The ‘Mechanism of Social Control’

http://theothermccain.com/2015/04/15/the-mechanism-of-social-control/

“Since sex is something men do to women . . . men dominate and control women. . . .
“In other words, heterosexuality is the foundation of the social structure of male dominance, and successfully attacking it could bring down the whole house. . . .
“Is consensual sexual activity which entails male dominance and female subordination a form of social control? . . .
“The need for a unified feminist theory of sexuality is clear. If one concludes, as many feminists have, that heterosexuality is the primary and most powerful mechanism of social control, then understanding its meaning in all forms is imperative if male dominance is ever to be overcome. . . .
“Heterosexual instrumentalism practiced at the interpersonal level allows men to dominate and control women, which, in turn, provides the underpinnings of a system where women are controlled in all settings.”
— S.P. Schacht and Patricia H. Atchison, “Heterosexual Instrumentalism: Past and Future Directions,” in Heterosexuality: A Feminism and Psychology Reader, edited by Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger (1993)

The authors of that quote were both professors of sociology. Professor Steven P. Schacht taught at Southwest Missouri State University and Professor Patricia Atchison taught at Colorado State University.

Professor Schacht is a rather extraordinary example of male self-hatred, which he has further expressed in a remarkable essay, “Teaching About Being An Oppressor: Some Personal and Political Considerations.” Click through and read it. No Onion satire could possibly exceed Professor Schacht’s absurdity. It might be helpful to know that he received his Ph.D. for a dissertation entitled “Obscene Telephone Calls as Instruments of Male Dominance.” Just in case you are not yet convinced that Professor Schacht is a textbook case of pathetic self-loathing, however, please readhis essay “Why Men Should be Feminists”:

Perhaps like many men who claim a feminist identity, the path I traveled to grasp such an outlook has been meandering, often painful, and not well marked. The seeds of this very divergent course of personal being were initially planted by a woman who was, among many other beautiful things, an artist, a poet, a radical feminist, and my mother. She spent untold hours trying to share with me the anguish and the hope of her feminist vision.
In my pre-adolescent years I accompanied my mother on numerous pre-Roe v. Wade protest rallies — the chant “women unite, stand up and fight, abortion is a women’s right” still clearly rings in my ears — often helping her paint banners and signs to carry as we marched. She took me with her to anti-Vietnam protests at the University of Minnesota campus (1968-70), several rallies for George McGovern . . .
As one would expect, almost all of my mother’s friends were strong feminist women themselves. My mother’s feminist values in raising me were very much reflected and consistent with other important women in my childhood.

 

 

Did I mention that his father was a former Air Force pilot? How do you think that marriage turned out?

 

 

 

[M]y parents separated for several years during my mid-teen years, each taking turns living in the family home with the other maintaining an apartment. Since my father was a pilot and away for many days of the month, in a sense, their separation had probably already occurred years before their formal breakup. Both dated, my mother even publicly became a lesbian, openly stating and showing her affection for her female partners, while my father pursued flight attendants and other younger women. My parents eventually did reunite, but this was because of my mother becoming critically ill, and their personal differences remained quite apparent.

 

 

 

Professor Schacht’s mother died when he was 19. Honestly,  it seems easier to interpret his story not as proving “Why Men Should Be Feminists” but rather “Why Women Should Not Be Feminists.”

That is to say, if you are a woman whose hobbies include anti-war rallies, pro-abortion protests and campaigning for liberal Democrats, and all your friends are “strong feminist women” . . .

Well, there is a Greek island near the coast of Asia Minor. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. If the first phrase that comes to a woman’s mind when she thinks of heterosexuality is “mechanism of social control,” she might just want to take the shortcut to her ultimate destination — over there on the other side of the Mytilini Strait — rather than ruining some unfortunate guy’s life by pretending to enjoy heterosexuality.

