Because This Never Happens, Right?

http://theothermccain.com/2014/10/03/because-this-never-happens-right/

 

 

See these two lesbians? One of them is named Jackie.

She wasn’t always a lesbian. Jackie was not “born that way.” She grew up in a “very traditional Irish Catholic” family and attended Catholic schools. She never had any youthful feelings or experience of being gay.

Lesbianism never crossed her mind: “There was no question I’d ever be anything other than heterosexual. It never occurred to me that there was anything else to be.” Jackie was very successful as a heterosexual female. At 17, she fell in love with a “hugely attractive” guy with whom she had a “very intense” relationship that she expected would last forever. Obviously, it didn’t. Jackie became a lesbian at age 22. Why?

“I had studied feminist literature at university
and it opened my eyes to the possibility
of sexuality as a life choice.”

What? Sexuality is a choice? And this is what college girls learn by studying feminist literature? This is surprising to most people. For more than two decades, we have been told two things:

  1. Gay people are born that way. Homosexuality is a genetic trait, the gay-rights crusaders told us. Therefore, the identity-politics argument was made that it was wrongful discrimination to treat homosexuality as a behavioral abnormality, subject to conscious control by the rational mind. Furthermore, we were told, it was ignorant hateful bigotry for any religious organization to condemn homosexual behavior as a sin. All laws, customs, language and practices that expressed disapproval of homosexual behavior (whether as morally wrong, psychologically abnormal or socially undesirable) were therefore deemed illegitimate. By this logic, gay people were an oppressed minority, whose status was compared to the condition of African-Americans under the regime of Jim Crow, or even Jews under the genocidal tyranny of Nazism. Anyone who did not accept the “born-that-way” explanation (which we were assured was Science with a capital “S”) was said diagnosed as suffering from an irrational fear called homophobia. Not only was homophobia regarded as a mental disorder, but it was also a moral failing. If you didn’t accept the entirety of the gay-rights agenda, including the “gay DNA”/”born-that-way” rationale, you were an ignorant bigot, suffering from homophobic delusions, motivated by a four-letter word: HATE.
  2. Feminism is just about fair and equal treatment for women. Some people still believe this. It is amazing to me, having spent the past few months immersed in the study of feminist literature, that anyone could think mere “fairness” — e.g., equality of workplace opportunity, where employees are judged strictly by their merits — was what feminism is really about. From its inception in the 1960s, modern feminism avowed its eternal enmity to the normal lives of normal women. Betty Friedan infamously denounced the lives of American housewives as comparable to Nazi concentration camps, and feminists have repeatedly condemned as male-supremacist oppression — the patriarchy! — the normal woman’s life of men, marriage and motherhood. As soon as the Women’s Liberation movement erupted within the New Left, many feminist spokeswomen identified themselves as lesbians and argued that lesbianism was the only authentic expression of feminism, as resistance to patriarchal oppression. Lesbianism, they said, was the only possible way to achieve the radical meaning of “sexual equality” that feminism advocated. Lesbian feminists (“The Lavender Menace”) have never stopped advancing these arguments, theorizing heterosexuality as a condition of servitude that men impose on women, and which women only accept as an admission of their own inferior status in a male-dominated society.

Never, at any time since 1970, have radical feminists retreated from their insistence that lesbianism is a choice, a choice with political meaning, a choice that any woman can make, and which all women should make, if they wish to “smash patriarchy.”

 

The rhetoric of radical feminism expresses the ideology of radical feminism, and we need not wonder where this ideology leads, because feminists made their objectives unmistakably clear.

“The Lesbian rejects male sexual/political domination; she defies his world, his social organization, his ideology, and his definition of her as inferior. . . . Lesbianism threatens male supremacy at its core. When politically conscious and organized, it is central to destroying our sexist, racist, capitalist, imperialist system. . . .
“Lesbians cannot grow politically or personally in a situation which denies the basis of our politics: that Lesbianism is political, that heterosexuality is crucial to maintaining male supremacy.”
— Charlotte Bunch, “Lesbians in Revolt,” 1972

“Every woman who remains in sexual relation to man is defeated every time she does it with the man because each single experience for every woman is a reenactment of the primal one in which she was invaded and separated and fashioned into a receptacle for the passage of the invader. . . .
“Gay revolution addresses itself to the total elimination of the sexual caste system around which our oppressive society is organized. . . . It is now recognized that any Marxist-Socialist analysis must acknowledge the sexist underpinnings of every political economic power base. Gay liberation cannot be considered apart from women’s liberation. . . . The lesbian is the key figure in the social revolution to end the sexual caste system, or heterosexual institution.”
— Jill JohnstonLesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution(1973)

