another theory on this
another theory on this
using the Harvey Weinstein scandal to incite anti-male sentiments
Men who believe in the inferiority of women are called “sexists.”
Women who believe in the inferiority of men are called “feminists.”
Abigail Shirley (@abzdafab on Twitter) is a feminist who is editor of the website Fem 2.0, and her expression of anti-male prejudice is an excellent example of why Americans generally loathe feminism.
That probably offends you, but why does it offend you?
Because it negates male experience, per se, seeking to impose silence on half the human race with regard to the experiences of the other half.
Feminists do not hesitate to criticize male behavior, yet they insist that no man should be allowed to criticize female behavior. Nor do feminists permit men to invoke their experience as fathers or husbands when addressing the problems of women. (Ms. Shirley’s tweet was obviously directed at men commenting on the Harvey Weinstein scandal.)
Feminism is an ideology that privileges female experience as a basis of authority, while negating the value of men’s experiences. Male opinions have no value, according to feminist theory, because men do not have the experience necessary to speak of women’s interests. Feminism is a totalitarian movement based on the belief that women’s interests are the only interests that matter — “social justice” as a zero-sum-gamementality that condemns males as oppressors and enemies of women.
“Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men receive economic, sexual, and psychological benefits from male supremacy. All men have oppressed women.”
— Redstockings, “Manifesto,” 1969
“Men . . . are the enemies and the oppressors of women. . . . Both the male role and the female role must be annihilated. . . .
“The pathology of oppression can only be fully comprehended in its primary development: the male-female division. . . . The sex roles themselves must be destroyed.”
— “The Feminists: A Political Organization to Annihilate Sex Roles,” 1969, in Radical Feminism, edited by Anne Koedt, et al. (1973)
“Men are the enemy. Heterosexual women are collaborators with the enemy. . . .
“We see heterosexuality as an institution of male domination, not a free expression of personal preference.”
— Leeds Revolutionary Feminists, 1981
“Sexuality, then, is a form of power. Gender, as socially constructed, embodies it, not the reverse. Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989)
“We regard our personal experience, and our feelings about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation,” the Redstockings collective declared in their famous 1969 manifesto. “We cannot rely on existing ideologies as they are all products of male supremacist culture.” Feminism rejects every other system of belief — in science, politics, religion or law — as invalid, because such beliefs are contaminated by “male supremacist culture.” Only women’s experience and feelings can serve as a basis for analysis, and male experience is irrelevant to that analysis because men are the enemy. This is why it is false to say that feminism is a movement about “equality,” because feminist theory is based on a total contempt for males.
Abigail Shirley’s derogation of men’s experience — the insulting assertion that fathers have no right to speak in defense of their own daughters — is a perfect example of feminism’s anti-male ideology. There can be no commonality of interests between men and women, according to the zero-sum-game calculus of feminist theory in which everything that men say or do is always wrong, simply because they are male.
“Speaking truth is a threat to power and those in power will seek to suppress it. If you are being silenced, they see you as a threat. If you have become a target, you are doing something right.”
— Casey Chapman
Remember last month when transgender activists attacked a woman at a feminist gathering in London? That incident has had enormous impact in calling attention to an internecine conflict on the Left which, like the Harvey Weinstein scandal, the liberal media have been desperately trying to ignore for years. This battle in the transgender war on women was described by Canadian feminist Meghan Murphy:
The men who punched and kicked Maria MacLachlan had come to protest the women on account of their interest in feminism and in discussing the way new conversations and legislation around “gender identity” could impact the women’s movement and women’s rights. The protestors did not frame their anger and inflammatory rhetoric in this way, though. Instead, they labelled the women “TERFs” (trans exclusionary radical feminists) — a word that has come to signify a modern witch: to be silenced, threatened, harassed, punched, and — yes — killed.
The idea that feminists who question the notion of “gender identity” should be beaten and murdered has very rapidly become accepted by self-described leftists. We’re not just talking about Twitter eggs, here. Men with large platforms who are publicly associated with Antifa and groups like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have amplified the “punch TERFs” and “TERFs get the guillotine” message proudly, with the support of their comrades. In reference to The Handmaid’s Tale, many have taken to saying “TERFs get the wall.”
“TERF,” like “white supremacist” and “fascist,” is one of those terms used by leftists to silence their opponents. If you don’t agree 100% with their latest slogan, or if you call attention to facts that don’t fit their agenda, the Left will make you a target of these epithets, in an attempt to discredit you, and thus to exclude you from public forums. To these totalitarians, facts are “hate” and disagreement is “harassment.”
We on the Right have witnessed this tactic in action for years as, for example, those like Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have been demonized as “racists” for speaking out against radical Islam. The Left has now become so deranged as to denounce freedom of speech as “genocide,” and it is dangerous to be a Republican on a college campus. However, this totalitarian tendency of the Left has also been manifest in the attempt to enforce ideological conformity within the Left.
Casey Chapman is a socialist who resigned from the Democratic Socialists of America in August after she was accused of being “trans-exclusionary.” In fact, Ms. Chapman has “experienced gender and sex dysphoria for most of my life,” she “previously identified as trans [and] was part of the trans community online.” However, Ms. Chapman stopped short of pursuing “transition” via surgery and hormones, and eventually “re-identified” as a woman. She now identifies as as bisexual, and is in a heterosexual relationship with a socialist comrade, Jonathan Phipps.
