Feminists Accused of ‘Transphobia’: Competitive Victimhood Derby

Posted on Comments

“If gender is inherently detrimental as the radical feminists maintain and if trans identification occurs in part because gender is rigidly interpreted and represented through normative modalities of behaving, then there will be unceasing dissonance between these two groups.”
— Julian Vigo, “The Left Hand of Darkness”

Following up on last night’s post, “Mental Illness and Radical Feminism,” I arrived at a feminist blog that rejects capitalization:

this is what our oppression consists of and what it is. men get to name it (sex, fucking, knocked up, mother, father) men get to execute it (intercourse, impregnation) and men get to enforce it (rape, heteronormativity, marriage, and legal remedies and lack thereof for sexual and reproductive offenses). note that i am considering rape to be the violent enforcement by men of womens sex role as fuckholes and breeders.

Well, OK, then. Notice the sequence “rape, heteronormativity, marriage” that radical feminism views as equally forms of oppression, assigning women to a “sex role as fuckholes and breeders.” This particular blog, by the way, has an entire category about “PIV” (penis-in-vagina) which is what “heteronormativity” is all about, eh?

By the time a feminist reaches the radical point at which normal sexual intercourse is regarded as inherently oppressive, she has already marched a good distance down the Crazyville Road. Sane, normal people become the Enemy and, in order to maintain her delusions, the feminist seeks out the company of her fellow radicals, who share and confirm these extreme beliefs. The maladjusted thereby exile themselves to a sort of voluntary asylum, where they only encounter lunatics like themselves.

So, RadFem 2013 was a conference in London, which resulted in a gigantic controversy because radical feminists insisted on excluding the “transgendered” from their female-only event, and one of the featured speakers, Australian lesbian feminist Professor Sheila Jeffreys, was about to publish a new book, Gender Hurts: A Feminist Analysis of the Politics of Transgenderism, that was deeply offensive to the “T” people represented in the LGBT acronym.

How crazy did that conflict become? At one point in April, the venue tried to cancel the event after discovering that “certain language was used and some statements were made about transgender people that would go against our equalities and diversity policy.” Another RadFem conference organizer, Cathy Brennan of Baltimore, was meanwhile all over Twitter announcing “transwomen are men” and comparing them to MRAs (men’s rights advocates). Brennan’s outspoken hostility to transgenders led her to take legal action against a transgender activist:

A Twitter message about spitting led Towson lawyer and lesbian advocate Cathy Brennan to file for a peace order against a transgender advocate.
Phylicia Sampson, a 28-year-old Baltimore resident, and Brennan, 42, were engaged in a heated debate on the social media site when Sampson wrote that she wanted to spit in Brennan’s face.
Baltimore County Distict Court Judge Barbara Jung ordered Sampson to stay away from Brennan’s home and place of employment, and to cease contact, according to the peace order. . . .
Brennan, a former member of the Boards of the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Baltimore, said she has been a gay activist since 1995, but is of the opinion that transgendered women are male and should not have access to “female spaces.” . . .
Brennan said she met Sampson, a graduate student, through mutual friends in fall 2011, and had invited her into her home on several occassions.
“At some point, we came to a fork in the road because she believes transwomen are women,” she said.
Brennan said Sampson had been sending her a slew of aggressive messages and continued to do so even after Brennan asked her to end their communications.
“I’m afraid of this person at this point,” said Brennan, who added that she has received several death threats for her stance. “I take [threats] very seriously.”

The Competitive Victimhood Derby is ultimately a zero-sum game, you see. There can only be one winner, and the transgender claim to equal victimhood is rejected by radical feminists, who view this as an attempt to usurp their own categorical claim.

It’s like a traffic jam on the Crazyville Road, where two politicized groups of wackjobs are compelled by the implicit logic of their arguments to fight each other for supremacy. Therefore, “equality” as codified by British law is oppressive:

How have men/queers/transactivists been so successful at shutting down female-only space? It stems back to the slow, evolving, way the debate about “equalities” cancels out women’s oppression in favour of “gender-based” oppression. . . . By calling it “gender-based” violence, there is political space to deny the structural power men have over women and claim that violence comes from all individuals, equally.
As radical feminists, we know that the true source of women’s oppression, and other oppressions, are embedded in the institutions, systems and structures of society and that this, together with cultural norms, creates “patriarchy”.
Patriarchy is never going to acknowledge that oppression is enshrined in the very fabric of society. The myth of the state, as a neutral arbitrator, supporting the rights of equally competing interests/groups within society, props up that fabric. . . .
Unsurprising then that the Equality Act 2010 has been used with such relish by male extremist groups and queer/transactivists to try and stop radical feminists naming our truths.

