‘Queer Youth of Color’

the sexual grooming of children

http://theothermccain.com/2015/02/16/queer-youth-of-color/

 

Verónica Bayetti Flores (@veroconplatanos) “has spent the last years of her life living and breathing reproductive justice. She has led national policy and movement building work on the intersections of immigrants’ rights, health care access, young parenthood, and LGBTQ liberation, and has worked to increase access to contraception and abortion, fought for paid sick leave, and demanded access to safe public space for queer youth of color. In 2008 Verónica obtained her Master’s degree in the Sexuality and Health program at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.” I’m sure “LGBTQ liberation” keeps her busy, but Verónica Bayetti Flores still finds time to write for Feministing.com:

 

 

For queer youth who know their rights in the face of a system that is killing them,
For women on government assistance who find joy in the news of pregnancy . . .
For those who dare to separate sexual pleasure and reproduction . . .
Your bodies, our bodies, are dangerous.
Your bodies are dangerous to the status quo. Your bodies bust through the armor of the gender binary and the patriarchy. Your bodies f–k up neoliberalism. Your bodies are ending white supremacy and heteropatriarchy. Your bodies are evidence that the colonial project has failed . . .
Your bodies are how the revolution begins.

 

“LGBTQ liberation” and “queer youth of color” is the feminist agenda in 2015. This was brought to my attention on Twitter by someone who thought “heteropatriarchy” was a new word I’d never encountered duringmy research into feminist theory.

 

https://twitter.com/rsmccain/status/567421865883623427/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

https://twitter.com/rsmccain/status/567423646277574658/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

https://twitter.com/darleenclick/status/566324283920908288/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

Can someone explain to me how Verónica Bayetti Flores’s agenda of promoting homosexuality among minority youth is about “ending white supremacy” by beginning a “revolution” against “the colonial project”? Because a common-sense perspective might suppose that encouraging minorities to adopt the depraved perversity of our decadent elite would actually serve the interests of the elite. And if we learned that programs targeting black and Latino youth with this agenda are funded by major foundations with a record of supporting population control efforts aimed at the Third World? Well, I don’t suppose Verónica Bayetti Flores cares who is funding her “LGBTQ liberation” activism, but no honest person should be deceived about the real goals of this feminist agenda.

 

 

Fear and Loathing of the Penis

http://theothermccain.com/2015/02/13/fear-and-loathing-of-the-penis/

 

“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. Men’s world is like a vast prison or concentration camp for women. This isn’t a metaphor, it’s reality. Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men. . . .
“[H]eterosexuality doesn’t exist and our ‘urges’ to bond with [men] emotionally or sexually aren’t natural drives but normal PTSD reactions to years of abuse and mind-programming.”
— Radical Wind, August 2013

When I think back on how this project began, I recall the woman whose screed against intercourse (“PIV is always rape, OK?”) led me deep into this swamp of radical feminism. It was, however, another rant by that same blogger which made me seriously explore the ideological psychosis of which her rant was a symptom.

“No woman is heterosexual.”

That four-word sentence sent me off on an investigation of her sources, especially including Professor Dee Graham, whose 1994 book Loving to Survive theorized female heterosexuality as a response to male-inflicted “sexual terror,” akin to post-traumatic stress syndrome. Understanding this claim in turn required me to examine the sources cited in Graham’s bibliography, including lesbian feminists like Marilyn Frye, Adrienne Rich, Mary Daly, Audre Lorde and Charlotte Bunch. Graham even managed to work in a citation to “Starhawk” (neé Miriam Simos), the lesbian feminist who was the founding high priestess of a California-based pagan witchcraft cult known as Reclaiming. From such dubious sources Graham had propounded her theory of sexuality, based in a view of men as violent oppressors and women as victims suffering under tyrannical male supremacy. After several months of further research, I’ve begun to refer to this feminist worldview as Fear and Loathing of the Penis.

You see this in the counterfactual “rape epidemic” hysteria on college campuses, with activists at Columbia University trying to frighten prospective students — high school kids — with protests about “gender-based violence on campus.” Robert Tracinski at the Federalist examines the possibility that “rape culture” discourse represents “an attempt to create a scapegoat for the emotional dark side of promiscuity.”

It is evident that these women’s dread and contempt of masculinity arises from specific circumstances. Feminism does not cause women to hate and fear men; feminism is the political rationalization of these women’s anti-male feelings, permitting them to believe that their own unhappiness is not merely personal. It is the explanatory power of feminist theory that attracts women who do not wish to consider themselves responsible for their misfortunes, disappointments and failures, offering them a convenient scapegoat for their problems: Patriarchy.

