The Feminist Abyss

http://www.avoiceformen.com/featured/the-feminist-abyss/

 

May 21, 2015 By 

 

Note: This article is also available in Romanian.

What do we mean by the word “feminism”? This question has become increasingly crucial to the way that we talk about men, women and sex in the 21st century. Almost everyone claims to accept feminism if they can be permitted to define it in the most commonly accepted understanding of “equality” as basic fairness.

Especially in terms of educational and employment opportunity, no one argues in favor of discrimination against women. Yet this widely accepted idea of feminism, as a concern for equality in the sense of fairness and opportunity, is not the goal of the feminist movement today, nor was this the goal of the movement when it began in the late 1960s. The leaders of the Women’s Liberation movement were radicals — many of them were avowed Marxists — who advocated a social revolution to destroy the basic institutions of Western civilization, which they denounced as an oppressive system of male supremacy, often labeled “patriarchy.”

Women are oppressed and men are their oppressors, feminists declared, calling for the destruction of this systematic oppression: “Smash patriarchy!”

Feminism confuses many people who do not understand that the movement has a political philosophy — a theory — and that this theory is fundamentally incompatible with human nature. In fact, feminists do not believe there is such a thing as “human nature.” They insist instead that all human behavior (especially including sexual behavior) is “socially constructed” and, because feminists believe that the society that constructs our behavior is a male-dominated system which oppresses women, everything that we accept as “human nature” is part of that oppressive system. A feminist blogger explained this in July 2014:

Radical Feminism is, and has always been a political movement focused on liberating girls and women, those who are born into the sex caste female, from the unnatural, yet universal roles patriarchy has assigned.

Radical Feminism fights to disassemble the subliminal sex role behavior performances that cause female subordination. . . . This is socialized behavior instruction. It’s a teaching, a grooming from birth that is false, harmful to our freedom and must stop.

What this blogger described as “the unnatural, yet universal roles patriarchy has assigned” are the characteristics we call masculinity and femininity — the normal traits and behaviors of men and women. Feminists consider these roles “unnatural,” both the cause and effect of “female subordination,” and their movement can therefore never be satisfied with the simple fairness that most of us think of as “equality.” As long as these “universal roles” (masculine men and feminine women) continue to define human existence, feminism has not achieved its objective.

“PIV is always rape, OK?” Mocking laughter greeted this declaration from an anonymous radical feminist blogger who, in December 2013, explained that heterosexual intercourse — PIV being a feminist acronym for “penis-in-vagina” — is “inherently harmful,” a manifestation of male supremacy and the patriarchy’s violent oppression of women. The same blogger elsewhere declared, “No woman is heterosexual,” a statement that seems absurd, except to those who have studied the influential feminist scholars whose theories support such a claim.

Heterosexuality, these authors argue, is never a woman’s own free choice, nor is female heterosexuality the result of natural instinct or biological urges. Rather, according to radical theorists whose works are commonly taught in Women’s Studies courses at universities everywhere, women who are sexually attracted to men have been indoctrinated — brainwashed by “hetero-grooming” — to believe that male companionship is desirable or necessary to their happiness.

The blogger whose anti-PIV rantings inspired so much laughter (“Was she dropped on her head?”) was, in fact, able to cite as sources for her arguments such eminent feminist authors as Mary Daly, Dee Graham and Sheila Jeffreys. To say that these lesbian feminists are “controversial,” and that their radical views are not shared by the majority of American women who call themselves “feminists,” is by no means a refutation of their arguments.

Those who would attempt to separate “mainstream” feminism from the more radical aspects of its ideology cannot avoid the problem that the faculty and curricula of university Women’s Studies programs — where feminism wields the authority of an official philosophy — are disproportionately dominated by radical lesbians.

This hegemonic influence is not merely manifested in the fact that outspoken lesbian activists are employed as directors and professors in Women’s Studies programs everywhere, but also plainly evident in the textbooks and readings assigned in their classrooms. Even if a moderate heterosexual feminist were to become a Women’s Studies professor, she would find it nearly impossible to assign a textbook that was not crammed with radical anti-male/anti-heterosexual readings from lesbian feminists like Charlotte Bunch, Adrienne Rich, Audre Lorde, Janice Raymond, Judith Butler and others.

It is this radical ideology which drives the feminist “rape culture” discourse that claims (contrary to evidence) women on college campuses are systematically victimized by male sexual violence. University administrations, state legislatures and even the federal government have reacted to these feminist claims, despite data showing that incidents of rape have declined nationwide in the past two decades, and that female college students are actually less likely to be raped than women who don’t attend college. When I covered a “SlutWalk” protest in Washington, D.C. — half-naked women marching to show that the way a woman dresses doesn’t mean she is “asking for it” — I listened to their chants and realized that their message was really about silencing critics of feminism: “Shut up, because rape.”

Feminism is a totalitarian movement that seeks to eliminate opposition by branding critics “misogynists” and “rape apologists” or as Amanda Marcotte called them, “rape truthers.” Attempts to discuss the actual prevalence of rape on college campuses are shouted down by feminist activists, and even after feminist claims are proven false (as when a Rolling Stone story about a “gang rape” at the University of Virginia was exposed as fraudulent), this doesn’t end the militant rhetoric. Why? Because the “rape culture” discourse isn’t about rape, it’s about culture. It is specifically about promoting a campus culture that is hostile to men and hostile to heterosexuality. This anti-male propaganda is intended to inspire in female students an attitude of hatred and suspicion toward male students: Fear and Loathing of the Penis.

Encountering this hateful attitude in feminist blogs, I began researching these radical theories in depth. Studying dozens of books by feminist authors, I encountered many dangerous ideas and theories, some of them so crazy as to provoke laughter. Thus was inspired “McCain’s Law of Feminism.”

There are three kinds of feminism:

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

When in doubt, it’s usually Number Three.

Sarcasm aside, however, it’s no joking matter. Feminists take their ideas very seriously, and their influence in our society — especially among the intellectual elite — means that we cannot afford to laugh them off, no matter how wrong or how crazy their ideas may be. Nor does the wrongness or insanity of their ideas mean that the problems feminists complain about are non-existent. Even if there is no “epidemic” of rape on university campuses, men do rape women, men do harass women, men do cheat and lie and do other bad things that hurt and harm women.

The problem with feminism is that, after more than four decades, the movement has changed society in ways that actually make it more likely that women will suffer these harms. Feminists have successfully attacked basic institutions — especially marriage and the family — that should provide women protection from many of these harms. Feminists have also attacked cultural norms of morality, and undermined customs of courtesy and decency, fostering a climate where there are no commonly recognized rules to prevent or mediate conflicts between men and women. The destruction of civilized restraints has unleashed savage impulses, so that sexual relations at times approach the “war of all against all” of which Thomas Hobbes once warned.

“The personal is political,” Women’s Liberation leader Carol Hanisch declared in the 1960s, and this is exactly the problem with the feminist movement. These are desperately unhappy women whose grievances are so profoundly personal that attempts to solve them through politics can never succeed. Feminists are crazy, but their craziness is rooted in anger, and this anger expresses itself as the politics of revenge. For women who succumb to this ideology of insane rage, it does not matter to whether their theories are wrong or whether innocent human beings are harmed by the policies they advocate.

The feminist movement demands blood sacrifice — the lives of more than a million unborn children are destroyed annually in the name of “a woman’s right to choose” — to appease their need for sadistic vengeance against the society they blame for their personal unhappiness. A movement organized with the death of innocents as one of its basic demands is not a movement that will be honest or ethical in the pursuit of its other demands. Feminism’s lies are therefore never accidental or random. Rather, deliberate deception is necessary to the movement’s success. Feminists lie because if they told the truth, their movement would be recognized for what it is, and would collapse in discredited failure.

Having spent more than a year researching feminist theory, I have exposed what can only be described as a bottomless abyss of perverse insanity. Bizarre ideas that were once discussed only in obscure academic journals now make headlines on a daily basis. The Pentagon shoves women into Army Ranger training. Former Olympic gold medalist Bruce Jenner “comes out” as transsexual. Pop singer Miley Cyrus announces her bisexuality and launches a crusade against “gender norms and identity.” Public schools want to teach radical feminist gender theory to elementary school kids. Feminism’s war against human nature is leading our society into a chaotic bedlam of androgynous confusion. As we stare together into the feminist abyss, we can never forget that the abyss is also staring back at us.


 

Editorial note: This article is adapted from Sex Trouble: Essays on Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature.–Eds

Today’s whiny feminism is killing sex

http://nypost.com/2015/11/22/todays-whiny-feminism-is-killing-sex/

by Karol Markowic

When I was growing up in the ’90s, the dominant feminist message delivered to teenage girls like me centered on female strength.

The magazine Sassy would arrive in my mailbox and contained a universe of strong girls doing cool things. Boys were OK — Sassy had a “Cute Boy Alert” feature, after all — but girls were super awesome. Girls were in bands, they called themselves “grrrl,” and sex was something they had or didn’t have as they pleased. Sisters, so the song went, were doing it for themselves.

What happened?

These days, women are treated as perpetual victims. In need of safe spaces at their colleges so they dare not hear alternative opinions, suspicious of all men as predators and infantilized by people in power seeking to protect them.

We’ve gotten to a point where society accepts that sex isn’t an action between two equals — we treat the man as always in control of the encounter. A drunk woman is incapable of consent while a drunk man remains responsible for all of his actions.

This is somehow seen as “pro-woman” and not as a way of turning a grown woman into a child, which is what it actually is. In the last year, feeling that this type of infantilization didn’t go far enough, there’s been a growing movement for “affirmative consent” on college campuses. Now consent must be verbally granted at every step of a sexual encounter.

Suddenly that, too, isn’t enough. In a piece for New York magazine called “The Game is Rigged,” Rebecca Traister tells the story of Reina Gattuso, a Harvard senior who wrote a column for The Crimson about a sexual experience she had. At a party, drunk, she’d slept with two men. She admits that it was entirely consensual but that she woke up “dissatisfied and confused” wondering about the power imbalance in sex.

Traister writes: “Eventually, she [Gattuso] realized that what she was grappling with was not just the night in question but also the failure of campus feminism to address those kinds of experiences. We tend to talk about consent ‘as an individual process,’ she wrote.” Instead of asking, “What kinds of power are operating in this situation?” the student complained, they only asked questions like, “Did you or did you not say yes?”

It’s not as simple as “yes” or “no,” she continued. “But ethical sex is hard. And it won’t stop being hard until we . . . minimize, as much as possible, power imbalances related to sex.”

Gattuso had, as women having consensual sex have throughout history, chosen the partners, the place, the time and the action. And yet she believes the power balance isn’t in her favor. Have we really gone so far down the rabbit hole that the obvious fact that women can have sex whenever and however they want to, while men can have sex only whenever and however women want to, isn’t obvious?

Traister notes that “young women don’t always enjoy sex” and “sex on offer to young women is not of very high quality.” Yes, young men are generally not very good at sex, film at 11. But Traister’s conclusion is that “the game is rigged” with the “game” being sex and the rigging being done by the sinister patriarchy to deprive women of sexual pleasure.

Apparently men are too self-involved and need to provide more in bed for women. The constant “men should do this for women” is the antithesis of feminism yet frequently embraced by self-described feminists.

The grrrls of the ’90s have given way to the uptight millennial women waiting on men to make them happy. But the game isn’t rigged — women need to step up and take responsibility for their own pleasure, just as men do, and not wait for men to provide it for them.

To send young men the message of total female powerlessness and then complain that they feel disempowered just proves the fact that most men aren’t even aware they’re playing a game, much less rigging it. The young women are — and they’re losing.

Is your Kid a Weirdo?

http://theothermccain.com/2015/11/21/is-your-kid-a-weirdo/

 

America is in the grip of a crisis, namely a shortage of normal people. Evidence indicates that the population of kooks and freaks is rapidly increasing, and there are simply not enough sane people to keep the weirdos under control. Especially among the under-30 demographic, the United States is struggling to cope with the proliferation of dangerous perverts, drug addicts, psychotics and Ivy League liberal arts majors:

A student at Columbia University is urging the school to inject more diversity into its required courses, claiming she suffered severe emotional trauma from reading too many books by and about white people.
Columbia students and faculty gathered Wednesday night for a panel discussion on “Race, Ethnicity, and University Life.” . . .
One of the panelists at the event was black Columbia student Nissy Aya. Aya was supposed to graduate in 2014, but instead is only on track to receive her degree in 2016. That, Aya says, demonstrates “how hard it has been for me to get through this institution” . . .
Aya attributed some of her academic troubles to the trauma of having to take Columbia’s current Core Curriculum, which requires students to take a series of six classes with a focus on the culture and history of Western, European civilization. . . .
“It’s traumatizing to sit in Core classes,” she said. “We are looking at history through the lens of these powerful, white men. I have no power or agency as a black woman, so where do I fit in?”