As for “feminist men,” obviously there is no hope at all for them.Professor Schacht recounts his academic career:

I would only spend two years teaching at SMSU. Like many positions to follow, in spite of having high teaching evaluations and a quite active publication record, I was basically fired for being too radical, too feminist, too queer, and an obvious gender traitor of sorts. Consistent with my SMSU experience, since leaving graduate school in 1990 I have held six different positions, spent a year unemployed, been divorced twice, and am presently recovering from colon cancer. Moreover, during the early years of my return to my mother’s feminist ideals, I increasingly found myself being betrayed and rejected by men (especially those in academia). Conversely, many of my attempts for seeking acceptance from feminist women were met with a cool reception, often filled with indifference, mistrust, and even hostility.

 

There’s a song by Beck. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.

 

 

Feminism Is a Journey to Lesbianism

http://theothermccain.com/2014/05/06/feminism-is-a-journey-to-lesbianism/

 

“It became obvious that men didn’t want to interact with me or with women in general on an equal level, and that what ‘attracted’ them in women was subordination to them — as soon as we wanted to be their ‘equals’ they were repelled by it, lost interest or tried to thwart the feminist drive in me some way or another.”
— Radical Wind, April 28

(WARNING: Graphic language and mature subject matter.)

Radical feminists are both (a) insane and (b) basically correct in their understanding of the psychology of sex. Which is to say, a careful study of what is today called “gender theory” does show that inequality between men and women — collectively, under the systematic male dominance that feminists call patriarchy — is inextricably linked to heterosexuality. Even if every conceivable reform were enacted that could rid women of discrimination in education or employment, male dominance would continue to be expressed through sexual intercourse, through manipulation or abuse within relationships, through pregnancy and through women’s greater burden in parenthood. Women who desire long-term male romantic companionship of any kind must do what is necessary first to attract, and then to maintain, his sexual interest.

Radical Wind — the wacko feminist whose rant “PIV is always rape, OK?” inspired widespread mockery — is actually very close to an important truth when she describes how men were “repelled” by her “feminist drive.” We may suppose she was hanging out with a loutish crew of young left-wing idiots when she experienced this; therefore it must have been a shocking revelation when these allegedly egalitarian men expected her to enact the “subordination” of femininity.

News flash: Men are men.

“Male dominance is sexual. . . .
“A feminist theory of sexuality would locate sexuality within a theory of gender inequality, meaning the social hierarchy of men over women. . . .
“To be clear: what is sexual is what gives a man an erection. Whatever it takes to make a penis shudder and stiffen with the experience of its potency is what sexuality means culturally. . . . All this suggests that that which is called sexuality is the dynamic of control by which male dominance . . . eroticizes as man and woman, as identity and pleasure. It is also that which maintains and defines male supremacy as a political system.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, “Sexuality, Pornography, and Method: ‘Pleasure under Patriarchy’” (1989)

Yeah, baby — keep talking sexy like that and I might buy you a drink.

Isn’t it weird how we smile at such a discussion, even by an ultra-serious radical feminist like MacKinnon? Talking about the erotic nature of male dominance is enough “to make a penis shudder and stiffen with the experience of its potency,” you might say.

The arguments of radical lesbian feminists are, to me, preferable to the liberal “pro-sex” feminists like Amanda Marcotte, whose objective seems to be to defend women’s “right” to shame-free promiscuity. Radical feminists see the “pro-sex” embrace of heterosexual hedonism as a dishonest betrayal of feminism: How are women fighting the patriarchy by sucking cock? The paradox is self-evident.

 

The “subordination” of women in their traditional roles as wives, mothers and homemakers was the original target of the Women’s Liberation movement, but as soon as women divorced their husbands, aborted their babies and pursued careers, they discovered that this “liberation” subjected them to new forms of oppression. Made “equal” by federal laws that forbade discrimination, newly liberated women learned that the egalitarian regime did not improve the quality of their relationships with men. To the contrary, the “liberated woman” was subjected to harassment, insults and the selfish predatory sexual behavior of men whose “respect” for women as equals proved to be far crueler in practice than anything that the stereotypical 1950s suburban housewife had ever been expected to endure.

