Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Rapists Serve All Men by Enforcing Male Supremacy’

http://theothermccain.com/2014/09/21/essential-feminist-quotes-rapists-serve-all-men-by-enforcing-male-supremacy/

“Patriarchy’s chief institution is the family. . . . [T]he family effects control and conformity where political and other authorities are insufficient. As the fundamental instrument and the foundation unit of patriarchal society the family and its roles are prototypical. . . .
“The concept of romantic love affords a means of emotional manipulation which the male is free to exploit, since love is the only circumstance in which the female is (ideologically) pardoned for sexual activity. . . .
“We are not accustomed to associate patriarchy with force. So perfect is its system of socialization, so complete the general assent to its values, so long and so universally has it prevailed in human society, that it scarcely seems to require violent implementation. . . .
“Historically, most patriarchies have institutionalized force through their legal systems. . . .
“Significantly, force itself is restricted to the male who alone is psychologically and technically equipped to perpetrate physical force. . . .
“Patriarchal force also relies on a form of violence particularly sexual in character and realized most completely in the act of rape. The figures of rapes reported represent only a faction of those which occur. . . .”
— Kate MillettSexual Politics (1970)

“When we consider the family, we have to talk about child sexual abuse, incest, and the area of family violence that I’ve focused on: wife abuse, marital rape, and battering — often culminating, in the cases I’ve looked into, in homicide. . . . Exploring our sexuality requires freedom, and for women the family structure is still a prison. . . .
“Family ‘stability’ in a patriarchal system depends upon sexual repression of women. …
“We know that men beat women because they can. No one stops them because to do so would be to interfere with the family. . . .
“Violence has always been an important tool for maintaining the family to serve the purposes of patriarchy. . . .
“Susan Brownmiller’s [1976] book, Against Our Will, is a milestone in the women’s movement because it demythologized — desexualized — rape. We learned . . . that sexual and physical violence against women is not ‘sexual’ at all but simply violent. Men use it to dominate women. . . .
“Susan Brownmiller showed us that the rapists serve all men by enforcing male supremacy. . . . [W]e should be clear that our quarrel is not only with certain abusive men but with male supremacy. Our goal should be not merely to redefine our sexuality but to redefine the world and our place in it.”
— Ann Jones, “Family Matters,” in The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism, edited by Dorchen Leidholdt and Janice G. Raymond (1990)

“The professionals who diagnose women’s sexual maladjustments never question the politics of these ‘problems.’ They rarely address fundamental issues such as: Whyshould women get married? Why should we enjoy ‘feminine’ clothing? What is wrong with ‘homosexual tendencies’? . . . Indeed, why should women want sex with men at all? . . .
“Radical feminist practice is concerned about recognizing our fear, and anger, and refusing to dismiss those reactions as simply ‘dysfunctional.’ It is about organizing collectively to challenge the institutions that deny women’s rage and pain. It is about questioning ‘common-sense’ understandings of the world. Radical feminists have examined the institution of heterosexuality, the social construction of desire and the links between rape and ‘consensual’ sex. These analyses question the existence of ‘truly chosen’ and ‘egalitarian’ heterosexual relations by focusing on the compulsory enforcement of heterosexuality; they are suspicious of appeals to some ‘authentic female sexuality,’ hidden deep within ourselves and uncontaminated by the rule of heteropatriarchy.”
— Jenny Kitzinger, “Sexual Violence and Compulsory Heterosexuality,” in Heterosexuality: A Feminism & Psychology Reader, edited by Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger (1993)

Men are to feminism what Jews were to Nazism. As a species of hate propaganda, feminist literature is remarkably resourceful in the ways that these ideologues demonize — and otherize, as post-modernists might say — all males as the universal scapegoats on whom all evil is blamed.

Rush Limbaugh’s famous term “feminazis” is usually seen as crude sarcasm. On page 13 of Susan Faludi’s 1991 book Backlash, she credits Limbaugh’s “broadsides” against feminism for making “his syndicated program the most popular radio talk show in the nation.” Nearly a quarter-century later, we might update Faludi’s phrase to say more accurately that Rush Limbaugh is the most successful broadcaster in radio history, period. And we ought not be so quick to dismiss Limbaugh’s coinage of the word “feminazi” as merely a joke.

Having spent the past several months immersed in the study of radical feminist literature as research for my “Sex Trouble” series, I know that Rush Limbaugh was speaking the literal truth.

It is not merely that feminists are devoted to an ideology of hate that is analogous in many ways to Hitler’s anti-Semitic worldview, but also that feminism is clearly totalitarian in its methods. Never is this more evident than when feminists are talking about rape. You would think, to hear the rhetoric that emanates from our nation’s colleges and universities, that sexual assault is now at an all-time high on campus. Yet all actual evidence indicates that quite nearly the opposite is true.

According to the Justice Department, the rate of sexual violence against females declined 64% between 1995 and 2005: “In 2010,
females nationwide experienced about 270,000 rape or sexual assault victimizations, compared to about 556,000 in 1995.” Do feminists want us to believe there has been a recent uptick of rape under the Obama Administration? I’m dubious. As far as rape on college campuses is concerned, however, every attempt to verify the widespread claim that 20% of college females are victims of sexual assault has failed, becausethe actual numbers don’t add up. But if Women’s Studies majors were good at math, they wouldn’t be majoring in Women’s Studies.

Once you understand that there is nothing like an “epidemic” of rape on college campuses, and that feminists are engaged in statistical dishonesty about the frequency of such crimes, a skeptic is immediately prompted to wonder, “What’s this really about?” In a word, power.

This is the classic totalitarian method: Whip up an irrational frenzy about an Issue, and convince people The Enemy is to blame. Your followers, a motley collection of dupes and crackpots who are predisposed to believe whatever you say, are willing to blame The Enemy not only for the Issue, but also for all problems experienced by The Movement, which you lead and in which they are fanatical followers. Your leadership is dependent on their followership, and vice-versa.

In the symbiotic relationship of totalitarian movements, your status as leader requires you to keep your followers convinced that any failure of the Movement is to be blamed either on (a) The Enemy, (b) the enormous challenges inherent to the Issue, or (c) the deficiencies, faint-heartedness and/or possible disloyalty of the followers. You must constantly reinforce these beliefs in the minds of your followers or else, given a quiet moment to reflect on the situation, they might wise up and begin to suspect that failure is due to (d) the incompetence of their leaders who have (e) deliberately misrepresented the Issue and misled the Movement. If ever those doubts begin to occur in the minds of your followers, they might even start to wonder if The Enemy isn’t really an enemy at all.

What I have just recounted are the psychodynamics of every radical movement since the French Revolution, a predictable phenomenon best illustrated by the career of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. A sociopathic thug who managed to shove aside every other rival to succeed Lenin as leader of the Bolshevik regime, Stalin turned his nearest rival, Leon Trotsky, into a scapegoated figure whose alleged conspiratorial perfidy was a permanent source of the paranoid suspicion necessary to the rationale of a police state. Within a decade of assuming power, Stalin began to turn this suspicion against those original Bolshevik leaders who had loyally served the regime since before the October Revolution and who, as such, were in a position to recognize the bloody failures of Stalin’s leadership. During the infamous Moscow Show Trials, one after another of the Old Bolsheviks were accused of wildly improbable crimes — treason! sabotage! Trotskyism! — to which they were forced to confess and then, in most cases, summarily executed.

As it was with the Bolsheviks, so it is with the feminists. Patriarchy serves in the feminist ideology that purpose which capitalism served for the Soviet revolutionaries. Anyone who questions the ideology of the movement becomes an ally of the Enemy. The duty of every True Believer is to echo the slogans of the movement leadership, as if the movement could be carried to victory merely by the fervor of its followers. The repetition of falsehoods, the faith in erroneous ideology — all the wrongs and failures of a totalitarian movement devoted to The Big Lie, which must ultimately be doomed to the ash heap of history — these are familiar tactics, and once you realize they are merely tactics, they lose their power to intimidate and terrorize you into silence.

For this is exactly the power that feminists seek with their deliberate lies about men, about patriarchy, about “rape culture”:

To distill their rhetoric to its totalitarian essence: “Shut up, because rape.”
The SlutWalk movement is about rape in pretty much the same sense Nazism was about the Versailles Treaty — it’s the legitimate grievance that empowers a movement of irrational hatred.

So I said last year after finding myself amid that rabble. I’d call them “brownshirts,” but they weren’t wearing shirts. Or pants, either.

It’s probably kind of hard to goosestep while wearing 3-inch heels and fishnet stockings, but the fascist vibe was so overwhelming I could almost hear the sound of hobnailed boots marching over broken glass. My memories of the rally at the end of the march have faded, and I can’t find my notes of the speeches the SlutWalk leaders made, but then again, why bother translating them into English? Their speeches were much better in the original German. They made a documentary about SlutWalk. It was directed by Leni Riefenstahl.

Ah, I could keep riffing like this all night, you see. But why should I making jokes when it’s so much funnier just to quote feminists?

