The Other McCain

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

A Theory of Sex (and Feminism)

Posted on | March 13, 2016 | 47 Comments

 

Friday’s post about feminist Ruby Hamad included a quote by Professor Sheila Jeffreys, asserting that heterosexuality is “a political institution through which male dominance is organised and maintained.” This prompted the commenter Joe Joe to remark:

Does Jeffreys understand that all sexual relationships have some element of power relations? Butch/femme pairings are not accidental. And no, those women are not “imitating” heterosexuality: it’s internal. We’re born with different sexual charges. That’s biology, not politics.

Well, here we ascend to the lofty plateau of theory, an area of philosophical speculation that is far above my pay grade. Some readers have been mystified, I suspect, by the way I have dealt with feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — in the Sex Trouble project. To me this theory (a terse summary of Professor Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, which enjoys a quasi-scriptural authority among Third Wave feminist intellectuals) seems self-evidently wrong.

Notice that I say “wrong,” rather than false.

Far be it from me to dispute Professor Butler’s assertion that the “binary” social behaviors of the sexes are necessary to heterosexuality. Some men are more masculine than others and some women are more feminine than others but, however we describe these traits, they are highly correlated with success in terms of the natural biology of reproduction, i.e., heterosexuality. It seems to me that Professor Butler and others (e.g., “Queer Theory” pioneer Eve Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick and Eastern Washington University Professor Mimi Marinucci, author of the 2010 textbook Feminism Is Queer) begin their arguments by assuming certain basic premises of all feminist theory. The essential premise of feminism — the movement’s sine qua non — is that all women are oppressed by men under a system of “male supremacy” otherwise known as patriarchy. This premise was stated most clearly in 1969 in the manifesto of the Women’s Liberation collective Redstockings:

Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. . . .
We identify the agents of our oppression as men. Male supremacy is the oldest, most basic form of domination. . . . Men have controlled all political, economic and cultural institutions and backed up this control with physical force. They have used their power to keep women in an inferior position. All men receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from male supremacy. All men have oppressed women.

If you disagree with that, you are not a feminist. The Redstockings collective was co-founded by Shulamith Firestone, arguably the most important figure in the Women’s Liberation movement (so-called “Second Wave” feminism) of the 1960s and ’70s. Author of the influential 1970 book The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution, Firestone had emerged as a leader in September 1967 at the National Conference for New Politics. At that gathering of the radical New Left, Firestone and Jo Freeman staged an insurrection, supported by women from Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), taking over a women’s workshop chaired by notorious atheist Madlyn Murray O’Hair.

 

This event (described in Susan Brownmiller’s 1999 memoir In Our Time) led directly to the formation of the Chicago-based “West Side Group” which was, as Brownmiller says, “probably the first Women’s Liberation group in the nation.” Obtaining a list of addresses of SDS women, Firestone moved to New York City and began recruiting and organizing others. Among those recruited by Firestone was a veteran socialist named Anne Koedt, subsequently a member of Ti-Grace Atkinson’s group The Feminists and editor of the 1973 anthology Radical Feminism. The history of the modern feminist movement can be traced directly back to the ideas, activism and organizing of a comparative handful of women associated with the 1960s New Left. What was the nature of women’s “oppression,” according to Firestone and her Redstockings comrades?

We are exploited as sex objects, breeders, domestic servants, and cheap labor.

In 1969, then, feminism condemned male admiration of beauty (women as “sex objects”), as well as women’s role in motherhood (“breeders”) and marriage (a wife’s work within her own household reduced her to the status of “domestic servant”). This amounted to a complete rejection of sex roles, per se. If it was “oppression” for women to become wives or mothers, then by the obverse principle, feminism also condemned any man who might desire to become a husband or father.

 

Given the all-encompassing categorical scope of feminism’s attack on every normal manifestation of human sexual behavior, is it any surprise that the movement soon attracted to its banner militant lesbians?

