Intersectionality Feminism as Mexican Standoff

by W.F. Price on January 30, 2014

As the American social hierarchy unravels due to demographic shifts, feminists have begun to lash out at each other in an apparent attempt to establish a new pecking order:

In the summer of 2012, twenty-one feminist bloggers and online activists gathered at Barnard College for a meeting that would soon become infamous. Convened by activists Courtney Martin and Vanessa Valenti, the women came together to talk about ways to leverage institutional and philanthropic support for online feminism. Afterward, Martin and Valenti used the discussion as the basis for a report, “#Femfuture: Online Revolution,” which called on funders to support the largely unpaid work that feminists do on the Internet. “An unfunded online feminist movement isn’t merely a threat to the livelihood of these hard-working activists, but a threat to the larger feminist movement itself,” they wrote.

#Femfuture was earnest and studiously politically correct. An important reason to put resources into online feminism, Martin and Valenti wrote, was to bolster the voices of writers from marginalized communities. “Women of color and other groups are already overlooked for adequate media attention and already struggle disproportionately in this culture of scarcity,” they noted. The pair discussed the way online activism has highlighted the particular injustices suffered by transgender women of color and celebrated the ability of the Internet to hold white feminists accountable for their unwitting displays of racial privilege. “A lot of feminist dialogue online has focused on recognizing the complex ways that privilege shapes our approach to work and community,” they wrote.

The women involved with #Femfuture knew that many would contest at least some of their conclusions. They weren’t prepared, though, for the wave of coruscating anger and contempt that greeted their work. Online, the Barnard group—nine of whom were women of color—was savaged as a cabal of white opportunists. People were upset that the meeting had excluded those who don’t live in New York (Martin and Valenti had no travel budget). There was fury expressed on behalf of everyone—indigenous women, feminist mothers, veterans—whose concerns were not explicitly addressed. Some were outraged that tweets were quoted without the explicit permission of the tweeters. Others were incensed that a report about online feminism left out women who aren’t online. “Where is the space in all of these #femfuture movements for people who don’t have internet access?” tweeted Mikki Kendall, a feminist writer who, months later, would come up with the influential hashtag #solidarityisforwhitewomen.

Martin was floored. She’s long believed that it’s incumbent on feminists to be open to critique—but the response was so vitriolic, so full of bad faith and stubborn misinformation, that it felt like some sort of Maoist hazing. Kendall, for example, compared #Femfuture to Rebecca Latimer Felton, a viciously racist Southern suffragist who supported lynching because she said it protected white women from rape. “It was really hard to engage in processing real critique because so much of it was couched in an absolute disavowal of my intentions and my person,” Martin says…

This brings to mind the Lord of The Rings trilogy, where one of the orcs, after losing a dispute with another, is thrown into a mob of hungry comrades, torn to pieces and consumed.

Just a few years ago, the feminist blogosphere seemed an insouciant, freewheeling place, revivifying women’s liberation for a new generation. “It felt like there was fun and possibility…a momentum or excitement that was building,” says Anna Holmes, who founded Jezebel, Gawker Media’s influential women’s website, in 2007. In 2011, critic Emily Nussbaum celebrated the feminist blogosphere in New York magazine: “Freed from the boundaries of print, writers could blur the lines between formal and casual writing; between a call to arms, a confession, and a stand-up routine—and this new looseness of form in turn emboldened readers to join in, to take risks in the safety of the shared spotlight.”

The Internet also became a crucial place for feminist organizing. When the breast cancer organization Komen for the Cure decided to defund Planned Parenthood in 2012, the overwhelming online backlash led to a reversal of the policy and the departure of the executive who had pushed it. Last year, Women, Action & the Media and the Everyday Sexism Project spearheaded a successful online campaign to get Facebook to ban pro-rape content.

Yet even as online feminism has proved itself a real force for change, many of the most avid digital feminists will tell you that it’s become toxic. Indeed, there’s a nascent genre of essays by people who feel emotionally savaged by their involvement in it—not because of sexist trolls, but because of the slashing righteousness of other feminists. On January 3, for example, Katherine Cross, a Puerto Rican trans woman working on a PhD at the CUNY Graduate Center, wrote about how often she hesitates to publish articles or blog posts out of fear of inadvertently stepping on an ideological land mine and bringing down the wrath of the online enforcers. “I fear being cast suddenly as one of the ‘bad guys’ for being insufficiently radical, too nuanced or too forgiving, or for simply writing something whose offensive dimensions would be unknown to me at the time of publication,” she wrote.

