convincing an anti-feminist man that he’s actually a feminist because he believes in “the equality of the sexes” may seem like a victory, but in the end all you’ve done is convince a woman-hater that he’s a feminist.
This is actually very dangerous. If a man is anti-feminist it’s because he hates women not because of some misunderstanding. Don’t waste your time and energy on convincing a woman hater he’s really a nice guy deep down. All you’ll do is give him a bigger victim complex when things don’t go his way.
Anti-feminism is the political defense of woman hating — Andrea Dworkin
One of the most amazing things is to see how feminists, whose movement is not only anti-male but also anti-heterosexual, become angry when confronted with their own words. This eminent professor or that popular feminist author you’ve quoted does not actually speak for the movement, the feminist will insist, and how dare you suggest that all feminists agree with Andrew Dworkin . . . or Charlotte Bunch, Mary Daly, Marilyn Frye, Monique Wittig, Audre Lorde, Catharine MacKinnon, Joyce Trebilcot, Janice Raymond, Shulamith Firestone, Susan Brownmiller, Sally Miller Gearhart, Judith Butler, Sheila Jeffreys, Gayle Rubin . . .
Feminists have spent decades erecting a wall that divides their esoteric doctrine — the core beliefs which form the theoretical basis of their ideology, the language feminists use when speaking among themselves — from their movement’s exoteric discourse, the “mainstream” rhetoric feminists use in speaking to the public. This separation, which conceals from public view the nature of radical feminist theory as it is taught in university Women’s Studies programs, is essential to preserving the credibility of feminism as a respectable movement concerned only with “equality” and “fairness” for women.
Just before launching the Sex Trouble project last June, I wrote a post called “You Magnificent Lesbians — I Read Your Books!” (An allusion to a line from the movie Patton, in case you didn’t know.) For months, I had explored the canon of radical feminist literature, publishing commentaries based on that literature, and resisting the urging from readers to write a book about it. Anyone who has ever gone through the ordeal of Publishing Hell knows that a book deadline is a soul-destroying nightmare, and I’d been through that human meat-grinder more than once. But this feminist stuff kept piling up and it was apparent that no one else was crazy enough to try to make sense of it all, so I decided to risk it. What I aimed to do was to tear down the wall separating feminism’s esoteric doctrine from its exoteric discourse, to make readers understand how the day-to-day eruptions of feminist insanity we see in the headlines are connected to this core theory of the movement.
What we see, if we study carefully and pay close attention, is a movement of Having Cake and Eating It, Too. That is to say, feminists claim unlimited license to vilify men as violent oppressors, to denounce marriage and motherhood as slavery, to impugn religion, to call for the destruction of society in order to “smash patriarchy” and yet — here is the catch — they expect to be taken seriously when they denounce as a hateful misogynist anyone who objects to their radical agenda.
“If a man is anti-feminist it’s because he hates women,” says the feminist on Tumblr, assuming that only feminists are reading her words, and thus expecting that the Dworkin quote — “Anti-feminism is the political defense of woman hating” — will be accepted as the final word on the matter. But wait just a minute: Who is “raddefemme,” whose quote generated more than 5,000 notes on Tumlbr in less than three day?
Search for definition of “neuroatypical”:
Neuroatypical is used to describe people who have bipolar disorder, ADHD, schizophrenia, circadian rhythm disorders, developmental speech disorders, Parkinson’s disease, dyslexia, and dyspraxia.
In other words, it’s a fancy synonym for “crazy.”
Here then, we have a crazy teenage lesbian acting as self-appointed arbiter of feminism, warning her fellow radicals not to persuade males that feminism means “the equality of the sexes” because doing so would merely “convince a woman-hater that he’s a feminist.” Perfect!
“All that is necessary to discredit feminism is to tell the truth about feminism.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Sex Trouble: Essays on Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature
They make my work so easy sometimes.
What is feminism? If “the equality of the sexes” is not the goal of this movement, what is their goal? Feminism as we now know it began with the radical New Left of the 1960s. Consider an example: Charlotte Bunch became part of an “anti-imperialist” (which is to say, pro-communist) faction of the Women’s Liberation movement, and participated in such key events as the 1968 protest against the Miss America pageant. In 1970, Bunch traveled to Hanoi as part of an “antiwar” (which is to say, pro-communist) delegation, then returned to Washington, D.C., where in the summer of 1970 she and her husband, antiwar activist Jim Weeks, moved into a communal house with Bunch’s best friend, Sharon Deevey, Deevey’s husband, and a lesbian named Joan Biren. Deevey and Biren were lovers, and soon departed to live in an all-lesbian house, leaving Bunch with the two men. Eventually, Bunch was seduced by lesbian radical Rita Mae Brown and left her husband to form a lesbian separatist collective known as The Furies.
All of this is recounted on pages 174-176 of Susan Brownmiller’s 1999 book In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution. We have elsewhere cited Bunch’s 1972 manifesto “Lesbians in Revolt,” and here we will quote one of Bunch’s radical comrades in The Furies collective, Ginny Berson:
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. . . . It is a system in which heterosexuality is rigidly enforced and Lesbianism rigidly suppressed. . . .
Lesbianism is not a matter of sexual preference, but rather one of political choice which every woman must make if she is to become woman-identified and thereby end male supremacy.
Well, there you have it in so many words. It was 1972 and, despite Ginny Berson’s demand that “every woman must make” the choice of lesbianism to “end male supremacy,” most women rejected her demand. Most women still reject her demand, and so this “system . . . based on the domination of men over women” continues to operate.
The patriarchy is still open for business.
Ginny Berson? Oh, she went on to become co-founder of Olivia Records, worked for 16 years for Pacifica Radio and eventually became vice president of the National Federation of Community Broadcasters (NFCB). Berson’s comrade Charlotte Bunch, of course, became an esteemed Women’s Studies professor at Rutgers University. Isn’t it weird how, despite being “f–ked over” and “oppressed” by this system of male domination, these women nevertheless enjoy prestigious careers within the Feminist-Industrial Complex? Yet here were are, more than four decades after Bunch and Berson declared war on heterosexuality and “male supremacy,” and crazy teenage lesbians are on Tumblr warning about the dangers of letting men think they can become feminists by endorsing “the equality of the sexes.”
There is something wrong with this picture, don’t you agree? Feminism is a movement that always succeeds but never declares victory. That is to say, there is never any end to feminist demands, no final objective which, once attained, will cause them to proclaim, “That’s it. We won.” So long as anyone is still free to oppose their movement — until feminists have achieved total power — they will continue discovering grievances to protest and keep demanding more! more! more!
Feminism is not a democratic movement about “equality,” it’s a totalitarian movement about power, and there is no limit, no feasible stopping point on their march to power. So long as any man has liberty or property, so long as Christians are free to preach the gospel and practice their faith, so long as young women dream of marrying men and having babies rather than becoming lesbian cat ladies — so long as anyone still resists feminism’s imperious demands for gynocratic supremacy, the movement will continue its militant aggression.
Feminism has declared war on human nature, a war it can never win. Yet the Feminist-Industrial Complex, based in academia and non-profit organizations funded with millions of dollars in tax-exempt contributions, continues to gain political power and wield cultural influence, so that this war can never end. Come back in another 10 or 20 years and, no matter how much more “progress” toward “equality” feminism has achieved by that time, the lesbian cat ladies will still be screaming as loudly as ever about how oppressed and victimized they are by misogyny and patriarchy.
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.
First published at TheOtherMcCain.com
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.