“Lesbian is a label invented by the Man to throw at any woman who dares to be his equal, who dares to challenge his prerogatives . . . who dares to assert the primacy of her own needs. . . .
“Until women see in each other the possibility of a primal commitment which includes sexual love, they will be denying themselves the love and value they readily accord to men, thus affirming their second-class status. . . .
“But why is it that women have related to and through men? By virtue of having been brought up in a male society, we have internalized the male culture’s definition of ourselves. That definition consigns us to sexual and family functions, and excludes us from defining and shaping the terms of our lives. . . .
“The consequence of internalizing this role is an enormous reservoir of self-hate. . . .
“As the source of self-hate and the lack of real self are rooted in our male-given identity, we must create a new sense of self. . . . Only women can give to each other a new sense of self. That identity we have to develop with reference to ourselves, and not in relation to men. This consciousness is the revolutionary force from which all else will follow, for ours is an organic revolution.”
— Radicalesbians, “The Woman-Identified Woman,” 1970

You see how rapidly the inexorable logic of Women’s Liberation advanced from its founding to the emergence of lesbian feminism. Calling on feminists to reject “the male culture” of “a male society,” the Radicalesbian manifesto called on feminists to exchange their “male-given identity” for a “new sense of self,” thus achieving a new “consciousness” that would be a “revolutionary force” against male supremacy.

 

This advance in feminist theory occurred in less that three years, from September 1967 to May 1970, when the Radicalesbians disrupted the NOW-organized Second Congress to Unite Women with their protest. The significance of this is explained in my book Sex Trouble:

The authors of “The Woman-Identified Woman” were not as famous as celebrity feminists like Gloria Steinem, but even if they were completely unknown, their radical manifesto would continue to be influential, because it is routinely included in the curricula of Women’s Studies courses across the United States: Michigan State University, the University of Oregon, the University of Massachusetts, and the University of Minnesota, to name a few. It is not difficult to trace the influence of this early radicalism down to the present day, or to cite similarly influential treatises — e.g., “Lesbians in Revolt” by Charlotte Bunch (1972) and “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” by Adrienne Rich (1980) — commonly included in the syllabi of Women’s Studies programs. Any attempt to separate this kind of explicitly anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology from “mainstream” feminism would require us to argue that the most eminent academics in the field of Women’s Studies (including the lesbian editors of the widely used textbook Feminist Frontiers) are not “mainstream.”

What feminism actually means, as a political philosophy, is deliberately obscured when we see a celebrity like Harry Potter star Emma Watson enlisted to recruit men to support the feminist movement.

Today we are launching a campaign called “HeForShe.”
I am reaching out to you because I need your help. We want to end gender inequality — and to do that we need everyone to be involved.
This is the first campaign of its kind at the UN: we want to try and galvanize as many men and boys as possible to be advocates for gender equality. And we don’t just want to talk about it, but make sure it is tangible.
I was appointed six months ago and the more I have spoken about feminism the more I have realized that fighting for women’s rights has too often become synonymous with man-hating. If there is one thing I know for certain, it is that this has to stop. . . .
I decided I was a feminist and this seemed uncomplicated to me. But my recent research has shown me that feminism has become an unpopular word.
Apparently I am among the ranks of women whose expressions are seen as too strong, too aggressive, isolating, anti-men and, unattractive.
Why is the word such an uncomfortable one?

This is not really a difficult question to answer, Ms. Watson. No matter how many beautiful young actresses are conscripted as celebrity feminist spokeswomen, you can never evade the problem of feminism’s core ideology, the movement’s theory of women’s “oppression.”

 

Why is feminism “synonymous with man-hating”? This should not be mysterious to Emma Watson, nor to anyone with two eyes and a brain. It is easy for an extraordinarily privileged young woman like Emma Watson, who became a multimillionaire long before she was old enough to vote, to speak of “gender equality” as if this were something that would occur spontaneously once we overcome prejudicial stereotypes about feminists being unattractive man-haters. Going back to the very start of the Women’s Liberation movement, and continuing up to the present day, we see that it is always privileged women who achieve prominence as feminism’s intellectual leaders and spokeswomen.

The secret ingredient of feminist ideology is Daddy’s money:

Catharine MacKinnon, for example, is the daughter of a Republican congressman and judge; her family’s wealth enabled her to attend elite schools (Smith College and Yale University) and to spend 18 years writing her grand opus, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. It is astonishing to read, in the preface of her 1989 book (p. xiv), that the first chapter “was written in 1971-72, revised in 1975, and published in Signs in 1982.” Only an extraordinary sort of financial security can explain how a writer could be able to wait a full decade between writing the first draft of an essay and its initial publication. During the intervening years, MacKinnon published The Sexual Harassment of Working Women (1979) just two years after graduating from Yale Law School. This Marxist daughter of a Republican father was able to make herself an “expert” on the problems of “working women” precisely because she never had to work a day in her life. . . .
It was her remarkable socioeconomic privilege that was the basis of MacKinnon’s lifelong assault on “male supremacy,” and we see a similar pattern in the lives of many other feminists.