There’s a subtext of racial hostility to this feminist civil war, and although this may seem like envy or sour grapes to the casual observer, there’s a reason for the anger.

Back when second wave feminism really began to rise to power in the 80s, it was overwhelmingly a white women’s movement. It wasn’t explicitly supremacist, but the hierarchy was undeniable. White feminist radicals infiltrated social services throughout the land, including in inner cities, monopolizing what soon became a thriving industry. While white women had always been heavily involved in social welfare, in the earlier days they tended to be Christian and quite conservative by today’s standards, even if their contemporaries would have thought of them as liberal. The new feminist contingent was not bound by these dated patriarchal conventions. Soon, they began monopolizing their charges, often taking young nonwhite women as lesbian lovers. Whenever there’s a big power differential, as there is between social workers and the people who rely on them, abuses happen. It’s inevitable, no matter what ideology the authorities ascribe to. So there was something akin to the Catholic abuse scandals going on in women’s shelters and the like, only it was women taking advantage of women rather men taking advantage of boys.

This resulted in some strange outcomes that Americans in general are not aware of, but black feminists surely are. Today, lesbianism is highest among low-income black women. I suspect this is a cultural artifact of widespread exploitation of poor black women by lesbians in the 80s and 90s combined with the unavailability of black men. In fact, not having men to rely on has forced a lot of black women to rely on other women as surrogate husbands. In many cases, these were older white lesbians. You can probably guess who had the upper hand in these relationships.

“I actually think there’s a subset of black women who really do get off on white women being prostrate,” Cooper says. “It’s about feeling disempowered and always feeling at the mercy of white authority, and wanting to feel like for once the things you’re saying are being given credibility and authority. And to have white folks do that is powerful, particularly in a world where white women often deploy power against black women in ways that are really problematic.”

Preening displays of white feminist abjection, however, are not the same as respect. “What’s disgusting and disturbing to me is that I see some of the more intellectually dishonest arguments put forth by women of color being legitimized and performed by white feminists, who seem to be in some sort of competition to exhibit how intersectional they are,” says Jezebel founder Holmes, who is black. “There are these Olympian attempts on the part of white feminists to underscore and display their ally-ship in a way that feels gross and dishonest and, yes, patronizing.”

This reached an absurd peak during the tempest over #Femfuture. Jamia Wilson was one of the black women involved in the Barnard meeting, and she has since become part of the four-woman leadership team for the #Femfuture project, which continues to work on ways to make online feminism financially sustainable. She watched incredulously as white women joined in the pile-on about #Femfuture’s alleged racial insensitivity. One self-described white feminist tweeted at her to explain that no women of color had been at the Barnard meeting “and that I needed to be educated about that,” Wilson recalls. Somehow, activists who prided themselves on their racial enlightenment “were whitesplaining me about racism,” she adds, laughing.

But it isn’t entirely a racial issue (although I suspect that’s the most important one) at work here. Now that transsexuals have managed to gain a foothold in this grievance racket, there’s a movement afoot to abolish the sanctity of the vagina.

In a revolution-eats-its-own irony, some online feminists have even deemed the word “vagina” problematic. In January, the actress and activist Martha Plimpton tweeted about a benefit for Texas abortion funds called “A Night of a Thousand Vaginas,” sponsored by A Is For, a reproductive rights organization she’s involved with. Plimpton was surprised when some offended Internet feminists urged people to stay away, arguing that emphasizing “vaginas” hurts trans men who don’t want their reproductive organs coded as female. “Given the constant genital policing, you can’t expect trans folks to feel included by an event title focused on a policed, binary genital,” tweeted @DrJaneChi, an abortion and transgender health provider. (She mentioned “internal genitals” as an alternative.) When Plimpton insisted that she would continue to say “vagina,” her feed filled up with indignation. “So you’re really committed to doubling down on using a term that you’ve been told many times is exclusionary & harmful?” asked one self-described intersectional feminist blogger.

Plimpton takes intersectionality seriously—A Is For is hosting a series of discussions on the subject this year—but she was flummoxed by this purist, arcane form. “I’m not going to stop using the word ‘vagina’ for anybody, whether it’s Glenn Beck or Mike Huckabee or somebody on Twitter who feels it creates a dysphoric response,” she tells me. “I can’t do that and still advocate for reproductive freedom. It’s just not a realistic thing to expect.”

