The Queering of Feminism: Why Does ‘Equality’ Require Promoting Perversion?

http://theothermccain.com/2015/10/30/boston-university-feminist-queer-eve-sedgwick/

Boston University’s Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program“fosters interdisciplinary research and teaching related to the intersections of gender, sexuality, race, nationality, and other categories of identity that organize and disorganize our lives.” The director of the program, Associate Professor Carrie Preston, describes her “research and teaching interests include modernist literature, performance, and dance, feminist and queer theory, and transnational and postcolonial studies.” Boston University’s annual tuition is $48,436. Their web site outlines the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program’s history:

Our program began in the 1970s and emerged in the 1980s as the Boston University Women’s Studies Program, a site of intellectual inquiry and feminist consciousness-raising concerning women’s lives. . . .
Scholars began to problematize the very notion of sex as a biological given or social reality and focused concern on topics in sexuality that could not be reduced to concerns with gender. Current scholarship in the field examines the extent to which sexuality and gender have been linked together historically (through the recruitment of sexuality as the “performance” or “proof” of gender, for instance) as well as aspects of sexuality that are distinct from gender.

 

To “problematize the very notion of sex as a biological given,” you see, is what feminist theory requires. Part of the “interdisciplinary” exploration of gender, sexuality and identity is the annual Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick Memorial Lecture, a tribute to one of the early leaders of Boston University’s program, whose 1990 book Epistemology of the Closet is“widely considered a founding text of queer theory.”

How do Boston University students get their $48,436 of queer theory?

 

 

Faculty moderators held two workshops for undergraduate and graduate students on Sedgwick’s 1991 essay “How to Bring Your Kids Up Gay: The War on Effeminate Boys.” This short, accessible text focused attention on the alarming rate of suicide among gay and gender non-conforming youth, and critiqued the failure of psychotherapists in the US to address this crisis with queer-affirmative interventions.

 

Anyone may read the “short, accessible text” named:

I am especially interested in revisionist psychoanalysis including ego-psychology, and in influential developments following on the American Psychiatric Association’s much-publicized 1973 decision to drop the pathologizing diagnosis of homosexuality from the succeeding Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-III). What is likely to be the fate of children brought under the influence of psychoanalysis and psychiatry today, post-DSM-III, on account of anxieties about their sexuality? . . .
That one woman, as a woman, might desire another; that one man, as a man, might desire another: the indispensable need to make these powerful, subversive assertions has seemed, perhaps, to require a relative de-emphasis of the links between gay adults and gender-nonconforming children. To begin to theorize gender and sexuality as distinct though intimately entangled axes of analysis has been, indeed, a great advance of recent lesbian and gay thought.
There is a danger, however, that that advance may leave the effeminate boy once more in the position of the haunting abject — this time the haunting abject of gay thought itself.

 

You may read the whole thing, and note that Sedgwick assumes as her premise that any psychiatric problems (including suicide) experienced by homosexual or “gender-nonconforming children” can only be explained by society’s homophobia. According to Sedgwick, the psychiatric community’s “pathologizing diagnosis” of homosexuality as a mental disorder prior to 1973 was nothing but an expression of anti-gay bigotry and, in 1991, Sedgwick perceived a “danger” that psychiatry might continue to view “the effeminate boy” in this way.

Is there a direct cause-and-effect relationship between homophobia and teen suicide? No. Most homosexuals do not commit suicide, and most people who commit suicide are not homosexual. Furthermore, we cannot simply discard as obsolete (or “regressive”) the basic psychological insight that views homosexuality as a tendency arising from childhood problems often associated with family dysfunction. You don’t have to be a bigot or an advocate of “reparative therapy” to interpret homosexuality as a matter of psychosocial development. The same issues correlated with homosexuality are also correlated with problems like drug abuse and depression. Trying to make “homophobia” a simple cause-and-effect explanation for the gay teenager’s suicide is an error of logic, even if it is the suicidal teen who offers this explanation. (To climb up on the cross of martyrdom — to blame “society” for your personal problems — can be a temptation for anyone with a disposition to self-pity, and troubled teenagers are unusually prone to self-pity.)

More to the point, we must recognize how Sedgwick’s “queer theory” employed a sort of radical jiu-jitsu that reversed the entire purpose of psychotherapy. Whatever the troubled young person’s problem, psychology traditionally sought to locate the cause of the problem in order to help the patient successfully adjust to adult life. This emphasis on adjustment — being able to complete school, become gainfully employed, form healthy relationships with others, etc. — is rejected by radicals, who say that instead of helping the patient adjust to society, we should change society for the benefit of the patient.

