The Other McCain

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

Your Heterosexual Feminism Is Wrong

Posted on | November 19, 2015 | 66 Comments


Miriam Mogilevsky (@sondosia on Twitter) describes herself as “queer, gay, femme, and homoflexible . . . a lesbian with exceptions,” furthermore explaining: “I’m on the asexual spectrum somewhere . . . I don’t experience primary sexual attraction.” Also, she is into polyamory, “which means that I’m open to multiple committed and loving relationships, but with minimal life enmeshment and no ‘rules’ placed on me.” In other words, she’s a weirdo. But in 2015, feminism is all about weirdos, which brings us to her latest column at Everyday Feminism:

5 Ways Straight Women Can Be
Better Allies to Queer Women

Perhaps you didn’t realize that feminists are obligated to be “Allies to Queer Women,” but as Professor Mimi Marinucci has explained Feminism Is Queer, and therefore heterosexual women in the movement are expected to regard lesbians as their moral and intellectual superiors. Exactly why heterosexual women would want to be part of a movement that requires them to be lectured by weirdos, I can’t explain, and yet Miriam Mogilevsky presumes they are in need of her instruction:

Most queer women have stories of things straight women have said or done that stung unexpectedly, that casually wore down our senses of self.
Some of those things we would’ve resignedly expected from straight men — but coming from women, they were powerfully painful. . . .
By deconstructing some of these dynamics, I hope to inspire straight women to find better ways to relate to and support their queer female friends.

Notice that Ms. Mogilevsky assumes that her readers at Everyday Feminism share her contemptuous disdain for “straight men”; feminists are expected to recoil in horror at the accusation that their own behavior is as bad as the behavior of heterosexual males (who are always wrong about everything, of course). Well, you may ask, how do straight women fail as “Allies to Queer Feminists”? Ms. Mogilevsky lectures them:

Most queer women I know have stories of straight women touching them without consent — often in ways that read to us as very sexual, and ways that they would (rightfully) be furious if men touched them.
Maybe it’s because we feel “safe” to them, and they feel comfortable expressing affection or attraction to us in ways that they don’t feel comfortable doing with men.
But maybe it’s because they like having that feeling of power over someone.
It’s probably true that if a woman touches another woman, that’s less likely to be interpreted as a come-on than when she touches a man. . . .
However, when women assume that there’s no chance that another woman would ever interpret a touch in a sexual way — not even when they touch her breasts or butt — they desexualize her.
To these women, touching men can be a sexual gesture; touching women cannot.
Straight women touch us in these ways while insisting that there’s no need to ask for consent because there’s nothing sexual about it. . . .
When straight women casually touch me in intimate ways without asking first, it hurts. Not only because I wasn’t given the chance to consent, but because they don’t understand that for me, these types of touches are something to share with a partner.
They’re sexually charged and erotic. It’s an interaction that’s supposed to happen in bed with someone I’m into, not at the bar where you’ve decided that my butt is “soooo cute!” that you want to grab it without asking.

So, that’s Rule One: Never touch Miriam Mogilevsky. And honestly, if you feel an overwhelming urge to touch her, you should seek psychiatric help immediately. But remember there are five ways you heterosexual feminists are failing as “Allies to Queer Women,” according to Ms. Mogilevsky, and let’s just cut to Rule Five:

5. Remember That We Aren’t Your ‘Experiments’ . . .
If you feel like you have to try sex with people of different genders to help yourself understand what kinds of partners you’re looking for, by all means, get consent and go for it.
But treating people as “experiments” is different. Straight or questioning women who treat queer women as “experiments” treat them as disposable, as objects, as a means to an end.
They feel no responsibility — before or after the hookup — to be honest with their partner about their reason for seeking out the hookup or their intentions afterward.
Sometimes they enter explicitly queer spaces despite comfortably identifying as straight and knowing that they’ll be assumed queer in that space. Some straight women I’ve met even seem to take a gleeful pride in their ability to seduce and mislead queer women, toying with them for their own amusement. . . .
But because of the negative experiences many of us have had with women who saw us as nothing more than an “experiment,” many of us are no longer willing to consent to these types of encounters.

Well, you can read the whole thing. Or you can gouge your eyes out with a rusty screwdriver. Either will do you as much good.

Perhaps, if you are a heterosexual woman who considers yourself a feminist, this presumptuous lecture from Ms. Mogilevsky will make you reconsider. As a heterosexual male, however, I am perplexed that Ms. Mogilevsky thinks she’s such a hot commodity that people she meets cannot resist the temptation to “touch her breasts or butt.” Really?