From this recognition — the misleading promise of “liberation” in a man’s world — sprang the radical feminism that identified men as the enemy, and made lesbianism a political statement, arguing that male sexuality was inherently harmful to women.

“Radical feminism has completely transformed me. . . . I have no male friends, and limit my interaction with males . . .
“With patriarchy, men are constantly dictating what women’s bodies should look like. . . . A woman’s body is meant for male viewing. He wants . . . to confirm his stupid beliefs that women are fuck objects.”
— Formulations of Oppression, April 16

Yeah, baby — keep talking sexy like that and I might buy you a drink.

The radical’s resentment of her status as “fuck object” and the perception that her body “is meant for male viewing” shows that her grievance is not with traditionalism, but rather with the hedonistic culture of “liberation” wherein women are expected to market themselves as sexual commodities. Her problem is not that men fall in love with her, want to marry her, take her to a 3BR/2BA ranch house in the suburbs and make babies together. Her problem is that none of these modes of traditional “subordination” are offered to the liberated woman, who is presumed to exist in a state of constant sexual availability, a woman to be had by many men, but never wholly possessed by any of them.

It is the absence of permanent commitment — of “happily ever after,” of complete uniting of herself with man — that inspires the liberated woman to resent not just the selfish indifference of men who desire her only as a “fuck object,” but eventually also to resent the sex act itself. And when she reaches that point, she will find feminist intellectuals ready to encourage and theorize her resentment.

“There is never a real privacy of the body that can coexist with intercourse: with being entered. The vagina itself is muscled and the muscles have to be pushed apart. The thrusting is persistent invasion. She is opened up, split down the center. She is occupied — physically, internally, in her privacy. . . . .
“There is no analogue anywhere among subordinated groups of people to this experience of being made for intercourse: for penetration, entry, occupation.”
— Andrea DworkinIntercourse, 1987

Yeah, baby — keep talking sexy like that and I might buy you a drink.

Most women are not radical man-haters like Dworkin and, after reading her description of intercourse — “of being  opened up, split down the center” — normal women reply: “Isn’t it awesome?”

Normal women are delighted to know they are “made for intercourse,” and if they are thereby “subordinated”? Awesome! And if her body is a delight to her man? Awesome! 

Radical feminists perceive everything, including happiness, as a zero-sum game: Anything that makes men happy can only be obtained by a process of subtraction from the happiness of women. This is even true — indeed, it is especially true — when it comes to PIV (penis-in-vagina, i.e., intercourse), as Radical Wind explains:

 

Separatism started for me in a crossroads of circumstances. It started in part when I decided that I wouldn’t date any men because dating with them had been so painful and traumatising and I wanted to protect myself from that. I was already feminist, had almost perceived that PIV was inherently violent and a way to humiliate women, and that all men wanted was to use us as receptacles for their dicks. So I first thought that if I wanted to date a man, a way to prevent being used by them as their dick-socket to be thrown away the minute after, I’d have to choose one I knew for a long time and could trust he wouldn’t abuse me, had already built an equal, friendly, respectful relationship with him which stood the test of time, and especially, they would have to understand feminism and i should be able to be feminist with them without feeling uncomfortable about it.
Well I very quickly realised that this standard was totally impossible! Once I held this standard for interacting with men, they all disappeared out of my life very quickly. It became obvious that men didn’t want to interact with me or with women in general on an equal level, and that what “attracted” them in women was subordination to them — as soon as we wanted to be their “equals” they were repelled by it, lost interest or tried to thwart the feminist drive in me some way or another. This was a major eye-opener. I’ve said this before in various comments but I found this experience really amazing — just setting the bar high for men made them disappear out of my life.
Also once I saw how everything men do is always directly or subliminally a rape threat and reminds us of our penetrable caste, I couldn’t bear being exposed to anything male, either in physical presence or in mediated ways (religion, ideology, media, art, etc, etc,). It re-triggers unconscious or conscious defence mechanisms to rape, PIV and sexualised invasion. It’s stressful and traumatising.