This is why, when we look at feminism today, it so often seems as if the inmates are running the asylum. Disgruntled kooks and perverse weirdos flock to the feminist banner because it offers them a political rationalization of their personal problems, and gives them a platform from which to express their alienation from mainstream society.

 

Adjusting society to enable misfits to feel “accepted” — letting little Johnny wear a hairbow and a lacy skirt to school and teaching the other kids that this is perfectly normal — is one of the logical consequences of feminist theory that seeks to “problematize the very notion of sex as a biological given.” Rather than trying to teach little Johnny how to fit in with the other boys, Sedgwick’s “queer theory” rejects as invalid the categorization of children as boys and girls, and condemns as “homophobia” any expectation (by parents, especially) that children should grow up to be normal.

“The view that heterosexuality is a key site of male power is widely accepted within feminism. Within most feminist accounts, heterosexuality is seen not as an individual preference, something we are born like or gradually develop into, but as a socially constructed institution which structures and maintains male domination, in particular through the way it channels women into marriage and motherhood.”
— Diane Richardson, “Theorizing Heterosexuality,” inRethinking Sexuality (2000)

 

“If we accept that gender is constructed and that it is not in any way ‘naturally’ or inevitably connected to sex, then the distinction between sex and gender comes to seem increasingly unstable. In that case, gender is radically independent of sex, ‘a free-floating artifice’ as [Professor Judith] Butler puts it, raising the question as to whether ‘sex’ is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps sex was always already gender, so that the sex/gender distinction is not actually a distinction at all. Butler dispenses with the idea that either gender or sex is an ‘abiding substance’ by arguing that a heterosexual, heterosexist culture establishes the coherence of these categories in order to perpetuate and maintain what the feminist poet and critic Adrienne Rich has called ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ — the dominant order in which men and women are required or even forced to be heterosexual.”
— Sara SalihJudith Butler (2002)

Until I started studying radical feminism, I never thought of “normal” as an achievement, but Feminism Is Queer, as Professor Mimi Marinucci has explained. Feminist theory condemns heterosexuality as “the ideology of male supremacy,” and denies that behaviorial differences between men and women are natural. Any apparent differences between men and women are socially constructed by the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix (see Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, 1990). Feminism seeks to abolish gender in order to achieve “equality” by establishing an androgynous society in which the categories “male” and “female” cease to have any significance. A radical ideology which denies that there is any such thing as “human nature,” feminism requires us to celebrate Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner asGlamour magazine’s “Woman of the Year.”

These bizarre manifestations of radical perversity do not occur spontaneously. They are expressions of a belief system promoted by the academic Feminist-Industrial Complex, the taxpayer-subsidized institutions in which professors indoctrinate students through “feminist consciousness-raising” and train them as activists committed to changing society. Because feminism condemns heterosexuality as “a socially constructed institution which . . . maintains male domination,” feminists encourage homosexuality in order to prevent “male power” from “channel[ing] women into marriage and motherhood.” Feminists therefore “problematize the very notion of sex as a biological given,”promoting the belief that “gender is radically independent of sex,” in order to destroy “the dominant order” of “heterosexist culture.”

What feminists mean by “equality” is “the end of civilization as we know it” (to quote lesbian feminists Sidney Abbott and Barbara Love) and this radical ideology exercises such hegemonic authority in academia that no one is permitted to criticize or oppose feminism on the 21st-century university campus. This is why feminists rant about “rape culture,” in order to demonize heterosexual male students, inciting young women to irrational fear by portraying young men as violent sexual predators.

 

To do what I have done — to quote what feminists say, to show what feminists believe, to explain what feminism is — would be condemned as a hate crime by the intellectual totalitarians who now control American universities. Opposing viewpoints are prohibited, so that the authority of feminism and “queer theory” goes unchallenged on college campuses.

“Spanking and Poetry”: A Conference
on Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick

Annual English Student Association Conference
February 25-26, 2010
The Graduate Center
The City University of New York
365 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10016

This two-day conference seeks to extend the work of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick by bringing together junior and senior scholars to examine her critical, literary, and artistic work.

That conference, “Spanking and Poetry,” incidentally, derived its title from a paper Sedgwick presented at a 1986 conference “Feminism, Sexuality, and Power,” at Mount Holyoke College, which erupted into a controversy over the issue of lesbian sadomasochism (see Gayle Rubin,Deviations, p. 213 and p. 399, note 72). So, what sort of topics do you suppose are discussed at a conference devoted to the legacy of Eve Sedgwick? Would you believe “queer theory in Classical studies”?

Michael Broder discussed the (almost non-existent) state of queer theory in Classical studies, arguing that despite brilliant foundational work by David Halperin and Amy Richlin, classicists have become curiously resistant to queer theory. And who doesn’t like hearing about Priapus, the Roman god of gardens who’d fuck any intruder, man or woman, in any available orifice?

 

Who, you may wonder, is Michael Broder?

 

My name is Michael Broder and I am The Queer Classicist, a freelance writer with a PhD in Classics from the City University of New York and an MFA in Creative Writing from NYU. I write about sex, gender, and kinship from my own perspective as a same-sex married gay man but also informed by perspectives including queer theory, feminism, and cultural materialism (this list is representative, not exhaustive). That means I’m going to write a lot about tops and bottoms, butches and fems, poz and neg, cis and trans, porn, hustlers, drag queens, divas, and queer fads and fashions of all sorts, including theater, film, television, music, and art. You may also find me writing about other aspects of culture and society including race, class, age, ability, religion, and more. I live in Bed-Stuy, Brooklyn with my poet husband and too many feral and domestic cats.

 

You need a Ph.D. to write about that stuff, obviously.

Feminism’s ironclad grip on academia means that parents who pay $48,436 a year to send their sons and daughters to Boston University can be certain that their children will never be exposed to any perspective on “sexuality and gender” that contradicts the “feminist and queer theory” advocated by Professor Carrie Preston.

Professors at Boston University, like practically every other university and college in American, reject “the very notion of sex as a biological given.” No American university student is ever exposed to any cogent analysis of human behavior based on the premise that males are naturally masculine and females are naturally feminine, and that family formation on the natural basis of heterosexual pair-bonding serves any legitimate or useful social purpose. Achieving feminism’s goal of “equality” means that“How to Bring Your Kids Up Gay” is now the essential task of parents who want to abolish the “socially constructed institution” of heterosexuality that “maintains male domination.”

Thank God, I can’t afford $48,436 a year. Maintaining “male domination” isn’t always easy, but it’s a lot cheaper than “equality.”

 

‘Rape Culture’ Rhetoric as Bad Poetry

http://theothermccain.com/2015/10/29/rape-culture-rhetoric-as-bad-poetry/

 

Just when you think feminism cannot possibly become more absurd, they always manage to push beyond the limits of imagination.

sex takes the consent of two
if one person is lying there not doing anything
cause they are not ready
or not in the mood
or simply don’t want to
yet the other is having sex
with their body it’s not love
is is rape

That is a “poem” by Rupi Kaur, a young Toronto-based feminist whose work has been celebrated by the Huffington Post:

Rupi Kaur’s first book, Milk and Honey is the poetry collection every woman needs on her nightstand or coffee table. Accompanied by her own sketches, the beautifully honest poems read like the everyday, collective experiences of today’s modern woman. She experiences love, loss, pain and healing in different chapters of her life. Sometimes she feels as though she has shattered in a million pieces but eventually, she finds strength after picking up the pieces and ultimately survives. Reading the book, is like getting the hug you need on a rainy day, the catharsis you crave after a tragedy.

Just kill me now, please. I’ve seen too much.

If you were to subject this to the kind of mockery it deserves, you would certainly be denounced as a misogynist. But why must such insipid expressions of mundane emotion be treated as if Rupi Kaur has said something profound? What is it about feminism that makes it function as a force-field protecting this kind of mediocre dreck from criticism and ridicule? Surely, there have been excellent women poets in history, and there must be genuinely talented women poets alive in the world today. Rupi Kaur is not one of them, however, and it is an insult to women to expect them to pretend that Rupi Kaur has real talent.

Permit me to observe that Rupi Kaur is saying less, and saying it much less persuasively, than any good pop song would say. Back when I was a kid, we didn’t need feminism — or any kind of campus orientation lecture about “affirmative consent” — to make sense of our feelings about love and sex. We had rock-and-roll and soul music written and sung by some of the greatest lyric poets in the history of the English language.

There’s a rose in the fisted glove
And the eagle flies with the dove,
And if you can’t be with the one you love,
Honey, love the one you’re with.

OK, so it’s not Shakespeare or Longfellow, but neither of those guys ever had a Top 40 hit. Here’s another classic:

Well, I’m running down the road,
Trying to loosen my load.
Got seven women on my mind:
Four that want to own me,
Two that want to stone me,
One says she’s a friend of mine.
Take it easy.

