‘My Hypothetical Daughter’

http://theothermccain.com/2014/09/29/emily-heist-moss-feminist-sex/

 

Emily Heist Moss (@EmilyHeistMoss) is the type of young feminist who inspires readers to ask, “Stacy, how do you find these idiots?”

The short answer is that feminists are herd animals, who aggregate around certain online watering holes, so that wherever you find one zany Gender Studies type, there are sure to be many more. Thus while I was reading an article by Chelsea Bock, I noticed in the sidebar an article by Emily Heist Moss with this eye-grabbing headline:

To The Men Who Try To Have Condom-Free Sex

If crazy were silver, Emily Heist Moss would be the Comstock Lode, and the feminist blog Role/Reboot would be a Nevada mountain, but we’ll have to take these metaphors one at a time, beginning with Ms. Moss’scomplaints about the hook-up lifestyle:

You know that thing when you’re about to have sex with someone and you’re feeling all warm and fuzzy and fun things are happening and you anticipate more fun things are coming and you’re in this groove and then, instead of the telltale ripping of a condom wrapper, or the brief pause when he sits back on his heels to assess and discuss the protection situation, he tries to slip it in like you won’t even notice?
And you, upon realizing what the moron down between your legs is doing — or rather, neglecting to do — you hear in your brain that screeeeeeeech like tires slamming to a halt because instead of warm and fuzzy you feel confused and indignant. You feel overlooked, irrelevant to this bodily conversation you were excited to get going just seconds before. You feel, suddenly, like just a hole, and not a person with opinions on the subject of contraception, with aspirations for a baby- and disease-free future, with a 50% stake in what’s about to go down.
Do you know that feeling?
If you have been so lucky as to avoid it, pat yourself on the back, cross your fingers, and continue whatever rain dance you’ve been performing that keeps condoms falling from the sky and conscientious partners in your bed. Because the rest of us? Man, we are sitting out here in the cold and it sucks. . . .
When I polled the Internet about their experiences, I got bombarded with stories of the bareback-pressurers, “Don’t you trust me, baby?” whisperers, and the worst offenders, slip-it-off-mid-coitus-no-condom-ninjas. The issue is so widespread that it seems obvious it’s not a question of a few bad apples, but rather a persistent misunderstanding of the rules of engagement. . . .

You can read the whole thing. I’ve quoted Ms. Moss at such length to avoid any accusation that she is being quoted out of context. This is how it is with feminists: If you try to briefly summarize their bizarre beliefs, you will be accused of distorting their meaning; on the other hand, if you quote them at length — unfair! You’re infringing their copyright on lunatic gibberish. But I digress . . .

What Ms. Moss seems to be saying is that when she picks up a random stranger for an exercise in meaningless hedonism, she is shocked —shocked, I tell you! — that these semi-anonymous creeps do not always heed her “rules of engagement.” But what do “rules” mean between two amoral fornicators? On what authority does Ms. Moss, an avowed atheist, base the rules for her loveless couplings?

Well, consent, you see. Starting in the 1960s, a coalition of bohemian perverts, porn merchants and civil libertarians fought a grand crusade to vanquish any vestige of morality from our laws governing sexual behavior, replacing it with the “consenting adults” standard. It was no longer sufficient, said these judicial and legislative modernizers, to say that something was wrong and therefore should also be illegal. According to the new regime, concepts like “right” and “wrong,” “good” and “evil,” “vice” and “virtue” had no useful meaning.

You could do absolutely anything, sex-wise, so long as the participants were “consenting adults.” Now all arguments about sex boil down to disputes about two things: Who is an “adult” and what does “consent” mean? I’m pretty sure that if the forces of Progress and Equality continue in the direction they’ve been going recently — because the logic of their argument is consistent — those who refuse to consent will be accused of a hate crime, the legal age of consent will be abolished, and deviants will then organize to demand the “right” to have sex with unborn fetuses. (“Pre-natal sexuality”? Who are we to judge?)

Anyone who thinks we have reached rock bottom on our long slide down the slippery slope simply hasn’t been paying attention. A commission in Germany recently recommended the legalization of incest, a “reform” too late to benefit the multigenerational incestuous clan in Australia where uncle/brothers were habitually sodomizing their sister/nieces before the police finally raided the place. Meanwhile, in England, gangs of Pakistani pimps were raping and prostituting working-class girls as young as 11while local Labour Party officials looked the other way.

Amid this increasingly frenetic worldwide carnival of sordid sexual atrocities that the advocates of Progress and Equality have let loose upon humanity, you see, Emily Heist Moss is complaining that some of her “friends with benefits” are trying to sneak a bit of unprotected friction into their casual couplings. This is a Major Issue, OK? And if you disagree about the relative importance of her problems, you’re just a hater.

The venue in which Ms. Moss made this complaint deserves critical scrutiny. Here’s how Role/Reboot began a few years ago:

 

In 2009, Role Reboot co-founder Fran Rodgers was asked to teach a course on Women’s Movements Past and Future at Tufts University. Fran wanted to make sure that her course was relevant to a younger generation, and enlisted Morra Aarons-Mele as her partner in developing the course. . . .
As they prepared the college course, however, Fran and Morra realized that with every new reading they were moved to act, and began to feel a sense of awakening and responsibility to help create change among men and women. . . .
Fran asked her daughter Nicole to help. . . .
Nicole wanted to bring a feminist sensibility to modern debates without relying too heavily on second-wave authors and discussions. Eventually, the three women determined that what they wanted was an online space for thought leadership about how gender roles are changing . . .

This is from Role/Reboot’s mission statement:

 

We’re a group defined mostly by what we are not. We’re not the Cleavers or Ozzie and Harriet (nor do we want to be). We don’t aspire to the status quo. We’re forward thinking, creative, and counter-cultural. We’re concerned about deeply embedded “traditional” roles and expectations that often dictate how we structure our lives. We’re creating our own rules. We’re naturally a big-tent movement for anyone trying to live a life free from unhelpful “shoulds.”
While others rally for “New Normal,” we will continue to champion the ideal of “No Normal.”

They aspire to a world in which there are no norms. Who is Role/Reboot co-founder Fran Rodgers? A bit of investigation discovers that Mrs. Rodgers’ life has followed a familiar “gender equality” script: Get an elite education and marry an enterpreneurial Alpha Male so that the heteronormative patriarchy can then fund its own deconstruction (cf., Mike Huffington and Arianna, Ted Turner and Jane Fonda, etc.). Role/Reboot is all about postmodern narratives that challenge the discourse of the sex/gender binary, as Judith Butler might say. The site might as well be called “Slouching Toward Androgyny.”

One of the obvious problems with this subversion of gender norms — or, rather, a problem that should be obvious to anyone who hasn’t been drinking the radical egalitarian Kool-Aid — is that masculinity and femininity work, and androgyny fails, when it comes to the crucial social task of reproducing the species. Which is to say that, in general, when viewing cultures in terms of population demographics and over the course of time, traditional sex roles are associated with higher fertility, whereas androgyny is typical of societies that have become decadent and entered demographic decline. This can be demonstrated both historically and in comparing contemporary population groups.

Ceteris paribus, populations typified by what feminists call “male supremacy” (what anthropologists call “normal human behavior”) exhibit reproductive vigor while androgyny (or what feminists call “gender equality”) is typical of population groups with below-replacement fertility levels. Feminists simply have not recognized how their advocacy of theContraceptive Culture must ultimately doom their movement to failure and, insofar as our nation embraces feminism, so also is our nation doomed. This has been explained by numerous authors. You can read Mark Steyn’s America Alone or Jonathan Last’s What to Expect When No One’s Expecting for timely discussion of these issues. Yet it’s really just common sense, and you don’t need a Ph.D. to understand why the birth rate in Yemen is higher than the birth rate in Denmark, why Orthodox Jews have large families and secular Jews do not, or why Oklahoma Baptists have more babies than Massachusetts liberals. Culture influences demographics and vice-versa, but while decadent intellectuals may dominate elite culture, demographics is a matter of simple math, and no amount of complex academic theory can change a basic fact of nature: The future belongs to the fertile.

more at http://theothermccain.com/2014/09/29/emily-heist-moss-feminist-sex/

 

Sex and the Psychotic professor

http://spectator.org/articles/55029/sex-and-psychotic-professor

Hugo Schwyzer’s breakdown reveals an epidemic of campus lunacy.

