“You can find more wisdom about love in old R&B records than you can find in all the gender theory textbooks in the Brown University library.”

Maybe the problem with “rape culture” is that college kids aren’t listening to the right music. That thought crossed my mind while I was pondering an article on Medium.com by Anna Hundert that went viral (and got an interesting response by a guy named Elliot Nichols). Ms. Hundert took exception to understanding sex as a transaction, an exchange in which women are presumed to give sex to men in return for dinner, diamonds, love or whatever. What Ms. Hundert may not understand, having not studied the history of feminism in such depth as I have, is that feminists themselves made this transactional understanding of sex the basis for condemning marriage as a degrading condition of slavery.

This was the argument, for example, of British suffragette Cicely Hamilton’s 1909 book Marriage as a Trade, and the anti-marriage rhetoric of the early (so-called “First Wave”) feminists was resurrected and expanded by the radical Women’s Liberation movement (i.e., “Second Wave” feminism) in the late 1960s and ’70s. Anyone may examine the 1973 anthology Radical Feminism and find Sheila Cronan’s “Marriage” (p. 213) and “The Feminists: A Political Organization to Annihilate Sex Roles” (p. 368) among other treatises condemning marriage.

Whatever else a feminist may be, she cannot aspire to be a wife without abandoning the core principles of feminist ideology. Most women who claim to be feminists don’t recognize this, or at least don’t wish to admit it, because if ever the fundamental logic of feminism could be discussed openly, most people would reject it in its entirety.

Anyone who cares to excavate down to the root of feminist arguments will find it necessary to agree with Professor Marilyn Frye who, in a 1990 speech to the National Women’s Studies Association, declared that “feminism, which is thoroughly anti-patriarchal, is not compatible with female heterosexuality, which is thoroughly patriarchal.”

To be a feminist, Professor Frye said, a woman “cannot be a heterosexual in any standard patriarchal meaning of the word — you cannot be any version of a patriarchal wife.” Instead, Professor Frye told her academic audience, to be a feminist, a woman must be “a heretic, a deviant, an undomesticated female, an impossible being.” My point in quoting Professor Frye is not to argue with her, but rather to express my enthusiastic agreement with her. The feminist project is incompatible with marriage, motherhood and heterosexuality — and until this fact is recognized, we can never have an honest discussion about feminism.

The feminist movement was founded and led by women who did not like men and did not like sex, and who especially did not like sex with men. This was obvious to opponents of the original women’s suffrage movement, and was likewise obvious to critics when feminism was resurrected from the radical New Left in the last 1960s. This fact was evident from the rapidity with which “Second Wave” feminism advanced from its first national protest at the September 1968 Miss America pageant to the emergence of the radical lesbian “Lavender Menace” at the Second Congress to Unite Women in May 1970. There is an abundance of evidence and testimony on this subject, but I will merely cite three points:

As I say, these are only three data points (although many, many more could be cited) selected to demonstrate the truth of Professor Frye’s statement that feminism and heterosexuality are incompatible. If anyone disagrees with this, they shouldn’t waste their time arguing with me, but rather try arguing with Professor Bunch, Professor Butler, Professor Taylor, et al. Perhaps all these lesbian professors could theorize a post-patriarchal heterosexuality that would be acceptably “feminist,” but the question is whether any males could be induced to participate in such a hypothetical relationship. Feminists are women who hate men and, even if a man hated himself enough to accept feminist ideology, what kind of woman would be attracted to such a pathetic wretch? Well, OK, Jessica Valenti and Andrew Golis, but that just proves my point. Most men would not even want to be in the same ZIP code as Jessica Valenti, much less live as a helpless slave under the sadistic whip of her merciless vengeance. Trying to find the “Feminist Man” is like hunting unicorns, a complete waste of time, since every example of this category ever discovered has turned out to be an illusion like the psychotic pervert Hugo Schwyzer.

Marriage is about voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit, and in order for this to happen, some consideration must be given to what benefit a man obtains from marriage, but feminists never want to hear anything a man has to say on this subject (or any subject, for that matter). Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and its success requires feminists to impose silence on men. Feminists constantly mock and insult men, calling them “misogynists” who benefit from “male privilege” and participate in “rape culture.” Everything a man might say in his own defense is dismissed by feminists as “mansplaining,” so that what the feminist actually demands of males is quite simple:

Shut up;

and Go away.

Any intelligent person who studies the rhetoric and theory of feminism understands this, which is why few feminists are willing to speak as bluntly to the general public as Professor Frye spoke to her academic colleagues in the National Women’s Studies Association. Indeed, even most academic feminists are less candid about their agenda than Professor Frye and Professor Bunch, so that their students are sometimes left in a state of confusion as to what feminism requires. To quote one anonymous student in an Introduction to Feminist Theory course: “Every time I walk out of this class I just become more sexually confused!”

Well, Anna Hundert is only a junior at Brown University, and perhaps she hasn’t yet recognized the problem with her own “sex-positive” feminism, a confusion that I felt obliged to attempt to dispel:

Every good man ought to be honest, and not let himself be intimidated into silence by his fear of being called names for speaking the truth. No matter what any proponent of gender theory may claim, the difference between men and women is about biology, and the male tendency toward aggression is not a “social construct,” but rather a fact of nature. . . .

What needs to happen is that men must summon the courage to talk back honestly to the finger-pointing accusations of feminist “rape culture” discourse and get beyond the cliché of “Not all men.” We need to talk about the specific contexts in which so-called “date rape” typically happens. We need to talk about the climate of binge drinking and reckless promiscuity on college campuses where these “he-said/she-said” cases keep happening. We need to talk about the unrealistic expectations about sex that young people are absorbing from popular culture. We need to talk about peer pressure. We need to talk the decline of morality and the corruption of manners. . . .

You can read the whole thing at Medium.com. When I say “we need to talk,” what I mean is that these idiotic young feminists need to listen to responsible adults who have some experience of living in the real world, including men who have not surrendered their dignity in an attempt to appease feminist fanatics. Also, maybe it would help if these kids listened to some good rock-and-roll music. Certainly, it wouldn’t hurt.









Share this: Share

Twitter

Facebook



Reddit



Comments