We encounter this phenomenon repeatedly in the biographies of feminist leaders. Women who make careers attacking patriarchy and capitalism are almost invariably the daughters of privilege.

Ti-Grace Atkinson, 1974

Ti-Grace Atkinson, for example, was one of five daughters born to a prominent Louisiana family. Her father was a chemical engineer for Standard Oil, and yet she has never acknowledged the role of her father (or capitalism) in paying the bills for her education.

“Why do women keep getting married? . . . It’s conceivable somebody could be happy despite being married, but never because they were married. . . .
“Sex and love is the dynamic that keeps women’s oppression going . . .
“Motherhood is a heavily permeated sex role.”
— Ti-Grace Atkinson, 2011

More than 40 years after she became a leader of the feminist movement, Ti-Grace Atkinson’s hostility to marriage, love, sex and motherhood remained the same as in 1969, when she protested against marriage and declared to a Time magazine reporter: “Love has to be destroyed. It’s an illusion that people care for each other. . . . It may be that sex is a neurotic manifestation of oppression.” Has any reporter bothered to ask Emma Watson if she agrees with Ti-Grace Atkinson? Of course not.

 

Who pays the bill for Emma Watson’s feminist agenda at the United Nations? In 2012, U.S. taxpayers provided $567 million — 22 percent of the United Nations’ budget — and, as Brett Schaefer of the Heritage Foundation explained, America’s “assessment” is “more than 180 other U.N. member states combined and 22,000 times more than the least assessed countries.” The vast majority of the world’s countries are parasitic freeloaders, in terms of the U.N. budget, while taxpayers in the United States (which has only 4.3 percent of the world’s population) provide 22 cents of every dollar the U.N. spends. Somebody at the U.N. got paid to “create a new symbol for our shared humanity,” proving the platform from which Emma Watson could lecture the world about how men need to become “advocates for gender equality.” This requires only that we ignore the actually history of the feminist movement.

Emma Watson has started a feminist book club, and I wonder if she would consider recommending Personal Politics: The Roots of Women’s Liberation in the Civil Rights Movement & the New Left by Sara Evans (1979), Daring To Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America 1967-1975 by Alice Echols (1989) and Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women’s Liberation by Kate Weigand (2001). Perhaps it would help Ms. Watson’s naïve young admirers to study how the modern feminist movement originated. If the subscribers to Ms. Watson’s book club are curious why “Second Wave” feminism so quickly became associated with man-hating lesbians, right here on my desk, I have several books that Ms. Watson could recommend to her feminist fans:

Let the members of Emma Watson’s book club read that list of 20 books —  a fraction of the feminist library I’ve amassed during my research — and tell me if any of these eminent authors has anything good to say about men, marriage or motherhood. Permit me to point out that among the names on this list are Professor Charlotte Bunch (Rutgers University), Professor Kathleen Barry (Pennsylvania State University), Professor Marilyn Frye (Michigan State University), Professor Celia Kitzinger (University of York), Professor Sarah Lucia-Hoagland (Northeastern Illinois University), Professor Sandra Lee Bartky (University of Illinois), Professor Sue Wilkinson (Loughborough University), Professor Dee Graham (University of Cincinnati) Professor Diane Richardson (Newcastle University), Professor Carole McCann (University of Maryland), Professor Seung-Kyung Kim (University of Maryland), Professor “Jack” Halberstam (University of Southern California) and Professor Jennifer Rich (Hofstra University). Let the reader ask,”Who pays the bills to promote feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual agenda?” And the answer is: “You do.” Feminism is supported by taxpayer funding to higher education, and by every parent or student who pays a dime in tuition to the hundreds of colleges and universities that employ such professors in departments of Women’s Studies.

The secret ingredient of feminist ideology is Daddy’s money, you see.

Every year, some 90,000 students in the United States are enrolled in Women’s Studies classes, where they are indoctrinated (at taxpayer expense) in the Cult Ideology of Feminism, and sent forth into the world as activists promoting this anti-male belief system everywhere.

All of this is by way of explaining why I say Professor Judith Butler’s feminist gender theory is wrong, but not necessarily false.

 

If a woman feels nothing but contempt and hatred toward men, if she never desires to have a husband or babies, if the thought of heterosexual intercourse inspires in her only feelings of dread and horror, there is no reason why she shouldn’t embrace Professor Butler’s theory. Shulamith Firestone, Mary Daly, Catharine MacKinnon, Joyce Trebilcot, Gayle Rubin, Sheila Jeffreys, Amanda Marcotte, Jaclyn Friedman — one could recite a very long list of eminent feminist authors without naming a woman who had ever married a man or given birth to a child.

