Rocky Horror Department of Education

Posted on | May 13, 2016 | 55 Comments

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
— Barack Obama, Oct. 30, 2008

Whatever you say, you can’t say America had no warning about this:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is planning to issue a sweeping directive telling every public school district in the country to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity.

(Never mind whether their “gender identity” matches their genitalia or their chromosomes. Ignore what you learn in biology class, kids.)

A letter to school districts will go out Friday, adding to a highly charged debate over transgender rights in the middle of the administration’s legal fight with North Carolina over the issue. The declaration — signed by Justice and Education department officials — will describe what schools should do to ensure that none of their students are discriminated against.
It does not have the force of law, but it contains an implicit threat: Schools that do not abide by the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law could face lawsuits or a loss of federal aid.

(Transgender totalitarianism, in other words.)

The move is certain to draw fresh criticism, particularly from Republicans, that the federal government is wading into local matters and imposing its own values on communities across the country that may not agree. It represents the latest example of the Obama administration using a combination of policies, lawsuits and public statements to change the civil rights landscape for gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people.
After supporting the rights of gay people to marry, allowing them to serve openly in the military and prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against them, the administration is wading into the battle over bathrooms and siding with transgender people.
“No student should ever have to go through the experience of feeling unwelcome at school or on a college campus,” John B. King Jr., the secretary of the Department of Education, said in a statement. “We must ensure that our young people know that whoever they are or wherever they come from, they have the opportunity to get a great education in an environment free from discrimination, harassment and violence.”

(Via Memeorandum.) How did we get here? You have to go back to 1977, when the city of Miami passed an ordinance forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and Anita Bryant publicly opposed it. Bryant was a popular singer (her song “Paper Roses” hit No. 5 on the charts in 1960) who subsequently became famous as the celebrity spokeswoman for the Florida citrus industry. Her opposition to gay rights resulted in Bryant being demonized by the Left, but her Save Our Children campaign was prescient in recognizing that activists were using dishonest claims of “discrimination” to normalize abnormal behavior.

The question, viewed from a legal and political standpoint, exposed a widespread confusion between tolerance (most people don’t want to be bullies or bigots) and the far more radical concept of sexual “rights” advanced by gay activists. This parallels a confusion, which I note in the introduction of my book Sex Trouble, over the meaning of the word “equality.” Most people think of “equality” in terms of basic fairness, which is a much different idea than what feminists mean by “equality.”

Modern feminism, a movement originating in the radical New Left of the 1960s, advances a totalitarian notion of “equality” derived from Marxist-Leninist ideology. Many of the early leaders of Second Wave feminism (i.e., the Women’s Liberation movement) were so-called “Red Diaper babies,” the children of Communist Party members, and brought to the feminist movement of the 1960s and ’70s the conceptual framework of Marxism (historical materialism and class struggle) which were adapted to create what Shulamith Firestone famously called The Dialectic of Sex.

In the crypto-Marxist analysis of Firestone and her radical comrades, men were an oppressive “sex class” (analogous to the capitalist bourgeoisie in Marxist thought), women were victims of oppression (analogous to the proletariat), and feminists were the revolutionary vanguard, the sexual Bolsheviks who would overthrow the unjust tyranny of male supremacy.

This was dangerous insanity, of course, and was widely ridiculed at the time. How could such preposterous ideas ever succeed? Yet radical feminists had influential allies in the news media, academia and the entertainment industry, but more importantly in the Democrat Party. During the 1972 presidential campaign, George McGovern had won the Democrat nomination with the support of the New Left, and one of the things the McGovernites did at the 1972 Democrat convention was to change the party rules and platform to reflect a feminist agenda. After Jimmy Carter was elected president in 1976, he was expected to advance this agenda, and in 1977 — the same year Anita Bryant began her Save Our Children campaign, and also the year I graduated high school — the “National Women’s Conference” controversy erupted.

The chairwoman of this taxpayer-funded event was Democrat Rep. Bella Abzug, a radical leftist from New York, and the pro-abortion agenda of the conference in Houston sparked protests from Catholics and other conservative Christians. Among other controversies emerging from this 1977 event were reports from the handful of conservative women delegates in Houston about the disproportionate number of lesbian feminists among the 20,000 or so attendees. Lesbian rights were on the conference agenda, a strategy that had been planned from the very outset, with the approval of the Carter administration. In an interview with Anahi Russo Garrido, included in a recent anthology on the history of gay activism, radical lesbian Charlotte Bunch explained how this happened:

I participated in the first White House meeting with LGBT groups in 1977 . . . where I spoke about the immigration problems faced by LGBT couples from different countries. . . .
One of the most important projects we organized was a lesbian caucus for the National Women’s Conference in Houston in 1977. Houston was the national event forr the UN International Women’s Year — the only one ever sponsored by the US Government. . . . We coordinated a national network of lesbians, who attended their state events and sought to be elected as delegates to Houston, as well as to get lesbian rights on the agenda. We built alliances with feminist organizations like NOW and worked with mainstream groups like the YWCA and the AAUW . . .
This broad feminist coalition was successful in getting agreement on a 26-point platform that included planks on sexual preference, reproductive rights, poverty, minority women, etc. It was a turning point for me in seeing that the future of sexual rights lay in building coalitions.

So, here in 1977, you have “mainstream groups like the YWCA and the AAUW” forming a coalition with Bunch, who had divorced her husband, formed a lesbian collective known as The Furies and authored the 1972 radical manifesto “Lesbians in Revolt.” What became apparent at the Houston conference was that feminists were not only determined to destroy the marriage-based family, but that in pursuit of that goal, they welcomed as allies radicals like Charlotte Bunch who were opposed to heterosexuality, per se. As early as 1977, it was apparent that the official feminist agenda was not about “equality” in the sense of basic fairness, nor was “the future of sexual rights,” as Bunch saw it, about mere tolerance toward “alternative lifestyles.” By 1977, feminists already had been saying this for years, and they have continued saying it.

“Sexism is the root of all other oppressions … Lesbianism is not a matter of sexual preference, but rather one of political choice which every woman must make if she is to become woman-identified and thereby end male supremacy.”
— Ginny Berson, “The Furies,” 1972, in Lesbianism and the Women’s Movement, edited by Nancy Myron and Charlotte Bunch (1975)

“Gay revolution addresses itself to the total elimination of the sexual caste system around which our oppressive society is organized. . . . The lesbian is the key figure in the social revolution to end the sexual caste system, or heterosexual institution.”
— Jill Johnston, Lesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution (1973)

“The lesbian liberation movement has made possibly the most important contribution to a future sexual liberation. . . . What the women’s liberation movement did create was a homosexual liberation movement that politically challenged male supremacy in one of its most deeply institutionalized aspects — the tyranny of heterosexuality.”
— Linda Gordon, “The Struggle for Reproductive Freedom: Three Stages of Feminism,” in Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism, edited by Zillah Eisenstein (1978)

“To the extent that women harbor negative attitudes toward lesbians and lesbianism, we demonstrate identification with men. To the extent that women express negative attitudes toward lesbians in our words and deeds, we strengthen patriarchy.”
— Dee Graham, Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives (1994)

“Because sexism is the root of all oppression and heterosexuality upholds sexism, feminists must become lesbians and lesbians must become feminists if we are to effect a revolution. . . . To state that feminists must become lesbians assumes that lesbianism is a matter of choice and conviction, not biological conditioning or sexual behavior. Moreover, lesbians must also become feminists, that is, they must ground their sexuality in a political discourse if any social change is to occur. . . .
“I believe it can be shown that, historically, lesbianism and feminism have been coterminous if not identical social phenomena.”
— Bonnie Zimmerman, “Confessions of a Lesbian Feminist,” in Cross Purposes: Lesbians, Feminists, and the Limits of Alliance, edited by Dana Heller (1997)

“Heterosexuality is a category divided by gender and which also depends for its meaning on gender divisions. . . .
“The view that heterosexuality is a key site of male power is widely accepted within feminism. Within most feminist accounts, heterosexuality is seen not as an individual preference . . . but as a socially constructed institution which structures and maintains male domination.”
— Dianne Richardson, “Theorizing Heterosexuality,” in Rethinking Sexuality (2000)

“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)

“Heterosexuality and masculinity . . . are made manifest through patriarchy, which normalizes men as dominant over women. . . .
“This tenet of patriarchy is thus deeply connected to acts of sexual violence, which have been theorized as a physical reaffirmation of patriarchal power by men over women.”
— Sara Carrigan Wooten, 2015

Rationalizing and justifying this radical agenda required the development of feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — which in turn leads to the idea that it is “discrimination” to keep boys out of the girls’ restroom:

“Equal rights” sounds so wonderful. Who can be against equality?
Yet as Richard Weaver warned us long ago, Ideas Have Consequences, and the sledgehammer logic of “equal rights” brutally dismantles every common-sense objection. Even the most obvious facts — e.g., boys and girls are different — must therefore be suppressed to conform with The Equality Principle.

Because this radical conception of “equality” has become such an intrinsic component of the Democrat agenda, it is promoted by the liberal media and is also taught in public schools, because the schools are controlled by teachers unions that donate millions of dollars annually to Democrats. You will be accused of “hate” if you oppose this agenda.

“As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children.”
— Anita Bryant, 1978

People called her crazy for saying that. However, when the Democrat Party owes its success to the support of gay activists, feminists, and teachers unions, and when everyone in the education system is required to support this bizarre anti-heterosexual agenda, is it any wonder that Democrats are imposing transgender cult ideology in public schools?

“Fundamentally transformed,” just like Obama promised.

Category: Education, Gays, Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 05.12.16

Posted on | May 12, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 05.12.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
90 Miles From Tyranny: News From The Future – Dear Leader Reduces Rations To Combat Obesity
EBL: Don’t People Ever Learn? Don’t Trust A Clinton!
Da Tech Guy: Baldilocks – Meaning Has No Meaning Any More
The Political Hat: Free Range Children And The Nanny State
Michelle Malkin: Pop Quiz – Who Pissed Off The Left With This Terror Threat Truth-Telling?
Twitchy: Rep. Issa Undeterred By RNC HQ Fence During Trump/Ryan Meeting
Shark Tank: Harry Reid Tells Alan Grayson “I Want You To Lose”

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: General Hayden – The Terrorist Threat Today Vs. 9/11
American Thinker: I’m A Traitor For Opposing Trump?
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – The Outliers By Kimberly McCreight
Don Surber: Rock Guitarist Moves Because His Neighbors Are Too Loud
Jammie Wearing Fools: Thanks, Obama! Homeland Security Released Nearly 20,000 Convicted Illegal Immigrant Criminals In 2015
Joe For America: Ft. Worth School Superintendent Unilaterally Allows Boys In Girls’ Bathroom; Texas Lt. Governor Calls For Resignation
JustOneMinute: The Times On Hillary’s E-mails – Everyone’s Doing It
Pamela Geller: Muslim Gangs Impose “Sharia Zones – Threaten, Attack, And Extort Copenhagen Bars
Shot In The Dark: Those Who forget Stupid-People History Are Doomed To Repeat It
STUMP: The Connections Between Detroit And Chicago Public Schools
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – 25% Of Gen X Are Over 50
The Lonely Conservative: Happy Tax Freedom Day, New York
This Ain’t Hell: Beware IAVA’s Vetmoji
Weasel Zippers: Liberal Pollster Claims 49% Of Millennials Would Flee U.S. If Trump Wins
Megan McArdle: Facebook Doesn’t Like Conservatives, And That’s Okay

Semisonic – Feeling Strangely Fine
Shop Amazon – The Handmade Baby Store

Category: Linkagery

‘A Collective Blind Spot’

Posted on | May 12, 2016 | 68 Comments

The BBC reports:

Women in the UK are now 35% more likely than men to go to university and the gap is widening every year.
A baby girl born in 2016 will be 75% more likely to go to university than a boy, if current trends continue.
The Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) has published research examining this increasingly polarised gender divide.
And as university remains the gateway to better-paid, more secure jobs, Mary Curnock Cook, head of the Ucas university admissions service, warns that being male could be a new form of disadvantage.
“On current trends, the gap between rich and poor will be eclipsed by the gap between males and females within a decade,” she writes in an introduction to the report.
And she says while there is much focus on social mobility and geographical differences, there is a collective blind spot on the underachievement of young men.

(Hat-tip: Ethan Ralph at The Ralph Retort.)

The important question is, “Why?” Two obvious answers:

The collapse of the marriage-based family. Boys from fatherless households have a tendency toward substance abuse, criminality and educational failure. In communities where fatherless is commonplace, this creates a vicious cycle in successive generations. In the United States, this pattern is most visible among those euphemistically called “urban youth,” i.e., black teenagers, especially the children of welfare-dependent single mothers. In England, by contrast, the “urban youth” are usually white, although young Muslims (most often the children of immigrants from Pakistan, colloquially called “Asians” in Britain) have recently become part of the UK “urban youth” problem. As social welfare programs replace working fathers as the source of support for children, many boys grow up with a sense of purposelessness. We see this in the street gangs that have turned Chicago into Murder City, U.S.A. (So far this year, 221 people have been murdered in Chicago, and another 1,075 were shot but survived.) Without fathers to provide discipline, guidance and role models for boys, bad things happen. It’s hard to get a college education if you’re strung out on dope or doing time in prison.
Anti-male bias in schools. This has been a serious problem for decades, and has in recent years become much worse. When I was a child, it seemed to me that the women who became elementary school teachers were drawn to the profession by their hateful resentment of boys, and a penchant for sadistic cruelty was a prerequisite to employment. So far as I could tell, school was a place where boys were sent to be scolded and punished by mean old ladies. “McCain, you were just a troublemaker,” says the skeptical reader. “Besides, haven’t Progress and Equality changed all that?” Yes, but not for the better. Nowadays, the mischief-filled boy is no longer subjected to the humiliation of paddling as punishment for his excess energy. Instead, the boy who misbehaves is prescribed drugs that turn him into zombie. The mean old ladies who run the schools have always viewed boys’ natural restless energy as a problem to be solved. How convenient (and profitable for major pharmaceutical companies) that being a rambunctious boy is now commonly diagnosed as a psychiatric disorder in need of “treatment.”

The school system is anti-male, which is why most boys are anti-school.

While I can’t speak for the U.K., I know that every attempt to explain these problems in the United States has gone unheeded by the policy-making elite and the progressives who run the educational bureaucracy. The influence of feminism has only aggravated the blatant discrimination against boys in our schools. Today’s young teachers are trained in universities where feminist gender theory prevails, and teachers today are far less likely to have children of their own than were teachers when I was in school in the 1960s and ’70s. If my teachers were mostly mean old ladies who hated me, most of them at least were mothers, and therefore were generally cognizant of the innate differences between boys and girls. Nowadays, the public school curriculum and pedagogy have been so irreparably warped by Third Wave feminist nonsense and other “progressive” theories that it’s a minor miracle if any child makes it through school without succumbing to the prevailing insanity.

Anyone who wants to understand these problems should read Christina Hoff Sommers’ 2001 book The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies are Harming Our Young Men. I would furthermore recommend Dana Mack’s 1997 book The Assault on Parenthood: How Our Culture Undermines the Family. Most parents fail to understand that the educational bureaucracy profoundly hostile to parental sovereignty. Your children are actually their children, the “progressive” educator has been trained to believe. The public school system in America is a union-controlled apparatus of the Democrat Party, operated by cultural Marxists who despise Christianity and capitalism. If you are a Christian who is trying to raise your children with decent moral values, keep them far away from the government education bureaucracy. Public school teachers hate you, and they consider it their professional duty to teach your children to hate you, too.

Beyond that, remember: Feminists hate your sons. Feminists want your sons to fail in school. Feminists don’t want your sons to go to college. Feminists don’t want your sons to have professional careers. Feminism is about achieving “equality” by destroying opportunity for your sons.

Category: Education

‘Male Feminist’? Don’t Waste Your Time

Posted on | May 12, 2016 | 35 Comments

Feminists are women who hate men, and men who support feminism do so because either (a) they don’t realize feminists hate them, (b) they hate themselves, or (c) they think they can be an exception to this hatred.

Feminism is a movement by women, for women, against men. Feminists regard the “male feminist” as a joke, or as an unwelcome intruder. However, a man can support feminism. It’s very easy:

To be an anti-feminist, a man simply skips Step One — just keep your money and avoid feminists. What kind of fool would waste time talking to women who hate him merely for being male? Alas, there is never a shortage of fools in the world, so we have “male feminists,” and feminists have to keep telling men they are not welcome in the movement:

Feminism Is Still Just For Women
Feminism is still just for women, okay? The last time I wrote about this, I recieved a lot of hate. . . . The consensus is growing that men are not needed here.
If men speaks out in defense of feminism, he risks nothing, but can gain everything. Now, I know some of you out there will claim I and other feminists hate men. That is not true, although it ultimately doesn’t matter if we all did hate men anyway. A lot of men turn man-hate into a self-fulfilling prophecy, so before you get into the whole “misandry” thing, you my want to know that are being self-defeating.
So yeah, feminism is a girls-only club!

The self-evident contradiction — “I don’t hate men, but don’t want them in the feminist movement, because men are not needed here” — of this Tumblr blogger’s argument is indicative of the fundamental problem of feminism since the modern movement’s inception in the late 1960s. Like the appeasers dealing with Hitler in the 1930s, some men responded to the Women’s Liberation movement by acceding to their demands. Guys didn’t want to be called “male chauvinist pigs,” so they tried to maintain peace through compromise. They gave feminists money:

Women’s Studies professor and feminist author Susan M. Hartmann credits the Ford Foundation with being a substantive force that created the feminist movement. . . . It is safe to say that without the Ford Foundation, feminism would not have been successful in gaining such a strong foothold in academia, and by extension, politics. . . .
In 1971, a group of feminists approached Ford president McGeorge Bundy with a request to involve itself in the feminist movement the way it had in the Civil Rights movement, essentially, creating it out of whole cloth. The result of those early discussions was a full-fledged women’s project to fund the small number of existing women’s advocacy organizations, and also to create a whole new field within academia known as “women’s studies.” In 1972, Ford announced the first $1 million national fellowship program for “faculty and doctoral dissertation research on the role of women in society and Women’s Studies broadly construed.” A 1996 article by Heather MacDonald reported that women’s studies programs had received $36 million between 1972-1992 from Ford and other foundations.

Fools! You failed to realize that Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It. Give the feminist everything she demands today, and tomorrow she’ll be back with a new list of demands.

The classic victim of this was Alfred Conrad. A Harvard-educated economist, he married the poet Adrienne Rich and they had three sons. In the 1960s, his wife joined the feminist movement, and Conrad at first supported her. As she became more and more militant in her hatred of men, however, Rich’s feminism drove Conrad to commit suicide in 1970 at age 46. His friend Hayden Carruth later told the Guardian: “I don’t know what went on between them, except that Alf came to me and complained bitterly that Adrienne had lost her mind.” She moved in with her lesbian lover and wrote dismissively of her dead husband in her subsequent books, saying she only married Conrad “because I knew no better way to disconnect from my first family.” Adrienne Rich made famous the phrase “compulsory heterosexuality” in a 1980 essay. Like other feminists, Rich condemned relationships with men as “oppressive” because of the way “male power manifests itself . . . as enforcing heterosexuality on women.”

Feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — denies that there is any such thing as “human nature.” Feminism rejects any claim that heterosexuality is normal, necessary or influenced by biological instinct. Men do not have any innate sexual needs or impulses, according to feminists, a point Rich emphasized by using ironic quotes around the word “drive” when she condemned “the socialization of women to feel that male sexual ‘drive’ amounts to a right.” Hostility toward male sexuality inspires feminists to describe heterosexual relationships (especially including marriage) as representing male “domination” and “control” of women. Feminists view sexual intercourse as “exploitation,” a means by which men humiliate and degrade women. Heterosexuality is imposed on women by “force” and “compulsion,” according to Rich, as well as through “control of consciousness” by the “idealization of heterosexual romance and marriage” in literature, art, movies and other forms of culture.