I guess this leaves Eve Ensler up a creek. Well, she’s already at retirement age, so the imminent demise of the cis-normative Vagina Monologues may not make much difference at this point.

This “intersectionality” will be the demise of feminism as a powerful, cohesive force. Intersectionality is essentially multiculturalism on crack, and will prove to be impossible to manage. While feminism will always exist in one form or another, when it ceases to benefit a majority of women it will find itself largely ignored or avoided by most women. And as the US becomes a pluralist country there will be no clear majority, and no clear winners from a generic “feminism.” Instead, there will be a thousand little feminisms, each for one particular group of women, and each hostile to the others.

{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }

keyster January 30, 2014 at 10:45

Sorry a bit OT but great article…

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/nonie-darwish/all-the-presidents-women/

Every scandal Obama has had has a woman behind it. Coincidence?

And BTW – GO BRONCOS!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2
W.F. Price January 30, 2014 at 10:49

@Keyster

Manning’s going to look like a doddering old man by the end of the game. :)

Anonymous Reader January 30, 2014 at 11:03

Since Feminism is a form of Marxism, there is always some party line or other that must be obeyed. And since the party line depends on who is in charge, or perhaps (“Trigger Alert!”) whose on top is a better way to phrase it, there’s always competition to be the lead mare in the herd.

Ultimately all variants on Marxism come to this: Kto, ktom (or if you prefer, Kto, kogo) which translated from the Russian means “Who does what to whom? Who can “do” and who gets “done”? It’s force, pure and simple, although always clothed in pretty lies and rationalizations.

However, I do not expect Feminism, Inc. to truly fracture. Do not forget that women are more group-oriented than men are as a rule, and so they will always come to the defense of one of their “sisters” no matter what. All the internal friction, screeching and hair pulling between the factions of feminism will always come to a halt when there are men to blame, men to extract resources from, men to have imprisoned, etc.

It is worth suggesting that one reason for the loss of black men from their neighborhoods since the 1980′s is simple yet complicated. The 1986 Bradley amendment created debtor’s prison for “Deadbeat Dads” and this was reinforced in the 1990′s welfare reform. A man who works for below the median income, who is put through the divorce machine, may wind up with an imputed income that leaves him all but penniless. Any downturn in the job market and he’s not only out of work, but the child support starts adding up. At some point if he runs afoul of a judge, he’s going to lose professional certification, any skilled trade license and even his driver’s license. Now all he can hope to do is day labor (a market that increasingly is controlled by illegal aliens). At that point he’s likely going to wind up in prison, and the arrears keep adding up while he’s inside Beat Dead Daddy prison.

I am looking at some studies Dalrock forwarded to me, but have not really found any sort of serious study that considers the effect of anti-Family court on the blue collar community or the black community in the US. But let’s suppose that Bradley ’86 as amended in the 90′s is in fact responsible, along with VAWA and the Duluth protocol, for a measurable number of black men in prison. What then? In modern SWPL victemology, women outrank black men. But on the other hand, black women may want fewer black men in prison – if nothing else, the Female Imperative demands it – so what to do?

This ties back to the collision between feminisms mentioned above. There is a great deal of emotional, political and financial payoff for many people in the current, warped, social structure. The divorce machine and the prison industry are two significant parts of the economy, at least for the legal business. So changing any part of the divorce industry is taking money away from some members of the bar association as well as from Feminism, Inc. (“women’s shelters”). Yet the current situation is increasingly untenable.

Something’s going to give, or else something’s going to break, societally.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 0
keyster January 30, 2014 at 11:58

On topic:

http://freebeacon.com/blog/twitters-feminists-prove-their-toxicity/

No one knows what terms like cisgender, gynocentrism and “privilege” (in a racial context) means. Only those on the fringes of gender discourse might understand them…and you can’t change the public discourse if no one understands what the Hell you’re talking about.

I’ll take wisdom and experience over youthful exuberance any time.
But Russell Wilson will live to fight another day – or until his knees give out. :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
PSdan January 30, 2014 at 12:24

@Anonymous Reader

Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge foreshadowed this sort of thing in their book “Professing Feminism”. It can be read as a report on a social experiment: what happens when all existing hierarchy is forbidden, as was done when Women’s Studies programs were established beginning with Cornell’s in 1969?