Hey, you may not think that’s profound, but when I was 17 years old, I could totally relate to that. Here’s another one:

Always and forever,
Each moment with you
Is just like a dream for me
That somehow came true.
And I know tomorrow
Will still be the same,
‘Cause we’ve got a life of love
That won’t ever change.

You’re never gonna get something like that from Rupi Kaur. No feminist is ever going to write the kind of poetry that you want to put to a slow jazzy six-eight beat, so couples can hold each other close and sway together under the magic sparkling light of a rotating mirror ball.

Back in the day, our romantic expectations were expressed through a shared musical vocabulary. You could ask a girl, “What kind of music do you like?” And her answers would tell you a lot about her. When I was a teenage boy learning to play guitar, I sang a lot of Beatles songs — “In My Life” was one — and eventually figured out that old Sam Cooke tunes had a special magic. Elvis, Buddy Holly, the Everly Brothers, the Beach Boys — you could learn a lot about love from the classics of rock-and-roll, lessons you’ll never get from the grim ideologues of feminism, who expect us to believe Rupi Kaur is a poetic genius.

Nah, sweetheart. You don’t know nothing about poetry.

Tonight you’re mine completely.
You give your love so sweetly.
Tonight the light of love is in your eyes.
Will you still love me tomorrow?
 . . .

Tonight with words unspoken.
You tell me I’m the only one.
But will my heart be broken
When the night meets the morning sun?

That, my friends, is poetry. Rupi Kaur has never written anything nearly as true or beautiful as that, and I doubt she ever will.

A sociological survey revealed the grass to be green

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mega-featured/a-sociological-survey-revealed-the-grass-to-be-green/

 

 

October 29, 2015 By  25 Comments

 

This article first appeared on AVFM Romania.

At the end of the last week, the gutless faceless sociologists that the media quotes with authority have released what they call a “sociological survey” regarding how do women feel discriminated against at the workplace in north-western Romania, says Actual de Cluj.

The great frustration of all “progressive” ideologues is that Romanians in general tend to be quite aware of the basic facts of life and they are less likely than other peoples of Europe to rush into sacrificing their families, their relationships and their social structures on the altar of forced equality of outcome.

The absolute majority of Romanians know, either from direct experience, or from their parents, that the progressive equality tends to end in rationed bread and forced admissions in a mental hospital in case of wrongthink.

And this lately survey serves to show, yet again, that in spite of the feminist agitprop, Romanian women continue to insist in crediting common sense and their native tendencies and reject the ideological pressures of this day and age. And this aspect drives ideologues nuts.

For instance, the team of sociologists who conducted this survey declares that they are profoundly “surprised” by the fact that women consistently prefer to have a male boss and not a female boss.

The fact that they are surprised shows that either the team of sociologists that conducted this survey is filled with sinister incompetents, or is filled with ideologues who aren’t terribly interested in the facts, but rather in building a narrative that would allow them to manipulate the public. In all fairness, both of these are perfectly possible.

The answers provided by the Romanian women in the survey are almost word-for-word consistent with the answers provided by American women, British women, Swedish women or Spanish women in similar surveys. In any country in which similar studies have been made, the inescapable fact that most women prefer a male boss and not a female boss has been revealed without exceptions.

Moreover, the reasons given by Romanian women for this preference are almost identical to the ones given by British women. For instance, from a survey conducted in 2010 in Great Britain, which revealed similar tendencies in that country, we learn that:

Two thirds of employees agree they would rather work for a man than a woman.
Female bosses were accused of being moody and incapable of leaving their personal lives at home.
A third of those polled claimed women in charge are ‘loose cannons’ – ready to stab colleagues in the back at any time, and who constantly feel threatened by other people in positions of authority.

By contrast, both male and female workers believe male bosses were less likely to get involved in office politics, were easier to reason with and rarely suffered from mood swings.

Men are also said to be more straight-talking than women and rarely talk about others behind their backs, it emerged.

The esteemed sociologists, led by Alina Bîrsan, sociologist at Encore Research SRL (LLC), who conducted this survey in northern Transylvania explained for the paper the reasons given by the female interviewees for their preference:

All female respondents, regardless of their level of education, would rather prefer working for a man than a woman. They say that such an arrangement is more appropriate since men represent the institution better on the outside, they manage conflicts in the workplace better, they don’t try to micromanage everything and they don’t waste time by involving themselves in all the components of a process. [Women in the survey] also said that male bosses tend to have a much more relaxed attitude than a woman and that women bosses tend to be a lot more demanding for the subordinates.