 

Hugo Schwyzer is insane and is also a college professor, and one imagines his employer using this in a promotional campaign: “Pasadena City College: You Don’t Have to Be Crazy to Teach Here, But It Helps!”

Professor Schwyzer’s madness suddenly burst forth as headline news this month after he first announced that he was quitting the Internet and told L.A. Weekly he had suffered a “mental breakdown.”  But then the professor went on Twitter and began spewing out a series of bizarre confessions, admitting that he was off his medication. His weird online meltdown inspired concerns for Professor Schwyzer’s safety and he was hospitalized again. He told the Daily Beast that he had been to the psychiatric ward three times in the past month and had suicidal thoughts. He told a Daily Caller reporter that he had made a “serious” suicide attempt.

 

As spectacular as his manic disintegration was, there had been clear warning signs for years that Professor Schwyzer was a sex-crazed lunatic. However, the red flags of mental illness were evidently ignored by the administration of Pasadena City College (PCC) and Professor Schwyzer’s peers, perhaps because sex-crazed lunatics have become so commonplace in 21st-century academia.

More than two centuries have passed since the statesman Edmund Burke beheld the French Revolution and defended British conservatism:  “We are not converts of Rousseau; we are not disciples of Voltaire. Atheists are not our preachers; madmen are not our lawgivers.” What Burke said of England in 1790 cannot be said of America in 2013, where atheists and madmen and the disciples of radical philosophers hold high office and other positions of prestige. Nowhere do these radicals enjoy more influence than in our nation’s institutions of higher education. We need look no farther than Chicago, where erstwhile fugitive bomber Bill Ayers now collects a pension from the University of Illinois system as a retired professor of education. Ayers was denied the title of “professor emeritus” because he once co-authored a terrorist manifesto that was dedicated to several comrades in the “anti-imperialist” struggle, including Robert F. Kennedy’s assassin Sirhan Sirhan. However, another of Ayers’ radical comrades is now President of the United States, so we can’t say the disciples of atheist madmen are without influence.

Among other radical causes, Ayers and his fellow Marxists in the Weather Underground were sexual revolutionaries, invoking the slogan “Smash Monogamy” to justify their occasional orgies and multiple short-term liaisons with partners of both sexes. Haphazardly screwing around failed to overthrow capitalism, but their rhetoric of politically inspired perversion had an impact, especially within the campus milieu where their anti-American ideology had been nurtured in the 1960s. College faculties had for decades harbored ideologues of deviance, including the famous fraud Professor Alfred Kinsey of Indiana University, whose methodologically flawed studies became the “scientific” basis of the sexual revolution, and Marxist theoretician Herbert Marcuse, who taught at Columbia, Harvard, and Brandeis. Marcuse has been called the “father” of the 1960s New Left movement; his books Eros and Civilization (1955) and One-Dimensional Man (1964) can most easily be understood as a synthesis of Marx and Freud, and popularized the Left’s now-common conflation of sexual and political “repression.”

Whereas Freud had understood the need to repress chaotic sexual impulses, however, Marcuse encouraged the view that industrial capitalist culture led to an “inauthentic” sexuality, so that sexual “liberation” was a necessary component of the radical agenda. This was by no means a new idea; Karl Marx’s colleague Freidrich Engels in 1884 published The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, identifying the traditional family as the fundamental basis of the capitalist order. Marcuse’s colleague Theodor Adorno was lead author of a notorious 1950 study, The Authoritarian Personality, which depicted traditional families as the breeding grounds of a crypto-fascist menace. It is perhaps not an insignificant coincidence that The Authoritarian Personality was a project of the University of California at Berkeley, where Adorno’s co-authors Daniel Levinson and Nevitt Sanford were members of the psychology faculty, and where the New Left later emerged in the Free Speech Movement of 1964.