 

From this feminist perspective, men pursue intercourse strictly as “a way to humiliate women” by reducing them to the status of “receptacles for their dicks,” so that intimate relationships with men mean “being used by them as their dick-socket.” When she decided to avoid this “subordination,” the radfem found it made men “disappear out of my life.” She finds herself traumatized by exposure “to anything male,” because their mere presence is “subliminally a rape threat,” a reminder of her membership in the “penetrable caste.”

Thus does the experience of the liberated woman — often had, yet never possessed — lead her to radicalism, toward hatred of men who have treated her as just another “dick-socket.” Being unloved by men has destroyed her ability to love them . . .

 

“She had never been with another woman before, but Draga knew her attraction to women was real. So, she yielded her lovely, long-legged girlishness to a passion she had never before experienced.”
— Carol EmeryQueer Affair (1957)

A lifestyle once marginalized, depicted as strangely exotic — the steamy stuff of dancer Draga Hamilton’s “passion” with Jo Stanhope in the 1957 pulp novel Queer Affair — lesbianism is nowadays far more common, especially among young women who have grown weary of pervasive disappointment, exploitation and abuse in the “liberated” world of heterosexual hedonism.

Lesbianism as a political expression of feminist consciousness is less interesting than lesbianism as an exotic perversion. To be honest, radical politics doesn’t induce the kind of “shuddering and stiffening” reaction described by MacKinnon. Thus it is that feminists ruin everything: Having first ruined marriage by convincing women they were oppressed as suburban housewives, next they ruined fornication by their idiotic talk about “empowerment” and “liberation” until now, at last, they have even ruined lesbianism, which used to be weird, wild and sexy, but has become just another tedious political pose.

 

 

 

Canadian ‘Education Expert’ Is What You’d Expect Canadian ‘Education Expert’ to Be

http://theothermccain.com/2015/04/14/canadian-education-expert-is-what-youd-expect-canadian-education-expert-to-be/

 

That is to say, he’s a dangerous pervert:

Benjamin Levin was consistent and “realistic” in his descriptions of sexual assault of children during online chats and never once stressed that it was all for fantasy, the Crown argued during day two of his sentencing hearing on child porn charges.
Crown counsel Allison Dellandrea read aloud several extremely graphic chat exchanges the former Ontario deputy minister of education had with undercover officers he believed were submissive mothers interested in having sex with their own children.
The 63-year-old married father of three repeatedly and consistently claimed to have had sex with his own daughters, starting at age 12 (though, as he told one of the officers, “I wish we’d started younger.”).
Levin — who was a member of Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne’s transition team — has pleaded guilty to the making of written child pornography, possession of child pornography and counseling to commit sexual assault on a child. . . .
Dellandrea took the court on a tour of the “depraved” online world the formerly well-respected education expert inhabited, suggesting he “wasn’t just dabbling in the child sexual abuse online world, he was a leader” there. . . .
As the sentencing got underway Tuesday, so too did a protest against Ontario’s revised sex-ed curriculum at Queen’s Park downtown. Critics of the Liberal government’s update to what students will learn in school about sex believe Levin’s pedophilic interest influenced the update — a charge the government denies.

 

 

You can read the whole thing. (Hat-tip: @SeverEnergia on Twitter.)

So, the “education expert” is a pervert and — this is relevant, in all honesty — his former boss is a lesbian.

