LIVE AT FIVE: 11.14.14

Ignore them. Deprive them of the attention they seek, and watch them “rage spiral” into a swamp of hysterical self-pity;
Objectify them with the male gaze. This is my favorite method, because it’s so fun. Happily married for 25 years, I’m immune to shame. It’s not as if I’m “hitting on” a radical feminist when I call her “sweetheart” or tell her how much I’ve always been fascinated by butch lesbians. Oh, please, honey, tell me more about how I’m oppressing you with my phallic supremacy.
Stand your ground. Speak truth to feminist power.

Option Three is even more dangerous than Option Two, because feminists consider it “hate” to disagree with them. A guy risks all kinds of repercussions for being branded a “misogynist,” but some guys don’t give a damn. Milo Yiannopoulos writes at Breitbart.com:

GamerGate is remarkable — and attracts the interest of people like me — because it represents perhaps the first time in the last decade or more that a significant incursion has been made in the culture wars against guilt-mongerers, nannies, authoritarians and far-Left agitators.
Industry after industry has toppled over, putting up no more of a fight than, say, France in 1940. Publishing, journalism, TV… all lie supine beneath the crowing, cackling, censorious battle-axes, male and female, of the third-wave feminist and social justice causes.
But not gamers. Lovers of video games, on seeing their colleagues unfairly hounded as misogynists, on watching journalists credulously reporting scandalous sexual assault claims just because a person was perceived to be “right-wing” and on seeing the games they love attacked and their very identities denied and ridiculed, have said: no. This will not stand. . . .
Because hard-core gaming is overwhelmingly male — don’t believe cherry-picked statistics that tell you women now make up 50 per cent of gamers; they don’t, in any meaningful sense — and because those men are often of a stubborn, obsessive, hyper-competitive and systematic bent, it has produced an army finally capable of launching offensives against the censors — using the censors’ own tactics, such as advertiser boycotts, against them.

(Via Instapundit.) The intelligentsia will give gamers no recognition for their success , but just showing the guts to fight feminism head-on was a heroic gesture that more people should emulate.

Category: Feminism

In The Mailbox, 11.13.14

Posted on | November 13, 2014 | 5 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
Michelle Malkin: Big Truthy Is Watching (Some Of) You…And Me
Doug Powers: Will Jonathan Gruber Return $400K To “Stupid” Voters Now That Third Video Has Surfaced?
Twitchy: “Spock Has Weighed In” – Leonard Nimoy Calls Gruber’s Statements “Illogical”

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Public Approval Of Democrats Falls To Record Lows After Midterm Elections
American Thinker: Progressivism’s Last Call
BLACKFIVE: Who Is Actually Part Of The Coalition?
Conservatives4Palin: Obamacare Put Together By “Elitists Who Don’t Really Understand The American People”, Says…Howard Dean?
Don Surber: The First 2016 Electoral College Map Looks Bad For Democrats
Jammie Wearing Fools: Goodbye, Dalai – Obama Throws Tibet Under The Bus As He Grovels Before Chicoms
Joe For America: Miss Him Yet? Veterans’ Day – Obama In China, George W. Bush Rockin’ America
JustOneMinute: I Believe It Is Cooling For Our Time
Pamela Geller: The Story Of The Majority Of Christians In Egypt
Protein Wisdom: Grubergate Part 2
Shot In The Dark: Either Do, Or Do Not
The Gateway Pundit: Black Gang Shoots 5-Year-Old White Girl Dead On Her Grandfather’s Lap – No National Outrage
The Jawa Report: Chicago Boasts Four Of Ten Most Dangerous Neighborhoods In America
The Lonely Conservative: Sticker Shock – Hundreds Of Thousands To Lose Health Plans
This Ain’t Hell: Blackhawk Crew Suspended For Halloween Candy Drop
Weasel Zippers: Obama Reportedly To Issue Flood Of Sweeping Executive Orders To Stop “Global Warming”
Megan McArdle: Want Communion? Pay Your Taxes

Shop Amazon – Thanksgiving Dinner and Desserts – Prepare the Perfect Feast

Category: Linkagery

Sex Trouble: Feminist Androgyny and the Polymorphous Perversity of ‘Queer’

Posted on | November 12, 2014 | 92 Comments

@KayleeSeranada‘s future homecoming reunion?

