The logic of totalitarian hatred is impeccable:
Males are “the dominant class” and “actual feminism is about female liberation from males” and, therefore, short of moving to a lesbian separatist commune somewhere in the Oregon woods, nobody will ever have “actual feminism.” Because men have “built an entire society around the domination of” women, the “only feminism that men support is . . . rebranded patriarchal tripe.” This belief, that systematic male “domination” of women is the defining characteristic of “society,” is the fundamental basis of feminist ideology.
“Marriage means rape and lifelong slavery. . . . We reject marriage both in theory and in practice. . . . Love has to be destroyed. It’s an illusion . . . It may be that sex is a neurotic manifestation of oppression. It’s like a mass psychosis.”
— Ti-Grace Atkinson, 1969
“Women are an oppressed class. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men have oppressed women.”
— Redstockings, 1969
“We are angry because we are oppressed by male supremacy. We have been f–ked over all our lives by a system which is based on the domination of men over women, which defines male as good and female as only as good as the man you are with. It is a system in which heterosexuality is rigidly enforced and Lesbianism rigidly suppressed.”
— Ginny Berson, “The Furies,” 1972
“The heart of lesbian-feminist politics . . . is a recognition that heterosexuality as an institution and an ideology is a cornerstone of male supremacy. Therefore, women interested in destroying male supremacy, patriarchy, and capitalism must, equally with lesbians, fight heterosexual domination — or we will never end female oppression.”
— Charlotte Bunch, “Not for Lesbians Only,” 1975 (quoted in Materialist Feminism: A Reader in Class, Difference, and Women’s Lives, edited by Rosemary Hennessy and Chrys Ingraham, 1997)
“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)
“From the beginning of second-wave feminism, sexuality was identified as a key site of patriarchal domination and women’s resistance to it. . . .
“While heterosexual desires, practices, and relations are socially defined as ‘normal’ and normative, serving to marginalize other sexualities as abnormal and deviant, the coercive power of compulsory heterosexuality derives from its institutionalization as more than merely a sexual relation.”
— Stevi Jackson, “Sexuality, Heterosexuality, and Gender Hierarchy: Getting Our Priorities Straight,” in Thinking Straight: The Power, the Promise, and the Paradox of Heterosexuality, edited by Chrys Ingraham (2005)
“Heterosexism is maintained by the illusion that heterosexuality is the norm.”
— Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)
“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. Men’s world is like a vast prison or concentration camp for women. This isn’t a metaphor, it’s reality. Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men.”
— Radical Wind, August 2013
“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . 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, March 2014
Feminism is a totalitarian movement hostile to men, marriage and motherhood. The Tumblr blogger who rants that men do not support “actual feminism” is certainly correct. If a man really wants to support feminism, all he can do is to commit suicide.
FEMINISM: "Gender is a hierarchical social division … intrinsic to heterosexuality." https://t.co/tQttXKP6CX pic.twitter.com/qD3gnhAD87
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) January 11, 2016
Feminist Tumblr Syndrome https://t.co/OnjNW4W3jA
cc @TheRalphRetort @ThePoliticalHat @rdbrewer4 @instapundit #tcot pic.twitter.com/Nfxn5xnbWv
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) January 9, 2016
Tumblr, the septic tank of the internet…
From where does such a mentality of extremist tribalism originate?
Alas, it’s becoming more difficult to make fresh comments to these posts. All of these Tumblrinas sound as if they’re automatons reciting from The Little Red Book without any hint of original thought themselves. What we see with the Feminist academy is a return to medieval scholasticism. Simply repeat the tenets of the various “worthies” you’ve mentioned like some sort of mystical incantation. As the character Jorge de Burgos said in The Name of the Rose, “There is nothing new; only blessed recapitulation.”
It all sounds positively satanic, doesn’t it….
Septic tanks serve a useful purpose. You sure can’t say that about Tumblr.
Well in the same way a septic tanks keeps it all in one place, Tumblr draws in the toxic waste of our society (now if we could only keep them contained there)
Wonder Woman’s creator was William Moulton Marston, a Harvard-educated psychologist
Frankly, Wonder Woman is psychological propaganda for the new type of woman who should, I believe, rule the world. Marston believed that submission to “loving authority” was the key to overcoming mankind’s violent urges, and that strong, self-realized women were the hope for a better future.
http://goodstuffsworld.blogspot.com/2012/10/bonding-with-wonder-woman_10.html
Gamergate. I SWEAR it began with one of the “tribes” depicted in Skyrim.
So…Marston didn’t pick up any sociology, or economics, from his classmates?
I’ve sure heard a lot of ..um…compassionate “It’s for the children!” in contemporary plagiarism, “appropriation”, and “usage”, of Political “science”.
Firstly, in the context of men and women (oops gender binary), I don’t believe in dominant classes – at least in the society that we have built (there are clear exceptions in other societies). But there’s the key point. Why would those who have built this exceptional society hand it over to a bunch of whiners that haven’t produced anything in their lives?
You will note that the women who do contribute to the building of society never claim victimhood; they simply claim their place in society by virtue of their contribution.
both feminism and marxism misjudge the relative importance of certain inputs in the process they critique.
According to radfem logic, the more mentally ill you have been or are, the wiser you are and therefore more qualified to comment on society.
As someone who has fought serious mental illness before and will need to keep it under control for the rest of my life, I can only offer this piece of advice to these “Tumblrinas” (for lack of a better term): You are mentally ill. Get help. Being mentally ill is not any sort of badge of honor, especially when you think about/ have thought about committing suicide. Nor does it automatically qualify you for sagehood.
The only silver lining for it is so you can potentially help others through empathy. If you possess enough self-reflection, you can help educate others how bad being mentally ill really is, clear up some confusion about similar issues, and how to treat it. Perhaps this is your calling in life. You’ve got the experiences few have, but those are the ones that NO ONE should have. I cannot emphasize this enough.
I know I realize that only a few of these feminists will see this, but perhaps everyone else here can relate or this will remind others to talk to those that need help.
Anyway, enough from me. I don’t want to make the wall of text larger than what it is. 😉
Exactly. You don’t know whether to feel sorry for being how mentally damaged they are or loathe their arrogance and stupidity. I know that you’re supposed to hate the sin and not the sinner, but it’s awfully tempting to do both when you’ve been around them for to long and have seen their cultural destruction.
I’m a devout follower of the aunts and grandmothers theory of history. In a nutshell, a large part of a society’s success depends on how the leaders treat the wisdom and experience of the people who aren’t officially part of the hierarchy.
Emphasis on the wisdom.
Dismissing half of humanity because you don’t like the biology is not wisdom. It’s not even foolishness. It’s utter stupidity.
Fortunately for humans, not all women are like this. Not all women pay attention to these rants.
Not even all feminists are like this.
“Why would those who have built this exceptional society hand it over to a bunch of whiners that haven’t produced anything in their lives?”
One of the wisest questions I have read this month.
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 of work 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$, p/h.Learn More right Here
3jbq…….
??
??? http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsPure/GetPaid/98$hourly…?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.?.
It’s the walking wounded syndrome and it’s a perversion of a simple idea. We give honor to someone who survived terrible circumstances and managed to succeed and prosper despite that. Take a couple of steps of weird logic, and now we should give honor to anyone who is victimized. And the standard of who is and is not a victim is flexible.
A couple of days ago, I was telling some folks about the difference between remembrance and honor. They thought that the unhoused (yes, that’s now a word) who had died should be honored. I said they should be remembered but honoring them was completely different. I was called too narrow minded.
Aiiigggh! I’ve been spammed! I feel slimy! Oh, whatever shall I do?
We give honor to someone who survived terrible circumstances and managed to succeed and prosper despite that. Take a couple of steps of weird logic, and now we should give honor to anyone who is victimized.
The problem is that feminism attracts unhappy women and makes their complaints the basis of a political indictment of “society,” with the claim that male supremacy is the source of women’s unhappiness. Yet it should be apparent, more than 40 years into the Feminist Revolution, that many women will be unhappy no matter how much “equality” there is.
Feminism ignores happy women, and actually seeks to destroy the basis of their happiness. If you are a married mother — or if you are a young woman who hopes someday to have a husband and children — feminism is your enemy. The feminist movement is hostile to everything (including religion and morality) that makes possible the happily-ever-after scenario. But critics of feminism have not succeeded in making young women understand the nature of the movement and its effect on their lives.
America has a self-destructive gene.
There is no longer a need for a thing like feminism and these are not feminists and never were. Women have as many rights as they are ever likely to get. At some point you just have to live your life, express it as best you can and stop with the glass ceilings stuff. As for these women, they are nothing more than lesbians in sheep’s clothing pretending they have no dog in the hunt and that the animal kingdom is essentially an “oppression.” They have had enormous success running their con game. The most successful part is how they scream lesbian-centric ideology every day and then when someone quotes it they go “what lesbians?”
Since mainstreaming this madness is by definition taking in a lot of well-meaning normal people, all that’s being produced at this point is confusion and divisiveness. Even a Star Wars movie can’t come out without it being yet another causus belli. These people wreck everything they touch for the simply reason their ideology is wreck; it doesn’t work.
I’d say that all great societies have the capacity for amazing wonders and total destruction. It’s the path between it’s members choose that determines how long the society lasts.
The tension is absolutely necessary.
Cultural consensus is a teacher and when you allow self-pity “the dog ate my homework” to overtake your entire life you are incubating and even encouraging a culture of failure. The people who did their homework are explained away as “privileged” or even sexist racists. It just never occurs to these people they need to work harder or may even have no talent. Most people don’t. That’s why auditions have so many people who never go anywhere but the line they’re waiting in. Eventually they get that and move on. But what if they didn’t?
It’s not just Third Wave feminism. This pretty much defines the modern progressive movement.
I can’t recommend Shelby Steele’s White Guilt enough. It really puts things in perspective.
You’re right, they aren’t feminists. They are humans. I was making the general case.
“Women have as many rights as they are ever likely to get.”
It’s not a right unless everyone else has it too. Otherwise it’s a privilege taken at someone else’s expense.
Both movements have a way of attracting the broken and mentally ill. It is twofold: it allows them to externalize their (self-)hatred onto a vague enemy, as Mr. McCain has written before; and it gives them a sense of superiority being a part of the “enlightened”.
I can completely understand the draw to the latter, and the desire to believe that a major flaw or two is *better* than other people’s flaws, or not a flaw at all. However, once you do latch onto that idea, you’re damaging yourself and others more thanyou can realize.
Yet, I’ve noticed that for some feminists, they’ve noticed the damage they’re doing, and they don’t care. That is terrifying, and Mr. McCain & Co. needs to expose that even more to the public.
Instead of “feminism”, it should be and be about morality. You can’t argue that feminism is morality, especially when it involves “pro-choice reproductive freedom”.
I’ve got a better idea, just print some money for yourself and your friends.
Oh wait if you do that it’s counterfeiting, if I do that and use the euphemism “Quantitative Easing” it’s legal
That’s what mental institutions and prisons are supposed to be for legitimate cases, but the Left will see to it that it never happens. Because after all, they are useful voters.
Just as the insane have been viewed as a link with the supernatural/spirits/gods in some societies and celebrated as prophets or shamans, so are the completely batshit sages of feminism and socialism.
There is a numbing sameness to the boilerplate word salad, isn’t there? Not a single original though, not one iota of critical thinking, not a whiff of logic.
I believe that there is a critical point at which all, or most material needs are met and physical dangers banished (or at least driven to the fringes). From then on the mass of people who have never faced risk or peril forget it even exists.
When we see Muslim rape gangs a la Cologne, watch comfortable Western feminists blame “the patriarchy.” They will be incapable of drawing a line between what they say they want and what actually occurs.
Once you declare history to be a class struggle, all that’s left is arguing over what the classes are and who is in them. Modern progressives have abandoned the term “class” but their identity politics reek of it regardless.
Having a disability or problem is not heroic. Fighting and triumphing over it is.
Agreed. The radfems on Tumblr often conflate the two, or even imply that being treated/medicated is surrendering to the Patriarchy.
I have no problem with that as long as… (everyone say it with me)
…we recognize that not all feminists are like that.
I know I harp on that, but I know exactly how it feels. There was a time when American liberals were what we call libertarians today. The title and the reputation got hijacked, it went mainstream and became about the spectacle.
Remember when geeks went mainstream? Same thing. It was about the spectacle and not about how something worked.
That’s sort of my unofficial measuring stick. I judge how serious people are by how much they balance the spectacle with the goal.
There’s an old saying, “The mystic swims while the madman drowns.”
At the end of the day, it’s about results. If the benefits shower down only on some, I’d say that’s a sign that someone is following a false prophet.
I’m thinking about this one, I’m going to come back to it.
You’re correct on the feminist part. I live in a strange area: right outside a proglib stronghold, but far enough into the country where a good chunk of conservatives reside. I’ve personally known a “mild” feminist, and two others who were almost fanatical and extreme.