The career of Kathleen Wynne is an object lesson in what I mean by“Feminism Is a Journey to Lesbianism.” In 1973, Wynne met the lesbian love of her life, Jane Rounthwaite. But in 1977, Wynne married Phil Cowperthwaite, with whom she had three children before leaving him for Jane Rounthwaite in 1991. That is to say, her husband was just a bill-paying sperm donor whose role in her life was, ultimately, to provide her and her lesbian partner with children and money. The Toronto Star did a big feature profile about Wynne that is a predictable exercise in progressive non-judgmentalism. The reader is presented with this remarkably weird saga and, well, how dare you point out the weirdness of it?

Feminists don’t believe that heterosexuality is natural for women, nor do feminists accept the validity of any moral concept other than Equality with a capital “E.” And what feminists mean by this sense of Equality is, of course, female supremacy.

“There are no Christian feminists, because feminism is a sort of narcissistic idolatry, wherein women deny God and instead worship themselves as their own divinity.”

Any man who becomes involved with a feminist must understand that she views him as irrelevant, superfluous, a disposable accessory, a bit player in the grand drama of her own life. The basic uselessness of males is one of the philosophical tenets of feminism. This makes it impossible for any feminist to genuinely admire, trust, respect or love any man. Whether or not she is actively homosexual, the feminist is always a lesbian in the philosophical sense, as various feminist scholars (including Adrienne Rich and Marilyn Frye) have explained. That is to say, a male may be a feminist’s roommate, her social companion and her occasional sexual partner, but he can never be the love of her life, because the feminist’s life is devoted to herself and to her love for women.

 

Feminists often claim that anyone who speaks of feminism in terms of “man-haters” and “lesbians” is merely expressing ignorant bigotry, but certainly no one could ever accuse me of ignorance, because I’ve read more feminist books than the average Women’s Studies major. Glancing around my desk at this very moment, I see Sarah Evans (Personal Politics: The Roots of Women’s Liberation in the Civil Rights Movement and the New Left, 1979), Jill Johnston (Lesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution, 1973), Dorchen Leidholdt and Janice Raymond (The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism, 1990) and Jone Salamonsen (Enchanted Feminism: The Reclaiming Witches of San Francisco, 2002). My point is not only that it is possible for an opponent of feminism to be knowledgeable about feminism, but furthermore to assert that the more you actually know about feminism, the more likely you are to oppose feminism — at least, that is, if you are an intelligent, honest, responsible, sane and normal person. Feminism is a movement that appeals to the stupid, the dishonest, the irresponsible, the insane and the abnormal.

“If Americans can be divorced for ‘incompatibility of temper,’ I cannot conceive why they are not all divorced. I have known many happy marriages, but never a compatible one. The whole aim of marriage is to fight through and survive the instant when incompatibility becomes unquestionable. For a man and a woman, as such, are incompatible.”
— G.K. Chesterton, 1910

We need not pretend that a normal, sane and responsible life is an easy thing to accomplish. Chesterton quite accurately summarized the basic problem of traditional married life. In order to find happiness — or even a tolerable level of peace — in a marriage, we must continually overcome the problems produced by the natural differences between men and women. Yet the traditional basis of marriage is also the moral principle of Christianity, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, in accordance with the commandment of the Creator: “Male and female created he them” and “be fruitful and multiply.”

Because feminists reject Christianity, per se, they can never love men in the way a man naturally wants to be loved, a reality that the men in their lives cannot help but recognize. This is why you so often see “feminist men” — Bill ClintonAnthony WeinerHugo Schwyzer — acting in such perverse, exploitative and abusive ways toward women. The “feminist man” accepts feminism’s negative verdict against himself, which consequently destroys whatever self-respect or morality he might otherwise have had. As I have sometimes pointed out, feminists actually despise the “male feminist,” viewing him (quite accurately) as a selfish manipulator who expects women to give him a cookie for advocating feminist causes.

Because he has no self-respect and recognizes no real standard of morality, the “feminist man” is quite often a very dangerous kind of pervert. Benjamin Levin, who served as the “education expert” in Kathleen Wynne’s campaign, is a perfect example of his type. And it’s not a good type.

Also, the phrase “Canadian pervert” is more or less redundant.