What happens is that humans immediately seek to establish a new hierarchy, b/c human groups really can’t function without it. Purely egalitarian groups really can’t accomplish much. Male hierarchies often form quickly and effectively b/c they focus on competing with other hierarchies that may pose a real existential threat (Roy Baumeister, “Is There Anything Good About Men?). In the case of Women’s Studies, there was no external competition b/c they were completely protected from normal academic scrutiny and established standards for academic work product and pedagogy. As a result, these women spent a great deal of time chasing their tails in ultimately selfish attempts to gain and retain power and prestige. As we can see, this never ends. Freude!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 0
Jaego January 30, 2014 at 12:44

Hilarious. Vagina as a forbidden concept? They’re eating themselves alive. And the price of power for Whites is to throw other Whites under the bus. White Feminists will find that other groups do not throw their own members under the bus, but will be glad to help throwing Whites under.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3
crypter27 January 30, 2014 at 13:08

It’s an interesting article,it would seem were starting to see cracks the armor of feminism but I hate to say it theres no fracture yet but when there is. We could use this to our advantage,by employing the age old tactic of divide and conqur thus while they are infighting we take the field.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Heywood Jablome January 30, 2014 at 13:14

Let them fight. Encourage them to devour each other. The uglier and angrier they get, the less they’ll recruit new, pretty, feminine girls.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Tam the Bam January 30, 2014 at 13:20

“but the response was so vitriolic, so full of bad faith and stubborn misinformation, that it felt like some sort of Maoist hazing”
Oh hellooo .. Nurse.
Sat in der Wagen at Saino’s this arvo, who should flop out of the radio but St Germaine of Greer, pretendy-fem ü ber-troll, agent of the Spectacle, UMC intellectual imposter and sperge-queen.
And I made sure to memorise her quote while Richard of Bacon (for it was he) was fawningly quizzing her.

I am a Marxist. I mean historically, not like I’m a Bolshevik, but the (social attitudes follow the economic change blah blur senile wittering ..”; by this time I was beginning to slip into catatonia, and if you’re interested, in a way which I sincerely wasn’t, I could look it up on iPlayer and rip it with Audacity. Purely in the interests of accuracy, you understand)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
geographybeefinalisthimself January 30, 2014 at 14:02

“In fact, not having men to rely on has forced a lot of black women to rely on other women as surrogate husbands.”

So, where were the guns positioned at all the temples of all these black women again? I thought that black women had been more than happy to throw black men under the bus. (It was NOT black men who advocated for low-income government assistance eligibility guidelines to cover women who had children out of wedlock. This advocacy is totally on black women.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Towgunner January 30, 2014 at 14:21

We should encourage any internal conflict among feminists.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
The Other Jim January 30, 2014 at 14:33

They lost me trying to explain the difference between the People’s Front of Judea and the Judean People’s Front. And the Popular Front of Judea. And the United Front of Judea. And…

If I recall, the morally and intellectually bankrupt predecessors to the Feminists/LGBQT/Sex Positivists/whatever-the Bolsheviks went through a similar process, albeit far more vicious, violent and bloody. It was Leninism vs. Stalin vs. Trotskyism with the final result being Lenin dying, Stalin taking over Russia, and Trotsky ending up with a ice pick through his head.

Let’s hope for similar results by the Leftists.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Aaron January 30, 2014 at 15:13

“there will be a thousand little feminisms, each for one particular group of women, and each hostile to the others”

To paraphrase Machievelli; the feminists will divide and conquer themselves. Long-term (after the divorcing of their unholy political union), the witches might eventually set aside their differences and re-group.

After reading the words and reflecting on the thinking of the feminists in the above article, I feel like I have just walked through an insane asylum.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
chinesefootsoldier January 30, 2014 at 15:22

My god, all their problems are so trivial and retarded I couldn’t care even if I wanted to. Leftists often end up in self-righteous witch hunts over ideological purity, so let’s hope they inflict as must injury upon their own ranks as possible.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
crypter27 January 30, 2014 at 15:26

I understand exactly how you feel,the world has gone mad!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Opus January 30, 2014 at 15:34

Colour trumps Sex.

Reminds me a little of the bust-up amongst the Atheists where Sex trumped Sanity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
Jaego January 30, 2014 at 15:51

We must be sensitive to Puerto Rican Transwomen, and indeed, Transwomen of all colors – even White.

Black Women end up with each other because they’re the most masculine and therefore the least feminine – and that means the least attractive to Heterosexual men. But to Gay or Straight Puerto Rican Transwomen? Can’t rightly say. And it gives me pleasure to say I don’t care either. Let’s stick to the basics: the penis is just as feminine as the vagina and vice versa. On this we can build!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
Walhaz January 30, 2014 at 15:53

Interesting situation, but it was bound to happen.

Women can’t stand other women, no matter what their background or ideology.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
DCM January 30, 2014 at 16:06

Females try to accomplish something and it degenerates into a sick crap soup.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
greyghost January 30, 2014 at 17:18

What this also shows is even the bluepill men are seeing what woman are made of. Black male you tubers have been speaking of the hell on earth feminist black women. Men are not carrying the water anymore because there are none left to do it. Now they are fighting over a shrinking pie. Always fun to watch women fight. Gandarusa for all teenage boys and men. Let’s watch the fights.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Paul Murray January 30, 2014 at 18:13

“I fear being cast suddenly as one of the ‘bad guys’ for being insufficiently radical, too nuanced or too forgiving, or for simply writing something whose offensive dimensions would be unknown to me at the time of publication,”

Welcome to our world. Whether work/life balance, DV, or here attempting to have public opinions, over and over feminism is getting women treated like men, and they are not liking it very much. Feminism is a victim of its own success. What does a movement that is all about hating the establishment do when it becomes the establishment?

Implode, obviously.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
Paul Murray January 30, 2014 at 18:20

@Opus “Reminds me a little of the bust-up amongst the Atheists where Sex trumped Sanity.”

The atheists recovered, and Atheism+ was sidelined, because organised atheism is mainly run by men, and because atheism is primarily about reason. You know: objective truth and all that. Even if you think atheism is *wrong*, nevertheless those are its *values*.

An organisation whose values are victimhood, intersectionality, and the primacy of “lived experience” (aka: arguing by anecdote) cannot last, because it has no basis for common ground amongst its members. The transmen complaining about ‘vagina’ signal a death-knell. If feminists can’t argue ‘because vagina!’, they seriously have nothing else they can say. There is nothing more to the movement *but* vagina.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
Oswald Spengler January 30, 2014 at 18:39

“This brings to mind the Lord of The Rings trilogy, where one of the orcs, after losing a dispute with another, is thrown into a mob of hungry comrades, torn to pieces and consumed.”

This unstable nature of the leftist Coalition of the Eternally Aggrieved also reminds me of this scene from Return of the King:

In the end they were forced to go back down the ravine that they had climbed and seek for a way along the valley. It was rough going…. After a mile or more they saw … the orc-hold that they had guessed was near at hand…. There was no movement to be seen, but the hobbits crept by cautiously….

They went two or three miles further…; but they had hardly begun to breathe more freely again when harsh and loud they heard orc-voices. Quickly they slunk out of sight … Presently two orcs came into view. One … was armed with a bow of horn; it was of a small breed…, with wide and snuffling nostrils: evidently a tracker of some kind. The other was a big fighting-orc…. As usual they were quarrelling….

Hardly twenty paces from where the hobbits lurked the small orc stopped. ‘Nar!’ it snarled. ‘I’m going home.’ … ‘No good wearing my nose out…. There’s not a trace left, I say. I’ve lost the scent through giving way to you. It went up into the hills, not along the valley, I tell you.’

‘Not much use are you, you little snufflers?’ said the big orc. ‘I reckon eyes are better than your snotty noses.’

‘Then what have you seen with them?’ snarled the other. ‘Garn! You don’t even know what you’re looking for.’

‘Whose blame’s that?’ said the soldier. ‘Not mine. That comes from Higher Up. First they say it’s a great Elf in bright armour, then it’s a sort of small dwarf-man, then it must be a pack of rebel Uruk-hai; or maybe it’s all the lot together.’

‘Ar!’ said the tracker. ‘They’ve lost their heads…. And some of the bosses are going to lose their skins too, I guess, if what I hear is true: Tower raided and all…, and prisoner got away. If that’s the way you fighters go on, small wonder there’s bad news from the battles.’ …

‘That’s cursed rebel-talk, and I’ll stick you, if you don’t shut it down, see?’

‘All right, all right!’ said the tracker. ‘I’ll say no more and go on thinking. But what’s the black sneak got to do with it all?’ …

‘I don’t know…. But he’s up to no good, nosing around, I’ll wager. Curse him! No sooner had he slipped us and run off than word came he’s wanted alive….’

‘Well, I hope they get him…,’ growled the tracker. ‘He messed up the scent back there, pinching that cast-off mail-shirt that he found, and paddling all round the place….’

‘It saved his life anyhow,’ said the soldier. ‘Why, before I knew he was wanted I shot him, as neat as neat, at fifty paces right in the back; but he ran on.’

‘Garn! You missed him,’ said the tracker. ‘First you shoot wild, then you run too slow, and then you send for the poor trackers. I’ve had enough of you.’ He loped off.

‘You come back,’ shouted the soldier, ‘or I’ll report you!’

‘Who to? Not to your precious Shagrat. He won’t be captain any more.’

‘I’ll give your name and number to the Nazgûl,’ said the soldier lowering his voice to a hiss. ‘One of them’s in charge at the Tower now.’

The other halted, and his voice was full of fear and rage. ‘You cursed peaching sneakthief!’ he yelled. ‘You can’t do your job, and you can’t even stick by your own folk. Go to your filthy Shriekers, and may they freeze the flesh off you! If the enemy doesn’t get them first. They’ve done in Number One, I’ve heard, and I hope it’s true!’

The big orc, spear in hand, leapt after him. But the tracker … put an arrow in his eye as he ran up…. The other ran off across the valley and disappeared.

For a while the hobbits sat in silence. At length Sam stirred. ‘Well I call that neat as neat,’ he said. ‘If this nice friendliness would spread about in Mordor, half our trouble would be over.’

‘Quietly, Sam,’ Frodo whispered. … ‘We have evidently had a very narrow escape, and the hunt was hotter on our tracks than we guessed. But that is the spirit of Mordor, Sam; and it has spread to every corner of it. Orcs have always behaved like that…. But … they hate us far more…. If those two had seen us, they would have dropped all their quarrel until we were dead.’

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Oswald Spengler January 30, 2014 at 18:48

The constituent groups of the leftist Coalition of the Eternally Aggrieved aren’t terribly fond of each other. However, they uniformly despise the white heterosexual Christian boogeyman far more than they dislike one another. That’s the KKKrazy Glue (in the turn of phrase coined by Steve Sailer) that holds their coalition together.

http://takimag.com/article/the_kkkrazy_glue_that_holds_the_obama_coalition_together_steve_sailer/print#axzz2rwMmppzH

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Jensen January 30, 2014 at 19:51

@The Other Jim

It’s not LGBQT.
Please be more inclusive and agree and amplify and not be so closed minded.
It’s LGBTUMMDH.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, transgender and unmarried men maintaining diverse harems.

I love this business of inclusiveness and diversity!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Tam the Bam January 30, 2014 at 20:20

“There is nothing more to the movement *but* vagina.”
OK Paul, you got me.
Where do I sign?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Oswald Spengler January 30, 2014 at 20:31

“You anti-unmarried men maintaining diverse haremistic bastard!”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
crypter27 January 30, 2014 at 21:03

What we need now is a long term plan of attack when the fracture occurs,so we can take action quickly!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader January 30, 2014 at 21:55

The other Jim
It was Leninism vs. Stalin vs. Trotskyism with the final result being Lenin dying, Stalin taking over Russia, and Trotsky ending up with a ice pick through his head.

A popular misconception. Actually Stalin’s assassin in Mexico murdered Trotsky with an ice axe, not an ice pick. Trotsky was at a severe disadvantage in the fight, because it took place over his writing desk, and so he was apparently torn between defending himself and defending the sole manuscript of his biography of Stalin. Typical writer / intellectual, trying to solve two problems at once…and thus failing at Problem One, the “staying alive” part.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader January 30, 2014 at 21:57

Paul
“There is nothing more to the movement *but* vagina.”

Tam ye Bam
OK Paul, you got me.
Where do I sign?

Steady on, man, there’s more to life than that. Oral, for example…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Jacob Ian Stalk January 31, 2014 at 03:57

“Instead, there will be a thousand little feminisms, each for one particular group of women, and each hostile to the others.”

