The Other McCain

 

“Stacy, where do you find all these crazy feminists?”

That question pops up from time to time, as if crazy feminists were rare and it takes some kind of special skill to find them. Well, there are a few secrets. Do a Google search for combinations of certain terms — misogyny, male entitlement, objectification, heteronormative, etc. — common to feminist jargon and then use “search tools” to narrow the range to the past week or the past month. And this was what I was doing when I encountered an article with this headline:

13 Things You Thought Were Romantic
In The ’90s That Are Kind Of Creepy

In this article, Kat George wrote:

Our idea of romance in the ’90s was skewed towards the “man imposes on woman”, and now that feminism is such a huge conversation, a lot of the things you thought were romantic in the ’90s just wouldn’t fly today. Even some of your favorite ’90s rom com couples were kind of creepy.
There are some ’90s dating trends we should bring back, like talking to each other on the phone rather than incessantly texting, but there’s a lot that we should be really glad we left behind too. Between all the bets dudes were making over girls, all the Cinderella stories, and all the persistence despite being told no, romance in the ’90s was defined by some pretty heteronormative, misogynistic ideas.

She said the magic words, see? Whenever I encounter the word “heteronormative,” it makes me want to scream, “What is wrong with you people? In what sense is heterosexuality not normal? Human beings are mammals! Did you sleep through eight-grade biology class?”

So, Ms. George would have us believe, it is “creepy” to believe that men are attracted to women, or vice-versa, and it is also “misogynistic” — meaning if you think heterosexuality is normal, you hate women. This is the logic of feminism, which is “such a huge conversation” now that heterosexuality is practically illegal for college kids in Connecticut.

If you guessed Ms. George has some distinctly weird ideas, you are correct, but do we really want to talk about what she considers “totally normal” for “young girls discovering their sexuality”? I think not.

 

We could discuss Ms. George’s efforts to “figure out what my vagina was” — apparently her mother never had the “where do babies come from” talk with her — but we won’t. Instead, let’s talk about this:

6 Things You Might Not Think
Are Harassment But Definitely Are
(Because Apparently We Need
To Clear A Few Things Up)

Here, we have Kat George playing expert and everybody else is supposed to shut up while the expert lectures us about harassment. You will, perhaps, not be surprised to learn that she considers basically anything a heterosexual man might ever say or do to be harassment:

So many people have no idea what does and does not constitute harassment.
Here’s the thing: by the inherent nature of being a woman walking in the street, almost ALL uninvited attention from men is threatening. Women are victims of sexual violence EVERY SINGLE DAY, even in “liberal” cities like New York. . . . Women feel vulnerable on the street, period. When a man interacts with her on any level she did not invite, it’s threatening, period. You can’t change that just by saying someone is being “nice.” . . .
And here’s the other thing: we can tell when someone is just being nice. In fact, after enough years of encountering enough different kinds of people engaging in enough different kinds of interactions, all women (YES, ALL WOMEN) develop a sixth sense: We can immediately tell if someone is, in fact, being “nice,” or if their seemingly innocuous words or actions are laden with latent undertones of objectification and entitlement, and the threatening implications that go along with someone who holds that view — who views you as a less-than-human thing which they want and feel entitled to have — has set their sights on you. We can tell. So it doesn’t matter what actual words they say, if any. And for someone to argue about the relative threat level of the words themselves if to completely signify a lack of understanding about where the real perceived threat comes from. In other words, if you tell a woman that an act of “harassing” wasn’t, in fact, “harassment,” all you’re saying is: “I don’t understand anything about the experience of living your life.”

The only way to avoid harassing women is to avoid women completely, you see. If a man is anywhere in her vicinity, he is a “perceived threat,” and if he “interacts with her on any level,” this is harassment. Kat George has a “sixth sense,” and “it doesn’t matter what actual words” a heterosexual man says to her, “if any,” his “latent undertones of objectification and entitlement” make his mere presence threatening.

Let me offer three bits of advice to young women:

1. Avoid cities — Like so many other feminists of her generation, it would seem that Ms. George grew up watching Sex and the City and got the idea that the most glamorous thing in the world is to be a young single woman living in New York and working as a writer. In reality, cities are very dangerous places and, as a father, I would never want my daughter living in a wretched hive of scum and villainy like New York City.
2. Never be a pedestrian — This is something most Americans don’t need to be told. We don’t live in big cities, and we drive our cars everywhere we go. We don’t walk anywhere, if we can help it. Kat George is originally from Australia, so maybe she doesn’t understand the American lifestyle and our great love of the internal combustion engine. Our devotion to automotive transportation means that most Americans never think about “the inherent nature of being a woman walking in the street,” a problem that does not affect anyone we actually know. Certainly, if a woman is walking the streets of a wretched hive of scum and villainy like New York City, where women “are victims of sexual violence EVERY SINGLE DAY,” she is doing so against my advice. Move to a small town in someplace like Alabama or Oklahoma and get yourself a pickup truck — problem solved!
3. Get yourself a husband — Preferably one who lives in someplace like Alabama or Oklahoma. The comparatively low cost of living in rural America makes it possible to do very old-fashioned things like getting married, having children and driving pickup trucks. Also, in rural America, a woman can keep a firearm handy so she doesn’t have to worry about “sexual violence EVERY SINGLE DAY.” (Scarlett O’Hara: “I can shoot straight, if I don’t have to shoot far.”)

Of course, it’s heteronormative misogyny to suggest that the life of a young single woman living in New York is not as glamorous as TV shows portray it to be. Those of us living out in rural America with our families — and our trucks and our guns — are just ignorant bumpkins who don’t know anything about anything, except maybe eighth-grade biology.

 

Melinda Parrish is a “plus-size” model and that’s totally cool with me. More cushion for the pushin’, as good old boys down home sometimes say. On the other hand, she is promoting a bogus ideology:

Just Say ‘No’ to the Beach Body Craze
Your body is perfect, just as it is. You don’t need to lose weight, or tighten up your tummy, or pop out your butt in order to have a perfect beach body. You already have the perfect beach body, and you should feel free to rock whatever swimming attire you feel comfortable in, regardless of your size.
This time of year, there are many fitness regimens, potions, pills, diet plans and supplements being offered to us that claim they will “transform” our already perfect bodies into bodies that are more acceptable to society. But this year, I’m saying “no” to the beach body craze, and so should you!
I’m not saying no to showing my body love through movement each day, or to fueling my body with delicious, healthy foods, or to practicing self-care like bubble baths and massages and face masks. I’m just saying no to anyone or anything that would make me believe that my body isn’t perfect as it is, and that I have to be perpetually engaged in efforts to change my body in order to meet someone else’s standards for perfection.
There are any number of companies that would love nothing more than to sap all of your money, your time, your energy, and your self-worth in order to profit from your desire to get a perfect “beach body.” . . .

You can read the rest. This is an issue where my opinion is nuanced. On the one hand, too many women have absurdly negative, self-conscious attitudes toward their own bodies. Insecure girls become obsessed with their appearance, comparing themselves to idealized images based on what they see on TV or in magazines and, no matter how they actually look, they are plagued by a sense of falling short of their ideal. Furthermore, some girls let themselves fall into the “yo-yo” trap — dieting to lose 10 or 15 pounds, then gaining back those pounds (and usually more pounds than they lost on their diet) so that their metabolism becomes destabilized, creating a vicious cycle of failure. So, I’m against the kind of self-conscious perfectionism that results in women physically and mentally torturing themselves about their appearance.

On the other hand, the “fat feminism” movement is a political delusion. “You don’t need to lose weight . . . to have a perfect beach body,” is a way of saying there is no such thing as a hierarchy of beauty. This expresses a feminist ideology I’ve called aesthetic egalitarianism, the belief that it is wrong (“sexist”) to recognize and praise actual beauty.

Why do feminists hate beauty? Because men like beauty, and feminism is a movement that opposes anything that makes men happy. This is what produces the rhetoric against “objectification,” which is simply a term feminists invented to demonize men for admiring beauty. Feminists have suggested that the “fat acceptance” movement can “destabilize the heteronormative gaze” and women can overcome “gender inequality” by a “radical rejection of beauty as feminine aspiration.” And when I say feminists have suggested this, I mean lesbian Women’s Studies majors have suggested it, because that’s who comes up with these crazy ideas.

 

You don’t have to be perfect to be happy, but no one should be deceived by feminist claims that male admiration of beauty is oppressive.

Anti-Male Propaganda: Understanding Feminism’s Use of Atrocity Narratives https://t.co/jqegq6eb5v cc @deanesmay pic.twitter.com/O6hkLyXVDY

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) May 24, 2016

 

Left to right: Kelsey Annese, Matthew Hutchinson, Colin Kingston.

