A Lesbian Theory of the Penis

http://theothermccain.com/2014/11/11/a-lesbian-theory-of-the-penis/

 

“Far from being ‘natural,’ phallic sexuality is a moral and political activity. . . . Men’s sexual behaviour is not caused by hormonal dictates. It is because the penis serves the ideological function of symbolizing ‘human’ status that it is so heavily charged with erotic energy, and not because it is driven by testosterone. Men must keep using it because they need to keep proving that they exist, that their ‘humanity’ is inextricably entwined with penis-possession; women must be constantly used by it to prove that men exist, that the sum total of a man is his penis. . . . Anything and everything must be subordinated to penile activity if men are to be what phallic ideology requires them to be.”
— Denise ThompsonRadical Feminism Today (2001)

“That some men rape provides a sufficient threat to keep all women in a constant state of intimidation, forever conscious of the knowledge that the biological tool must be held in awe, for it may turn to weapon with sudden swiftness born of harmful intent. . . . Rather than society’s aberrants or ‘spoilers of purity,’ men who commit rape have served in effect as front-line masculine shock troops, terrorist guerrillas in the longest sustained battle the world has ever known.”
— Susan BrownmillerAgainst Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape (1975)

When did I first encounter the feminist claim that rape is not about sex? It was during the 1980s, I’m pretty sure, and I recall being both startled and amused by this well-known element of feminist theory. Startled, I say, because rape so obviously is about sex, and amused at the naivete of anyone who could believe otherwise.

In the nearly four decades since Susan Brownmiller’s Against Our Will elaborated the rape-as-violence motif, it has become increasingly difficult to criticize that ideological claim without being accused of being “pro-rape.” Men who love women — not “love” as a matter of sentimental expression, but “love” as a consistent behavior of care and support — are required to be silent in reaction to the dishonest and deliberate insult that Brownmiller and other radical cadre have promoted as feminism’s truth. As males, we are not allowed to dispute feminism’s authority to speak on behalf of our wives and mothers, sisters and daughters.

As males, we are members of a demonized group of enemies, and everything we might say in our own defense is illegitimate. So when Brownmiller speaks scornfully of “the biological tool” — i.e., the penis — as also a “weapon,” when she implies that we as males derive a benefit from rapists who serve as “front-line masculine shock troops, terrorist guerrillas” in a war of all men against all women, we cannot dispute this hatefully insulting anti-male doctrine without being Kafkatrapped, where our claim of innocence becomes proof of our guilt.

Honest, decent and intelligent people rightly perceive feminism as a limitless doctrine of fanatical hatred. There can be no compromise with this totalitarian belief, nor can there be any “moderate” feminism. The problem, in the 21st century, is that the majority of Americans are neither honest nor decent nor intelligent. Barack Obama never could have been elected president twice in a nation of honest, decent, intelligent citizens. Clearly, our government now operates on behalf of the dishonest, indecent and stupid majority, and the consequences of this political reality should frighten us.

Feminism’s success in gaining hegemonic authority within academia — which the fate of Larry Summers at Harvard conclusively proved — has made it impossible to challenge the truth-making authority of these anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideologues. Every “educated” person under 40 has lived his or her entire life in a world where feminism controls our nation’s intellectual discourse about sex, so that to oppose feminism is to be “anti-intellectual,” no matter how fluent your argument or how prestigious your credentials. Deprived of intellectual prestige and institutional influence, direct opposition to feminism becomes first unfashionable and then nearly impossible.

You could probably count on one hand the number of university professors in America who have uttered a peep of criticism against feminism during the past decade, and the small number of anti-feminist books is buried amid the avalanche of feminist titles that spew forth from academic presses as commodities for taxpayer-subsidized consumption astextbooks in Women’s Studies courses.

