Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Access to a Sexuality Autonomous from the Male’

Posted on | October 21, 2014 | 30 Comments

Left to right: Andrea Dworkin, Teresa de Lauretis, Diane Richardson

“We want to destroy sexism, that is, polar role definitions of male and female, man and woman. We want to destroy patriarchal power at its source, the family; in its most hideous form, the nation-state. We want to destroy the structure of culture as we know it, its art, its churches, its laws . . .
“We are born into a world in which sexual possibilities are narrowly circumscribed. . . . We are programmed by the culture as surely as rats are programmed to make the arduous way through the scientist’s maze, and that programming operates on every level of choice and action.”
— Andrea Dworkin, Woman Hating (1974)

“[T]he seductiveness of lesbianism for feminism lies in the former’s figuration of a female desiring subjectivity to which all women may accede . . [T]he erotic charge of a desire for women . . . unlike male desire, affirms and enhances the female-sexed subject and represents her possibility of access to a sexuality autonomous from the male. . . .
“Some women have ‘always’ been lesbians. Others, like myself, have ‘become’ one. As much a sociocultural construction as it is an effect of early childhood experiences, sexual identity is nether innate nor simply acquired, but dynamically (re)structured by forms of fantasy private and public, conscious and unconscious, which are culturally available and historically specific.”
— Teresa de Lauretis, Lesbian Sexuality and Perverse Desire (1994)

“[C]entral to radical feminist perspectives is the belief that if sexuality is socially constructed then it can be reconstructed in new and different ways. . . .
“[H]eterosexuality is socially instituted and maintained, creating the prescriptions and the conditions in which women experience sexual relations.”
— Diane Richardson, in Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed, edited by Diane Bell and Renate Klein (1996)

Most people speak of “sexual equality” as if that phrase can mean something other than what Andrea Dworkin said it meant, i.e., the destruction of our culture, including family and religion.

The abolition of “role definitions of male and female, man and woman” is necessary to “destroy sexism,” Dworkin explained 40 years ago, because “sexual possibilities are narrowly circumscribed,” as people are “programmed by culture” according to those roles. What Dworkin advocated for, what she offered as the antonym of “sexism,” is androgyny — a social condition in which sex roles do not exist, where male and female are essentially identical and interchangeable.

Sexual equality = androgyny.

It is actually that simple, you see, and when people call themselves “feminists” — when they declare themselves advocates for “sexually equality” — the question is, do they realize what this entails? Would they want to live in the world that would result if their egalitarian principles were enacted? Ideas Have Consequences, as Richard Weaver explained, and what are the consequences of feminism’s ideas?

Well, #GamerGate, among other contemporary phenomena. Last month, Robert Mariani wrote about the Left’s “intellectual bullying”:

The tactic of dishonestly re-framing a viewpoint into something outrageous in an attempt to discredit those who hold the viewpoint is known as intellectual bullying. . . .
With enough voices dishonestly insisting that someone holds all those beliefs that everybody hates, the person in question will either be shamed into silence or suffer from character assassination. . . .
A lot of of the tactics of the anti-GamerGate intellectual bullying campaign were famously codified in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

Read the whole thing. You see how feminists have made the accusation of “sexism” one of “those beliefs that everybody hates,” so the accusation that someone is “sexist” is an attempt to discredit them — to engage in character assassination in an attempt to effectively silence them — and no one even bothers to explain what “sexism” means or why it is so bad. This is remarkable, when you think about it.

What does “sexism” mean? It means to hold the opinion that men and women are different, that “masculine” and “feminine” describe natural qualities, and that these innate differences have social significance.

“Sexism” does not mean “says rude things to women.” Many sexists are extraordinarily courteous and mild-mannered. In fact, many sexists are female because — hello! — contrary to what feminists would have you think, men do not have a monopoly on sexism.

Sexism is not a synonym for “male chauvinism,” a term popular about 40 years ago that now sounds quaintly old-fashioned. Male chauvinism is (or was) a belief in the general superiority of men, particularly in matters of intellect and temperament. There are very few educated men nowadays who are (or who will admit to being) male chauvinists, but I think sexists like me are far more common than most intellectuals realize and (to repeat) many women are also sexist, i.e., they believe in natural differences between men and women.

My wife, for example, is a sexist. She was raised in a family with three bothers and three sisters, and she is the mother of two girls and four boys and she knows from direct experience that boys and girls are different. They simply are born different, naturally.

Not all males are equally masculine and not all girls are equally feminine, but in general boys are masculine and girls are feminine.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

That boys and girls are different does not mean that one sex is superior to the other, but yet their differences actually matter. To try to wish away these differences, or to create political, legal and social incentives to impose an artificial equality on the sexes, well . . .

“Believe me, sir, those who attempt to level never equalise. In all societies, consisting of various descriptions of citizens, some description must be uppermost. The levellers therefore only change and pervert the natural order of things; they load the edifice of society, by setting up in the air what the solidity of the structure requires to be on the ground.”
— Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France

Political and legal coercion — including the use of lawsuits to punish corporations and public institutions that do not hire or promote women in sufficient numbers to satisfy feminists — can indeed bring about greater equality between men and women, but these measures “load the edifice of society,” as Burke said. This artificial equality, imposed by quotas and other coercive incentives, distorts the social structure in ways that produce results that are in many ways ironic without necessarily being unpredictable.