“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. . . . A great deal of fucking is also presumed to preserve and maintain women’s belief in their own essential heterosexuality. . . . It is very important to the maintenance of male-supremacy that men fuck women, a lot. So it is required; it is compulsory. . . .
“The feminist lesbian’s style, activities, desire and values are obviously and profoundly noncongruent with the principles of male-supremacist culture. . . . She does not live as the complement to the rule of heterosexuality for men. She is not accessible to the penis; she does not view herself as a natural object of fucking and denies that men have either the right or the duty to fuck her.”
— Marilyn FryePolitics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (1983)

“In this section we will examine the type of bond, called ‘love,’ that develops between men and women. . . .
“If love of men arises from terror brought on by male threat to female survival, women have to defend against any feelings that might challenge our love for men. Is this one of the reasons that most women vehemently deny their own lesbian feelings? . . .
“Because of the coercive conditions under which heterosexual love arises, it has a regressive quality for women. . . .
“Women in general cling to the dream that men care about us and will protect us from violence. Denial is so strong that women believe that men are protecting us — we forget from whom — even as they oppress women.”
— Dee GrahamLoving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence and Women’s Lives (1994)

“Heteronormativity includes the multiple, often mundane ways through which heterosexuality overwhelmingly structures and ‘pervasively and insidiously’ orders ‘everyday existence’ . . . Heteronormativity structures social life so that heterosexuality is always assumed, expected, ordinary, and privileged. Its pervasiveness makes it difficult for people to imagine other ways of life. . . .
“Heteronormativity also rests on gender asymmetry, as heterosexuality depends on a particular type of normatively gendered women and men.”
— Karin Martin and Emily Kazyak, “Hetero-Romantic Love and Heterosexiness in Children’s G-Rated Films,” 2009

 

This anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology, as the reader may perceive, is not about “equality.” Instead, what radical feminism teaches is that men are inferior — morally defective, incapable of love or kindness, and predisposed to violence by which they terrorize females, brutally imposing upon women the humiliation of heterosexual intercourse. This belief system (feminism’s esoteric doctrine) is encoded in a public rhetoric (feminism’s exoteric discourse) intended to persuade the uninitiated that the major premise of the feminist syllogism (all women are victims of male oppression) is true, so that women are generally receptive to anti-male arguments. Thus, the public is told, women are denied freedom and choice, women’s oppression is evident in inequality, women are harmed by sexism and stereotypes, men are obstructing women’s rights, women are subjected to male harassment, etc.

If we learn to talk this way, we inevitably begin to think this way. Once we internalize the basic feminist belief system expressed by such language — the esoteric doctrine being encoded in the exoteric discourse — we are then prepared to accept further claims that would be rejected as absurd by any person with a common-sense perspective. Consider feminist “gender theory,” for example. Any student who has enrolled in a Women’s Studies course in the past 20 years is familiar with the critique of “gender” elaborated by Judith Butler and other proponents of what is sometimes also called “queer theory.” Professor Butler sees thesex/gender binary as both a cause and effect of the heterosexual matrix. What this means is that our common-sense association of certain traits, attitudes, behaviors and roles as either male or female is inextricably linked to a presumption of heterosexuality as natural. Professor Butler’s book Gender Trouble “deconstructs” our ordinary belief that males naturally are (or ideally should be) masculine, and that women natural are (or ideally should be) feminine. This sex/gender binary is a product of (and contributes to) the belief that heterosexuality is biologically natural, psychologically normal and socially desirable.

Are you following me so far? Good, because here is where it gets really tricky: Judith Butler is not completely wrong.

The attributes we normally label “masculine” and “feminine” are directly connected to heterosexuality, and to the normal roles which men and women assume in their normal lives of work, leisure, love, sex, marriage and parenthood. There is a reason why, after all, the subtitle of Professor Butler’s book is “Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.” In its radical (esoteric) meaning, sexual equality is synonymous with androgyny, so that men and women are equal because they are identical and interchangeable. “Gender” cannot be the legitimate basis of identity if masculinity and femininity are shown to be artificial, so that the way to achieve equality is to abolish gender. Men and women can become equal only if men and women cease to be different.