To give you an idea of what I’m talking about, consider this recent post on Tumblr.com by an Australian woman named Kate:

I think that most of the times I feel afraid of the world, it is because there are men in it.
Men who want to hurt women; men who don’t want to hurt women but do not realise that they are doing so anyway; men who don’t want to hurt women, but do not care when they do, because whatever they want from the situation is intrinsically more important to them.
Men who you can tell are bad just by looking at them or listening to what they say; men who you instinctively feel could be bad, but you second-guess yourself because you want to believe and trust that they are good; men who you would never guess are bad in any way — whose badness doesn’t show for years, and when it does it is near-invisible to anybody else.
Men who make you feel threatened when they don’t get their own way; men who lash out and shift the focus when they don’t get their own way; men who spin every word when they don’t get their own way; men who act like children and make you their mother figure when they don’t get their own way; men who control you to get their own way, men who take what they want anyway when they don’t get their own way.
Men who do not listen to women’s words the same way they listen to other men’s; men who turn you invisible unless they want to f–k you; men who only want to be your friend because they want to f–k you; men who call you ‘intellectually dishonest’ for using emotion and context to argue a point; men who back you into corners physically, emotionally, verbally.
Men who call you ‘crazy’; ‘hormonal’; ‘irrational’; ‘emotional’, men who will not allow your anger to be recognised as a valid emotional response, or your sadness, your distrust.
Men who make you feel the most loved, safe, and cared for after they have abused you.
Men who make you question your reality by telling you with conviction that it is wrong.
Men who take away your sense of independence and self by controlling your every move, and by telling you a better way to do every little thing you’ve taught yourself.
Men who dissolve your self esteem by belittling and insulting you, and calling you names.
Men who tell you that your reasonable emotional reactions are abusive, and infringe on their rights to do whatever they want to do.
Men who do not stop whatever they are doing to you when you ask.
Men who look you in the eyes and lie to you every day to protect their double lives.
I am so tired of absorbing all of this.

 

Who are these men who do these things to Kate? We don’t know.

She doesn’t name them, but she is apparently surrounded by them, and we are thus unable to offer any advice or assistance to her. She is a helpless victim of men — men! men! men! — and it would seem she offers this catalog of masculine “badness” in the expectation that other women will recognize the pattern. Yet we might notice how Kate lists men’s reactions when they “don’t get their own way,” as if she can’t see that the entirety of her complaint involves her own dissatisfaction because she can’t get her own way with them. Men don’t behave the way Kate wants them to behave, men don’t say and do things the way Kate wants things to be said and done, and their failure to live up to her expectations — their unwillingness to comply with the imperious demands of Queen Kate — is proof that she is a victim of male oppression.

She is inviting us to a pity party where she is the guest of honor. If men reject that invitation, this just proves how bad men are, because they “will not allow your anger to be recognised as a valid emotional response, or your sadness, your distrust.”

Why wouldn’t male contempt for her be “a valid emotional response”? Men are the way we are in part because we must be that way in order to be recognized as men, as responsible adults. Nobody wants to hear a man complain about his problems. Women can be especially merciless in their contempt for any man who expresses a sense of emotional suffering, and many women are deliberately sadistic toward men. Some women enjoy nothing better than to insult a man and then mock him as a “whiner” if he takes notice of the insult. Women who take pride in their own cruelty toward men are invariably the same women who complain when men fail to treat them with solicitude and kindness. Such women are never able to admit that they are even partially responsible for their inability either to attract good men or to sustain relationships with the men they do attract.

Fear and Loathing of the Penis — a paranoid resentment of men, characterized by irrational suspicion — is the underlying mental condition that feminism turns into a political ideology. What disturbs me, after months of studying this phenomenon, is that this madness is both contagious and incurable. Feminism is a sort of cultural virus that, once it takes hold in a woman’s mind, makes it impossible for her to relate to men in a normal manner and, because misery loves company, she feels compelled to share her hateful anti-male attitudes with other women. If left untreated, the effects of this dangerous malady are well known.

 

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! As to envy, I have always thought Freudian psychology — “penis envy,” “Oedipus complex,” “castration anxiety,” etc. — to be a lot of mythical pseudo-scientific humbug. However, Freud did say this:

“Women have but little sense of justice, and this is no doubt connected with the preponderance of envy in their mental life.”

Like so much else Freud said about women, this seems insulting if read as a general statement applicable to all women. We should remember, however, that much of Freud’s practice involved treating neurotic women, the unhappy wives and daughters of the upper classes. As a description of a certain type of woman, his statement is certainly true. Envy is a poisonous emotion, and is antithetical to a sense of justice. The characteristic rage of feminists — their angry insistence that every advantage enjoyed by men is an unearned “privilege,” and that all women suffer oppression because of “male supremacy” — is entirely consistent with Freud’s observation of how “the preponderance of envy” manifests itself in the behavior of neurotic women.

UPDATE II: Linked by That Mr. G’s BlogBrian Cragin and Doug at Daley Gator — thanks! — and our friend Doug apparently felt a need to pour salt in the wound. It should be sufficient to report facts and let people draw their own conclusions.

Common Man-Hating Feminism

http://theothermccain.com/2015/02/11/common-man-hating-feminism/

 

“I’m so tired of masculinity. And male aggression. And male voyeurism. And male arrogance. And male mediocrity. And how we’re conditioned to normalize it.”
— Zuriya at Tumblr.com

What inspired that declaration? That 24-word anti-male outburst was published on Tumblr a week ago and has already acquired more than 3,000 likes or reblogs. The young woman who posted it is the child of Eritrean refugees, living in Southern California, and has absorbed from her American education many typical progressive attitudes inculcated by our public school system. She is a Muslim, and does not seem to recognize (or at least does not acknowledge) that the anti-male attitudes of her feminism are fundamentally incompatible with Islam.

