The Other McCain

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

‘The Enslavement of Women’

Posted on | March 10, 2016 | 41 Comments

“Sex is compulsory in marriage. . . . It is clear that the compulsory nature of sex in marriage operates to the advantage of the male. . . . The enslavement of women in marriage is all the more cruel and inhumane by virtue of the fact that it appears to exist with the consent of the enslaved group.”
— Sheila Cronan, 1970

Marriage is slavery, “cruel and inhumane.” This is a fundamental tenet of feminist ideology. No feminist would consent to marriage, because this involves “compulsory” sex. Feminists are against marriage because they are against sex, which “operates to the advantage of the male.”

Sheila Cronan was a prominent member of a group co-founded by Ti-Grace Atkinson and Anne Koedt. Atkinson, who had been handpicked by Betty Friedan as president of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW), walked out in 1968 in a dispute with NOW’s national leadership and formed what she called “The October 17th Movement.” This was subsequently renamed “The Feminists,” thereby giving a name to the movement they led. They announced their goal and described their ideology in their June 1969 manifesto, “The Feminists: A Political Organization to Annihilate Sex Roles”:

The class separation between men and women is a political division. . . . The role (or class) system must be destroyed. . . .
Men . . . are the enemies and the Oppressors of women. . . . Both the male role and the female role must be annihilated. . . .
The pathology of oppression can only be fully comprehended in its primary development: the male-female division. . . . The sex roles themselves must be destroyed.
(Radical Feminism, edited by Anne Koedt, et al., pp. 369-370)

This view of “the male-female division” as a political system, a “pathology of oppression” which “must be destroyed” and “annihilated,” has defined feminism for more than four decades. To disagree with The Feminists — to doubt their claim that men are “the enemies” of women, to deny that marriage is slavery, etc. — is to reject feminism as it has existed since the 1960s. Attempting to evade this history, to define the movement as having some goal other than what The Feminists declared in their founding manifesto, has the effect of depriving “feminism” of any useful definition, making it possible for any woman to call herself a “feminist” without bothering to know what this word actually means.

 

What does Beyoncé Knowles mean when she calls herself a feminist? Does she mean that her marriage to Jay Z is “enslavement”? Is her husband her enemy and an oppressor? Does she believe “sex roles themselves must be destroyed”? Has Beyoncé ever studied feminist theory? Probably not.

One of the earliest protests staged by The Feminists in 1969 was at the marriage license bureau in New York City. Ti-Grace Atkinson told a Time magazine reporter: “Love has to be destroyed. It’s an illusion that people care for each other. . . . It may be that sex is a neurotic manifestation of oppression. It’s like a mass psychosis.” Other leading members of The Feminists were Pam Kearon and Barbara Mehrhof. Kearon had participated in the Women’s Liberation Movement’s first public protest in September 1968 against the Miss America pageant. In a 1971 paper called “Rape: An Act of Terror,” Mehrhof and Kearon declared:

There is no group other than slaves that has been singled out for such systematic and total exploitation and suppression as the class of women. . . .
Sexual intercourse . . . provides sexism with an inimitable act which perfectly expresses the polarity male/female. . . . Rape adds the quality of terror.
Terror is an integral part of the oppression of women. Its purpose is to ensure, as a final measure, the acceptance by women of the inevitability of male domination. . . . There are no actions or forms of behavior sufficient to avoid its danger. There is no sign that designates a rapist since each male is potentially one.
(Radical Feminism, edited by Anne Koedt, et al., pp. 228-230)

Another one of Pam Kearon’s contributions to The Feminists was a defense of “man-hating” as “the realization of our past and continued subjugation,” in which she denounced men as “misogynists” and declared: “Our whole society (including too many of the women in it) hates women.”

Is this true? Was it true in 1969? Was my mother in “continued subjugation” to my father? Has every wife in human history been a victim of “cruel and inhumane” enslavement by her husband, the oppressor?

“And it’s not just rape that’s the joke — it’s women. Our very existence is presented to young men as fodder for sex and laughs, our humiliation and pain as goal posts for their masculinity. Basically, we’re anything other than people deserving respect and humanity.”
— Jessica Valenti, 2013

Is this true? Does it apply to Jessica Valenti’s husband? Does her husband treat women as a joke? Does he enjoy inflicting “pain and humiliation” on her? Does her husband view her as not “deserving respect and humanity”? If this is not the case, then why does Jessica Valenti expect us to believe her husband is better than other women’s husbands? Why would Jessica Valenti think she can libel my sons — and every other young man included in her categorical denunciation of masculinity — and expect me not to resent her recklessly hateful anti-male rhetoric?

 

Feminism is an insult to the intelligence of everyone who has two eyes and a brain. Feminism’s ideology and rhetoric are insulting to every honest man who ever lived and to every honest woman who ever loved a man. Why do feminists today constantly denounce men as “misogynists” for disagreeing with them? Why do feminists claim to be victims of “online harassment”? Why do university students engage in disruptive protests whenever anyone who dissents from feminism’s anti-male ideology — George Will, Wendy McElroy, Christina Hoff Sommers, Milo Yiannopoulous — dares to speak on campus?

Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement
to Destroy Civilization as We Know It

Liars hate the truth, and feminists therefore seek to silence those who tell the truth about feminism. When I undertook the Sex Trouble project in 2014, at the behest of readers who urged me to write a book about radical feminism’s War Against Human Nature, I had already studied the movement’s history and ideology for years. Readers are encouraged to consider a few of the books (including accounts by feminists themselves) that explain how feminism began and what feminism means:

This brief list of 11 books would suffice as the syllabus for an introductory course, “Critical History and Theory of Modern Feminism.” The histories by Brownmiller, Evans and Echols — all feminists who were directly involved in the movement in the 1960s and ’70s — are particularly useful in understanding how modern feminism emerged from the radical New Left of that era. The works of Professor Goldberg (a sociologist), Professor Tiger (an anthropologist) and Dr. Smith (a psychologist) serve as learned discussions of male/female differences and the consequences of feminism’s demand for “equality.” Professing Feminism and Heterophobia both examine the influence of feminism in academia. Professor Sommers and her landmark 1994 book perhaps need no introduction. Graglia’s book is a defense of traditional womanhood, and Lukas offers a comprehensive survey in an easy-to-read format.

“All that is necessary to discredit feminism is to tell the truth about feminism.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Sex Trouble: Essays on Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature

Feminists know this as well as I do. Feminists refuse to engage in dialogue with opponents and do not even acknowledge informed criticism, instead engaging in efforts to silence dissent. Feminism is always a lecture, never a debate. The First Rule of Feminism is “Shut Up!”

Ordinary men and women who attempt to express their disagreement with feminists find themselves accused of “harassment.” This is a dishonest tactic by which feminists smear their critics as dangerous and violent, falsely implying that it is a crime to criticize feminism. These propaganda tactics function to marginalize anyone who calls attention to the radical ideology and deranged rhetoric of feminists. If everyone who criticizes feminism is a misogynist, and if it is “harassment” to express disagreement, the critic of feminism is a Thought Criminal.

Because feminism exercises hegemonic authority in academia, 21st-century college and university students are never exposed to any opposing perspective. This is why students now claim to be “invalidated” and “traumatized” when critics of feminism appear on campus.

Men are enemies and oppressors of women, sexual intercourse is an act that “perfectly expresses” male domination, every male is potentially a rapist, male and female roles are the “pathology of oppression,” and sex roles must be destroyed — this is what feminists believe. If you do not believe these things, guess what? You are not a feminist.




 

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 03.10.16

Posted on | March 10, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 03.10.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: The Wachowski Sisters
The Political Hat: The College Of Power And Liberation
Michelle Malkin: Obamacare’s Never-Ending 1095-A Nightmare
Twitchy: “What Price Your Dignity?” Ben Carson To Endorse Trump Tomorrow
Shark Tank: Florida’s Forgotten U.S. Senate Race


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Frauke Petry Is The Anti-Merkel
American Thinker: Is Love For Trump Blind?
Conservatives4Palin: Time Is Running Out To Stop The Christian Genocide In Iraq, Syria
Don Surber: Chicago Tribune To Clinton And Sanders – Pfbt
Jammie Wearing Fools: Disgruntled Jihadi Hands Over Identifying Info On 22,000 ISIS Recruits
Joe For America: Media Ignoring Video From Inside LaVoyFinicum Vehicle During FBI Shooting
JustOneMinute: Building Walls in Europe
Pamela Geller: Obama’s “Peace Partners” Celebrate Murder Of American Student Taylor Force
Shot In The Dark: Urban Liberal Prvilege – Enough Is Enough
STUMP: Kentucky Update – They’ve Got Budget Blues Too
The Jawa Report: Debate Fevah IV
The Lonely Conservative: Cruz Picks Up Endorsement From Senator Mike Lee
The Quinton Report: Maryland Assisted Suicide Legislation Fails
This Ain’t Hell: Germaine Clarno Lets Vets Die Because She Doesn’t Like Republicans
Weasel Zippers: Obama – “I Certainly Have Not Contributed To Dividing This Country”


The White Donkey: Terminal Lance
Strange Brew

Category: Linkagery

In The Mailbox: 03.09.16

Posted on | March 9, 2016 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Ted’s Own Private Idaho
Da Tech Guy: Pastor Kelly – Welcome To The GOP’s Demolition Derby
The Political Hat: Feminist Glaciology, Or, Stop Mis-Gendering Glaciers
Michelle Malkin: Hillary’s Federal Education Jackboot Squad
Twitchy: Fact Checks Of Trump Water, Trump Steaks, Trump Magazine And Trump Wine
Shark Tank: Marco Rubio Presidential Farewell Tour Continues


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: The World Is Getting Worse, But This Time America Won’t Save It
American Thinker: Trump is Everything You Raised Your Kids Not To Be
Conservatives4Palin: Sanders Scores Upset Win In Michigan Primary
Don Surber: The Queen Wants Out Of The EU
Jammie Wearing Fools: Illegal Alien Arrested After Killing Five; Was Deported 12 Years Ago, Released In September “Snafu”
Joe For America: Dead Man Tells Tale
JustOneMinute: Most Transparently Hypocritical Administration Ever
Pamela Geller: Police Warn Women Not To Walk Alone In Northern Sweden Because Of Muslim Migrants
Shot In The Dark: Down Mexico Way
STUMP: Chicago Watch – What’s The Leverage When There’s No Money?
The Gateway Pundit: Two New Polls Show Trump Beating Kasich In Ohio
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Iranian Missile Launches, Terror Attacks In israel No Coincidence
The Lonely Conservative: Why Would Anyone Trust This Swindler With The Presidency?
This Ain’t Hell: Is Democrat Voting A Vast Criminal Conspiracy?
Weasel Zippers: Chipotle Norovirus Is Back Again
Megan McArdle: Luxurious College Apartments, Built On Debt
Mark Steyn: Sticking It To The Alarmists


Shop Amazon – Used Textbooks – Save up to 90%
Join Amazon Family 30-Day Free Trial

Category: Linkagery

Email From @BernieSanders: ‘Phenomenal News’ in Michigan Primary

Posted on | March 9, 2016 | 15 Comments

 

Years ago, while covering a story, I clicked a box on a liberal website to “get email updates.” Lists of email addresses are bought and sold as commodities by left-wing groups, so if you ever sign up for one list, eventually you will be on all the lists. Today I got this email:

We WON Michigan!
Robert, have you seen the phenomenal news? Bernie just WON Michigan, after being down by more than 20 points in several polls.
Can you chip in $3 or more right now to Bernie Sanders and DFA to celebrate our big win in Michigan — and to supercharge our campaign before “Super Tuesday 2” on March 15? Thank you for your support! — Eden James, Political Director, Democracy for America

Robert –
The results are in and we were just declared the winner in a very important state for our campaign: Michigan. That’s a major, game-changing victory for our campaign.
The corporate media counted us out. The pollsters said we were way behind. The Clinton super PACs spent millions against us across the country. We were hit with a dishonest attack in the debate. But we won, again… and if we continue to stand together, we can win this nomination.
One week from today, five large and delegate-rich states vote. Time and time again, your support has enabled us to overcome large deficits and emerge victorious. But you can expect the political establishment to come after us even harder now. The super PACs are going to spend even more. We have to be prepared to fight back.
Make a contribution to our campaign and DFA right now, and we’re going to keep winning states so that we can win this Democratic primary.
Millions of people have come out to vote for our political revolution. They have donated more than 5 million times to our campaign. And together, we are sending a message to the oligarchy that we are not to be underestimated.

In solidarity,
Bernie Sanders

Yeah, man — “In solidarity.” Any victim of media bias is a friend of mine, I guess, and Team Clinton’s stooges have Bernie in their sights:

Washington Post Ran 16 Negative
Stories on Bernie Sanders in 16 Hours

The editors of the Washington Post are profoundly dishonest people, who claim to be objective journalists when in fact they are partisan hacks producing political propaganda intended to help elect Democrats. They occasionally print facts, by accident, but otherwise it’s wall-to-wall lies. So when the operatives at Team Clinton send an email full of smears against Bernie Sanders to the dishonest hacks who work as editors at the Washington Post, this gets assigned to a reporter whose job is to turn Team Clinton’s propaganda into a simulacrum of Objective Journalism.