 

“This account of the politics of lesbianism locates it firmly within the framework of radical feminist ideology. The role of heterosexuality as an institution of patriarchal control, and the potential of lesbianism for subverting male domination are made explicit. . . .
“It is argued that a relationship between any individual woman and man cannot be understood without reference to the political structure of male supremacy and male domination, which invests each man with power over each woman. . .
“Thus the ‘personal’ (including romance, falling in love, sexual attraction, fantasy, and personal relationships generally) is ‘political’ in at least two senses: firstly that it is the personal experience of women that generates and informs feminist theory, and secondly in that feminist theory offers a structure within which individual experience can be interpreted and understood. . . . .
“In this account, men (rather than merely ‘society,’ ‘institutions’ or ‘conditioning’) are seen as the enemy. . . .
“In this account, the blame is put squarely on men, and separatism is represented as a legitimate strategy. . . .
“These are the views which underlie the theory of political lesbianism — the theory that women can and should choose lesbianism as part of the political strategy of feminism — and this account endorses constructionist theories of sexuality. . . .
“This factor, then, involves a constructionist version of sexuality in which heterosexuality is seen as imposed by men on to women, and in which lesbianism represents a challenge to male supremacy.”
— Celia KitzingerThe Social Construction of Lesbianism(1987)

OK, that’s not funny so much as it is deranged and frightening, but perhaps you see my point. Radical feminists have a clear ideology — a theoretical framework — which informs their rhetoric, and they have spend decades erecting this edifice of error, so that it is now deeply embedded in the belief system of elite academia. This one 1987 book by Professor Kitzinger, for example, has been cited nearly 900 times in scholarly literature. If Professor Kitzinger is wrong, her errors are widely popular among her academic peers.

Professor Kitzinger is not describing a “born-that-way” theory of lesbianism, and she explicitly rejects (as do radical feminists, in general) the claim that heterosexuality is natural. You can trace a direct narrative arc from Kate Millett’s claims in 1970 — where the patriarchal family “effects control and conformity,” where romantic love is simply “a means of emotional manipulation,” where rape is a political weapon of patriarchy — to the claims of Professor Kitzinger in 1987. And we see this direct line of thought continued forward to the present, expressed in feminist slogans which now emerge spontaneously from the Twitter account of Nancy Pelosi’s daughter Christine:

 

You can see the New York Times account of Chrstine Pelosi’s marriage to Peter Kaufman and conclude that heteronormative patriarchy has been very good to her. Why, therefore, does she feel the need to speak as if “reinforcing heteronormative patriarchy” were a hate crime? Because these are the ideas that prevail within the culture of the elite, to which Christine Pelosi so clearly belongs. If this were 1962, she’d be talking about modern art and civil rights, but it’s 2014, so she’s talking about heteronormative patriarchy.

Meanwhile, I’m still trying to figure out how “rapists serve all men by enforcing male supremacy,” as was explained by the eminent Ann Jones.She’s got all kinds of honors: “Her work has received generous support from the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University, where she held the Mildred Londa Weisman Fellowship in 2010-11, the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation (2011-12), and the Fulbright Foundation (2012).” Obviously, she’s so much smarter than the rest of us (especially me) that she understands how I am “served” by the crimes of rapists. Some creep I never heard of rapes a woman I never met in a distant place I’ve never been and don’t plan ever to visit — Boulder, Colorado, for example — and I am thereby “served,” you see, because this criminal is “enforcing male supremacy.”

While you’re trying to figure that one out, let me ask you to ponder another question: “Who benefits from feminism?”

Who profits, who is empowered, whose social prestige is enhanced by the promulgation of this anti-male/anti-heterosexual propaganda?

“Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.”
— Rush Limbaugh

You got that one right, Rush. You damned sure got that right.

Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Most Women Have to Be Coerced into Heterosexuality’

http://theothermccain.com/2014/09/19/essential-feminist-quotes-most-women-have-to-be-coerced-into-heterosexuality/

 

“I agreed to take part in a New York University Institute for Humanities conference a year ago. . . .
“I stand here as a black lesbian feminist, having been invited to comment within the only panel at this conference where the input of black feminists and lesbians is represented. What this says about the vision of this conference is sad, in a country where racism, sexism and homophobia are inseparable. . . .
“The absence of any consideration of lesbian consciousness or the consciousness of third world women leaves a serious gap within this conference. . . .
“For women, the need and desire to nurture each other is not pathological but redemptive, and it is within that knowledge that our real power is rediscovered. It is this real connection, which is so feared by a patriarchal world.”
— Audre Lorde, “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House,” 1979

“I want to ask heterosexual academic feminists to do some hard analytical and reflective work. To begin, I want to say to them:
“I wish you would notice that you are heterosexual.
“I wish you would grow to the understanding that you chooseheterosexuality.
“I would like you to rise each morning and know that you are heterosexual and that you choose to be heterosexual — that you are and choose to be a member of a privileged and dominant class, one of your privileges being not to notice.
“I wish you would stop and seriously consider, as a broad and long-term feminist political strategy, the conversion of women to a woman-identified and woman-directed sexuality and eroticism, as a way of breaking the grip of men on women’s minds and women’s bodies, of removing women from the chronic attachment to the primary situations of sexual and physical violence that is rained upon women by men, and as a way of promoting women’s firm and reliable bonding against oppression. . . .
“There is so much pressure on women to be heterosexual, and this pressure is both so pervasive and so completely denied, that I think heterosexuality cannot come naturally to many women: I think that widespread heterosexuality among women is a highly artificial product of the patriarchy. . . . I think that most women have to be coerced into heterosexuality.”
— Marilyn Frye, “A Lesbian’s Perspective on Women’s Studies,” speech to the National Women’s Studies Association conference, 1980

