I got hooked in the usual way. I truly like women as people and see them as equal, and as a college student I was deluded into thinking there was some value in feminism because of its institutional power in academia. I was open-minded enough to accept their “critique” of men and society as a valid viewpoint, although I disagreed with some. And I was fine with losing “privilege” and power for the cause. Neither was really a loss since I had never felt I had any rights or privileges over women.
Being open-minded, however, it took me a long time to realize that there is nothing wrong with feeling disgust when you are confronted by certain kinds of criticism. If people say they oppose group hatred and prejudice but are libeling and shaming you for being the person you were born as, or if people are holding you to impossible standards of behavior but accept no standards for their own, you should feel disgusted. These people are delusional or hypocrites at best. They are pure evil, akin to some of the worst actors in history, at worst.
Continue reading “Recovering Feminist”
You should be disgusted by the people who reflexively hate you because of their own baggage, and you should avoid the trap of searching through their criticism for validity. There is no validity in “the patriarchy” or “manspreading” or “rape culture.” These are hateful distortions authored by shitty people who don’t understand society, history or human interaction.
“The law of gravity is nonsense. No such law exists. If I think I float, and you think I float, then it happens.”
—O’Brien, talking to Winston Smith in 1984
Grievance scholarship is ideologically focused scholarship, not legitimate inquiry into topics like race or gender. In that sense, grievance studies are no different than university study under a totalitarian regime like Naziism or Stalinism. Or Big Brother. The point of inquiry is not increased knowledge, it is to advance the ideology. It is propaganda to advance the Big Lie. Grievance studies professors are not so much liberal arts scholars but missionaries: they do not exist to investigate the world but to change it.
The Big Lies around which all grievance studies are organized is the theory of intersectional group oppression and its solution—“equity.” They are just-so stories appropriated from Marxist theory that contain a kernel of truth, but also massive, fatal flaws. The theory’s essential purpose is to justify the ressentiment (in the Nietzschean sense) of the theorizers. You can tell this by simple reasoning: “Hate” in itself is not a societal problem for grievance theory. Only the supposed hate of men for women or whites for blacks is a problem for society. The very real hatred of (some) women for men and (some) blacks for whites is never an issue. Continue reading “Grievance “Scholarship””
The entertainer John Mayer, ironically a well-known serial womanizer, responded to the Kavanaugh hearings and #MeToo by saying we should tear up the social contract between men and women and replace it with a new one in which men were expected to behave better. I agree with him as far as he goes, but not out of male guilt. We need to tear up the contract and renegotiate a whole slew of things between men and women. After recently learning of the female supremacist views of powerful Democratic women like Senator Mazie Hirono, I think everything up to the Nineteenth Amendment needs to be on the table.
What is at stake for society is whether we achieve the purported feminist goal of equality or whether the third-wave backlash wins and women are stuck in (and men stuck with) limbo—where women are legally equal adults to men, but “special needs children” in most other respects. Feminist women of the 1970s were tougher, more equality-minded and probably closer to the overall equality goal. Today’s third-wave feminist victims think they can have their cake and eat it too, as if “equality” could be made into a safe “equitable” space where all disparities that favor men are eliminated but those that favor women persist. That is impossible, and their continued delusion is untenable for our society.
Because the one-sidedness of feminism (literally “pro-woman”) is at odds with the stated goal of equality, there has never been a real negotiation of what equality is. There has only been demand on one side and acquiescence on the other. This has actually resulted in many double standards being enforced and great harm to society. But real equality is equality, not just whatever women decide they want.
Feminists have portrayed history falsely. Women were not legally treated as property pre-feminism, they were treated as children. Continue reading “Tear Up The Contract”
Feminist SJWs are such profoundly stupid people they think there is such a thing as a right to an abortion in the US. There isn’t. The landmark Roe v. Wade ruling says that a woman’s constitutional right to privacy must be balanced with society’s interest in protecting human life, that until a fetus is viable outside the uterus the decision to have an abortion is a private one and therefore protected.
I agree that the compromise Roe represents is a great model for thinking of the issue, but it clearly has its flaws for absolutists on both sides. The pro-life side says that even a non-viable fetus is sacred human life and abortion at any point after conception is murder. The pro-choice side thinks viability is irrelevant and abortion on demand must be a “right” up to the moment of birth.
But there are at least two major forces at work in our society that will undo Roe v. Wade and render it moot regardless of who is on the court—one on each side of the compromise.
Continue reading “The Real Issue: Roe v. Wade”
“If it requires lynching to protect woman’s dearest possession from ravening, drunken human beasts, then I say lynch a thousand negroes a week.”
—Rebecca Felton, Georgia feminist and first female US Senator, 1897.
“I’m actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations.”
—Emily Lindin, feminist writer and director, in a Tweet sent 11/21/17 14:45
I value human rights and believe men and women are equal. I also believe in basic fairness. “Believe the women!” the mantra of #MeToo advocates and Judge Kavanaugh’s opponents, stands for the opposite of those things. It is part of a toxic archetype pattern that must be embedded deep in the collective female id (they all seem to know the script). It says women are “special,” not equal, yet manages to be misogynistic in its infantilization and emotional manipulation of women. It is also deeply misandrist, manipulating men into depriving other men of their rights or lives. It is worth noting at the outset that “Believe the Women!” operates on many levels in our society, not just in relation to Kavanaugh or #MeToo.
It is no accident that the Kavanaugh confirmation circus is part of the broader #MeToo witch hunt. Something like it was inevitable. Let us hope it is the crest of the #MeToo wave.
It is also no accident that “Believe the women!” is a direct echo of “Believe the children!” from the 1980s satanic cult preschool child molestation witch hunt. Ultimately, the phrase infantilizes women. It says they are not capable of being functional, equal adults, agents who determine their lives and who can deal with adversity, follow rules, rationally evaluate evidence or back up their accusations. They are simply helpless victims. They are children who must be constantly protected, coddled and indulged in the adult world of men. This infantilization applies both to the woman accuser and the women who evaluate her claims. “Believe the women” is real misogyny.
Continue reading “Unpacking “Believe Women!””