…and the thousand will become ten thousand and the ten thousand will become a hundred thousand and…solipsism. How could it possibly end any other way?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Aaron January 31, 2014 at 04:06

My sister is not a feminist. She is a very traditional smart woman in most ways though occasionally lacking in seeing things objectively and with common sense. Yesterday, I discussed the doctor shortage with her. I stated that 55% of medical seats should not be held by women when many of them will after a few years reduce their work-hours or stop working because they decided to have kids. My sister’s reply was that women have that right and are ‘entitled’ to choose their children over their career. I replied that the role and number of doctors is critical in society and and that it is not a matter of ‘entitlement’ as it is one of responsibility. The role of doctor is not the same value as the role of ethnic grill cook (and btw my local ethnic grill cooks are greatly appreciated). She replied that the schools and government must increase the number of medical students. Why haven’t they done that yet under the current paradigm? It is easier said than done. My sister works for government and she doesn’t get it that eventually all public resources (taxes and loans) are not endless.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
sestamibi January 31, 2014 at 11:09

I read this stuff, roll my eyes, and think about how this is happening just as I imagined it and just about on the schedule I had forecast. Once traditional values in America were vanquished (at least at the macro and policy levels), the politically correct would turn on each other instead.

In the long run, however, the game will be over for these cunts as they fail to reproduce, and the world will be inherited by the spawn of patriarchy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Kevin T January 31, 2014 at 11:14

They finally drink of their own Kool-Aid and find it a tad bitter.

Welcome to man land. U mad, sis?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
bob January 31, 2014 at 19:29

In a revolution-eats-its-own irony,

http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/bs-party-to-decide-proper-rank-position-for-transsexuals-t10525.html

but the response was so vitriolic, so full of bad faith and stubborn misinformation, that it felt like some sort of Maoist hazing

Poor babies. Anybody to the right of Lenin gets that every f’ing day – welcome to our world, biatches.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Tree January 31, 2014 at 21:28

I know a chicken farmer once told me about his laying hens,

“You have to have a rooster in charge to break up the fights, or else the hens peck each other to death.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
andybob February 1, 2014 at 02:06

“An unfunded online feminist movement isn’t merely a threat to the livelihood of these hard-working activists, but a threat to the larger feminist movement itself,” they wrote.”

Feminists have drawn their knives and played their intersectionality cards on each other because they smell the promise of lots and lots of funding.

The explicit purpose of the meeting at Barnard College was to discuss ways to leverage institutional and philanthropic support to online feminists. Feminists know that a bit of whinging about not being financially rewarded for being “hard-working activists” will probably result in institutions showering them with philanthropic support.

Look at what happened to Anita Sarkeesian when she pouted over being globally stalked, harassed and cyber-bullied for her ‘work’. She was left drowning in funds – not to mention, miraculously unscathed and remarkably chirpy.

This squabbling by online feminists is just aggressive jostling to secure primary positions for when the handouts begin in earnest. That’s why there is so much emphasis on who is the most deserving, the most oppressed and the most aggrieved. Take a hike trans folk – only authentic vaginas are allowed in this queue.

The petty jealousies and back-stabbing resentments were already well-established among the various factions of online feminists. It has only been forced into the public arena by the promise of generous funding. Each faction needs to cast doubt on the ideological purity of its rivals so that the Big Wallet in the Sky will dump the most generous wads of cash into its coffers.

All of this has the satisfying appearance of feminists eating their own. Unfortunately, experience has taught that their appetites are insatiable. Whoever is left standing – or rather, sitting at their keyboards – will still have plenty of room left to try and devour their non-feminist opponents.

This spectacle may be revealing, diverting and disturbingly enjoyable, but ultimately, there is little for us to celebrate. They’ll get their funding, gloss over their in-fighting, and return to directing their venomous bigotry at the oppressive, rape-enabling patriarchy – in other words, us.

Only this time, they’ll be better financed and more institutionally appreciated than ever before.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
dire badger February 1, 2014 at 18:51

Frankly wAtching these gender pliticians chase each other around each trying to outdo the other at being the chosen designated victim group is hilarious, roll the Benny hill music as queers chase transgendersv chase queens chase dykes round and round.

Fucking hilarious.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
ScribblerG February 2, 2014 at 11:17

I giggle when these sort of observations are used to predict the demise of feminism and gynocentrism and the female imperative. In fact, the nonsensical state of our politics and philosophy is quite a predictable state of women getting power they don’t know how to be responsible with. Nietzsche predicted this dilettantism and idiocy in philosophy and the sciences as well as hyper-partisanship and truly inane politics. If you doubt me on on this, do your own research – these are exactly the conditions he predicted would come about at women tried to adopt masculinity.