So here we have Denise Thompson, author of the 2001 book Radical Feminism Today, a self-described “independent scholar” (meaning she never got a permanent professorship) in Australia, who worked for several years at the New South Wales Social Policy Research Centre. Now 74, Thompson could more logically be viewed as representing radical feminism yesterday, except for the fact that radical feminism is now what it has always been and must always be. While studying dozens of works of feminist theory, I have observed how the tone and terminology shift slowly over the decades. What was first termed “male chauvism” became “sexism” and more recently “misogyny.” What Adrienne Rich called “compulsory heterosexuality” in 1980 is now more commonly called “heteronormativity.” Criticism of “sex roles” or the “sex-caste system” has been superceded by talk of “gender,” and there are always little-noticed skirmishes around the periphery of feminism. What we might call “old-fashioned” radical lesbianism (e.g., Mary Daly, Julia Penelope, Marilyn Frye, Janice Raymond, Sheila Jeffreys, et al.) has for more than two decades been waging a counterattack against the insurgency of “French feminism” and poststructualism as represented by proponents of “Queer Theory” like Judith Butler (Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, 1990).

Nevertheless, feminism remains what it has always been, and Denise Thompson’s Radical Feminism Today is a clear and thorough survey of this ideology. I ordered Radical Feminism Today from Amazon after seeing her books articles repeatedly cited in the notes and bibliographies of other books, including Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed, edited by Diane Bell and Renate Klein (1996) and Rethinking Sexuality by Diane Richardson (2000). I was particularly intrigued by an excerpt, in the latter title, of a 1991 book by Thompson, Reading Between the Lines: A Lesbian Feminist Critique of Feminist Accounts of Sexuality. Richardson cited Thompson while endeavoring to refute the longstanding criticism of “radical feminist analyses as biologically determinist/essentialist.”

Do I really need to wade into the eternal feminist disputes over “essentialism” here? No, it is not necessary to subject the reader to such internecine quibbling over theoretical details, except to say that in these fights among feminists, it is the radical lesbians who stand firm in defense of the idea that “female” is a matter of biology — a scientific fact involving anatomy and chromosomes — and in this particular matter, I find myself nodding in agreement.

Here I must remind readers of McCain’s Law of Feminism:

There are three kinds of feminism:

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

When in doubt, it’s usually Number Three.

Radical feminists are all crazy, but they are not always wrong.  The radical arguments of crazy lesbians expose the intellectual bankruptcy of so-called “pro-sex” (i.e., liberal heterosexual)  feminists.

If biological differences are irrelevant, after all, then there can be no basis for hating men and no way to identify “women” as an actual group suffering from oppression under male supremacy. Yet in order to avoid giving away the ballgame (because admitting that there are real differences between men and women undermines the androgynous egalitarian premise of feminism), radical feminists are required to tread a very narrow theoretical tightrope. With that in mind, here (from page 54 of Richardson’s Rethinking Sexuality) is the quoted excerpt ofThompson’s Reading Between the Lines:

To insist, as radical feminists do, that there are differences between the sexes, and that those ‘differences’ are the stuff of male domination, is not to appeal to ‘biology,’ nor to be pessimistic about the possibility of revolutionary change. In fact, it is to insist on that very possibility, else why would we bother? . . . Why is it not possible to argue both that female and male sexualities are different, or rather (to put it less essentialistically) that women and men have different interests, purposes, desires and needs in relation to sexuality, and that those differences are engendered by specific historical conditions, without positing any essential genesis or causality at all?

 

Thompson is splitting a fine red hair there, so to speak.

One gets the feeling that what Thompson wants to say is what all feminists really believe but cleverly refuse to say in so many words: Men and women are different — because men are inferior to women.

Anyone who believes feminism is about “equality” is so hopelessly stupid that I doubt they could read or comprehend this sentence.

Feminism isn’t about equality. Feminism is about hate.

As Jim Goad says, every word of feminist rhetoric is intended to “degrade, humiliate, and demoralize men,” and this is especially true as regards feminism’s deliberate demonization of male sexuality.

Thus do we return to Denise Thompson’s rant about “phallic sexuality” being “a moral and political activity.” It is certainly shocking to see a feminist speak of sexual morality, but in what sense do she mean that sexuality is political? Never mind how she might answer that question, however. Here she makes a categorical claim:

“Men’s sexual behaviour is not caused by hormonal dictates.”