The spirit of those 1960s radicals, who often waved the Viet Cong flag in their anti-war protests, nowadays marches under the rainbow banner of sexual liberation. No one on the 21st-century campus can disapprove of homosexuality without being branded a hater, and the rhetoric of the gay rights agenda is nowhere more fanatically espoused or officially endorsed than at America’s colleges and universities. Militant homosexuality coexists with militant feminism on campus; for example, the Women’s Studies department at DePauw University offers a course called “Queer Theory, Queer Lives.” New York University’s Center for the Study of Gender and Sexuality is directed by Professor Ann Pellegrini, a Harvard alumna who lists “queer theory” first among her areas of research; the center has in the past year hosted events on “Queer Africa,” “Queer Asia” and “A New Queer Agenda.” (One suspects perhaps the Old Queer Agenda was becoming obsolete.) The overlap of feminism and “queer theory” is not accidental. “Feminism is the theory; lesbianism is the practice,” pioneering feminist Ti-Grace Atkinon proclaimed in 1971, and Professor Bettina Aptheker, who teaches Feminist Studies at the University of California-Santa Cruz, has proclaimed that lesbianism is the “highest state of feminism.”

Given the prevailing norms of sexual scholarship in academia, what’s a heterosexual male professor to do? Evidently, Hugo Schwyzer’s solution was to declare himself a progressive feminist and teach classes on pornography. He carved out a career in the field of gender studies despite the fact that his degree was in medieval history. “My mother was a second-wave feminist,” Schwyzer said in a 2011 interview. “I was raised in the 1970s with ‘Ms. Magazine’ on the coffee table and strong feminist values.… I took my first women’s studies course early in my college career…. I fell in love with women’s studies. But I was leery about majoring in it in the mid-1980s. I didn’t know any guys who did that. So I took a lot of gender-themed classes and majored in history instead.” While still working toward his Ph.D. at UCLA, he was hired at Pasadena City College in 1993 and showed his “strong feminist values” by having sex with college girls. “Before 1998 I slept with two dozen female students, somewhere in there, it’s a ballpark thing,” he told the Daily Beast last week. “That ended when I had a similar but not as bad a breakdown to the one I had now. When I got sober, I made amends to the college and swore off sleeping with students.”

By the time Hugo Schwyzer “got sober” at age 31, he had already been divorced twice, and had recently been dumped by an 18-year-old student, which “sent me spiraling rapidly downward.” He attempted murder-suicide with an ex-girlfriend, a stripper and fellow addict he had met in rehab two years earlier. None of this, however, prevented Schwyzer from becoming a tenured professor with an annual salary of more than $90,000, a published author and columnist featured at The Atlantic and at the feminist site Jezebel.com. Evidently, no one bothered to check Schwyzer’s credentials as a self-proclaimed “expert on body image, sexuality and gender justice.” As he told the Daily Beast, “I pretended regularly to have more credentials than I actually did,” admitting that the ease of his acceptance as “a very well known speaker and writer on feminism” with no more qualification than having taken two undergraduate women’s studies classes was “a little odd.”

Actually, there was a lot odd about Schwyzer’s career, but he may have seemed fairly normal among the lunatic perverts employed by sex-crazed academia nowadays. Three years ago, Columbia University political science Professor David Epstein was arrested for having an incestuous affair with his adult daughter, and subsequently copped a plea deal, but remains employed at the prestigious Ivy League school. One of Epstein’s Columbia faculty colleagues, Professor Theo Sandfort, was for many years affiliated with the Dutch pedophile journal Paidika and is co-author of the 1990 book, Male Intergenerational Intimacy, a “scientific” justification of pederasty. At a Yale University “sensitivity training” workshop in March, bestiality and incest were among the topics in a discussion that the student director of the event explained was intended “to increase compassion for people who may engage in activities that are not what you would personally consider normal.” A survey of the workshop participants found that 9 percent said they had sold sex for money, and 3 percent said they’ve had sex with animals.

In the context of academia, Hugo Schwyzer wasn’t particularly weird. He taught a course listed in the PCC catalog as “Humanities in the Social Sciences,” but which Schwyzer himself called “Navigating Pornography.” In February, when he invited famous male porn performer James Deen to speak to his class, Schwyzer was rebuked for having scheduled what PCC called an “unauthorized… public event.” In announcing cancelation of the event, a PCC official felt obliged to reaffirm the administration’s support for Schwyzer’s “academic freedom within the classroom.” The professor apparently exercised his academic freedom with tremendous zeal. “He started texting sexual messages and pictures of himself… and beginning in January, engaged in extramarital affairs with several women and one man,” the Daily Caller reported. Some of that behavior was revealed in late July, when a porn-industry gossip site reported the text messages (and video of himself masturbating) Schwyzer exchanged with 27-year-old performer Christina Parreira.