“Why am I not solely dating women at this point in my life like men have so little good to offer this world.”

Good luck getting your imam to sign off on that idea, Zuriya. Now, let’s hear about your actual relationships with men:

 

I was talking about my boyfriend/partner/whatever . . . to a good friend a few weeks ago and like, I don’t get giddy about men. I never have. I have never seen men as an essential and important and necessary part of my life. If we broke up, I’d just keep it pushin TBH. I was with a guy for five years and I hardly felt butterflies. It just isn’t my demeanor. Men are overwhelmingly to some extent f–kboys and I’m just not concerned with getting into my feelings about them. Idk, outwardly displays of overzealous affection are just corny AF me.

 

And some more:

 

I love being in a long distance relationship. I have horrible anxiety and depression and have been trying through medication and lifestyle changes to get that under control.Right now, my priorities include work, school, my bills, friends and then my relationship. I’m grateful for this indefinite separation because it gives me time to get my life together. I’m not getting married for another few years at least, until I have my Masters and life set together . . . I need to be committed to myself before I can commit to someone else and this solitude gradually allows me to do that.

Well, there it is again, you see?

How often have we noted the correlation between feminism and mental illness? Depression and anxiety seem to be nearly ubiquitous in the feminist movement. Self-harm and eating disorders are also common, and we occasionally encounter diagnoses of personality disorders as well. There is a clear pattern: Young women who view men as irresponsible and untrustworthy “f–kboys,” women whose emotional instability is serious enough to require psychiatric intervention — such are the unhappy women who find that feminism’s hostility to the existing social order offers a rationalization of their discontents.

Have they never read Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements? Do they not recognize themselves as the frustrated misfits Hoffer described?

 

Those who see their lives as spoiled and wasted crave equality and fraternity more than they do freedom. If they clamor for freedom, it is but freedom to establish equality and uniformity. . . .
Those who clamor loudest for freedom are often the ones least likely to be happy in a free society. The frustrated, oppressed by their shortcomings, blame their failure on existing restraints. Actually their innermost desire is for an end to the ‘free for all.’ They want to eliminate free competition and the ruthless testing to which the individual is continually subjected in a free society.

 

So it is that the feminist movement attracts to its banner frustrated women “who see their lives as spoiled and wasted,” women who require a scapegoat to “blame [for] their failure” and who find in feminism’s anti-male ideology a ready-made excuse for their unhappiness. Yet for every miserable misfit grumbling about “masculinity . . . male aggression . . . male arrogance . . . male mediocrity” on the Internet, there are many more happy women going about their normal lives, without mental illness and without feminism. If we compared the objective circumstances of any two women, one self-identifying as feminist and the other rejecting the “feminist” label, what difference would distinguish them?

Are anti-feminist women on average more “privileged” than the militant man-haters? I seriously doubt it. In fact, I think generally the opposite is true: One does not commonly encounter working-class women reading Judith Butler and ranting about the gender binary and the heterosexual matrix. Whatever the normal woman’s complaints about her relationships with men, she does not construe her problems in terms of academic theory and political ideology.

Understanding the ‘F–kboy’ Syndrome

There isn’t a lot of theory in Zuriya’s feminism. She cites no authors and does not sling around trendy academic jargon. Rather, she expresses anti-male attitudes in the rhetoric of popular culture. For example, the term “f–kboy” seems to have originated as a homophobic putdown, suggesting effeminate weakness, but was adapted by women as an all-purpose slur, so that “f–kboy” is now “a pejorative toward men who are perceived as oversexed or disrespectful toward women.”

Is Zuriya correct? Are men “overwhelmingly to some extent f–kboys”? No, but a wise woman is naturally cautious toward any man who shows an interest in her, lest he prove to be a “player” who wants to run his game on her. Anyone observing the behavior of young men on the prowl recognizes the “f–kboy” type who seems to think himself entitled to an unlimited supply of enthusiastic partners for casual sex, and who has no interest in a committed relationship.

The question feminists cannot answer is, “Whence does this f–kboy attitude arise?” Where do these guys develop the attitude that every woman they meet is irrepressibly horny and ready to go?

Feminists are eager to blame “culture” and “society” for men’s bad attitudes toward women, because it would not advance the feminist agenda to admit that f–kboys are f–kboys because too many young women actually are irrepressibly horny and ready to go. These young women have adopted the ideas of sexual “empowerment” advanced by so-called “pro-sex feminists” and, abandoning all concern for their own dignity, pursued a false “equality” by enacting a simulacrum of what they suppose to be a male prerogative, shameless promiscuity. Ask any parent of teenage boys how it is. If your son is reasonably attractive and popular, he will be more or less besieged by lovestruck girls by the time he finishes middle school. Certainly, a good-looking teenage boy doesn’t need to expend any strenuous effort to land a girlfriend, and the reversal of customary roles (wherein the boy was the romantic pursuer and the girl was pursued) is so common that every day is now Sadie Hawkins Day.

This “Girls Gone Wild” culture of unrestrained female promiscuity, which “pro-sex” feminists have actively encouraged, creates an environment where the f–kboy attitude becomes commonplace. Lectures about “safe sex,” combined with a systemic hostility to religion and traditional morality, have the effect of turning public schools into training camps for sluts and f–kboys. Young people are taught that sex is only about hedonistic pleasure, and that any sexual behavior is acceptable so long as it is “safe.”

Schools now teach kids: “God is dead. Sex is fun. Use a condom.”

Parents in many cases actually endorse this attitude, because today’s young people were born in the 1990s, when “safe sex” became the prevailing mantra of public education.

Irresponsible parents raise irresponsible children, and the flight from responsibility — the childish desire to live in NerfWorld, where everything is padded to protect us against the consequences of our actions — produces f–kboys, selfish hedonists who cannot be trusted.

From a semi-humorous list of their habits:

 

He’s constantly begging for nudes.
F–kboys are hungry and desperate for female attention. They feed their f–kboy ways with nude pics from the dozens of girls they talk to on Tinder, OkC, Reddit, and other random sites. He hides his phone when he gets a Snapchat because he knows it’s gonna be some girl’s nudies. For every one nude pic you send, he’s getting like 10 others from other chicks. . . .
He’s disrespectful to his mother.
A man who doesn’t respect his mother is just a f–kboy you don’t have time for. If he treats his mom like sh*t, just think about how he’s going to treat you when the honeymoon phase wears off. Yes, it’s important to see how he treats both of his both parents, but how he respects his mother is a clear reflection as to how he views women in his life.
He never wants to be seen in public with you.
He always has some excuse for why you two can’t be seen together. He’s busy, doesn’t feel like going out, whatever. If a man isn’t proud to be seen with then obviously you’re just a sidepiece for this
f–kboy. . . .

 

Read the whole thing, and ask yourself: Where do guys get the idea they can treat women like that? Answer: From women who let themselves be treated like that. From women who have been taught that it’s “empowering” to be sexually promiscuous and pursue hookups, women who have been taught to scoff at virtue, women who have been taught that “equality” is the only moral standard.

 

The Inexorable Logic of ‘Equality’

Whether or not a regime of “sexual equality” is even possible, we ought to ask whether such equality is actually desirable.

“Wow, he’s so equal,” said no woman ever. A woman wants a man who is in some way her superior, a man she can respect and rely upon, someone who brings to a relationship personal attributes, economic assets and social status greater than her own. Of course, no woman wishes to be weak, helpless and dependent, and she does not want a man to treat her as his inferior, but she can never love a man she cannot also admire. A man must bring “value added” to her life.

Feminism’s advocacy of “sexual equality” actually deprives women of the opportunity for that kind of positive relationship. Feminists constantly derogate masculinity and express an ideological hostility to male achievement, viewing male-female relations as a competitive zero-sum game in which a man’s success can only be explained in terms of discrimination against women. If men achieve success only though the oppression of women, as feminists believe, then the most successful man must therefore also be the most oppressive man.

The logic is inexorable. If ending women’s oppression requires endingmale supremacy, this will require the enactment of policies to deprive men of educational and economic opportunity, to redistribute wealth and social status from men to women. Men must be discouraged from pursuing high-paying careers in order that women may have a greater share of those careers, for how else is “equality” to be achieved?

Is it any wonder, then, that the young woman finds the men she meets are selfish, immature f–kboys whose only interest in women is whatever hedonistic pleasure they can provide? In a world where male-female relations are viewed as a remorseless power struggle between antagonistic competitors, what basis can there be for voluntary cooperation between men and women? Where are the incentives for men to be anything better than f–kboys?

Many problems facing young women today are actually caused by feminism’s “success” in destroying the social order. If feminism is the cause of your problems, the solution is not more feminism.

 

 

Queering Valentine’s Day

http://theothermccain.com/2015/02/09/queering-valentines-day/

Two years ago, self-proclaimed “Queer Feminist” Sara Alcid complained about the heteronormativity of Valentine’s Day:

“Heteronormativity and gender roles also rear their ugly heads on Valentine’s Day. Gifts for ‘him’ or ‘her’ are clearly divided and marked and it’s almost impossible to find cards that represent queer couples. . . .
“It’s not hard to see why Valentine’s Day is problematic for many feminists. Celebrated traditionally, Valentine’s Day magnifies many of the very systems of domination that we work to critique and dismantle.”

Yes, it’s tragic that advertisers and greeting card companies aim their marketing efforts at the normal 98% of us, rather than pander to the 2% niche market of LGBT-OMG-BBQ-WTF.

In Canada, feminist Kayla Spagnoli — who was an organizer of SlutWalk Ottawa — is fighting against heteronormativity:

Pink Triangle Services has graciously let us use a board room at their office to host a feminist mixer to get together to make Valentine (or Anti-Valentine) Day cards.
We will be supplying card stock and supplies, as well as lots of non-hetero-normative, queer and non-binary card ideas! There will also be tea and candy.
This event is *FREE* but we are asking for a $5 donation if you are able to help cover some supplies and to give back to PTS.
PTS is a safe space*, we are asking everyone to be kind and considerate of the other attendees ie: ask for proper pronouns. Please no strong perfumes. There are non-binary washrooms available. There is an elevator if needed. PTS office is on the 2nd floor of the building.
PTS is having their Women’s Night who will also be welcomed to join.
Everyone is welcomed! Please spread this event.
#FemMixer #Ottawa
*friendly reminder that safe space is not the same as an empowered space.