If you can afford to attend Columbia University (annual tuition $51,008), you are not an oppressed victim of society. A student at an elite university who believes she is being “traumatized” by the curriculum is delusional — she is demented, deranged, mad, zany, wacky, off her rocker, and a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

Everybody knows that Columbia attracts fruitcakes and dingbats. The alumni include Megan McCain and Barack Obama, after all. Unfortunately, this weirdo trend is not limited to the Ivy League elite. A poll finds that 40% of “Millennials” (ages 18-34) support prohibiting “statements that are offensive to minorities.”Everything written by “powerful, white men” (Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Hume, Locke, Madison, Burke, et al.) might eventually be banned as “hate speech,” in order to avoid “traumatizing” fragile neurotics like Nissy Aya.

Parents need to be aware that their children could be swept up in this pandemic insanity, which is highly contagious. Monitor your child’s psychological health by asking questions like, “Are you victimized by oppressive gender norms?” and, “Do you need a trigger warning before you read Shakespeare?” If a kid answers “yes” to questions like that — or if they dye their hair cerulean blue and start whining about “objectification” in video games — this indicates your child may be at risk of becoming a weirdo afflicted with Special Snowflake™ Syndrome.

Characteristically, these weirdos believe they are entitled to whatever they want, whether it is a Columbia diploma or better media “representation” of their sexual identity. The Special Snowflake™ is typically a privileged young person who identifies as a victim, either because of their race, their sexual orientation, or whatever mental illness (depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, etc.) they self-diagnosed based on a list of symptoms they read on a  blog. Your kid may seem perfectly fine — an honor student with lots of friends, cheerfully involved in extracurricular activities — and then quite suddenly, for no apparent reason, she starts moping around, wearing bizarre clothes, and grumbling about how she’s oppressed by the patriarchy.

Consider the case of a teenage girl, the daughter of two successful lawyers, who became convinced she was a victim of society:

I’ve never felt quite like a woman, but I’ve never wanted to be a man, either. . . .
I discovered my mistake one day in junior school, when a few of the girls in my class were chatting about what boys they fancied. . . . Even back then, there was something odd about me, a strangeness . . .
I couldn’t think of anything to say that would be both interesting and true. So I mentioned that I often felt like I was a gay boy in a girl’s body. Just like everyone else, right?
I could tell from their faces that this was not right. It was very, very wrong. . . .
I often wished I was a lesbian. But I almost always fancied boys, and if you fancied boys, you had to behave like a girl. And behaving like a girl was the one subject, apart from sports, that I always failed. . . .
I was anorexic for large parts of my childhood and for many complex, painful, altogether common reasons, of which gender dysphoria was just one. I felt trapped by the femaleness of my body, by my growing breasts and curves. Not eating made my periods stop. It made my breasts disappear. On the downside, it also turned me into a manic, suicidal mess, forced me to drop out of school, and traumatized my entire family.
At 17, I wound up in the hospital, in an acute eating disorders ward, where I stayed for six months. . . .
I was bisexual, and I was very much hoping that one day when I wasn’t quite so weird and sad I’d be able to test the theory in practice. . . .
I got better. . . . I left the trauma of the hospital far behind me and tried to cover up my past with skirts and makeup. . . .
At 24, I wrote columns about abortion rights and sexual liberation, and books about how to live and love under capitalist patriarchy. In response, young women wrote to me on a regular basis telling me that my work helped inspire them to live more freely in their femaleness. They admired me because I was a “strong woman.” Would I be betraying those girls if I admitted that half the time, I didn’t feel like a woman at all? . . .
Only when we recognize that “manhood” and “womanhood” are made-up categories, invented to control human beings and violently imposed, can we truly understand the nature of sexism, of misogyny, of the way we are all worked over by gender in the end. . . .
Questioning gender . . . is an essential part of the feminism that has sustained me through two decades of personal and political struggle.

Yes, Laurie Penny became “genderqueer,” and is now one of the World’s Most Famous Victims of Heteropatriarchal Oppression.

