The Incoherence of Liberal Feminism

http://theothermccain.com/2014/09/23/the-incoherence-of-liberal-feminism/

 

Laurie Penny (@PennyRed) is a trendy young female British writer who, like trendy young women everywhere, calls herself a “feminist,” a habit that annoys the hell out of actual feminists:

From: “Catherine Brennan” <bugbrennan@icloud.com>
Date: October 20, 2013 7:05:21 PM
To: Jason Cowley, laurie.penny@googlemail.com
Subject: Fwd: Internet bullying
Mr. Cowley –
I am writing because your contributing writer, Laurie Penny, has spent much of her time today defaming me on her Twitter feed. See attached. I am astonished that this is considered responsible conduct for a journalist, especially as she has stated that she plans on writing a “news article” about something related to my alleged conduct (relying, apparently, on a Rational Wiki entry created by Men’s Rights Activists. How credible). I am forwarding this exchange to my lawyer in the UK for further action. Please be advised that New Statesman will be liable for any defamation Ms. Penny prints.
Kind regards,
Cathy Brennan

 

 

What did Laurie Penny do that elicited that response? It involved the ongoing radical feminist quarrel with transgender activists over “woman-only space” and, Brennan says, Penny “regularly tweets abusive misinformation about lesbians and radical feminism.”

 

So there you go.

As always in such arguments, I agree with Cathy Brennan: Real feminism is about radical dykes destroying the patriarchy, which has nothing to do with the incoherent and contradictory noises emitted by silly girls who want to strike a fashionable pose.

Laurie Penny is a “feminist” like David Brooks is a “conservative.”

This is the kind of idiocy “feminist” Laurie Penny writes:

“If you’ve a ladyboner for sexist schmuckweasels,
short hair isn’t going to help, although they might let you
administer a disappointing hand-job.”

Does anybody know what she’s trying to say there? She meant to say that “short hair [for women] is a political statement,” but this blew up into a lot of Twitter squabbling over . . . . well, whatever.

Of course, she’s a victim — that is always the moral of the story for these Trendy Young Feminists: “Waaahh! People hate me!

Feminist author Laurie Penny has been subjected to “a stream of vile sexist and anti-Semitic abuse” as part of a campaign against her bookUnspeakable Things, she says. . . .
However in a blog post Ms Penny said she had had “quite a weekend” as she experienced a “predictable sexist troll backlash”.
“In the past 24 hours, I have been subjected to a stream of vile sexist and anti-semitic abuse on Twitter and elsewhere,” she wrote.
“This has become a normal part of my life as a person who dares to write in public whilst being both female and left-wing, but this weekend it’s been particularly full on.”

 

Let me remind you of McCain’s Law of Feminism:

There are three kinds of feminism:

  1. Feminism that is wrong.
  2. Feminism that is crazy.
  3. Feminism that is both wrong and crazy.

(When in doubt, it’s usually Number Three.)

It would seem that Laurie Penny’s variety of feminism boils down to telling British women, “Vote Labour, because . . . vagina!”

Never mind whether Labour does anything that actually helps women. All that matters is how women can help Labour.

There is no reason why anyone should bother sending hate-mail to Laurie Penny, because she’s nothing but another clever young girl trying to get rich selling books to slightly-less-clever girls who need someone to tell them why they should be left-wingers:

According to her publishers, Unspeakable Things is a “ruthless” dissection of modern feminism and class politics.
“This is a book about poverty and prejudice, online dating and eating disorders, riots in the streets and lies on the television,” it says. “The backlash is on against sexual freedom for men and women and social justice — and feminism needs to get braver. Penny speaks for a new feminism that takes no prisoners, a feminism that is about justice and equality, but also about freedom for all.”

How many “new feminism” books must these clever young girls write before their intended readership wises up to the fact that “new feminism” is nothing more than a marketing hustle? Laurie Penny couldn’t possibly say anything truly new about feminism, because it’s all been said before by women who, like Laurie Penny, hoped to ride the movement to fame and fortune. Their failures are legendary. Shulamith Firestone, for example, published The Dialectic of Sex in 1970, rapidly descended into amaelstrom of paranoid psychosis, and died alone at age 67.

Yeah, baby — “ruthless.”

Of course, as anyone who has ever read The Dialectic of Sex understands, Shulamith Firestone was crazy long before she was diagnosed with schizophrenia. I’ve got a copy of her book on my desk, where it’s sitting atop the volume of feminist essays in which Sally Miller Gearhart outlines her lesbian plan to reduce males to 10 percent of the human population. You can say Professor Gearhart is crazy, but you can’t say she is necessarily wrong. If you accept the feminist premise that heterosexuality is both the cause and effect of women’s oppression, then if you advocate a genocidal campaign to eliminate males and convert all females to lesbianism . . . Well, you see, Professor Gearhart’s conclusion follows logically from her premises.

They may be crazy, but lesbian feminists at least have integrity.

“Political Lesbianism is the radical feminist idea that Women can ‘choose’ to be Lesbians, and that such ‘choice’ is a way for Women to escape the shackles of Compulsory Heterosexuality. It enables Women to politically and personally ally with other Women. In effect, Political Lesbianism allows Women a framework to reorder our priorities — it gives Women space and room to maneuver as we navigate the Heterosexual grooming all Women experience. As Feminists, many of us, in exploring our ideas about Woman-hating culture, realize that Lesbianism can bring us to experience deeper connection to and intimacy with other Women, an experience many of us want, need and crave. . . .
“The process of deconstructing the Woman you were groomed to be from girlhood is lifelong and never ending – even for Real Lesbians.
“Thus, we are Political Lesbians and choose to be a Lesbian in a Woman-Hating culture. We choose to love Women and put them at the center of our lives. All Women can do this.”
— Cathy Brennan, 2012

“Male sexual violence against women and ‘normal’ heterosexual intercourse are essential to patriarchy because they establish the dominance of the penis over the vagina, and thus the power relations between the sexes.”
— Professor Dee Graham, University of Cincinnati, 1993

“Fucking is a large part of how females are kept subordinated to males. It is a ritual enactment of that subordination which constantly reaffirms the fact of subordination and habituates both men and women to it, both in body and in imagination.”
— Professor Marilyn Frye, Michigan State University, 1983

“The lesbian is the woman obviously who unites the personal and the political in the struggle to free ourselves from the oppressive institution. . . .
“Proceeding from the premise that women are oppressed by the heterosexual institution, that women are an oppressed class, that from the point of view the man has become (if he was not always) the natural enemy of women, it follows that the continued collusion of any woman with any man is an event that retards the progress of woman supremacy.”
— Jill JohnstonLesbian Nation, 1973

It’s only logical, you see? If “women are an oppressed class,” then heterosexual intercourse “reaffirms the fact of subordination” for women, which is “essential to patriarchy,” and lesbianism is the only way females can “escape the shackles” of male supremacy.

Once you accept the premise that every misfortune or unhappiness any woman experiences is a result of male oppression, if you believe that anything in the world which seems “unfair” is also social injustice, then the feminist syllogism can have but one conclusion.

Radical lesbians like Cathy Brennan are women who have followed the feminist argument to its only logical conclusion. Of course, if you study feminism’s history, many movement leaders were lesbians first and feminists later, but does that distinction really matter? What finally matters is that radical lesbians are at least consistent in their interpretation of feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology. And, occasionally, their radical logic leads them to conclusions that are actually true: Pornography and prostitution are not “empowering” or “liberating” for women, and a man in a wig and a dress does not become a “woman” by injecting himself with estrogen.

Whereas, by contrast, the next time Laurie Penny tells the truth, it will also be the first  time she tells the truth.

Cathy Brennan must certainly be glad that Laurie Penny is not a lesbian. If Laurie Penny became a lesbian, homophobia would flourish, because everybody hates Laurie Penny. Or everybody should hate Laurie Penny, and I’m sure everybody eventually will.

 

 

Rape Is a Crime. Or Not.

http://theothermccain.com/2015/07/02/rape-is-a-crime-or-not/

Zoe Ridolfi-Starr (@ZoeRidolfiStarr) is a liar and a feminist, but I repeat myself. A recent graduate of Columbia University (annual tuition $51,008), Ms. Ridolfi-Starr is an enthusiastic supporter of her classmate Emma Sulkowicz, whose false rape accusation against Paul Nungesser led to his filing a federal lawsuit against Columbia. Ms. Ridolfi-Starr bragged to the Columbia student paper of her accomplishments as the university’s“friendly neighborhood angry feminist”:

Organized to fight gender-based violence on campus, founder of No Red Tape. Helped create the Prison Resistance and Education Project and the Books Not Bars programs for incarcerated youth. Worked for reproductive justice on campus, got free emergency contraception provided at Health Services, and secured the creation of the Columbia Emergency Health Fund to subsidize, among other things, abortions.

 

 

What is “No Red Tape”? It’s about depriving male students of due process rights, so they can be expelled merely on the basis of an accusation, under the guise of “fighting sexual violence and rape culture at Columbia University.”

Ms. Ridolfi-Starr was the lead plaintiff in a federal complaint filed by 23 Columbia students against the university in April 2014:

The complaint alleges the Ivy League university discouraged students from reporting sexual assaults, allowed perpetrators to remain on campus, sanctioned inadequate disciplinary actions for perpetrators and discriminated against students based on their sexual orientation . . .
The students’ statement described the complaint in detail, but the group refused to release any copies, saying it wanted to protect those who do not want their names publicized. As a policy, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights does not release information to the public until after a formal investigation has been opened into a complaint.
“Columbia is more willing to silence and punish survivors and their supporters than serial rapists,” the students said in their statement. . . .
Zoe Ridolfi-Starr, a Columbia junior and lead complainant, told CNN on Friday that activists from universities across the country offered plenty of advice and support to the group, saying, “It’s absolutely a national issue.”
Ridolfi-Starr said she was sexually assaulted the summer after her freshman year at Columbia and said the primary goal of the complaint is to pressure the university to make reforms.

 

We are expected to take seriously the claim that brilliant young scholars at one of the most prestigious universities in the world — a school thatadmits fewer than 7% of those who apply — are brutal sex predators who perpetrate heinous assaults with such frequency that a “rape culture” prevails on the Columbia campus?

Excuse me if I take note of the distinct aroma of bovine excrementexuding from such claims. Sure, it’s possible that some of these National Merit Scholars and valedictorians are degenerate psychopaths. We must remember that the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, is a Harvard alumnus, so it is possible that some of these young brainiacs at Columbia are sunk into the depths of depravity. However, does anyone really believe that any significant number of rapists are to be found among bookish fellows whose parents pay more than $50,000 a year to send them to Columbia?

And while we’re at it, does anyone actually believe Zoe Ridolfi-Starr is a “sexual assault survivor”? If officials at Columbia University didn’t believe her, why should we? But we find this stated as a fact:

Colleges might soon be required to report cases of sexual assault to local law enforcement agencies.
Virginia, Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey have all created preliminary versions of bills that will call for more collaboration between schools and police departments around the issue of campus rape. . . .
However, victims of sexual assault find the new proposal problematic. “If a survivor comes forward and says, ‘Hey I need help, I want to get this guy out of my classes,’ that’s very different from saying, ‘I want to involve myself in a lengthy arduous legal process,’”sexual assault survivor Zoe Ridolfi-Starr said.

 

Where is the documentation of this “sexual assault” of which Ms. Ridolfi-Starr is a “survivor”? She says she was assaulted, but what actually happened? Can we see the affidavits? While I don’t presume to know the truth of this matter, shouldn’t we be suspicious of people who claim to be victims of serious crimes, but don’t want police to investigate those alleged crimes? And how is it that Ms. Ridolfi-Starr has time to file a federal complaint against her university, but doesn’t have time for the “arduous legal process” of filing a police report about a sexual assault?

The stench of bovine excrement grows ever more noxious, when you realize that complaints like Ms. Ridolf-Starr’s are being employed as emotional leverage to pressure legislators into enacting laws that re-define rape on college campuses. Under the “affirmative consent” regime, every male college student who engages in heterosexual activity on campus is at risk of being expelled from school because if she says she was raped, the accused male will be required to prove that she consented. Exactly how does one prove such a thing? “Affirmative consent” policy shifts the burden of proof, requiring the male student to prove a negative (that it was not rape) and thereby effectively strips him of his due process rights, so if his ex-girlfriend gets mad at him — adios, amigo! Expelled. You’re guilty. You’re a rapist because she said so.

Oh, but don’t get the police involved. Ms. Ridolfi-Starr co-authored a column arguing against investigating rape as a crime:

As survivors of sexual violence and advocates for safe, just campuses, we know these efforts would harm students.
These proposals that effectively require survivors to engage with the criminal justice system fail to grasp the function of the campus system. Schools have a legal requirement under Title IX toprotect all students’ ability to access education without fear of gender discrimination, including sexual and dating violence.
Campus processes are designed to focus on what student survivors need in order to continue their education, and are better equipped to help survivors address concrete and often urgent needs that can result from gender-based violence.

“Survivors,” “survivors,” “survivors” — they keep repeating this word as if by repetition they prove what they merely claim.

As for a student’s “ability to access education,” feminists are advocating for policies to deny such access to male students, to have males expelled from colleges on the basis of accusations for which the accuser is not required to offer any evidence whatsoever, in a process that denies the accused male student the legal protections accorded to any common criminal. Any male student who would have sex with a female student under such circumstances is probably too stupid to be among the 7% of applicants admitted to Columbia University.

These policies are about criminalizing sex, period.

Feminists like Zoe Ridolfi-Starr have become accustomed to getting away with dishonesty for so long that they never expect anyone to call them on their bullshit. But some people say Zoe Ridolfi-Starr lies about rape, and until she can prove she’s telling the truth, I’ll call her a liar.

Please sue me, you liar.