy” — what pickup artists would call a “Gamma male” — is an annoying type, without resorting to feminist theory about the nice guy’s “misogyny.” Bailey Poland’s use of this term implies that male heterosexuality is inspired by hatred for women, a rather startling claim. Whenever we encounter the words “misogyny” or “misogynist” in feminist discourse, we must remember what these words actually mean. To call a man a “misogynist” is to accuse him of hating women, which is a different thing than merely saying he is a “sexist,” i.e., someone who believes men and women are different. Most people, including most women, are “sexist” in this sense of the word. They recognize that the differences between men and women are both real and socially significant, and therefore do not see evidence of patriarchal oppression everywhere they look.

“Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization . . . to come to see oneself as a victim.”
— Sandra Lee Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression (1990)

Feminist discourse about male heterosexual behavior is intended to humiliate men, to make men feel ashamed of being normal.

Any man who enjoys the sight of a good-looking woman is guilty of objectifying her with the male gaze. You will never see Bailey Poland criticize gay men for their sexual attraction to men, nor would any heterosexual feminist dare to criticize as “problematic” the sexual feelings and behavior of lesbians. No, gay men and lesbians are exempt from Bailey Poland’s criticism, because their behavior does not inspire in her the distinctive contempt that all feminists feel toward normal male sexuality: Fear and Loathing of the Penis!

Ever since the very first Women’s Liberation protest against the 1968 Miss America contest, feminists have been trying to eradicate every source of normal male happiness. Men cannot look at women, because that is “objectification,” and men cannot talk to women, because that is “harassment.” A man cannot kiss a woman without risking a sexual assault charge, and intercourse is rape. Men should never have wives, because marriage is slavery, and men should never be fathers because motherhood is a violation of a woman’s “right to choose.”

“Pregnancy is barbaric.”
— Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex (1970)

“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
— Simone de Beauvoir, 1975

“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . .
“I don’t want a baby. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, 2014

Bailey Poland hates the man who acts “nice” to her, because (a) he is a man, (b) no man is actually “nice,” and therefore (c) acting “nice” proves that he is dishonest. From a feminist perspective, everything a man does is always wrong, because all women are victims of male oppression. His mere existence is an injustice against women.

It does not matter who a man is or what he does, the sadistic impulse of feminism invariably requires his humiliation as punishment for his male existence. Her vengeful appetite for unlimited cruelty toward males is what distinguishes the feminist from normal women. And nothing incites the feminist’s instinctive sadism more than a man who refuses to genuflect at the throne of the Bitch Goddess. The feminist’s rheteric about “equality” is in fact a demand for recognition of her superiority. She feels insulted by a man who acts as if he were actually her equal.

This is what inspires the feminist complaint about “mansplaining.” Any man who believes he has knowledge or experience that could be useful to a feminist is mistaken. Men know nothing, according to feminist theory, which is based on the belief that the experience and feelings of women are the only valid basis of knowledge.

“Women are an oppressed class. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men have oppressed women. . . .
“We regard our personal experience, and our feelings about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation. We cannot rely on existing ideologies as they are all products of male supremacist culture. We question every generalization and accept none that are not confirmed by our experience.”
— Redstockings, “Manifesto,” July 7, 1969

A man who claims to know anything is expressing “male supremacist culture,” because the only actual knowledge is that which is confirmed by women’s experience. This is true even with regard to men’s own lives and feelings. Go read Bailey Poland’s account of the “nice guy” — she knows that he secretly hates women. She knows that the only reason any man is ever “nice” to a woman is to get sex in return. There are no honest or unselfish men, from the feminist point of view.

Because every man is an agent of oppression, as the Redstockings explained, no man can be trusted. Everything a man says is either simply wrong (because men know nothing) or else it is a deliberate lie (because no agent of oppression would ever tell the truth to his victims). Feminism thus negates the possibility that a man could have anything useful to say about anything, and therefore SHUT UP!

 

See? Even my advice that males should avoid interaction with feminists must be mocked by Bailey Poland, who also ridicules the time I spent researching her work. She had claimed that men never “seriously engage with a woman’s opinions” and yet, when I took the time to engage her seriously, my endeavor only served as a basis for further insults.

She’s a grad student younger than my oldest daughter, but I am a male who knows nothing and, unless you agree with everything Bailey Poland says, you are also utterly ignorant. Feminists are Our Moral Superiors™ and our refusal to acknowledge Bailey Poland’s superiority can only be explained by our  “complete lack of reading comprehension.”




 

 

Category: Sex Trouble

Comments

113 Responses to “Our Moral Superiors™”

  1. Daniel Freeman
    August 22nd, 2015 @ 4:27 pm

    Sometimes authoritarians are sneaky, and sometimes they come right out and say that they want for the commoners to be powerless.