Does anyone imagine this is merely a coincidence? Of course not. As a rationalization of man-hating — or divorce, or abortion, or lesbianism — feminist theory is entirely valid. Begin with the premise that all women are “oppressed,” and that all men are “agents” of this “oppression,” and how else do you expect the argument to conclude?

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . . And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind . . .”
— Romans 1:22, 28 (KJV)

The logic of feminism is obvious enough. But when the commenter Joe Joe asserted that “all sexual relationships have some element of power relations,” I felt obliged to offer my own perspective:

Let me say, first, that I do not like theory. Give me enough facts, and I’ll come up with my own theory — or not. Could I theorize about the nature of sexual attraction? Sure, and I even dabble a bit in it (“Me Tarzan, you Jane“) in my book. Heterosexual success requires that a man exhibit some quality of heroism, to elicit the admiration of a woman. She cannot love a man she does not admire. This is simple enough to understand, and also explains the fundamental problem of feminism — an ideology that takes a wholly negative view of masculinity, so that the feminist can never find any real enjoyment in a normal heterosexual relationship. Insofar as a man is worthy of admiration — possessing heroic qualities — the feminist must resent his success. This resentment of male success is so inherent to her ideology that the feminist must feel like a horrible hypocrite for admiring any man. She is always the protagonist of the drama, and he is a bit player whose only lines in the script are “yes.” For this reason, to hear her husband praised for any independent achievement of his own always fills the feminist with envy and rage.
Well, that is one theory, anyway. If you don’t like it, I could whip out another half-dozen by next Tuesday, but theory doesn’t pay the bills.

Somebody’s got to pay the bills, you see. Feminists do not want men to have economic success or career achievement that would enable men to pay the bills — to support their wives and children — because if women have husbands and children have fathers, this contributes to “the dynamic that keeps women’s oppression going,” as Ti-Grace Atkinson put it.

Lest anyone mistakenly believe that feminism has changed its tune, or doubt that young feminists subscribe to the same radical ideology that inspired Firestone, Atkinson, et al., carefully read the rant that Meghan Murphy published just last week, denouncing “capitalist patriarchy,” condemning “gender roles that are rooted in domination and subordination (i.e. masculinity and femininity),” and describing feminism as a movement “to build a society wherein men don’t feel entitled to sexual access to women.” Is Meghan Murphy a marginal extremist “fringe” feminist? No, she is the founder and editor of Feminist Current, Canada’s leading feminist website. She has a master’s degree in Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies from Simon Fraser University, and if Ms. Murphy insists that feminism must have “a real, radical definition” and “collective, agreed upon goals,” who am I to say she is wrong?

Meghan Murphy is right: Men cannot have “sexual access to women” — that’s rape culture, she explains — and masculinity and femininity must be abolished. Or so you must believe, if you are a feminist.

Professor Ann Althouse was intrigued by my rhetorical method:

This is an interesting form of argument, where you take a central term that people have infused with various meanings, adapting it to their preferences and purposes, and present evidence that the truest, most historically accurate meaning of that term refers to things that those who’ve been embracing it would find repellent.

Well, I make no argument, Professor, and I offer no theory. Such work is for intellectuals, whereas I am a mere journalist, and all I’m doing is reporting the objective facts here: Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It. Trust me on that.

+ o + o +

BANNED BY TWITTER!

 

The #FreeStacy movement, a grassroots response to Twitter’s Feb. 19 decision to suspend my popular @rsmccain account, has received international attention. You can help support this movement by including the #FreeStacy hashtag on your Twitter messages, by retweeting messages in support of this movement, and by signing up at PublicStatus.org, which is dedicated to defending free speech rights on social media. Thanks to everyone who has helped spread the word.

— Robert Stacy McCain




 

 


Category: Sex Trouble

Comments

47 Responses to “A Theory of Sex (and Feminism)”

  1. M. Thompson
    March 13th, 2016 @ 8:24 pm

    Seeing your new account here has prompted me to get back on the Twitter Bandwagon. Curse you Red Baron!

  2. RS
    March 13th, 2016 @ 9:27 pm

    All of this is by way of explaining why I say Professor Judith Butler’s feminist gender theory is wrong, but not necessarily false.