“Characterised by unequal power relations between men and women, patriarchy systematically oppresses those who are, through no fault of their own, 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.”
— Amy Marie Austin, 2014

Far from being limited to an extreme fringe within the feminist movement, this anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology is now promoted by feminist professors in Women’s Studies programs that enroll some 90,000 students annually on more than 700 U.S. college and university campuses. For example, in the department of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Portland State University, the junior-level course “Gender and Critical Inquiry” (WS301) in the fall 2007 semester included assigned readings by such radical lesbians as Charlotte Bunch, Monique Wittig and Audre Lorde, from the textbook Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives (edited by Carole R. McCann and Seung-Kyung Kim, 2002). Another assignment from the textbook was “Separating Lesbian Theory From Feminist Theory,” an essay by Cheshire Calhoun arguing that “from a feminist perspective, sexual interaction, romantic love, marriage, and the family are all danger zones,” being patriarchal institutions that “serve male interests.” Citing this essay, a student in the class wrote:

According to feminism the role of heterosexuality is what structures the male-female relationship. Heterosexuality is the structure that keeps sexist oppression in place in the private realm; where sexism in general operates to also oppress in the public sphere. In other words heterosexuality reinforces the hierarchy established by sexism to keep women dominated in “sexual interaction, romantic love, marriage, and the family.”

Taught by their professors that heterosexuality is synonymous with a “hierarchy” of “sexist oppression,” young feminists are apt to condemn any expression of male interest in women as “misogyny.” Unlike normal women, who enjoy being admired by men and are flattered by male attention, feminists condemn men’s admiration of female beauty. Complimenting a woman’s appearance is “harassment” to feminists, who denounce men for “objectification” merely for looking at women.

“Demonizing men’s admiration of women’s beauty (the ‘male gaze’) is one way in which heterosexual masculinity is ‘problematized’ in feminist rhetoric, which seeks not only to inspire women to view men contemptuously, but also to make men ashamed of their own desires.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, April 16

Anita Sarkeesian of Feminist Frequency asserted on Twitter that “because we live in a culture that routinely objectifies women . . . women’s perceived value as human beings is tied directly to their sexual desirability to men,” so that women suffer the “dehumanization of being reduced to sex objects.” Such an argument implies that men’s “perceived value as human beings” has nothing to do with men’s “sexual desirability” to women. Are there any men whom Ms. Sarkeesian considers sexually desirable? If so, on what basis? What is the “perceived value” of men, from a feminist perspective? None whatsoever, Ms. Sarkeesian would probably be compelled to answer, if she were honest, which she is not.

Dishonesty about their motives, methods and goals is as necessary to feminism as it is to any other totalitarian movement. Just as Lenin and Stalin built the Soviet empire by deliberate deceit, so also have feminists gained power through blatant lies and hypocrisy. Even while they constantly churn out anti-male propaganda — never speaking of men except as violent perpetrators of sexual oppression — feminist deny that they hate men. They are simply in favor of equality, feminists say, when confronted by critics. To accuse them of hating men, feminists will claim, is to prove (a) that you are too ignorant to actually understand feminism, or (b) that you are a misogynist oppressor who hates women, or perhaps (c) both. Attempting to argue with feminists is to encounter the textbook definition of circular logic. Simply disagreeing with a feminist is considered sufficient proof that you are wrong. Feminists believe they possess a monopoly on truth and moral virtue, and view men as their inferiors. Males know nothing and are always wrong. Whatever a man says is automatically ridiculed by feminists as “mansplaining.”

Feminist Men? No Thanks!
This question pops up right here on tumblr every now and then. Feminists men is almost a contradiction. No wait, it is a contradiction. It’s this weird idea that men can stand up against the oppression of women. . . . Even some feminists who think male feminists can exist will do so with apprehension and no small amount of wariness.
Men who identify as feminist don’t respect women. They can still rape. It’s very problematic. . . . And you gay men out there, don’t think you are out of the woods. There are still a lot of feminists who feel gay men are allies, but they can be just as problematic as any cisgendered heteronormative man even though we once supported each other in the past at a time when the whole world was against us. . . .
For any men out there, don’t fret; you can be allies but you need to know what’s expected of you. This amazing video by Melissa A. Fabello from a few years ago illustrates the many failings of male allies. They ultimately don’t know what it’s like to be women, which means they can never be true feminists.

Got it, guys? If you “identify as feminist,” this means you “don’t respect women,” because you “don’t know what it’s like to be women.” Men “can never be true feminists.” Feminism is the All-Girl Man-Haters Club.

Feminism begins with the assertion that women (all women) are oppressed by men (all men). @lifebythecreek

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) May 11, 2016

This assertion — the Patriarchal Thesis — is the premise of all feminist theory. @lifebythecreek https://t.co/4JlEndbQBg

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) May 11, 2016

The premise of the feminist syllogism is identical to its conclusion. @lifebythecreek https://t.co/doSiURbHfD

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) May 11, 2016

Premise A: Women are oppressed by men.
Premise B: { whatever }.
ergo
Conclusion: Men oppress women.@lifebythecreek https://t.co/4HQBW33w1K

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) May 11, 2016

Arguing with feminists is impossible, because arguments require facts and logic, which feminists reject to embrace the Patriarchal Thesis. The absurd spectacle of a young woman like Cora Segal, the daughter of a Harvard professor, claiming to be oppressed while attending elite Hampshire College (annual tuition $48,065) shows how feminist rhetoric routinely requires the rejection of reality. It is an odd idea of “social justice” that requires us to weep with pity for a rich girl Ms. Segal because she is victimized by “living in a white supremacist cisheteropatriarchal society,” as her mentally ill friend Jennie Chenkin claimed.

As crazy as feminists are, at least feminism provides mentally ill women who hate men (and capitalism, etc.) the Patriarchal Thesis to cling to, like a scared toddler hugging his favorite stuffed animal. What possible comfort does a “male feminist” gain from supporting such lunacy? Let any young man ask any old married guy, “Are you dominating and controlling your wife?” The old man’s laughter will be deafening.

In any long and happy marriage, the husband is domesticated. As a bachelor, I was proudly independent and, although I suffered the usual slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, I was much more often the heartbreaker than the heartbroken. Certainly, I seldom had cause to complain of a shortage of female companionship. Through it all, however, I knew I was searching for exactly one woman, and when I found her . . .

Well, if you marry a good woman (and ask anybody, I married the best) you must do what it takes to keep her. Before he knows it, a man finds himself more dependent on his wife than he ever could have dreamed. That’s how a good wife is — resourceful and diligent and, to quote Proverbs 31, “her price is far above rubies.” When I was 16, my mother died, and I never imagined my father could cry so hard. To see a strong man cry that way made a profound impression on me and, for all my insuperable arrogance, I’m sure I would be nothing without my wife.

Knowing what I know, as a matter of direct experience, I have never understood feminism’s attacks on marriage as “slavery,” and their claim that women are “dominated” and “controlled” by their husbands. My wife is much better at being a wife than I am at being a husband, so maybe I’m just not very competent at this whole “cisheteropatriarchy” business. On the other hand, after 27 years of marriage, we have six children and two grandchildren, and obviously I must have done something right.

My wife and I are quite proud of our children, who are a blessing. @HBergHattie pic.twitter.com/0y8lcxRxTE

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) May 12, 2016

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the Women’s Movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.”
— Sheila Cronan, 1970

“The first condition for escaping from forced motherhood and sexual slavery is escape from the patriarchal institution of marriage.”
— Alison M. Jaggar, 1988

“The term motherhood refers to the patriarchal institution . . . that is male-defined and controlled and is deeply oppressive to women.”
— Andrea O’Reilly, 2008

“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . 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

If I knew nothing else about feminists, their insane hostility to marriage and motherhood would be enough to make me despise feminism. What hope can there be for our nation’s future if feminists achieve their goal of destroying the family, the very fabric of society? Who would want to live in a lunatic nation run by Crazy Cat Ladies? And what kind of men would support this destructive madness? Certainly not good men.

Don’t be a male feminist. Nobody likes male feminists.

Feminist: { tells provable lie }
Man: { states contradictory fact }
Feminist: "Why do you hate women?"
Man: "What?"
Feminist: "HARASSMENT!"

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) May 11, 2016

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 05.11.16

Posted on | May 11, 2016 | 7 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Was This A Hillary Clinton Psych-Op?
Da Tech Guy: Cause And Effect II – And The Cynical Baseball Math Behind It
The Political Hat: Begun, The Bathroom Wars Have
Michelle Malkin: Twitter’s Traitors
Twitchy: “Tear Down That Tax Wall!” Romney Hits Trump For Refusing To Release Tax Returns
Shark Tank: Wasserman-Schultz’s $1 Million Democratic Problem
Traveller Adventures: Book Review – Terminal Lance: The White Donkey (Spoilers)

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Medieval Reenactor Brings Down Drone With Spear
American Thinker: When The White House Lies To The Media, And Laughs While They Do It
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – In The Arena by Pete Hegseth
Don Surber: Tweet of the Day
Jammie Wearing Fools: Surprise! Facebook Clowns Donate More To Hillary Than Any Other Candidate
Joe For America: Hillary And Castro, Helping Bring Crime To Your Neighborhood
Pamela Geller: Terror-Tied CAIR Threatens Lawsuit Against The Citadel Over Hijab
Shot In The Dark: Open Letter To Minnesota Public Radio News
STUMP: On Dreams Of Bankruptcy
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Crazy Knife Attacker Stabbing Infidels In The Back While Shouting “Allahu Akbar” Totally Unrelated To Islam
The Lonely Conservative: Hillary Doesn’t Understand Why The Price Of Health Insurance Is Going Up
This Ain’t Hell: Military Times Poll – Trump 2:1 Over Clinton
Weasel Zippers: Bill Nye Blames Tornadoes On Climate Change, Gets Called Out By Disgusted Meteorologists
Megan McArdle: The U.S. Doesn’t Need A CEO In Chief
Mark Steyn: Is My Islamophobia The Root Cause Of Global Warming?

Shop Amazon Basics – Lightning Cables for Apple Devices
Amazon Gift Cards – Via E-Mail

Category: Linkagery

In The Mailbox: 05.10.16

Posted on | May 10, 2016 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

SOTD: On The Road Again

OVER THE TRANSOM
Louder With Crowder: Steven Crowder Officially Files Legal Motion Against Facebook
EBL: The Marilyn Mosby Prosecution Circus Continues
Da Tech Guy: Cause And Effect Part I – The Broken Clock At The NY Times
The Political Hat: Fighting Capitalism With Hobo Pederasty
Michelle Malkin: Illinois Pols Expand Medicaid For Illegals; Slash Aid To Disabled Kids
Twitchy: Trump Goes After Clinton On Benghazi With Brutal Instagram Video
Shark Tank: Cruz Won’t Release His Delegates Before The Convention

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Heather MacDonald – The War On Cops
American Thinker: Transgendered Bathrooms Are A Civil Right?
Don Surber: Never Forget, The Problem Is Hillary
Jammie Wearing Fools: Suck It, DeBlasio – Chick-Fil-A Dominating NYC Fast-Food Rivals
Joe For America: Thirteen Minutes Of Lying – May Be A Record, Even For Hillary
Pamela Geller: CNN Erases Screams Of “Allahu Akbar” From Munich Stabbing Rampage Report
Shot In The Dark: What Did Malcolm X Know That Nekima Levy-Pounds Doesn’t?
STUMP: Treasury To Central States – You Didn’t Cut Enough
The Jawa Report: Classic YouTube Day Part II
The Lonely Conservative: Obama Says You Can’t Build That! And If You Succeed You’re Just Lucky
The Quinton Report: Rapper DMX Involved In Police Call At SC Hotel
This Ain’t Hell: Carolyn Stewart, Central Command Whistleblower, Fired For Cursing
Weasel Zippers: Socialism At Its Finest – Hungry Venezuelans Hunt Dogs, Cats, And Pigeons As Food Runs Out
Mark Steyn: Steyn, As Played By Steyn

Join SHOWTIME Free Trial
Shop Amazon – Premium Home Audio Shop

Category: Linkagery

The Myth of the Masculinity Crisis

Posted on | May 9, 2016 | 87 Comments

“Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine.”
— Rick Blaine, Casablanca (1942)

What passes for a “crisis” in 21st-century America usually reflects the peculiar concerns of pundits with too much time on their hands. Europe is being overrun by Muslims, 183 people have already been shot to death so far this year in Chicago, transvestites are hanging around public restrooms in North Carolina, federal security officers are going on murder rampages, and U.S. troops are being deployed to Yemen.

Amid all these evils, what do the intelligentsia think we need now? Some theoretical hand-wringing nonsense about a masculinity crisis:

There is a mini-boom in books about males: the young ones parents raise, often with stereotypical ideas of what a boy should be, and the adult kind that women, and men themselves, get lumbered with. Another new take is “Man Up”, a powerful, thought-provoking call to arms by Rebecca Asher, author of a previous book on the troubles with modern parenting. She and [author Tim] Samuels adduce similar woes to explain why the attention on men is necessary: their much higher involvement in violent crime, as both perpetrators and victims; boys’ higher likelihood of educational failure; untreated mental-health problems and, compared with women, vastly higher suicide rates. The recent recession led to an estimated 10,000 extra male suicides in Europe and North America, according to research Mr Samuels cites.