In the pre-dawn hours of a January morning, Colin Kingston, 24, crept into the home of his ex-girlfriend, Kelsey Annese, 21, and stabbed to death both her and her new boyfriend, Matthew Hutchinson, 24. Kingston then committed suicide. The New York Post reported:

Kingston and Annese had been together for more than three years, and he took their recent breakup badly. . . .
Kingston . . . had been making suicidal statements in recent days but had not threatened Annese.

Annese and Hutchinson were both seniors and student-athletes at the Geneseo campus of the State University of New York, Annese was a guard on the women’s basketball team and Hutchinson played defense on the hockey team.  The Buffalo News interviewed an expert:

“A knife is a pretty personal weapon to kill someone with,” said Charles P. Ewing, a forensic psychologist and University at Buffalo distinguished law professor. “It’s not easy to kill someone with a knife.
“Usually, there’s something very emotional going on when someone kills someone with a knife,” added Ewing, an expert in domestic violence. “It’s not the cold, detached kind of killing that you see with a gun.”
Without knowing the details about the Geneseo killings, Ewing also suggested that the kind of weapon often says something about how planned or spontaneous an attack is.
“I think the knife suggests impulsivity and lack of planning,” he said, speaking generally. “That sounds more like a crime of passion than premeditation or calculation.”

The phrase “crime of passion” enraged feminist Meghan Murphy:

What we are to believe, in case it’s unclear, is that “love” caused this man to kill a woman. This is a message we hear so often, it probably seems reasonable to many. But it’s not reasonable. Men do not kill out of “love,” they kill out of a desire to control. “If I can’t have you, nobody can,” is a common refrain we hear from abusive men. And, often, they mean it.
Every day, three women are killed by their abusive partners or ex-partners. It is known that women are in the most danger of injury or violence when they leave or try to leave their abusers. Are we to believe that these men are killing their ex-wives or girlfriends because they are “heart-broken” or “distraught over the break-up?” Or can we tell the truth, and say that men kill their partners because they want power over these women — because they want control, because they believe they own their wives and girlfriends?
Men who kill their partners tend to be possessive, jealous, controlling men — they feel entitled to “their” women. And so when these women escape, their last ditch effort at complete control is murder. “You cannot leave me, I own you.” They would rather see these women dead than accept rejection or the idea that women are free to make their own choices about their lives.
The media and the police want us to believe this was a “crime of passion,” but showing up with a knife at your ex-girlfriend’s house . . . doesn’t sound like a “crime of passion” to me. It sounds like an entitled, possessive man sought out his ex-girlfriend in order to punish her for the crime of being free — free from him.

Let me begin by saying that I am anti-murder. It should not be necessary to say this, but when you criticize feminist rhetoric, you may find yourself accused of being in favor of rape, murder and oppression. So, to be clear, I’m anti-murder, as well as anti-“possessive, jealous, controlling” and also generally averse to all manner of “abusive” behavior. However, as I suppose every person reading this shares my aversion to abuse, violence, jealousy, etc., this disclaimer shouldn’t be necessary. What I wish to criticize is the profoundly dishonest way feminists like Meghan Murphy use atrocity narratives as anti-male propaganda. Continue reading Anti-Male Propaganda: Understanding Feminism’s Use of Atrocity Narratives →

 

In case you didn’t know, Matt McGorry is an actor who, in March 2015, was inspired by Emma Watson’s “He for She” campaign to declare:

I’m embarrassed to admit that I only recently discovered the ACTUAL definition of “feminism”. The fact that the term is sometimes clouded with anything other than pure support and positivity in our society is very tragic. I believe in gender equality. Being a feminist is for both women AND men. I AM A FEMINIST.

McGorry has continued his “male feminist” act to the point where BuzzFeed wrote a entire article mocking him and everybody got the joke.

This is 2016, OK? A belief in “gender equality” is not such a bold idea that anyone, male or female, can expect to be praised for advocating it. What has made feminism controversial is the question of what “gender equality” means, and what measures are needed to achieve it. Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, as I keep saying. It is much safer (and much wiser) to oppose feminism altogether than to attempt marching in lockstep with the movement down the Road to Gender Equality. We’ve been marching on this road for more than 40 years, and feminists are just as angry today as they were in 1968, the main difference being that feminist anger now wields enormous legal, cultural, economic and political power. Totalitarians can never have enough power, however, and so the angry demands for more “equality” continue.

Meghan Murphy is permanently angry. As proprietor of Feminist Current, “Canada’s leading feminist website,” Ms. Murphy never met a man she couldn’t find a reason to hate, and there are very few things in the world she hates more than a “male feminist” like Matt McGorry:

As evidenced by the embarrassing level of swooning coming from American liberal media, Matt McGorry has hereby been crowned King of Feminism… And he’s not too humble to accept the throne. . . .
At the same time that McGorry is working to turn our radical movement into milquetoast, he’s claiming he plans to “shake people’s definition up of feminism.” Like, how? By explaining that feminism is not actually for women, but for men? . . .
Claiming that “feminism” is actually about “gender equality” is exactly what allows MRAs to pretend “reverse sexism” is real and to pretend our movement is just as much about men’s rights as women’s. The reason we name “women” in feminism is because women are the class oppressed by men. And we aren’t seeking equality with men, we are seeking an end to male power and to gender, in and of itself.

Didn’t I just explain this Saturday? Didn’t I quote feminists as far back as Shulamith Firestone declaring that their goal is “the elimination . . . of the sex distinction itself”? Didn’t I quote Catharine McKinnon to the same effect? And didn’t I follow this up on Sunday with an in-depth examination of radical feminist Rachel Ivey’s arguments?

 

“Gender is a hierarchical system which maintains the subordination of females as a class to males through force,” Ms. Ivey insists, and I’m sure Ms. Murphy agrees, because this is what all feminists believe. This is what feminism is — it’s not about “gender equality,” it’s about “the end of civilization as we know it,” as Sidney Abbott and Barbara Love declared in 1972, “destroying culture as we know it,” as Andrea Dworkin proclaimed in 1974. Feminism’s goals have always been essentially destructive, and to call yourself a “feminist” is to volunteer for service in this wrecking crew.

You could ask Dean Esmay to tell you some stories of men driven to suicide by the destructive forces of feminism. When removed from the abstract theory of ideologues and enacted as public policy, feminism functions to “empower” the most dishonest, cruel and selfish of women. Feminism is the politics of revenge, and attracts the support of vindictive women who, having developed a general contempt for men, are always seeking opportunities to unleash their sadistic fury against any man who is foolish enough to stray within range. (Never talk to a feminist.)

There is nothing to be gained by becoming a “male feminist,” except a bad reputation. Feminists hate all men, and habitually slander every male of their acquaintance. The man who befriends a feminist thereby “empowers” her to defame him as soon as he is out of earshot. The fool who tries be an exception to the rule — the “male feminist” who hopes to be admired by women who hate men — will inevitably be disappointed. Carefully read Meghan Murphy’s denunciation of Matt McGorry:

These efforts to convince men that they, too, are “feminists” just because they say so, whether or not they invest any energy into challenging ideas like masculinity, pushing back against the objectification of women, questioning a heteronormative and male-centered view of sex and sexuality . . . are not helpful. . . .
A feminist isn’t simply anyone who claims the label — the word actually means something. . . .
This party the media is throwing for Matt McGorry: America’s Next Top Feminist should tell Matt McGorry a little something about the kind of “feminism” he’s putting forth — the kind that doesn’t confront systems of power, that is void of radical aims and messaging, and the kind that is male-centered.
Feminism doesn’t have male leaders — we have male allies. And the fact that McGorry is being positioned as an expert on our movement, despite his cluelessness, is patriarchy.

You see that Meghan Murphy is against masculinity, per se. She is also against “objectification,” i.e., men’s admiration of women’s beauty, and denounces “heteronormative” sex because it is “male-centered,” meaning that she is against any kind of sex that a man might actually enjoy. She is certainly not alone in these anti-male/anti-heterosexual beliefs.

“Patriarchy is a system which is male dominated, male identified, and male centered, and within which women are subordinated. . . . Heteronormative ideology is a system of beliefs that indicates or implies that there are only two distinct sexes (male and female) and two clear gender roles in which heterosexuality is the only ‘normal’ sexual orientation, identifying all other forms of sexuality and/or gender as ‘abnormal.’ Heteronormative patriarchy identifies certain characteristics as ‘masculine’ or feminine,’ limiting humanity’s ability to function holistically.”
— Ashley Donnelly, “Denial and Salvation: The Twilight Saga and Heteronormative Patriarchy,” in Theorizing Twilight: Critical Essays on What’s at Stake in a Post-Vampire World, edited by Maggie Parke and Natalie Wilson (2011)

It is wrong to believe there are “two distinct sexes,” according to feminism, and it is also wrong to believe heterosexuality is normal. Furthermore, it is wrong to believe that men and women have characteristic traits which we may call “masculine” and “feminine,” according to feminists, because “gender” is an illusion imposed upon us by patriarchy. The fact that this claim is being made in a book about vampire movies is remarkable — who goes to see a movie and monitors the plot for heteronormative patriarchy? — but what should truly alarm us is that this claim is made by a professor at Ball State University. That is to say, the taxpayers of Indiana are paying Professor Ashley Donnelly to indoctrinate young people in this bizarre worldview, and there is no one in the administration or faculty who would dare criticize her claims, for fear of being denounced as a sexist homophobe.

Feminism is against masculinity and against heterosexuality, which is why we required to celebrate the transgender kindergartner, because feminists do not want boys to become either masculine or heterosexual.

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

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) May 6, 2016

Consider this: Jocelyn MacDonald is a Marxist atheist feminist who condemns males as “parasites,” and who has recently joined forces with another feminist, Brie Ripley, on a project called “Tie My Tubes.” These feminists advocate surgical sterilization for young women — promoting “voluntary sterilization as a key part of reproductive health care” — who seek to exempt themselves from the most dangerous and harmful consequence of heteronormative patriarchy, i.e., procreation.

“I will never become pregnant because I am in the process of getting a tubal ligation. . . . Sterilization will give me the agency I desire over my body and my future. . . .
“Preventing pregnancy shouldn’t cost you financially, physically, interpersonally, or emotionally. . . .
“Question authority, especially of the white male variety.”
— Brie Ripley, Feb. 13

 

Feminism is a Death Cult, and their War Against Human Nature follows its own bizarre logic, to an anti-scientific attitude toward sexual behavior:

Sex is about reproductive biology. Human beings are mammals, and any eighth-grader can figure out what that means in terms of sex.
Once you understand this scientific definition of sex, everything else is just details. Young people have to figure out how to attract potential partners, how to choose a good partner from among the prospective candidates, and how to negotiate a relationship that will lead toward lifelong monogamous pair-bonding — i.e., a successful marriage — because this is the ideal situation in which to raise children. . . .
The road to Equality is paved with dead babies. Feminism’s idea of “empowerment” for women requires forsaking motherhood and, once the possibility of procreation is excluded, what does sex mean? If a woman decides to be a non-participant in the reproduction of the species, does she have any need for marriage? Indeed, why bother with men at all?

You can read the rest of that, but the facts are obvious enough: Feminists are against men, marriage, motherhood, capitalism and Christianity. No intelligent or honest person can support the feminist agenda.

 

Feminism is a movement by women, for women, against men. Feminists are women like Meghan Murphy. Incapable of finding happiness in life, feminists blame their misery on men, and seek to eliminate male happiness, so that everyone can become equally miserable.

Feminism isn't just about women hating men, but also teaching men to hate themselves. @Mark_Neilg @joelengel @TheRalphRetort @AsheSchow

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) May 23, 2016

+ + + + +

The Sex Trouble project began in 2014 and reader support is vital to this research into radical feminism. Contrary to what feminists claim, patriarchy is usually just another word for “paying the bills.” And remember the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

Never doubt God answers prayers. Thanks in advance.

 

 

Why shouldn't feminists be surgically sterilized? Who would trust feminists near children? https://t.co/HCF1kVQ8WW pic.twitter.com/qKqp8KVTSg

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) May 23, 2016

Whatever you do, don't be a "male feminist." https://t.co/qkQQ5uTmqR pic.twitter.com/AjUd62NHSO

— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) May 22, 2016

MORE FROM THE ‘SEX TROUBLE’ SERIES:

• May 14: Feminists Against Heterosexuality (@CarolineHeldman Edition)
• May 9: The Myth of the Masculinity Crisis
• April 16: The Queering of Feminism and the Silencing of Heterosexual Masculinity
• April 1: The Radical Theology of Feminism
• March 26: The Absence of Empathy: Understanding the Psychology of Sociopathic Feminism
• March 19: ‘Broken People’ and the Tragedy of the Darwinian Dead End
• Feb. 26: Feminist Hates White Heterosexual Men