“A materialist feminist approach to women’s oppression destroys the idea that women are a ‘natural group’ . . . What the analysis accomplishes on the level of ideas, practice makes actual at the level of facts: by its very existence, lesbian society destroys the artificial (social) fact constituting women as a ‘natural group.’ A lesbian society pragmatically reveals that the division from men of which women have been the object is a political one . . .
“Lesbian is the only concept I know of which is beyond the categories of sex (woman and man). . . . For what makes a woman is a specific social relation to a man, a relation that we have previously called servitude . . . a relation which lesbians escape by refusing to become or to stay heterosexual. . . . [O]ur survival demands that we contribute all our strength to the destruction of the class of women within which men appropriate women. This can be accomplished only by the destruction of heterosexuality as a social system which is based on the oppression of women by men and which produces the doctrine of the difference between the sexes to justify this oppression.”
— Monique Wittig, “One Is Not Born a Woman,” 1981

Two of these quotes (Lorde and Wittig) are excerpted from The Essential Feminist Reader, edited by Estelle B. Freedman (2007), while the quote from Frye is from her 1992 collection Willful Virgin: Essays in Feminism. Readers will notice that all three of these quotes were from the same era, 1979-81. Thus you see how early radical lesbians began consistently demanding that the feminist movement must challenge heterosexuality as “natural” for women, insisting that what Audre Lorde called the “real connection” of “lesbian consciousness” was “feared by a patriarchal world.” Marilyn Frye called for “a broad and long-term feminist political strategy” by Women’s Studies professors of converting their students to lesbianism “as a way of promoting women’s firm and reliable bonding against oppression.” Why? Because only by “the destruction of heterosexuality as a social system,” Monique Wittig said, can women “escape” their “servitude” and “oppression” by men.

Do you think these are obscure “fringe” feminists? Do a Google search forAudre Lorde and you get more 500,000 citationsMarilyn Frye was a professor at Michigan State University for more than 30 years who “was chosen as Phi Beta Kappa’s Romanell Professor in Philosophy for 2007-2008.” Google Monique Wittig and you get nearly 200,000 citations.

Are you tempted to reply, “So what?” OK, then, why don’t you Google the name of the editor of The Essential Feminist Reader — that’s another 200,000 or so citations — and you’ll learn from the Wikipedia biography of Estelle B. Freedman that she is “the Edgar E. Robinson Professor in U.S. History at Stanford University,” that one of the books she coedited “received the 2013 John Boswell Prize from the Committee on LGBT History of the American Historical Association,” while another book co-edited by Professor Freedman “was cited by Justice Anthony Kennedy in his 2003 opinion for Lawrence v. Texas, with which the American Supreme Court overturned all remaining anti-sodomy laws.”

Do you still want to say, “So what?” Or are you ready to admit feminists mean what they say, and that feminism should be taken seriously?

BTW, Professor Freedman’s latest book is Redefining Rape, in which she “demonstrates that our definition of rape has depended heavily on dynamics of political power and social privilege.”

People had better wake the hell up.

The Mythic World of Women’s Studies

http://theothermccain.com/2014/09/18/the-mythic-world-of-womens-studies/

 

Are you tired of reality? Do you feel that you are being oppressed by facts and logic? Then you should consider majoring in Women’s Studies at one of our nation’s elite universities, where your liberated consciousness is protected from these hateful forces of patriarchy.

Just ask Sarah Blugis of George Washington University:

Why you should take a women’s studies class
On the first day of a women’s studies class, instead of spending the first few minutes evaluating the professor, students’ eyes immediately focus on those considered the bravest students in the class — the men.
Spotting male students in these classes is fairly rare. Most have only one or two men, who are consistently asked for “the male perspective” or need substantial warning before discussion of the menstrual cycle. . . .
Only a small percentage of the GW student body — about 90 to 100 students each year, according to the women’s studies department — choose to take introductory-level women’s studies classes at all. . . .
Learning about past hardships is how we come to appreciate the status of women today. Courses like Athletics and Gender, A Study of Women and Media, and Women and Politics also enlighten students to the disadvantages with which women continue to struggle.
Most people are familiar with the statistics: one in five women experience an attempted or a completed sexual assault in college, and women earn 77 percent of what their male counterparts do for the same work. But there are other issues not so obvious to the untrained eye: These include sexual objectification of women and girls in the media, everyday examples of rape culture like street harassment and the lack of female representation across the political spectrum. . . .

See what I mean? Those statistics with which Sarah Blugis says “most people are familiar”? They are both provably false, as Christina Hoff Sommers has demonstrated. But at George Washington University (annual tuition $48,760), the so-called “facts” don’t matter! This is the beauty of Women’s Studies, where you can send your daughter to spend four years in a mythic world of unicorns, leprechauns and phony statistics that prove to her how horribly oppressed she is.

How does life on the campuses of our nation’s elite universities differ from life in the oppressive “real” world? For one thing, the mechanisms of patriarchal heteronormativity are inoperative at any school where tuition exceeds $40,000. Emory University in Atlanta (annual tuition $45,008) has an Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Life. The Office of LGBT Life proudly lists the university’s proudly LGBT faculty and staff, from which I’ve culled this list of female Emory employees who call themselves “lesbian”:

  1. Leslie Harris (Associate Professor, History and African American Studies);
  2. Beverly Walker (Assistant Supervisor, Building & Residential Services);
  3. Joy Wasson (Academic Degree Program Coordinator, Department of Religion);
  4. Valerie Molyneaux (Director, International Programs, Goizueta Business School);
  5. Danielle M. Steele (Assistant Director, Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Life);
  6. Marsha Howard (Assistant Operations Manager, School of Medicine, Division of Animal Resources);
  7. Bonnie Jean Woolger (Manager, Digital Imaging Group of the Woodruff Library);
  8. Kim Fugate (Associate Director, School of Medicine, Simulation Lab);
  9. Rachelle Lehner (Assistant Dean for Staff Development, School of Medicine);
  10. Anne Rector (Program Director and Administrative Professor, Law School);
  11. Kathy Britt (ILL Lending Coordinator, RW Woodruff Library);
  12. Melissa Gilstrap (Manager of Communications, Laney Graduate School);
  13. Johanna Hinman (Associate Director of Education, Department of Surgery);
  14. Catherine Shiel (Senior Research Analyst, Development);
  15. Rebeca Quintana (Program Administrator, Master’s in Development Practice, Laney School of Graduate Studies);
  16. Michelle Hammond-Susten (Clinical Care Coordinator Social Worker II, Emory Trauma & Anxiety Recovery Program, Dept of Psychiatry, Emory School of Medicine);
  17. Laura Zajac-Cox (Instructor, Division of Physical Therapy, School of Medicine);
  18. Deb Floyd (Director of Student Affairs, Law School);
  19. Lauren Gay (Special Assistant, Carter Center);
  20. Patricia Del Rey (Adjunct Professor, Women’s Studies, Oxford College);

This list of self-declared lesbian faculty and staff at Emory does not include three other women staffers who described themselves as bisexual, nor does it include another 11 women (at least, I think they’re all “women,” but gender is a social construct) who prefer the label “queer,” a category that includes Dona Yarbrough, director of the Center for Women at Emory, as well as Lynne Huffer, a professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies.

So, 20 lesbians, 11 queers and three bisexuals. We have not been able to confirm rumors that Emory may begin a “diversity outreach” program, if they can find any heterosexual women willing to work there.

Sudden Onset Lesbian Syndrome

http://theothermccain.com/2014/09/14/sudden-onset-lesbian-syndrome/

 

 

“Men who rule, and male leftists who seek to rule, try to depoliticize sex . . . in order to prevent us from acting to end our oppression and challenging their power. As the question of homosexuality has become public, reformists define it as a private question of who you sleep with in order to sidetrack our understanding of the politics of sex. For the Lesbian-Feminist, it is not private; it is a political matter of oppression, domination, and power. . . . The only way oppressed people end their oppression is by seizing power: People whose rule depends on the subordination of others do not voluntarily stop oppressing others. Our subordination is the basis of male power.”
— Charlotte Bunch, “Lesbians in Revolt,” 1972

“Lesbianism is the greatest threat that exists to male supremacy.”
— Rita Mae BrownA Plain Brown Rapper, 1976

“Central to radical feminism is the belief that the patriarchy (not capitalism or sex roles or socialization or individual sexist men) is the root of all forms of oppression; that all men benefit from and maintain it and are, therefore, our political enemies. Within this framework, heterosexuality, far from existing as a ‘natural state,’ ‘personal choice’ or ‘sexual orientation,’ is described as a socially constructed and institutionalized structure which is instrumental in the perpetuation of male supremacy.”
— Celia KitzingerThe Social Construction of Lesbianism, 1987

When feminists say “the personal is political” and declare that women are oppressed by “patriarchy” and “male supremacy,” they mean what they say and — because Ideas Have Consequences, as Richard Weaver warned— the impact of these radical ideas on the lives of individuals is never really coincidental. Steve Basilone‘s personal tragedy is not really a comedy, nor is it actually personal, according to feminist theory. He is the patriarchal oppressor, and his ex-wife is therefore now liberated:

One of the head writers for “Orange is the New Black” has filed for divorce … the logical step since she’s now realized she’s a lesbian and is dating one of the female stars.
Lauren Morelli just filed divorce docs — obtained by TMZ — from her husband of 2 years, Steve Basilone. It’s actually a joint petition … probably because Steve realizes that ship has sailed.
The story is amazing. Lauren began writing for OITNB 5 months after she got hitched. Lauren says as she started writing for the main character — who had once been in a lesbian relationship — she saw herself in the character. Lauren says she began to feel like a fraud … married to a man but clearly gay.
According to Lauren … as she began writing about Piper’s blossoming relationship with the very hot Alex … “I found a mouthpiece for my own desires and a glimmer of what my future could look like.”

Ms. Morelli’s future looks like sex with OITNB actress Samira Wiley:

We are asked to believe that before Ms. Morelli had this revelation at age 30 — having never previously imagined she was gay — her life was an inauthentic charade, a phony pretense of heterosexuality.

This phenomenon of Sudden Onset Lesbian Syndrome has become more common in recent years, and we have examined it before: “How to Become a Lesbian, Step One: Watch Cable TV While Depressed,” wherein a married mother of two discovered her gayness by watching The L Wordon Showtime. We imagine her ex-husband telling his buddies, “Yeah, I should have known better than to subscribe to those premium channels. Whatever you do, guys, stick to the basic cable package or your wife will turn into a dyke and then you’ll have to fix your own sandwiches.”

Sarcasm comes easy to those of us who can’t afford premium cable, and who imagine that our families could never become victims of the Cultural Revolution. Yet the revolutionaries have limitless ambitions, and there is nothing funny about Steve Basilone’s discovery that his wife’s wedding vows included a hidden clause:

“Wilt thou have this man to thy wedded husband, to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love him, comfort him, honour, and keep him in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all others, keep thee only unto him, so long as ye both shall live? Unless, of course, you subsequently figure out you’re actually a lesbian?”

 

What we are supposed to believe is that the Meaning of Life is the pursuit of your True Self. Any promise can broken, any prior commitment discarded, any vow is automatically invalidated, the moment you realize your True Self is gay. And if you are a woman, those hateful homophobes who would stand between you and your gay True Self are also oppressive agents of male supremacy.

“This is what I mean when I say that feminism is a journey to lesbianism. If we take feminist ideology seriously, if we study the doctrines and objectives of the movement — especially as manifested in the teachings of Women’s Studies professors — we must admit that these revolutionary goals are incompatible with everything most people take for granted about women, about men, about sex.
“Feminists have declared war on human nature.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, July 28, 2014

 

People who treat feminism as a joke, people who fail to understand how serious feminists are about their own ideology, typically fail to see the symbiotic connection between the political and the personal. More than four decades after the Women’s Liberation movement emerged from the radical New Left of the 1960s, feminist ideology has become so pervasive in our culture that many people don’t notice it for the same reason fish don’t notice water: It’s everywhere, all around us. When these radical ideas have consequences, we don’t even recognize how the political influence of feminism affects our personal beliefs and behaviors.

Because the devotees of radicalism have seized control of the most powerful institutions in our society, there are no professors of history who can teach us how we came to this increasingly strange place in our culture, nor are there popular movies or novels describing this transformation in a narrative context to which we can relate. History has been quietly re-written and new belief systems have been created, so that few if any educated people under the age of 40 are even aware of why or how these changes happened. However, if we could reverse-engineer the Cultural Revolution, we would perceive its agenda in five simple stages:

  1. Discredit religious authority — Anyone who believes in the Bible must understand human nature as part of a divinely created order: “Male and female created he them,” and, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” This is not difficult to understand, and obedience to the will of the Creator is as simple as “thus saith the Lord.” Those who wish to destroy the created order must therefore first convince us that the Bible is wrong about human nature, and mock the Bible believer as an ignorant bigot whose doctrines are based on a false “myth.”
  2. Make science the enemy of religion — Nearly 2,000 years after the Apostle Paul warned Timothy about “science falsely so called,” we find that the enemies of God everywhere declare themselves devoted to a scientific view of human nature. Acolytes of the Darwinian cult of evolution are arrogantly certain of their own intellectual superiority to Christians and, while there is much controversy among atheists as to what science actually says about human nature, they are united in their determined insistence that the Bible is a “myth” which can neither offer useful insights about our problems nor provide direction to our lives. This worldview has become hegemonic among the intelligentsia, as Phillip Johnson observed in Reason in the Balance, so that we are now required to offer only secular, naturalistic arguments in discourse. To argue otherwise is to be “anti-intellectual” or “anti-science.”
  3. Popularize a sentimental bias toward “glittering generalities” — In 1946, George Orwell remarked, “In certain kinds of writing . . . it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning.” Intellectuals have not become more sophisticated, as they would have us believe. Rather, our system of education has been so deliberately dumbed down that our elite colleges and universities are now handing diplomas to students who have never been exposed to basic concepts of rhetoric and logic. Allegedly “educated” people are unable to distinguish between sound reasoning and fallacy, between valid arguments and sophistry. Students have never been challenged to examine the political slogans, popular buzzwords and academic jargon that serve to obscure the real meaning of phrases like “equality,” “progress,” “freedom” and “democracy.” One frequently finds that young people are willing to make what they conceive to be the most damaging accusations (racismsexismhomophobia) without any real evidence and, when challenged to explain their claims, are unable to understand what constitutes evidence, or even to comprehend why such evidence is necessary. This tendency toward sloppy rhetoric and invalid logic leads to what Thomas Sowell has called “The Irrelevance of Evidence,” which is nowhere more apparent than when we try to analyze what progressives believe about men and women, love and sex, marriage and family. Anyone who attempts to use facts and logic in arguing with a feminist will discover what inspired Orwell to write Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four.
  4. Promote a philosophy of selfish hedonism — Major institutions of our society, from elite academia to popular culture, have embraced the idea that narcissistic immaturity is the highest form of spiritual development. We are told that life should be an endless quest to discover Who We Really Are, and that any limit to this pursuit of our True Self is psychologically unhealthy. The perfect embodiment of this Seeker of the True Self is Veruca Salt:“I want the whole world. . . . And if I don’t get the things I am after I’m going to scream! . . . I want it now!” This philosophy celebrates as “enlightenment” the discovery of our most bizarre fantasies, and praises as “liberation” the satiation of our most perverse cravings. No one may offer moral objections to the acting-out of depraved desires without being accused of prejudice or prudery. If anyone objects on the basis of social good, the Veruca Salt Brigades will predictably (a) condemn as bigotry the concept of “good” and/or (b) declare that the existing social order must be destroyed to permit them to satisfy their deviant urges. By translating their desires into the language of “rights” and “liberation,” the advocates of hedonism thereby present us with a situation described by Shakespeare: “Then every thing includes itself in power, power into will, will into appetite; and appetite, a universal wolf, so doubly seconded with will and power, must make perforce a universal prey, and last eat up himself.” When we find radical feminists at war with advocates of transgenderism, we see how the universal wolf of appetite ultimately leads to self-destructive cannibalism.
  5. Blame all problems of the New Order on the reactionary forces of the Old Order — Whatever harms may result from the Cultural Revolution, the revolutionaries themselves can never be blamed, nor can any problem of the new regime ever be cited as proof that the revolution’s opponents were correct in their opposition. This was how the Bolsheviks justified the Red Terror in the Soviet Union and how Pol Pot justified genocide in Cambodia. Everything must be blamed on the enemies of the revolution, who serve as scapegoats for every discontent and convenient excuses for every failure. Decades before the Sexual Revolution erupted in the 1960s, there were those who warned that the advocates of “liberation” (e.g., Alfred Kinsey) were perverts dishonestly using science and/or politics to justify their own selfish desires, and that women would especially suffer under an amoral regime of “sexual freedom.” It did not take long for these prophetic warnings to be confirmed. In 1970, feminist Robin Morgan lamented, “It hurts to understand that at Woodstock or Altamont a woman could be declared uptight or a poor sport if she didn’t want to be raped.” Such was the logic of radicalism, however, that the Sexual Revolution, having condemned as “uptight” any resistance to compulsory promiscuity, did not end with a return to traditional morality; rather, the radicals blamed the failure of their revolution on the “sexism” of an ancient patriarchal system that both preceded the revolution and persisted beyond the destruction of the traditional moral order. “Patriarchy” and “male supremacy” are to feminism what “Trotskyites” and “kulaks” were to Stalinism — ideological bogeymen which can explain everything and justify anything.

More than 50 years after Betty Friedan published The Feminist Mystique, denouncing the lives of suburban housewives as an oppressive evil comparable to Nazi death camps, we find young women today are more desperately unhappy than their great-grandmothers ever were under the supposedly horrific sexist oppression of Eisenhower-era traditionalism. Having crossed the feminist rubicon, however, the radicals have burned their bridges behind them and must now either conquer or perish. Therefore, young women today find that they have been cut off from the security of the past and thrust into a chaotic world of sexual anarchy where they are threatened by danger on every side.

 

‘Queer Theory’ and the Culture of Decadence

Insanity has become the New Normal and the inmates are running the asylum. Things that would have been shockingly scandalous just a few years ago are now commonplace, and anyone who examines these trends from a common-sense perspective is condemned as a religious fanatic, a right-wing ideologue and/or a Victorian prude suffering from irrational sex phobias in need of diagnosis and therapy. No one can be permitted to criticize perversion and lunacy. The intellectual elite are Our Moral Superiors, and all their criticism is directed against sane normal people.

