Feminism is purported to be about the emasculation of men.
While there is no doubt that it has been a major factor in the feminization of American society over the past 30-40 years, it is as much about creating a masculine female as it is a feminine male. Where traditional feminism campaigns for equal opportunity and treatment for women, there is a form of feminism has metastasized from a quest for equality to a radical anti-male ideology, seeking to do nothing less than to create an institutionalization of penis envy.
So, an attack on both sexes.
What could possibly explain that?
In reality, this radical brand of feminism is just cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism is an outgrowth of Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School, and unsurprisingly it found significant popularity in academia of the counterculture 60’s.
Where Marx argued that economic inequalities oppress the masses, cultural Marxists argue that this oppression is a feature of Western culture, that it was created as the culture evolved and is unique in history, essentially that what appears as traditional cultural phenomena intrinsic to the culture of Western Civilization are simply historically recent developments that help to justify and maintain hierarchy. For instance the drive for individual acquisition associated with capitalism, nationalism, the nuclear family, gender roles, race and other forms of cultural identity are nothing but tools of the ruling classes to oppress the people.
In the view of the radical feminist, this defines the heteronormative patriarchy that is intent on the subjugation of women. While I’m less than convinced that men can be true feminists – I do believe that there are men who ascribe to this brand of Marxism and are willing to use race, creed, color, national origin and especially sexual orientation to achieve the overall goal of a Marxist state.
But no matter how hard science tries, a female can never be made male any more than a male can be made female. It is a biological impossibility as our DNA determines our sex – the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women. No operation “treatment” can alter the genetic code of an individual. An illusion of reassignment can be created through the subtraction or modification of certain body parts and hormonal balance but a biological male will always be a biological male and a biological female will always be a biological female – both with prerogatives assigned by nature, primarily centered on procreation and survival of the species.
Since the impenetrable wall of DNA cannot be attacked, the radical feminists/cultural Marxists strike at society because society creates gender – not sex, and there is a difference. Gender is the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women. This is where they attack society
Gramsci’s role in this is he and his disciples infamous “march though the institutions”, in this case, the march through the institutions of higher learning. This march has led to such ridiculous examples of false scholarship as not to be believed. Stacy McCain at his blog, The Other McCain, puts this pseudo-intellectualism on display by excerpting this gibberish from a hero of the radical feminist movement, Mary Daly:
Given these conditions of Stag-Nation, Elemental Shrews and Furies urgently experience the need for Re-Naming/Re-Claiming our stolen Flames, undoing the promethean theft of Fire, retrieving our ravaged desire…
The would-be preventers of this retrieval of gynergy, the ghosts/ghouls that want our movement dead, are snools. The noun snool (Scottish) means “a cringing person”. It means also “a tame, abject, or mean-spirited person” (OED). In sadosociety, snools rule, and snools are the rule. The dual personalities of these personae – the cast of characters governing and legitimizing bore-ocracy – are unmasked by definitions of the verb snool. This means, on the one hand, “to reduce to submission: COW, BULLY,” and on the other hand, “CRINGE, COWER.” Snools are sadism and masochism combined, the stereotypic saints and heroes of the sadostate.”
This was actually written in her 1984 book, Pure Lust: Elemental Feminist Philosophy. Daly was a radical lesbian feminist philosopher, academic, and theologian, she taught at Boston College and retired in 1999, after violating university policy by refusing to allow male students in her advanced women’s studies classes. For those keeping score, her bio shows that she held two doctorates in sacred theology and philosophy from the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, she received her B.A. in English from The College of Saint Rose, her M.A. in English from The Catholic University of America, and a doctorate in religion from Saint Mary’s College.
In something a little closer to home, there was recently an incident at UC Santa Barbara where a 16 year old pro-life protester was allegedly attacked by Mireille Miller-Young, an Associate Professor of Feminist Studies. What are Ms. Miller-Young’s qualifications? Why she has a Ph.D. from New York University (American History and History of the African Dispora), a M.A. also from New York University (American History and History of the African Dispora) and a B.A. in history from Emory University. Her areas of focus at UCSB – pornography; sex work; Black Film, popular culture and art; feminist & queer theory and African American & African Diaspora Studies.
Her doctoral dissertation? Glad you asked…
“A Taste for Brown Sugar: The History of Black Women in American Pornography.”
You really have to read her bio at the UCSB site to appreciate what is passing for academic scholarship these days.
What on God’s green earth would either Mary Daly or Mireille Miller-Young have to teach any student, male or female, that would benefit them in greater society? Daly held doctorates in theology and religion, so it seems apparent that this was not to understand theology or religion but was some twisted attempt at opposition research.
Either way, these women served and are serving a greater purpose – that of indoctrination of young, impressionable students in the prosecution of cultural Marxism disguised as “feminism”. That is the only reason that colleges and university presidents have kept people like these two – people who pursue such ridiculous and worthless silliness.
Sort of makes these academic leaders look like misogynists, now doesn’t it?