Transgender activists are actually part of the patriarchy! Somehow, they prevent radical feminists from naming their truths!

Crazy? Sure. But you only reach this kind of radical insanity by passing every exit along your journey down the Crazyville Road.

Do not for a moment doubt what “truths” were named at RadFem 2013:

Sheila Jeffreys then went on to discuss compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian feminism.  She noted that it was very strange that so many women in this modern resurgence of feminism are not becoming lesbians as they did in the second wave, despite the horrific tidal wave of male violence and creepy male sexuality that is even more visible culturally.  Some reasons she thought this might be were that mixed-space organizing was dulling women’s revolutionary impulses.

The fight for “female-only space” is necessary to radical feminism because only within such space can “women’s revolutionary impulses” lead them to becoming lesbians, as all feminists should be.

They are all about “transcending the norms of gender,” you see.

Men are obsolete, and nobody’s fixing sandwiches for us anymore.

 

Late To The Antarctic Rescue News, But I Brought Beatallica

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Sure the East Coast is under a chill, but how about those Global Worming researchers at the nether pole? After we rejoice in their safety, and admire their tenacity, let’s enjoy just a little riff at their expense:

May 2014 be the year that the “experts” learn they can’t just phone it in on their credentials, but really need to publish some models, raw data, and let there be actual public debate, in lieu of the Orwellian cramdowns of the last decades.

Seriously. Let’s push candidates who’re not turning public policy into kickback schemes. This mostly means shoving incumbents out the door, so that research can be research, and not pretexts for more inane policy.

 

Mental Illness and Radical Feminism

Posted on Comments

A remarkable uproar has been inspired by a radical feminist’s opposition to heterosexual intercourse, which she terms “PIV” (penis in vagina) and denounces as always rape:

First, well intercourse is NEVER sex for women. Only men experience rape as sexual and define it as such. Sex for men is the unilateral penetration of their penis into a woman (or anything else replacing and symbolising the female orifice) whether she thinks she wants it or not — which is the definition of rape: that he will to do it anyway and that he uses her and treats her as a receptacle, in all circumstances — it makes no difference to him experiencing it as sexual. That is, at the very least, men use women as useful objects and instruments for penetration, and women are dehumanised by this act. It is an act of violence.
As FCM pointed out some time ago, intercourse is inherently harmful to women and intentionally so, because it causes pregnancy in women. . . .
Men, by whom we are possessed, colonised and held captive, are the sole agents and organisers of PIV. Men dominate us precisely so we can’t opt out of sexual abuse by them; intercourse is the very means through which men subordinate us, the very purpose of their domination, to control human reproduction.

Every sane person’s first reactions:

  1. Is she crazy?
    and
  2. Who is this woman?

The second question is unanswerable, because the absence of any biographical information on her “Radical Wind” blog makes it impossible to know anything about the author. This serves an ideological purpose: Her claims about her own experience cannot be fact-checked, so that she is free to tell any self-serving lie. Anonymity also serves the useful purpose of concealing anything in her biography that might undermine her credibility.

We do not know the author’s age, education or occupation, although we can deduce from linguistic clues (e.g., “organizers” and “behavioural”) that she is British; we can deduce from a reference to “mass” that her family was Catholic; and we know that she attended university. She also offers a tendentiously anti-male sexual history of herself, using “trauma-bond” as a term for “falling in love” with a man:

When I was really young I always wondered what it meant to “be in love” . . . I never “fell” in love with anybody when I was young, and was always wondering whether I was normal or not. . . .
Anyway, a few rapes / PIV / abusive relationships later, as I was still adolescent, I “fell in love”, or so I thought. . . .

(What she discloses here is that her earliest sex acts with men, as a teenager, did not involve romantic feelings on her part.)

Needless to say, this first experience was extremely painful. The guy was something like 13 years older than me, I was still a minor, and my “love” to him would be all the more strong that he was very fleeting, would contact me only every now and then when he needed to fuck (rape) me. I was too grateful for him paying any attention to me to be even aware of his abusive behaviour, or understand what it meant. I was confused that he only wanted to see me sporadically, instead of starting a relationship, which is the way in which this love is supposed to be expressed. If he liked me enough to “desire” me, why didn’t he want a relationship?

(So, after a series of loveless sexual relationships as a teenager, and while still underage, she became involved — and “fell in love” — with a man about 30 years old. The rather unusual nature of her early sexual/romantic history is not explained, nor does the author even seem to realize that her particular experience was so extraordinary as to be quite literally abnormal.)

Not knowing whether he “loved” me or not made me constantly anxious. The emotional distance, neglect and constant waiting for him made the pain acute.
Fast forward a year, I finally realised that he’d used me and had no respect for me. I decided to give up on hoping that he’d “fall in love” (= get into the promised relationship). The instant i’d done that, I felt such an amazing sense of freedom. It felt like all the weight of the world had suddenly disappeared!! I wasn’t tied, bonded to him anymore. I was independent. I didn’t have to live my entire life according to him, waiting and yearning for him. The illusions suddenly fell apart and I saw him as some useless guy. I told myself: never again will I be so naïve with a man! I was unlucky I thought, and I should just have picked a better man, and been more careful.

(Again, note the lack of awareness that her experience was abnormal, and the inability to see her unusual situation objectively.)

The problem was, that over the next five or six years, this pattern kept repeating and repeating and repeating itself. Every man I trauma-bonded to either was only interested in using me for PIV (rape) or had no interest in me at all. I thought something was wrong with me, maybe I wasn’t pretty enough, skinny enough, boobed enough, outward going enough, mature, seductive, whatever. I couldn’t get it what it was that I lacked. I didn’t understand why I accumulated so many failures. Why did they never stay? Why was I so unlucky in “love”? Alternatively, I wouldn’t trauma-bond but then i’d be fully aware that I didn’t want the PIV and physical invasion (when I wasn’t so much aware of it with the others, because of the trauma-bonding) and it would be even more humiliating. I was still too grateful for the attention though to ward them off, so it would be painfully disgusting and i’d hate myself for what I perceived was self-betrayal.
When I was “attracted” they didn’t want, but when I didn’t want, they wanted. It didn’t make sense.

So, to summarize: After a few loveless adolescent sexual trysts, but while she “was still a minor” — perhaps 17 — the author fell in love with a man about 30 years old who exploited her and did not reciprocate her romantic feelings.  Then she entered into a pattern of relatively short-term sexual relationships with men (a) toward whom she was “attracted” and who did not reciprocate; or (b) for whom she had no such attraction, but with whom she had sex because she felt “grateful” for their attention.

From this sketchy (and unverifiably anonymous) history, we can approach an answer to the first question: Yes, she is crazy, which is to say her behavior has been irrational and self-destructive, and her inability to cope with disappointment — “I didn’t understand why I accumulated so many failures” — led her to adopt an extreme anti-male worldview, i.e., radical feminism. But this is all radical feminism actually is, the elaboration of mental illness as a political philosophy. Sane, normal and happy women don’t become feminists. However, as the realities of sexual behavior in our culture becomes increasingly abnormal — and widespread sexual promiscuity is, historically speaking, abnormal — fewer women are sane and happy, so feminist beliefs become more commonplace and abnormality is thereby normalized.

Returning to a sane culture, however, would require both sexes to abandon much that we have been taught to consider “progress” and, therefore, feminist insanity will become more common.

Remember pro-abortion “Queer Feminist” Sarah Alcid?

“Heteronormativity and gender roles also rear their ugly heads on Valentine’s Day. Gifts for ‘him’ or ‘her’ are clearly divided and marked and it’s almost impossible to find cards that represent queer couples. . . .
“It’s not hard to see why Valentine’s Day is problematic for many feminists. Celebrated traditionally, Valentine’s Day magnifies many of the very systems of domination that we work to critique and dismantle.”
— Sara Alcid, “Valentine’s Day: What’s A Feminist To Do?” EverydayFeminism.com, Feb. 14, 2013

Anyone who is not a feminist would describe this as the word-salad gibberish of a lunatic, but because feminism has become so commonplace, fewer people have the sanity necessary to recognize it for the madness it actually is, and it is now widely considered “hate” to disagree with these baby-killing lesbian man-haters.