    Are you equating the phrase “not . . .false” with logical validity? That is, an argument’s premise may be false, but the argument’s conclusion may logically follow, being therefore “valid.” This is, I think, your point, which is correct. What makes the Feminist foundation both false and wrong, i.e. untrue, is that the premise, “all men oppress all women” is, to be charitable, open to discussion. Feminists, however, view it as self-evident, and thus, does all the rest of the lunacy follow.

  3. Fail Burton
    March 13th, 2016 @ 9:37 pm

    The history of unpacking the paranoia and sociopathy of these women is an account of how they had an idea first and then cast a net to see what “science” they could find to back it up. Why should we be surprised it leads us to the wacky world of post-structuralist thought, the kingdom where anything can be anything if you only squint your eyes and wish hard enough. Faster than you can say Monique Wittig, in a surprisingly short period of time they came up with enough comprehensive gibberish to create French Queer Theory. This is enhanced by the “performative” notion where the only “real” truth is that which has not been made compulsory by society. Conveniently, within that paradigm, lesbianism becomes real and heterosexuality an illusion which exists only by virtue of the demands it makes of and pre-envisions for itself. Cease demanding it and it disappears on a puff of smoke, leaving behind only a far greater spectrum of gender otherwise known as “insanity.”

    Well done, ladies, and that includes Foucault. Now make me a Rolls Royce-Merlin engine and a sandwich.

  4. robertstacymccain
    March 13th, 2016 @ 9:39 pm

    Butler is “wrong,” as in morally wrong. We are not supposed to make moral judgments about right and wrong, good and evil, because this might hurt the feelings of people who are wrong and evil. The only kind of judgments permitted in the 21st century are political judgments on the basis of a progressive theory of equality.

    You should memorize this comment, because pretty soon it will be a crime to say this, and this comment will be obliterated by the Thought Police.

  5. DeadMessenger
    March 13th, 2016 @ 9:55 pm

    I wish I could’ve digitally captured the precise moment of my gobsmacking, so I could share with you my mouth flying open and my beverage drooling down my chin and down the front of my shirt: “Who pays the bill for Emma Watson’s feminist agenda at the United Nations? In 2012, U.S. taxpayers provided $567 million — 22 percent of the United Nations’ budget …”

    What.The.Flippity.Hell??? Why???

    I used to think that if I ever became President, sometime during my first and only month in office, shortly before my assassination, I’d pull the U.S. out of the UN. But now I can see that I’d actually do that on day one, right after I repeal Obamacare, and right before I close the Dept. of Education, the EPA, and the Dept. of Energy.

  6. RS
    March 13th, 2016 @ 9:59 pm

    Obviously, I don’t disagree with the position that Butler, et al. are morally wrong. See. e.g. Genesis 3:16. However, your exposé of feminism’s origins necessarily must rely upon logic alone without appeals to morality, which is, in essence, and appeal to authority which not all will accept. Feminism as a view of reality collapses under the weight of its own lunacy without regard to moral imperatives. Perhaps inserting “morally” into your text above would make it more clear.

  7. DeadMessenger
    March 13th, 2016 @ 10:01 pm

    … and that includes Foucault.

    BWAHAHAHAHA!

  8. DeadMessenger
    March 13th, 2016 @ 10:03 pm

    Anita Sarkeesian is probably already on the phone with your internet provider.

  9. RS
    March 13th, 2016 @ 10:04 pm

    It is no coincidence that as Feminism has become more mainstream, autoethnography has become ever more prevalent is “scholarly” “research” and writing.

  10. NeoWayland
    March 13th, 2016 @ 10:08 pm

    Not if I have anything to say about it.

  11. Wombat_socho
    March 13th, 2016 @ 10:09 pm

    Nathan Explosion approves!

  12. Steve Skubinna
    March 13th, 2016 @ 10:22 pm

    There’s “wrong,” there’s “false,” and then there’s “flat our barking batshit deranged insane and stupid.”

    The latter is what you are discussing. Know your terms.

  13. Steve Skubinna
    March 13th, 2016 @ 10:24 pm

    Back in the sixties and seventies I used to think my grandparents had gone off the reservation with their “Get US out of the UN” stickers on their cars.

    Since then I have come to believe they were prescient. There is nothing the UN touches that does not become worse. It is a force for evil.

  14. mole
    March 13th, 2016 @ 10:28 pm

    The crux of the matter is the “rush from judgement” which started in the 60’s.

    The armed extremists of the Black Panthers/Weather underground/red brigades werent judged like common thugs of other non-fashionable extremists were (the KKK for example), but allowed to flourish because their “cause” was just.
    Extremism, and tolerance of it, whatever its stated objectives, is nearly always a bad thing, and its generally bad people who engage in it.

    In a just world the Black Panthers/ Weather underground people would be excoriated like the KKK instead of rewarded with bullshit academic positions and a soft focus historical assessment.

    By caving into extremists 50 years ago the current rot set in.

  15. mole
    March 13th, 2016 @ 10:34 pm

    Build a Trump wall around Washington and impose a strict quarantine, nothing goes in or out.

    Hell, sell the pay TV rights for the “lord of the flies reality show” and the wall would pay for itself

  16. Adobe_Walls
    March 13th, 2016 @ 10:39 pm

    I’ve always been opposed to leaving the UN before destroying it. Put another way ”no I do not think it would be a good idea to give Iran a seat on the security council”.

  17. Joe Guelph
    March 13th, 2016 @ 10:46 pm

    And of course there’s Pauli’s famous judgement on utterly useless theory: “That’s *not even wrong*”!

  18. Fail Burton
    March 13th, 2016 @ 10:52 pm

    Butler’s a freak from Battlecreek. Is that wrong or false?

  19. Fail Burton
    March 13th, 2016 @ 11:34 pm

    By the way, an excellent piece.

    Many people have been mystified by what happened in Nazi Germany in terms of how hate speech and madness can be mainstreamed into a society as something noble and just. Stacy is showing you how that is happening in real time.

    Let’s have no talk of Godwin’s Law or concentration camps; I’m not talking about anything like that. I’m talking about a mechanism – a con game – by which false histories are used to persecute a biological group of people via blood libels which don’t wash off.

    As always, I am mystified by so many journalists entranced by their own insightful natures who are failing to see what is right in front of their faces. It shows why you see so few good journalistic essayists. Improvisational pontificating off the top of one’s head while speaking in bland generalities is a lot easier than doing research.

  20. Greg
    March 14th, 2016 @ 12:01 am

    And yet, not a few of these nutjobs ARE actually calling for concentration camps for men.

  21. Borg
    March 14th, 2016 @ 12:09 am

    Damn it Stacy, I almost choked on a bagel, when I saw that woman with the make me a sandwich sign. She looks like she needed one too. lol….

  22. robertstacymccain
    March 14th, 2016 @ 12:43 am

    “Many people have been mystified by what happened in Nazi Germany in terms of how hate speech and madness can be mainstreamed into a society as something noble and just. Stacy is showing you how that is happening in real time.”

    The past four or five years, it seems, there has been an almost manic intensity of hatred pouring out for the feminist movement. It’s like nothing I’ve seen except, perhaps, the Left’s anti-Bush madness during the Iraq War.

  23. Daniel Freeman
    March 14th, 2016 @ 1:12 am

    The worst, IMO, is UN “peacekeepers”. Arming men from actual rape cultures and sending them among the most vulnerable and defenseless. Reprehensible.

  24. Daniel Freeman
    March 14th, 2016 @ 1:21 am

    As we have noted in the past, there aren’t any slices of bread large enough. And no one would want to eat her, even if it were legal. And if she has some kind of vore fetish, why not sandwich herself? A very confusing demand all around.

  25. DeadMessenger
    March 14th, 2016 @ 1:40 am

    Destroying it works for me, too.

  26. DeadMessenger
    March 14th, 2016 @ 1:46 am

    I stumbled across a website once – didn’t keep the link, sorry – with links to actual news stories and pictures from all over the world, documenting their reprehensibleness (is that a word?)

    What they’ve done in Africa, for example, is beyond anything I’ve ever heard of. And they get away with all of it. Not even a slap on the wrist, nor a harsh word spoken.

  27. DeadMessenger
    March 14th, 2016 @ 1:49 am

    I’d buy a TV just to watch that. It’d be like the cult movie, The Warriors, only the gangs would be wearing business suits and blinding each other with their laser pointers.

  28. DeadMessenger
    March 14th, 2016 @ 1:52 am

    The foundation of the one world government, can you dig it? See Revelation for details.

  29. Turtler
    March 14th, 2016 @ 1:53 am

    First time commentator here and general nerd. And while your post is quite good, what really stuck out to me was this one part of one quote, and something not many people would probably focus on because of how pressing the other threats is.

    But here it is.