 

Gee, Stacy, how do you find these kooks?”

You have to dive headfirst into the craziness, my friends. So I was searching Twitter for “heteronormativity” — one of the buzzwords of Women’s Studies, an academic swamp crowded with lesbian radicals — when I discovered Ms. Spagnoli boasting of her success in promoting her queer Valentine’s Day event on social media:

https://twitter.com/FeministSpag/status/562302264225058816/photo/1

Curiosity led me to discover (a) she and her twin sister Jenna have a site called Feminist Twins, (b) Kayla was raised Catholic, (c) she’s bisexual, (d) she is a mortician and (e) she’s been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD).

Before we get to the mental illness, let’s hear about the sex part:

 

i had sex last night . . .
it was my second date. i knew by the first i would have sex with him.
there alot of different things I want to talk about here, its hard to narrow it down … slut shaming, growing up catholic, love, mental illness, feminism, body positivity … I don’t really know where to start. . . .
I get really moody and unstable when I get in relationships so why can’t I just date and not force myself to feel like I HAVE TO FIND [MR … maybe MS] RIGHT RIGHT NOW!?! . . .
Anyways, we will see where this goes. I don’t think he is “the one” . . .
The thing that makes me the saddest is it took a stranger (well not a complete stranger) and NOT A boyfriend to help me see how people can have [actually] good, [actually] consensual sex. I guess that speaks volumes about the a–holes I have been dating.

 

So (a) she’s a bisexual feminist, (b) she’s a SlutWalk organizer and (c) she’s been dating a–holes and having bad sex.

Did I mention she’s crazy? Because I covered the 2013 D.C. SlutWalk, and the vibe of serious mental illness was so heavy I think half of them had gotten day passes from St. Elizabeth’s so they could participate. It takes a special kind of crazy to march topless through the streets of Washington, D.C., waving signs and chanting slogans about rape. The solution to that kind of problem isn’t equal rights, it’s Thorazine.

It was a lesbian friend who first told me about the prevalence of borderline personality disorder in the lesbian community. This bit of trivia I filed away in my mind, half-forgotten, until I encountered Women’s Studies professor Lisa Johnson, who organized a pro-lesbian event at her university. In 2010, Professor Johnson published a book,Girl in Need of a Tourniquet: Memoir of a Borderline Personality, describing herself as a “psycho girlfriend” with a history of dysfunctional relationships with both men and women.

Yes, this makes perfect sense to university administrators: Give the “psycho girlfriend” a Ph.D. and put her in charge of your Women’s Studies program so she can host the performance of an event for students called, “How to Be a Lesbian in 10 Days or Less.”

This is not to suggest that all lesbians are crazy. Certainly, few of them are crazy enough to be professors of Women’s Studies, a field pioneered by genuine lunatics like Mary Daly and Joyce Trebilcot. Back in the day, my freelance research in the effects of hallucinogenic drugs led to some serious craziness, but if I’d started babbling about the gender binary and the heterosexual matrix, or ranting that “destruction of the incest taboo is essential to the development of cooperative human community based on the free-flow of natural androgynous eroticism,” the way Andrea Dworkin did, I’d probably be doing the “Haldol Shuffle” in a psychiatric unit somewhere. (As opposed to being a professional blogger, a career that requires complete sanity.) You need a Ph.D. and faculty tenure before you can get paid to spew the kind of deranged gibberish taught in Women’s Studies classrooms, so the amateur feminist nutjobs on Tumblr are frequently disappointed that few people appreciate their volunteer craziness. Kayla Spagnoli recently got a clue:

 

“Thinking about shifting my activism from feminism to mental illness. It’s been a long time coming. Jason has always wondered why I gave so much to a movement that has always lashed back. It makes sense.”

 

Follow that clue, Kayla. And stay away psilocybin.

 

After I engaged Ms. Spagnoli on Twitter, feminists rallied to her defense.This replicates a pattern I observed in 2013:

What you discover is that radicals have two discourses: The exotericdiscourse, used when speaking to outsiders, is about “choice,” “equality,” “health,” etc. The esoteric discourse, used among fellow radicals, is an entirely different vocabulary: “Smash patriarchy,” destroy “heteronormativity and gender roles” and “systems of domination.”
And when you pull back the exoteric mask to reveal the esoteric truth of radicalism . . . well, that’s intimidation, you haters!

Feminist ideology is not merely anti-male and anti-heterosexual. The feminist movement is anti-fact and anti-truth.

We are not deceived, because we are not insane.

 

Sexual Disorientation

http://theothermccain.com/2015/02/06/sexual-disorientation/

Caitlin Stasey (@caitlinstasey) is a 24-year-old Australian actress who became a child star at age 12 in a series called The Sleepover Club. Her smiling face, however, concealed a world of inner emotional turmoil. Growing up in a sex-obsessed society seems to be a profoundly frightening experience for many girls nowadays. The decline of marriage and the destruction of moral norms are part of a cultural syndrome that produces what I have called “a sort of social epidemic of bipolar hysteria, in which minds unmoored from cultural tradition constantly shift between utter confusion and radical certainty.”

Both confusion and certainty are evident in the account Ms. Stasey shares with readers at her new feminist site Herself.com:

I had an oddly dichotomous upbringing, my father an atheist, my mother agnostic & my education Catholic. I was sent to a Catholic school primarily because of class sizes. . . . After entering high school (also Catholic) I abandoned the notion of God in the Christian sense; I couldn’t reconcile the church’s stance on sexuality with my own views. I became incredibly hateful of religion & am now resolute that it is one of the greatest tragedies to befall mankind. . . .
My parents were incredibly thoughtful, attentive & loving but there was certainly no love lost between them. It felt as though every moment of peace was heavy with the anticipation of another fight between them. . . . [G]rowing up around that much resentment was incredibly stressful. I think I may be one of few children to feel relief upon hearing my parents were divorcing. My exact words, according to my mother, were “Good.” . . .
Puberty was devastating for me. I suddenly had stretch marks all over my body, cellulite, hair, lumps, acne. . . . I was embarrassed by the changes I was going through and I had no real outlet for my confusion but, more than anything, I was embarrassed by my interest in sex, one that was present in me LONG before puberty. . . .
I would have vivid dreams about other women. Every night I’d drift off into this utopia of women being available to me & knowing nothing other than my desire for them. There was no one in my life who also expressed these desires, no one in the entertainment I consumed, the books I would read, the company I kept. A lack of monumental events shaped my sexuality,masturbating in secret, telling no one, saying nothing, concealing all sexual queries or thoughts. . . .
I’ve known I was mostly gay ever since I can remember. I know it troubles many people for me to refer to myself as a lesbian considering I have a male partner. . . .

 

FULL STOP. Ms. Stasey is currently in a relationship with actor Lucas Neff, 29, recently notorious for his hatred of Republicans:

‘Guns kill people. Men murder women.’
Actor Lucas Neff’s anti-gun rant goes ‘beta’

‘Anti-choice’ ‘scumbag women’: Actor Lucas Neff
says more female GOPers don’t make party less sexist

So girls who grow up masturbating to lesbian fantasies are into guys like Lucas Neff. Go figure. Back to Ms. Stasey’s account:

My vagina has been an unending and constant source of turmoil for me — not that vaginas are intrinsically female, it’s just happened to be a big part of womanhood for me personally — [urinary tract infections], PH imbalances, sexual dysfunction, pain, discomfort. Sexual education is no way near comprehensive enough as all of these things I’ve had to learn myself, treat myself & diagnose myself. I’m still struggling to gain control over my body, over my vagina. . . .
Growing up in dueling worlds — Catholic & secular — my relationship to my sexuality was constantly in flux. I tried not to think about it unless I needed to masturbate. Instead of it being a part of me it felt like a weird compulsion I had to take care of every now and then and then try to forget about. I used to pray every time I touched myself and I would cry myself to sleep, fearful of the wrath of God, guilty for my sins etc. etc. . . .

 

FULL STOP. Notice that in the conflict between her “dueling worlds,” Ms. Stasey is certain that it’s the “wrath of God” part that’s wrong, rather than her own perverse compulsions. Because I’m not Catholic, I have no idea what Ms. Stasey was taught in her schools. Growing up Baptist, I learned that humans are naturally sinful and can only be saved through grace. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:23-24). Furthermore, “we know that all things work together for good to them that love God” (Romans 8:28). Knowing this, through all my backsliding and wickedness and troubles, I never lost faith nor doubted the righteousness of God.

Excuse me for preaching, but some people can’t seem to get their minds around this concept of total human depravity and salvation by grace. Dude, back in the day I dealt dope in felony weight. I worked as a strip club DJ. I’ve seen total human depravity face-to-face, and have survived to tell you Jonathan Edwards was right: We are sinners in the hands of an angry God, deserving nothing but destruction, with no hope at all but grace. We can never deserve salvation by our own merit (“filthy rags” Isaiah 64:6) and thus can have no pride or self-righteousness. Yet despite our utter wretchedness, we are called to the service of the Lord of Heaven and Earth. “If God be for us, who can be against us?”

Well, Caitlin Stasey is certainly against us:

 

What is your political stance on women’s reproductive rights?
No one anywhere ever should EVER be able to tell a woman what is right for her body regarding her reproductive rights. If you’re pro life/anti contraceptive, swell, just keep it to your f–king self & practice it, don’t enforce it on others.
Are you pro life or pro choice?
Super duper pro pro pro SUPER PRO choice. I volunteer at a clinic that performs clinical abortions & escort patients to the waiting room from their cars, just to help them avoid harassment & so that they can see that they are supported.
What are your feelings about contraceptives? Their availability, cost, stigma, usage?
Contraceptives should be free, they should come in a wide variety pertaining to the needs of the individual & should be available on every f–king street corner.
What are your feelings on casual sex?
As long as it’s consensual, casual sex is an incredible tool to empower yourself with, help you learn your own body & its needs. Just BE SAFE.
Are you in a relationship(s)?
I am in a somewhat open relationship with the love of my life. We are not polyamorous but do not limit ourselves physically.
What are your feelings on marriage?
As an archaic institution it’s just awful, as a modern culture it’s even worse. The wedding industry is exploitative & gendered & drives the women who feel compelled to participate to madness. However, I’m an advocate of empowering women to do what THEY want & as long as they’re getting married because they TRULY believe it’s what THEY want & not what is expected OF them, then go for it. . . .
What are your feelings on monogamy?
It’s so pointless, painful & archaic. If it works for you and you genuinely find true contentment within monogamy then by all means endure it, but the fact that it’s the status quo is truly discriminative.

 

You can read the whole thing, which is illustrated with naked photos of Caitlyn Stasey, but I’m sure no Christian would be tempted to sinful lustfor her after reading the hideous madness that pours forth from her disordered mind full of “vile affections” (Romans 1:26).

 

In my studies of radical feminism for the “Sex Trouble” series, I’ve noticed that this combination of personal confusion and politicalcertainty is so common as to be typical. Kate MillettAndrea Dworkin,Joyce TrebilcotLaurie Penny — these are all “broken people,” as Professor Reynolds said, sharing the radical conviction that those of us who are normal, sane and happy are the real problem in the world.

 

In Which a Grumpy Lesbian Offers Her Feminist Understanding of Men

 

 http://theothermccain.com/2015/02/03/in-which-a-grumpy-lesbian-offers-her-feminist-understanding-of-men/

You know, just once, it would be nice if we heard a married grandmother’s analysis of male psychology, sharing insights from her happy life with her husband, raising sons and daughters, observing their experience of dating and marriage and so forth.

Grant that men are always irritated by female criticism — it injures our pride and puts us on the defensive — but we might be willing to heed such criticism if it came from a woman who was successful in her own relationships with men. Instead we get lectured by emotionally unstable graduate students and various professional ax-grinders who have made careers of proclaiming their oppressed victimhood.

“The personal is the political,” and so feminist analysis nearly always emerges from the experiences of maladjusted misfits.

But why bring up Laurie Penny again?

No, let’s consult the amateur feminists of Tumblr.com. Here is Lost Princess of the Lizard People (“40 .. . gay, female . . . geek”) attempting to analyze Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs):

One of the funny things about MRAs is, many of their ideals seem self-contradictory — for example — not wanting to compete with women in the workforce, but at the same time, angry about female freeloading (I’ve even heard arguments that resent women for having sex work as an alternative to homelessness — totally ignoring the existence of men who do sex work — and that argue that women even take traditionally female dominated jobs away from men), They also tend to scream pretty loudly about their resentment of the traditional male role. They call women prudes on the one hand but sluts on the other.
It would seem this doesn’t make any sense. This is not what your chauvinist grandpa from Texas would’ve ever said; this is not the sexism we’re familiar with. It seems so ridiculous. Is anyone really this stupid??
Most seem like they’re espousing some kind of progressivism out of one side of their mouth and traditional chauvinism out of the other, and it seems so self contradictory …
What I am realizing is that no, these guys aren’t actually stupid. Many MRA attitudes are part of a larger, self-consistent world view. Let’s look at the things so many are into: a particularly radicalized form of atheism (rejection of traditional religions). Your chauvinist grandpa was all for organized religion. Objectivism, though strangely, from the other side of their mouth, they sound like they want a weird form of communism wherein they are just given accolades and raises and bonuses and kudos without ever earning them. Your chauvinist grandpa was too proud for that and even had a sense of fulfillment in hard work. And then there’s all the Libertarianism and anti-statism. Your chauvinist grandpa was an old school patriotic man, all for the military-industrial complex.
Instead of looking at MRAs only in terms of their misogyny facet, why not examine the entire picture?
They want to be aristocrats. They’re under the impression that this is the birthright of all white men. They don’t SAY this, but … it’s the only way their worldview makes sense, because from that point of view, the views that seemed contradictory, actually make sense. The “alpha/beta” (heirarchies), “Return of Kings” (an MRA site) brand aristocratic or even royal branding (this language pops up a lot) … it’s the only thing that makes this whole thing make sense.
This is a reason why arguments against them fail, because most people can’t figure out what their stand actually is, and get caught up in the vacillation. They listen hard to what’s being said but miss what was actually NOT said.
This is the only way that their superficially contradictory views make any sense. . If they were — they wouldn’t be competing with women, let alone other men, except very high status men. Any women they partnered with would come with their own wealth and *born* status (but low-status women of course would be sexually used and disposed of). They wouldn’t personally have to deal with the labor involved in running a household and they would be awarded kudos and pay without having to work overly hard for it.
Taken this way, their views about women become logically consistent, and fall into a consistent and logical frame work that accommodates their other views.

 

Thanks for your analysis, Lizard Princess.

As I’ve said before, I’m ambivalent toward the “Men’s Rights” movement. On the plus side, A Voice for Men consistently and directly opposes feminism, per se. This is very important.

For too long, the established Right has offered a neoconservative opposition to feminism that tries to win the argument by ceding the premise (i.e., that “sexual equality” is either desirable or possible) and offering women an ersatz “me too” Republican feminism. This is not the original (and successful) anti-feminism of conservative women led by Phyllis Schlafly. Nor is it even the anti-feminism of Jeanne Kirkpatrick, a real neoconservative who rejected the feminist movement because of its hostility to marriage and motherhood. While I appreciate the valuable work of Christina Hoff Sommers, her attempt to rescue the “feminist” label from the feminist movement was doomed from the start. The title of Dr. Sommers’ most famous book poses a question: Who Stole Feminism?And the answer is, “Nobody.” Marxist radicals, abortion lobbyists and lesbian man-haters did not “steal” feminism; they were in control of the Women’s Liberation Movement from its very inception in the 1960s. Trying to re-define “feminism” for conservative purposes is futile and perhaps even dishonest. Our proper goal is to oppose feminism, and MRAs are willing to do so without apology.

On the negative side, however, the phrase “Men’s Rights” implies that males and females are necessarily antagonistic in their interests, an idea I reject. The problem, as I see it, is that feminists have wrongly intruded the political language of “rights” into a private sphere. Remember that the title of Kate Millett’s 1970 book (the first book produced by the Women’s Liberation Movement) was Sexual Politics — which is the problem of feminism summarized in two words.

FEMINISM IS ABOUT SEX!

POLITICS CAN’T SOLVE YOUR SEX PROBLEMS!

Excuse me for shouting in ALL CAPS there, but after more than four decades of failing to solve the basic problem they set out to solve, I think people need to wake up to the truth. Human nature is not infinitely malleable. Attempting to re-arrange society to accommodate the permanent discontent of professional ax-grinders has not solved their problem, because their problem is an inability to adjust successfully to normal adulthood. Instead, feminism has only created new problems for women, problems that did not exist before the Women’s Liberation Movement began its futile attempt to bring about an egalitarian androgynous utopia.

Is anyone surprised to learn that our Lizard Princess (“40 . . . gay, female . . . geek”) failed in heterosexual relationships — she speaks about an ex-husband, a marriage that apparently lasted less than two years — and has since experienced failure in her lesbian relationships? Valentine’s Day was always unhappy with her most recent partner:

This is the kind of sh*t my ex pulled about nearly all “special days”.
me: “So what do you want to do?”
ex: “Anything you come up with will be great” (note that it was always up to me to do the romancing; I was basically cast into the traditional male role in a lot of ways)
The day rolls around.
me: “How do you like it?”
ex, starry eyed and smiling: “Oh it was wonderful! I love it when you do that.”
Six months later:
Ex picks fight seemingly out of nowhere.
ex: “I knew you’d forget about ___ (insert random thing), you didn’t even remember what I liked for [Valentine’s Day].”
me: “Wait, I asked you what you wanted to do.”
ex: “there you go, you never remember our conversations, because you weren’t paying attention. I TOLD you.”
-or-
ex: “You did, but if you’d actually paid attention to what I like, you would’ve known. But you didn’t, and never do.”
me: “Well, I can’t read your mind.”
ex: “You didn’t have to read my mind, you just didn’t know me.”

 

Lizard Princess elsewhere complains:

 Basically, my associations with relationships and [Valentine’s Day] are memories of painful awkwardness. It only tended to highlight how bad the relationship actually was, it was something we had to grin and bear until we broke up a week later. Seriously, most of my relationships have broken up a week or two after [Valentine’s Day] . . .
So yes. I F–KING HATE VALENTINE’S DAY AS A COUPLE HOLIDAY.
Every single [Valentine’s Day] I have is a day I count my blessings that I am not in a f–ked up situation and it feels like *fresh air*. And dammit, I do want to be healed and whole enough to love someone again, but I have really bad associations around [Valentine’s Day].

UNHAPPY PEOPLE ARE UNHAPPY

There’s your real bottom line. Do I claim to know why all of Lizard Princess’s relationships have been such hopeless bummers? No. As I said of Jillian Dunham, maybe it’s just bad luck or maybe it’s bad judgment.

Finding a good relationship requires either (a) an ability to recognize good character, or (b) an ability to cope with the particular character flaws of the imperfect partner you have chosen. Maybe also (c) a bit of both, because very few people are of such excellent character that their partner never has any cause for complaint. What you must avoid is situation (d) — being a flawed person who attracts other flawed people and yet is unable either to admit your own shortcomings or to accept your partner’s shortcomings.

The Lizard Princess’s complaints about her partners are not necessarilywrong, nor do I doubt that she might have identified something important about the mentality of many MRAs, in their ideal of an atheist libertarian aristocracy of Alpha males. The problem, as with most feminist analysis, is that we have unhappy misfits telling us what’s wrong with “society,” rather than having successful people telling us how to succeed and be happy in society as it exists.

Alas, the unhappy misfits are so full of envy and self-righteousness that none of them would listen to good advice if it were offered, nor can we expect them to ask happy successful people to share the secrets of our success and happiness. (Hint: People used to tell me I acted like I was God’s gift to women. I seldom bothered to explain that it’s not acting.)

And what’s with this site calling itself “A Return of Kings”? When were we ever deposed and overthrown? Our reign has been continuous, no matter what that chattering rabble may say.

Speaking of A Voice for Men, Pierce Harlan reports that a New Jersey grand jury has declined to indict five students at William Paterson University who were accused of gang rape.

The accusation was false? But . . . I thought women never lie about rape.