Of course, Schwyzer was not fired for his crazy perversion. Tenured professors can never be fired. Instead, PCC put him on medical leave, so he’s still collecting his $90,000 salary. His fourth wife left him and the professor is now reportedly recuperating at his mother’s house with the help of five different psychiatric medications. But he is certainly not alone in his madness, which is merely symptomatic of how American academia has lost its collective mind.
Robert Stacy McCain is the author of Sex Trouble: Essays on Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature. He blogs at TheOtherMcCain.com.
Read more at http://spectator.org/articles/55029/sex-and-psychotic-professor

On ‘Feminist Men’ and Unicorns

http://theothermccain.com/2014/09/28/on-feminist-men-and-unicorns/

Chelsea Bock (@ChelseaCristene) is a young feminist writer andcommunity college English instructor who came to my attention because of a blog post she wrote about E.J. Levy, but that’s another story for another day, or maybe later today. Anyway, curiosity led me to checkBock’s Twitter feed, where she was RT’ing stuff from the Good Men Project and #HeForShe and Autostraddle (!), and I was like, “Oh, I know this type. Trying to save males from their own sexism.”

In essence: You guys don’t know how to be men. Let me tell you how.

Sweetheart, you’re a unicorn hunter.

You’re chasing something that your theory tells you must exist somewhere — the Feminist Man — even though every previous claim to have found one turned out to be like the Piltdown Hoax. Bill Clinton was supposed to be the Feminist Man; it turned out his commitment to equality could be summarized in two words: “Blow me.” More recently, the unicorn hunters claimed that Professor Hugo Schwyzer was the Feminist Man, until it was revealed that he was in fact a dangerous psychotic with a habit of banging his community college students. Perhaps you see the pattern here.

If you’re a womanizing sociopathic narcissist on the hunt for some easy action, being a Feminist Man is definitely your gig.

One gets the idea, generally, that these unicorn hunters are perfectionists doomed forever to be disappointed with actual men, none of whom is ever going to fit the unrealistic requirements of being the Feminist Man. Do they want Ashley Wilkes or do they want Rhett Butler? Or is the problem that the Rhett Butler types are rare and usually not interested in the type of woman who says she wants a Feminist Man? When you get to the bottom line, really, you recognize that this is a personal problem for a certain group of disgruntled women, and not a problem that easily lends itself to one of those personal-to-political issue platforms.

Adulthood involves accepting that the world is what it is, and not wishing you could live in an imagined utopia. Make a choice: Do you want to grow up, or do you want to be a ToysRUs kid?

It seems that Chelsea Bock doesn’t like making choices. It’s possible to read between the lines of her writing and social media output. Did I mention that she RT’d an Autostraddle article? Yes, but what I didn’t say was that the article was about Bisexuality Awareness Week. And the subhead on her article about E.J. Levy? “There is no right or wrong way to be queer.” Also there’s this on her blog, Gender on the Rocks:

I do speak from a different point of view because I believe that we are all innately bisexual — just by varying degrees. And after this, I will definitely be writing more on queer theory in the future.

So you can be excused for thinking that maybe — just maybe — Chelsea is keeping her options open. Or maybe that she doesn’t have any really exciting options on her personal horizon. (We can imagine her Craigslist ad: Female, 26, seeks human of any gender willing to make exclusive romantic commitment to someone who is profoundly ambivalent about her erotic preferences.)

Sometimes if you can’t choose between men and women, what you’re really choosing is . . . cats. Lots of cats.

Feminists are not at war with men. They’re at war with human nature. Their demand for “gender equality” is like Hitler’s demand for the Sudetenland, where a compromise — “Peace for our time!” — is merely an invitation to further aggression. If there is such a thing as a Feminist Man, he probably looks a lot like Neville Chamberlain.