The symbiotic relationship between dishonest journalists and the Democrat Party creates what Andrew Breitbart called The Democrat-Media Complex, a corrupting influence in American culture. No one with a shred of personal integrity would ever associate themselves with the Washington Post — or the New York Times, or ABC, NBC, PBS, etc. Because most Republicans have deep-seated feelings of political inferiority, however, they become as giddy as children on Christmas morning when these propaganda organs of the Democrat Party occasionally hire someone (e.g., Jake Tapper) who is noticeably less dishonest than the rest of the swindling hacks in the liberal media. Ultimately, however, the entire enterprise of Objective Journalism is an enormous fraud — a political scam — and everyone who collects a paycheck from the major media establishment is part of the problem.

If the Washington Post‘s smear operation against Bernie Sanders causes progressives to think critically about Objective Journalism, it is possible that they may actually wise up to the nature of the scam. Once someone realizes that liberal journalists are just partisan Democrats, whose “objectivity” is a gigantic lie, they might start questioning many of their core beliefs. If you can’t trust the Washington Post — and obviously, no intelligent person would trust them — then what about everything else you see in the liberal media? If journalists are lying about Bernie Sanders, what else are they lying about? Everything?

In solidarity,
Robert Stacy McCain




 

Category: Election, Media Bias

#IWD2016 Feminism as Sexual Stalinism

Posted on | March 8, 2016 | 31 Comments

Bogged down writing a long article, I took a break to read a bit of Sheila Jeffreys’ 1990 book Anticlimax: A Feminist Perspective on the Sexual Revolution. Here are a few sentences from her conclusion (pp. 312-316):

The demolition of heterosexual desire is a necessary step on the route to women’s liberation. . . . Male-supremacist sexuality is constructed from the subordination of women. . . .
The feminist fight against male violence requires the reconstruction of male sexuality. . . .
Male sexuality must be reconstructed to sever the link between power and aggression and sexual pleasure. . . . Men’s pleasure in women’s subordination is a powerful bulwark in their resistance to women’s liberation. . . .
As women and as lesbians our hope lies only in other women. We must work towards the construction of homosexual desire and practice as a most important part of our struggle for liberation. . . .
Heterosexuality is the institution through which male-supremacist society is organized and as such it must cease to function.

Notice the flat assertions about the nature of male sexuality as inherently violent, a form of “power and aggression” that is the source of “women’s subordination.’ Notice also how Professor Jeffreys states her goals as imperative, so it is “necessary” that feminists “must” pursue these goals.

This dictatorial tone — the feminist ultimatum — and the characterization of women as engaged in a “struggle for liberation” from the demonized male oppressor, is the kind of rhetoric that demonstrates why Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It. Feminists denounce men the way Lenin denounced capitalists, and when they present their agenda, feminists sound very much like Stalin-era commissars describing the latest Five-Year Plan. No dissent is permissible, nor are feminists interested in negotiation or compromise with the “male-supremacy society,” which must be demolished and reconstructed. The oppressive “institution” of heterosexuality — a “bulwark” of male “resistance” — must “cease to function.”

Did I mention Hillary Clinton is running for president? Also, feminists are celebrating International Women’s Day.

Probably just a coincidence . . .

 

Category: Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox: 03.08.16

Posted on | March 8, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 03.08.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: #MarcoMentum – Time For Rubio To Go?
Da Tech Guy: Meanwhile In The Real World
The Political Hat: The Ultimate Tool Of White Supremacy and Colonialism? The Mini-Sombrero
Michelle Malkin: Hey, Senators – Just Say No To NY’s Biggest Common Core Shill
Twitchy: “President Petty” To Skip Nancy Reagan’s Funeral For THIS?
Shark Tank: Rubio’s Presidential Campaign Dead in the Water?


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: 150 Somalis Fired At Cargill Meat Plant In Colorado
American Thinker: Hillary To Lose The FBI Primary
Conservatives4Palin: Verizon Fined $1.35 Million For Tracking Unaware Customers
Don Surber: Why Nikki Haley’s Endorsement Was Worthless In SC
Jammie Wearing Fools: Confused Trump On Foreign Policy Team – “Yes, there is a team. There’s not a team. I’m going to be forming a team”
Joe For America: Last-Ditch Assaults On Affordable Energy – The Maoist Wannabees Won’t Give Up
JustOneMinute: In Case You Didn’t Already Know
Pamela Geller: Muslims Responsible For “Worst Year In Modern History of Christian Persecution”
Shot In The Dark: At Long Last, Agreement
STUMP: No, Valerie Jarrett Is Not Why Illinois Pensions Are In Trouble
The Gateway Pundit: Only 300 Show Up For Rubio Rally In Tampa – 5,000 Expected
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – Islamic State Broke, Pregnant
The Lonely Conservative: State Department To Start Cracking Down On “Microaggressions”
This Ain’t Hell: Duckworth Ignores Vets Issues
Weasel Zippers: Netanyahu Nixes Meeting With Obama
Megan McArdle: Trump Is Too Poor For A Third-Party Run
Mark Steyn: The GOP’s Circular Firing Squad


Shop Amazon – $10 off $50 Select Berkley Products
Shop Amazon – $10 Off $50 Purchase of Select Plano Fishing Products

Category: Linkagery

‘Extremely Rare False Rape Accusations’

Posted on | March 7, 2016 | 28 Comments

 

Marc Patrick O’Leary is a serial rapist, a sexual predator who in 2011 was sentenced to more than 300 years in prison. He was convicted of four rapes in Colorado and two in Washington State. O’Leary’s modus operandi involved systematic surveillance of his targets, usually breaking into homes or apartments through unlocked sliding-glass doors and taking measures to prevent leaving behind DNA or other trace evidence. His criminal career was recently detailed at length in an article by Pro Publica that focused on one of O’Leary’s victims, an 18-year-old named Marie whose story was disbelieved by police detectives. Marie was charged with filing a false report, and the Pro Publica article is intended to lend weight to the common feminist argument that, because false rape accusations are rare, no one should ever doubt such an accusation.

The problem, however, is that this “believe the survivors” rhetoric usually arises in connection with claims about sexual assault on university campuses, and especially in regard to dubious cases where regret about a drunken hook-up, or a desire for revenge against an ex-boyfriend, appear as plausible motives for a false accusation. In the current climate, where activists have incited a “campus rape epidemic” hysteria, cases like this seem to proliferate. More than 100 male students have sued their universities saying they were falsely accused of sexual assault and denied due process in campus disciplinary tribunals. While research shows that only about 5 percent of rape charges reported to police are false, what about these campus cases, most of which are never reported to law enforcement? The lower threshold of evidence required in campus disciplinary hearings, and the fact that university administrators impose no penalty for false accusations, means that liars like University of Virginia hoaxer Jackie Coakley can get away with inventing crimes that never happened. It is one thing to say “believe the survivors” when dealing with the victims of a violent menace like Marc O’Leary, but another thing entirely when confronted with the case of a student at elite Brown University who says he was expelled merely for making out with a girl he met at a party. The bungled police investigation in the case of O’Leary’s victim Marie, whose lawsuit against the city of Lynwood was settled for $150,000, does not justify the persecution of Paul Nungesser at Columbia University by fanatical feminists who insist that Emma Sulkowicz is both sane and honest, despite all evidence to the contrary.

The public-radio show “This American Life” did a story based on the Pro Publica article about Marie’s case and this radio broadcast was deemed “problematic” by feminist Nikki Gloudemann:

As listeners, we’re left to believe that rape victims like Marie have a responsibility to prove their case to others, because doubt is the natural byproduct of “how people think.” There is virtually no explicit mention of a rape culture that unfairly places this burden on victims, and nary any implicit references either. The show, for instance, touches on the nature of trauma, but never really explains how and why rape victims, due to biological changes in the brain, may respond in ways that seem unusual—and as such, why it’s deeply problematic to expect that they behave in a certain way. It never notes how extremely rare false rape accusations are. It never discusses a culture of shame and stigma that helps explain why 68% of rapes are never reported to police in the first place. . . .
As an influential media force . . . This American Life has a responsibility to report on something as serious as rape with appropriate depth, context, and framing. In failing to do that, it not only ignored rape culture; it actively helped to perpetuate it.

Here you see the difference between rape — a violent crime — and feminist “rape culture” rhetoric, which is a dishonest propaganda tactic, a way of generalizing guilt to implicate all males in crimes they deplore. Feminists are always looking for an excuse to demonize men, and “rape culture” has become a way of making ordinary heterosexual male behavior and attitudes seem monstrous. A guy makes an innocuous joke, or compliments a woman’s appearance, and suddenly he is condemned as a misogynist perpetuating “rape culture.” Amanda Marcotte has called men who disagree with her “rape apologists,” accused her critics of “supporting rape because you hate women,” and smeared skeptics of the Rolling Stone UVA hoax as “rape truthers.”

Skepticism about the false “1-in-5” statistic — a feminist myth about campus rape produced by “Statistical Voodoo and Elastic Definitions” — does not mean that one is “denying that rape is real.” No matter how often Amanda Marcotte smears skeptics as “rape apologists,” what is actually at issue is a matter of public policy. Marcotte and her feminist allies are deliberately exaggerating the prevalence of sexual assault at colleges and universities in order to argue for policies that have the effect of criminalizing all sexual activity on campus. The policies advocated by feminists like Jessica Valenti, Jaclyn Friedman, Jill Filipovic and Alexandra Brodsky shift the burden of proof in such a way that an accusation of rape is tantamount to proof of guilt, and accused students say they are denied the opportunity to present evidence of their innocence in the campus kangaroo court tribunals mandated by the Obama administration’s infamous 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter.

When the captain of the Yale University basketball team is expelled and his teammates are accused of “supporting a rapist” because they believe his expulsion was unjust, skepticism seems entirely warranted.

Nikki Gloudemann’s phrase “extremely rare false rape accusations” is misleading. If 5% of the accused are innocent, is that “extremely rare”? Well, according to federal statistics, gay and bisexual people are 2.3% of the U.S. population, and are thus even more “extremely rare.” Furthermore, is it in any way fair or responsible to suggest that the typical sort of he-said/she-said campus date-rape scenario involving two drunk teenagers is comparable to the brutal crimes of a violent predator like Marc O’Leary? Whatever the Yale Women’s Center says about Jack Montague, I’m pretty sure he’s not a knife-wielding sadist. When feminists like Jessica Valenti declare their intention to “redefine rape,” shouldn’t we become suspicious of such a project?

If you ask questions like that, you’ll be branded a “rape apologist” and maybe banned from Twitter, too. Truth is dangerous in an age of lies.




 

Category: Sex Trouble

‘Heterosexuality Is the Structure That Keeps Sexist Oppression in Place’

Posted on | March 7, 2016 | 81 Comments

 

“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.'”
— “Heterosexuality: The Role it Plays in Feminism and Lesbianism,” 2007

That quote is from a Portland State University student enrolled in a course (“Gender and Critical Inquiry,” WS301) in the department of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. The syllabus of that course shows that the assigned text was Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives (edited by Carole R. McCann and Seung-Kyung Kim, 2002), and the readings included such radical lesbians as Charlotte Bunch, Monique Wittig and Audre Lorde. The student quotes from “Separating Lesbian Theory From Feminist Theory,” an essay by Cheshire Calhoun in the textbook, where she says that “from a feminist perspective, sexual interaction, romantic love, marriage, and the family are all danger zones,” being patriarchal institutions that “serve male interests.”

Trying to explain feminist theory to a stranger Saturday night at the Project Veritas CPAC party, I realized he thought I was a lunatic. What most people think of as feminism — a commitment to “equality,” understood as basic fairness — bears little resemblance to what is taught in the university Women’s Studies programs that enroll more than 90,000 students on some 700 campuses in the United States. Women in these courses learn to despise motherhood, to celebrate abortion, to fear men as perpetrators of sexual violence, and to consider heterosexuality a synonym for oppression. When you try to describe this paranoid anti-male belief system to people, they look at you like you’re crazy. Maybe I am crazy to read Women’s Studies textbooks like Feminist Frontiers, Women and Gender, Rethinking Sexuality, Gender Trouble, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State and Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions, but it is impossible for anyone who hasn’t read this stuff to believe how extreme academic feminism has become. So when I summarize these theories — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — people look at me as if I’ve slipped a cog.

As insane as it may seem, however, this radical ideology is what the word “feminism” now means on campuses. Ideas Have Consequences, as Richard Weaver warned us, and the consequences of feminist ideas are manifest throughout academia, e.g., the University of Pittsburgh:

In the spirit of free speech, Pitt’s Student Government Board passed the microphone [March 1] to a line of students speaking out about a controversial speaker whose visit SGB partially funded.
At its public meeting in Nordy’s Place, students packed the William Pitt Union’s multipurpose room to speak their piece on Milo Yiannopoulos’ lecture [Feb. 29]. . . .
SGB President Nasreen Harun amended the agenda at the meeting to allow for more time for student comments. . . .
Board member Everett Green said, in his three semesters on the Board, this was the first time he had seen a student response of this magnitude at a meeting. . . .
Marcus Robinson, president of Pitt’s Rainbow Alliance, said after leaving the lecture on Monday, he felt unsafe on campus for the first time.
“So many of us shared in our pain. I felt I was in danger, and I felt so many people in that room were in danger. This event erased the great things we’ve done,” Robinson said. “For the first time, I’m disappointed to be at Pitt.”
Robinson suggested that the University should have provided counselors in a neighboring room to help students who felt “invalidated” or “traumatized” by the event. . . .
“This is more than hurt feelings, this is about real violence. We know that the violence against marginalized groups happens every day in this country. That so many people walked out of that [event] feeling in literal physical danger is not alright,” Claire Matway, a social work and urban studies major, said. . . .
In response to student comments, Harun said, with teary eyes, said the best way to make an impact on campus was to begin conversations like this with the Board.
“Now is a good time talk about [amending the allocations manual]. It starts here and we can take it from there,” Harun said. “We’re very sorry people are feeling the way they are and it was not intended … and we’re sorry people are not proud to be at Pitt.”

This kind of rhetoric — students claiming to be “traumatized” and “feeling in literal danger” because someone contradicted their opinions — shows how ideological conformity has made universities a bubble, a cocoon where students never encounter criticism of “progressive” dogma. Consider this mission statement:

The University of Pittsburgh Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies Program is an interdisciplinary academic program focusing on excellence in teaching and research relating to gender, sexuality, and women. The Program is committed to promoting feminist and LGBTQIA activism, pedagogy, and scholarship that engage with the larger local, national, and global communities. Program offerings provide opportunities for students and faculty to explore the historical development, cultural variations, and changing representations of gender and sexuality as they organize identities, interactions, and institutions and intersect in complex ways with sex, race, class, ethnicity, ability, age, religion, and nation.

Notice that this academic program is “committed to promoting feminist and LGBTQIA activism” — it is a department with a political agenda. Among recent events on the department’s calendar was a book release party for the program director’s new book that claims to be “the first sustained and comprehensive study of Renaissance textual responses to Platonic same-sex sexuality.” Another event was a lecture by Professor Susan Wells, “In Search of the Clitoris: Writing and the Body in Our Bodies, Ourselves.” Permit me to suggest that nobody smart enough to go to college should require a lecture about where to find the clitoris. And despite my enthusiastic interest in female genitalia, I’m not sure what Professor Wells could have said on the subject that would have added to my knowledge. If students at Pitt need enlightenment in this regard, a quick Google search should suffice to cure their ignorance.

We can perceive, however, that the “education” provided by such programs is not about the transmission of knowledge, but rather about indoctrinating students in terms of their attitudes and beliefs. There are no Republicans or conservatives on the faculty of Pitt’s Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies Program, nor are there any professors in this department who advocate a traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of gender and sexuality. Pitt’s resolute hostility toward traditional morality can be seen from its events calendar, featuring Gabriella Lukacs’ lecture “Career Porn: Blogging and the Good Life” and Patricia Ulbrich’s “Hard Hatted Women & Wild Sisters: Lesbian Feminist Community in Pittsburgh.” A feminist student at Pitt will be applauded if she becomes a lesbian or a porn blogger; the only “wrong” choice she can make is to pursue a life that involves a husband and children. Feminists have never made a secret of their goal of destroying the traditional family.

“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 nuclear family is the school of values in a sexist, sexually repressed society.”
— Andrea Dworkin, 1974

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

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

“Women’s heterosexual orientation perpetuates their social, economic, emotional, and sexual dependence on and accessibility by men. Heterosexuality is thus a system of male ownership of women . . .”
— Cheshire Calhoun, 1994

“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

“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

Feminism is a death cult which exercises such hegemonic influence in academia that no one on the 21st-century campus dares to dissent from this anti-male/anti-heterosexual belief system. Because there are no professors who criticize feminist ideology and rhetoric, students are never exposed to evidence or arguments that contradict the cult beliefs propagated by radical academics “committed to promoting feminist and LGBTQIA activism.” Is there any professor — at the University of Pittsburgh or Portland State University or anywhere else — who doubts that heterosexuality is “the structure that keeps sexist oppression in place”? If there are such skeptics of feminist theory on campus, do any of them dare say a word in favor of heterosexuality? Can anyone name a professor who has spoken out in opposition to the claim that “marriage constitutes slavery for women,” or who defends motherhood against the assertion that it is “deeply oppressive to women”? Do any faculty dispute the implication that all heterosexual men perpetrate “sexual violence” to express “patriarchal power by men over women”? And is there anyone in academia today who loves babies, rather than despising them as the smelly “time-sucking monsters” Amanda Marcotte wants to abort?

 

Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and the suppression of dissent is accomplished by terroristic intimidation tactics intended to silence opposition. Feminists like Amanda Marcotte do not hesitate to slander their critics as “rape apologists” and accuse opponents of “supporting rape because you hate women.” However, anyone who attempts to call critical attention to this anti-male propaganda by confronting feminist hatemongers will be accused of “harassment” and stigmatized as a “misogynist,” because disagreeing with Amanda Marcotte — or Anita Sarkeesian or Jaclyn Friedman, et al. — is considered proof that you are a woman-hating rape apologist.

“The feminist movement’s goal — ‘to destroy the structure of culture as we know it,’ as Andrea Dworkin said — is incompatible not merely with marriage and the family, but with the principles of democratic government. In order to obtain the androgynous ‘equality’ that is the objective of feminist ideology, religious freedom will have to be abolished, along with the free speech rights of feminism’s critics. Unless we are willing to oppose feminism now, we may find ourselves eventually living in a totalitarian society where such opposition is prohibited by law.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Sex Trouble: Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature

People think I’m crazy for taking feminism seriously, but this totalitarian movement is becoming increasingly powerful in American culture:

Students at Western Washington University have reached a turning point in their campus’s hxstory. (For one thing, they’re now spelling it with an X—more on that later.) Activists are demanding the creation of a new college dedicated to social justice activism, a student committee to police offensive speech, and culturally segregated living arrangements at the school . . .
WWU’s student-activist community — the frightening-sounding Assembly for Power and Liberation — made their demands public earlier this week. . . .
The most substantial of the activists’ demands is a call for a new college that would essentially train students to become social justice warriors . . . WWU must meet the needs of this new “College of Power and Liberation” by immediately hiring 10 faculty members — subject to the approval of student-activists. . . .
Activists have also demanded the creation of an Office for Social Transformation, which would employ 15 students — young Robespierres in training — for the purposes of monitoring “racist, anti-black, transphobic, cissexist, misogynistic, ableist, homophobic, Islamophobic, and otherwise oppressive behavior on campus.” . . .
Keep in mind that WWU is already an extremely liberal campus with a number of social justice-oriented activities: it has a department of Education and Social Justice, a Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies program, a Queer Resource Center, a Social Issues Resource Center, and an Ethnic Student Center. . . .
At the heart of this effort lies a bizarrely totalitarian ideology: Student-activists think they have all the answers—everything is settled, and people who dissent are not merely wrong, but actually guilty of something approaching a crime. If they persist in this wrongness, they are perpetuating violence, activists will claim.
The list of demands ends with a lengthy denunciation of WWU’s marginalization of “hxstorically oppressed students.” The misspelling is intentional: “hxstory,” I presume, was judged to be more PC than “history,” which is gendered, triggering, and perhaps violent.

The public education system produces high-school graduates who know nothing of history, even if they could spell the word correctly. Mass ignorance benefits the taxpayer-supported intelligentsia who exercise hegemonic control within academia. Professors now indoctrinate college students with the kind of paranoid radicalism that perceives “oppressive behaviors” everywhere, and it is these progressive training camps that produce our nation’s future ruling-class elite.

“When you have a ruling class that doesn’t believe in — or even much like — the fundamental values of the nations it rules, things tend to work out poorly.”
— Professor Glenn Reynolds

Be afraid, America. Be very afraid.

 

+ o + o +

BANNED BY TWITTER!

The #FreeStacy movement, a grassroots response to Twitter’s Feb. 19 decision to suspend my popular @rsmccain account, has received international attention. You can help support this movement by including the #FreeStacy hashtag on your Twitter messages, by retweeting messages in support of this movement, and by signing up at PublicStatus.org, which is dedicated to defending free speech rights on social media. Thanks to everyone who has helped spread the word.

— Robert Stacy McCain




 

Category: Sex Trouble
« go back — keep looking »