The Other McCain

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

N.C. Schools Employ Radical Lesbian Who Called Marriage ‘Slavery’ for Women

Posted on | May 24, 2015 | 123 Comments

By Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain on Twitter)

A pioneering lesbian activist who called heterosexuality “the ideology of male supremacy” and condemned marriage as “slavery” for women is now working as a math teacher in North Carolina.

 

As a graduate student in 1969, Margaret Small helped begin what became the Women’s Studies program at the State University of New York’s Buffalo campus and in 1972 co-taught a course called “Lesbianism 101” recognized as the first such class taught in the United States. Since 2009, Small has been employed as a K-12 Mathematics Curriculum Specialist for Buncombe County Schools in Asheville, N.C., according to her LinkedIn profile. However, in the 1970s, she was a member of a radical lesbian collective known as The Furies, co-founded by legendary feminist Charlotte Bunch. Small’s 1975 essay “Lesbians and the Class Position of Women” offered a Marxist interpretation of “lesbian consciousness” as part of a “revolutionary struggle” to end women’s “oppression” in the “relationship of slavery,” as she called marriage.

“Women’s oppression is based in the fact that she reproduces the species,” Small wrote in the essay, published in Lesbianism and the Women’s Movement, a book co-edited by Bunch and Nancy Myron. “The relationship of men to reproduction is defined by a single act of fucking at the moment of impregnation and ends at that point.”

Invoking the historical theories of Friedrich Engels (colleague of Karl Marx and co-author of the 1848 “Communist Manifesto”), Small declared: “Class society arose because of the oppression of women. . . . The exploitation of all women by all men made possible the exploitation of some men by other men. The more exploitative the relationship between men and women becomes, the stronger and more vital become the institutions of male supremacy.”

 

After getting her master’s degree from SUNY-Buffalo in 1973 Small “worked for 8 years as a machinist, first in a shipyard in San Diego and then at several manufacturing plants in Chicago,” before returning to school at the University of Illinois-Chicago, according to an online profile. She became a math teacher in Chicago public schools, got her PhD. and, in 2000, became “a founding Director of the Young Women’s Leadership Charter School of Chicago (YWLCS),” the only all-girls public school in Chicago. Small moved to North Carolina in 2009 and, in 2013, married her lesbian partner Peggy Baker. Also a former YWLCS teacher, Baker runs an education non-profit, EASL Institute, whose clients include schools in North Carolina, New York and Chicago.

Margaret Small’s pioneering work in the feminist movement has been recognized in numerous books, including Breaking the Wave: Women, Their Organizations, and Feminism, 1945-1985, edited by Kathleen Laughlin and Jacqueline Castledine (2010), and the Historical Dictionary of the Lesbian and Gay Liberation Movements, by JoAnne Myers (2013). Her role in teaching the first lesbian university course (along with Madeline Davis) was cited as No. 10 on a list of “20 Notable College Moments in LGBT History” by Best Colleges Online.

Small’s 1975 essay condemning marriage and heterosexuality has been cited in such books as Separatism and Women’s Community by Dana Shugar and The Invention of Heterosexuality by Jonathan Katz. The essay was adapted from a speech Small gave to the Wasington, D.C., think tank Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) on behalf of The Furies.

“In terms of the oppression of women, heterosexuality is the ideology of male supremacy,” Small wrote. “In order for men to have a justification for exploiting women and an ability to enforce that exploitation, heterosexuality has to become, not merely an act in relation to impregnation, but the dominant ideology.”

Under male supremacy, Small asserted, women “become defined as appendages to men” in a system “which maintains the ideological power of men over women.” Small’s article (the full text of which is embedded below) declares: “Heterosexual hegemony insures that people think it natural that male and female form a life-long sexual/reproductive unit with the female belonging to the male.”

Lesbians, Small wrote, were crucial to “the development of revolutionary consciousness” because they are “outside of the reality which heterosexual ideology explains.” Heterosexuality would become “irrelevant” as alternatives to sexual reproduction were developed.

“Male supremacy is what is attacked in lesbian ideology,” Small wrote. “What we are doing in revolutionary struggle is to make our consciousnesses different. When enough people’s consciousnesses are different, then we make a revolution.”

The Furies collective, which Small represented in her speech at IPS, was formed by Bunch and others in 1971, and announced its revolutionary feminist goals in early 1972. Bunch’s manifesto, “Lesbians in Revolt,” is included in many university Women’s Studies textbooks and curricula. Bunch became a distinguished academic at Rutgers University and in 1999 was honored with the Eleanor Roosevelt Award for Human Rights by President Bill Clinton. (Click here to see C-SPAN video of Hillary Clinton’s speech at the December 1999 ceremony.)

Lesbian Margaret Small 1975 by himself2462

 

John Hoge and Jeanette Runyon assisted in the research for this article, which is part of the Sex Trouble project that has been supported by contributions from readers. The first edition of Sex Trouble: Radical Feminism and the War on Human Nature is available from Amazon.com, $11.96 in paperback or $1.99 in Kindle ebook format.





 

 

Category: Education, Feminism, Gays, History, Marriage, North Carolina, Sex Trouble

Rule 5 Sunday: The Road To Sin City

Posted on | May 24, 2015 | 19 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

So, after getting through the last days of packing, shipping a truckload of stuff to Vegas, and stuffing the remainder of my worldly goods in the back of the Jeep, I’m chilling at Balticon, an SF convention slowly evolving into a geek culture con, and killing a little time between programming events by getting current on my blogging duties. In honor of Balticon’s home city of Baltimore, here’s Jaime Edmondson looking hot for the Ravens.

Former Playboy Playmate and Dolphins cheerleader Jaime Edmondson sporting other colors

As usual, many of the following links depict women with few or no clothes on. If you value your job and/or relationships, you might want to exercise a little discretion regarding when and where you click.

Goodstuff leads off this week with unaccredited Bond Girl Madeline Smith and some thoughts on Mad Max: Fury Road, followed by Ninety Miles from Tyranny with Morning Mistress, Hot Pick of the Late Night, and Girls with G-Great Big Swords! Animal Magnetism chips in with Rule 5 Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon, and First Street Journal has Mostly Marines.


EBL’s herd of heifers this week includes Fury Road Rule 5, Princess Chelsea, Mad Men Rule 5, Pretty Little Liar, Hillary Mills Friday Night Document Dump, Hillary’s Monica Rule 5, Hollywood Canteen Rule 5, Tomorrowland, and How About Some Erotic Hillary Clinton? (possibly NMS)

At A View from the Beach, it’s Edita!, Well, That’s One Way to Pay, Unknown Hominid Left 3.3 Million Year Old Stone Tools – cave girls, of course, Dog’s Lives, Nice Lizard!,  I Usually Avoid the Reef. . ., Wombat’s Tuesday Ruminations, Pretty Strenuous…, Now That’s Mystery Meat!, Almost the World’s Shortest Marriage and Why Choose When You Can Have Both?

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe was Alicia Arden, his Vintage Babe was Tina Louise, and Sex in Advertising is (un)covered by Victoria’s Secret. At Dustbury, it’s Lindsay Ellingson and Maggie Gyllenhaal.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for next weekend’s Rule 5 roundup is midnight on Saturday, May 30.


Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

FMJRA 2.0: Meanwhile at Balticon…

Posted on | May 23, 2015 | 11 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

War Against Human Nature: What Feminists Pay $47,030 a Year to Learn
Dyspepsia Generation
Da Tech Guy
Political Hat
Living In Anglo-America
A View from the Beach

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

Lesbian Harassment in College? Lawsuit Alleges ‘Sexually Charged’ Hazing
Batshit Crazy News
Regular Right Guy
Living In Anglo-America
IOTW Report
A View from the Beach

FMJRA 2.0: Roll With It
The Pirate’s Cove
BlurBrain
Batshit Crazy News

Cincinnatus and the Giant
Batshit Crazy News

Hating Babies, Hating Mothers
Regular Right Guy
Da Tech Guy

LIVE AT FIVESIX: 05.19.15
Batshit Crazy News
Regular Right Guy
Proof Positive
A View from the Beach

Suspect Named in Quadruple Murder
Batshit Crazy News

Tracinski Is Half Correct
Batshit Crazy News
Regular Right Guy

It Purports To Survey Those Confused Concerning The Wedding Tackle–Why Would The Math NOT Be Queer?
Batshit Crazy News

Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It
Batshit Crazy News
Living In Anglo-America

Virginia Democrat Lawmaker Admits Fathering Baby With Teenage Girl
Batshit Crazy News

Shorter Her Majesty:
Batshit Crazy News

Without Irony or Self-Awareness
Batshit Crazy News
Regular Right Guy

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge
Jim-O-Rama
Batshit Crazy News

Top linkers this week:

  1.  Batshit Crazy News (13)
  2.  Regular Right Guy (5)

Plus the usual assortment of near misses…

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery!


Shop Amazon – Save 30% on Outdoor Research Clothing – Memorial Day Sale

Category: FMJRA Award

Credit Where Credit Is Due

Posted on | May 23, 2015 | 73 Comments

Excuse my long spells of non-blogging this week, but I spent Wednesday and Thursday writing a 3,000-word post  that still needs a few final touches. My sloth is more apparent than real and, also, I keep getting distracted by, y’know, news. Just a few odds and ends before I return to the Siberian salt mines . . .

The phrase “Feminist-Industrial Complex” was first used, so far as I can tell, in a 2008 column about Sarah Palin by Jonah Goldberg. I began using the phrase in 2014 without realizing where it originated, and if Jonah swiped it from somewhere else, let the claimant step forward or otherwise Jonah gets the credit when I publish the revised and expanded second edition of Sex Trouble in about three months.

Because the book is focused on academia — specifically university Women’s Studies programs, where radical feminist gender theory is propagated — I have used “Feminist-Industrial Complex” to refer primarily to these institutions. Removed from marketplace pressures, subsidized by taxpayers and protected by Title X from any opposition or criticism on campus, the academic Feminist-Industrial Complex is the intellectual bulwark of the entire movement. Speaking of which, Mark Hemingway has a nice a feature about how Christina Hoff Sommers has sparked furious reaction in her recent appearances on campus:

Before Sommers’s speech at Oberlin, 150 feminists signed a letter to the campus newspaper claiming that, among other libelous assertions, Sommers was a “rape denialist” for daring to poke holes in the improbable campus rape statistics bandied about. (According to an article in Slate last year, the commonly spouted figure that one-quarter of college women are victims of rape or attempted rape “would mean that young American college women are raped at a rate similar to women in Congo, where rape has been used as a weapon of war.”) The Oberlin letter was titled “In Response to Sommers’ Talk: A Love Letter to Ourselves” and urged students to boycott the speech and attend another event hosted in a “safe space.” While Sommers went on to address a full lecture hall, the Oberlin Review reported that “the alternative event, ‘We’re Still Here,’ was attended by approximately 35 students and one dog.” Disappointingly, the Review did not elaborate on how exactly Sommers’s presence on campus had managed to traumatize the dog.
The intensity of the opposition Sommers is facing may be new, but its seeds were planted a few years ago. Sommers says some of the opposition to her is a logical consequence of government policy. In 2011 the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice told campuses they were obligated under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act to protect women from harassment—even exposure to sexual language and innuendo—and that they had to lower their standards for determining guilt. “The colleges panicked, but it empowered that contingent. … The ‘drama feminists’ suddenly could hold the school hostage because they could threaten lawsuits under Title IX,” she says.

You can read the whole thing. The key point is that the sudden onlaught of “rape culture” discourse on university campuses in recent years did not happen coincidentally, or in response to an actual “crisis” or “epidemic” of sexual assault. Instead, federal authorities in the Obama administration undertook this initiative. Why? Believe it or not, because of National Public Radio:

[In 2010] reporters at National Public Radio teamed up with the left-leaning journalism organization Center for Public Integrity (CPI) to produce and promote a 104-page “investigative reporting series” (PDF) entitled “Sexual Assault on Campus: A Frustrating Search for Justice.” . . .
The executive director of CPI, Bill Buzenberg, summed up the plight of millions of young women on campus in a single word: “Nightmare.” According to the report, serial predators are roaming free on college campuses. . . .
The findings were widely and uncritically reported and won multiple journalism prizes, including a Peabody Award (known as the Pulitzer Prize for radio), as well as the Robert F. Kennedy Award for Justice and Human Rights Reporting and the Dart Award for Excellence in Coverage of Trauma. . . .
Russlynn Ali, a little-known Education Department official, was galvanized by the NPR/CPI findings. . . .
On April 4, 2011, she sent her now-famous Dear Colleague letter to colleges across the nation providing detailed guidelines on the draconian steps colleges should take to fight what she called a “plague” of sexual violence. . . .

You can read the rest of that article by Dr. Sommers at the Daily Beast, including the fact that NPR broadcast the now-discredited claim that “one out of five college women will be sexually assaulted.”

This is simply not true, and yet if you point out what’s wrong with this bogus statistic (derived from a 2007 survey with serious methodological flaws) you are accused of being a “rape denialist,” as the feminists at Oberlin branded Dr. Sommers. The best estimates of the frequency of sexual assault on U.S. campuses put the number far lower. Even by the most elastic definition (e.g., “unwelcome” touching), it’s hard to find credible evidence that the number is worse than 1-in-40 which, as Dr. Summers notes, is “far too many, but a long way from one in five.”

Here we see a convergence of three separate but strategically allied forces — liberal journalists, campus activists and federal bureaucrats — whose combined efforts produced a myth about rape and, when the facts contradict the myth, feminists refuse to yield to reality. Instead, feminists falsely accuse critics like Dr. Sommers of being misogynists, indifferent to the suffering of victims.

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

This is it, you see: Having obtained “consciousness of victimization,” the feminist makes victimhood the basis of her identity, so that she experiences an existential crisis if anyone points out that she is not, in fact, suffering from oppression. A student at Oberlin College (annual tuition $48,682) is actually a member of a privileged elite, yet feminists would have her believe — as she arrives on this picturesque 440-acre campus — that she is at risk of being enslaved by male supremacy and subjected to sexual brutality: Fear and Loathing of the Penis!

This paranoia has made it extremely hazardous for male students to pursue romance on the modern campus, as Paul Nungesser discovered at Columbia University. One of his accusers told her tale of oppression at the feminist blog Jezebel:

The incident happened my junior year at Columbia, when Paul followed me upstairs at a party, came into a room with me uninvited, closed the door behind us, and grabbed me. I politely said, “Hey, no, come on, let’s go back downstairs.” He didn’t listen. He held me close to him as I said no, and continued to pull me against him. I pushed him off and left the room quickly. I told a few friends and my boyfriend at the time how creepy and weird it was.

Creepy and weird, yes. Criminal? Therein lies the problem.

No one would condone the behavior alleged here — it’s clearly wrong — but as it happened at a party where, we may assume, everyone was drinking, this isn’t exactly startling. Back when I was in college in Alabama, a drunk guy who tried to “get fresh” that way might have gotten punched by the girl’s boyfriend, but I guess students at Columbia (annual tuition $51,008) aren’t the redneck type. At any rate, this girl didn’t decide to complain to university officials until after Emma Sulkowicz filed her claim that Nungesser raped her:

Then, a year later, a friend approached me and asked if we could speak privately. She told me she’d heard that Paul had apparently raped someone, and that the story had reminded her of what he had done to me a year before. . . .
My friend gave me the name and number of someone at Columbia I could talk to if I wanted to file a complaint. I wondered if what had happened between me and Paul was really sexual assault: there was no penetration, I had no bruises, I got away. But Columbia defines “Sexual Assault—Non-Consensual Sexual Contact” as “Any intentional sexual touching, however slight, with any object without a person’s consent.” That is exactly what happened to me, and so I decided to file a complaint.

Dear God in heaven! She admits here to joining a conspiracy, a vendetta inspired by Sulkowicz’s desire for revenge against her former “love,” Nungesser. (Click here to read the Nungesser civil rights complaint against Columbia.) Her incident with Nungesser at the party — which, as I say, is nothing we would condone, if it happened as alleged — was just a “creepy and weird” encounter that she shrugged off until a friend of Sulkowicz encouraged her to file a complaint. However, universities now effectively criminalize “touching .  . . without a person’s consent,” which would seem to require either:

  1. Romance devoid of spontaneity or impulse, in which lovers seek explicit verbal consent prior to each touch;
    or
  2. A clairvoyant ability to know in advance whether any specific touch was welcome.

We try to imagine the conversations required by this policy: “Having complied with your prior request that I kiss your neck, Tiffany, may I now have permission to caress your lower back?”

Back in the day . . . No, I’m not going to waive my Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Justice Department might institute some new policy where my alma mater would be forced to begin an investigation and retroactively prosecute me for trying to get to third base on the first date — if, hypothetically, I had ever done such a thing, which I can neither confirm nor deny until I have consulted with my attorney. These allegations that I engaged in sexual activity at Jacksonville State University are mere hearsay, your honor! I object to this line of questioning, and demand that this testimony be stricken from the record! Also, I must remind the jury that I was under the influence of dangerous hallucinogens during my undergraduate career, and therefore I was legally insane the whole time, as numerous witnesses will testify.

Having established my innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, then, what advice do I have for college boys nowadays?

  • Think ahead. Regard all females as potentially hostile and always keep in mind that any girl who tries to flirt with you could be setting you up for a sexual assault complaint. Approach every male-female encounter with extreme caution, and always consider whether you could defend your actions in a court of law.
  • Only speak when spoken to. Males have no right to initiate communication with females on the modern campus. Your attempt to make friendly small talk with a girl could be construed as harassment, potentially resulting in expulsion.
  • Avoid elite schools. It seems that false rape accusations mostly occur at expensive private schools. Save your money and go to the nearest community college for two years, then transfer to a state university. Your diploma may not have the prestige of a degree from Oberlin, Georgetown or an Ivy League school, but you are less likely to encounter a raging feminist lunatic at a state school and it’s entirely possible that you could meet a normal woman who doesn’t consider heterosexuality a hate crime.

There are still normal women out there, allegedly. However . . .

Inmate who won order for sex reassignment
surgery recommended for parole

Be careful, guys. You live in an increasingly dangerous world.





 

Category: Sex Trouble

Friday Fiction: 100 Word Challenge

Posted on | May 22, 2015 | 27 Comments

by Smitty

A retro sock hop, and the band played doo-wop. My intentions were rogueish. I’d find some little sophomore something and let it be known that Judy and I were finished in a public way. That tramp.
Locked eyes on a little blond girl in pony tails; green eyes, makeup, clothing and accessories arranged to perfection. Gave her the smile like the big vaudeville stage hook. Pulled her to me as a slow song started.
Her converse mounted mine. Her arms wrapped around my neck as we settled into a wet kiss.
Then she chomped down on my lip.

Update: also in the mix are Darleen, Jimmy, and BigGator5

Category: Friday Fiction

Without Irony or Self-Awareness

Posted on | May 22, 2015 | 70 Comments

@MaliniMohana is a feminist and wrote this:

“By representing your own group as uniquely virtuous, you can easily de-humanise another population.”

Yet this is exactly what feminism is about: Portraying women as uniquely virtuous and de-humanizing men. Mohana was writing about Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs), but she evidently doesn’t realize that there are women MRAs who understand the dreadful truth, i.e., “Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It.”

However, it’s very difficult to blame Mohana for her hateful attitude, because she lives in South Africa, “Rape Capital of the World,” which descended into nightmarish ruin under the presidency of Thabo Mbeki and has never really recovered.

How bad is South Africa? It’s worse than Detroit.

If hating men could ever be justified, the conditions in South Africa would certainly be considered sufficient justification. Our overprivileged American college girls can scarcely imagine the scale of horrors perpetrated against women in South Africa, where the government’s corruption is exceeded only by the government’s pathetic incompetence.





 

Category: Feminism, South Africa

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

Posted on | May 21, 2015 | 97 Comments

Emma Sulkowicz lies about rape and Hillary Clinton lies about everything, but feminists insist that no woman ever lies about anything. Feminism is an ideology based on the belief that women have a monopoly on virtue. All women are intelligent, kind and honest, according to feminist theory, and all men are stupid, selfish and untrustworthy. Therefore, women have a right to everything, and men have no rights at all — except, perhaps, the right to remain silent.

Because SHUT UP!

The Women’s Liberation movement of the 1960s and ’70s was inspired by the idea of a Leninist “revolutionary vanguard” seizing power on behalf of women as a collective “oppressed class.” The Redstockings Manifesto of 1969 declared:

We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All power structures throughout history have been male-dominated and male-oriented. . . .
We regard our personal experience, and our feelings about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation. We cannot rely on existing ideologies as they are all products of male supremacist culture.

Prior to 1969, in other words, the “existing ideologies . . . of male supremacist culture” had kept women ignorant of their own “experience,” about which no male knows anything. Because women’s “personal exprience” and “feelings” are the only valid basis for feminist analysis, everything anyone claimed to “know” prior to 1969 was automatically invalidated because all “knowledge” prior to the feminist revolution was produced by a male-dominated “power structure.”

Nothing is true unless feminist leaders say it is true. You cannot believe anything a man says . . . What? A man said something?

Whatever else being a feminist might mean, it means that men can never speak without permission and, because men are stupid and dishonest, everything men say is wrong, anyway.

Therefore, SHUT UP!

Of all the “existing ideologies” which feminists set out to destroy, none was more dangerous than the idea that human beings are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” This is obviously false, according to Feminist Logic™ because:

  1. It was written by a man;
  2. It was written prior to 1969;
  3. There is no “Creator”;
    and
  4. Men have no rights.

Only women have rights, according to Feminist Logic™ and if any man says he has rights . . . What? A man said something?

SHUT UP!

 

The five characteristic modes of feminist discourse are:

  1. The anti-male lecture;
  2. The victimhood testimonial;
  3. The dishonest slogan;
  4. The slanderous accusation;
    and
  5. The angry rant against anyone who dares to disagree.

It is impossible to debate a feminist because disagreement is hate and yet, because of the so-called “First Amendment” — a male-supremacist ideology if ever there was one — some men still believe they should be allowed to speak and write things feminists don’t approve. These dangerous oppressors are called “Men’s Rights Activists” (MRAs) and, believe it or not, even in 2015 it is still legal for them to have their own website called “A Voice for Men.” This is obviously a misogynistic hate crime and, because I am so notorious for engaging in patriarchal heteronormativity, I was asked to contribute an article:

A movement organized with the death of innocents as one of its basic demands is not a movement that will be honest or ethical in the pursuit of its other demands. Feminism’s lies are therefore never accidental or random. Rather, deliberate deception is necessary to the movement’s success. Feminists lie because if they told the truth, their movement would be recognized for what it is, and would collapse in discredited failure.
Having spent more than a year researching feminist theory, I have exposed what can only be described as a bottomless abyss of perverse insanity. . . .

Read the whole thing at A Voice for Men. It’s not illegal, yet.

 

Category: Sex Trouble

Shorter Her Majesty:

Posted on | May 21, 2015 | 10 Comments

by Smitty

Category: Hillary Clinton
« go back — keep looking »