Maybe that’s your idea of an irresistibly attractive “queer, gay, femme, homoflexible lesbian with exceptions,” in which case you should seek psychiatric help immediately. But speaking of exceptions, Ms. Mogilesky recently shared this strange and alarming confession:

So I’d been dreading the inevitable moment when I’d find myself interested in a guy again because I figured it’d be confusing and awful, but now it’s happened and it’s actually not a big deal. If anything, I’m only more comfortable with my gay identity because I could immediately feel the difference from previous times I’ve been interested in men. I have no investment in this, “this” being the idea of dating this person or any other man. I’m not worried about the fact that the attraction will inevitably fade, because I don’t *have* to make it last. I don’t have to make it serious and committed. I don’t have to do anything with it at all. I don’t have to appeal to this person or make myself palatable to him or any other man, because it doesn’t matter to me if I have men in my life as partners or not.
(And yes, I know plenty of women who are attracted to men have similar thoughts, but believe me, it feels completely different from when I was bi.)
It doesn’t really bother me because it’s only natural that something like this would happen. I’ve entered a time of my life that’s more colorful and dynamic than probably any other previous time, and I’m meeting interesting people constantly, and things are stable enough for me now that genuine attraction to people is a thing that actually happens, so it was probable that eventually one of those people would be a man. It doesn’t *have* to mean anything about My Sexuality; it’s a statistical fluke. These results are not statistically significant. They are, however, quite enjoyable in the moment.
(This also makes me realize that one of the reasons I mostly stopped being attracted to men to begin with is that whenever I felt and expressed that attraction, they would more often than not freak out, shame me, etc. They’d be all “whoa you’re acting weird” and “um wow isn’t that kind of forward,” and of course the next day they’d be texting me at midnight asking “what’s up,” but that was enough. Men in general can’t handle women expressing interest in them directly, so I gave up and eventually the interest went away.
Well, now it doesn’t bother me if my attempt to be clear and direct gets stigmatized and ridiculed, because I don’t f–king need them. If they’re going to act like children, I’m out.)

Am I the only one who thinks the lady doth protest too much? She wants it known to everyone on Tumblr that she doesn’t really care about men and they don’t matter, but then there’s this jarring assertion: “Men in general can’t handle women expressing interest in them directly.” What? According to who? Maybe men have a problem with Miriam Mogilevsky “expressing interest,” but we can’t blame them for that, can we? If this weirdo “expressed . . . attraction” to you, wouldn’t you “freak out”?

Yet this is feminism in 2015: The “queer, gay, femme, homoflexible lesbian with exceptions” is a columnist for Everyday Feminism, and heterosexual women are expected to be grateful that Miriam Mogilevsky has taken the time to tell you exactly how and why your heterosexual feminism is wrong. You are so ignorant you wouldn’t even know how to be “Allies to Queer Women” unless she told you, and if you find her attitude insulting, then perhaps you’re not a feminist at all.



66 Responses to “Your Heterosexual Feminism Is Wrong”

  1. M. Thompson
    November 20th, 2015 @ 10:41 am


  2. Ilion
    November 20th, 2015 @ 12:24 pm

    So, one has no choice but to accept the lesson?

  3. SmokeyBehr
    November 20th, 2015 @ 1:40 pm

    It means she’ll suck and fuck anything with a pulse, and she’ll condemn you if you say anything that makes her feel uncomfortable.

  4. SmokeyBehr
    November 20th, 2015 @ 1:42 pm

    I’d say “cum dumpster”, but she doesn’t like guys all the time.

  5. Ilion
    November 20th, 2015 @ 1:45 pm

    Yeah, I considered using that 3-letter 4-letter word, as it is in this context more accurate than ‘sperm’.

  6. DeadMessenger
    November 20th, 2015 @ 2:09 pm

    Well, I guess that Viking and Conquered Wench role play is out the window, now…

  7. concern00
    November 20th, 2015 @ 2:24 pm

    Welcome to the new paradigm.

  8. DeadMessenger
    November 20th, 2015 @ 2:57 pm

    Don’t these people constantly whine about “I can’t help how God made me” and the like?

    But then Miriam says, “…it feels completely different from when I was bi.

    That sounds to me like some sort of choice was made. Hmm. Weird.

  9. Adobe_Walls
    November 20th, 2015 @ 5:51 pm

    Yeah, I do that a lot too.

