Sunday, December 19, 2010

How naive is radical feminism?

For a variety of reasons -- ranging from how sons are encouraged to study chemistry whereas daughters are discouraged from pursuing mathematics (although biology may be acceptable), to the fact that many girls appear more inclined towards the sociological than the technical -- men are the overwhelming majority in the sciences. Not every male scientist is anti-feminist and not every heterosexual female scientist is forced to represent her gender in a pair of pants. Yet, it may be fair to say that the institution of science has over the centuries withdrawn from society and transformed into a bastion of nerdy masculinity where a woman's presence is treated with even more disdain than a jock's, as if her entry were not earned on equal merit.
In the humanities where women outnumber men comfortably, they have carte blanche to treat disciplines such as gender studies as a pulpit from which to rant against the patriarchy. Men in these programs are indoctrinated to be sensitive to their privilege but for all practical purposes they have been emasculated. It's no coincidence that the humanities contain too many effete, straight metrosexuals. These folks believe that their compassion for oppressed femininity makes them superior to most men whereas in reality it makes them -- among other things -- less attractive to women, especially straight radical feminists, who are without exception subconsciously drawn towards alpha-types who do not supplicate in exchange for sex.
You can trust social evolution to weed the pussies out. The academic Steven Yates, who is careful to differentiate between "liberal" and "gender" feminism, offers this take:

"...I took a look at so-called “feminist scholarship.” What I found jolted me. One radical feminist called Newton’s and Bacon’s ideas about scientific method a “rape manual” (they spoke of “penetrating” nature’s secrets—get it?). Another compared a romantic candlelight dinner to prostitution. These are just two examples, and not even the weirdest (don’t ask!). Around this time it surfaced that a “feminist legal theorist, ” Catharine A. MacKinnon, had compared voluntary sexual intercourse to rape. That oversimplifies somewhat; what she says is that in “male-dominated, patriarchical, heterosexist society” the line between voluntary consent and coercion is blurred, so that in sexual relations between men and women a fine distinction between “voluntary” intercourse and rape can’t be drawn. Yup: under the insidious patriarchy, men as a collective are potential rapists; women are helpless victims.
It seemed like a sick joke to me. Men dominating women? Where? At the time I couldn’t even get a date, much less find someone to dominate. Approach an academic woman? I’d have to have been out of my mind!...
... In a recent interview with The New American (June 12, 2006), Aaron Russo, currently of America: Freedom to Fascism fame, reports how he once defended his sympathy with the women’s movement and with equal opportunity to an unnamed member of the Rockefeller clan. Russo describes the chilling response: “He looked at me and said, ‘You know, you’re such an idiot in some ways. We … created the women’s movement, and we promote it. And it’s not about equal opportunity. It’s designed to get both parents out of the home and into the workforce, where they will pay taxes. And then we can decide how the children will be raised and educated.’”"

Read more here.

1 comment:

  1. I found the phrase "alpha-types who do not supplicate in exchange for sex" hilarious. Well said.