A sort of Newtonian principle of equal-and-opposite reactions can be observed. Under a regime of coercive equality, many men will actually become more rudely hostile to women — more “sexist” in the vulgar usage of that term — and many women will actually be much less happy than they were when women were less “equal.” And yet, because intellectuals are committed to the abstract ideal of equality, these “smart” people will not be able to figure out that it is the pursuit their cherished ideal that is causing the harms they denounce.

Instead, when men react badly and women are less happy as the result of greater equality, these harms will be blamed on “sexism,” so the answer to any new problem is always the same: More equality!

People forget where feminism began. They forget (or never bothered to learn) what feminists advocated when the Women’s Liberation movement started in the late 1960s. How many people, when confronted with an angry feminist, ever bother to ask her whether she agrees with Andrea Dworkin? Trapped in the present tense — where only the latest outrage is discussed — we let feminists get away with a lack of ideological clarity. Do you, ma’am, want to destroy the family, destroy religion, destroy culture, destroy the nation-state?

“Well, that’s not fair! Dworkin was a radical extremist!”

Yes, but this 1974 book of Dworkin’s I’ve quoted bears cover blurbs by Audre L0rde, Kate Millett and Gloria Steinem. Does our contemporary feminist — while denouncing Dworkin as an extremist — also want to repudiate these other feminists who praised Dworkin? I doubt very much that any 21st-century feminist would denounce Audre Lorde (who has been beatified by the Women’s Studies cathedral), yet Audre Lorde called Dworkin’s Woman Hating “much needed and long overdue.” So, does the 21st-century feminist wish to accuse Audre Lorde of bad judgment or does she want to attempt to defend Dworkin’s book that Audre Lorde praised?

Hint: Woman Hating is indefensible.

Feminists are never challenged that way. Why? By calling themselves “feminist,” they have declared their allegiance to a political ideology that has a canon of books outlining ideas that are taught at universities by professors of Women’s Studies, and this ideology — including its extremist expressions by radicals like Dworkin — is what feminists are enforcing when they accuse the videogame industry of “misogyny.” So why aren’t these dots connected? Why aren’t these latter-day heiresses of Dworkin’s legacy asked if they agree, inter alia, that “sexuality is socially constructed [and] can be reconstructed in new and different ways,” as Professor Diane Richardson explained?

Isn’t that relevant? After all, what does Amanda Marcotte mean when she declares that #GamerGate “is a full-blown reactionary movement aimed at preserving male dominance”?

[Deadspin’s Kyle] Wagner explained that #GamerGate is driven by angry young white men who are threatened by demands that gaming be inclusive of women, people of color, and LGBTQ people, and who are lashing out in an attempt to keep the white male dominance they enjoy. . . .
[I]t’s quickly shaping up to be a potent way for conservatives to reach out to previously apolitical young men and turn them into devoted, hardened misogynists.

Accusations of “all those beliefs that everybody hates,” you see. But what does Marcotte mean by “male dominance”? What is a “hardened misogynist”? These terms are never defined. They are merely epithets hurled at demonized enemies. Also, while we’re at it, what are these “demands that gaming be inclusive”? How are these “demands” formulated? Who is “threatened” and how?

Isn’t it a fact that these demands are part of a larger effort, as Dworkin said, to “destroy the structure of culture as we know it”? And aren’t these demands also an attempt to shake down a multibillion-dollar industry, to get some of that money into the hands of self-described “Social Justice Warriors,” and to change the (hugely successful market-driven) gaming culture into something acceptable to the tastes and ideology of the arbiters of political correctness?

Feminist authors whose books surround my desk declare that “male dominance,” to use Marcotte’s phrase for what others call “male supremacy” or “patriarchy,” is part of the “heterosexual matrix” of the “sex/gender binary,” as Judith Butler called it. Nearly all of these feminist theorists are lesbians, and they insist that “compulsory heterosexuality” (Adrienne Rich) is integral to women’s “oppression” under patriarchy — to which sexists like me answer, “So?”

We need not argue that radical feminists are wrong about these connections — between sex roles, male supremacy and heterosexuality — in order to say that they are wrong to attack these (necessary and natural) elements of our civilization. Normal women are heterosexual and feminine, and these heterosexual feminine women prefer masculine men. Normal women prefer also that their male mates be able to provide a sufficient income to support the women (as wives) and their children (procreation being the biological purpose of sexual dimorphism in mammals). So here we having the hugely lucrative videogame industry, where reportedly males are 78% of the employees, under attack by feminists: MISOGYNY!

Is this targeting of the allegedly misogynist videogame industry coincidental? Is there any male-dominated institution in our society which has not been attacked by feminists in this way?

The attack on “male domination” — the attempt to lower the social and economic status of men — will have the effect of making it more difficult for women to find husbands and making it more likely that marriages will end in divorce. Women’s happiness will be diminished, and when these women complain about the dissatisfactions of their lives, feminists will say . . . MORE EQUALITY!

Feminists are quite specific about what they don’t like about videogames. They complain that depictions of female characters are examples of heteronormativity and the male gaze, i.e., the female characters are conventionally feminine and sexually attractive.

Christina Hoff Sommers asked an obvious question: “If playing violent videogames doesn’t make people violent, how does playing sexist videogames make people sexist?” But wait! What feminists are saying about videogames is that cultural representations produce in real life what they depict? Doesn’t this sound like every social conservative criticism of pop culture, ever? I mean, remember when jazz music turned us all into degenerate heroin-addicted sensualists? More recently, gangsta rap turned us all into ghetto thugs.