Rather than do a complete “deconstruction” of Professor Butler’s theory, let me instead merely affirm that she is correct: Insofar as men and women are different in meaningful ways, they can never be equal in the radical sense that feminists mean when they speak of “equality.” Furthermore, to address the subtext of Professor Butler argument, as men and women become more “equal” (androgynous, as the sex/gender binary of male/masculine and female/feminine erodes) heterosexuality is destabilized, becoming less functional and less normative, thus homosexuality becomes more acceptable as an alternative.

Whatever the problems of men and women circa 1968, when the Women’s Liberation movement began, the problems now afflicting men and women in the context of their heterosexual relations cannot be solved by feminism because these problems are largely caused by feminism. Marriages are now less happy and divorce is more common — indeed, sex itself has become less satisfying — not because men are more oppressively “sexist,” but because men are less masculine and women are less feminine. Sexual equality means androgyny, and androgyny is incompatible with heterosexuality.

Human beings are remarkably adaptable creatures. Man can survive in the frozen tundra or the harshest desert. We are resourceful and cunning animals, and the power of the human mind is astonishing. Just as it is absurd for feminists to imagine that human nature can be changed, so it is absurd to say that humans cannot change to overcome the unnatural force of feminism.

This was explained in 1974, when sociologist Steven Goldberg published The Inevitability of Patriarchy: Why the Biological Difference Between Men and Women Always Produces Male Domination, which was subsequent revised in a 1999 edition under the title, Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance. While perhaps science as added to our knowledge of male/female differences in the 40 years since Professor Goldberg explained why feminism was ultimately doomed to fail, the truth is still the truth, and human nature is still human nature. Does anyone think the heteronormative patriarchy (i.e., human nature) will surrender without a fight?

Which brings us back to Jackie, who turned lesbian at age 22 after she “studied feminist literature at university.” In her own words, she became a “radical lesbian feminist” and, it seems, was more the butch type, which made her a magnet for crazies:

I threw myself into the fullblown lesbian lifestyle — gay clubs, bars and pubs — and my relationships with women tended to be long and loving, if a little too turbulent at times.
The sheer amount of talking and analysing that went on was exhausting. The women I went out with were by and large more inclined to be insecure and to need reassurance and I found myself in the male role of endlessly reassuring my girlfriends. The subtle mood changes of everyday life would be picked over inexhaustibly.
One girlfriend was so insecure that every single time we enjoyed a night out — usually at a bar — we would have a row and have to leave. She would convince herself that I was flirting with another woman and, however much I tried not to catch anyone’s eye, she wouldn’t believe me.
Back home, we would then spend the next four hours arguing about our relationship and my feelings of loyalty, fidelity and so on. It was never-ending. It may sound prosaic but when you add female hormones into the mix, the problems are even worse. Can you imagine waking up beside a woman when you’ve both got raging PMT?

Ah, the predictable problems caused by female hormones! The irrational envy, the unnecessary drama, the insecurity, the endless talk, talk, talk — every heterosexual male is nodding his head in recognition, but guys can’t say or word or we’re “sexist,” you see. And heterosexual women don’t fully appreciate all the benefits of low-drama relationships with men, as Jackie explains:

My straight female friends thought my deeply intense relationships sounded fantastic. They envied me the empathy I felt with my girlfriend. Why couldn’t they feel as close to their husbands and boyfriends?
Unlike most men, women, of course, offer each other endless support and there’s hardly ever any lack of communication.
But — bizarre as it may seem — I found myself longing for exactly the opposite. I wanted a bit more difference, a little less talking and a bit more edge and my relationships often paid the price.
I had been so committed, I even bought a flat with one of my partners. Two years later we split up. We had been together five years and the break-up was excruciating, as all our raging emotions came to the fore.
Then in 2000, when I was 33, another seemingly ideal lesbian relationship went badly wrong. We had been together three years and I had honestly convinced myself that she was the one. But, once again, our relationship was destroyed because we got so exhausted with the emotional clashes and jealousy that never seemed to subside.
The ironic part is that I have never, ever, been unfaithful in a relationship. But having to constantly placate a jealous partner was wearying – and my relationships often paid the price.
As I pieced over the failings, I took a second look at my history. Was I picking the wrong women or was I simply not cut out to be a lesbian?
This may sound totally coldhearted, but I made a calculated decision to try men again.

Guess what? It worked. Not only did Jackie try men, but she met and fell in love a man who was quite masculine. He was divorced and had two children from a previous marriage. After 12 years as a “radical lesbian feminist,” Jackie is now not only married, but she and her husband have four children. This oppressive system of male domination? Looks an awful lot like Happily Ever After.

The British actress Jackie Clune married her husband, actor Richard Hannant, in 2008, and told her story again in 2010. She took a long 12-year round trip to “traditional family values” that included being named “Most Disappointing Lesbian of the Year” by Diva, Britain’s leading lesbian magazine, after her defection to heterosexuality.

Human beings are remarkably resourceful, you see, and human nature is remarkably persistent. No amount of political activism, nor any sort of egalitarian propaganda, can change this.

Feminism’s war against human nature is ultimately doomed to failure. Feminists may inflict casualties, and innocent people may suffer, but what is natural is also normal, and will ever remain so.

The heteronormative patriarchy is still open for business, baby. We’re winning every day. Don’t you want to join the winning team?

 

‘Shut Up, Because Rape’

http://theothermccain.com/2014/10/02/shut-up-because-rape/

 

The rhetoric about sexual assault emanating from college and university campuses has confused many people who have not realized how theexaggerated claims of a “rape epidemic” are related to the larger objectives of radical feminism. Every day, the headlines bring reports of fresh outrages, including this one from Cornell University:

Julius Kairey, an openly conservative student columnist for the Cornell Daily Sun campus newspaper, was viciously smeared in a recent mass public attack, with fliers spread around the Ivy League university that unfairly and inaccurately labeled him a “Racist Rape Apologist.” . . .
The ad hominem attack is likely drawn from a few columns written by Kairey, notably “The Truth About ‘Rape Culture’,” published in April, which questioned the stats behind the so-called campus rape epidemic and defended due process for those accused of sexual assault; and more recently “Should California Redefine Campus Sexual Assault?” published last Thursday, when the fliers were discovered.

California’s new law has made this a subject of widespread interest:

This weekend, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill that makes universities redefine consensual sex. From now on, students must effectively obtain the “affirmative consent” of their partners, which must be “ongoing” every step of the way. Those accused of violating the consent rule will be judged on the preponderance of the evidence. Perpetrators face suspension or expulsion, and universities face heavy penalties for failure to enforce.
The new measure is designed to stem a tidal wave of rape on campus that, in fact, does not exist. (Violent crime, including sexual assault, has been in decline for 20 years.) Even so, universities across North America have set up vast new administrative apparatuses to deal with the crisis. Many of them have also expanded the meaning of “sexual violence” to include anything that makes you feel bad.

To anyone following the news, it is obvious enough that the Sex Police are also the Thought Police; their aim is not merely to modify student sexual behavior, but also to control the way students talk about sex, as a means of changing how students think about sex. Increasingly, words are classified as sexual assault:

Examples of abuse listed on the University of Michigan’s domestic violence awareness website say “sexual violence” includes “withholding sex and affection” and “discounting the partner’s feelings regarding sex” — definitions that have come under fire by some men’s rights activists.
The terms, found under the heading “definitions,” also suggest verbal or psychological abuse include: “insulting the partner; ignoring the partner’s feelings; withholding approval as a form of punishment; yelling at the partner; labeling the partner with terms like crazy [and] stupid.” . . .
Currently the higher education world is gripped by the so-called campus rape culture, in which the widely touted yet largely unsubstantiated stat that one in five women will be sexually assaulted or raped while in college is oft repeated during mandated sexual assault seminars at universities nationwide.

Expanding the definition of “violence” to include commonplace non-violent words and actions is not a gender-neutral enterprise. Janet Bloomfield of A Voice For Men explained to the College Fix: “Normal relationship behaviors are pathologized and framed as abuse when MEN do them. . . . I am unaware of a single case in which the accused student is a woman and the victim is a man.”

The control centers of this Orwellian project are the departments of Women’s Studies, where radical professors indoctrinate students in an anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology. Fewer than 1-in-20 U.S. college students ever enroll in Women’s Studies courses. The total annual enrollment in these programs (including students who take just one introductory class as an elective) was fewer than 90,000 during the 2005-06 school year, according to the National Women’s Studies Association. Scattered across the country in some 900 programs, the number of Women’s Studies majors was only 4,300, while 10,500 were minoring in the subject.

Socially Constructing an Intellectual Racket

The small number of students in these programs, however, does not reflect the oversized influence exercised within the university by young feminist acolytes and the ideologues who instruct them. Women’s Studies is an interdisciplinary field, where courses are taught by faculty from other departments. The professor of Women’s Studies commonly has a Ph.D. in psychology, sociology, political science, history, literature or some other area of the humanities and social sciences. Thus, the professor who is teaching radical “gender theory” in a Women’s Studies class on Tuesday will be teaching an introductory psychology class on Wednesday. The interdisciplinary nature of these programs means that feminist ideology bleeds over from Women’s Studies into other fields, permeating the curriculum by a process of intellectual osmosis.

To put it bluntly, Women’s Studies is a racket. Surveying the curricula vitae of faculty, one sees how the proliferation of feminist academic journals (and low standards of scholarship) enable younger faculty to comply with the “publish or perish” mandate that can make the difference between grabbing a coveted tenure-track position or being relegated to the lowly ranks of itinerant adjunct instructors. Much of feminist “research” is described as qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, so that surveys of women talking about their feelings and experiences are more common than studies that require the measurement of actual data. Much of what is counted as “research” by Women’s Studies faculty — the academic publications by which their careers are evaluated — is not really research at all. Essays that consist primarily of comparing approaches of different feminist writers to a topic, and deriving from the comparison some theoretical synthesis, are a common product of the Women’s Studies “research” factories.

Scholars and laymen alike may wish to scrutinize, for example, the 2008 Ph.D. dissertation of Janice Mary Habarth, “Thinking ‘Straight’: Heteronormativity and Associated Outcomes Across Sexual Orientation.” Particular attention should be paid to her sources, a few of which I list here to provide readers a general idea:

Allen, D.J. (2001). The role of personality and defense mechanisms in the adjustment to a homosexual identity.Journal of Homosexuality, 42, 45-62.
Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baumeister, R.F. (2000). Gender differences in erotic plasticity: The female sex drive as socially flexible and responsivePsychological Bulletin, 126, 347-374.
Butler, J.C. (2000). Personality and emotional correlates of right-wing authoritarianismSocial Behavior and Personality, 28, 1-14.
Cole, E.R., Zucker, A.N., & Ostrove, J.M. (1998). Political participation and feminist consciousness among women activists of the 1960sPolitical Psychology, 19, 349-371.
Duncan, L.E., Peterson, B.E., & Winter, D.G. (1997).Authoritarianism and gender roles: Toward a psychological analysis of hegemonic relationships.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 41-49.
Elia, J.P. (2003). Queering relationships: Toward a paradigmatic shiftJournal of Homosexuality, 45, 61-86.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality. New York: Pantheon Books.
Jackson, S. (2006). Gender, sexuality and heterosexuality: The complexity (and limits) of heteronormativityFeminist Theory, 7, 105-121.
Jost, J.T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A.W., & Sulloway, F.J. (2003).Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.
Kitzinger, C. (2005). Heteronormativity in action: Reproducing the heterosexual nuclear family in after-hours medical callsSocial Problems, 52, 477-498.
Mohanty, C.T. (1992). Feminist encounters: Locating the politics of experience. In A. Phillips & M. Barrett (Eds.),Destabilizing theory: Contemporary feminist debates (pp. 74-92). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existenceSigns, 4, 631-660.
Rust, P.C. (1997). ‘Coming out’ in the age of social constructionism: Sexual identity formation among lesbian and bisexual women. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 1, 25-54
Unger, R.K. (1998). Resisting gender: Twenty-five years of feminist psychology. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Vicinuns, M. (1989). They wonder to which sex they belong: The historical roots of the modern lesbian identity. In D. Altman, et al (Eds.), Homosexuality, which homosexuality? International Conference on Gay & Lesbian Studies (pp.171-198). London: GMP Publishers.

These items are culled from a list of approximately 150 sources cited in this dissertation submitted by Habarth to obtain a doctorate in Psychology and Women’s Studies at the University of Michigan. What does this tell us? Among other things, it tells us that there is a vast literature of such “research” that has steadily accumulated over the years in academic publications the non-specialist never heard of, journals whose standards of scholarship may be less important than their political biases. The Journal of Lesbian Studies, the Journal of Homosexuality,Feminist TheorySocial Behavior and Personality — you’re not going to find copies of these publications in the magazine racks at your local pharmacy. It is in the pages of such academic journals, however, that scholar/activists build the intellectual infrastructure of social change, and the reader probably shares my suspicion that the editors of these journals did not vote for Mitt Romney in 2012.