Winners win and losers lose. The winners succeed and smile, while the losers fail and explain their failures with theories of social justice.

Feminism is about the rationalization of female failure, and some men — eager to cash in on the “social justice” racket — need to rationalize their own failures, hence the academic field of “Men’s Studies.”

Basically, this is about “male feminist” types who feel a profound sense of self-pity and hope to persuade feminists to be sympathetic to men. However, if feminists were capable of feeling anything except contempt for men, they wouldn’t be feminists, would they? No, of course not.

“Men’s Studies” is a racket just like “Women’s Studies” is a racket. The key difference is that feminists exercise veto authority over what is taught in Men’s Studies classes, whereas men are not allowed to criticize the anti-male ideology taught in Women’s Studies. Everything taught in university classes now must conform to feminist doctrine — dissent is impermissible — so that Women’s Studies is about teaching women to hate men, and Men’s Studies is about teaching men they deserve to be hated.

Feminism is implacably hostile to men, marriage, motherhood, capitalism and Christianity. Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and cannot be understood otherwise.

“Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse have written about the sexual dilemmas of modern civilization and proposed solutions combining aspects of Freudian theory and Marxian economic analysis. . . .
“Reich’s analysis introduces the theoretical insight that women and gays have known instinctively: that civilization in its present form was designed for heterosexual men, and that its structure guarantees their authority within it. Thus, to change society by ending sexual suppression does not mean the end of civilization, but rather the end of civilization as we know it. . . .
“It was Herbert Marcuse who saw the critical function of homosexuals in ending repression. . . . Marcuse sees homosexuals as having an important place in history in helping to free sexuality, since he feels gay people have a more natural, totally erogenous sexuality.”
— Sidney Abbott and Barbara Love, Sappho Was a Right-On Woman: A Liberated View of Lesbianism (1972)

“We recognize that it is the structure of the culture which engineers the deaths, violations, violence, and we look for alternatives, ways of destroying culture as we know it, rebuilding it as we can imagine it.”
— Andrea Dworkin, Woman Hating (1974)

You see these early “Second Wave” feminists frankly acknowledged their movement’s destructive purpose, to bring about “the end of civilization as we know,” seeking ways of “destroying culture as we know it.” More than four decades into this fanatical campaign of cultural destruction, we find feminists standing amid the debris, shrieking that women are more oppressed than ever, and insisting that what we need is more feminism.

The World Will Always Need Heroes

The so-called “masculinity crisis” got a thorough airing in 2010 when feminist Hannah Rosin published “The End of Men” in The Atlantic, but these themes had been examined from a conservative perspective by Christina Hoff Sommers in her 2001 book The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies are Harming Our Young Men. In fact, much of this had been explored in Dr. Warren Farrell’s 1993 book The Myth of Male Power: Why Men Are the Disposable Sex and in anthropologist Lionel Tiger’s 1999 book The Decline of Males: The First Look at an Unexpected New World for Men and Women, and has since been analyzed further in psychologist Helen Smith’s 2013 book Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream — and Why It Matters. What has happened, you see, is that a problem often addressed by feminism’s conservative critics became so self-evident that liberals and feminists had to join the conversation about men’s problems in order to gain control of the narrative. This permits liberals to continue supporting harmful policies and lets feminists pretend that the victims of their anti-male agenda deserve the harms they suffer, by explaining, rationalizing and justifying all this within a context of Progress, Equality and Social Justice.

We ought to ask ourselves, “What would Rick Blaine do?”

A few nights ago, I happened to catch Casablanca on cable TV. Honestly, I could watch Ingrid Bergman 24/7 and never tire of looking at her, but as I was watching Ingrid, I was also watching Bogie, of course. What was it about Bogie’s portrayal of Rick Blaine that has etched this character permanently into our culture? Much like Rhett Butler in Gone With the Wind, another famed hero from Hollywood’s Golden Age, Rick Blaine is a cynical realist — shrewd and worldly — and yet his cool, sarcastic exterior conceals a soul that still cherishes a sense of romantic idealism. This contradiction is explained by the backstory of Rick’s whirlwind romance with Ilsa in Paris, and his sense that she betrayed her promise to him. However, this seeming betrayal is revealed to have been something else, as Ilsa was in fact married to the Czech patriot Victor Lazlo, imprisoned by the Nazis. How was Ilsa to know whether Victor was dead or alive? Rick and Isla were both victims of circumstances beyond their control, and he realizes he can’t fairly blame her for what happened. Meanwhile, there is the small problem of the Third Reich, which has conquered Europe and is making its totalitarian presence felt in French Morocco, where Casablanca is crowded with refugees seeking to escape Hitler’s deadly menace. Lazlo and Ilsa need Rick’s help and . . .

Well, I’ll spare you any more spoilers, if you’re the only person on the planet who’s never seen Casablanca, but what was it about Rick Blaine that made him such an iconic character? Sure, Humphrey Bogart is one of the greatest actors in history, yet if you could remake Casablanca scene-for-scene today, and cast any of a half-dozen contemporary leading men in the role of Rick Blaine, the character would still be heroic, entirely apart from Bogart’s acting.

Rick Blaine is a winner because he knows how to handle defeat. The Nazis overrun Paris? OK, fine. Au revoir, Paris! Off to Morocco. The woman he loves is married to another man? “Here’s looking at you, kid.”

No complaining. Expect no pity in life. No one is obliged to acknowledge your personal suffering, and only a fool could ever expect “social justice” in this world full of corruption, cowardice, violence and cruelty.

This is how a man must look at life, if he is to have any hope of surviving hardship and misfortune, and yet this kind of heroic masculinity is now constantly mocked and maligned by our decadent intelligentsia.

Feminism’s determination to destroy civilization knows no limits. One must pity Canadian feminist Anne Theriault’s son:

I think a lot about how Theo will view his sexuality as he gets older. I flip-flop from worrying about whether he might be teased or bullied if he deviates from traditional masculine ideas, to panicking over the fact that he might, against my best efforts, buy into those ideas and become a bully himself. . . . I want him to be who he is, and I want him to be brave and stand up for marginalized and oppressed people, but I also want him to always be safe and happy. And I don’t know if I can have it both ways. Not that it’s really up to me — he’ll have to make his own discoveries and choices about himself, and while I can try to pass on my value system to him, I ultimately don’t have any say in who or what he is.
I just want him to know that . . . I will love him no matter what his sexuality, no matter what his gender, no matter what, end of sentence, full stop.
I just hope that he always knows that I love him and I’m proud of him.

