The Other McCain

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

Radical Feminism and the ‘Equality’ Trap

Posted on | August 22, 2015 | 72 Comments

 

Radical lesbian activist @EllenPage decided that @TedCruz needed a lecture from her about equality and discrimination:

DES MOINES — Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and actress Ellen Page, of “Juno” fame, got into a testy and free-wheeling discussion Friday over gay rights here at the Iowa State Fair.
“I’m happy to answer your question but not to have a back-and-forth debate,” Cruz told Page, as she pressed him about discrimination against LGBT citizens, approaching him as he flipped pork chops over an open grill. . . .
“Imagine, hypothetically, you had a gay florist and imagine two evangelical Christians wanted to get married and the gay florist decided, ‘You know what, I disagree with your faith, I don’t want to provide flowers,’” Cruz said.
“I would say they should provide the flowers,” said Page, who earlier charged Cruz’s argument was the same used to justify segregation.
“And I would say the gay florist has every right to say, if I disagree with your faith and don’t want to participate…you know what? There are lots of other people to buy flowers from,” Cruz said. “…We are a country that respects pluralism and diversity and there is this liberal intolerance that says that anyone that dares follow a Biblical teaching of marriage, that is the union of one man and one woman must be persecuted, must be fined and must be driven out of business.” . . .
The senator went on to say that the much bigger challenge for gay people comes from the Middle East, where they are deeply persecuted by the Iranian government as well as the leadership of ISIS.
“On the left you hear complete silence” — “That’s not true!” Page interjected — “about Iran hanging homosexuals, and yet the Obama administration is sending over $100 billion to a regime that murders homosexuals,” Cruz continued. . . . .
“Why does the Obama administration not stand against this?” Cruz said.
“I don’t know, I’d love to talk to Obama about it,” Page replied
“Then we’re agreed!” Cruz shot back,
“No, no we’re not, don’t do that,” the actress said.
“We’re agreed! Ma’am, we’ve had a long discussion,” Cruz said.
“Yeah, I appreciate it, yeah,” she said sarcastically, and walked away.

Unsurprisingly, the liberal media tried to spin this attempted ambush as a courageous triumph for the celebrity lesbian, but Ian Tuttle at National Review isn’t buying the spin:

Alternative headline: “Actress from That One Movie about Roller Derby Confronts Princeton Debate Champ — Goes about as You Might Expect.”

Beyond highlighting Cruz’s expert-level debate skills, the exchange exposed Page’s “rejection of conscience protections altogether, and her endorsement of radical government intervention in all such matters,” as Tuttle says. Her arguments are based in the Equality Über Alles mentality that characterizes not only the militant gay movement, but also the radical feminist movement and the Left in general. Grant them what they demand today, and the radicals will return tomorrow with new demands, because “equality” can never be achieved, not even under the absolute tyranny of a totalitarian dictatorship. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek explained that “social justice” is a mirage — it seems to appear up ahead in the distance, but vanishes as soon as you approach it. There will always be someone claiming to be a victim of unfairness, so that to make “equality” (or “social justice” or, more vaguely, “progress”) your goal is to declare war on society itself, to inaugurate what Trotsky called “permanent revolution.”

No such thing as “equality” has ever existed in the history of human civilization, nor will any measure endorsed by the Left bring about “equality” in the future. The insistent demand for “equality” is nothing more than a pretext for political aggression that the Left uses to gain power by pandering to those who hope to gain some advantage from the enactment of radical egalitarian policies.

Despite her celebrity status, Ellen Page ultimately cannot escape the inevitable consequences of inequality, not even in gay-friendly Hollywood. Her high-profile “coming out” in 2014 has damaged her career prospects as an actress because, despite what anyone may imagine, the market demand for gay celebrities is much smaller than the available supply. Denounce the movie-going public as a bunch of bigoted haters, if you like, but the heterosexual majority (97.7% of Americans, according to federal research) expect their entertainment to be entertaining, and tiresome propaganda about The People’s Glorious Democratic Struggle for Gender Equality is not entertaining.

In reporting Ellen Page’s Iowa encounter with Ted Cruz, Politico noted, “Page attended as part of her new show with Vice, called ‘Gaycation,’ where she travels around the world and explores local attitudes about LGBT culture in each place.” What the heck? In August 2014, A&E Networks paid $250 million for a 20% share in Vice Media, rebranding A&E’s lame H2 channel as Vice TV, with Page’s gay travel show as one of the Genius Programming Ideas to justify this investment. Is this just more Hollywood politically correctness run amok? Not necessarily.

In a nation of more than 320 million people, of whom 240 million are 18 and older, if 2.3% of the adult population are LGBT, that’s a potential audience of nearly 6 million gay people in the U.S. alone. If you consider also Canada, Great Britain, Australia and other English-speaking countries in a worldwide digital media marketplace — where everything is online, just a click and a download away — you could easily envision a much larger LGBT audience, not to mention the even larger audience speaking other languages, watching with closed-caption translations.

The Global Gay-o-Sphere, as we might think of it, could be a valuable niche, and there are plenty of perverts in show business who would love nothing more than to get rich celebrating their own favorite fetishes. However, the mass market will always be heterosexual, and there is a limit to how much Happy Hollywood Homo programming the market will bear. Whether or not the LGBT Lobby has already “jumped the shark” Fonzie-style remains to be seen, but at some point people will get tired of seeing Gay! Gay! Gay! everywhere, and a backlash will become evident.

And what’s up with that Donald Trump thing, anyway?

Ellen Page’s militant protest act — “Hey, let’s attack this ignorant Republican bigot in Iowa!” — may please whatever number gay people watch her Vice TV show, but what about the many millions of Americans she implicitly insults? Make no mistake: Ellen Page hates Christians and despises heterosexuality, per se, with the same kind of vindictive sour-grapes resentment of normal people that inspired radical feminists like Charlotte Bunch, Adrienne Rich, Marilyn Frye and Sheila Jeffreys.

“The radical feminist argument is that men have forced women into heterosexuality in order to exploit them, and that lesbians, in rejecting male definitions of sexuality, are undermining the patriarchy. . . .
“Lesbianism is . . . fundamentally a challenge to patriarchal definitions of women.”
— Celia Kitzinger, The Social Construction of Lesbianism(1987)

“Feminist theorists . . . would probably all agree that the pressuring of women into heterosexuality serves the purposes of male supremacy. . . .
“Both heterosexuality as a political system and sexual violence as social control depend upon the construction of heterosexual desire. . . . A feminist analysis would suggest that the reconstruction of sexuality is necessary to undermine the sexual system of male supremacy.”
— Sheila Jeffreys, The Lesbian Heresy: A Feminist Perspective on the Lesbian Sexual Revolution (1993)

“Lesbianism was seen as central to feminism, both as a challenge to male supremacy . . . and as a redefining of the category of women, for women, and by women and outside the male hegemony. . . .
“The feminist point is that sex is central to women’s oppression. . . . Lesbianism within the feminist context was meant as a challenge to the exclusiveness and ‘naturalness’ of heterosexual desire as the only form of intimacy women are allowed.”
— Denise Thompson, Radical Feminism Today (2001)

“In the early 1970s both gay and feminist movements concurred in critiques of patriarchal, heterosexual institutions, such as the family, and there was a sense of common cause. . . . [A]ddressing the patriarchal structures that shaped family life, revealing women’s discontents with heterosexual relationships . . . feminists laid the foundation for a thoroughgoing critique of heterosexuality . . .”
— Stevi Jackson and Sue Scott, Theorizing Sexuality (2010)

Feminists have been trying to destroy the traditional family and eradicate Christian morality for more than 40 years. It is certainly no coincidence that in July 2013, more than six months before she announced her lesbianism, Ellen Page declared her allegiance to radical feminism in an interview with the Guardian:

“I don’t know why people are so reluctant to say they’re feminists. Maybe some women just don’t care. But how could it be any more obvious that we still live in a patriarchal world when feminism is a bad word? . . . Feminism always gets associated with being a radical movement — good. It should be. A lot of what the radical feminists [in the 1970s] were saying, I don’t disagree with it.”

Not content with her career as a Celebrity Lesbian, the radical feminist Ellen Page uses her influence to attack traditional morality and to ridicule Republicans like Ted Cruz for daring to argue that Christians have a right to live according to their religious beliefs.

Maybe the executives at A&E can justify their $250 million investment in this kind of hateful “entertainment” for the LGBT market, but nobody should be surprised if the dividends on that dubious investment in radicalism include an angry backlash from normal people who don’t enjoy being lectured about their alleged “homophobia.”

“The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”
— U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker,
Aug. 5, 2010, San Francisco v. Schwarzenegger

“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

Do we want “equality” or do we want liberty? This is really the question, and Americans should not be compelled to apologize for our love of liberty. From the Reign of Terror in France to the “Killing Fields” of Cambodia, we have repeatedly seen atrocities radicals have justified in the name of “equality,” and the feminist movement has been forever stained with innocent blood by its advocacy of the abortion holocaust. Why is it that extraordinarily privileged people like Ellen Page believe the rest of us are ignorant bigots in need of their lectures? Do they suppose that we know nothing of history? Do they believe we are incapable of rational judgment? Do they imagine that we cannot justify our opposition to their radical agenda?

Or do they think that we simply lack courage to fight for truth?





 

Category: Celebrities, Gays, Sex Trouble, Ted Cruz

Comments

72 Responses to “Radical Feminism and the ‘Equality’ Trap”

  1. Ilion
    August 24th, 2015 @ 7:42 am

    “No one – NO ONE – has been refused service for being gay.”

    But even if someone *had* been refused service for “being gay” … or for being black … it’s not the government’s business.

    Destroying everyone’s freedom of association because someone, somewhere, may misuse it serves no one, except the statists who wish to control our lives.

  2. Ilion
    August 24th, 2015 @ 7:45 am

    The issue is even deeper and more fundamental than “religious freedom”; it is “freedom of association”.

  3. Ilion
    August 24th, 2015 @ 7:54 am

    Back in the day (oh, 1980 or so), I superficially knew a lesbian (*) … who let me know that she wouldn’t mind knowing me.

    (*) she was attractive enoough, though a bit boyish

  4. Ilion
    August 24th, 2015 @ 8:01 am

    “I support traditional values like the masculine headship of the family. I just get a little nervous discussing it within earshot of a woman.”

    ?

    Exactly. And I, for one, refuse to be that (ahem) man. If a woman doesn’t like my expressed opinions, and most of them don’t, that’s her problem. And, to put is bluntly, I don’t give a damn about her problems.

    ?

    If women want to claim that they are men’s equals — despite that the “equality” they claim must be enforced by men — them let them *show* that they are men’s equals by not shrieking like children when they hear ideas they don’t want others to hear.

  5. DeadMessenger
    August 24th, 2015 @ 12:57 pm

    And at this point, what difference does it make? As I’ve said elsewhere, The Man Who Refused To Show His Actual Brth Certficate opened that barn door, nobody did jack, and now you couldn’t shoehorn them horses back in if you tried. If you think a little detail like that is stopping anybody these days, you’d be wrong. We live in the end times, daddio, where the vast, vast majority don’t care no mo’.

    Besides, I’ll be completely fabbergasted – and rendered speechless, which is saying something for me – if there evn IS a 2016 election. But if there is one, by some wacky chance, it’ll be obviously and indisputably rigged, and the sheeple won’t care about that, either. Just hand over the entitlements brah, and we cool. (Which everyone will probably need after September 13/14, anyway.)

  6. Prime Director
    August 24th, 2015 @ 5:24 pm

    I believe the antonym for anointed is unwashed.

    Grammar nazi: out.

  7. The original Mr. X
    August 24th, 2015 @ 6:06 pm

    If it’s “just a cake”, it’s not important enough to destroy people’s livelihoods when they fail to provide it.

    If it is important enough to destroy people’s livelihoods when they fail to provide it, it’s also important enough for you to object when somebody tries to force you to provide it.

  8. The original Mr. X
    August 24th, 2015 @ 6:12 pm

    Yup. Given that the gay rights activists seem determined to make their pet causes into a zero-sum crusade against religious liberty, I have great difficulty condemning countries which say “Alright then, have it your way. Zero-sum fight it is then.”

  9. The original Mr. X
    August 24th, 2015 @ 6:14 pm

    Or why everybody who’s not from Indiana feels the need to comment on that state’s legislative activities.

  10. The original Mr. X
    August 24th, 2015 @ 6:16 pm

    As somebody said, I think it was on this site: You can always tell what the left are doing/planning by what they accuse the right of doing. If the left started accusing us of eating babies, my first reaction would be “Oh my goodness, the left have started eating babies!”

  11. The original Mr. X
    August 24th, 2015 @ 6:17 pm

    I’ve often wondered if Plato wasn’t right to keep actors out of his ideal state.

  12. Daniel Freeman
    August 24th, 2015 @ 10:04 pm

    I try not to harp too much on my hobby horses (how’s that for a mixed metaphor!) so I haven’t mentioned it in awhile, but I have long said that they use projection as a strategy, to create a false equivalence when they get called out.

    I’m satisfied that Vox Day recognized and codified it as the Third Law, “SJWs always project.” That’ll get the meme out there.

  13. Ilion
    August 25th, 2015 @ 9:02 am

    Being a natural born US citizen has nothing to do with *where* one is born, but rather is about the citizenship status one inherits-at-birth from one’s parents (and to be more legally precise, from one’s father … for the old law was never updated to reflect feminism).

    This is why John McCain, born outside the territory of the US is a natural born US citizen, but Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio, both born inside the territory of the US, are not (and never can be) a natural born US citizens.

    In the case of Obama, we know that he is not a natural born US citizen, irrespective of where he was born, and irrespective of having seen his real birth certificate, because we know that his father was no US citizen, but was rather a subject of the British crown.

    In the case of Cruz, he was both born outside the territory of the US *and* was born to a father who was not a US citizen at the time of his birth. So, by the truth of the matter — his natural citizenship inherited from his father — he is not a natural born US citizen. And, by the obfuscation of the matter deliberately practiced by both parties, he is also “unqualified”.

    And yes, “no one” (except, it seems, me) cared or cares about Obama not being Constitutionally the legal President, nor about Jindal, Rubio and Cruz being Constitutionally/legally unqualified to occupy the office.

    It’s pretty obvious why the Democrats wanted to suppress the truth that Obama never can legally be President, and so muddied the waters with the completely separate issue of *where* he was born (and then kept the answer to that question hidden).

    At the same time, the GOP *also* wanted to suppress the truth that Obama never can legally be President, becasue they had their own golden-boy non-natural-born citizens they wanted to run for the office.

    ====
    So, given that Obama knowingly violates the Constitution so as to occupy the office of US President, is it *really* any wonder that he repeatedly violates it to “go around Congress”?

    Why should be trust that others who want to violate the Constitution on the “lesser matter of the law” so as to occupy the office of US President won’t also do likewise on the “greater matters of the law”?

  14. Ilion
    August 25th, 2015 @ 9:04 am

    “No, it’s not “just” a cake, or it wouldn’t cost beaucoup $.”
    And it’s not “just a cake”, or you wouldn’t be calling on the violence of the State to *compel* someone to supply it to you.

  15. Ilion
    August 25th, 2015 @ 9:08 am

    “Try to say “no” then!”

    Indeed: the time to say “No, and hell no!” is not when something is “over the line” but before it even gets to the line.

    It’s very difficult to stuff a genie back in a bottle.

  16. Ilion
    August 25th, 2015 @ 9:19 am

    Isn’t it odd?

    ‘Juliet’ or ‘Guinevere’ can be played by a black person, but ‘Madame Butterfly’ or (in some future reboot of ‘The Matrix’) ‘Morpheus’ cannot be played by a white person?

  17. Art Deco
    August 25th, 2015 @ 10:36 am

    but Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio, both born inside the territory of the
    US, are not (and never can be) a natural born US citizens.

    You’re just wrong, and you should quit beclowning yourself and cluttering up these threads with nonsense.

  18. Ilion
    August 25th, 2015 @ 12:16 pm

    And you’re someone who *will not* admit the truth.

  19. Ilion
    August 25th, 2015 @ 12:20 pm

    How do you all even imagine that you’re going to oppose feminism — much less the wider leftism — when you accept the premises of leftism and will not free yourselves?

    Some fool(s) can accuse me of “beclowning” myself all they want, but truth is truth … and those who *will not* see truth cannot speak it.

  20. Ilion
    August 25th, 2015 @ 1:01 pm

    Was George Washington a natural born US citizen? And why or why not?

    Was Chester Arthur a natural born US citizen? And why or why not?

    Now — and I know that this is a tall order for the sort of folk who imagine that saying “beclown” is a refutation — IF you have figured out the answers to those questions, apply the same principles to Obama, Rubio, Jindal and Cruz.

  21. Ilion
    August 25th, 2015 @ 1:16 pm

    Was George Washington a natural born US citizen? And why or why not?

    Was Chester Arthur a natural born US citizen? And why or why not?

    Now — and I know that this is a tall order for the sort of folk who imagine that saying “beclown” is a refutation — IF you have figured out the answers to those questions, apply the same principles to Obama, Rubio, Jindal and Cruz.

    ======

    Is it possible to “seek justice’ in unjust ways? (hint: no)

    The Bible commands that men “seek justice”. Deut 16:20 is typically translated (for Christains) as “Justice shalt thou seek”. The more “Jewish” translation is “Justice, justice shalt thou seek”. The command isn’t *simply* a command to “seek justice”, but rather, the seek justice justly — for we humans are incapable of achieving justice by unjust means.

    Similarly, if the Democrats and other leftists have violated the US Constitution by nominating (and selecting to the presidency) a man who is not a natural born US citizen, and from there have gone on to further Constitutional usurpations, how exactly do those who like to call themselves “conservative” propose to repair the damage of that breach in the Constitution by making the like in favor of a politician they find more appealing?

    You can’t achieve justice by unjust means, and you can’t repair the Constitution by ripping it further.

  22. Fat_Man
    August 26th, 2015 @ 8:42 pm

    If her career continues to flatline, Page may, just like Anne Heche, conveniently rediscover her heterosexuality.