Historian Erupts: ‘I Will Not Be Lectured to by a Public School Girl Like You!’

http://theothermccain.com/2014/09/24/laurie-penny-feminist-fake-phony/

Laurie Penny (@PennyRed) was the subject of an item here yesterdaybecause of her quarrel with lesbian feminist Cathy Brennan, an argument that highlights the profound schism between radicals like Brennan (who are and always have been the core of the feminist movement) and trendy opportunists like Ms. Penny. The American reader may ask, “Who the hell is Laurie Penny, and why the hell are you writing about her?”

Briefly, then: An ambitious young British journalist who attended exclusive private schools (which are for peculiar reasons called “public schools” in England), Ms. Penny graduated from Oxford and then went to New York. There, she was rescued from death by actor Ryan Gosling, an incident that became the subject of an embarrassingly narcissistic article at Gawker. Ms. Penny is a certain type — a “posh bird,” as the Brits would say, whose ostentatious leftism is a fashionable pose among many upper-class youth — and as such is well on her way to becoming the Most Despised Woman in England. She came to my attention here in the States only because, in researching my “Sex Trouble” series on radical feminism, I was browsing Amazon for recent feminist books and came across Ms. Penny’s new volume, Unspeakable Things: Sex, Lies and Revolution. Ranked #6 by Amazon in the “Gender Studies” category, and #11 in“Feminist Theory,” this seemed relevant to my project.

With our American reader’s questions asked and answered, then, we proceed to explain what no English reader needs to be told, namely that Laurie Penny is an impudent young fool with a penchant for making an utter spectacle of herself. As soon as I blogged about her yesterday, comments on the blog and feedback on Twitter began to fill up with notices of Ms. Penny’s previous self-inflicted embarrassments, including this public implosion in June 2012:

More details have emerged of the heavyweight clash of the commentariat this weekend between radical blogger and journalist Laurie Penny and the outspoken TV historian David Starkey at the Sunday Times Festival of Education.
The newspaper released video clips today of the contretemps, which occurred after the historian had talked about the values of the Asian men from Rochdale who were convicted of grooming young white girls for sex as being “entrenched in the foothills of the Punjab or wherever it is”, and how the men needed to be “inculcated in the British ways of doing things”.
Penny accused Starkey of “playing xenophobia and national prejudice for laughs” and asked him in a leading question whether he had a home in America, implying that Starkey might have tax questions to answer, a strong innuendo in the current climate of zero-tolerance.
The video shows Starkey bouncing out of his seat in response to this perceived smear, taking to the lectern to “share a little story” about how he and Penny had both been invited to debate by the Thomas Paine Society, but that while he had agreed to waive his fee the younger polemicist had asked for “such a large fee that the event had to be cancelled”.
“I think that is as mean and grasping as some runt comedian and I will not be lectured to by a public school girl like you!” a visibly angry Starkey spits, advancing on the diminutive Penny until he is standiung directly in front of her, while stabbing the air with his finger to punctuate his points.
“I came from the bottom and I will not have it!” he signs off with a flourish to considerable applause from a crowd quite evidently relishing the ruckus.

You can see the whole thing with video. It’s worth pointing out that David Starkey is no manner of right-winger, but a gay atheist. When he says that he “came from the bottom,” you have to understand that Starkey is from a true working-class background, in a nation where socioeconomic class is much more rigid than in America. His ascent in academia required him to overcome many disadvantages, including being born with two club feet, being stricken with polio, and suffering a nervous breakdown at 13. Starkey has many bad ideas and bad tendencies, but he is a man who has earned by his own merit and labor whatever privileges he has. For him to be lectured in public by such a person as Laurie Penny, accusing him of xenophobia and tax-dodging, was certainly more than anyone like David Starkey could be expected to endure.

“The organisation of human love has little to do with how children are raised and everything to do with the maintenance of the bourgeois state . . .”
— Laurie Penny, “Lesbian mums and the end of patriarchy,” 2008

She insists that lesbian motherhood is part of the Marxist revolutionary project to overthrow “the bourgeois state,” even as she insists she is not a lesbian. It’s the same old story, isn’t it? The revolutionary vanguard of an intellectual elite, claiming to speak for the proletariat, thus deputizing themselves with authority. Except instead of Lenin and Trotsky speaking for the peasants and workers, Comrade Penny is a heterosexual intellectual wielding power on behalf of the lesbian proletariat. We who know history expect in a few years a terror-famine against the lesbian kulaks and “show trials” for feminists accused of treason and sabotage —conspiring with the patriarchy!

