Did @Nian_Hu ‘Friend-Zone’ You? #FreeStacy: Feminism Is a Death Cult

http://theothermccain.com/2016/02/29/did-nian_hu-friend-zone-you-freestacy-feminism-is-a-death-cult/

Perhaps you remember Harvard feminist Nian Hu, the Harvard student who declared: “I am a feminist. I believe in the equality of the sexes. For me, feminism means freedom,” and that among these freedoms was “freedom to have as many sexual partners as I want without being looked down on.” This inspired me to write “Harvard Sluts and the Thought Police,” pointing that what Ms. Hu was saying is that other people have no right to their own opinions. Everyone is required to approve of wanton promiscuity. The feminist freedom of Harvard sluts to get drunk and screw around would be infringed if they were to be “looked down on” because of their habitual and shameless fornication.

More recently, Ms. Hu wrote a Harvard Crimson column denouncing relationships between white men and Asian women as “yellow fever.”Apparently, being attracted to someone is the same as hating them, so if you are a white man who finds Ms. Hu attractive, you are “fetishizing” her race and also “objectifying” her. This inspired me to analyze the problem at length in “Feminism, Sex and Hypocrisy”:

“Let me tell you what to think” — this is the dictatorial imperative of feminism, a totalitarian regime of clever college girls who have decided the rest of us are wrong about everything. You need to be constantly lectured by angry young women, because she is oppressedand you are privileged. Therefore the only correct opinions are opinions approved by these tyrannical Ivy League brats who consider it a social injustice — “harassment!” “misogyny!” — if anyone dares to disagree with them. . . .
Petted and pampered and repeatedly told how wonderful they are (because being admitted to an Ivy League school is proof of their superiority to mere mortals), the insolent youth at schools like Harvard arrive on campus as freshmen convinced that they are smarter than God. The faculty apparently believe their task is to confirm, rather than contradict, their students’ grandiose narcissistic self-regard. . . .
The Ivy League Is Decadent and Depraved, and we can say of Harvard University what Obi-Wan Kenobi said of Mos Eisley, that it is a “wretched hive of scum and villainy.” . . .

 

You can read the whole thing. What offends me about the current wave of feminism is the insufferable arrogance of these young women who, although their own lives are generally a Great Dismal Swamp of Perversion and Despair, consider themselves entitled to deliver sermons to the rest of us. What have they done, other than taking a few Gender Studies classes, that would qualify them as Official Experts?

Never mind. Young fools have never let their paucity of experience and knowledge deter them from insulting their elders, and ignoring the counsel of the wise. When I was Ms. Hu’s age, I was arguably more foolish than she is, the difference being that in 1979 there was no Internet to provide me a free platform from which to lecture the world. In the 21st century, every 19-year-old with a YouTube account and a Tumblr blog imagines we are in need of her feminist sermons, and no one ever seems to question their authority to preach at us about the Sin of Misogyny.

“Mind control (also known as ‘brainwashing,’ ‘coercive persuasion,’ and ‘thought reform’) refers to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s).”
— Michael D. Langone, “Cults and Mind Control”

 

Feminism is a cult. Unless you study how cults operate, and analyze feminist ideology as a quasi-religious worldview — a sort of gnostic heresy — you cannot hope to confront it effectively. There is no point, for example, in trying to have a reasonable conversation with the cult leaders.

Anita Sarkeesian is a totalitarian ideologue, who treats all critics as contemptible inferiors. To disagree with Anita Sarkeesian is to condemn yourself as a misogynist, and there is no court to which you may appeal her verdict. Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It and, as such, feminism attracts to its banner alienated, degenerate and embittered young women who are natural-born fanatics — The True Believer, as Eric Hoffer called them.

What is important, when encountering totalitarians, is to deny them what they most desperately crave: Moral authority.

A woman becomes a feminist for the same reason other people join ISIS. Islamic terrorist groups offer the alienated young Muslim a belief system that rationalizes his sense of personal failure, and provides a sense of group solidarity in taking action against the demonized scapegoats their ideology blames for all the evil in the world. When the Ayatollah Khomeini denounced the United States as “The Great Satan,” this told you everything you needed to know about the basic worldview of radical Islam. Feminism is really no different, except that the feminist’s Great Satan is called “the patriarchy” — or “sexism,” or “male supremacy,” or “misogyny,” or any other sort of jargon they use to describe men, masculinity and male behavior. Feminism is the belief that men are always wrong. Everything a man does is “sexist” because (a) he is a man, and (b) women are oppressed victims of male supremacy.

“Women are an oppressed class. . . . We identify the agents of our oppression as men.”
— Redstockings Manifesto, 1969

“We are angry because we are oppressed by male supremacy. We have been f–ked over all our lives by a system which is based on the domination of men over women.”
— Ginny Berson, “The Furies,” 1972

“In terms of the oppression of women, heterosexuality is the ideology of male supremacy. In order for men to have a justification for exploiting women and an ability to enforce that exploitation, heterosexuality has to become, not merely an act in relation to impregnation, but the dominant ideology. . . . Heterosexual hegemony insures that people think it natural that male and female form a life-long sexual/reproductive unit with the female belonging to the male.”
— Margaret Small, “Lesbians and the Class Position of Women”, in Lesbianism and the Women’s Movement, edited by Charlotte Bunch and Nancy Myron (1975).

“Heterosexuality is the institution that creates, maintains, and supports men’s power. . . . And heterosexuality has its ramifications at all levels of society; it is the source of all other oppressions.
“Heterosexuality is the pivot on which men have based the norm and created the origin and measure by which all relationships are structured. . . . Men, through heterosexuality, have devised their own concept and thereby constructed a system that generates all oppressions.”
— Ariane Brunet and Louise Turcotte, “Separatism and Radicalism,” in For Lesbians Only: A Separatist Anthology, edited by Sarah Lucia-Hoagland and Julie Penelope (1988)

“Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism: that which is most one’s own, yet most taken away. . . .
“The organized expropriation of the sexuality of some for the use of others defines the sex, woman. Heterosexuality is its structure, gender and family its congealed forms, sex roles its qualities generalized to social persona, reproduction a consequence, and control its issue.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, “Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory” (1982)

“From the beginning of second-wave feminism, sexuality was identified as a key site of patriarchal domination and women’s resistance to it. . . .
“While heterosexual desires, practices, and relations are socially defined as ‘normal’ and normative, serving to marginalize other sexualities as abnormal and deviant, the coercive power of compulsory heterosexuality derives from its institutionalization as more than merely a sexual relation.”
 Stevi Jackson, “Sexuality, Heterosexuality, and Gender Hierarchy: Getting Our Priorities Straight,” in Thinking Straight: The Power, the Promise, and the Paradox of Heterosexuality, edited by Chrys Ingraham (2005)

“Heterosexism is maintained by the illusion that heterosexuality is the norm.”
— Susan M. Shaw and Janet LeeWomen’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)

“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.”
— Radical Wind, August 2013

“Feminism is about the collective liberation of women as a social class. Feminism is not about personal choice.”
— Anita Sarkeesian, 2015

“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. . . .
“Questioning gender . . . is an essential part of the feminism that has sustained me through two decades of personal and political struggle.”
— Laurie Penny, “How to Be a Genderqueer Feminist,”2015

It should not be necessary to explain, to any intelligent and literate person, how the bizarre beliefs of the Redstockings and The Furies, once considered radical and extreme, are the same as those promoted by Professor Shaw and Professor Lee in Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions, a textbook assigned in introductory Women’s Studies classes at colleges and universities all over the United States. Nor should it be necessary to explain how feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology inspires young feminist Laurie Penny’s claim that “gender” is itself a form of oppression “violently imposed,” so that destroying the “made-up categories” of male and female “is an essential part” of feminism.

This is the cult ideology of feminism, its esoteric doctrine, and yet young fools like Harvard’s Nian Hu seldom understand exactly what they are promoting. Feminists do not want “equality,” they want power — complete power, the kind of hegemonic authority that includes the power to silence opposition and inflict punishment on their enemies.

Feminism’s implacable hostility toward men and heterosexuality — “the ideology of male supremacy,” as Margaret Small called it — is what has inspired the phony “campus rape epidemic” hysteria that has resulted inmore than 100 federal lawsuits by male students who say they were falsely accused of sexual misconduct and deprived of their due-process rights in campus kangaroo court tribunals, under rules imposed by the authority of the Obama administration’s official “Dear Colleague” letter. Promoting the false claim that 1-in-5 female college students are victims of rape is part of a systematic campaign to stigmatize males, per se. Women are now 57% of college undergraduate enrollment in the United States, but decades of academic discrimination against men has not satisfied feminists. Evidence suggests that declining male enrollment is actually harmful to women, but anti-male fanatics like Jaclyn Friedmanand Alexandra Brodsky do not care about evidence. The purpose offeminist “rape culture” discourse is to make clear (if it was not already clear) that heterosexual males are not welcome on university campuses.

Like the “queer feminist” Melissa Fabello, fanatics like Friedman and Brodsky are promoting anti-male hate propaganda, and this brings us back to Harvard’s Nian Hu. On Feb. 19 she published a new column thatdrew the attention of our friends at the College Fix:

Have you ever shown romantic interest in a friend who didn’t reciprocate and then felt sore about it?
If you’re a man and your friend is a woman, you’re automatically sexist — and in the same league as a murderer.
That’s the curious argument made by Harvard Crimson columnist Nian Hu, who thinks so little of men that she assumes they feel “entitlement over women’s bodies” by using the common term “friend zone”:

They simply wanted to get with the woman, did all sorts of nice things to try to woo her, and then accused her of friend zoning him when she turned him down. In this case, being friend zoned is nothing more than a euphemism for rejection — one that places the blame on the woman, rather than on the man’s own undesirability or incompatibility.
In my experience, women are much less likely to complain about being friend zoned.

It seems to have never occurred to Hu that a man might want to be romantically involved with a woman for any other reason than bedding her:

The friend zone suggests that women are machines that men can put kindness tokens into until sexual favors come rushing out. Unfortunately, that’s not how it works: women are humans who are attracted to some people and not others. Whom they choose to have sex or not have sex with is their own decision, and it’s one that other people ought to respect.

 

She even blames the friend zone for the murder spree by Elliot Rodger . . .

 

You can read the whole thing, but perhaps you see the point: Because she is a feminist, Nian Hu has no interest in males, except to demonize them. Nian Hu loathes men as dangerous predators who feel “misogynistic entitlement to women’s bodies.” Because all men are oppressors, andheterosexuality is “a system that generates all oppressions,” any man who expresses romantic interest in a woman is a “sexist,” desiring to exploit, dominate and control her. When feminists like Nian Hu accuse a man of failing to understand rejection in terms of his “undesirability or incompatibility,” what they omit from the discourse is that feminists viewall men as undesirable, and consider men and women inherently incompatible. Nian Hu hates all men, and any man is a fool who thinks himself an exception to feminism’s categorical condemnation of males.

As I explained in March 2015:

What kind of man would listen while a feminist tried
to “convince” him to believe in “the equality of the sexes”?

Even if she’s attractive, what is to be gained
by listening to her angry feminist lecture?
She’s either crazy or a lesbian or both.

“Nah, baby,” he says. “I don’t
believe in equality. I believe in love.”

And then just walk away.

It is impossible for a feminist to love a man, because no feminist can ever admirerespect or trust a man. Because her ideology requires her to despise all males as sexist oppressors, why would any feminist be interested in some old-fashioned phallocentric heteronormativity, so to speak? And why should any man give it to her? To settle a grudge?

Far be it from me to endorse fornication as a means of spite, but no other rationale could explain why a man would be interested in a woman who advocates the Death Cult Ideology of Feminism.

“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