The sons of feminist mothers: Why there are so few feminist grandmothers. pic.twitter.com/RqJNrI4ASb

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) May 6, 2016

Until I started studying radical feminism, I never thought of “normal” as an achievement. Really, raising normal kids isn’t that difficult. Even in a world gone mad like America in the Obama age, most kids manage to muddle through OK, and good kids still succeed in life. Granted, there are all kinds of newfangled weirdness in the world kids must be warned against — “Never date anybody on Tinder or OKCupid” — but a reasonable effort to instill old-fashioned virtue in them, and to guide them toward responsible adulthood, usually works out pretty good. But if you’re so concerned about “marginalized and oppressed people” that you’re trying to raise a gender-neutral boy, well, yeah, probably he will be “teased and bullied.” Meanwhile, my teenage sons are hitting the gym, pumping iron and drinking protein milkshakes. Their older brothers (the twins are now 23) probably “teased and bullied” them more than anyone ever will, so there’s not much need to worry about that.

Teaching kids to be strong-minded — psychologically resilient — is a basic goal that I don’t suppose feminists understand. For all their talk about being “strong women,” they seem to spend a lot of time proclaiming their essential weakness. They claim to be “traumatized” when confronted with opposing opinions, and consider criticism “harassment.” Much of their effort is devoted to silencing those who disagree with them, seeking to ensure that feminism’s critics can never be employed on the faculty of any university or published in any major newspaper or magazine. While feminists seek to wall themselves off from any argument that might disturb their emotional sensitivities, meanwhile, young men are attempting to go about their lives amid a firestorm of anti-male hatred ginned up by deranged fanatics like Anne Theriault. It is now quite nearly illegal to be a heterosexual male at many universities, where “rape culture” hysteria has created a campus climate of sexual paranoia.

“You are more likely to be sexually assaulted by your friend than by a random stranger. A dark alley is, in fact, statistically safer than a college campus.”
— Vera Papisova, “We Are Survivors of Sexual Assault, and These Are Our Stories,” Teen Vogue, April 29, 2016

Young men now face challenges their fathers could not have imagined when we were young, but winners still win and losers lose. Considering how feminist mothers are raising their boys to be weak-minded and timid, it’s not hard to guess which category they’ll wind up in. No matter how much feminists hate masculinity, normal women generally prefer masculine men, so the gender-neutral sons of feminists won’t be any competition to my sons. Nor do I expect my daughters need to fear much competition from the daughters of Sally Kohn or Jessica Valenti.

Am I over-confident in my children’s prospects for success? No, I just can’t imagine them losing, when the secret of winning is not really a secret. Hang in there and keep fighting, and don’t listen to losers who say you can’t win or the fight isn’t worth it. Your ancestors survived ordeals far worse than any you’re likely to face, and if they survived, so can you.

Human beings are marvelously adaptable creatures, who can survive in the Arctic snow or the sands of the Sahara. So why this hand-wringing concern from intellectuals about boys who might be harmed by “stereotypical ideas of what a boy should be”? Not every boy can grow up to be Rick Blaine, I guess, but shouldn’t we encourage them at least to aspire to heroic manhood? Teach boys to be tough-minded and pragmatic, with savoir-faire, sanguine confidence and a sense of duty. He must endure hardship and prepare himself to rescue that beautiful damsel in distress who needs a Rick Blaine. Doing the right thing will take every ounce of courage the hero can muster.

‘Social Justice’ and Other Foolish Illusions

Hard times make hard men, and the so-called “masculinity crisis” — to the extent it is not a figment of the fertile imaginations of intellectuals with too much time on their hands — is largely the product of a society grown decadent as a result of its affluence. The children of privilege, like Cora “TrigglyPuff” Segal and Jennie Chenkin at elite Hampshire College, are the most fanatical devotees of the Cult of Social Justice.

The spectacle of deranged cultists screaming in lunatic rage somehow goes unnoticed by the intelligentsia who are wringing their hands in concern over the alleged “masculinity crisis.” If it is young men whose prospects are in jeopardy, why are young women so furious?

Progress and Equality look an awful lot like Failure and Decline. Teaching children a warped worldview, telling them they are oppressed because they “live in a white supremacist cisheteropatriarchal society,” as Jennie Chenkin believes, renders them permanently unhappy, and unfit to pursue any career outside the narrow confines of academia and progressive activism. Nor are these miseducated misfits likely to find happiness in their personal lives, because “the personal is political” for feminists. Embracing a hateful anti-male ideology has a tendency to limit a young woman’s dating options. As bad as left-wing women are, left-wing men are even worse — a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Because no decent, honest or sensible young man would ever associate with feminists, the only men feminists ever become involved with are worthless fools or immoral hedonists men like Jian Ghomeshi. Unwilling to recognize their fundamental error, young feminists seek to absolve themselves of blame for their own failures, insisting they are not responsible for the consequences of their bad choices, including their herpes infections.

What’s wrong with herpes is not the disease, but the “stigma,” feminists say, and promiscuity should never be criticized, because such criticism is “slut-shaming,” which is misogyny. Don’t want your daughter to become a herpes-infected slut? This proves you hate women — or at least, that’s what feminists say it proves, and only people who hate women ever disagree with what feminists say. Believing themselves endowed with both intellectual and moral superiority to others, feminists claim a monopoly on truth, and defend their monopoly by making accusations of “hate” and “ignorance” against anyone who opposes their agenda. The circularity of feminist logic demonstrates how the premise of their ideology, the claim that they are victimized by male supremacy, tends to turn every disagreement into evidence of how oppressed they are: “See? Here is another man who says I am wrong. Harassment! Patriarchy!”

“Feminism involves the implicit claim that the prevailing conditions under which women live are unjust and must be changed.”
— Carol R. McCann and Seung-Kyung Kim, Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives (2003)

“Sexism is the belief system that supports patriarchy: the rule of men over women. . . .
“Sexism relies on heterosexism. . .
“Political strategy must be based on a clear analysis and the goal of eliminating heteropatriarchy if we are to eliminate heterosexism.”
— Joy A. Livingston, “Individual Action and Political Strategies: Creating a Future Free of Heterosexism,” in Preventing Heterosexism and Homophobia, edited by Esther D. Rothblum and Lynne A. Bond (1996)

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

“The abolition of compulsory heterosexuality would have an enormous impact on the system of male dominance. . . . The abandonment of compulsory heterosexuality would reshape the sexuality of both girls and boys and, if psychoanalysis is correct, would have tremendous consequences for the structure of the unconscious and for people’s sense of their own gender identity.”
— Alison Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature (1988)

“By ‘sexuality’ we mean male sexuality, as it is male sexuality that determines the form heterosexuality takes. . . .
“We see heterosexuality as an institution of male domination, not a free expression of personal preference. Heterosexuality is forced upon us. . . . Believing the personal is political means we cannot separate sexuality off from male supremacy as a politics-free zone.”
— Leeds Revolutionary Feminists, Love Your Enemy?: Debate Between Heterosexual Feminism and Political Lesbianism (1981)