The hell you say! Any teenage boy — or any man who remembers what it was like to be a teenage boy — can refute that bullshit. While it is certainly true that human beings are capable of rational action, and are not helpless slaves of biological urges, the hormonal influence on male sex drive is a scientific fact of biology beyond dispute.

Yet a fool believes what a fool believes, and there is no fool quite so foolish as a fanatical feminist fool. A man’s throbbing erection, according to Denise Thompson’s theory, has nothing to do with “hormonal dictates.” The boner is socially constructed, you see, and as Dr. Thompson insists “phallic sexuality” is not natural, there is neither a hormonal etiology nor a behavioral teleology to male sexuality.

C’mon, what’s the only reason any teenage boy ever learned to play guitar? Can I get a show of hands, guitar players? Rock-and-roll exists because of “phallic sexuality.” Wise parents understand this: Your daughter is never safe around a boy who plays guitar.

It’s not just guitars, either. Almost anything teenage boys do, they do as a result of “phallic sexuality.” They play football or they drive fast cars or they wear Abercrombie & Fitch — one way or another, it’s “phallic sexuality” that motivates their behavior. Anyone who doesn’t acknowledge this truth is living in an alternate universe. They certainly have never been a teenage boy or been the parent of one.

“Phallic sexuality” can be restrained and channeled toward constructive purposes, but it cannot be wished away by theoretical abstractions. Did I ever believe — has anyone with a penis ever believed — that his erection derived its “erotic energy” because it “serves the ideological function of symbolizing ‘human’ status”? Does my wife believe this? I’m afraid to ask. Her laughter would be embarrassing.

On the other hand, I must confess to being profoundly intrigued by Dr. Thompson’s Existential Theory of the Boner, whereby my humanity “‘is inextricably entwined with penis-possession,” so that I must keep using it to prove I exist: “I f**k, therefore I am.”

“Anything and everything must be subordinated to penile activity,” according to this feminist interpretation of “phallic ideology.”

Damn. If only some feminist had told me this when I was 14, it would have spared me all that time I spent learning to play guitar.

Brutal sarcasm aside, you see what results of feminism’s insistence that only feminist interpretations of sexuality are valid. Anything a man may claim to know about this own anatomy, his own beliefs and behavior, is unacceptable if it contradicts feminist theory.

Readers will excuse me if I end this article without offering any profoundly insightful conclusion. My 13-year-old son borrowed my old guitar — I have no idea why he wants to learn to play — but I think I might need to borrow it back, to serenade my wife. Maybe I’ll get lucky and my wife will let me prove my existence, IYKWIMAITYD.

Feminists: They’re Not About the ‘D’

http://theothermccain.com/2014/11/07/feminists-theyre-not-about-the-d/

How many times do I have to say feminism is a journey to lesbianismbefore people start waking up to the truth? Liberal guys need to realizetheir “male feminist” thing is never going to work:

A male-led campaign to promote affirmative consent for sex at DePaul University — which is nominally Catholic but runs a “Queer Peers” mentorship program — has thrown in the towel.
Or rather, the T-shirt.
Selling shirts emblazoned with “Consent the D” — a play on the school’s basketball slogan “Fear the D” (the Demons mascot) that waswidely interpreted as “dick” — came off as “flippant” to campus feminists, who didn’t take kindly to an alternative approach to their signature issue, Jezebel says:

“Unfortunately, the ‘Consent the D’ movement was cut short by forces outside of my control,” founder Randy Vollrath said in a video message posted Tuesday. “T-shirt production has been halted while we work to address the issue.”

Vollrath said he appreciates that people didn’t like the T-shirts but objects to their disagreement being ”misinformed” about the group’s intentions.

Via College Insurrection. Guys, let me give you a little clue, OK? Take a look at the Women and Gender Studies faculty page at DePaul:

The Department of Women’s and Gender Studies faculty members have wide-ranging research interests. Some of these interests include intersections of race, class, gender, sexuality; cross-cultural perspectives; violence against women; women in the Middle East; lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and transgender identities and politics; autobiography; queer theories; immigrant women; globalization; transnational feminist perspectives; antiracism; gender and education; feminist theories and politics; gender and family violence; and performance studies among others.

