‘Intense and Overwhelming Narcissism’

http://theothermccain.com/2015/12/25/intense-and-overwhelming-narcissism/

 

Feminists coined the term “Peak Trans Moment” to describe the point at which they became disgusted with transgender ideology. One woman who related her experiences complained that transgender activists “expect to co-opt feminist time and attention away from their own issues to trans issues, and they expect it as their right.” Why aren’t transgender activists supportive of women?

Their intense and overwhelming narcissism won’t allow it, and anyway, they have no genuine concern for women, because women are nothing more than a sexual resource to them.
These are the same kind of men who transition, identify as a “lesbian”, and then immediately expect some kind of Welcome Wagon gift basket of sex for it.

 

 

In other words, the transgender movement is about selfishness and entitlement, and these misguided men in dresses exploit “feminism” as a means to recruit women to participate in their delusional fantasies. Having their counterfeit womanhood accepted by women is an essential part of the transgender fetish. Relating the story of “a very socially-awkward man who had never had a successful relationship with a woman” before deciding to “transition,” the feminist summarizes the psychology of what we might call Transgender Rage Syndrome:

They feel like failures as men; well, what is a woman to them but a failed man? Therefore they must be “women.” And being a woman is a life on easy mode according to them, so after they transition they start to get angry. Where is all of the constant fawning attention they were expecting? Where are the pajama parties and makeovers and shoe-shopping and cocktails with the “girls” that’s owed to them? Why are their expectations and needs not a constant priority with the women they meet?

This is an insightful analysis, but where did transgender activists get their ideas of using “gender” as a weapon to manipulate others? Where did this victimhood mentality originate? Oh, that’s right — feminism.

 

This is an insightful analysis, but where did transgender activists get their ideas of using “gender” as a weapon to manipulate others? Where did this victimhood mentality originate? Oh, that’s right — feminism.

If “the personal is political,” as Carol Hanisch said, who can define the limits of this ideology? If radical feminism is just the rationalization of personal grievance — a means of converting hurt feelings into a political “cause” — then what kind of reactions would we expect, as the logical obverse, from men who “feel like failures as men”? A proliferation of perversity and insanity, perhaps?

Radical feminists are complaining about the unintended consequences of a social revolution they have deliberately fomented, but who is to blame for their failure to study history? They are quite like those Bolsheviks — Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin — who were later purged and murdered by Stalin. “The dictatorship of the proletariat” was a more brutal tyranny than the Tsarist regime. The Bolsheviks had endorsed the annihilation of the Romanovs, and had no legitimate defense when they themselves were targeted for annihilation in The Great Terror.

Those who invoke “social justice” and “equality” as the slogans of revolution seldom consider such sobering lessons of history. Other revolutionaries no less determined (and, in their own minds, no less well-intentioned) have been responsible for creating the most deadly nightmares in human history and many revolutionaries were killed by the monstrous dictatorships they helped create.

That a feminist revolution might have negative consequences for women — including feminists themselves — should have been obvious long ago. In 1995, Wellesley College economics professor Julie Matthaei (“a Marxist living in a modern-day commune in Cambridge”) published a treatise called “The Sexual Division of Labor, Sexuality, and Lesbian/Gay Liberation: Toward a Marxist-Feminist Analysis of Sexuality in U.S. Capitalism,” which is included in the 2007 textbook anthology Queer Economics edited by Joyce Jacobsen and Adam Zeller. Professor Mattaei argues (pp. 217-218):

 

The feminist movement of the 1970s and 1980s was closely linked to lesbianism. On the one hand, lesbians had a higher stake than heterosexual married women in accessing well-paid jobs, since lesbians did not have access to “family wages” through husbands. Furthermore, lesbians . . . were less fearful of losing their “womanhood” and attractiveness to men if they took on “men’s jobs” than were heterosexual women. Thus lesbians made up a disproportionate part of the ranks of feminists among all class and racial-ethnic groups. . . .
Furthermore, feminist analysis and the movement . . . have resulted in the “coming out” of many involved. First, feminists developed a critique of the sexual division of labor and of gender roles as being both restrictive to all and oppressive to women. Second, they directly criticized heterosexual marriage because of its subordination of women to men as unpaid servants and sexual objects. Third, many feminists put forth lesbianism as a viable alternative — even, some argued, the appropriate feminist choice, a form of resistance to patriarchy that is more symmetrical and egalitarian than heterosexuality. . . . Many of the leading early feminist theorists — such as Adrienne Rich, Andrea Dworkin, Gayle Rubin, Charlotte Bunch, Mary Daly, Audre Lorde, Barbara Smith, Cherrie Moraga, and Susan Griffin — were “out” lesbians. Fourth, feminism has brought like-minded women together as coparticipants in support and action groups, providing them with potential sexual/love partners.
In other words, feminist movement has encouraged women to challenge and even deviate from traditional gender roles; it has highlighted the oppressiveness of traditional heterosexuality, it has supported and even advocated lesbianism as an option for women; it has encouraged women to pursue “men’s” jobs . . . that allow them to survive economically without men; and it has brought women in close and cooperative contact with other like-minded women.

What this Marxist economist is saying, quite directly, is something that should be obvious to any intelligent student of the feminist movement,i.e., lesbians had a particular motive for attacking “men’s jobs” and “family wages,” and this economic motive explains why so many “early feminist theorists” were lesbians. However, if you do not share this lesbian-feminist hostility to “the oppressiveness of traditional heterosexuality,” then feminism’s attack on the economics of “family wages” becomes problematic. If you are a woman who hopes that your husband will be able to support you and your children on his salary alone — especially during the crucial period when your children are infants and toddlers — the feminist economic agenda is directly hostile to your interests. Feminist demands for “equality” amount to a demand (often justified by a rhetoric of “diversity”) that no man should ever be hired for “well-paid jobs” if any qualified female applicant is available. The economic agenda of feminism is about achieving “equality” through deliberate discrimination against males, and the preponderance of women in higher education (where female students are 57% of undergraduate enrollment) is just one example of how successful feminists have been in promoting anti-male discrimination.

Few critics of feminism ever pursue the subject to the theoretical level of analysis that Professor Matthaei provides, and thus never question the movement’s basic premise. Does “the sexual division of labor” in marriage really cause the “subordination of women to men as unpaid servants and sexual objects”? If so, doesn’t this suggest, as Professor Mattaei and others have argued, that feminist “equality” can only be achieved if women reject heterosexuality, per se?

Whatever your opinion of Professor Matthei’s analysis, such theories are widely accepted within academic feminism, and the question at issue is how men are likely to react when confronted by the consequences of these theories. Feminism’s success means that the economic basis of heterosexual relationships has been undermined, so that fewer men have sufficient income to support wives and children. The supply-and-demand mechanism of the marriage market has been drastically altered. Without “the sexual division of labor,” there is less basis for cooperative partnerships between men and women. In recent decades, the logic of marriage has been sabotaged by an ideological regime of androgynous “equality” that has the effect of fostering implacable hostility between men and women. Feminism demands destruction of the social order, and this predictably leads to the “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes) as Hobbes called it.

That many men have reacted badly to this should not surprise us. Most men do not understand feminism because most feminists are purposefully dishonest about what feminism really is and what they mean by “equality.” The ridiculous posture of Emma Watson as spokeswoman for the United Nations “He for She” campaign — telling men that feminism will actually help men, too — is typical of the deceptive propaganda about “equality” that the feminist movement employs. Feminists seek to confuse men and deceive them into supporting an anti-male movement, and many young men foolishly accept feminism’s “equality” rhetoric as if it were sincere.

One men’s rights activist (MRA) asked the question, “Why Is It Harder For Men To Challenge Their Sex Role Than It Has Been For Women?” We can answer this question quite easily: Failure is not attractive.

Women are attracted to successful men, and the competitive drive for success is therefore intrinsic to men’s “sex role.” Every attempt to escape this logic is doomed. The “very socially-awkward man who had never had a successful relationship with a woman” will find that pursuing a “transgender” delusion does not solve his problem. Winners win and losers lose and, ultimately, no political agenda can change this.

What are we to make of the spectacle of transgender weirdos with “no genuine concern for women,” whose bizarre fetishes are inspired by “intense and overwhelming narcissism”? Is it not true, in some sense, that these monsters have been created by feminists who “developed a critique . . . of gender roles”? It would be no trouble to cite the passages from Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics (1970), Shulamith Firestone’s The Dialectic of Sex (1970) and Andrea Dworkin’s Woman Hating (1974) which endorse the belief that there are no natural differences between men and women. If these feminist pioneers were correct, then why can’t a man be a woman? Or why shouldn’t feminists be expected to celebrate transgenderism as “a form of resistance to patriarchy”?

The false premises of feminist theory produce these contradictions, and yet feminists refuse to acknowledge or take responsibility for the problems that they themselves have caused. Feminists are dishonest, selfish and cruel. No feminist has ever actually believed in “equality,” a slogan they only invoke to legitimize their limitless hatred for men.

Feminism is irrational, because hate is always irrational.