The Feminist Wire blog once referred to the “shamanic power” of Audre Lorde. They haven’t gotten to the kool-aid stage yet.
Because it’s just so unfair that some people are better than others!
Which is precisely the point I was trying to make in a previous thread about the term “Cultural Marxism.”
“The mystic swims while the madman drowns.”
I am SO stealing that.
The left has already reached that point. Either they come to their senses, or the insanity simply worsens.
So do we re-ntroduce physical dangers? I’m against mandatory military service, just one example.
When I first read your response, the things that popped into my head were Spartan coming of age customs, Dune, and an intensive Boy Scout troop.
Maybe we’ve done too much to “childproof” our society.
*grins* I call them True Believers®.
”But the one thing that I have found in all True Believers is an absolute belief that their particular book, method, faith, interpretation, or silly hat is The Only Acceptable Choice. They will ignore anything that anyone else does if it doesn’t adhere totally to The True Way. Worse, they will overlook mistakes and abuses made by the people on the correct side, even as they violate the principles they hold central to their belief.
Or as the old Genesis song goes, ‘Do as I say, don’t do as I do.'”
Go for it. I think the original was lifted from Joseph Campbell. I couldn’t swear to it because the guy who told it to me was pleasantly buzzed at the time.
ETA: I just checked my notes. His version actually makes more sense. “The mystic swims where the madman drowns.”
Although shaman has become a generalized anthropological term, it probably shouldn’t be. Usually shamanism involves entering an ecstatic state of consciousness.
Some Christian sects do use an ESC, but in a totally different context. The best known example is in the so-called “black churches” where music and “Spirit inspired” dance happens.
I don’t think Lorde’s poetry qualifies, but I’m not her target audience either.
“The feeling I mean is of course that which prompts a man to say I’m as good as you.
The first and most obvious advantage is that you thus induce him to enthrone at the centre of his life a good, solid, resounding lie.
I don’t mean merely that his statement is false in fact, that he is no more equal to everyone he meets in kindness, honesty, and good sense than in height or waist measurement. I mean that he does not believe it himself. No man who says I’m as good as you believes it. He would not say it if he did. The St. Bernard never says it to the toy dog, nor the scholar to the dunce, nor the employable to the bum, nor the pretty woman to the plain. The claim to equality, outside the strictly political field, is made only by those who feel themselves to be in some way inferior. What it expresses is precisely the itching, smarting, writhing awareness of an inferiority which the patient refuses to accept.
And therefore resents. Yes, and therefore resents every kind of
superiority in others; denigrates it; wishes its annihilation. Presently he suspects every mere difference of being a claim to superiority. No one must be different from himself in voice, clothes, manners, recreations, choice of food: “Here is someone who speaks English rather more clearly and euphoniously than I — it must be a vile, upstage, la-di-da affectation. Here’s a fellow who says he doesn’t like hot dogs —thinks himself too good for them, no doubt. Here’s a man who hasn’t turned on the jukebox — he’s one of those goddamn highbrows and is doing
it to show off. If they were honest-to-God all-right Joes they’d be like me. They’ve no business to be different. It’s undemocratic.”
Now, this useful phenomenon is in itself by no means new. Under
the name of Envy it has been known to humans for thousands of years. But hitherto they always regarded it as the most odious, and also the most comical, of vices. Those who were aware of feeling it felt it with shame; those who were not gave it no quarter in others. The delightful novelty of the present situation is that you can sanction it — make it respectable and even laudable — by the incantatory use of the word democratic.
Under the influence of this incantation those who are in any or every way inferior can labour more wholeheartedly and successfully than ever before to pull down everyone else to their own level. But that is not
all. Under the same influence, those who come, or could come, nearer to a full humanity, actually draw back from fear of being undemocratic. I am credibly informed that young humans now sometimes suppress an incipient taste for classical music or good literature because it might prevent their Being Like Folks; that people who would really wish to be — and are offered the Grace which would enable them to be — honest, chaste, or temperate refuse it. To accept might make them Different, might offend against the Way of Life, take them out of Togetherness, impair their Integration with the Group. They might (horror of horrors!) become individuals.
All is summed up in the prayer which a young female human is said to have uttered recently: “O God, make me a normal twentieth century girl!” Thanks to our labours, this will mean increasingly: “’Make me a minx, a moron, and a parasite.’”
https://screwtapeblogs.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/screwtape-proposes-a-toast/
I was making a dick joke, but yeah