  2. Fail Burton
    August 22nd, 2015 @ 4:29 pm

    In Leeds, Bailey Poland is a slang term for a long-handled ass-scratcher.

  3. Mike G.
    August 22nd, 2015 @ 10:27 pm

    You know Joe, some of the blame for the corporatist state we have today, rests on our shoulders. We’re lackadaisical as long as we were getting ours and screw the other guy.

    Then some of the blame can go to our parents who reaped the benefits of the boom after WW2. Everything was going good so why rock the boat. Plus TPTB had to take it slow lest their nefarious schemes see the light of day and all their long range planning go for naught.

    And even our Grandparents should receive a little of the blame, although it’s hard to fault them, what with the Depression and all.

    Face it, we were our own worst enemy and we are paying the Piper for it today.

  4. robertstacymccain
    August 22nd, 2015 @ 11:55 pm

    The problem with feminists writing essays about street harassment is that street harassers don’t read feminist essays.

  5. JoeBee
    August 23rd, 2015 @ 12:48 am

    Well put, sir. I couldn’t agree more.

  6. JoeBee
    August 23rd, 2015 @ 12:56 am

    Because corporate media picked on a few inarticulate stoned kids to articulate their message that encapsulates all of it? It doesn’t. Plenty of articulate, intelligent speakers were there day after day. Why would corporate media in bed with big banks give them
    a chance to speak on their network? Same goes for the rest of your comment. You were duped by the old FBI playbook when dealing with a protest movement that challenges the establishment, which is to
    discredit, discredit, discredit…and of course you support heavy handed police state tactics to deal with the supposed “menace”. I thought you were a smart woman capable of critical thought and not a reactionary? Apparently not. Whose right on the banks? CNN?

  7. DeadMessenger
    August 23rd, 2015 @ 2:44 am

    I don’t have a TV, and I don’t read their website, so I have no idea what CNN says. Nor do I give a rip.

    Occupy’s problem was a seemingly infinitely long list of grievances, including incredibly asinine ones like these (et al):

    They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

    They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.

    They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.

    Do I agree with everything corporations do? Hell no, I’m not mental! But I know enough not to show up at a place with a long-a$$ scroll of b1tches about every topic under the sun, with no workable solutions in sight, and then chimp out in public. And it’s no surprise that the median age of the protesters was…what?…22?

    Nobody is going to take a group seriously when they sound like – and indeed, are – Marxist shills, however unknowingly (though I did notice the Alinsky-like tactics proposed by the Occupy leaders; wonder where they learned that)? More to the point, when shills showed up at TEA party protests, the TEA partiers themselves ran them off. Occupy? Nope, embraced them with open arms. Occupy might as well have shown up with signs saying “HEY, LOOK AT ME! I’M A GOOBER! WHEE!”

    What’s more, if you watch TV and movies, and listen to most popular music, you are yourself brainwashed, and that’s a fact.

    And finally, by insulting me for disagreeing with you, you have shown yourself to be no better than the feminists that McCain talks about here nearly every day.

  8. TatR
    August 23rd, 2015 @ 11:54 am

    I’ve no problem with critiquing. The article is fine. People just calling people abusive names on Twitter, not so much.

  9. News of the Week (August 23rd, 2015) | The Political Hat
    August 23rd, 2015 @ 5:08 pm

    […] Our Moral Superiors™ Bailey Poland (@the_author_) reacted rather predictably to my noticing her typical feminist expressions of sadistic cruelty. You see, if you read what a feminist writes, and then express criticism of what she has written, you are “inciting harassment,” because no one can ever be permitted to disagree with a feminist. Once you understand the rules of feminist discourse, you expect these reactions. […]

  10. Robert What?
    August 23rd, 2015 @ 7:52 pm

    I disagree that feminists think that males are inferior to them. I think they are mostly driven by self-loathing and the fear that people will recognize that they are completely empty inside.

  11. Daniel Freeman
    August 23rd, 2015 @ 8:54 pm

    I partially disagree.

    Granted, there’s plenty of damaged human flotsam in the feminist ranks, and the Third Law of SJWs is that they always project.

    However, I’ve met countless female chauvinists (and many female supremacists) where I had no doubt of their sincerity. Perfectly normal, well-adjusted, confident women who would admit without hesitation that they think women are better than men at most things, or even simply superior.

  12. Ilion
    August 24th, 2015 @ 12:09 pm

    Wasn’t that Ray Charles?

  13. Our Moral Superiors™ | Living in Anglo-America
    August 28th, 2015 @ 9:04 am

    […] http://theothermccain.com/2015/08/21/our-moral-superiors-4/ […]