    “Lesbian is a label invented by the Man to throw at any woman who dares to be his equal, who dares to challenge his prerogatives”

    Now, this is patently stupid and ignorant on many levels (especially assuming that Lesbianism is equivalent with equality- and thus nobody can be both a Heterosexual or Bisexual woman and equal with men/challenge their prerogatives, which would include labeling their idol Beauvoir as such because she banged another moron of the opposite gender).

    But no, what this thing overlooks that REALLY Strikes me is that it effectively denies that the entire Greek island of Lesbos exists, has existed for millions of years, and has had human communities on it for thousands of them.

    It was THESE PEOPLE- of both genders and presumably every sexual orientation known to man- the citizens of the ancient Hellenic Island-State of Lesbos- that were known as “Lesbians” and written about as such in countless sources from the period. So it’s not like this is controversial.

    Heck, the reason the word has the meaning it does today is because of the most famous classical Lesbian, Sappho. (Whose works are IMHO worth reading, and have a lot more scope and depth than just the cherry-picked parts they have for “Queer Studies” or whatever). But apparently they had to shaft her to, because admitting she was a proud citizen of Lesbos would categorically debunk this bullocks claim.

    And apparently that would be too much for egotists like this. Before them, Nothing. After them, Everything. Admitting history did not start with them would be too much.

    And apparently when you’re over credentialed and nursing grievances, you don’t have to do pitiful things like actual research.

  30. DeadMessenger
    March 14th, 2016 @ 1:56 am

    Research is for suckers. Why research when you can make stuff up and useful idiots believe it without question?

  31. DeadMessenger
    March 14th, 2016 @ 2:01 am

    But we won’t, because we’ll be in reeducation camps by then, dribbling into our drool cups while we wait for our next electroshock session.

    They’ll probably let us hum Kumbayah over our oatmeal and strained peas, though.

  32. Finrod Felagund
    March 14th, 2016 @ 3:16 am

    For years I’ve advocated renumbering the interstate Beltway around DC to I-666, as a Warning.

  33. Joe Joe
    March 14th, 2016 @ 3:25 am

    Three comments:

    1. When I said that all sexual relations have an element of power relations, I was trying to point out that lesbian relationships ALSO have that element. If feminists are trying to get away from power relations by having sexual relations with only women, they are fooling themselves. I have memories of a certain butch lesbian who was particularly obnoxious to her femme partner. (They lived next door at one time.)

    I don’t disagree with your assessment of women needing to admire the men they’re with. I’ve seen that often enough.

    2. The woman with the sign that men (I assume) should make her a sandwich looks like she really doesn’t need another sandwich. Perhaps she should consider carrying another sign.

    3. You need to start making youtube videos. Twitter feminists are not going to come here, but they do show up in youtube comments. You might actually get some traction there. And young women need to hear you because feminism will corrode their lives and relationships with men.

  34. Victoria Gibson
    March 14th, 2016 @ 5:10 am

    “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

    two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month .,3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Hereoi!150????? http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsPage/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:::::oi!150….

  35. NeoWayland
    March 14th, 2016 @ 6:44 am

    That depends on if people depend on “the system” to save them.

  36. Fail Burton
    March 14th, 2016 @ 7:48 am

    Let’s not forget this is the 10th anni. of Duke Lacrosse. Some daffy feminist wrote about that and was more worried about the racism and misogyny of the frat party than a mentally ill stripper, huckster and now convicted murderer who set out to put men in prison for nothing.

    The woman who wrote that piece made it fairly clear she considered the prison sentence for the murdered less than fair and the Duke lacrosse players men who had gotten away with something.

    What would’ve happened had this current Title IX racket been in play at the time?

    If they’re not breaking the law, change the law until they do.

  37. Dana
    March 14th, 2016 @ 7:52 am

    Our esteemed host wrote:

    Feminists do not want men to have economic success or career achievement that would enable men to pay the bills — to support their wives and children — because if women have husbands and children have fathers, this contributes to “the dynamic that keeps women’s oppression going,” as Ti-Grace Atkinson put it.

    Well, in that regard, the feminists have been amazingly successful: these days, wages have fallen to the point where a man is usually unable to provide all of the economic support a family requires, and his wife has to work outside the home as well, just to make ends meet. I suspect, however, that, for most women, this economic change hasn’t exactly been how they wanted things to turn out once women were freed to be able to compete for all jobs, rather than a restricted few.