“Genderqueer, as it is, refers to a person who uses various gendered techniques from across partitions in order to either express themselves, prove a political point, or both.
“A genderqueer person can have any gender identity, but the mixture and way of combining of that, their gender performance/expression, and their bodily sex is queered to the point that the only way they can be definitely described is by saying that they’re ‘not cisheteronormative.'”
— Kaylee Jakubowski, “Too Queer for Your Binary: Everything You Need to Know and More About Non-Binary Identities,” EverydayFeminism.com, March 4

Have I ever mentioned that, while feminists are usually both crazy and wrong, sometimes the crazy ones — the man-hating radical lesbians — are surprisingly right? Indeed, in 21st-century feminism, it seems the only feminists who are ever really right about anything are “extremists” like Janice Raymond, Sheila Jeffreys, Cathy Brennan and Julie Bindel.

For example, Bindel was one of the first and most vocal feminists to raise the alarm about the Asian rape gangs whose prostitution rings targeted troubled girls from Britain’s white underclass. (See “The Rotherham Horror,” Aug. 27). Meanwhile, radicals like Raymond and Jeffreys have long criticized the trend toward the medicalization and commodification of womanhood, whereby our society treats female reproductive capacity as either a market commodity or a disease in need of treatment. Wealthy gay men buying eggs and hiring surrogate rent-a-wombs to make designer babies? The radicals are dubious. IVF, cloning and other “Frankenbaby” experiments? The radicals are skeptical.

Given a choice between two groups of crazy man-haters, my preference is always for the honest lesbian radicals over the intellectually bankrupt liars of so-called “pro-sex” liberal feminists.

It’s the difference between Nikita Kruschev and Alger Hiss.

OK, so now it is time to meet Kaylee Jakubowski, gender freak:

Kaylee Jakubowski is a Contributing Writer and Online Community Manager for Everyday Feminism. She is a trans, queer feminist who prides herself on being an educator on issues of queerness and gender. She is in her last semester at Winona State University in Minnesota pursuing a B.S. in Statistics with a minor in Women’s & Gender Studies. She is also in the process of writing a book that will formally organize and explain gender philosophies within the trans community.

Which is to say, “she” either (a) has a penis or (b) once had a penis, but it is probably a transphobic microaggression to point this out.

Where do they come from, these trans-weirdos professing their “issues of queerness and gender”? How exactly do the psychiatric woes of the freaky few create a “community” in need of organizers?

If you are a college-educated adult, think back to your undergraduate days. While I was partying my way through Jacksonville (Ala.) State University, Class of 1983, the student body included no small number of drunks, dopeheads and demented degenerates, none of whom were crazier than me. Yet the administration saw no need to incorporate our weird, decadent and/or illegal habits into the curriculum. We could not major in Tequila Studies, “Introduction to Hallucinogenic Mushrooms” and “Principles of Strip Poker” were not listed in the course catalog, and there was no campus Center for Banging Coeds.

Were we oppressed and marginalized by this lack of official recognition?

Oh, hell, no. We were have a blast!

Times change, and not for the better. Visitors to the home page of the Women’s, Gender, & Sexuality Studies Program at Winona State University are greeted by this impressive vision:

Let’s take a look at the program’s full-time faculty:

Dr. Tamara Berg, Director
Tamara graduated from Indiana University with a PhD in English Literature and a PhD minor in Women’s and Gender Studies. She has taught at WSU since 1997, and she has presented and published on service learning and women’s and gender studies issues. In her current faculty position, she directs the Women’s and Gender Studies Program at WSU. . . .
Dr. Linda d’Amico
Linda D’Amico is a cultural anthropologist interested in gender, ethnic, and environmental issues. She has been doing fieldwork in Ecuador and Mexico for over 30 years. Her recent book, Otavalan Women, Ethnicity and Globalization, focuses on transnational and gender issues within an indigenous community in Ecuador.
Dr. Mary Jo Klinker
Mary Jo Klinker graduated from Washington State University with a PhD in American Studies, where she taught in the Departments of Critical Culture, Gender, and Race Studies and English prior to teaching at Winona State University.
Engaging activism in the classroom is central to Mary Jo’s pedagogy and also fuels her research, which focuses on the relation of queer activism and theory to feminist antimilitarist organizing and anti-imperialist critique. Her research utilizes ethnographic and participatory action methodologies to examine the impacts of neoliberalism on contemporary social movements. Her teaching interests include LGBT/Queer politics and history, transnational feminism, contemporary masculinities, and postfeminist media studies.