  10. Daniel Freeman
    November 20th, 2015 @ 10:38 pm

    No, I don’t think they’re immigrants.

  11. Daniel Freeman
    November 20th, 2015 @ 10:42 pm

    Think of them as dogs with brains, not computers. The rationalization comes after the humping, not before.

  12. DeadMessenger
    November 20th, 2015 @ 11:40 pm

    I know what MY definition of “committed” is though, and frankly, she ought to be.

  13. Gringao
    November 21st, 2015 @ 10:30 pm

    You would have o be a complete masochist not to run the other way at full speed if you saw this bundle of neuroses coming your way.

  14. Rose Calton
    November 22nd, 2015 @ 4:28 am

    .?my neighbor’s mom is making $98 HOURLY on the internet?….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
    ??? http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportDaily/GetPaid/$97hourly… ?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?

  15. Rose Calton
    November 22nd, 2015 @ 4:28 am

    .?my neighbor’s mom is making $98 HOURLY on the internet?….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
    ??? http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportDaily/GetPaid/$97hourly… ?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?

  16. robertstacymccain
    November 22nd, 2015 @ 1:32 pm

    Could I endeavor to explain Miriam’s problem? Yes.

    Would she listen to my explanation? No.

    You see that feminism effectively silences the male perspective on human sexual behavior. Women must only listen to what feminists tell them about sex, because all men are oppressors who cannot be trusted. Furthermore, feminism disqualifies cultural and religious traditions as a source of guidance. Everything your parents or grandparents believed is obsolete, and therefore the young woman can only listen to what popular culture, academic “experts” and her own peers tell her.

    We may suppose that Miriam Mogilevsky has a father, and that her father recognizes his daughter’s feminism as an implicit rebuke. How would any father feel if his daughter made such a shameful public spectacle of herself? However, feminism allows no man the right to speak in defense of himself, nor in defense of men generally, and it is strange how no one even notices this silencing of male voices. Ask yourself why Miriam Mogilevsky writes endlessly about her own “lesbian with exceptions” sexuality, and yet we have never heard a word of commentary from any of her partners.

    Feminism provides an utterly one-sided interpretation of human behavior, and condemns as “sexist” any attempt to balance this interpretation by treating male desires and preferences as valid and legitimate. What men want from women is inherently wrong, according to feminist theory and, insofar as feminists do not condemn heterosexuality, per se, they demand that women’s relationships with men should be entirely controlled by women. She is the dictator, and he must be her abject servant.

    Who would enter a relationship with anyone who presented them with such a demand? Or who could hope to please someone who viewed them with such complete contempt? How does Miriam Mogilevsky expect a man to react to her overtures when, as she says, she experiences a “genuine attraction” to him? One imagines he must feel the way Czechoslovakia felt about Hitler in 1938.

    The feminist, however, does not recognize the totalitarian implications of her ideology. Just as Hitler could never acknowledge the legitimacy of the Czech government’s sovereignty — for they were untermenschen, manifestly inferior — Miriam Mogilevsky explicitly rejects male sexual preferences as illegitimate. Even when she claims to be attracted to a male, the feminist cannot be expected to make any “investment” in a heterosexual relationship. Miriam Mogilevsky is dubious of any “serious and committed” relationship to a man. She doesn’t feel any obligation “to appeal to this person or make myself palatable to him or any other man.” That is to say, whatever his interest in her may be (if any) he can only have a relationship with Miriam Mogilevsky on the basis of unconditional surrender.

    We see that this totalitarian attitude carries over into Miriam Mogilevsky’s lecture to heterosexual feminists, whose status as “Allies to Queer Women” is only acceptable if they agree to the terms she dictates. In every relationship, the feminist presents her ultimatum and threatens blitzkrieg if her enemy does not capitulate.

    Try to imagine what feminists would say of any man who manifested such an imperious attitude. Yet if the reader who searches for criticism of Miriam Mogilevsky from her feminist peers will seek in vain. Has any feminist ever criticized her for being too selfish? Of course not. Only men are ever subject to criticism in feminist discourse; women’s demands on men are never “selfish,” according to feminists, whereas every man is preemptively condemned as an oppressor merely because he is male. The logic of feminist theory can never lead to equality, because no feminist can ever recognize any man as deserving of respect, admiration or trust. Feminism therefore requires the negation of male influence in society, culture and personal life. And if any man objects to this totalitarian agenda, he is condemned as a misogynist.