    Nobody wants to admit it, but it was the increased competition from women and blacks which led to the downward pressure on wages. When only white men were allowed to compete for most good jobs, it had the same economic effect as unionization: it restricted the supply of workers vis a vis the demand for workers. Once women and blacks were allowed to compete for the good jobs, the supply of available workers for those positions increased dramatically, far in excess of the increased demand.

    The result was totally foreseeable: with many more available workers, employers didn’t need to pay as much to fill the positions. Less foreseen was the economic pressure on workers: once men no longer had to bear the burden of the total economic support of the family, they could accept and be satisfied with jobs which paid less than was required to support the whole family, because their wives could also work. Employers could get away with paying less than a family wage, because they could retain workers with less than a family wage.

    The huge increase in the workforce led to the high unemployment of the 1970s and early 1980s: the economy simply had to adjust to the new conditions. And it adjusted in a way that no one ever talked about: as there was a vast influx of women and blacks into the workforce, there were new jobs created, but those jobs were primarily (not exclusively) in the fields which provided service to the new employees. With wives no longer having the time to prepare a lunchbox for their husbands before they headed off to work, fast food jobs for lunch, and eventually breakfast, proliferated, and food service jobs for women who now had to work a full day outside the home rather than being home, able to cook dinner for the family, were created as well.

    There were industrial jobs created as well: since families now needed two automobiles rather than one, the automobile industry saw an increase. Unfortunately, this occurred at the same time as imported cars were surging, so many of those jobs were created in Osaka rather than Ohio! New demands for clothing were created, at the same time as foreign garment manufacturers were penetrating the American market.

    What has feminism wrought? For some, and our esteemed host listed all of those feminist professors, with good university jobs, feminism meant great jobs and careers. But, alas! for far more women it meant having to work full time at WalMart or a convenience store. The left, never having understood economics, somehow thought that the entry of women into the labor force in large numbers would mean that families would be much wealthier, would have just so many more resources. Had they understood the most basic concepts, the Economics 101 concepts of supply and demand, they could have foreseen what a dramatic increase in the supply of labor would mean, but, if any of them did see it, it was far too politically incorrect to ever say out loud.

  38. robertstacymccain
    March 14th, 2016 @ 8:31 am

    “Well, in that regard, the feminists have been amazingly successful: these days, wages have fallen to the point where a man is usually unable to provide all of the economic support a family requires, and his wife has to work outside the home as well, just to make ends meet.”

    This is a rationalization, and not an explanation, for the decline of the family. Over the years, I have heard variations of this “economic” theory of the decline of the family, but they simply do not add up to an explanation.

    Ask yourself a simple question: What are the requirements of “success” in a society that is descending into degenerate chaos?

    Three words: The Kardashian family.

    I rest my case.

  39. A Theory of Sex (and Feminism) | Living in Anglo-America
    March 14th, 2016 @ 10:35 am

    […] A Theory of Sex (and Feminism) […]

  40. marcus tullius cicero
    March 14th, 2016 @ 10:55 am

    …hopefully, these monsters will become extinct by their own actions…

  41. DeadMessenger
    March 14th, 2016 @ 1:52 pm

    I assume you mean people other than us, because I don’t depend on “the system” for doodly, and never will.

  42. NeoWayland
    March 14th, 2016 @ 4:01 pm

    There are people who would not go willingly to a reeducation camp. They’re very nice people, they’d invite you over for a BBQ before the big game, they’d take your kids to school, and they’d help you change a hot water tank if you needed it.

    But they would never submit to a government that ran reeducation camps.

  43. AngelinaPGay
    March 15th, 2016 @ 4:48 am

    “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

    two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Hereoi!431????? http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsTime/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:::::oi!431…..

  44. Chris
    March 16th, 2016 @ 2:11 am

    It would be interesting to see how much of the fall off in university enrollment is from men. Running gender studies is going to hit the bottom line for these institutions.

  45. DukeLax
    March 17th, 2016 @ 9:43 am

    Women have always lied about rape, but what has changed over the last few decades…is State law enforcement are now getting “eztra federal monies” to persecute innocent guys on false accusations, while manufacturing the statistic that false accusations are one half of 1 percent ( which is a faulty and inflammatory lie)

  46. DukeLax
    March 18th, 2016 @ 10:21 am

    Orwellian

  47. DukeLax
    March 18th, 2016 @ 10:22 am

    But who is going to “fund” this new juggernaut paradigm???…Oh, thats right…..washington has the printing presses running day and night now.