Victimhood can be quite a lucrative racket for a privileged Special Snowflake™ like Laurie Penny (who graduated from Oxford University and recently completed a prestigious Nieman fellowship at Harvard) but most weirdos cannot cash in so easily on their grandiose delusions of persecution. In fact, a kid who succumbs to this entitlement mentality could get arrested in Pocatello, Idaho:

An Idaho school was placed on lockdown after a student threatened to “kill all the girls” because none of them would send him nude photos.
A 15-year-old boy was charged with one count each of threatening violence at a school and telephone harassment in connection with the threats — which spread quickly across social media Wednesday morning and were then reported to officials at the Pocatello/Chubbuck School District.
Police immediately initiated a controlled access code at Highland High School as officers investigated the threat.
“Some kid who was having attention problems with specifically the cheerleaders, didn’t get nudes,” said student Isaac Gomez. . . .
A screenshot posted online by KIDK-TV appears to show a text message conversation between the teen and a friend who tries to talk the boy out of his violent plot, which he intended to carry out about 9:30 a.m. Friday.
“(I’m) serious I have a 12 gauge shotgun and a 9 mm pistol I will bring and start killing everyone,” one message said. “I also have hunting knives I can bring.” . . .
Additional messages between the teen and his friend suggested his motivation for wanting to kill girls at his school.
“This,” the friend texted, “Over freaking nudes? Dude.”
“Because no one will give any to me,” the teen complained. “Every one hates me. And I hate (one particular girl). And I will kill myself after.”

You see the pattern? Nissy Aya is “traumatized” because Columbia University requires her to read about white males. Laurie Penny is “traumatized” because of the gender that society “violently imposed” on her. And this 15-year-old boy in Pocatello, Idaho, was traumatized because the cheerleaders wouldn’t send him any freaking nudes.

Weirdos have always been dangerous, but now the weirdos are trying to take over society — in the Ivy League, at BuzzFeed, in Idaho — and there are not enough normal people to stop them.

These weirdos are not victims of society. They are the products of inadequate parenting, and our civilization is slowly being destroyed because of the petulant tantrums of whiny brats whose parents lacked the courage to tell their spoiled offspring that the world is not obligated to indulge your hurt feelings. When adults abdicate authority, children never learn to respect others or accept personal responsibility. And so the “broken people” are everywhere nowadays . . .

On ‘Fragile Masculinity’

http://theothermccain.com/2015/11/20/on-fragile-masculinity/

 

Sarah Taylor Gibson (@s_t_gibson on Twitter) is a young Christian college student who also calls herself a feminist, evidently having failed to understand what feminism actually requires.

“There are no Christian feminists, because feminism is a sort of narcissistic idolatry, wherein women deny God and instead worship themselves as their own divinity.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Dec. 17

Feminism permits women to view their own selfishness as altruism. Feminism also justifies cruelty and dishonesty. By telling themselves that they are oppressed — and that males are both the perpetrators and beneficiaries of systematic injustice against them — feminists grant themselves a license to be deliberately cruel toward men because all men are oppressors and thus deserving of such cruelty. Feminism is a radical egalitarian ideology that tells women “equality” is the only true moral ideal (the summum bonum), a goal which can only be achieved by the destruction of a social order that feminist theory condemns as a manifestation of male supremacy. Everything men do is wrong — an exercise of unjust privilege — and nothing any man says is valid. Because its condemnation of males is without limit or qualification (all men are guilty of oppression, simply because they are male) feminist theory destroys any basis of trust, respect or cooperation between the sexes. Yet feminists typically deny the implications of their own theory, resorting to dishonest sophistry to conceal from critical scrutiny what feminism really means. Feminists refuse to debate their critics, instead seeking to silence all opposition, especially in media and academia. Because the movement’s naïve young followers never encounter any articulate criticism of their ideology, they seem to imagine that all intelligent people support the feminist cause.

Here is a Tumblr mini-lecture from Sarah Taylor Gibson:

What perplexes me the most about the fragile masculinity of straight men is the fact that machismo is not what women want. Lets look, for example, to the men girls have plastered all over their bedroom walls in highschool. What could be a better insight into the deeply personal sexual psyche of a girl figuring out what she wants? Sometimes the posters are of jacked action movie heroes or football players, but I would argue you’re more likely to find those in a boy’s room, not a girls. When I remember my friend’s bedrooms in highschool, I remember willowy anime heartthrobs, singer-songwriters in eyeliner and tight jeans, soft-lipped big-eyed child idols, and rock stars that kissed other boys on stage. When I think of the two biggest movie dreamboats from the 2000s I think of Captain Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean and Legolas from Lord of the Rings. Every other girl in my high school had posters over her bed of a swaggering trinket-laden trickster diva and a flawlessly blonde gymnastically graceful Elvin beauty. Both excellent examples of masculinity, neither at all traditionally macho.
It’s almost like boys model their sexual expression off what other men perform for one another instead of actually listening to what women want or, God forbid, performing their own personality.