“What the women’s liberation movement did create was a homosexual liberation movement that politically challenged male supremacy in one of its most deeply institutionalized aspects — the tyranny of heterosexuality. The political power of lesbianism is a power that can be shared by all women who chose to recognize and use it: the power of an alternative, a possibility that makes male sexual tyranny escapable, rejectable — possibly even doomed.”
— Linda Gordon, “The Struggle for Reproductive Freedom: Three Stages of Feminism,” in Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism, edited by Zillah Eisenstein (1978)

“Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from male supremacy. All men have oppressed women.”
— Redstockings, “Manifesto,” 1969

This is what feminists believe. Women live under conditions that are unjust and which must be changed (McCann and Kim, 2003), requiring a feminist consciousness of women’s victimization (Bartky, 1990), attaining the knowledge that men are the agents of women’s oppression (Redstockings, 1969). The system of patriarchy relies on heterosexism (Livingston, 1996), so that feminists must abolish compulsory heterosexuality to reshape the sexuality of both girls and boys (Jaggar, 1988). By destroying the institution of heterosexuality that male supremacy has forced upon women (Leeds Revolutionary Feminists, 1981), the political power of lesbianism will liberate women from male sexual tyranny (Gordon, 1978). Quod erat demonstrandum.

The Lunacy of ‘Gender Theory’

While not everyone who adopts the “feminist” label endorses everything other feminists proclaim, the core ideology of the movement — women’s oppression under male supremacy — was established decades ago. This anti-male/anti-heterosexual belief system is what tens of thousands of young women learn in university Women’s Studies programs. Students are indoctrinated in feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — and these ideas (articulated in Professor Judith Butler’s widely assigned book Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity) have the status of Official Truth within academia. Third Wave feminism is “the end of civilization as we know it,” as radical lesbians Sidney Abbot and Barbara Love envisioned long ago.

To understand what the 21st-century feminist movement is about, we need look no farther than the website Everyday Feminism, whose managing editor Melissa Fabello is a self-proclaimed “queer feminist” notorious for her diatribes against heterosexual males.

“Right now, today, as of writing this, I identify as queer. But I didn’t always. And no, I’m not referring to that awkward, uncomfortable time in my life where I knew that something felt ‘off,’ but I couldn’t quite place it, and so I paraded around in the charade of ‘straight.’ I mean that a few years ago, I identified as homoflexible. And before that, a lesbian. And even before that, bisexual.”
— Melissa Fabello, January 2016

What sort of women do you expect would write for a site run by a deranged hatemonger and devoted to the celebration of perversity?

Kris Nelson is a Contributing Writer for Everyday Feminism. They run a blog full of short queer-centric radical prose, which can be found at thequeertimes.tumblr.com and a poetry blog that can be found at songswithoutlyrics.tumblr.com. Kris also runs an online store by the name of Spell-Bound, where they sell handcrafted wire work jewelry, crystal pendants, hand sewn tarot bags, and pendulums. They can be contacted at [email protected] and trans-witch.tumblr.com.

This Is What a Feminist Looks Like. https://t.co/faUP21kfIS
(Everyday Feminism columnist https://t.co/aUfBuxrtXO) pic.twitter.com/Qkq9kW04wU

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) May 8, 2016

Yes, Kris Nelson is a “trans-witch,” born female but identifying by the pronouns “they/them” and also suffering numerous mental disorders. At her — excuse me, I should say their — Queer Times blog, Kris Nelson announces a “Gay Agenda . . . looking to lay waste to the nuclear family.” How is Kris Nelson’s destructive agenda expressed in her — of course I mean, their — Everyday Feminism columns?

Wedding Bells and Prison Bars:
Why Prison Abolition Is a Queer Rights Issue
(March 11, 2015)

Why Success Narratives Are Bullsh*t
and You Can Stop Blaming Yourself
for Your Financial Problems
(May 5, 2015)

Your Top 10 Questions About
Being Genderqueer Answered
(July 17, 2015)

What Is Heteronormativity — And How Does
It Apply to Your Feminism? Here Are 4 Examples
(July 24, 2015)

3 Exciting Ways Witchcraft and Feminism Intersect
(Nov. 19, 2015)

4 Harmful Lies the Media Is
Telling You About Androgyny
(Jan. 1, 2016)

5 Ways US Culture and Society
is Gaslighting Marginalized People
(April 3, 2016)

By the headlines alone, you can see how everything from “Prison Abolition” to “Androgyny” to “Witchcraft” is now part of feminism. Yet while a popular feminist website is publishing moonbat madness, we find the intelligentsia concerned about a crisis in masculinity?

The Intellectual Elite Is Decadent and Depraved. Unable to comprehend how Donald Trump could have won the Republican nomination, David Brooks goes dabbling around in gender theory to explain it: “We’ll probably need a new definition of masculinity, too. . . . The traditional masculine ideal isn’t working anymore. . . . Everywhere you see men imprisoned by the old reticent, stoical ideal.” What sort of nonsense is this? What does Donald Trump’s victory have to do with a “reticent, stoical ideal,” and what evidence is there that this “traditional masculine ideal isn’t working anymore”? What does David Brooks think he’s doing here, except regurgitating trendy themes from academic sociology, maybe something he read in a magazine or heard in a TED Talk?

Are our troops in Yemen in need of “a new definition of masculinity”? Will a David Brooks column reduce the homicide rate in Chicago? Should we raise our sons to fret about “marginalized and oppressed people”? Or should we teach them to aspire to heroic masculinity?

“Where I’m going, you can’t follow. What I’ve got to do, you can’t be any part of. Ilsa, I’m no good at being noble, but it doesn’t take much to see that the problems of three little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. Someday you’ll understand that.”
— Rick Blaine, Casablanca

The weak and helpless need heroes who are strong and brave. Do not let weaklings tell you that your strength makes you a “bully,” and never let cowards make you ashamed of your courage. Do not seek praise from fools. They mock the hero because they resent his greatness, and express their envy by ridiculing his virtue. Do not let yourself become discouraged because you are misunderstood. To be insulted by fools is an honor.

Resist the temptation of self-pity. Never blame others for your own failures. When you find you must suffer for the evil that others have done, do not expect anyone to help you, but be grateful you have the strength to endure suffering. Survival is victory, when you are surrounded by enemies who wish you dead, as heroes so often are.

Laugh in the face of danger. You are a survivor. You have lived through hard times before, and have the scars to prove it. Hold your head high and be happy for each new day. Every new challenge is a chance to show those sons of bitches they can’t beat you. And if you ever find yourself in a moment of doubt, just ask yourself, “What would Rick Blaine do?”