Well, I guess the 8,254 undergraduate students at Winona State enjoy learning about the problems of indigenous Ecuadorans, queer activism and anti-imperialist critique, but why Minnesota taxpayers are footing the bill for this is an interesting question. Somehow I doubt Minnesota taxpayers have any idea what the hell is being taught at Winona State. Do they have a substantial population of Ecuadoran queers? Is there much “feminist antimilitarist organizing” in Winona? The local representative in the Minnesota legislature is Republican Steve Drazkowski, whose family are Catholic farmers. Are his constituents OK with the Women’s, Gender, & Sexuality Studies Program at Winona State University?

Hey, @SteveDraz @mngop, have y'all checked out the curriculum at Winona State lately? http://t.co/TzHmlNYCvQ Kinda wondering.

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) November 13, 2014

You see that Minnesota taxpayers have subsidized Kaylee Jakubowski’s “education” at Winona State, and “she” was kind enough to share with “her” 116 Twitter followers the helpful “reminder that Thanksgiving isn’t a celebration of peace — it’s one of genocide.”

A reminder that Thanksgiving isn't a celebration of peace – it's one of genocide – and 7 others you may not know. http://t.co/JjqbTsHh5J

— Kaylee Jakubowski (@KayleeSeranada) November 9, 2014

Well, happy holidays to you, too, Kaylee. And thanks also for sharing with your 116 Twitter followers this chart about gender:

You may click on the image to enlarge it, in which case you’ll notice how this Venn diagram portrays “Individuals who are ‘reproductively viable’,” “who exhibit the secondary sex characteristics typically associated with” male or female and who were “likely to have been classified . . . at birth” as such, as if these normal biological categories of human sexual dimorphism did not encompass the vast majority of people in Winona, Minnesota, or anywhere else. You can verify this with the Intersex Society of North America (ISNA):

“If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births.”

Which is to say, between 99.93% and 99.95% of humans are born without any genital defect. It’s possible that among the 8,000 or so students at Winona State, four or five were born with “ambiguous genitalia,” and maybe Kaylee is one of them. More likely, however, Kaylee is afflicted with a mental illness known as “gender dysphoria.” Fortunately, advances in Feminist Logic™ have enabled intellectuals to cure this disorder by reclassifying it as “genderqueer,” which is not a psychiatric illness, but a “community” in need of organizing.

Magical thinking — a belief that merely thinking about an event in the external world can cause it to occur. It is regarded as a form of regression to an early phase of development. It may . . . reach delusional proportions when the individual maintains a firm conviction about the belief, despite evidence to the contrary. It may be seen in schizophrenia. (Segen’s Medical Dictionary 2012)

There are many kinds of crazy in the world, you see, but random nutjobs can’t claim that their craziness deserves an entire department at the local state university, where the professors tell them it’s perfectly sane for a male to be called “her.” The lunatics aren’t just running the asylum, they’ve turned the asylum into an influential institution that tells sane people we are suffering from an irrational “phobia” because we insist on calling insanity by its proper name.

You need a Ph.D. in Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs to understand 21st-century feminist gender theory, and Kaylee is well on “her” way.

Facebook Found at http://t.co/GQWv1cgCJj pic.twitter.com/2OVo3ihDm0

— Kaylee Jakubowski (@KayleeSeranada) October 14, 2014

“Hey, wait a minute,” the reader wonders. “What about sex? What kind of sex do these genderqueers have?” So glad you asked!

Pansexuality 101: It’s More Than ‘Just Another Letter’
For some, the LGBPTTQQIIAA+ acronym (better known in some circles as “Queer alphabet soup”) can be intimidating in its all-inclusivity — “how on Earth am I supposed to not only memorize every identity in this nebula, but learn to respect them in my everyday life as well?”
Well worry not, kind feminist! . . .
So let’s explore one specific identity in this acronym today — pansexuality. . . .
This word “pansexual” was originally coined by Sigmund Freud within his theories on psychoanalysis in the early-to-mid 1900s, but was instead defined as how sexual energy and desire is the basis for all human interaction in life.
However the modern usage of “pansexual” has very little to do with Freud’s definition or his psycho-sexuality theories.
Instead, the modern usage (which I am exclusively referring to in this article) likely started gaining ground in the early-to-mid 1990s.
While it’s hard to pin the exact moment when its use began, it is almost certainly tied to the growing activism and awareness of non-binary and genderqueer people since pansexuality would not exist without these identities. . . .