Walter Lee Williams, a Ph.D. in anthropology who was “an eminent professor of gender and sexuality studies” at the University of Southern California, recently pleaded guilty in federal court to traveling the world to pursue sex with boys as young as 9:

As part of a plea, federal prosecutors agreed to recommend that [Williams] serve no more than five years in a federal prison. He also would be subject to 10 years supervision upon release and must pay $25,000 in restitution to his seven victims. Williams will be sentenced Dec. 15.
He was apprehended within a day of making the FBI’s Most Wanted List in June 2013 after he was indicted on sex crimes involving two 14-year-old boys in the Philippines. He was captured in the Mexican coastal town of Playa del Carmen after a resident recognized his photo from a newspaper.
Williams taught anthropology, gender studies and history at USC for about two decades until he quit in 2011. Under the guise of academic research on sexuality in the Southeast Asia/Pacific region, he repeatedly traveled to the area.
Federal prosecutors alleged that the author and Fulbright Award winner used those trips to sexually assault underage boys. Investigators believe he has at least 10 victims across Southeast Asia, aged 9 to 17.
Williams engaged in webcam sex sessions with two boys, aged 13 and 14, in the Philippines in 2010. The next year, he traveled to the country and sexually assaulted both boys and a 15-year-old boy, according to the plea agreement. He was 62 at the time.
While there, he also had sexual contact with three other 16-year-old boys, records show.
When he returned to Los Angeles International Airport on Feb. 11, 2011, he was “intercepted,” and child pornography was found on him. The professor fled Los Angeles a week after being interviewed by the FBI.

Ideas have consequences, and no one should be surprised that “eminent” members of the Gender Studies faculty at USC (or anywhere else) are able to rationalize the most bizarre behaviors. Professor Williams was co-editor of a 1997 book, Overcoming Heterosexism and Homophobia, and also co-edited the 2003 book Gay and Lesbian Rights in the United States: A Documentary History. Nevertheless, you will be condemned as a homophobic hatemonger if you suggest there is any correlation between (a) Professor Williams’ academic advocacy for gay rights, and (b) Professor Williams’ criminal compulsion to sodomize boys.

What sane normal people call “common sense” is ignorant prejudice, according to Our Moral Superiors in the academic elite. Feminists are permitted to invent frightening statistics about the prevalence of rape that cannot be substantiated by actual facts, and they can generalize from the most extreme and heinous example (e.g., mass murdering madman Elliott Rodger) to blame atrocities on oppressive male supremacy. Remember that “all men benefit from [patriarchy] and maintain it,” as Professor Kitzinger explained, so that all men are therefore the “political enemies” of all women. Any student of logic and rhetoric would raise a skeptical eyebrow at such categorical claims, but the prestigious intellectuals on the Gender Studies faculty at USC were probably too busyOvercoming Heterosexism and Homophobia to bother criticizing Professor Kitzinger’s feminist pronouncements.

People who have never bothered examining the curricula of Women’s Studies programs might be surprised how easy it is to find the most insane and arguably dangerous claims hiding in plain sight on the pages of feminist literature. Professor Judith Butler’s 1989 book Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity is one of the top-ranked books in the Gender Studies category of Amazon.com’s sales rankings, because it is almost universally assigned in Women’s Studies programs.

Densely crowded with academic jargon and references to intellectuals little known to the average American, including French lesbian feminist Monique WittigGender Trouble seems to have been written with the deliberate purpose of preventing any critic from claiming that Professor Butler is actually advocating the lesbianism she unapologetically practices. An educated and skeptical reader, familiar with the rhetorical methods of sophisticated ideologues, is naturally alert to the tactics that are predictably employed in such works. The more unusual the claims of the argument, the more likely the author’s meaning will be obscured by pretentious terminology and cloaked with citations to authorities with whom the layman is generally unfamiliar. The intended effect is make the typical reader feel intellectually inferior. You don’t recognize the fancy words. You never even heard of the (supposedly) Famous Dead Philosopher whose theories are the subject of discussion. Because you are reminded on every page of your own ignorance, you are obviously unqualified to say whether the author is accurately representing the Famous Dead Philosopher’s views, or whether the point the author wishes to make has any actual relevance to what the Famous Dead Philosopher sought to explain. It may be that the living author and the Famous Dead Philosopher are both disastrously mistaken about whatever phenomenon is being discussed. Yet naïve readers will typically be so intimidated by the dazzling display of academic expertise as to believe themselves incompetent to question the author’s conclusions.

more at http://theothermccain.com/2014/09/14/sudden-onset-lesbian-syndrome/