Feminism, Sex and Hypocrisy

Posted on | February 8, 2016 | 62 Comments

 

Perhaps readers will recall Nian Hu (@Nian_Hu on Twitter) or you may need to be reminded that Ms. Hu is the Harvard student who declared: “I am a feminist. I believe in the equality of the sexes. For me, feminism means freedom,” and that among these freedoms was “freedom to have as many sexual partners as I want without being looked down on.”

Well, this was an invitation to mockery that I could not refuse.

What Ms. Hu was saying, really, was that other people have no right to their own opinions. Everyone is required to approve of wanton promiscuity. The feminist freedom of Harvard sluts to get drunk and screw around would be infringed if they were to be “looked down on” because of their habitual and shameless fornication.

“Let me tell you what to think” — this is the dictatorial imperative of feminism, a totalitarian regime of clever college girls who have decided the rest of us are wrong about everything. You need to be constantly lectured by angry young women, because she is oppressed and you are privileged. Therefore the only correct opinions are opinions approved by these tyrannical Ivy League brats who consider it a social injustice — “harassment!” “misogyny!” — if anyone dares to disagree with them.

 

Are there no adults at Harvard University who can explain to these impudent kids that having a high SAT score when you’re 17 is not proof that you already know everything? Or are the faculty and administration of elite universities so intimidated by their students that there is no one on the Cambridge campus who will stand up to these young fools?

Petted and pampered and repeatedly told how wonderful they are (because being admitted to an Ivy League school is proof of their superiority to mere mortals), the insolent youth at schools like Harvard arrive on campus as freshmen convinced that they are smarter than God. The faculty apparently believe their task is to confirm, rather than contradict, their students’ grandiose narcissistic self-regard. So if the girls at Harvard are all sluts and the boys are all perverts, the faculty will schedule lectures in the department of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies where students will be told how awesome it is to be a slut or a pervert. The Harvard kids will of course bask in this flattery — “We’re not just smart, we’re sexy, too!” — and thus become even more deviant and immoral than they were when they arrived.

The Ivy League Is Decadent and Depraved, and we can say of Harvard University what Obi-Wan Kenobi said of Mos Eisley, that it is a “wretched hive of scum and villainy.” But I digress . . .

Nian Hu published a new column in the Harvard Crimson last week:

My friend scrolls through the photos of a man on Facebook. He’s white, lives in a predominantly white neighborhood, and went to a predominantly white high school. But in many of his photos, he is accompanied by Asian women.
“Yes, he has yellow fever,” my friend confirms . . . a preference for Asian women. The term is most commonly ascribed to white men who seem to only ever date Asian women.
Yellow fever is a widespread phenomenon. According to data collected from online dating sites, all men except Asians prefer to romantically pursue Asian women. In fact, there are many dating sites specifically tailored for white men looking to date Asian women. There is even a Tumblr blog that compiles messages from “creepy white guys with Asian fetishes.” Yellow fever was also depicted in Debbie Lum’s documentary, Seeking Asian Female, which takes a close look at relationships between white men and Asian women. . . .
It is egregiously misguided to assume that an entire ethnicity of women has one set of personality traits, and the fact that some men actually believe this reflects the limited experience they’ve had with real-life Asian women. Even worse, it suggests that perhaps they are viewing Asian women more as one-dimensional objects than human beings.
Objectification is already something that all women face regardless of race. . . . For Asian women in particular, objectification reduces them to infantile figures — delicate, submissive, and dutiful.
The fact that docility and submissiveness are viewed as favorable traits for Asian women is telling. It implies that non-Asian women are too loud, too opinionated, too intimidating, and that men would prefer women who keep quiet and acquiesce to their every demand. The stereotype that Asian women are meek, though blatantly untrue, nevertheless reveals that perhaps yellow fever is more than just an innocent preference based on physical appearance. . . .

You can read the whole thing, if you feel the urge to absorb another lecture about what a bigoted racist misogynist you are. Frankly, I got bored with these lectures decades ago. The Clarence Thomas hearings, the L.A.riots, the O.J. Simpson trial, Monica Lewinsky, Matthew Shepard — by the time the ’90s ended, like most American adults, I was sick and tired of listening to liberals tell us what to think about everything. Back then, of course, the liberal lectures were delivered by TV commentators and newspaper columnists whereas now, thanks to the Internet, every 19-year-old kid with a Tumblr blog is telling us what to think because, of course, teenagers know everything and grown-ups know nothing. But once again, I digress . . .

What is it about feminism that convinces young women they possess a monopoly of knowledge and virtue in regard to sexual behavior? How is it that I, who have six children — three of them older than Nian Hu — am assumed to be an ignorant bigot in need of a lecture about “Hey, objectification is bad, you guys”? Evidently, Ms. Hu disapproves of white men dating Asian women, and she has the right to her opinion. Likewise, the Nation of Islam and the Ku Klux Klan have the same right to disapprove of interracial relationships. It is not my job to tell other people what to think or say or do, so why should I let a Harvard sophomore tell me what to think, say and do? And how are we to decide whose sexual preferences should be condemned as harmful “fetishes” and “objectification,” whereas other preferences we are never allowed to criticize at all? Who has the authority to make this decision?

For example, ever since the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the category of mental illness, the question of why gay people are gay has been considered off-limits. Any speculation about the etiology of homosexuality incites activists to begin shrieking their insistence that gay people are “born that way,” and so it is impossible to research the possible developmental factors involved without being accused of malevolent homophobic intentions. Well, it’s still a free country, and I am therefore at liberty to say (a) I never believed the “born that way” argument, and (b) I don’t think most gay people actually believe it, either. Trust me. After two years of plowing through dozens of books about radical feminist gender theory, and monitoring the ongoing discourse on Feminist Tumblr blogs, I am if anything even more skeptical of the “born that way” narrative than I was before I began this research project. Because of the substantial overlap between feminism and lesbianism (which is apparent to anyone who bothers to look at Tumblr or, for that matter, Women’s Studies programs), an amateur student of feminist gender theory will invariably encounter various first-person narratives of the “How I Knew I Was Gay” genre.

In the course of relating their “discovery” of their “sexuality” (like they were Pizzaro and lesbianism was the Inca Empire), these women will often talk about their family backgrounds and their early childhood in such a way that would make an old-fashioned Freudian psychoanalyst puff his pipe and say, “Tell me more about your mother.” There are certain situations and circumstances that seem especially conducive to homosexual tendencies, and there is always a backstory, usually involving a sense of alienation, a feeling of being a misfit who is different from other kids, which then manifests itself as homosexuality — or not. Some misfits manage to work through their identity crises and turn out more or less normal. Of course, we have to wonder what sort of unresolved “issues” might be lurking behind the mask of normality when we see someone like Bruce Jenner, a 65-year-old married grandfather, suddenly declare that he is a woman named “Caitlyn.”

 

What does this have to do with Nian Hu’s criticism of “yellow fever”? Perhaps more than you would think. Radical feminists describe the transgenderism of Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner as “gender fetishism.” That is to say, the so-called “dysphoria” of transpeople involves not merely a sense that they don’t fit in the body they were born in, but also a fetishistic obsession with the superficial traits and behaviors of the opposite sex. It is very easy to say Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner is just crazy, but if it’s not yet illegal to ask, why is he/she crazy? What are the components parts of his/her delusional obsession? How does someone develop such an intense identification with the opposite sex?

Well, you can believe what you want to believe, but if Bruce can be “Caitlyn” (and you’ll be condemned for transphobia if you say he/she can’t) then why is it wrong for white boys to be obsessed with Asian girls? If Ms. Hu is going to denounce “yellow fever,” what other sexual preferences will she likewise declare to be intolerable “objectification”? Do we need a Committee for Acceptable Attraction to issue official protocols of who we are and are not allowed to like? Maybe we could have a Central Bureau of Sexual Planning that will assign us sex partners on the basis of a random lottery to prevent unfair “discrimination.” If the Bureau assigns you to have sex with Danny DeVito or Rosie O’Donnell, you must comply with your assignment, comrade!

What we perceive in Nian Hu’s diatribe against the “fetishization” of Asian women is how feminism justifies hypocrisy. Twenty years ago, liberals were constantly lecturing us that we should never be “judgmental,” but now we notice that liberals are themselves quite judgmental. Everything any heterosexual white male says or does is wrong, according to the judgmental Left, and scarcely a day goes by that we don’t get some new notice of hitherto unsuspected Thought Crimes we have have committed. We are nowadays indicted and prosecuted in absentia for Thought Crimes. No evidence is required and the first we learn of our wrongdoing is when we are told we are guilty of it: “Heteronormativity!” “The male gaze!” “Rape culture!”

And who are our accusers? Only the most privileged people on the planet — arrogant brats like Nian Hu whose status as a Harvard University student qualifies her to pass judgment on everyone else. Whatever the feminist likes is good, and whatever you like is wrong, because she is a victim and you are an oppressor. In the 21st century, the claim of victimhood becomes the ultimate privilege, entitling the victim to lecture everybody else, and if any man disagrees with her, his disagreement proves that he is a misogynist. Quod erat demonstrandum.

She’s grinding these axes while enrolled at Harvard University, annual tuition $45,278. Your parents are shelling out that kind of money to send you to college and you’ve got nothing better to do with your time than to look at a guy’s Facebook pages to see if he is “fetishizing” Asian women? And yet, you little hypocrite, you insist that you should be able to “have as many sexual partners as I want without being looked down on”?

Which is it, Ms. Hu? Is private sexual behavior off-limits to criticism, or is everything to be subjected to public scrutiny to determine if our sexual choices are appropriate? Either all choices are open to criticism or no choices can be criticized, but I suspect most of us would never want to live under a regime in which some distant elite of self-appointed secular “experts” arrogate to themselves the authority to tell everybody else how we are allowed to have sex and with whom.

This is why most people despise contemporary feminism, because feminists do not deceive us with their talk of “gender,” which we understand correctly to be a way of talking about sex. Feminists want to dictate what we are allow to say about sex, so as to control what we think about sex, and thus ultimately to tell us what we are permitted to do about sex. What is the basis for feminist authority in these matters? On whose behalf do feminists claim to wield such extraordinary social, cultural and political power? And when we catch feminists engaged in deception and hypocritical sophistry — excluding their own sexual behaviors from criticism, while condemning the rest of us as guilty of sexual Thought Crimes — why are we always accused of “harassment” for having the effrontery to notice these feminist lies?

Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and unless people wake up to this menace, there will come a time — and perhaps soon — when we no longer have any freedom, nor any means of resisting the feminist dictatorship, which would certainly be the cruelest tyranny the world has ever known.

What a sad page in the history books it will be that tells the tale of how a once-great nation was destroyed, and a formerly free people were enslaved, by a bunch of Crazy Cat Ladies.

Roses are red, violets are blue.
Harvard feminists, this gift is for you.@Nian_Hu pic.twitter.com/4zghYDbjUe

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) February 8, 2016

BREAKING NEWS:

CONCORD, N.H. — On the eve of the New Hampshire primary, Hillary Clinton’s quest to become the country’s first female president has encountered an unexpected problem: she is having trouble persuading women, young and old, to rally behind her cause.

Oh! What a bitter disappointment this would be to Ms. Hu!

Who supports Hillary?@Nian_Hu, that's who! pic.twitter.com/fanKJOq9nf

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) February 8, 2016

(Hat-tip: Badger Pundit on Twitter.)

 

Comments