So now, according to feminists, playing videogames are making us all misogynists? Isn’t this tantamount to an admission by feminists that Disney’s Frozen is a plot to turn our daughters into lesbians?

Two can play this Culture War game, you see.

How did boys ever learn to become violent misogynists before we had videogames to teach them? #GamerGate

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 21, 2014

My teenage sons were going to be meterosexual Obama voters. Then they started playing videogames. Now they're misogynists. #GamerGate

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 21, 2014

Someday, we'll tell our grandkids about the Golden Age of Sexual Equality that ended when the videogame industry started. #GamerGate

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 21, 2014

The trend in our culture and society desired by the intelligentsia is toward more “equality” and more acceptance of homosexuality, and we are not supposed to notice now closely this reflects the analysis provided by feminist gender theory, where women are oppressed because they’re heterosexual, and vice-versa. If, as feminists insist, male supremacy depends on the “heterosexual matrix,” then what is the opposite value system? The derogation of men, the deliberate stigmatization of masculinity and especially the demonization of male sexuality. Notice how, in the quote above, Teresa de Lauretis says that lesbian “desire for women . . . unlike male desire, affirms and enhances” women, by offering them “a sexuality autonomous from the male.”

In other words, lesbian supremacy — men bad, lesbians good.

Professor De Lauretis is a renowned feminist credited with coining the term “queer theory,” and I am waiting for Amanda Marcotte to denounce her — but of course, she won’t. You see my point?

The lesbian feminists are constantly derogating males and heterosexuality, while a heterosexual feminists like Marcotte is ranting about “white male dominance,” despite the fact that (a) Marcotte is white and (b) her boyfriend is a white male, so that in effect, Marcotte is denouncing herself and her own lifestyle. Yet never once is Amanda Marcotte required to address the whole argument — i.e., that male sexuality is inherently oppressive and lesbianism is therefore the key to women’s liberation — which has been the underlying message of feminist ideology for 40 years!

“Hey, Amanda, what do you think about Teresa de Lauretis? Why are you still tolerating your white male boyfriend’s oppression?”

These questions are never answered because they are never asked, just like nobody asks a feminist, “What do you mean by ‘sexist'”? Does “sexism” (or “misogyny,” as a synonym) actually mean what Andrea Dworkin said it meant? That is to say, are the basic “role divisions” of male/masculine and female/feminine your target? What is wrong with these roles? Are women oppressed by their femininity? Is male heterosexual desire for women inherently offensive and degrading? Does Amanda Marcotte want to “destroy patriarchal power at its source, the family”? And if not, why not?

Feminism is a journey to lesbianism, I keep saying, because it’s true. If “sexual equality” means androgyny (which it does), and if male sexuality is the source of women’s oppression (as all feminists say it is), then why on earth would any feminist be heterosexual? In the feminist future where “male domination” has been eliminated and sex roles have been abolished, wouldn’t all women in this androgynous future society prefer the (superior) female partner to one of those pathetic XY chromosome carriers, the males?

After five decades of activism, feminists are still losing their war on human nature (97.7% of Americans are heterosexual). What feminists have accomplished is to make more women as unhappy as feminists are. Making us all equally miserable is the real goal.

Category: Sex Trouble

#WendyDavisWontSay If She Reads TheOtherMcCain, But The Pelosi-Esque Visage Is A Probable ‘No’

Posted on | October 20, 2014 | 8 Comments

by Smitty

#WendyDavisWontSay how she got over Macho Grande, when all others are stymied.

— 'Teahadist' h/t@DMat (@smitty_one_each) October 20, 2014

#WendyDavisWontSay whether or not it's true that she went noodling, and a catfish bit her and died.

— 'Teahadist' h/t@DMat (@smitty_one_each) October 20, 2014

#WendyDavisWontSay whether or not she'd give Al Gore a massage, if that's what it took to win the election.

— 'Teahadist' h/t@DMat (@smitty_one_each) October 20, 2014

#WendyDavisWontSay whether she at first thought ebola was waving a smart phone at pins in an alley.

— 'Teahadist' h/t@DMat (@smitty_one_each) October 20, 2014

#wendydaviswontsay what she did with Joan Walsh's brain. Granted, if it were pot, the brain wouldn't trigger an arrest in most jurisdictions

— 'Teahadist' h/t@DMat (@smitty_one_each) October 20, 2014

Category: Democrats, humor

Store Clerk Shoots Robber

Posted on | October 20, 2014 | 17 Comments

Rome, Georgia:

An attempted armed robbery suspect who was shot by a Maple Street store clerk remained hospitalized at a Chattanooga hospital late Sunday, according to Rome police officials.
Micah Wood, 24, of Rome — listed as a suspect in the early morning robbery attempt at the One Stop Shop, 2107A Maple St. — was airlifted to Erlanger hospital, according to Rome police authorities. His condition remained unknown late Sunday.
Two customers who inside the store — Robert Grant Stinson, 43, and Tina Louise Davenport, 51, both of Rome — were also injured and taken to Floyd Medical Center.
Stinson was listed in satisfactory condition late Sunday, while Davenport had been treated and released from the hospital, FMC Public Relations Specialist Bill Fortenberry said.
Meanwhile, investigators said they are still looking for a second suspect.
According to multiple Rome police reports:
Officers were called to the scene shortly before 2 a.m. by store clerk Gregory Ticas, who said someone had been shot. . . .
Ticas told officers that two black men wearing masks had walked into the store. One of them held up the customers in the back at the game machines and the other pointed a gun at Ticas and demanded money.
Ticas gave him money but was unable to comply with the next order, to open the safe.
“He stated the male told him if he did not get the safe open he was going to die,” the report said.
Ticas managed to get a gun from the counter and began to fire, striking one of the men police later identified as Wood.
While one of the officers was checking the extent of Davenport’s injuries, a call came on the radio about a man with a gunshot wound on East 20th Street near the CVS and Rite Aid stores.
The officer ran over to find Wood — who appeared to be shot in the head — lying on the pavement, covered in blood and wearing only boxer shorts and a large gold watch.
Wood was incoherent and it was unclear what had happened to his clothing. The description of his watch, however, made him a suspect.
Rome police Lt. Gary Clayton said nothing was taken from the store and that the clerk was not hurt.
“The suspects had taken the money, but dropped it in the store during the shootout,” he said.
Reports described the other man as a shorter black man weighing approximately 200 to 250 pounds.

it is not clear from the report whether the two wounded customers were shot by the robbers or were wounded by stray shots fired by the clerk. What is clear is that if the clerk had not had a weapon, the robbers might have killed him and all the customers. My advice to law-abiding citizens is, arm yourselves. My advice to criminals is, stay the hell away from Rome, Georgia. People there will shoot your ass.

<br />

Category: Crime

LIVE AT FIVE: 10.20.14

Posted on | October 20, 2014 | Comments Off on LIVE AT FIVE: 10.20.14

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Better late than never…

TOP NEWS
New Pivot In Ebola Protocol

Dr. Fauci calls for medical personnel working with Ebola patients to have no exposed skin

Also, SecDef Hagel orders formation of multiservice team to assist civilian medics
Did CDC laxity on one infection help spread another?
Ebola contacts in US may number up to 300

US Finally Airdrops Weapons, Ammo To Kurds Defending Kobani
Turks are gonna be pissed

Activists Retake Streets In Hong Kong
Clashes reported with police in the Mong Kok district

POLITICS
DNC Head Claims Dems Will Hold The Senate

Whatever she’s smoking, I don’t want any

Wasserman-Schultz claims Obama and the Democrats “have America’s back”

Suspected Nazi War Criminals Expelled From US Still Collecting Social Security

Maryland Delaying Legal Effort To Recoup $55 Million Wasted On Obamacare Website

Ted Cruz Rips Ron Klain As “Political Operator”

Fauxcahontas Campaigns For Bruce Braley In Iowa

Supremes Allow Texas To Enforce New Voter ID Law

Early Voting Totals Mirror 2010

Democrats Pull Back In Kentucky As Grimes Catches Flak From The Left

Detroit Bankruptcy Takes Center Stage In Tight Michigan Governor Race

Martha Coakley Struggles To Hold Lead In Massachusetts

Obama Makes Rare Campaign Appearance; People Leave Early

GOP Brass Stand Behind DeMaio Despite Sexual Harassment Claims

Brownback, Roberts Facing Tough Re-Election Fight In Deep Red Kansas

THE ECONOMY, STUPID
Asian Crude Stagnant On Weak Demand, Glut On Market: WTI $83.22, Brent $86.33
Japan Stocks Lead Sharp Asian Rebound
Boston Fed’s Rosengren: Don’t Expect More QE
Pay Raises Rarer Despite Strong US Hiring
Investor Group Aims To buy Adidas’ Reebok Unit
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Plan To Ease Lending
IBM Paying Globalfoundries $1.5 Billion To Take Chip Unit Off Their Hands
Snapchat Plunges Into Advertisements
Microsoft Soon To Unveil A Wearable
Apple Pulls All Bose Products From Its Online Store
Kickstarter Suspends Anonabox Campaign
“HALO: The Master Chief Collection” Is Mythic Value

SPORTS
Brad Keselowski Wins At Talladega

“I know there’s probably some people out there that aren’t really happy I won.”

Stays alive in the hunt for the NASCAR championship

Kaepernick Struggles As 49ers Get Thumped By Broncos, 49-17

Alabama Crushes Aggies 59-0 #rolltide

Andersen Gets First Shutout As Ducks Blank Blues

#9 Oregon Whips Huskies 45-20

Cowboys Beat Sagging Giants 31-21

Flames Trounce Hapless Jets 4-1

Colt McCoy Steps Up, Leads Redskins To Victory

Sens Edge Blue Jackets 3-2

Bruins Blank Sabres 4-0

Nationals Top 5 Offseason Storylines

FAMOUS FOR BEING FAMOUS
Will Jena Malone Be Playing A Female Robin In “Batman Vs. Superman”?

From “The Hunger Games” to “Batman vs. Superman”?

You know, if the presence of Carrie Kelley as Robin means they’re basing this on Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns, I might actually be willing to see this in a theater.

“Kingdom” Picked Up For 20 More Episodes By DirecTV

“Buffy” Star Nicholas Brendon Arrested In Boise

Amal Clooney Most Powerful Woman In London?

Shia LaBeouf Blames Method Acting For His Recent Troubles

Evan Rachel Wood Dating Katherine Moennig

No Prosecution For Child Molester Stephen Collins

Bono Not Wearing Shades Inside To Be A Douche – He Has Glaucoma

FOREIGNERS
BJP Sweeps Haryana, Maharashtra
Widodo Inaugurated As Indonesian President
Japan’s Justice, Trade Ministers Resign Amid Scandals
Hong Kong’s C.Y. Leung Claims “External Forces” Involved In Protests
Indian Diesel Prices Deregulated As Modi’s Government Fuels Reform
Swedish Military Sights Russian Sub Off Stockholm Coast
Koreas Trade Gunfire Across The DMZ Amid Continuing Tensions
Downing Street Rejects Barroso’s Criticism
Spanish Ebola Nurse Appears Clear Of Disease
Israeli Hospital Treats Daughter Of Gaza Hamas Leader
Catalans Rally In Barcelona, Call For Early Elections
Australia Sending Special Forces Troops To Iraq
Polls Show Opposition With Slight Lead In Brazilian Runoff Election

BLOGS & STUFF
First Street Journal: In The End, Only Results Matter, And The Results Of Liberal Economics Are Failure
The Quinton Report: Anthony Brown’s Gaffe – Refers To “Frederickstown” Not Frederick
American Power: Where Is The Anti-War Movement?
American Thinker: America In Crisis – Sorry, Blacks, You Can’t Sit This Out
BLACKFIVE: Why The Guard And Reserve? Why Now?
Conservatives4Palin: The Virginia Senate Race Gets Interesting
Don Surber: Why Believe The NAACP?
Jammie Wearing Fools: Obama’s Ebola Czar A Big Fan Of Crackpot Lefty Bloggers, Lena Dunham, And Other Human Debris
Joe For America: Mexico Schools Obama On Handling Ebola
JustOneMinute: Mickey Kaus Scores Again
Pamela Geller: 2007 Video On Savage Muslim Rape Gangs Not Used Amid Fears Of Appearing Racist
Protein Wisdom: It’s Come To This – Government Tells Christian Ministers To Perform Same-Sex Marriages Or Face Fines, Jail
Shot In The Dark: Trulbert! Part XVI – Between Heaven And Richfield
STUMP: Illinois Election Shenanigans – WTF Is Going On?
The Gateway Pundit: 101st Airborne Not Getting Full Protective Gear For Ebola Mission In Africa
The Jawa Report: Sandcrawler PSA – How And Why Jawas Pray
The Lonely Conservative: Feds Spending Millions Of Dollars On “Truthy”, A Project Studying “Social Pollution” On Social Media
This Ain’t Hell: Utah Guard Probes Risque Video
Weasel Zippers: Teachers In Wisconsin Leaving Union In Droves
Megan McArdle: Ebola’s Greatest Threat – A Third World Pandemic

Shop Amazon – Halloween Decor Under $50

Category: Live at Five

The Insufficient Man-Hating of ‘Frozen’

Posted on | October 20, 2014 | 85 Comments

Dani Colman (@DirectorDaniC) is both a feminist and a good writer, a rare combination in an age when the repetition of gender-theory jargon and a hatred of Republicans are considered sufficient qualifications for any woman to be hailed as the Next Great Feminist Intellectual. While I was attempting to find another article, I instead stumbled onto Ms. Colman’s fascinating Medium.com essay, “The problem with false feminism (or why ‘Frozen’ left me cold).”

Now, in case you missed all the hooplah over Frozen, it’s the feminist propaganda cartoon that can make the nipples of a Bryn Mawr College Women’s Studies major become erect with ideological arousal. To read the orgasmic feminist praise for Frozen, you would imagine that the script was written by Katharine MacKinnon, based on a novel by Andrea Dworkin. The enthusiastic encomiums that feminists heaped on Frozen convinced me that Karin Martin and Emily Kazyak must have been hired as script consultants (see “Feminists Worry That Disney Movies Are Making Girls Heterosexual” if you didn’t get that joke). At last, it seemed, Disney had made a film in which patriarchal oppression and the male gaze had been replaced with androgynous egalitarianism.

What gay girls can get out of “Frozen”
— AfferEllen.com

A Queer Perspective on Disney’s Frozen
— Daily Kos

8 Ways Frozen Is
Disney’s Gayest Animated Film Yet
— Eric Diaz

When a conservative Mormon grandmother criticized Frozen as an example of “the gay agenda,” she was widely mocked, but even those who mocked her agreed: Frozen is gayer than the first four rows at a Melissa Etheridge concert. How gay is it? It’s gayer than a Bette Midler Fan Club fundraiser for the Tammy Baldwin re-election campaign.

Frozen‘s metaphysical gayness is not an opinion, but an objective fact. The difference between the conservative Mormon grandmother’s view of Frozen and the LGBT-friendly media’s interpretation of the film was simply a matter of whether you are (a) a liberal who thinks a gay/feminist propaganda cartoon for kiddies is a good thing or (b) a sane normal person who thinks this is a bad thing.

Yet Frozen wasn’t feminist enough for Dani Colman:

I have made absolutely no secret of how much I disliked Disney’s Frozen. I hated it. I spent most of the movie alternately facepalming, groaning, and checking my watch . . .
It was, therefore, a huge surprise to me just how many people loved Frozen. Not just loved, but slavered over it. Critics have been downright competitive in their effusiveness, calling it “the best Disney film since The Lion King”, and “a new Disney classic”. Bloggers and reviewers alike are lauding it as “feminist”, “revolutionary”, “subversive” and a hundred other buzzwords that make it sound as though Frozen has done for female characters what Brokeback Mountain did for gay cowboys. And after reading glowing review after glowing review, taking careful assessment of all the points made, and some very deep navel-gazing about my own thoughts on the subject, I find one question persists:
Were we even watching the same film?