 

 

 

Do you guys see anything — anything at all — in that description that would lead you to think the kind of feminism taught at DePaul University could ever involve, y’know, “consent the D”?

Unless, of course, it’s followed by “Y-K-E” or “I-L-D-O.”

Pardon my heternormative sarcasm, DePaul guys, but it’s not like I don’t have actual research to support what I’m telling you. The truth isn’t hard to find, but you young idiots are probably too busy playing beer pong and XBox to bother looking for the truth.

Here, let me help you: Professor Ann Russo is director of the graduate program in Women’s and Gender Studies. Your first clue is that there is a graduate program, OK? They’re giving out master’s degrees and Ph.D.s in this stuff at DePaul, so it’s not just a few undergrads picking up a few easy A’s for regurgitating “queer theory.” Having a graduate program in Women’s Studies signifies that a university is a serious Dyke Factory. And let’s see what Professor Russo says about herself, eh?

Areas of Interest
Women, Violence, and Justice
Feminist, Anti-Racist, and Critical Race Theories and Practices
Activism and Social Justice Movements
Constructions of Race, Class, Gender and Sexuality in Media
Sexual Identities and Sexuality Debates

 

Just in case you DePaul fellows don’t get the significance of terms like “gender,” “identities” and “sexuality,” here’s a hint: Normal women don’t need a Ph.D. program to study how to be normal.

Still, you clever college boys may be thinking, “That old man is just crazy. There’s no way the university would be employing women to promote a totalitarian ideology of hatred toward males.” OK, look at Professor Russo’s list of “major publications” and you’ll see:

Bro: ANDREA EFFING DWORKIN.

 

Feminists have praised Dworkin — and yes, they consider this praise — “as the Malcolm X of the women’s movement.” Professor Russo and her co-author clearly admire Dworkin as a feminist leader:

Without Apology illuminates the politics and artistic practices of Andrea Dworkin, arguably one of the most daring, innovative, and controversial feminists in the United States. Coauthor of civil rights antipornography laws, life-long political activist, and international lecturer and consultant on issues of sexual violence and exploitation, Dworkin has a prolific and distinguished writing career. She has published thirteen books of fiction and nonfiction, and her work has been translated into twelve languages.This is the first-ever book-length analysis of Dworkin’s feminist politics and the first critical analysis to examine her controversial political ideas in light of the literary dimensions of her prose. Cindy Jenefsky, with Ann Russo, looks at Dworkin’s major nonfiction works — including Woman HatingPornography: Men Possessing Women, and Intercourse — in terms of the rhetorical dynamics animating her political ideas. Also included within this analysis are Jenefsky’s lengthy interviews with Dworkin, which focus on her identity as an artist and on the artistic principles guiding her work.The result is a novel reinterpretation of Dworkin’s politics and a brilliantly clear analysis of the political nature of artistic practice for readers interested in literary and rhetorical criticism, feminist theory and activism, the volatile debates over pornography and civil rights, and the relationship between contemporary sexual practices and male power systems.

 

When a professor of Women’s Studies writes a book celebrating the career of Andrea Dworkin . . . do I have to draw you a picture? Your mental laziness is frightening, DePaul dudes. Because, see, it doesn’t take too much Googling to figure out what Professor Russo is all about. Her co-author on that Dworkin book, Cindy Jenefsky? Also the co-author of a treatise called “Phallic Intrusion: Girl-Girl Sex in Penthouse.”

Hmmm. So, Russo and Jenefsky are disciples of the man-hater Dworkin, and Jenefsky co-wrote an entire paper analyzing fake lesbian scenes in a popular skin mag. Would it help — because I know you DePaul guys are too dumb and/or lazy to Google it yourself — if I pointed out that Jenefsky’s co-author on that paper, Diane Helene Miller, is author of a book called Freedom to Differ: The Shaping of the Gay and Lesbian Struggle for Civil Rights?

Wake up, DePaul dudes: Feminism ain’t about “consent the D.”

Thousands of years of patriarchal domination, and you idiots are going to fumble it away because you’re too stupid to use Google?

You dudes are going get aced out of the action if you don’t wake up.