 

 

Notice how easily Ms. Gibson arrogates to herself the authority of anexpert, qualified to issue sweeping condemnations of male behavior. Feminists do this routinely, never expecting anyone to challenge their judgment or demand any credentials. Any college girl can just log onto the Internet and deliver such indictments of males without fear that anyone might question her analysis. Ms. Gibson knows “what most women want” and yet “straight men,” whom she diagnoses as afflicted with “fragile masculinity,” instead foolishly pursue “traditionally macho” behavior as a “model [for] their sexual expression.” Why do men do this? Because, Ms. Gibson informs us, men refuse to listen to women.

Translation: Guys are so stupid they don’t even know how to be guys and therefore they need feminists to tell them how to do it.

Ms. Gibson perfectly expresses the feminist presumption that not only are all males inadequate and incompetent, incapable of doing anything right, but also that males are so ignorant they do not even realize why everything they do is wrong. Men are mentally inferior and lack any capacity for self-awareness, the feminist believes. No one ever points out to Ms. Gibson that her beliefs amount to an insulting anti-male prejudice.

Notice how it is only “straight men” whom Ms. Gibson condemns for their “fragile masculinity,” implying that the masculinity of homosexual men is robust and healthy by comparison. Furthermore, notice how Ms. Gibson assumes that “traditionally macho” behavior is never authentic, but is rather always a performance, an artificial façade that does not reflect a man’s “own personality.” Insofar as any heterosexual man behaves “traditionally,” Ms. Gibson would have us believe, this can only be explained by his mimicking the “sexual expression” of other men — perhaps “movie heroes or football players” — because there can be no such thing as original and authentic “machismo.”

Instead, we are informed, men should be “willowy anime heartthrobs, singer-songwriters in eyeliner and tight jeans, soft-lipped big-eyed child idols, and rock stars that kissed other boys on stage,” because this is what women actually want men to be, based on Ms. Gibson’s memory of posters with which high school girls decorated their bedrooms.

And if any man should express doubt about the validity of Ms. Gibson’s judgment? Well, that’s just evidence of his “fragile masculinity.”

Feminists know everything, you see, and men know nothing, which is why feminist discourse is always a lecture, never a dialogue. This is probably also why feminists assume all men are hopelessly stupid, because smart men avoid feminists. Why would any intelligent man with a modicum of self-respect subject himself to such insulting treatment? Only a masochist with a damaged ego and a craving for humiliation would associate with a woman who never says a word to him except to belittle him, bossing him around as if he had no will of his own.

 

As to why so many teenage girls prefer pouty “sensitive”-looking boys, psychologists long ago explained this as a manifestation of sexual immaturity. Conventionally masculine adult males are too intimidating for the adolescent female to imagine them as romantic partners. The implications of her own role in a relationship with such an imposing figure — what it would mean to be a man’s partner — understandably frighten the girl; it is more comfortable to focus her affection on a somewhat effeminate boy/man. Indeed, from the perspective of developmental psychology, it might be considered inappropriate if a 13- or 14-year-old girl chose an overtly “macho” romantic idol. However, it is even more inappropriate to expect adult men to conform their behavior so as to appeal to the immature emotional needs of adolescent girls, and yet Ms. Gibson sees no problem in demanding that men emulate “excellent examples of masculinity” like a make-believe pirate from a Disney movie or an elf-prince from Middle Earth.

We see, then, why feminism’s one-sided analysis of sexual behavior is so misleading. The feminist is always willing to excuse women’s immature attitudes and selfish behaviors; because every woman is a victim of oppression, she is therefore never responsible for her faults and failures. Exempting herself from critical scrutiny, the feminist then proceeds to pronounce insulting judgments against men and, if they should object to her criticism, she interprets his objection as proof of his misogyny. Merely disagreeing with a feminist proves that he hates women and, therefore, his objections are automatically invalidated.

 

The circular logic of Lewis’s Law, whereby opposition to feminism is cited as a justification for feminism, should raise the question of why feminism inspires so much opposition. The obvious answer is that men do not enjoy being rudely insulted, told that they are deserving of no respect or consideration. What have I done — or what have my sons done — to be subjected to such hateful rhetoric? And what has Helen Lewis ever done that qualifies her to stand in judgment of anyone?

No one ever questions feminist authority. Nowadays, it is just assumed that all men should be treated with scornful contempt, merely because they are male. The ideological basis of this assumption — i.e., that men deserve such treatment because they are perpetrators of unjust oppression — is never disputed, although it is difficult to find any objective evidence of this. How is it, after all, that complaints about women’s oppression are most often heard from women who are themselves manifestly privileged? And how are we to supposed to interpret the fact that the majority of college students (57%) are women? If this is oppression, then what would equality look like? Will women finally consider themselves “equal” if they are 75% or 80% of college students, or is anything short of 100% unacceptable to feminists?

 

These questions are never asked, however, because no one on the 21st-century campus is permitted to do anything other than nod in agreement when feminists speak. A college student like Sarah Taylor Gibson probably doesn’t even think of feminism as a political ideology, but rather accepts it as reality, the only valid way of understanding human behavior. The fact that feminism is epistemologically incompatible with Christianity is either not yet apparent to her or else she is unwilling to alienate her Christian parents by admitting her apostasy.

What Ms. Gibson fails to see is that the “equality” demanded by feminism requires us to deny the actual differences between men and woman, thus to bring about an androgynous utopia. No such society has ever existed in human history, of course, nor will it ever exist at any time in the future. Feminism is as incompatible with human nature as it is with Christian theology, and yet neither science nor faith can dissuade Ms. Gibson from embracing the folly of feminism, which flatters her vanity in much the same way as the serpent beguiled Eve: “Ye shall be as gods!”

 

 

Your Heterosexual Feminism Is Wrong

http://theothermccain.com/2015/11/19/your-heterosexual-feminism-is-wrong/

 

Miriam Mogilevsky (@sondosia on Twitter) describes herself as “queer, gay, femme, and homoflexible . . . a lesbian with exceptions,” furthermore explaining: “I’m on the asexual spectrum somewhere . . . I don’t experience primary sexual attraction.” Also, she is into polyamory, “which means that I’m open to multiple committed and loving relationships, but with minimal life enmeshment and no ‘rules’ placed on me.” In other words, she’s a weirdo. But in 2015, feminism is all about weirdos, which brings us to her latest column at Everyday Feminism:

5 Ways Straight Women Can Be
Better Allies to Queer Women

Perhaps you didn’t realize that feminists are obligated to be “Allies to Queer Women,” but as Professor Mimi Marinucci has explainedFeminism Is Queer, and therefore heterosexual women in the movement are expected to regard lesbians as their moral and intellectual superiors. Exactly why heterosexual women would want to be part of a movement that requires them to be lectured by weirdos, I can’t explain, and yet Miriam Mogilevsky presumes they are in need of her instruction:

Most queer women have stories of things straight women have said or done that stung unexpectedly, that casually wore down our senses of self.
Some of those things we would’ve resignedly expected from straight men — but coming from women, they were powerfully painful. . . .
By deconstructing some of these dynamics, I hope to inspire straight women to find better ways to relate to and support their queer female friends.

 

Notice that Ms. Mogilevsky assumes that her readers at Everyday Feminism share her contemptuous disdain for “straight men”; feminists are expected to recoil in horror at the accusation that their own behavior is as bad as the behavior of heterosexual males (who are always wrong about everything, of course). Well, you may ask, how do straight women fail as “Allies to Queer Feminists”? Ms. Mogilevsky lectures them:

 

Most queer women I know have stories of straight women touching them without consent — often in ways that read to us as very sexual, and ways that they would (rightfully) be furious if men touched them.
Maybe it’s because we feel “safe” to them, and they feel comfortable expressing affection or attraction to us in ways that they don’t feel comfortable doing with men.
But maybe it’s because they like having that feeling of power over someone.
It’s probably true that if a woman touches another woman, that’s less likely to be interpreted as a come-on than when she touches a man. . . .
However, when women assume that there’s no chance that another woman would ever interpret a touch in a sexual way — not even when they touch her breasts or butt — they desexualize her.
To these women, touching men can be a sexual gesture; touching women cannot.
Straight women touch us in these ways while insisting that there’s no need to ask for consent because there’s nothing sexual about it. . . .
When straight women casually touch me in intimate ways without asking first, it hurts. Not only because I wasn’t given the chance to consent, but because they don’t understand that for me, these types of touches are something to share with a partner.
They’re sexually charged and erotic. It’s an interaction that’s supposed to happen in bed with someone I’m into, not at the bar where you’ve decided that my butt is “soooo cute!” that you want to grab it without asking.

 

So, that’s Rule One: Never touch Miriam Mogilevsky. And honestly, if you feel an overwhelming urge to touch her, you should seek psychiatric help immediately. But remember there are five ways you heterosexual feminists are failing as “Allies to Queer Women,” according to Ms. Mogilevsky, and let’s just cut to Rule Five:

 

5. Remember That We Aren’t Your ‘Experiments’ . . .
If you feel like you have to try sex with people of different genders to help yourself understand what kinds of partners you’re looking for, by all means, get consent and go for it.
But treating people as “experiments” is different. Straight or questioning women who treat queer women as “experiments” treat them as disposable, as objects, as a means to an end.
They feel no responsibility — before or after the hookup — to be honest with their partner about their reason for seeking out the hookup or their intentions afterward.
Sometimes they enter explicitly queer spaces despite comfortably identifying as straight and knowing that they’ll be assumed queer in that space. Some straight women I’ve met even seem to take a gleeful pride in their ability to seduce and mislead queer women, toying with them for their own amusement. . . .
But because of the negative experiences many of us have had with women who saw us as nothing more than an “experiment,” many of us are no longer willing to consent to these types of encounters.

 

Well, you can read the whole thing. Or you can gouge your eyes out with a rusty screwdriver. Either will do you as much good.

Perhaps, if you are a heterosexual woman who considers yourself a feminist, this presumptuous lecture from Ms. Mogilevsky will make you reconsider. As a heterosexual male, however, I am perplexed that Ms. Mogilevsky thinks she’s such a hot commodity that people she meets cannot resist the temptation to “touch her breasts or butt.” Really?

 

Maybe that’s your idea of an irresistibly attractive “queer, gay, femme, homoflexible lesbian with exceptions,” in which case you should seek psychiatric help immediately. But speaking of exceptionsMs. Mogilesky recently shared this strange and alarming confession:

 

So I’d been dreading the inevitable moment when I’d find myself interested in a guy again because I figured it’d be confusing and awful, but now it’s happened and it’s actually not a big deal. If anything, I’m only more comfortable with my gay identity because I could immediately feel the difference from previous times I’ve been interested in men. I have no investment in this, “this” being the idea of dating this person or any other man. I’m not worried about the fact that the attraction will inevitably fade, because I don’t *have* to make it last. I don’t have to make it serious and committed. I don’t have to do anything with it at all. I don’t have to appeal to this person or make myself palatable to him or any other man, because it doesn’t matter to me if I have men in my life as partners or not.
(And yes, I know plenty of women who are attracted to men have similar thoughts, but believe me, it feels completely different from when I was bi.)
It doesn’t really bother me because it’s only natural that something like this would happen. I’ve entered a time of my life that’s more colorful and dynamic than probably any other previous time, and I’m meeting interesting people constantly, and things are stable enough for me now that genuine attraction to people is a thing that actually happens, so it was probable that eventually one of those people would be a man. It doesn’t *have* to mean anything about My Sexuality; it’s a statistical fluke. These results are not statistically significant. They are, however, quite enjoyable in the moment.
(This also makes me realize that one of the reasons I mostly stopped being attracted to men to begin with is that whenever I felt and expressed that attraction, they would more often than not freak out, shame me, etc. They’d be all “whoa you’re acting weird” and “um wow isn’t that kind of forward,” and of course the next day they’d be texting me at midnight asking “what’s up,” but that was enough. Men in general can’t handle women expressing interest in them directly, so I gave up and eventually the interest went away.
Well, now it doesn’t bother me if my attempt to be clear and direct gets stigmatized and ridiculed, because I don’t f–king need them. If they’re going to act like children, I’m out.)

 

Am I the only one who thinks the lady doth protest too much? She wants it known to everyone on Tumblr that she doesn’t really care about men and they don’t matter, but then there’s this jarring assertion: “Men in general can’t handle women expressing interest in them directly.” What? According to who? Maybe men have a problem with Miriam Mogilevsky “expressing interest,” but we can’t blame them for that, can we? If this weirdo “expressed . . . attraction” to you, wouldn’t you “freak out”?

Yet this is feminism in 2015: The “queer, gay, femme, homoflexible lesbian with exceptions” is a columnist for Everyday Feminism, and heterosexual women are expected to be grateful that Miriam Mogilevsky has taken the time to tell you exactly how and why your heterosexual feminism is wrong. You are so ignorant you wouldn’t even know how to be “Allies to Queer Women” unless she told you, and if you find her attitude insulting, then perhaps you’re not a feminist at all.