Hating Babies, Hating Mothers

 

http://theothermccain.com/2015/05/18/hating-babies-hating-mothers/

 

“I don’t want a baby. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . .
“This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, January 2014

“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
— Simone de Beauvoir, 1975

“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men have oppressed women.”
— Redstockings, 1969

Professor Glenn Reynolds is stunned by the condescending tone of a New York Times article on wealthy stay-at-home moms:

Okay, so the implication is that there’s something wrong with being married to a rich, powerful man? And there’s also something wrong with “intensive mothering,” which apparently means being intensively involved in your child’s upbringing? . . .
[I]f this is slavery — being married to a rich/powerful husband, being able to stay at home with one’s children, and having time to get involved with charitable causes — I think a lot of women would willingly sign up.
Only a hardcore feminist would think such a life is odd enough to pen an anthropological essay about it in the New York Times.

 

Ah, Professor, but in the elite media, “only a hardcore feminist” is ever allowed to write anything about women’s lives.

The goal of the Feminist-Industrial Complex is to indoctrinate all college students in feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology, and thisNew York Times article is about trying to figure out how these women managed to resist. Too many Disney movies, maybe?

“The radical feminist argument is that men have forced women into heterosexuality in order to exploit them . . .”
— Celia KitzingerThe Social Construction of Lesbianism(1987)

Heterosexuality is oppression. Motherhood is slavery.

‘Could It Be Any More Obvious?’

War Against Human Nature: What Feminists Pay $47,030 a Year to Learn

http://theothermccain.com/2015/05/17/war-against-human-nature-what-feminists-pay-47030-a-year-to-learn/

 

It takes a lot of money to learn how to disregard — or condemn as “oppression” — ordinary common sense about human nature. When my wife and I went to the accountant to have our taxes done, one of my business expenses was the approximately $700 I’d spent buying feminist books from Amazon.com during 2014. This was necessary for my research into radical feminist gender theory in the book Sex Trouble. The research continues because, as I say in the introduction to the first edition, Sex Trouble is “a work in progress,” and my current plan is to publish a revised and expanded second edition in August. Here are the 10 most recent books I’ve purchased in the past two months:

Each of these titles was purchased for a reason. For example, Estelle Freedman is a Stanford University professor who is hugely influential in academia, being for example the editor of The Essential Feminist Reader(2007), an assigned textbook in many introductory Women’s Studies courses. That she was also editor of a 1985 collection of lesbian-feminist essays is not a coincidence and, when I encountered a reference to Professor Freedman’s earlier work in the notes of another feminist book, I decided to check it out. (Very interesting.) As to the 1975 book co-edited by Charlotte Bunch, well, you can Google her name and perhaps figure out why Professor Bunch’s controversial past might be highly relevant and newsworthy in 2016.

What nearly all of these books have in common is that they are either written or edited by Women’s Studies professors or else, as in the case of Adrienne Rich, are by authors whose works are included in the Women’s Studies curricula. As readers of Sex Trouble know, the book focuses on academia — the Feminist-Industrial Complex — because it is by institutionalizing their power in colleges and universities, with Women’s Studies departments as the engine of their influence, that radical feminists have gained hegemonic authority within elite culture.

“I am a gender abolitionist because gender is
a social construct that oppresses everyone.”
“The threat of violence alone affords
all men dominance over all women.”

Academic feminism has received relatively little critical scrutiny (Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women’s Studiesby Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge being a commendable exception), and most people have no idea what kind of bizarre nonsense students are being taught nowadays. If you think of feminism as mere “equality” in the sense of basic fairness, you need to read Sex Trouble and find out what feminism really means. And it’s only $11.69 in paperback, which is a lot less than you’d pay to study this stuff at college.

Friday, in discussing Kate Spencer (a feminist victim of “body shame” and other patriarchal oppressions), I mentioned that she had gotten a bachelor’s degree in Women’s Studies from Bates College, an elite private liberal arts college where annual tuition is $47,030. Here is the official description of that program:

The goal of the Program in Women and Gender Studies is to enable learners to recognize, analyze, and transform gender relations as they appear in everyday life. The program provides the opportunity to study women as social agents whose identities and experiences are shaped by systems of race, class, sexuality, and national power. At the same time, to study gender is to refute simple assertions about women, men, and gender binaries, and to strive instead for richly detailed accounts of the political, economic, and technological conditions through which relations of power have been established and maintained.
Analyzing gender enriches our ability to apprehend the differing social roles assigned to individuals, the inequitable distribution of material resources, and the ties between structures of knowledge and larger systems of privilege and oppression. Courses examine women and gender relations in multiple cultural, historical, and material contexts, encouraging the use of transnational, multiracial feminist perspectives.

 

The chairwoman of the department is Professor Rebecca Herzig:

Historian Rebecca Herzig holds the College’s only full-time faculty appointment in Women and Gender Studies. She teaches an array of interdisciplinary courses on science, technology, and medicine, as well as the program’s required methods course, Methods and Modes of Inquiry. Her latest book, Plucked: A History of Hair Removal, is available now at nyupress.org.

A small school like Bates College (with fewer than 1,800 students) can afford only one full-time Women’s Studies professor, but because the field is “interdisciplinary,” it is also taught by faculty from other departments. By this cross-departmental influence, feminist ideology permeates the curriculum. Thus, the Bates College Women and Gender Studies faculty also includes Holly Ewing (Associate Professor, Environmental Studies), Leslie Hill (Associate Professor, Politics), Sue Houchins (Associate Professor, African American Studies), Erica Rand(Professor, Art and Visual Culture), and Emily W. Kane (Professor, Sociology). In case you’re wondering what kind of innovative scholarship these eminent academics are sharing with their students, I’ll point out that Professor Kane is author of The Gender Trap: Parents and the Pitfalls of Raising Boys and Girls (2012) and Rethinking Gender and Sexuality in Childhood (2013). Perhaps you will not be surprised to learn that Professor Kane is implacably hostile to “traditionally gendered childhoods” and “conventional gender expectations,” which she blames for “persistent gender inequalities.”

This is what feminism has been about for more than 40 years. In 1969, the feminist collective Redstockings declared:

 

We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . Men have controlled all political, economic and cultural institutions and backed up this control with physical force. They have used their power to keep women in an inferior position. . . . All men have oppressed women.

 

The “inferior position” of women and the “power” which men use to oppress women — the source of those “persistent gender inequalities” denounced by Professor Kane — are simply the results of normal human behaviors, i.e., masculinity and femininity, love, marriage, sex, parenthood and the traditional family. Normal relations between normal men and normal women are both the cause and effect of women’s oppression, whereby women are “exploited as sex objects” and “breeders,” as the Redstockings declared:

 

We are considered inferior beings, whose only purpose is to enhance men’s lives. Our humanity is denied.

Is this true? Was it true in 1969 or at any previous time? Did your father exploit your mother as a “breeder”? Was your grandfather the agent of your grandmother’s oppression? Was your great-grandmother’s humanity denied because your great-grandfather kept her in an inferior position as a “sex object”? This is what feminist theory teaches, that human history has been nothing but a gigantic patriarchal conspiracy through which men (all men) have oppressed women (all women), and the overthrow of this collective oppression requires a revolution:

 

 

Because we have lived so intimately with our oppressors, in isolation from each other, we have been kept from seeing our personal suffering as a political condition. This creates the illusion that a woman’s relationship with her man is a matter of interplay between two unique personalities, and can be worked out individually. In reality, every such relationship is a class relationship, and the conflicts between individual men and women are political conflicts that can only be solved collectively.

 

To achieve this solution, the Redstockings proclaimed, feminists must “develop female class consciousness . . . exposing the sexist foundation of all our institutions.” They denied “the existence of individual solutions,” condemning what they described as the false assumption “that the male-female relationship is purely personal.” The co-founder of Redstockings was Shulamith Firestone who, in her 1970 book The Dialectic of Sex, declared that “the end goal of feminist revolution must be . . . not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself” (p. 11). Firestone called for “an end to the incest taboo, through abolition of the family,” so that “sexuality would be released from its straitjacket to eroticize our whole culture” (p. 55). She flatly declared “Pregnancy is barbaric” (p. 180), described women as “the slave class” (p. 184), and envisioned a “new society” in which “humanity could finally revert to its natural polymorphous sexuality — all forms of sexuality would be allowed and indulged” (p. 187). Firestone denounced the family because “it reinforces biologically-based sex class (p. 198) and asserted that “marriage in its very definition . . . was organized around, and reinforces, a fundamentally oppressive biological condition” (p. 202).

The fact that Shulamith Firestone was clinically insane (a paranoid schizophrenic who died alone in 2012 at age 67) might serve as sufficient rebuttal to her doctrine, but by the time her madness became evident — she was committed to a psychiatric unit in 1987 — the radical movement she helped launch had gained a solid foothold in academia, publishing, law and politics. Firestone and other early leaders of the Women’s Liberation Movement had been political activists of the New Left. Others were journalists (e.g., Marilyn Webb, Gloria Steinem, Jill Johnston, Susan Brownmiller). It was only after the radical feminist movement shattered into incoherent splinters in the mid-1970s that the creation of Women’s Studies programs at colleges and universities provided the institutional infrastructure around which the Feminist-Industrial Complex has since been built. Thousands of professors are now employed to indoctrinate students in this ideology, and no one in 21st-century academia dares criticize or oppose feminism for fear of being accused of “discrimination” or “harassment.” What the Women’s Studies major “knows” is never contradicted by any authority on campus, and what she “knows” is that all women are victims of male supremacy.

“Male power is systemic. Coercive, legitimated, and epistemic, it is the regime.”
— Catharine MacKinnonToward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989)

“Recognizing that the ‘personal is political’ allowed women to identify . . . that what they took to be their own personal failings . . . were not just individual experiences. . . . The ‘private’ world was recognized as the basis of the power men wielded in the ‘public’ world of work and government. . . . The concept that the personal is political enabled feminists to understand the ways in which the workings of male dominance penetrated into their relationships with men. They could recognize how the power dynamics of male dominance made heterosexuality into a political institution, constructed male and female sexuality, and the ways in which women felt about their bodies and themselves.”
— Sheila JeffreysBeauty and Misogyny: Harmful Cultural Practices in the West (2014)

Because feminism now controls the terms of academic research and discussion about human sexuality, the university student today never encounters any articulate defense of normal behavior.

Love, marriage and motherhood are condemned by feminists, as is heterosexuality, per se. All of this is implicit in feminist gender theory — the “social construction” of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix— and anyone who does not accept this theory is subject to denunciation as a bigot, a misogynist, a homophobe.

Parents pay for their children to learn how to think this way — tuition at Bates College is, I repeat, $47,030 a year — and the question is, “Why?”

As I say, I spent about $700 buying feminist books last year and probably understand it as well as any heteropatriarchal oppressor ever could. Yetthe Sex Trouble project is a continuing effort funded by readers who understand the importance of “Taking Feminism Seriously.” Because I’ve been able to purchase many of these books used from Amazon, my total cost for the 10 feminist books I’ve purchased in the past two months was $136.42, and this library of lunatic literature will keep growing. Why? Because if God will grant me another few months of life, I expect to make some appearances at university campuses next fall, and it can be predicted that young feminists will challenge my analysis: “But you don’tunderstand feminism!”

Yet there will be a table beside me, and on that table will be these stacks of books, you see. So I’ll gesture to the table, and perhaps hold up a few of the books to cite the titles and authors by name, before answering the angry student: “No, ma’am. You don’t understand feminism.”

 

 

 

Feminist Logic: Shut Up, Haters

http://theothermccain.com/2015/05/15/kate-spencer-feminist-feminism/

 

Did you know @KateSpencer has “self-inflicted body shame”? Yeah, your first thought is probably: Kate Who? But before we answer that question,let’s talk about her body shame:

 

Because I am thirty-three years old [she wrote in 2013], and I am still not comfortable in my own body. I haven’t been since I was eight and I sprouted breasts before everybody else . . . I wasn’t when I was twelve and towered over boys, slouching to bring myself down in inches. Nor was I at nineteen, skinny-dipping in the waters off of Long Island with my closest college friends. Even though I was drunk and stoned the shame was still able to find a way in . . .
I was not comfortable in my body in my twenties . . . And I wasn’t after I gave birth to my daughter at thirty-one . . .
The thing about self-inflicted body shame and self-loathing is that it seeps into other aspects of your life. It makes you feel unworthy in other situations . . . It’s a cycle of worthlessness that weaves its way into social interactions, sexual relationships, and random moments of your life.

 

You can read the whole thing, if you have a weird voyeuristic interest in watching someone publicly wallow in useless self-pity. But now let’s answer your question, Kate Who?

Kate Spencer has been writing and performing at the UCB Theatre since 2002. She is a member of the improv team Reuben Starship and co-host of the pop culture panel show Shut Up! I Hate You! Kate is a Senior Producer/Writer and on-air correspondent for VH1, where she spends a lot of time yapping on TV and the internet about pop culture and celebrity news. She’s interviewed everyone from George Clooney to Kristen Stewart to Fleetwood Mac, and one time Connie Britton called her “adorable” and she almost cried. Writing credits include: Newsweek/Daily Beast, Vulture, Hello Giggles, College Humor and The Huffington Post, who named Kate one of their “18 Funny Women You Should Be Following On Twitter.”

