Feminist Stupidity Daily: Ideological Aggression and the Kafkatrapping Game

http://theothermccain.com/2015/02/25/feminist-stupidity-daily-ideological-aggression-and-the-kafkatrapping-game/

 

Because I’ve been busy offline the past few days, the stupidity has been piling up, and I need to clear away some backlog. Let’s start by checking in at the repository of amateurish nonsense, Everyday Feminism:

7 Ways to Lovingly Support Your
Gender Non-Binary Partner

(Why is your partner “gender non-binary”? Is there a drastic shortage of normal human beings on the planet? Are you so desperate you’ll date any doomed weirdo that shows up?)

Thinking Critically About Who Pays for the Date
The primary dating script, as advertised by American pop culture (most notably, romantic comedies), supposedly serves as a map to help us navigate romantic love’s rough, rough terrain.
However, in a society that privileges different types of people over others, that map is filled with hazardous roadblocks for some and traffic-free highways for others.
One of the most significant factors in determining who gets assigned which roles from the dating script is money. . . . When we spend it, how we spend it, and who is spending it all come under scrutiny in this classist society.
Consequently, who pays for the date (and the contract that payment supposedly creates) is usually rooted in assumptions about gender and sexuality that deserve a lot more scrutiny. . . .

(Yeah, thinking critically about gender assumptions in classist society. Good luck getting a first date. A second date? No way.)

5 Ways to Deal with Misguided
(But Well-Intentioned) Allies

We’ve all been there. Whether it’s a self-proclaimed “male feminist” making sex-shaming comments on a Facebook post or the “LGBTQIA-friendly” straight ally unwittingly making transphobic slurs at a party – the misguided ally is nearly impossible to avoid.
It’s not that the misguided ally is a bad person. We know they don’t want to hurt us. But they do.
And then, often times, they hurt us even more by choosing to blame to us for whatever awkward experience ensues as opposed to taking accountability.
Though these instances are irritating, their irritation is nuanced. They often facilitate in safer spaces becoming unsafe, which, in turn, expedites the increased formation of identity-exclusive spaces.
And while having spaces just for marginalized people themselves (spaces specifically for people of color, or trans folks, or for women-identified people) isn’t inherently wrong, they often end up being centered around healing from the harmful microaggressions of “allies.” . . .

 

Do you understand what’s wrong here? These feminist zombies are so desperate they’re scraping around for “gender non-binary” partners, but then it’s time for a lecture about who should pay for the date “in this classist society.” And, although I can’t imagine who would want to be an “ally” to these obnoxious losers, if you do want to be their “ally,” that means you’ve got to watch every word you say, because you can’t make any “sex-shaming” comments or “transphobic slurs.”

Where do they get the idea that the rest of us have nothing better to do with our lives than to scrupulously avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of Special Snowflakes? Hypersensitive political correctness is just a game for moral narcissists — More Progressive Than Thou! — who sit around congratulating themselves on how “inclusive” they are.

Do I seem irritated? You’d be irritated, too, if you’d been reading Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape, a collection of articles edited by Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti. This is a very bad book written by very bad women, among them the execrable Stacey May Fowles, whose essay begins thus:

Because I’m a feminist who enjoys domination, bondage, and pain in the bedroom, it should be pretty obvious why I often remain mute and, well, pretty closeted about my sexuality.

 

Yeah, but you had to write a 3,000-word essay about it, didn’t you? Other contributors to Yes Means Yes include Kimberly Springer, a Ph.D. in Women’s Studies whose essay is entitled, “Queering Black Female Heterosexuality,” and Kate Harding, a “fat-acceptance” blogger who provides an essay called, “How Do You F–k a Fat Woman?” My favorite (and by “favorite,” I mean most wretched) of the whole collection, however, is “Reclaiming Touch: Rape Culture, Explicit Verbal Consent, and Body Sovereignty,” which asks the question: “Can we really draw a sharp line between sexual assault and unwanted nonsexual touch?” Most people would have no problem answering “yes” to that question, but here we encounter a feminist claiming that a hug between friends is an act that should require Explicit Verbal Consent.

My first instinct when I read craziness like this is to investigate the source. It is my common-sense suspicion that crazy ideas are usually the product of crazy minds, and in this case we’ve hit the Big Jackpot of Crazy. The author of the “Reclaiming Touch” essay is Hazel/Cedar Troost, who uses the “gender-neutral pronouns” ze and hir. What kind of crazy is this? Let’s read the “about” page at Hazel/Cedar’s blog:

 

This is a blog by a Chicago transsexual queer/woman who’s tired of making herself as small as possible to fit the demands of trans misogynistic feminism and trans activism.
It’s also a blog about gender theory & activism (simultaneously feminist and trans), misogyny (trans & NOS), transphobia, anti-racism, intersectionality, sustainability, privilege, language & terminology, power, body sovereignty, gender/sex self-determination, radical politics, “radical” politics, bad allies, accountability, BDSM, violence (domestic, intimate, sexual, emotional, physical, stranger, hate, racialized, institutional, systemic, and more), disabled, fat, & survivor politics, healthcare, and whatever else ze feels inspired to write on.

 

To translate: “Stay away from me, normal people!”

Aggressive weirdness — an insistence that the ordinary behaviors of normal people are oppressive — has become increasingly characteristic of the feminist fringe. If you greet a friend with a common gesture of affection, your hug might be “unwanted touch” that violates their “body sovereignty,” while your expectation that people are either male or female could infringe their right to “gender/sex self-determination.” And if you point out how strange these attitudes and behaviors are? You’re obviously some kind of hater.

What feminists and their allies are doing here is creating a landscape covered with opportunities for Kafkatrapping:

 

One very notable pathology is a form of argument that, reduced to essence, runs like this: “Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of {sin racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression…} confirms that you are guilty of {sin, racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression…}.” I’ve been presented with enough instances of this recently that I’ve decided that it needs a name. I call this general style of argument “kafkatrapping” . . .
The aim of the kafkatrap is to produce a kind of free-floating guilt in the subject, a conviction of sinfulness that can be manipulated by the operator to make the subject say and do things that are convenient to the operator’s personal, political, or religious goals. Ideally, the subject will then internalize these demands, and then become complicit in the kafkatrapping of others.

 

Activists manufacture opportunities to accuse others of moral failing, and if you cooperate with them — if you attempt to be an “ally” of these progressives who continually produce demands that you acknowledge your guilt — then you must “become complicit” by routinely accusing others of these political sins. This is why feminists have manufactured a “rape epidemic” hysteria on college campuses. Using phony statistics and false accusations to mau-mau politicians into enacting bad legislation, feminists provoke criticism, and then demonize critics — e.g., George Willand K.C. Johnson — whom they brand “rape apologists,” so that critics are accused of being pro-rape merely because they point out errors in feminist arguments or flaws in policies that feminists advocate.

“With enough fear, you can manufacture a crisis, and a crisis gives you ‘an opportunity to do things . . . you could not do before,’ as President Obama’s former chief of staff noted in his famous remarks about not letting a crisis ‘go to waste.’”
— Hans Bader, Minding the Campus

 

 

 

“SHUT UP, BECAUSE RAPE!”

It’s all about silencing and discrediting opposition, see? Feminism is a totalitarian movement directly derived from the Marxist/Leninist model of the Bolshevik Revolution. “All power to the Soviets!” has become “All power to the feminists!”

 

It’s all about silencing and discrediting opposition, see? Feminism is a totalitarian movement directly derived from the Marxist/Leninist model of the Bolshevik Revolution. “All power to the Soviets!” has become “All power to the feminists!”

We are all now constantly monitored by Feminist Commissars, the enforcers of a Police State regime. You must be careful, comrade, because your “harmful microaggressions” and your failure to obtain “Explicit Verbal Consent” before hugging someone are political crimes for which you might be subjected to a reenactment of the Moscow Show Trialsbefore you are sent to the Feminist Gulag.

Americans understand that feminism’s ambitions are ultimately incompatible with human liberty. Yet if you dare speak out against it, your’re terrorists, and the monstrous ideologues who aspire to be your totalitarian overlords claim to be victims!

By the way, am I the only one who has noticed that while feminists have taken to repeating stories about how terrorized they are by the Internet — death threats, rape threats and the like — we haven’t seen anyone arrested, prosecuted or even served with a restraining order by any of these helpless feminist victims? Having been targeted for harassment by deranged sociopaths (who have proven they are willing to target people in real life), I know how to successfully fight back: Identify the cowards who are perpetrating such behavior, and call them out by name.

What are the names of the people who are perpetrating harassment against feminists? Identify them. Call them out.

Give me a list of names of these anti-feminist “terrorists,” with proof of their wrongdoing, and I will denounce them.

Expect to be waiting a long time before we ever see such a list, because thevagueness of these claims of feminist victimhood serves the purposes of political propaganda:

A. Opponents criticize feminist arguments;
B. Feminists are victims of harassment;
and therefore
C. Critics are responsible for the harassment of feminists.

This faulty syllogism is about falsely creating collective guilt, so that George Will is implicitly accused of inciting people to “dox” Brianna Wuand K.C. Johnson is smeared with responsibility for rape threats againstAnita Sarkeesian. If all critics of feminist (collectively) are to blame for every harm experienced by feminists (collectively), you see, then anyone who writes in opposition to feminism can be Kafkatrapped.

Feminists can demand that, e.g., Professor Glenn Reynolds denounce the harassment of, inter aliaJessica Valenti, even though the harassment is committed by some dimwit Reddit troll who has nothing to do with Professor Reynolds. It’s the same thing with “rape culture.”

Everybody is against rape, right? Yet if you criticize feminist rhetoric on this issue — if you suggest, for example, that there would be fewer sexual assaults on campus if university officials cracked down on underage drinking — then you are engaged in “victim blaming” or “slut shaming,” so that you then can be branded a “rape apologist” no matter how strongly you condemn rape. The purpose of feminism’s “rape culture” discourse is to create this generalized accusation of collective guilt, so that anyone who disagrees with feminists can be portrayed as responsible for crimes they have never committed.

Welcome to the 21st century, comrade. The commissars have taken over our culture and it’s Kafkatrapping all the way down.

 

Radical Feminism and the ‘Equality’ Trap

http://theothermccain.com/2015/08/22/radical-feminism-and-the-equality-trap/

 

Radical lesbian activist @EllenPage decided that @TedCruz needed a lecture from her about equality and discrimination:

DES MOINES — Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and actress Ellen Page, of “Juno” fame, got into a testy and free-wheeling discussion Friday over gay rights here at the Iowa State Fair.
“I’m happy to answer your question but not to have a back-and-forth debate,” Cruz told Page, as she pressed him about discrimination against LGBT citizens, approaching him as he flipped pork chops over an open grill. . . .
“Imagine, hypothetically, you had a gay florist and imagine two evangelical Christians wanted to get married and the gay florist decided, ‘You know what, I disagree with your faith, I don’t want to provide flowers,’” Cruz said.
“I would say they should provide the flowers,” said Page, who earlier charged Cruz’s argument was the same used to justify segregation.
“And I would say the gay florist has every right to say, if I disagree with your faith and don’t want to participate…you know what? There are lots of other people to buy flowers from,” Cruz said. “…We are a country that respects pluralism and diversity and there is thisliberal intolerance that says that anyone that dares follow a Biblical teaching of marriage, that is the union of one man and one woman must be persecuted, must be fined and must be driven out of business.” . . .
The senator went on to say that the much bigger challenge for gay people comes from the Middle East, where they are deeply persecuted by the Iranian government as well as the leadership of ISIS.
“On the left you hear complete silence” — “That’s not true!” Page interjected — “about Iran hanging homosexuals, and yet the Obama administration is sending over $100 billion to a regime that murders homosexuals,” Cruz continued. . . . .
“Why does the Obama administration not stand against this?” Cruz said.
“I don’t know, I’d love to talk to Obama about it,” Page replied
“Then we’re agreed!” Cruz shot back,
“No, no we’re not, don’t do that,” the actress said.
“We’re agreed! Ma’am, we’ve had a long discussion,” Cruz said.
“Yeah, I appreciate it, yeah,” she said sarcastically, and walked away.