So, they’re more straight talking (and thus solve conflicts better), don’t get themselves into petty gossip (more relaxed attitude) and are not obsessed with control (no micromanagement). One would say that the Romanian women had a consultation session with the British women before filling out the questionnaire.

More to the point, the revelations of this survey are perfectly congruent with a more comprehensive study made several years ago by Gallup România1. In 2003, the study called Women’s access on the labour marketmade by Gallup Romania revealed that:

In almost all [studied] groups the difficulty of working with female collectives was mentioned. Gossip, envy and lack of support are problems that frequently emerge in female-dominated collectives. […] At the same time, most female respondents stated that they prefer working in male-dominated collectives, arguing that one can always count on help and respect among men. One of the participants from Satu Mare summed up the argument by saying: “Only among men can a woman feel like a lady”.

Didn’t Alina Bîrsan and her taxpayer-subsidized sociologist team know these aspects? If not, then maybe they should consider starting a career in hamburger flipping – because in their current field they have already proven their limits. If they knew these aspects, why were they surprised? Were they sort of hoping that in the meantime the women in this country have mentally regressed to such an extent that they’d now swallow the feminist fairy tales?

The question from above is not exactly a rhetorical one since Bîrsan provides a hint in her answers that she might have hoped that Romanian women swallowed at least a bit from the feminist kool-aid that is being subsidized with tens of millions of euros for propaganda annually. Alina Bîrsan explains for Actual de Cluj:

Moreover, many women do not want to be bosses, ”because they say that family comes first and one can’t perform best in both”.

How did we get to the point where women prefer their bosses to be always men and, more importantly, not to even aspire to be bosses? The causes are profound, says Bîrsan and she explains: “it’s a reproduction of the familial environment; that’s how we grew up – with the man leading the family and that’s what we expect in the workplace. And women say they feel safer that way” – says the sociologist. “[The women] are very comfortable with this arrangement. They seem to draw positive feelings by being in this position. For now, unfortunately, it seems that women prefer to be secondary; they don’t mind working more but they do mind being at the forefront” (emphasis ours)

That unfortunately seems to suggest that the team of sociologists is at the very least trying to explain the facts away through an ideological perspective. This tendency is also revealed by the fact that women’s preferences for male bosses and rejection of female bosses is described as “misogyny” instead of a more neutral (and much more correct) description such as the fact that this preference is the result of past experiences.

The argument that “that’s how we grew up” is also dubious at the very least once we put these responses into an international context. The social context in Great Britain is now totally different than the one in Romania. In the UK, divorce is sky high, the family court system works on a Kafka-esque model and huge areas of that country are essentially man-deserts, as Erin Pizzey calls them. And yet, British women have the same preferences with Romanian women when it comes to bosses.

When one finds such congruences on completely different groups that come from completely different social contexts, any researcher worth his salt has to wonder whether this may be the result not of a social construction, but rather biology. But these questions are now outside of the Overton window of the social sciences in the Academe – where the ideology of social constructivism is now the official dogma.

Let’s be crystal clear on this one: no-one says that nice female bosses don’t exist. A significant proportion of individuals can bring up one, or maybe even two pleasant experiences with female bosses. However, by and large, the experience with female bosses – both for women and for men – tend to be negative and generally worse than one’s experiences with male bosses. And the reasons for this state of affairs are diverse and go beyond the usual “social construct” claptrap.

Romanian women tend to be adult

In total contradiction with the multilaterally-progressive sociologists, Romanian women tend to put their families first and they tend to be perfectly aware of the feminine nature and tendencies and take them as they are (as opposed to ignoring them or, even worse, shout out loud that they don’t exist).

For what sociologists call “gender roles” – Romanian women tend to apply the correct term: nature. And Romanian women seem to tend to know better than the ideologues that messing around at a fundamental level with your own natural inclinations tends to end badly.

Whilst in other countries women have allowed themselves to be manipulated by the ideology that promises that you can “have it all,” Romanian women aren’t even trying to bother listening to the ideological fairy tales. One of the reasons for this is that almost all Romanian women can ask their parents what happened the last time when the ideological fairy tale of absolute equality of outcome was put into practice.

In other words, Romanian women tend to be adult. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Unless you’re a sociologist, in which case you would treat any trace of normality and common sense as inherently bad and oppressive; and as something that must be deconstructed ASAP in the good tradition of the dialectics.

Reference:

1 V. Marinescu; V. Pricopie – Accesul Femeilor pe Piața Muncii, The Gallup Organization Romania, 2003, p. 43