So the non-binary genderqueer is pansexual. Please continue, Kaylee:

Like with any identity on the rainbow, individuals can (and will—and should!) define the identity in a way that’s more tailored to themselves. While the aforementioned definition is (technically) accurate, some pansexual people have a slightly different way of defining their identity.
For instance, the folks at Pansexuality is Perfect define it as a person who is “not limited or inhibited in sexual choice with regards to gender or activity.”
Other individuals have also described their identity by saying that “they just don’t focus on gender or sex identity, but focus more on the person instead.” . . .
While all of these ways of being pansexual are slightly different, they are all legitimate and they all help define pansexuality as the diverse, all-inclusive sexual identity that it is.
So someone who identifies as pansexual, no matter what their gender or sex is, can potentially be attracted to cis men, intersex men, trans men, agender people, genderqueer people or any other non-binary person, trans women, intersex women, cis women, or any other combination of sex, gender, and gender performance.

The adjectives “weird,” “desperate” and “creepy” could also apply, but there I go with the transphobic microaggressions again.

What Kaylee Jakubowski is actually describing, of course, is the infantile condition of polymorphous perversity:

Polymorphous perversity is a psychoanalytic concept proposing the human ability to gain sexual gratification outside socially normative sexual behaviors. Sigmund Freud used this term to describe the normal sexual disposition of humans from infancy to about age five. . . .
Freud theorized that humans are born with unfocused sexual libidinal drives, deriving sexual pleasure from any part of the body. The objects and modes of sexual satisfaction are multifarious, directed at every object that might provide pleasure. Polymorphous perverse sexuality continues from infancy through about age five . . . Only in subsequent developmental stages do children learn to constrain sexual drives to socially accepted norms, culminating in adult heterosexual behavior . . .
Freud taught that during this stage of undifferentiated impulse for sexual pleasure, incestuous and bisexual urges are normal. Lacking knowledge that certain modes of gratification are forbidden, the polymorphously perverse child seeks sexual gratification wherever it occurs.

Normal psychological development requires that the child learn to behave in accordance with “socially accepted norms,” but what happens when society so completely breaks down that there are no longer any “norms” and everything becomes acceptable?

[Canadian psychologist Hubert] Van Gjiseghem says what he and his colleagues mean by sexual orientation is a person’s inborn and unalterable sexual preference, irrespective of whether that preference is harmful to others or not. Currently, there is no significant longitudinal evidence that pedophiles can be made to not be attracted to children, and thus it can be defined as their orientation. And if pedophilia is a sexual orientation, that also means it’s futile to send pedophiles to prison in an effort to alter their attractions. . . .
Dr. James Cantor is the Head of Research in the Sexual Behaviours Clinic at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Canada’s largest mental health and teaching hospital. He’s also an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto’s school of medicine. He’s been working on better understanding pedophiles for about 12 years now using a variety of methods.

Common sense connects the dots: Winona State teaches that we must accept the pansexual genderqueer; meanwhile in Canada, a leading psychiatrist shrugs and says jailing child molesters is “futile.” This is what Matt Barber has called “Sexual Anarchy.”

Polymorphous perversity isn’t merely the New Normal, it’s federal law!

A federal judge [in August 2012] ordered state prison officials to provide a taxpayer-funded sex-reassignment surgery to a transgender inmate serving life in prison for murder.
U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf ruled in the case of Michelle Kosilek, who was born as a man but has received hormone treatments and lives as a woman in an all-male prison. Robert Kosilek was convicted of murder in the killing of his wife in 1990.

Kill your wife, go to prison and demand that taxpayers fund your sex-change surgery. Rape a child, and it’s “futile” to put you in jail. Professors teach weirdos that “the growing activism and awareness of non-binary and genderqueer people” is necessary to obtain social justice on behalf of oppressed victims who can only “be definitely described is by saying that they’re ‘not cisheteronormative.'”

Obviously, I didn’t do enough psilocybin back in the day. If I had, I might be crazy enough to understand why the only people protesting about this “genderqueer” business are radical lesbians.

Republicans in Minnesota? They don’t give a damn

Sanity is increasingly rare in the 21st century, but it’s not illegal, yet.

.@rsmccain RT @MeninistTweet: Lmfao pic.twitter.com/00b2p55p6T

— Bob Belvedere (@BobBelvedere) November 13, 2014

Category: Gays, Minnesota, Sex Trouble

LOL! Time Magazine Suggests Ban on Word ‘Feminist,’ Freakout Ensues

Posted on | November 12, 2014 | 55 Comments

The irony accumulates in layers here:

Time isn’t so sure about feminists. For its fourth annual “word banishment poll,” the magazine posted a list of suggested words that should maybe just go away . . . But right smack in the middle of the list is that word so many people are supposedly afraid of: “feminist.”
Time takes care to note that it’s not recommending doing away with feminism, the word or the movement, but rather with the label used to describe people who believe in gender equality. “You have nothing against feminism itself, but when did it become a thing that every celebrity had to state their position on whether this word applies to them, like some politician declaring a party?” Katy Steinmetz writes. “Let’s stick to the issues and quit throwing this label around like ticker tape at a Susan B. Anthony parade.”

Please, ladies, don’t let us interrupt your panic fits of hysteria.

TIME thinks the word "feminist" should be banned? We think reductive attacks on feminism should be banned. #justsayin http://t.co/3pJMAs4SyD

— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) November 12, 2014

A reminder from Amy Poehler for our friends at @TIME (Banning the word "feminist"? Seriously? http://t.co/LGd1cjzKm3) pic.twitter.com/YmOEt9iuT8

— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) November 12, 2014

Some days it’s like they’re trying to make my job easier. A bad day for the man-hating death cult is a good day for me.

First my wife made me a sandwich. Now @TIME wants to ban the word "feminist." http://t.co/exECuKlisP Heteronormative patriarchy? #WINNING

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) November 12, 2014

Category: Feminism

In The Mailbox: 11.12.14

Posted on | November 12, 2014 | 2 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
Doug Powers: Emission Impossible – Obama Reaches “Climate Change” Agreement With China
Twitchy: Vox Swooning Over Obama’s Climate Deal Given Dose Of Reality

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Narcissistic Obama “Willing To Blow His Party And His Country Up”
American Thinker: Divided Democrats On The Run
BLACKFIVE: My Address To A Middle School Class On Veterans’ Day 2014
Conservatives4Palin: Obamacare Architect – We Deliberately And Repeatedly Lied To Pretty Much Everyone In Order To Pass The Bill
Don Surber: Say Nyet To Net Neutrality
Jammie Wearing Fools: In A Stunning Development, WH Lowers Expectations On Obamacare Signups
Joe For America: Why I Thank Barack Hussein Obama
JustOneMinute: And Not Loretta Lynn Either
Pamela Geller: Archbishop Of Mosul Weeps For Flock
Protein Wisdom: The Tell-Tale Establishment Heart
Shot In The Dark: Trulbert! Part XXII – Two Fingers Of Resurrection
The Gateway Pundit: Radical Ferguson Protest Group Stockpiles Ammo, Posts Pictures Online
The Jawa Report: Meanwhile, In Obama’s New Libya
The Lonely Conservative: Report – Cuomo Had Secret Pact With NY Republicans
This Ain’t Hell: New Monument To Be Unveiled At Camp Pendleton
Weasel Zippers: Border Patrol Stripping Agents Of Their Rifles; Will Now Have To Share Guns
Megan McArdle: Simple Policies Win Elections

Shop Amazon – Countdown to Black Friday

Category: Linkagery

A Lesbian Theory of the Penis

Posted on | November 11, 2014 | 98 Comments

“Far from being ‘natural,’ phallic sexuality is a moral and political activity. . . . Men’s sexual behaviour is not caused by hormonal dictates. It is because the penis serves the ideological function of symbolizing ‘human’ status that it is so heavily charged with erotic energy, and not because it is driven by testosterone. Men must keep using it because they need to keep proving that they exist, that their ‘humanity’ is inextricably entwined with penis-possession; women must be constantly used by it to prove that men exist, that the sum total of a man is his penis. . . . Anything and everything must be subordinated to penile activity if men are to be what phallic ideology requires them to be.”
— Denise Thompson, Radical Feminism Today (2001)

“That some men rape provides a sufficient threat to keep all women in a constant state of intimidation, forever conscious of the knowledge that the biological tool must be held in awe, for it may turn to weapon with sudden swiftness born of harmful intent. . . . Rather than society’s aberrants or ‘spoilers of purity,’ men who commit rape have served in effect as front-line masculine shock troops, terrorist guerrillas in the longest sustained battle the world has ever known.”
— Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape (1975)

When did I first encounter the feminist claim that rape is not about sex? It was during the 1980s, I’m pretty sure, and I recall being both startled and amused by this well-known element of feminist theory. Startled, I say, because rape so obviously is about sex, and amused at the naivete of anyone who could believe otherwise.

In the nearly four decades since Susan Brownmiller’s Against Our Will elaborated the rape-as-violence motif, it has become increasingly difficult to criticize that ideological claim without being accused of being “pro-rape.” Men who love women — not “love” as a matter of sentimental expression, but “love” as a consistent behavior of care and support — are required to be silent in reaction to the dishonest and deliberate insult that Brownmiller and other radical cadre have promoted as feminism’s truth. As males, we are not allowed to dispute feminism’s authority to speak on behalf of our wives and mothers, sisters and daughters.

As males, we are members of a demonized group of enemies, and everything we might say in our own defense is illegitimate. So when Brownmiller speaks scornfully of “the biological tool” — i.e., the penis — as also a “weapon,” when she implies that we as males derive a benefit from rapists who serve as “front-line masculine shock troops, terrorist guerrillas” in a war of all men against all women, we cannot dispute this hatefully insulting anti-male doctrine without being Kafkatrapped, where our claim of innocence becomes proof of our guilt.

Honest, decent and intelligent people rightly perceive feminism as a limitless doctrine of fanatical hatred. There can be no compromise with this totalitarian belief, nor can there be any “moderate” feminism. The problem, in the 21st century, is that the majority of Americans are neither honest nor decent nor intelligent. Barack Obama never could have been elected president twice in a nation of honest, decent, intelligent citizens. Clearly, our government now operates on behalf of the dishonest, indecent and stupid majority, and the consequences of this political reality should frighten us.

Feminism’s success in gaining hegemonic authority within academia — which the fate of Larry Summers at Harvard conclusively proved — has made it impossible to challenge the truth-making authority of these anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideologues. Every “educated” person under 40 has lived his or her entire life in a world where feminism controls our nation’s intellectual discourse about sex, so that to oppose feminism is to be “anti-intellectual,” no matter how fluent your argument or how prestigious your credentials. Deprived of intellectual prestige and institutional influence, direct opposition to feminism becomes first unfashionable and then nearly impossible.

You could probably count on one hand the number of university professors in America who have uttered a peep of criticism against feminism during the past decade, and the small number of anti-feminist books is buried amid the avalanche of feminist titles that spew forth from academic presses as commodities for taxpayer-subsidized consumption as textbooks in Women’s Studies courses.

So here we have Denise Thompson, author of the 2001 book Radical Feminism Today, a self-described “independent scholar” (meaning she never got a permanent professorship) in Australia, who worked for several years at the New South Wales Social Policy Research Centre. Now 74, Thompson could more logically be viewed as representing radical feminism yesterday, except for the fact that radical feminism is now what it has always been and must always be. While studying dozens of works of feminist theory, I have observed how the tone and terminology shift slowly over the decades. What was first termed “male chauvism” became “sexism” and more recently “misogyny.” What Adrienne Rich called “compulsory heterosexuality” in 1980 is now more commonly called “heteronormativity.” Criticism of “sex roles” or the “sex-caste system” has been superceded by talk of “gender,” and there are always little-noticed skirmishes around the periphery of feminism. What we might call “old-fashioned” radical lesbianism (e.g., Mary Daly, Julia Penelope, Marilyn Frye, Janice Raymond, Sheila Jeffreys, et al.) has for more than two decades been waging a counterattack against the insurgency of “French feminism” and poststructualism as represented by proponents of “Queer Theory” like Judith Butler (Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, 1990).

Nevertheless, feminism remains what it has always been, and Denise Thompson’s Radical Feminism Today is a clear and thorough survey of this ideology. I ordered Radical Feminism Today from Amazon after seeing her books articles repeatedly cited in the notes and bibliographies of other books, including Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed, edited by Diane Bell and Renate Klein (1996) and Rethinking Sexuality by Diane Richardson (2000). I was particularly intrigued by an excerpt, in the latter title, of a 1991 book by Thompson, Reading Between the Lines: A Lesbian Feminist Critique of Feminist Accounts of Sexuality. Richardson cited Thompson while endeavoring to refute the longstanding criticism of “radical feminist analyses as biologically determinist/essentialist.”

Do I really need to wade into the eternal feminist disputes over “essentialism” here? No, it is not necessary to subject the reader to such internecine quibbling over theoretical details, except to say that in these fights among feminists, it is the radical lesbians who stand firm in defense of the idea that “female” is a matter of biology — a scientific fact involving anatomy and chromosomes — and in this particular matter, I find myself nodding in agreement.

Here I must remind readers of McCain’s Law of Feminism:

There are three kinds of feminism:

1. Feminism that is wrong;
2. Feminism that is crazy;
and
3. Feminism that is both wrong and crazy.

When in doubt, it’s usually Number Three.

Radical feminists are all crazy, but they are not always wrong. The radical arguments of crazy lesbians expose the intellectual bankruptcy of so-called “pro-sex” (i.e., liberal heterosexual) feminists.

If biological differences are irrelevant, after all, then there can be no basis for hating men and no way to identify “women” as an actual group suffering from oppression under male supremacy. Yet in order to avoid giving away the ballgame (because admitting that there are real differences between men and women undermines the androgynous egalitarian premise of feminism), radical feminists are required to tread a very narrow theoretical tightrope. With that in mind, here (from page 54 of Richardson’s Rethinking Sexuality) is the quoted excerpt of Thompson’s Reading Between the Lines:

To insist, as radical feminists do, that there are differences between the sexes, and that those ‘differences’ are the stuff of male domination, is not to appeal to ‘biology,’ nor to be pessimistic about the possibility of revolutionary change. In fact, it is to insist on that very possibility, else why would we bother? . . . Why is it not possible to argue both that female and male sexualities are different, or rather (to put it less essentialistically) that women and men have different interests, purposes, desires and needs in relation to sexuality, and that those differences are engendered by specific historical conditions, without positing any essential genesis or causality at all?

Thompson is splitting a fine red hair there, so to speak.

One gets the feeling that what Thompson wants to say is what all feminists really believe but cleverly refuse to say in so many words: Men and women are different — because men are inferior to women.

Anyone who believes feminism is about “equality” is so hopelessly stupid that I doubt they could read or comprehend this sentence.

Feminism isn’t about equality. Feminism is about hate. Read more

Category: Crime, Intellectuals, Sex Trouble

And Let All God’s Children Say ‘Amen’

Posted on | November 11, 2014 | 37 Comments

Jim Goad on @LenaDunham:

As the “brains” behind the inexplicably acclaimed HBO series Girls and the author of the #1 bestselling book Not That Kind of Girl, Dunham is hailed as a cultural pioneer for doing what has become as stale as a yeasty vagina — namely, she is a female who is congenitally incapable of writing about anything besides being a female. It’s the same way that black writers can only write about being black and gay writers can only write about rump-wrangling.
Since I was born on the wrong side of the tracks and then booted out of the house in my teens onto the tracks and forced to start running lest I get hit by a train, the fact that she was born into insane levels of wealth yet can’t shut the fuck up about being “oppressed” makes me wish that she would accidentally overdose on painkillers and wake up to find herself stewing in a cannibal’s pot somewhere in Swaziland where there is no iPhone coverage.

One hundred sixty-three words of pure truth there, Jim.

Category: Celebrities

« go back — keep looking »

Free Agents
SHAMELESS CAPITALISM

The Other McCain is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for this blog to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Triple-A Franchises
Blogroll

The Other McCain

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

LIVE AT FIVE: 11.14.14

Go, #GamerGate, Go!

In The Mailbox, 11.13.14

Sex Trouble: Feminist Androgyny and the Polymorphous Perversity of ‘Queer’

LOL! Time Magazine Suggests Ban on Word ‘Feminist,’ Freakout Ensues

In The Mailbox: 11.12.14

A Lesbian Theory of the Penis

And Let All God’s Children Say ‘Amen’

THE FULL METAL JACKET REACH-AROUND AWARD

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

Search

Recent Posts

Click here to manage your email subscription options.

RSS reader subscription

MEMEORANDUM

Recent Comments

THE AMAZING GONZO FEED

Major Leagues

ADVERTISEMENT

Axis of Fedorables

AMAZING SAVINGS NOW!

Archives

Free Agents

SHAMELESS CAPITALISM

Triple-A Franchises

Blogroll