 

Oh, right: Women full of self-loathing are so hilarious. But it was on Twitter where — har-de-har-har — she posted this:

“People who refuse to believe women are harassed online sure do love to make their point by harassing women online.”

Non sequitur much? Does anyone deny the existence of online harassment? Certainly not I, having been harassed by the deranged cyberstalker Bill Schmalfeldt, among others. But this “harassment” meme has been exploited by feminists as part of an attempt to paint their critics as dangerously violent haters, thus to (a) elicit sympathy for feminists; (b) discredit all opposition to feminism as inspired by misogyny; and (c) try to get their critics banned from Twitter and/or subjected to criminal prosecution. Because feminism is a totalitarian ideology, it can only succeed by silencing opposition. This is what has happened in academia, where Title IX has been weaponized and deployed to prohibit criticism of feminist dogma. (Remember that Larry Summers was forced to resign as president of Harvard University after he publicly speculated about“innate differences” between men and women.) After more than two decades of increasingly rigid feminist hegemony in higher education, most college-educated people under 40 have been so thoroughly indoctrinated in the false premises of feminist ideology that not only can they not “think outside the box,” but they’ve never met anyone who could explain to them that there is a box.

Feminists now believe that only women are targeted by online harassment, and furthermore believe that any negative attention online is “harassment,” and SHUT UP, HATER! Having spent the past 17 months researching and writing about radical feminism — Sex Trouble, $11.69 in paperback, $1.99 in Kindle ebook — I’ve long since become accustomed to this reaction. Inside the Feminist Internet Bubble, everybody tells each other how awesomely clever they are, so that all any woman needs to do is to declare herself a feminist and she can immerse herself in a digital estrogen bath of self-affirmation. However, the minute anyone from outside this bubble calls attention to the absurdity or falsehood of feminist claims — ZOMG! You’re a hateful ignorant misogynist engaged in the Internet equivalent of rape!

The fool cannot stand to have her ideological folly held up to critical scrutiny and (perhaps you have noticed) the critic need not even offer a detailed analysis or a counter-theory in order to provoke feminists to shrieking panic and fury. Merely to quote what the feminist has said and expose it to readers outside the Feminist Internet Bubble is deemed hateful “harassment.” Why? Because the errors and falsehoods of feminism are generally self-evident, they inspire caustic mockery from any sane person with ordinary common sense. Nothing is more offensive to feminists than being mocked by ordinary people with common sense.

 

What we are not supposed to notice is the problematic premises asserted within what I call feminism’s Patriarchal Thesis:

  1. All women are victims of oppression;
  2. All men benefit from women’s oppression;
    therefore
  3. Whatever.

In other words, when your worldview begins with the assumption that normal human life is a system of injustice in which all women (collectively) are victimized by all men (collectively), then it is possible to justify almost anything you do as part of your effort to overthrow this oppressive system. Smash Patriarchy!

 

The Patriarchal Thesis absolves feminists of any obligation to meet the ordinary requirements of intelligent discourse. Logic is unnecessary and, as for facts, they are (a) whatever feminists say they are or (b) irrelevant if they do not confirm the Patriarchal Thesis. Believing themselves oppressed, and believing that men universally participate in the oppression of women, feminists thereby justify themselves in telling blatant lies and insulting men. Anyone who dares call notice to the hateful dishonesty of feminism is presumed to be a dimwit with bad motives because, of course, feminists are the moral and intellectual superiors of anyone who disagrees with them.

 

So, you may ask, exactly how oppressed is Kate Spencer? The crucible of her adolescent suffering was Dana Hall School (annual tuition $43,200), and she got her bachelor of arts degree in Women’s Studies from Bates College (annual tuition $47,030). In other words, she was a rich prep school kid who attended one of those money-no-object New England liberal arts colleges at which she never had to encounter any grubby commoners from places where people drive pickup trucks, listen to hillbilly music, believe in Jesus and vote Republican.

Kate Spencer‘s yearly prep school tuition bill was more than the median household income in New Mexico, Tennessee and seven other states, but she is oppressed because of her body shame. Don’t you dare doubt hervictimhood, you sexist bigot, because her suffering makes Kate Spencer your superior. If you should express any objection to Kate Spencer’s insulting nonsense, why, that’s clearly illegal harassment!

Don’t ever bother hating Kate Spencer, you stupid Republican rednecks, because you could never hate her as much as she hates herself. And, of course, her self-hatred is your fault.