Femcentrism/Gynocentrism/Feminine Imperative is gaining power, and accelerating away from men. The only saving grace is that due to the economic and political ignorance of most women (just ask a women a simple question like “what is money” or “what is the purpose of the federal govt versus state govts” and see how few of them can even give a coherent answer), our federal govt, currency and the global financial system will undoubtedly come crashing down around our heads within the next 20 years (current NPV of Fed govt obligations, net of taxes/revenue to the Feds is 205 trillion). This will force a societal reset which will accrue to men who are prepared to weather the downturn.

It’s hard to say how it will play out as such things are inherently unpredictable in many ways. However, when one looks at women’s behavior at times of deprivation, they suddenly know how to become subservient again every time. It’s happened in Cuba and some eastern European countries recently. Or just visit the Ukraine to see how a women will throw herself at a man who can extract her from the life of deprivation and poverty she faces. And what is coming will make that pale in comparison. At a minimum, cities will be come like scenes from Road Warrior. Consider that 80% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and have no stores of food or water beyond a few days.

People start killing each other over water within 3 days. Food, within a week or two. That’s why I moved out to the country and am making sure i’m armed and very low profile. When it really hits the fan, I’ll probably hi-tail it to some really remote wilderness and camp out there for a month or two and let it settle down. When I come back, I’ll probably be able to have wet tee shirt contests on my front lawn to see which women me and my men will allow to share our dinner with each night.

Material conditions will have to change dramatically and then women will change. But up until then, they’ve got a stranglehold on political power and many other institutions in our society and that shows no sign of ebbing. No matter how absurd they are, and surely as this article so clearly demonstrates, they are already quite absurd.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
FTLOTBP February 2, 2014 at 18:39

Just wait until the taxpayer money for feminists madness runs out. Then the real fun will begin. Feminists need mens’ money like a fish needs an ocean.

Of course, the iron is hot now. Hint, hint.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Tam the Bam February 3, 2014 at 07:42

There’s an absolute doozy of a shoving match boiling up in London.
Somalis v. Lesbians
Social work ladies (who are Never Wrong About Anything, Ever, we must remember) are hanging on to the wretched nipper until the impasse is resolved.
Although almost anything is better than a life in Local Authority (Don’t) Care, I wouldn’t go as far as the commenters recommending that the whole whingeing lot get sent somewhere more congenial to their views. For example, Somalia.
I await developments with interest, as a rough gauge on which minority “trade union” has the political whip hand currently. Who will the Powers favor?

[chews popcorn]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dire Badger February 4, 2014 at 08:12

2021 buddy.

in 2016, we will be electing another liberal. even the illusion of fair and impartial elections was stripped away in 2012 as bus convoys of out-of-town democrats were shipped to swing states in order to legitimize the electronic chicanery that allowed Obama to be re-elected… Hillary won’t face half the scrutiny Obama did, and will win with less than 8% of the straw poll popular vote.

by 2017 the INTEREST on our national debt will exceed our GDP. That means that we will default, in a big way… bigger than the former soviet union, in fact (at least in CCCP China didn’t own half of their real estate and have a sovereign interest in preserving that ownership) This will be followed by rapid attempts to nationalize all infrastructure and resources, despite our inability to maintain those resources.

By 2019 race riots in the midwest will start an undeclared shooting war with mexico, in the person of millions of illegal mexican combatants that have been slipping across the border since the 80′s. it will be bloody, but will result in Texas declaring independence, which will give Hillary the excuse to invade and declare texas a ‘firearm free zone’. This will rapidly propagate across the nation, and for a few short years it will be illegal to own a private firearm of any sort.

By 2021, the entire infrastructure will start collapsing, with Urban areas getting decimated by plague, starvation, and dehydration. Urban centers will start a soviet-esque ‘forced migration’ of undesirables to rural areas, which will, of course, culminate in individual city-states in essence raiding rural areas for sustenance.

With the exception of a few midwest holdout states, we will devolve into full-on warlordism by 2025….assuming, of course, that the chinese don’t take advantage of the disarmament in 2019.

Lucky me, I will be dead by then :) I am a killer, not a survivor.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: