The Other McCain

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

A Theory of Sex (and Feminism)

Posted on | March 13, 2016 | 47 Comments

 

Friday’s post about feminist Ruby Hamad included a quote by Professor Sheila Jeffreys, asserting that heterosexuality is “a political institution through which male dominance is organised and maintained.” This prompted the commenter Joe Joe to remark:

Does Jeffreys understand that all sexual relationships have some element of power relations? Butch/femme pairings are not accidental. And no, those women are not “imitating” heterosexuality: it’s internal. We’re born with different sexual charges. That’s biology, not politics.

Well, here we ascend to the lofty plateau of theory, an area of philosophical speculation that is far above my pay grade. Some readers have been mystified, I suspect, by the way I have dealt with feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — in the Sex Trouble project. To me this theory (a terse summary of Professor Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, which enjoys a quasi-scriptural authority among Third Wave feminist intellectuals) seems self-evidently wrong.

Notice that I say “wrong,” rather than false.

Far be it from me to dispute Professor Butler’s assertion that the “binary” social behaviors of the sexes are necessary to heterosexuality. Some men are more masculine than others and some women are more feminine than others but, however we describe these traits, they are highly correlated with success in terms of the natural biology of reproduction, i.e., heterosexuality. It seems to me that Professor Butler and others (e.g., “Queer Theory” pioneer Eve Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick and Eastern Washington University Professor Mimi Marinucci, author of the 2010 textbook Feminism Is Queer) begin their arguments by assuming certain basic premises of all feminist theory. The essential premise of feminism — the movement’s sine qua non — is that all women are oppressed by men under a system of “male supremacy” otherwise known as patriarchy. This premise was stated most clearly in 1969 in the manifesto of the Women’s Liberation collective Redstockings:

Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. . . .
We identify the agents of our oppression as men. Male supremacy is the oldest, most basic form of domination. . . . Men have controlled all political, economic and cultural institutions and backed up this control with physical force. They have used their power to keep women in an inferior position. All men receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from male supremacy. All men have oppressed women.

If you disagree with that, you are not a feminist. The Redstockings collective was co-founded by Shulamith Firestone, arguably the most important figure in the Women’s Liberation movement (so-called “Second Wave” feminism) of the 1960s and ’70s. Author of the influential 1970 book The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution, Firestone had emerged as a leader in September 1967 at the National Conference for New Politics. At that gathering of the radical New Left, Firestone and Jo Freeman staged an insurrection, supported by women from Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), taking over a women’s workshop chaired by notorious atheist Madlyn Murray O’Hair.

 

This event (described in Susan Brownmiller’s 1999 memoir In Our Time) led directly to the formation of the Chicago-based “West Side Group” which was, as Brownmiller says, “probably the first Women’s Liberation group in the nation.” Obtaining a list of addresses of SDS women, Firestone moved to New York City and began recruiting and organizing others. Among those recruited by Firestone was a veteran socialist named Anne Koedt, subsequently a member of Ti-Grace Atkinson’s group The Feminists and editor of the 1973 anthology Radical Feminism. The history of the modern feminist movement can be traced directly back to the ideas, activism and organizing of a comparative handful of women associated with the 1960s New Left. What was the nature of women’s “oppression,” according to Firestone and her Redstockings comrades?

We are exploited as sex objects, breeders, domestic servants, and cheap labor.

In 1969, then, feminism condemned male admiration of beauty (women as “sex objects”), as well as women’s role in motherhood (“breeders”) and marriage (a wife’s work within her own household reduced her to the status of “domestic servant”). This amounted to a complete rejection of sex roles, per se. If it was “oppression” for women to become wives or mothers, then by the obverse principle, feminism also condemned any man who might desire to become a husband or father.

 

Given the all-encompassing categorical scope of feminism’s attack on every normal manifestation of human sexual behavior, is it any surprise that the movement soon attracted to its banner militant lesbians?