Because DSA members were prominent among those promoting online attacks against feminists as “TERFs,” Ms. Chapman recorded a YouTube video addressed to DSA leaders:
Ms. Chapman calls this left-wing anti-“TERF” crusade a “dehumanization” tactic, one that functions for left-wing men as “a convenient way to say you’re an ally to women and still hate women.” Gosh, doesn’t that remind you a lot of Harvey Weinstein supporting Planned Parenthood and giving money to Democrats in order to conceal and/or rationalize his predatory behavior toward women? And if you are familiar with the way David Horowitz became an ex-leftist, doesn’t this remind you of his wake-up moment, when Horowitz realized that his Black Panther “comrades” had murdered Betty Van Patter?
What feminists like Ms. Chapman might discover, if they are paying attention, is how the Left’s rhetoric of “equality” and “social justice” tends to provoke conflict, justifying hatred against scapegoated enemies by blaming them for the victimhood of those who claim to be oppressed. Believing yourself to be a victim of oppression, fighting against systemic injustice, becomes an excuse for antisocial behavior. After all, if “society” is to blame for your suffering — as transgender activists claim — then all the laws, customs and moral codes of society may be rejected as oppressive. Obligations of courtesy toward women, for example, are rejected by the Left and therefore feminists who offend transgender activists are targeted with abusive language and acts of violence.
Radical hostility toward “society” (as racist, sexist, homophobic, and otherwise unjust) becomes a license for destructive impulses. This is why radical movements always attract immoral people with antisocial personalities. It’s why, as Hayek observed, “The Worst Get on Top” in totalitarian regimes that offer “special opportunities for the ruthless and unscrupulous.” Wicked people crave power for selfish purposes, including revenge against those who disapprove of their wickedness. In the Soviet Union, for example, the head of Stalin’s secret police was Lavrenti Beria, “notorious for his sadistic enjoyment of torture and his taste for beating and raping women and violating young girls.”
Meghan Murphy says transgender activists are guilty of “hate speech”against feminists, which suggests that such speech should be criminalized, but do feminists wish to use the force of government to silence their opponents? Isn’t the problem that transgender activists, by accusing their critics of “hate,” are trying to silence opposition? If both sides of this conflict seek to silence each other, why? And what does this mean for those of us who have disagreements with both feminists and transgender activists? We have seen leftists use violence to prevent conservatives from being able to speak on college campuses. Defenders of religious liberty have been smeared as “hate groups” by the SPLC.
On her Twitter profile, Ms. Chapman calls herself a “thought criminal,” which ought to be a badge of honor in an era where there are so many people trying to prevent us from thinking and speaking freely.
LONDON, England, October 11, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — A taxpayer-funded UK transgender charity that supported a mother forcing her 7-year-old boy to live as a girl for nearly three years has been allegedly ordered to stay away from the child.
Mermaids UK had until October 6 advertised on its website “same day” sex change hormone treatment for children, reported Metro UK.
The hormone treatment is banned by British health authorities because it “causes irreversible changes and can compromise fertility later in life for anyone under 16,” it reported.
In a highly publicized custody dispute, Justice Anthony Hayden ruled last October that “Child J,” then 7 years old, be removed from his mother’s care and live with his father.
“I consider that (the mother) has caused significant emotional harm to (her son) in her active determination that he should be a girl,” Hayden wrote.
The mother had “pressed (the boy) into a gender identification that had far more to do with his mother’s needs and little, if anything, to do with his own.”
The legal proceedings began three years earlier when the father objected to not having contact with his son, and a lower-court judge ordered an inquiry, the Guardian reported at the time.
As “the litigation progressed, (the boy) came to be referred to predominantly by the feminine pronoun ‘she,’” wrote Hayden.
“I pause here to emphasize that J was, at this stage, between four and six years of age,” he added.
Hayden’s ruling sternly rebuked social services for “summarily disregarding” concerns by a “whole raft of multi-disciplinary agencies” because they “did not wish to appear to be challenging an emerging orthodoxy in such a high-profile issue.”
According to court materials, the social worker did not act because the boy’s mother had “appropriately taken on board support from the charity Mermaids,” he wrote.
Mermaids denounced Hayden’s ruling as “horrific,” asserted the boy wanted to be a girl and that there was “no evidence at all to support this judge’s views,” reported the Daily Mail.
The charity offers “family and individual support for gender diverse and transgender children and young people” and has received £35,000 ($46,230 US) from the UK ministry of education, it reported.
Moreover, until last Friday, the youth section of Mermaid’s website carried a message from Hamburg-based Dr. Birgit Möller, offering “fast-track hormone treatment for kids,” reported Metro.
“If the families are interested, we would set up a long evaluation appointment at our clinic (3-4 hours) and afterwards an appointment with the endocrinologist,” Möller wrote. “In case of an indication for hormone treatment, he would prescribe it the same day.”
Mermaids denies the court directly ordered it to stay away from the boy.
After last year’s decision, “the mother informed us that the judge had ordered the child should have no further contact with the charity,” it said in a statement published by Metro.
“While we have not received any legal notice to support this statement, we have respected this request,” Mermaids stated.
The charity is in “active discussion with a lawyer” regarding the Sunday Times article that initially reported the no-contact ban, it said.
Meanwhile, Hayden noted in his ruling the boy had settled in well with his father.
He “has become interested in Power Rangers, SpongeBob, superheroes and is constantly finding new interests. … It is striking that most of J’s interests are male-oriented,” Hayden wrote.
By all reports, the father “brought no pressure on J to pursue masculine interests,” added Hayden. The boy’s “interests and energy are entirely self-motivated.”