No, the “runt comedian” Ms. Penny has no respect for anyone or anything worth respecting, and has never been able to understand why adults resent her presumptuous attitude. Here she is, from 2009 when she was 23, engaged in a blogfight:

And when I had my breakdown at 17 and was carted off to the loony bin for a year, I had my parents’ private healthcare insurance making sure that I wouldn’t be kicked out of hospital when the NHS cover ran out, as it did for many of the young people I shared the ward with. There’s every chance that private health insurance saved my life.
It’s not that I haven’t fought, struggled and worked extremely fucking hard every day for the past five years just to survive. It’s not that the struggle to stay well and stay productive and work for a secure future doesn’t take everything I have, every day.

Yadda yadda yadda. Don’t we all know the Laurie Penny type?

Top of the heap within their juvenile millieu — extraordinarily bright and on the academic fast-track — they conceive themselves too good for any humdrum work. You wouldn’t find this type of person getting a job as a city-beat news reporter and working hard to learn her craft. Nor can a Laurie Penny type ever be content to hire on as an assistant editor at a magazine, doing layout work, proofreading copy, happy occasionally to see her byline on a back-of-the-book item, a film review or something. No, she’s Veruca Salt: She wants the whole world, and she wants it now. If she is not recognized as a celebrity — if others don’t praise her and pet her and applaud her every petulant phrase — then the Laurie Penny type believes she has been deprived of what is rightfully hers.

She deserves recognition as one of Our Moral Superiors, you see, and our failure to recognize her as such is a social injustice.

Anyone who ever worked for anything, everyone who literally sweated to collect a wage to pay their bills, must bristle at the insult implied by Laurie Penny’s attitude of entitlement. If it weren’t for TV bookers who decided to make her England’s New Fresh Face of Feminism™, nobody would ever pay attention to her. When her career finally comes crashing down, people will wonder why anyone ever cared. We await Ms. Penny’s post-celebrity memoir, It Was the Patriarchy What Done Me In.

Meanwhile, an actual feminist — the radical lesbian Cathy Brennan — continues to say things so crazy as to be actually true:

The alternative to defining things is not defining things. That is, words mean whatever you say they mean, and God forbid if you try to define words. Defining words is bigotry. This neat Jedi Mind Trick was used very effectively in the run up to the marriage equality movement, where GLBTWTF activists succeeded beyond all imagination in convincing everyone that people who define marriage as “One Man, One Women” are bigots. Never mind that that is what marriage meant — for better or for worse (ha, see what I did there) — for centuries. Using words as defined makes you a bigot — and we all know what happens to bigots.
For what it’s worth, I think people who oppose marriage equality may or may not be bigots. It does not necessarily matter to me to demonize these people. They lost a political battle. Part of the reason they lost this political battle is because of propaganda that changed the definition of marriage.
Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy propaganda, I’ve deployed it, it is useful. But it’s propaganda. It’s not reflective of reality; it creates a new one.
This same propaganda is now used against Lesbians, to tell us that we are bigots for understanding that Lesbians are female homosexuals. This is transphobia. This is wrong. This is “cissexism.”
Indeed, USING WORDS CORRECTLY IS A FORM OF BIGOTRY.

Brilliant — and so politically incorrect as to be quite useful for my purposes. What Brennan has realized, and has had the courage to admit, is that in their quest for “marriage equality” the GLBTWTF activists engaged in a sort of rhetorical prestidigitation, playing word-games to exploit sympathy. In the process, however, these GLBTWTF activists established the premises of a syllogism that now threatens what radical feminists like Brennan had hoped to gain for their Lesbian Nation: Sanctuary from the menace of males and heterosexuality.

Brennan sees the old threat recrudescent in a strange new form, i.e., men who not only claim to be women, but say they are lesbians. In this disguise, they seek not only sexual access to females, but also assertauthority as feminists to speak for women’s interests!

Cathy Brennan may be crazy, but she’s nobody’s fool. When a man who calls himself “Colleen” exposes his penis to little girls, do you actually expect Cathy Brennan to agree that this is “progress”?

Progress, as General Bullmoose said, is the root of all evil.