You can read the whole thing, but notice what Colman says, just before listing a scoreboard of romantic endings in Disney films:

I’m now counting out every feature with a love story that ends in a happily ever after. A traditional, heterosexual happily ever after, I should qualify, though it’s not like Disney is likely to actually attempt a same-sex love story any time soon. Or ever. [Emphasis added]

And later:

I’ve heard the theory that Elsa’s “Let it Go” is subtly intended as a coming-out anthem of sorts, but there’s no confirmation from Disney of that, so I’m inclined to believe it’s one of those convenient Disney moments the LGBT community can adopt with pride whether Disney wants them to or not (something of which I wholeheartedly approve, by the way). And yes, Elsa doesn’t end up with a man of her own . . . but if not ending the film with a heterosexual romantic interest is supposed to automatically out Elsa as a lesbian, then frankly Disney’s just doing it wrong.

These are just short excerpts from a long essay — please, don’t think I’m trying to distort her meaning by selective quotation — but after reading the whole thing, I was like, “What exactly is she saying here?” While acknowledging the obvious significance of the heroine’s manlessness, Colman seemed to be expressing resentment that Frozen‘s message was neither gay enough nor feminist enough.

As I say, Colman is a good writer, and she obviously put a huge amount of work into her analysis of Frozen, justifying her hatred of it. However, she cannot hate Frozen more than I hated American Beauty (except for a certain scene with Thora Birch, which I enjoyed in a very bad way) but I didn’t feel the need to rant endlessly against American Beauty. It is sufficient condemnation to say that American Beauty is an anti-bourgeois/anti-suburban movie; anyone who sees it and doesn’t recognize the movie’s core message — the normal life of a normal middle-class family is an unworthy life — just isn’t paying attention.

If I do not need more than a few sentences to explain why an evil movie is evil, what’s up with Colman’s multi-thousand-word reaction to Frozen? It seems that she felt feminists were too happy that it cleared a minimum threshold, as she concludes:

I don’t want Frozen to be good enough. I’ve spent more than enough words explaining why I think it spits in the face of what we should be thinking of as feminism, and how, like a schoolyard bully, it ennobles itself by mocking its predecessors. I don’t want to think that, when I perhaps have daughters some day, this is what I will be able to take them to see; still less do I want to think that the older, more progressive features will have been deemed irrelevant in favour of the new, Frozen-style model. I applaud the attempt to broaden the range of multi-faceted female characters in animation; I appreciate the intent of having two women in prominent roles instead of the usual one, but I want to see better. And the more effusive praise we heap on a movie that shouldn’t even be good enough, the less likely it is that better will ever happen.

Of Ms. Colman’s hypothetical future motherhood — “when I perhaps have daughters some day” — I’d wager $20 against that “perhaps.”

Like so many other feminists, Ms. Colman is eager to tell us what is appropriate for our children, and to denounce us for disagreeing, but she considers her time and talents far too precious to be squandered in the ordinary business of parenthood. The feminist contempt for motherhood is a variation on how progressive intellectuals, who have careers, hold a special contempt for those of us who merely have jobs.

The reason progressives are always proclaiming their devotion to “workers” is because progressives consider people who work actual jobs to be in need of the intelligentsia’s charitable sympathy. Feminists love to talk about “working mothers,” but feminists are generally neither workers nor mothers. It takes a Ph.D., faculty tenure and a six-figure salary to be able to advocate the interests of those grubby moms who are too dumb to know what’s good for them.

Once you see through the dishonest hypocrisy of the progressive intellectual’s pose, you consider their pity an insult to your dignity. What the liberal is saying to the (allegedly) oppressed is, “Oh, you poor thing! You need my help, because you can’t help yourself.”

To which anyone with a scintilla of self-respect must answer: “Fuck you. Hate me all you want, you arrogant snob, but I need no pity.”

Pitying a person is not the same as helping a person, and the liberal’s problem is that he doesn’t know why the difference matters. They would rather do “Fondue Sets for Namibia” — promoting some kind of do-gooder project to “help” a distant person whom they feel deserving of their liberal pity — than to actually do anything to help nearby people who are less exotically “oppressed.” If your car breaks down on the freeway three miles from the nearest exit, you’ll walk the entire distance, both ways, before a liberal stops to help. Liberals are without exception the most thoroughly selfish people on the planet.

#YesAllWomen are treated like they're broken if they don't want to have kids.

— Dani Colman (@DirectorDaniC) May 26, 2014

Which is to say, no, I don’t expect Dani Colman ever to take time away from her professional career to change diapers and read bedtime stories. She’s too busy explaining to the world “what we should be thinking of as feminism,” and I guess I was too dumb to figure out what she meant. Having spent a few months in a deep study of feminist theory (e.g., Natasha Distiller’s 2011 book Fixing Gender: Lesbian Mothers and the Oedipus Complex), obviously I know what I think of as feminism, but is it what I should be thinking?

So I poked Dani Colman on Twitter, hoping to elicit from her a clarification. And, wow, did she ever give me a clarification:

Let’s get this straight (pun so very much intended)
@rsmccain
I’m going to preface this by pointing out that you are a vocal, self-identified conservative, and I am a vocal, self-identified liberal, so we are going to disagree on certain key points without much chance of ever seeing eye-to-eye. So I’m not going to try to convince you of anything, and I’d appreciate your doing me the same courtesy.
With that said, please don’t patronise me. I’m a professional writer, a trained storyteller and a rather competent linguist, so please take me at my word when I say I’m quite aware of the subtext of my work, and I don’t appreciate the implication that I don’t actually know what I wrote.
So your issue seems to be that, by using the word “heterosexual” twice in a particular context, I am “problematising hereosexuality”. Frankly I’m not sure whether to respond academically, or from the standpoint of being a straight woman with a very satisfying sex life, but since I’ve written about my own sexuality in other forums I’ll stick to the academic.
Disney has a long history not of “problematising” homosexuality, but of effectively effacing it. This comes from a long-ago decision by Walt himself to appeal to the broadest possible demographic, and if you want to know more about that you can read it on my tumblr. At the time it was a perfectly rational decision and one that certainly played a role in Disney’s early near-monopoly on the family entertainment market, but times have most certainly changed. Homosexuality is increasingly de-stigmatised, and positive adult non-heterosexual role models are beginning to be visible in mainstream media. “Orange is the New Black”, for example, has received much justified praise for placing gay/lesbian, transgender, multi-racial and lower-class narratives on the same footing as the narrative of white, upper-class Piper. It isn’t about overpowering or replacing heterosexual narratives: it’s about increasing the number of non-heterosexual narratives to match. Equality, not subjugation.
In children/family entertainment, those role models don’t exist, and this is a problem because there is an irrefutable correlation between exposure to positive relatable role models as a child and mental health (of the I-don’t-hate-myself variety) as an adolescent. It’s like the theory that the characters in Winnie-the-Pooh are stand-ins for different mental health issues: a child with no knowledge of depression can still tell a parent they feel like Eeyore. A young adolescent struggling with his/her sexuality benefits enormously from positive portrayals of the full spectrum as a child, because even if the adolescent in question ultimately determines that s/he is straight, that decision can come from an unbiased and egalitarian understanding of all the possibilities.
Disney is the world’s largest provider of family entertainment — more than that, Disney has (until recently) been the textbook in the question of what and what “isn’t” appropriate for family entertainment. That means that if a child were to reach into a barrel of DVDs of animated movies and pick one at random (discounting the collected works of Ralph Bakshi because let’s not be idiots about this), that child would have literally no chance of picking one with a protagonist who isn’t a zero-on-the-Kinsey-scale heterosexual. Heterosexuality isn’t a problem, but that is. Heterosexuality isn’t just the norm in animated entertainment — it’s the only. And the two times in my “Frozen” essay that I use the word “heterosexual” are, in fact, to point out that that is the case. In the first, I qualify that my table of “happily-ever-afters” only includes heterosexual relationships because those are the only ones available to include. In the second, I draw attention to the fact that certain “Frozen” fans use Elsa’s lack of any relationship as indication that she is a lesbian, and I rather lament the fact that that seems to be the best Disney has to offer its LGBTQ fans.
So it’s really a stretch to say that I’m “problematising heterosexuality”. A feet-behind-the-ears, Cirque du Soleil contortionist stretch, if I’m honest, because at best I’m not really saying anything about it. I’m saying that it’s a sad, sad situation that the largest provider of family entertainment in the role has such a dearth of positive role models for LGBTQ families and children that even a slight deviation from the established and *very* heterosexual Disney model is lauded as a breakthrough. On an entirely personal level, I have absolutely no issue with heterosexuality, though it would probably say something about my self-esteem if I did. I do have an issue with non-heterosexual individuals not being able to enjoy the same ability to relate to beloved characters that I do. It’s not fair, and frankly it’s bullshit. Pointing out — twice — that the Disney model is exclusively heterosexual isn’t “problematising” anything except the fact that it’s exclusive.
Now, if I’m still complaining about heterosexual narratives when there’s actual equality in media, feel free to call me on it then.

OK, briefly to reply:

“Equality”? Ma’am, the most recent federal government research indicates that heterosexuals outnumber the gay/bisexual population more than 40-to-1 (97.7% heterosexual vs. 2.3% gay/bisexual) in the United States. What should “equality” of representation look like, under such circumstances? The combined membership of Southern Baptist churches probably exceeds the total LGBT population of the United States, but how many Southern Baptists are employed in Hollywood or at the major broadcast TV networks? On what basis, really, should we impose quotas in the media?
Your offering of the “young adolescent struggling with his/her sexuality” as a presumed object of pity — “We must have more gay characters, so teenagers feel better about themselves!” — bears a near-zero resemblance to most actual gay teenagers I have known. At least three guys I went to high school with died of AIDS. Only if “struggling” is a synonym for “enthusiastically pursuing” could it be said that those dudes ever struggled with their sexuality. And don’t even get me started on the lesbians I knew in college. The idea that every homosexual is a helpless victim who is just one slur away from suicide is one of the most ridiculous myths that liberals have ever created, and they’ve created quite a few. But why even mention global warming?
Is there “a dearth of positive role models” in the media for, say, hillbilly children? I mean, Disney hasn’t produced any movies about Princess Shonda who lives in a double-wide trailer and marries the King of Long-Haul Truckers. Exactly what kind of character qualifies as a representative role model for any particular child, and how close must the representation be before we assume the child can identify with such a character? I’m not Jewish, but I love Mel Brooks movies. I’m not British, but I love James Bond movies. The assumption that gay people can only relate to overtly gay characters in media is a theory that suffers from a shortage of factual proof. Common sense and anecdotal evidence suggest otherwise.
Your emphatic description of yourself as “a straight woman with a very satisfying sex life” is rather at odds with what struck me, in your critique of Frozen, as your emetic aversion to screen depictions of heterosexual romance. Given your overtly anti-heterosexual tone in criticizing Frozen, what are we to make of your assurance that you “have absolutely no issue with heterosexuality,” and that your “self-esteem” would be at stake if you did? You insist that your criticism arises from a disinterested concern for “actual equality in media.” You have no direct personal interest in the representation of homosexuals. However, as a philanthropic humanitarian, you feel that they are victims of unfair bias. OK. As mystifying as your attitude is, I accept that you are sincere both in your (personal) heterosexual satisfaction and your (political) gay sympathy.

Have I been reading too much feminist theory? Have I misconstrued the meaning of what I have read? Or is it the case that for Dani Colman, as for many other women who call themselves “feminists,” this label means whatever any woman wants it to mean?

It does often seem thus. Whatever any woman is angry about, that’s “feminism.” If she gets stopped for speeding, the speed limit is a manifestation of patriarchal oppression. If her checking account is overdrawn, male supremacy is to blame. Sexism explains why her thighs look so fat, and if the service is too slow at Starbucks, that’s misogyny. Also, if a woman’s anti-male political principles seem to be at odds with her own very satisfying heterosexual life, it’s just right-wing hate when you sarcastically point out the contradiction.

An infinitely elastic definition cannot actually define anything. Feminism either is a definite political philosophy, or it is not.

But if intellectual coherence and consistent political principle are important to you, you cannot be a liberal. You can be a Marxist feminist or a lesbian feminist, but “liberal feminism” — what does that mean?

There I was, reading Dani Colman’s critique of Frozen and thinking, “Wow, she’s a hard-core feminist.” I figured her idea of an acceptable Disney cartoon would be to turn Monster into a musical comedy with Aileen Wuornos as the romantic protagonist. And yet somehow I totally misread Ms. Colman who, in fact, is so enthusiastically heterosexual that she could never be one of those pathetic lesbian weirdos like Lauren Morelli. While Ms. Colman has endless pity for helpless queers, she “absolutely” isn’t one of them.

Why would anybody want liberals to like them? It’s a mystery to me.

Category: Sex Trouble

Rule 5 Sunday: Shadows Of The Night

Posted on | October 19, 2014 | 7 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

I admit to putting this off all day because frankly, I didn’t want to follow Stacy’s post this morning about Hannah Graham with Rule 5 Sunday; it seemed gauche and inappropriate at the very least. There’s a time and a place for everything, though, and this is Rule 5 Sunday’s. As usual, click not in times and places inappropriate for doing so, for many of the following links lead to stuff that is NSFW.

Patricia Mae Andrzejewski, mezzo-soprano, as she might be blogged by our friends at First Street Journal. 😉

Animal Magnetism leads off with Rule Five Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon, Average Bubba joins in with his own Rule 5 Friday, and Goodstuff chimes in with a very seasonally appropriate Halloween Ho Down. Ninety Miles from Tyranny chips in with Morning Mistress, Hot Pick of the Late Night, and Girls with Guns, and First Street Journal presents Strange Bedfellows.

EBL’s herd of heifers this week includes the unfortunate Nina Pham, Ashley Biden, Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu, Alessandra Ambrosio kicking back, and Rams cheerleaders.

A View from the Beach contributes Jessiann Gravel, Real vs. Fake at 240 FPS, I Need Proof, Fear of Spiders?, “Calabria”, The March of the Penguins, “Call on Me”, Gone Fishin’, Back Later, and Got Mud?

At Soylent Siberia, it’s your morning coffee creamer, Another Header for Irish, Monday Motivationer Red Dawn, Evening Awesome See-Through, Tuesday Titillation, Humpday Hawtness DDDamn, Falconsword Fursday El Fuego With Underboob, Happy Hour Hawtness, Corset Confabulation, T-GIF Friday Forget Stairmaster, Weekender Annalisa Greco, Afternooner Red Rocker, and Bath Night Foam.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Emanuela de Palma, his Vintage Babe is Esther Williams, and Sex in Advertising is covered by Guess. Also, Flowering Curves of Beauty, Women of PETA XL, and the obligatory 49er’s cheerleader! At Dustbury, Meghan Trainor (no relation), Ann Dvorak, and Jedediah Bila kickin’ it Diana Prince style.

Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for next Sunday’s Rule 5 post is midnight on Saturday, October 25.

Shadows Of The Night
Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop

Category: Rule 5

Police Find Remains Believed to Be Missing UVA Student Hannah Graham

Posted on | October 19, 2014 | 21 Comments

Virginia authorities have not yet officially confirmed that the remains found Saturday in Albemarle County are those of Hannah Graham, but it appears that suspect Jesse Matthew will be facing a murder charge in the case of the missing 18-year-old student:

The remains were found around noon near Old Lynchburg Road in Albemarle County, said Charlottesville Police Chief Timothy Longo.
The area is less than 10 miles from where Graham, 18, was last seen. Longo said he “made a very difficult phone call” to Graham’s parents to share the discovery with them, but forensic tests need to be conducted to determine the identity of the remains.