 

 

Unsurprisingly, the liberal media tried to spin this attempted ambush as a courageous triumph for the celebrity lesbian, but Ian Tuttle at National Review isn’t buying the spin:

Alternative headline: “Actress from That One Movie about Roller Derby Confronts Princeton Debate Champ — Goes about as You Might Expect.”

 

Beyond highlighting Cruz’s expert-level debate skills, the exchange exposed Page’s “rejection of conscience protections altogether, and her endorsement of radical government intervention in all such matters,” as Tuttle says. Her arguments are based in the Equality Über Alles mentality that characterizes not only the militant gay movement, but also the radical feminist movement and the Left in general. Grant them what they demand today, and the radicals will return tomorrow with new demands, because “equality” can never be achieved, not even under the absolute tyranny of a totalitarian dictatorship. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek explained that “social justice” is a mirage — it seems to appear up ahead in the distance, but vanishes as soon as you approach it. There will always be someone claiming to be a victim of unfairness, so that to make “equality” (or “social justice” or, more vaguely, “progress”) your goal is to declare war on society itself, to inaugurate what Trotsky called “permanent revolution.”

No such thing as “equality” has ever existed in the history of human civilization, nor will any measure endorsed by the Left bring about “equality” in the future. The insistent demand for “equality” is nothing more than a pretext for political aggression that the Left uses to gain power by pandering to those who hope to gain some advantage from the enactment of radical egalitarian policies.

Despite her celebrity status, Ellen Page ultimately cannot escape the inevitable consequences of inequality, not even in gay-friendly Hollywood. Her high-profile “coming out” in 2014 has damaged her career prospects as an actress because, despite what anyone may imagine, the market demand for gay celebrities is much smaller than the available supply. Denounce the movie-going public as a bunch of bigoted haters, if you like, but the heterosexual majority (97.7% of Americans, according to federal research) expect their entertainment to be entertaining, and tiresome propaganda about The People’s Glorious Democratic Struggle for Gender Equality is not entertaining.

In reporting Ellen Page’s Iowa encounter with Ted Cruz, Politico noted, “Page attended as part of her new show with Vice, called ‘Gaycation,’ where she travels around the world and explores local attitudes about LGBT culture in each place.” What the heck? In August 2014, A&E Networks paid $250 million for a 20% share in Vice Media, rebranding A&E’s lame H2 channel as Vice TV, with Page’s gay travel show as one of the Genius Programming Ideas to justify this investment. Is this just more Hollywood politically correctness run amok? Not necessarily.

In a nation of more than 320 million people, of whom 240 million are 18 and older, if 2.3% of the adult population are LGBT, that’s a potential audience of nearly 6 million gay people in the U.S. alone. If you consider also Canada, Great Britain, Australia and other English-speaking countries in a worldwide digital media marketplace — where everything is online, just a click and a download away — you could easily envision a much larger LGBT audience, not to mention the even larger audience speaking other languages, watching with closed-caption translations.

The Global Gay-o-Sphere, as we might think of it, could be a valuable niche, and there are plenty of perverts in show business who would love nothing more than to get rich celebrating their own favorite fetishes. However, the mass market will always be heterosexual, and there is a limit to how much Happy Hollywood Homo programming the market will bear. Whether or not the LGBT Lobby has already “jumped the shark” Fonzie-style remains to be seen, but at some point people will get tired of seeing Gay! Gay! Gay! everywhere, and a backlash will become evident.

And what’s up with that Donald Trump thing, anyway?

Ellen Page’s militant protest act — “Hey, let’s attack this ignorant Republican bigot in Iowa!” — may please whatever number gay people watch her Vice TV show, but what about the many millions of Americans she implicitly insults? Make no mistake: Ellen Page hates Christians and despises heterosexuality, per se, with the same kind of vindictive sour-grapes resentment of normal people that inspired radical feminists likeCharlotte BunchAdrienne RichMarilyn Frye and Sheila Jeffreys.

“The radical feminist argument is that men have forced women into heterosexuality in order to exploit them, and that lesbians, in rejecting male definitions of sexuality, are undermining the patriarchy. . . .
“Lesbianism is . . . fundamentally a challenge to patriarchal definitions of women.”
— Celia KitzingerThe Social Construction of Lesbianism(1987)

“Feminist theorists . . . would probably all agree that the pressuring of women into heterosexuality serves the purposes of male supremacy. . . .
“Both heterosexuality as a political system and sexual violence as social control depend upon the construction of heterosexual desire. . . . A feminist analysis would suggest that the reconstruction of sexuality is necessary to undermine the sexual system of male supremacy.”
— Sheila JeffreysThe Lesbian Heresy: A Feminist Perspective on the Lesbian Sexual Revolution (1993)

“Lesbianism was seen as central to feminism, both as a challenge to male supremacy . . . and as a redefining of the category of women, for women, and by women and outside the male hegemony. . . .
“The feminist point is that sex is central to women’s oppression. . . . Lesbianism within the feminist context was meant as a challenge to the exclusiveness and ‘naturalness’ of heterosexual desire as the only form of intimacy women are allowed.”
— Denise Thompson, Radical Feminism Today (2001)

“In the early 1970s both gay and feminis movements concurred in critiques of patriarchal, heterosexual institutions, such as the family, and their was a sense of common cause. . . . [A]ddressing the patriarchal structures that shaped family life, revealing women’s discontents with heterosexual relationships . . . feminists laid the foundation for a thoroughgooing critique of heterosexuality . . .”
— Stevi Jackson and Sue ScottTheorizing Sexuality(2010)

Feminists have been trying to destroy the traditional family and eradicate Christian morality for more than 40 years. It is certainly no coincidence that in July 2013, more than six months before she announced her lesbianism, Ellen Page declared her allegiance to radical feminism in an interview with the Guardian:

“I don’t know why people are so reluctant to say they’re feminists. Maybe some women just don’t care. But how could it be any more obvious that we still live in a patriarchal world when feminism is a bad word? . . . Feminism always gets associated with being a radical movement — good. It should be. A lot of what the radical feminists [in the 1970s] were saying, I don’t disagree with it.”

 

Not content with her career as a Celebrity Lesbian, the radical feminist Ellen Page uses her influence to attack traditional morality and to ridicule Republicans like Ted Cruz for daring to argue that Christians have a right to live according to their religious beliefs.

Maybe the executives at A&E can justify their $250 million investment in this kind of hateful “entertainment” for the LGBT market, but nobody should be surprised if the dividends on that dubious investment in radicalism include an angry backlash from normal people who don’t enjoy being lectured about their alleged “homophobia.”

“The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”
— U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker,
Aug. 5, 2010, San Francisco v. Schwarzenegger

“Believe me, sir, those who attempt to level never equalise. In all societies, consisting of various descriptions of citizens, some description must be uppermost. The levellers therefore only change and pervert the natural order of things; they load the edifice of society, by setting up in the air what the solidity of the structure requires to be on the ground.”
— Edmund BurkeReflections on the Revolution in France

Do we want “equality” or do we want liberty? This is really the question, and Americans should not be compelled to apologize for our love of liberty. From the Reign of Terror in France to the “Killing Fields” of Cambodia, we have repeatedly seen atrocities radicals have justified in the name of “equality,” and the feminist movement has been forever stained with innocent blood by its advocacy of the abortion holocaust. Why is it that extraordinarily privileged people like Ellen Page believe the rest of us are ignorant bigots in need of their lectures? Do they suppose that we know nothing of history? Do they believe we are incapable of rational judgment? Do they imagine that we cannot justify our opposition to their radical agenda?

Or do they think that we simply lack courage to fight for truth?