 

 


In Which @alternatekev and @jaydot Conspire to Suppress Free Speech

Posted on Comments

Both Heartiste and Return of Kings are so-called “game” blogs, that is to say, they are male-oriented sites about maximizing sexual opportunities for single guys (“players”), an attitude that I — as a Christian traditionalist — do not endorse. For obvious reasons, however, “game” guys are hostile to feminism which is why, from time to time, I’ve taken notice of some of their arguments.

Anyway, Return of Kings (ROK) did a blog post about the Arapahoe High School shooting that argued “women’s selfishness makes men kill.” This offended Kevin Conboy (@alternatekev) and another person with the Twitter handle @jaydot, who then evidently plotted to delete both ROK and that site’s ally, Heartiste, from the WordPress software platform.

Why Is WordPress Employee Kevin Conboy
Threatening To Delete Blogs He Disagrees With?

Is A Blubbering Inner Party Leftoid
Trying To Silence Chateau Heartiste?

As a result of protests against their Thought Police act, both (@alternatekev) and @jaydot have switched their accounts to “protected” status, which is the Twitter equivalent of waving the white flag of surrender. This controversy is not about whether you endorse “game” (I don’t) or whether those blogs are offensive (which sometimes they are). Rather, this is about the totalitarian impulse to suppress the voices of those with whom The Enlightened Forces of Progress and Equality™ disagree.

Notice that The Benighted Enemies of Progress and Equality™ — that’s us, my friends — are not the ones doing this. We aren’t trying to get obnoxious feminists banned from the Internet.

A couple weeks ago, a feminist disciple of Andrea Dworkin wrote a post declaring that “PIV” (i.e., penis-in-vagina, otherwise known as heterosexual intercourse) “is always rape.”

Rather than trying to get this insane lesbian feminist freak (but I repeat myself) banned from the Internet, normal people reacted by criticizing her ideas, e.g., “Any Inkling I May Become a Feminist is Now Gone.”

This is how you win arguments — by arguing.

People who can’t win arguments instead try to silence their antagonists.

 

A Lesson in Efficient Dictatorship

Posted on Comments

Try to imagine that frightening alternative universe in which a guerrilla army overthrows the federal government, or a cabal of dissident generals stages a military coup and, as a result, I became the charismatic Supreme Dictator of America. The first order of business for the McCainist junta, of course, would be the liquidation of all opposition, by the most brutal and terrifying methods.

From the standpoint of regime permanence, it would be insufficient merely to jail or exile opponents. No, the point of radical terror is to inspire fear, so that not only would no one dare oppose the regime, but also so that people will denounce any of their friends and neighbors whose loyalty to the New Totalitarian Order is believed to be less than 100 percent. Therefore, the regime must not only torture and execute leaders of the prohibited opposition, but must all unleash the intimidating force of violence against the families, friends and suspected sympathizers of the opposition leaders. Leniency can only be obtained by active and vocal support of the regime’s repressive measures.

Under totalitarian rule, no one can ever presume himself to be safe from the power of the regime, because the Supreme Leader’s power is so great that it can only be protected by ruthless men who, as they rise higher in the leadership cadre, inevitably begin to think of the possibility of seizing the top position for themselves. Occasionally, the Supreme Leader must make examples of such rivals:

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s powerful uncle was stripped naked, thrown into a cage, and eaten alive by a pack of ravenous dogs, according to a newspaper with close ties to China’s ruling Communist Party.
Jang Song Thaek, who had been considered Kim’s second-in-command, was executed last month after being found guilty of “attempting to overthrow the state,” North Korea’s state-run news agency reported. . . .
Hong Kong-based pro-Beijing newspaper Wen Wei Po reported that Jang and his five closest aides were set upon by 120 hunting hounds which had been starved for five days.
Kim and his brother Kim Jong Chol supervised the one-hour ordeal along with 300 other officials, according to Wen Wei Po. The newspaper added that Jang and other aides were “completely eaten up.”

This is exactly how disloyalty would be punished after the totalitarian McCainist junta seizes absolute power. Once we had fed the faculty of Harvard University to a pack of ravenous dogs, perhaps the staff of the New York Times would get the message.

My enemies should be thankful that I favor limited government.

 

Lenient Drug Policy Yields Bad Result

Posted on Comments

David Brooks confessed in a New York Times column that he was a high-school stoner, by way of arguing against the legalization of marijuana. One of his erstwhile dope buddies replied with a column recalling how they got away with it in Radnor, Illinois:

[H]ere all along I thought he quit because of that time we got pulled over by the Radnor cops in senior year right after we’d clambaked his Mom’s Vista Cruiser, and first thing the cop does after the smoke clears is look him right in his red, red eyes, and said, “I don’t suppose it would go over so good if I went over to 632 Haverford Road and told Mr and Mrs Brooks their boy was out here with his clique smoking pot.” I was so impressed with the way Dave pulled himself together then. He didn’t beg for mercy or fight with the cop. Somehow he knew exactly how to go all bar mitzvah boy, how to talk to authority, how to flatter and impress and toady, even stoned to the gills, like his inner Eddie Haskell was deeper down than the pot could get. And it worked. The cop let us go, told us we were lucky he knew Dave and that we were white kids from Radnor, and later on, at the pizza house taking care of our munchies, chattering and cackling over our good luck and trying to figure out how Dave and the cop knew each other, busting on him for being a narc, Dave was quiet and pale and barely touched his hoagie, and I think that was the last time he smoked pot, at least with us.

Brooks’s ex-buddy Gary Greenberg is pro-legalization, whereas I think his anecdote proves quite the opposite point: We need a drastic crackdown on teenage dopeheads because if we don’t put these freaks in prison, they might grow up to be David Brooks.

 


In The Mailbox: 01.03.14

Posted on Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
Leather Penguin: WABC Throws Down The Gauntlet In NYC Talk Radio War
Proof Positive: You Pays Your Money And You Takes Your Chances!
Doug Powers: Latest Scapegoats For Obamacare Disaster – “Southern White Radicals”
Twitchy: Actress Rose McGowan Witnesses “Knockout Game” Attack
Virginia Postrel: Two Cheers For First World Problems
Jeffrey Lord: Phil Robertson, American Hero


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Oregon Mother – I Can’t Afford #Obamacare For Myself, 1-Year-Old Son
American Thinker: Obama’s Other Big Lie
Blackfive: Not From The Duffle Blog – Admiral McRaven Wants An Iron Man Suit
Blackmailers Don’t Shoot: Happy Belated New Year Linkfest
The Necropolitan Sentinel: Don’t Worry, CAIR Is On The Case!
Jammie Wearing Fools: Michael Moore – Let’s Face It, Obamacare Is Awful
JustOneMinute: Obamacare’s War On Marriage, Oregon Edition
Pat Dollard: Marines Delay Female Fitness Test After Half Fail Pullup Test
Shot In The Dark: The Last Five Years Have Felt A Bit Like A Biblical Plague…
The Jawa Report: New Year, Same Ol’ Sh*t
The Lonely Conservative: Liberals Wish Death On Barbara Bush
This Ain’t Hell: USA Today – Cut Military Pensions
Megan McArdle: Another Problem Obamacare Won’t Solve – Health Costs


Live At Five will resume Monday.
In the meantime, deadline to submit links for the FMJRA is noon tomorrow, and the deadline for Rule 5 Sunday is midnight tomorrow.
DO IT.


Florida: The Crazy State

Posted on Comments

News from our national lunatic asylum:

A man who shot a trucker to death in 1992 but was judged to be criminally insane seemed nervous Saturday when stopped for speeding east of Gainesville, a deputy reported.
David Harris Dunaway, 58, was wanted by federal authorities, the deputy learned. A grand jury in Tampa had indicted him on a gun charge Dec. 18, alleging that he had a pistol and 50 rounds of ammunition, illegal for someone with Dunaway’s medical history.
But in a search of his green Honda van, the deputy found more — 36 guns, 4,629 rounds.

How many criminally insane people are running around loose in Florida? Well, Obama got 4,235,270 votes there in 2012.