The biases of Women’s Studies programs can be ascertained merely by glancing at the titles of books and journal articles in the bibliographies of dissertations. Readers may wonder how Janice Habarth — and now that’sDoctor Habarth to you, ignorant peasant — has fared in the six years since she submitted her dissertation.

Dr. Janice Habarth is an Assistant Professor for the Ph.D. program in Clinical Psychology at Palo Alto University. She leads a student research group that investigates topics related to Personality and Social Contexts of Health. During the 2013-14 academic year, she is also acting director and supervisor for the Inner Resources Center supplemental practicum run through the Kurt and Barbara Gronowski Center. Dr. Habarth is co-director (with Dr. Teceta Tormala) of the PAU Ph.D. Academic Advising Center (PAAC), which helps students navigate the Ph.D. curriculum and achieve milestones such as application to research groups during the first year. She is also a principal investigator through the Center for LGBTQ Evidence-Based Applied Research (CLEAR), which conducts research to directly impact the mental health and wellbeing of LGBT individuals and their families. . . .
Dr. Habarth’s ongoing research interests include personality (tolerance of ambiguity); heteronormative attitudes and beliefs (including measure development); and health psychology (clinician wellness, mindfulness interventions).

How many times  is this process replicated annually? How many Ph.D.s  are awarded each year on the basis of tendentious research like this? What is the total output of publications — books, articles, op-ed columns, blog posts and so forth — by the credentialed experts whose academic authority is created through this process? How many students are mentored by these academic activists? Exactly how large, in other words, is the influence of Women’s Studies within academia? How big is the “intellectual footprint” of radical feminism, and how much does this activism shape the climate on campus?

No one has compiled and analyzed the quantitative data necessary to answer those questions, yet we can study the qualitative content of their anti-male/anti-heterosexual rhetoric:

What we are looking at, I contend, is not a conspiracy, but rather aconsensus within academic feminism, a shared belief system developed within an academic community that has been, as the gender theorist would say, socially constructed. When the first Women’s Studies programs were established in the 1970s, their faculties were cobbled together in an ad hoc manner, as women who already held advanced degrees — including female professors who had established scholarly careers before the onset of the Women’s Liberation movement in the late 1960s — were hired (or assigned from other departments) to teach Women’s Studies classes. Many of these women were married and, however sympathetic they may have been with the feminist cause, few of them could have been called “radical feminists.” Still fewer, in the original faculties of Women’s Studies, were lesbians.

From ‘Lavender Menace’ to ‘Lesbian Chic’

Although militant lesbians like Rita Mae BrownArtemis MarchKarla Jayand Ellen Shumsky had been foremost among the radical feminists of the late ’60s and early ’70s, their feminism was not generally the feminism of the established female academics who became the first faculty of Women’s Studies departments. This was noted early, and with much bitterness, by the radical lesbian minority in the burgeoning field.

At the 1980 conference of the National Women’s Studies Association, lesbian Michigan State University Professor Marilyn Frye complained of a “predominance of heterosexual perspective, values, commitments, thought and vision.” Professor Frye lamented as “deeply disappointing” what she called the “pervasively heterosexual character of women’s studies.” These complaints recurred occasionally for many years. No matter how many lesbians were hired to teach Women’s Studies, it was never enough to satisfy the radicals who, to all intents and purposes, were committed to the abolition of heterosexuality, if not indeed the abolition of men. (In 1981, San Francisco Sate University Professor Sally Miller Gearhart notoriously proposed to reduce males to 10% of the population.) Despite their own successes, lesbian professors feared they were losing the war against heterosexual feminism within Women’s Studies. In her introduction to a 1997 book she edited (Cross Purposes: Lesbians, Feminists, and the Limits of Alliance), Old Dominion University Professor Dana Heller wrote:

[In the late 1980s] I had become increasingly frustrated with the unquestioned assumption of a normative female heterosexuality that informed much of the women’s studies research and teaching at the southern university where I had recently taken a job. As a new assistant professor of women’s literature and feminist literary theory, and as the only ‘out’ lesbian faculty member in the college, I frequently found myself at odds with feminist colleagues who were either reluctant to address sexual differences, let alone lesbian differences, or who would address lesbianism as a “separate but equal” category, a distant relation of feminism whose significance remained tied to a subjective process of “coming out” . . .

Such was the status quo of Women’s Studies prior to the 1990s. Whatever their representation within the field, lesbian professors were certain there needed to be more of them, and that their perspectives, their interests and their politics deserved greater attention in the curriculum. So as the older heterosexual Women’s Studies professors — the ones who had been recruited from existing female faculty in the 1970s — began to retire, and as younger lesbian professors advanced up the academic ladder, who do you suppose was favored in the hiring process of junior faculty in Women’s Studies programs?

On college campuses, lesbianism became less important as a sexual preference than as a professional resumé-enhancer. By the late 1990s, former Women’s Studies professor Daphne Patai was able to demonstrate the prevalence within academic feminism of a phenomenon she called “heterophobia.” In popular culture, this hostility to heterosexuality appeared with a more glamorous (and usually smiling) face: Lesbian Chic was suddenly born.

What was once shockingly radical now seems to have become ubiquitous. Perhaps few nowadays are surprised when an elite school like Emory University (annual tuition $45,008) considers it good public relations tolist its “LGBT” faculty and staff on a web page. Nor are we surprised that Emory’s list includes, as self-proclaimed lesbians, both the Program Director (Anne Rector) and the Director of Student Affairs (Deb Floyd) at Emory Law School. This is clever academic marketing in 21st-century America: Want to be a lesbian lawyer? Emory is the place to go! Also among the 20 self-described lesbians at Emory is Patricia Del Rey, an adjunct professor of Women’s Studies, while the 11 women on the university’s faculty and staff who prefer the label “queer” include Lynne Huffer, a professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, and Dona Yarbrough, director of the Center for Women at Emory. The trend so obvious at Emory is apparent at many other colleges and universities, especially in the departments of Women’s Studies.

If there are still any heterosexual feminists teaching Women’s Studies, they have been meekly tolerant as their own preference is routinely stigmatized — and their own male partners are universally demonized — by their militant lesbian academic peers. In the feminist discourse that now prevails on American campuses, heterosexual men only appear as oppressors, abusers and rapists. The possibility that a man and woman might fall in love with each other and form a relationship characterized by mutual voluntary cooperation? No Women’s Studies major could believe such a male-supremacist “myth.”

Still less does any academic feminist believe that teenage girls who get drunk at college parties do so with the specific purpose of hooking up with whatever college boy might be drunk enough to give them an evening of hedonistic heterosexual passion. So if the freshman girl wakes up with a crushing hangover the next morning, in bed with a creep she barely knows and fuzzy memories of what they did the night before, you can be sure that her regrets will be interpreted — theorized, as the professors would say — as victimhood, within the prevailing campus climate of feminist hysteria about a “rape epidemic.”

Feminism: Winning Through Intimidation

Only a complete fool (or a Women’s Studies major, or Joe Biden) could believe the statistics manufactured by feminists to support their claim that 1-in-5 female college students will be raped during the four years between freshman orientation and graduation. And yet anyone who tries to speak from a perspective of facts and logic about the realities of sex on campus is denounced as “slut-shaming” and “victim-blaming” or, like Cornell’s Julius Kairey, branded a “rape apologist.”

What the rhetoric about sexual assault on college campuses really represents is a continuation of radical feminism’s war on human nature. Despite four decades of feminist activism, the vast majority of American women (97.7%) continue to be heterosexual and, quite naturally, thesenormal women continue to reject feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual belief system. Feminist theory cannot explain the persistence of normal women’s sexual attraction to men, yet the possibility that feminist theory is wrong . . .

Well, to suggest this is to provoke an existential crisis for radical lesbians who have convinced themselves that gender is a social construct and“compulsory heterosexuality” is imposed on women by the patriarchy.

By constantly yelling about rape, feminists simultaneously promote their core ideology (i.e., males are violent oppressors) and intimidate their critics, who are afraid to seem unsympathetic to actual victims. The purpose and effect of feminism’s phony “rape epidemic” discourse is to silence all discussion that doesn’t conform to feminist ideology, as I explained last year about the “SlutWalk” movement:

To distill their rhetoric to its totalitarian essence: “Shut up, because rape.” . . .
[T]he leaders of the movement have a radical ideology they take very seriously, and that ideology is sufficiently influential that anyone who criticizes it risks condemnation as being anti-woman, or even pro-rape.

Isn’t it time to stop running scared from these radicals? Isn’t it time to confront them, to expose who they really are and what they really want?

Feminists don’t want “equality.” They want uncontested power.