“Lesbian is a label invented by the Man to throw at any woman who dares to be his equal, who dares to challenge his prerogatives . . . who dares to assert the primacy of her own needs. . . .
“Until women see in each other the possibility of a primal commitment which includes sexual love, they will be denying themselves the love and value they readily accord to men, thus affirming their second-class status. . . .
“But why is it that women have related to and through men? By virtue of having been brought up in a male society, we have internalized the male culture’s definition of ourselves. That definition consigns us to sexual and family functions, and excludes us from defining and shaping the terms of our lives. . . .
“The consequence of internalizing this role is an enormous reservoir of self-hate. . . .
“As the source of self-hate and the lack of real self are rooted in our male-given identity, we must create a new sense of self. . . . Only women can give to each other a new sense of self. That identity we have to develop with reference to ourselves, and not in relation to men. This consciousness is the revolutionary force from which all else will follow, for ours is an organic revolution.”
— Radicalesbians, “The Woman-Identified Woman,” 1970

You see how rapidly the inexorable logic of Women’s Liberation advanced from its founding to the emergence of lesbian feminism. Calling on feminists to reject “the male culture” of “a male society,” the Radicalesbian manifesto called on feminists to exchange their “male-given identity” for a “new sense of self,” thus achieving a new “consciousness” that would be a “revolutionary force” against male supremacy.

 

This advance in feminist theory occurred in less that three years, from September 1967 to May 1970, when the Radicalesbians disrupted the NOW-organized Second Congress to Unite Women with their protest. The significance of this is explained in my book Sex Trouble:

The authors of “The Woman-Identified Woman” were not as famous as celebrity feminists like Gloria Steinem, but even if they were completely unknown, their radical manifesto would continue to be influential, because it is routinely included in the curricula of Women’s Studies courses across the United States: Michigan State University, the University of Oregon, the University of Massachusetts, and the University of Minnesota, to name a few. It is not difficult to trace the influence of this early radicalism down to the present day, or to cite similarly influential treatises — e.g., “Lesbians in Revolt” by Charlotte Bunch (1972) and “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” by Adrienne Rich (1980) — commonly included in the syllabi of Women’s Studies programs. Any attempt to separate this kind of explicitly anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology from “mainstream” feminism would require us to argue that the most eminent academics in the field of Women’s Studies (including the lesbian editors of the widely used textbook Feminist Frontiers) are not “mainstream.”

What feminism actually means, as a political philosophy, is deliberately obscured when we see a celebrity like Harry Potter star Emma Watson enlisted to recruit men to support the feminist movement.

Today we are launching a campaign called “HeForShe.”
I am reaching out to you because I need your help. We want to end gender inequality — and to do that we need everyone to be involved.
This is the first campaign of its kind at the UN: we want to try and galvanize as many men and boys as possible to be advocates for gender equality. And we don’t just want to talk about it, but make sure it is tangible.
I was appointed six months ago and the more I have spoken about feminism the more I have realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop. . . .
I decided I was a feminist and this seemed uncomplicated to me. But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word.
Apparently I am among the ranks of women whose expressions are seen as too strong, too aggressive, isolating, anti-men and, unattractive.
Why is the word such an uncomfortable one?

This is not really a difficult question to answer, Ms. Watson. No matter how many beautiful young actresses are conscripted as celebrity feminist spokeswomen, you can never evade the problem of feminism’s core ideology, the movement’s theory of women’s “oppression.”

 

Why is feminism “synonymous with man-hating”? This should not be mysterious to Emma Watson, nor to anyone with two eyes and a brain. It is easy for an extraordinarily privileged young woman like Emma Watson, who became a multimillionaire long before she was old enough to vote, to speak of “gender equality” as if this were something that would occur spontaneously once we overcome prejudicial stereotypes about feminists being unattractive man-haters. Going back to the very start of the Women’s Liberation movement, and continuing up to the present day, we see that it is always privileged women who achieve prominence as feminism’s intellectual leaders and spokeswomen.

The secret ingredient of feminist ideology is Daddy’s money:

Catharine MacKinnon, for example, is the daughter of a Republican congressman and judge; her family’s wealth enabled her to attend elite schools (Smith College and Yale University) and to spend 18 years writing her grand opus, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. It is astonishing to read, in the preface of her 1989 book (p. xiv), that the first chapter “was written in 1971-72, revised in 1975, and published in Signs in 1982.” Only an extraordinary sort of financial security can explain how a writer could be able to wait a full decade between writing the first draft of an essay and its initial publication. During the intervening years, MacKinnon published The Sexual Harassment of Working Women (1979) just two years after graduating from Yale Law School. This Marxist daughter of a Republican father was able to make herself an “expert” on the problems of “working women” precisely because she never had to work a day in her life. . . .
It was her remarkable socioeconomic privilege that was the basis of MacKinnon’s lifelong assault on “male supremacy,” and we see a similar pattern in the lives of many other feminists.

We encounter this phenomenon repeatedly in the biographies of feminist leaders. Women who make careers attacking patriarchy and capitalism are almost invariably the daughters of privilege.

Ti-Grace Atkinson, 1974

Ti-Grace Atkinson, for example, was one of five daughters born to a prominent Louisiana family. Her father was a chemical engineer for Standard Oil, and yet she has never acknowledged the role of her father (or capitalism) in paying the bills for her education.

“Why do women keep getting married? . . . It’s conceivable somebody could be happy despite being married, but never because they were married. . . .
“Sex and love is the dynamic that keeps women’s oppression going . . .
“Motherhood is a heavily permeated sex role.”
— Ti-Grace Atkinson, 2011

More than 40 years after she became a leader of the feminist movement, Ti-Grace Atkinson’s hostility to marriage, love, sex and motherhood remained the same as in 1969, when she protested against marriage and declared to 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.” Has any reporter bothered to ask Emma Watson if she agrees with Ti-Grace Atkinson? Of course not.

 

Who pays the bill for Emma Watson’s feminist agenda at the United Nations? In 2012, U.S. taxpayers provided $567 million — 22 percent of the United Nations’ budget — and, as Brett Schaefer of the Heritage Foundation explained, America’s “assessment” is “more than 180 other U.N. member states combined and 22,000 times more than the least assessed countries.” The vast majority of the world’s countries are parasitic freeloaders, in terms of the U.N. budget, while taxpayers in the United States (which has only 4.3 percent of the world’s population) provide 22 cents of every dollar the U.N. spends. Somebody at the U.N. got paid to “create a new symbol for our shared humanity,” proving the platform from which Emma Watson could lecture the world about how men need to become “advocates for gender equality.” This requires only that we ignore the actually history of the feminist movement.

Emma Watson has started a feminist book club, and I wonder if she would consider recommending Personal Politics: The Roots of Women’s Liberation in the Civil Rights Movement & the New Left by Sara Evans (1979), Daring To Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America 1967-1975 by Alice Echols (1989) and Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women’s Liberation by Kate Weigand (2001). Perhaps it would help Ms. Watson’s naïve young admirers to study how the modern feminist movement originated. If the subscribers to Ms. Watson’s book club are curious why “Second Wave” feminism so quickly became associated with man-hating lesbians, right here on my desk, I have several books that Ms. Watson could recommend to her feminist fans:

Let the members of Emma Watson’s book club read that list of 20 books —  a fraction of the feminist library I’ve amassed during my research — and tell me if any of these eminent authors has anything good to say about men, marriage or motherhood. Permit me to point out that among the names on this list are Professor Charlotte Bunch (Rutgers University), Professor Kathleen Barry (Pennsylvania State University), Professor Marilyn Frye (Michigan State University), Professor Celia Kitzinger (University of York), Professor Sarah Lucia-Hoagland (Northeastern Illinois University), Professor Sandra Lee Bartky (University of Illinois), Professor Sue Wilkinson (Loughborough University), Professor Dee Graham (University of Cincinnati) Professor Diane Richardson (Newcastle University), Professor Carole McCann (University of Maryland), Professor Seung-Kyung Kim (University of Maryland), Professor “Jack” Halberstam (University of Southern California) and Professor Jennifer Rich (Hofstra University). Let the reader ask,”Who pays the bills to promote feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual agenda?” And the answer is: “You do.” Feminism is supported by taxpayer funding to higher education, and by every parent or student who pays a dime in tuition to the hundreds of colleges and universities that employ such professors in departments of Women’s Studies.

The secret ingredient of feminist ideology is Daddy’s money, you see.

Every year, some 90,000 students in the United States are enrolled in Women’s Studies classes, where they are indoctrinated (at taxpayer expense) in the Cult Ideology of Feminism, and sent forth into the world as activists promoting this anti-male belief system everywhere.

All of this is by way of explaining why I say Professor Judith Butler’s feminist gender theory is wrong, but not necessarily false.

 

If a woman feels nothing but contempt and hatred toward men, if she never desires to have a husband or babies, if the thought of heterosexual intercourse inspires in her only feelings of dread and horror, there is no reason why she shouldn’t embrace Professor Butler’s theory. Shulamith Firestone, Mary Daly, Catharine MacKinnon, Joyce Trebilcot, Gayle Rubin, Sheila Jeffreys, Amanda Marcotte, Jaclyn Friedman — one could recite a very long list of eminent feminist authors without naming a woman who had ever married a man or given birth to a child.

Does anyone imagine this is merely a coincidence? Of course not. As a rationalization of man-hating — or divorce, or abortion, or lesbianism — feminist theory is entirely valid. Begin with the premise that all women are “oppressed,” and that all men are “agents” of this “oppression,” and how else do you expect the argument to conclude?

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind . . .”
— Romans 1:22, 28 (KJV)

The logic of feminism is obvious enough. But when the commenter Joe Joe asserted that “all sexual relationships have some element of power relations,” I felt obliged to offer my own perspective:

Let me say, first, that I do not like theory. Give me enough facts, and I’ll come up with my own theory — or not. Could I theorize about the nature of sexual attraction? Sure, and I even dabble a bit in it (“Me Tarzan, you Jane“) in my book. Heterosexual success requires that a man exhibit some quality of heroism, to elicit the admiration of a woman. She cannot love a man she does not admire. This is simple enough to understand, and also explains the fundamental problem of feminism — an ideology that takes a wholly negative view of masculinity, so that the feminist can never find any real enjoyment in a normal heterosexual relationship. Insofar as a man is worthy of admiration — possessing heroic qualities — the feminist must resent his success. This resentment of male success is so inherent to her ideology that the feminist must feel like a horrible hypocrite for admiring any man. She is always the protagonist of the drama, and he is a bit player whose only lines in the script are “yes.” For this reason, to hear her husband praised for any independent achievement of his own always fills the feminist with envy and rage.
Well, that is one theory, anyway. If you don’t like it, I could whip out another half-dozen by next Tuesday, but theory doesn’t pay the bills.

Somebody’s got to pay the bills, you see. Feminists do not want men to have economic success or career achievement that would enable men to pay the bills — to support their wives and children — because if women have husbands and children have fathers, this contributes to “the dynamic that keeps women’s oppression going,” as Ti-Grace Atkinson put it.

Lest anyone mistakenly believe that feminism has changed its tune, or doubt that young feminists subscribe to the same radical ideology that inspired Firestone, Atkinson, et al., carefully read the rant that Meghan Murphy published just last week, denouncing “capitalist patriarchy,” condemning “gender roles that are rooted in domination and subordination (i.e. masculinity and femininity),” and describing feminism as a movement “to build a society wherein men don’t feel entitled to sexual access to women.” Is Meghan Murphy a marginal extremist “fringe” feminist? No, she is the founder and editor of Feminist Current, Canada’s leading feminist website. She has a master’s degree in Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies from Simon Fraser University, and if Ms. Murphy insists that feminism must have “a real, radical definition” and “collective, agreed upon goals,” who am I to say she is wrong?

Meghan Murphy is right: Men cannot have “sexual access to women” — that’s rape culture, she explains — and masculinity and femininity must be abolished. Or so you must believe, if you are a feminist.

Professor Ann Althouse was intrigued by my rhetorical method:

This is an interesting form of argument, where you take a central term that people have infused with various meanings, adapting it to their preferences and purposes, and present evidence that the truest, most historically accurate meaning of that term refers to things that those who’ve been embracing it would find repellent.

Well, I make no argument, Professor, and I offer no theory. Such work is for intellectuals, whereas I am a mere journalist, and all I’m doing is reporting the objective facts here: Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It. Trust me on that.

+ 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

FMJRA 2.0: A Small Collection Of Chords

Posted on | March 12, 2016 | 5 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Rule 5 Sunday: Animal Magnetism
Animal Magnetism
Ninety Miles from Tyranny
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

FMJRA 2.0: #FreeStacy CPAC Style
The Pirate’s Cove
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

South African President Says Women Are Now Too Quick to Claim Harassment
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox, 03.07.16
Proof Positive

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

‘Extremely Rare False Rape Accusations’
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 03.08.16
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive
Batshit Crazy News

#IWD2016 Feminism as Sexual Stalinism
Adam Piggott
Batshit Crazy News

In The Mailbox: 03.09.16
Regular Right Guy
A View from the Beach
Proof Positive

In The Mailbox: 03.10.16
Proof Positive

‘The Enslavement of Women’
Living In Anglo-America
A View from the Beach
Batshit Crazy News

What Did Jack Montague Do?
Batshit Crazy News

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge
Batshit Crazy News

Totalitarian Hatemonger @RubyHamad Wonders Why Men Won’t Listen to Her
Batshit Crazy News

Top linkers this week:

  1.  Batshit Crazy News (11)
  2.  (tied) A View from the Beach and Proof Positive (5)

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery!


Cords

Category: FMJRA Award

Bill the Conqueror Fought at Hastings in 1066 to Equalize Wages for Oppressed Women #HistoryByHillary

Posted on | March 12, 2016 | 6 Comments

by Smitty

A little love for Her Majesty, the Red Queen of Chappaqua:

Category: humor

In The Mailbox: Early Weekend Edition

Posted on | March 12, 2016 | 6 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: I Kissed A Girl And I Got Expelled
Da Tech Guy: The Unexpectedly Chronicles – Thugs Will Be Thugs
The Political Hat: Survey Says – Kill All The Normal People
Doug Powers: President “I Want You To Get In Their Faces” Obama Claims That When It Comes To Divisiveness, He Didn’t Build That
Twitchy: Admitted Terrorist Cheers On Anti-Trump Rioters In Chicago
Shark Tank: GOP May Lose Rubio’s Senate Seat


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Violence At Trump Campaign Events
American Thinker: Enough With The Double Standards For Muslims
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Hard Cold Winter By Glen Erik Hamilton
Conservatives4Palin: Hello Again, Reagan Democrats
Don Surber: Why Hoax Is My Default Reaction
Jammie Wearing Fools: Mexico Just Ruined The World’s Sexiest Police Squad
Joe For America: At Least Someone’s Building A Wall
JustOneMinute: The Michelle Fields Assault – The Plot Thickens
Pamela Geller: San Bernardino Top Cop – Officers Responding To Terror Attack Were Outgunned
Protein Wisdom: Obama’s DOJ Has Made It Clear – You Belong To The Government
Shot In The Dark: A Tale Of Two Rallies
STUMP: Illinois Weekend Watch – Round And Round While We Wait For A Strike
The Jawa Report: Where’s Dr. Rusty Shackleford? Trump Rally Edition
The Lonely Conservative: Confirmed By NPR And Harvard – Obamacare Stinks
The Quinton Report: NASCAR CEO, Drivers Endorse Trump
This Ain’t Hell: Wounded Warrior Project Execs Fired
Weasel Zippers: MoveOn Takes Credit For Assault On Trump Rally – “Welcome To The General Election”
Megan McArdle: Trump’s Clumsy Pivot To The General Election


Shop Amazon – $10 off $50 on Select Fishing Products
Get $30 GC with your first Amazon Home Services purchase

Category: Linkagery

Totalitarian Hatemonger @RubyHamad Wonders Why Men Won’t Listen to Her

Posted on | March 11, 2016 | 53 Comments

Being constantly insulted by feminists — “Heterosexuality Is the Structure That Keeps Sexist Oppression in Place” — is something men are expected never to notice. Any man who objects to feminism’s anti-male hate propaganda will be instantly branded a misogynist. This is “Kafkatrapping,” whereby the denial of guilt is cited as proof of guilt.

No feminist ever wants to hear a word any man has to say, because men are always wrong about everything, and the only “right” a man now has is his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

 

Ruby Hamad publishes her anti-male screeds at the Australian feminist site Daily Life. When she is not busy denouncing science as “sexist” or demonizing heterosexual men as violent rapists who harbor “unconscious misogyny,” Ms. Hamad occasionally takes time to complain that men don’t applaud her insulting lectures about how evil men are:

Why do so few men
turn up to hear women speak?
The success of the All About Women festival last Sunday, now in its fourth year, is a testament to how women are unabashedly reclaiming public space. . . .
Sex slavery. Rape. Objectification. Slut-shaming. Misogyny. Sexual double standards. Abuse. The exposure to all these – and more – are part of what being a women entails in our world. And so, these issues necessarily form a large part of what women talk about when we come together on occasions like this.
But the seriousness of the subject matter were not all that these sessions had in common. Disappointingly, both had a dire lack of men in the audience. . . .

FULL STOP.

Not long ago, feminists were complaining that the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival got shut down because of its women-only policy. Now they complain because men won’t attend feminist anti-male hate rallies? Does Ms. Hamad think men are too stupid to understand what feminism is?

“Heterosexual desire . . . originates in the power relationships between the sexes and normally takes the form of eroticising the subordination of women. . . .
“[H]eterosexuality is . . . a political institution through which male dominance is organised and maintained. Sex as we know it under male supremacy is the eroticised power difference of heterosexuality.”
— Sheila Jeffreys, Anticlimax: A Feminist Perspective on the Sexual Revolution (1990)

Professor Jeffreys retired in May 2015 after teaching for 24 years at the University of Melbourne, and if Ruby Hamad or any other feminist in Australia disagreed with Professor Jeffeys about the evils of “male dominance,” they never had the courage to say as much. No feminist in the 21st century dares to say anything good about heterosexuality for fear of being condemned as a homophobe. Feminists are always against anything that makes men happy — videogames, low taxes, football, the internal combustion engine, etc. — and because men enjoy having sex with beautiful women, feminists are against both sex and beauty. This is why the very first public protest of the Women’s Liberation movement in September 1968 targeted the Miss America pageant: “How dare those pretty girls wear swimsuits so that men can admire them?”

Men are expected to politely pretend we are too stupid to understand feminism as the dishonest three-card monte hustle it actually is. No matter what a man does, feminists will find a reason to condemn him for doing it. Alternatively, he will be condemned for not doing whatever it is that feminists want him to do. Next, when the helpless fool tries to do what feminists demand, they will condemn him for doing it wrong.

Oh, but men are not supposed to notice this. Play dumb and say nothing. Just nod your head and smile. You have the right to remain silent.

Don’t swindle me and call it “social justice.” When you decide to injure a man, don’t pretend you’ve injured him by accident, nor should you insult a man by telling him the injuries you inflict are for his own good.

Any man who is not fit to judge his own best interests is a fool, and when feminists pretend that they understand men better than men understand themselves, this is never an accidental insult. The transparent scam of feminism, whereby a handful of parasitical hustlers seek to grow rich by claiming the authority to speak on behalf of all women, has never fooled anyone — male or female — with a lick of common sense.

What part of “anti-male hate propaganda” do I need to explain here? Yet the problem, according to Ruby Hamad, is that men won’t pay money to listen to feminists lecture them about what horrible oppressors they are:

Because it means men are still not listening when women speak about our experiences in a world dominated by men and male violence. . . .
In a world where men still accuse us of exaggerating our experiences of oppression and harassment, it is disappointing to see men yet again assume they had nothing to learn. . . .
It is astounding to me that men think they have little gain from an event such as this. . . . Men need to listen while women speak.

Translation: “Men are ignorant. Men know nothing.”

Feminists are Our Moral Superiors™ — intelligent! courageous! heroic! — and every man should pay money for the opportunity to sit quietly and be tutored by Ruby Hamad, like a kindergartner learning his ABCs.

Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and I apologize to regular readers for the repetition, but until some of my alleged friends start quoting me on this subject, I’ll keep quoting myself. No use waiting around for one of these clever young punks at the Weekly Standard to write a sentence that begins, “As the award-winning journalist Robert Stacy McCain says . . .”

Reader support is essential to the Sex Trouble project‘s research into radical feminism. Please buy my book, help promote it to others and don’t forget the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!




 


Category: Sex Trouble

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge

Posted on | March 11, 2016 | 3 Comments

by Smitty


Dear Mom & Dad,
I knew you wouldn’t approve, so I didn’t ask. I’m going to the Big City. Boise.
Don’t blame yourselves. You are wonderful parents. I wouldn’t’ve had the money for the bus ticket if you weren’t so good at teaching a girl how to raise hogs.
I’ve got a roommate and a job lined up. I’ll see about school this fall. I know the money situation, so I won’t ask.
Brian is going to take it hard. I don’t hate him, but just wasn’t going to be happy on the farm.
Love,
Joeanna

P.S.: I remembered my Bible.

via Darleen

Category: Friday Fiction

What Did Jack Montague Do?

Posted on | March 11, 2016 | 30 Comments

 

A week ago — March 4 — I wrote this simple headline:

Is Jack Montague a Rapist?

There is still no answer to that question, although the New York Times published a story Wednesday about the expulsion of the Yale University basketball team’s senior captain. Citing “two people with direct knowledge of the case who spoke on condition of anonymity,” the article confirms that Montague was expelled last month “in connection with a sexual misconduct accusation.” And here’s a tidbit from the Daily Mail:

A formal complaint was filed against Montague with the University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct in November of 2015, several months after the alleged assault occurred, Yale Daily News reports.
He was expelled three months later on February 10.

So, we have yet another on of those belated accusations — “several months after” the incident — that seem to proliferate amid the anti-male “campus rape epidemic” hysteria that feminists have recently incited. This is a familiar narrative, if you have read any of the more than 100 lawsuits filed against universities by male students who say they were falsely accused of sexual misconduct and denied due process in the campus kangaroo court system. It’s a typical story by now. College boy and college girl hook up, and then months go by during which nothing in particular seems to happen until — BOOM! — the guy finds himself accused of “sexual misconduct.” The university does an investigation, but everything’s hush-hush, because of federally mandated “confidentiality” requirements, then there is secretive hearing, and then the guy’s expelled. Nobody ever knows what happened until the guy files a lawsuit.

The basic function of Title IX, it now seems, is to expel every male student who ever so much as kissed a girl on campus. Seriously, go read the John Doe v. Brown University lawsuit and tell me that’s not crazy.

Do you think Jack Montague is a rapist? His father, hinting very strongly about a lawsuit, calls the accusation against his son “ridiculous.” Certainly, common sense would lead us to be skeptical.

 

He’s a popular, good-looking athlete. As Jay Z might say, Jack Montague’s got 99 problems and a lack of female companionship ain’t one.

Ah, but it’s 2016! And it’s Yale!

The Ivy League Is Decadent and Depraved.

All the Yale professors are atheists, and all the students are psychotic Social Justice Warriors like Jerelyn “Who the F–k Hired You?” Luther. It’s always surprising to learn that heterosexuality still happens at Yale, where the Women’s, Gender, & Sexuality Studies Program trains girls to be man-hating radical lesbian activists. Parents pay $47,600 tuition a year to Yale, where the Marxist faculty teach rich kids how to hate Capitalist Misogynist Oppressors, i.e., Daddy.

Warn your sons, America: Never talk to a college girl.




 

Category: Education, Sex Trouble

‘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
« go back — keep looking »

    About

    This is an area on your website where you can add text. This will serve as an informative location on your website, where you can talk about your site.

    Subscribe to our feed

    Search

    Admin