Stacy McCain has been running a long series on his look into the background, practice and politics of radical feminism on his blog this year. One recent story got me thinking about a similarity between the radical feminist viewpoint and the stance of a certain other radical agenda.
McCain comes to the conclusion, and I pretty much agree, that the prevailing opinion of men by feminists is one of hostility. He writes:
This was written by Ms. Anti-PIV at her “Radical Wind” blog, and is an accurate portrayal of the implicit logic of feminism: Accepting the core premise that women (collectively) are oppressed by men (collectively), a woman is led to perceive normal relationships with men as characterized by her “subordination,” as she is “humiliated” and reduced to the status of “dick-socket.” She then makes “equality” the standard by which she judges men; which is to say, she cannot imagine a man who deserves admiration as superior to her in any way. It is impossible for her to “look up” to any man. Indeed, given her description of men — every single one of whom she condemns as abusive, selfish and “inherently violent” – feminism leads her to view males to be decidedly inferior to females. Her “totally impossible” demand of males, to make them suitable as her companions, is that they must accept this hateful verdict against themselves: Men must “understand feminism,” so she will “be able to be feminist with them,” whatever the hell that means.
Men cannot be superior . . . unable to look up to any man (for any reason, presumably) . . . men must accept this degrading worldview to be accepted in the feminist worldview . . . and so on. He points this out again here:
Such is the feminist view of men, of heterosexual relationships, of normal marriage and motherhood. If you are a woman who actually desires those things (romance, a wedding, a husband and children, a family home) then you are not a feminist. You may call yourself a “feminist,” but it’s impossible to reconcile a normal female life with the radical project of overthrowing the patriarchy. And if you’re a woman committed to overthrowing patriarchy (i.e., reducing men to the status of passive drones in a sexless androgynous regime of “equality” where men are only acceptable if they display a masochistic appetite for the companionship of women who despise them)...
His research into the subject is exhaustive, and the findings about how much of this ideology is being vigorously promoted on college campuses around the country is disturbing. As is the push to begin gender neutral indoctrination of children in grade school (uni-sex bathrooms, cross-dressing, etc.) along with the notion that sex-ed should begin at age 10. It's beyond imagining the damage this would do to culture in this country.
Years ago, after 9/11 and with the Iraq War ramping up, I decided to read through the Qu'ran. Because I was curious and wanted to have at least a little first hand knowledge on the source of some of what was going on.
You hear a lot of moderate Muslims talking about how the Qu'ran is all about peace and getting along with everyone. And that may be true, but there's a price to be paid for that peace and getting along and stuff. Islam will tolerate you as a Christian or a Jew . . . if you are willing to publicly admit Islam is the true religion, if you are willing to endure whatever humiliation and degredation is layed upon you as your religion is mocked by Muslims, if you are willing to tithe money to Islam . . . yes, you will be allowed to become a dhimmi and practice your religion. But you must know your place and accept your inferiority.
Doesn't that sound similar to the place radical feminists hope to force men into? I'm not saying there's a connection between the two ideologies, just marveling that these radical viewpoints all seem to have such a humiliating endgame in mind for their enemies.
And just because I'm one of those horrid men who finds women attractive and desirable, here's a couple of pics of Alyssa Arce in her surprisingly unsupporting foundation garments: