“Why do you oppose women’s rights?” Is probably one of the most frequent questions those opposed to feminism hear, including myself. Often I’ve given a short answer — I don’t, I oppose feminism, not women’s rights (or advocacy) — but such discussions often lead nowhere.
More recently, however, I’ve been wondering: If there was only one article I could write about feminism, what would I write about? This is the answer to that question.
Feminism has undoubtedly done some good things for women, which I don’t think can be disputed. It’s also done a lot of bad for everyone. “No movement is perfect,” I hear you. But the issue with feminism is much deeper than that.
Consider Duluth Model, a program that was developed with intention of reducing domestic violence against women, which in the process basically labels men as abusers and women as victims and at the same time ignores male victims and female perpetrators of domestic violence.
The feminist theory underlying the Duluth Model is that men use violence within relationships to exercise power and control, and claims that women and children are vulnerable to violence because of their “unequal social, economic, and political status on society.” Domestic violence according to the founders of the program, doesn’t stem from “individual pathology,” but from a “socially reinforced sense of entitlement.” One of key founders of the program eventually noted, “we were finding what we had already predetermined to find.”
Since 2006, the Duluth Model is the most common batterer intervention program used in the US. For detailed issues with the Duluth Model, see this document.
Other issues include domestic violence programs discriminating against men, concealment of evidence that demonstrates that most domestic violence is mutual, general support for anti-male (and often anti-white) discrimination in form of affirmative action, diversity policies, diversity supply and such, various false narratives — wage gap, society-wide oppression of women — pseudo-science, denial of neurological sex differences, and the list goes on and on. Their tactics shouldn’t be ignored either, whether it’s lies, manipulation, fallacies, haranguing, telling women that don’t conform to feminist dogma they have “internalized misogyny,” targeting white women and calling them “gender traitors” or telling them they “sold out sisterhood” over voting for a wrong person, or using their gender to manipulate them so they would acquiescence to anti-white ideologies.
What’s interesting and worth focusing on, is the accusations of betrayal of sisterhood aimed at white women. After all, part of the reason why feminism continues to live on is the myth that feminists (and feminism) stand for women, when in fact it’s failed both girls and women — starting from Simone de Beauvior.
Simone de Beauvoir was a writer, intellectual, and a feminist that notably stated “One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman.” Her book The Second Sex (1949) has been described is an analysis of women’s oppression, and as a “foundational tract of contemporary feminism” having contributed immensely to both creation of feminist theory and gender theory. Yet, and this is something that seems to be rarely mentioned, Simone de Beauvior was pro-pedophilia. That’s not hyperbole.
Back in 1977, after three French men were put on trial and jailed for having sex with 13 and 14 year old girls and boys, a petition was sent to the French parliament, carrying signatures of people such as Michael Focault (“the godfather of queer theory”) Christiane Rochefort (another feminist), Jacques Derrida, Simone de Beauvoir, and her partner Jean-Paul Sartre, a man who was one of the leading figures in 20th-century French philosophy and Marxism. The petition called for “abrogation of several articles of the age of consent law and the decriminalization of all consensual relations between adults and minors below the age of fifteen,” and it stated:
“French law recognizes in 13- and 14-year-olds a capacity for discernment that it can judge and punish. But it rejects such a capacity when the child’s emotional and sexual life is concerned.”
Several years before she published “The Second Sex,” Simone de Beauvoir was fired from a teaching job for “behavior leading to the corruption of a minor.” As a NY Times article notes, “The minor in question was one of her pupils at a Paris lycée. It is well established that she and Jean-Paul Sartre developed a pattern, which they called the ‘trio,’ in which Beauvoir would seduce her students and then pass them on to Sartre.”
In 1979, Christiane Rochefort signed another petition in support of a man who was on trial for having sex with girls between ages 6 and 12. The petitioners argued that the girls in question were “happy” with the situation, and that the “love of children is also love of their bodies.”
Kate Millet was another person who has greatly influenced feminism, with her book Sexual Politics having had “seminal influence on second-wave feminism.” As the New Left Project notes she was one of the first to provide a “theoretical understanding of patriarchy as ‘the rule of men’, as a primary oppression that’s ‘more rigorous than class stratification, more uniform, certainly more enduring,’” the theory that became the foundation of modern feminism.
In an 1980 interview which was reprinted in the book “The Age of Taboo,” when asked whether she thinks any limitations should be placed on sexual revolution, and what role should “cross-generational” sex play in it, she answered: “Certainly, one of children’s essential rights is to express themselves sexually, probably primarily with each other but with adults as well. So the sexual freedom of children is an important part of a sexual revolution.” She described such relationships considering the circumstances as “probably heroic and very wonderful,” and claimed that age of consent laws are “very oppressive” to gay male youth.
Shulamith Firestone was a radical feminist that founded three different feminist groups, and a central figure in early development of radical feminism and second-wave feminism. She wrote a book titled “The Dialectic of Sex,” which has been described as a “classic text of second-wave feminism,” the book which is still use in many women’s studies programs. As the New Left Project notes her patriarchy theory goes further, asserting that hierarchical relation between the sexes is rooted in biological sex.
In her book and her vision of the future, she addressed the question of incest and pedophilia. According to her, if a child:
“[S]hould choose to relate sexually to adults, even if he should happen to pick his own genetic mother, there would be no a priori reasons for her to reject his sexual advances, because the incest taboo would have lost its function.”
“Thus without the incest taboo, adults might return within a few generations to a more natural polymorphuous sexuality, the concentration on genital sex and orgasmic pleasure giving way to total physical/emotional relationships that included that. Relations with children would include as much genital sex as the child was capable of — probably considerably more than we now believe.”
Other notable feminists include:
Gayle Rubin, a feminist and a professor who wrote an article titled “Thinking Sex” which is regarded as a founding text of gay and lesbian studies, sexuality studies, and queer theory. She compared stigmatization of “boy lovers” to that of communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, and claimed that in “twenty years or so” the persecution of men who “love underaged youth” by the FBI, police, and watchdog postal inspectors will be seen as a “savage and underserved witch hunt” and that a lot of people will be embarrassed by their collaboration with this persecution.
Pat Califia, a feminist and queer theorist, stated that “any child enough to decide whether or not she or he wants to eat spinach, play with trucks or wear shoes is old enough to decide whether or not she or he wants to run around naked in the sun, masturbate, sit in somebody’s lap or engage in sexual activity. We should be working to end the artificial state of sexual ignorance that children are kept in — not perpetuating it or defending it,” and said that true child abusers are “priests, teachers, therapists, cops and parents who force their stale morality onto the young people in their custody,” and “Instead of condemning pedophiles for their involvement with lesbian and gay youth, we should be supporting them. They need us badly.”
Camille Paglia, a self-described “equity feminist” who’s been a professor at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, since 1984. She used to have a Slate column where she was once asked by a reader as to what her stance was on Allen Ginsberg, an American poet, philosopher, writer, and NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) supporter. In her response, she stated he had enormous influence on her intellectual development and on his support for NAMBLA stated:
As far as Ginsberg’s pro-NAMBLA stand goes, this is one of the things I most admire him for. I have repeatedly protested the lynch-mob hysteria that dogs the issue of man-boy love.
In an interview with Bill Andriette who at the time was Features Editor at The Guide, a gay travel and entertainment magazine, and who later became a pro-pedophilia activist and spokesman for NAMBLA, she argued that gay people who distance themselves from the “boy-love” are in effect committing “cultural suicide.” She also stated that she felt she had moral obligation to speak out against the persecution in the “puritan Protestant Culture,” while also wondering what is wrong with anything which gives pleasure “even if it does involve fondling of genitals.” She also noted that she’d like to “force that issue right into the front of the cultural agenda,” and wondered: “Where is the harm to the children if they are getting polymorphous perverse pleasure from it, except in the harm as society forces secrecy on everyone and makes everyone neurotic?”
She went on to state that authentic queer studies would be pursuing this issue, and expressed disappointment that “All of these posturing academics, the queer studies people and so on, have been completely cowardly. They pretend they’re so bold, oh so bold, taking stands against the far right. But on this issue they have been almost completely silent.”
Other less notable feminists include:
Jane Rule, who is also a professor, who stated: “If we accepted sexual behaviour between children and adults, we would be far more able to protect our children from abuse and exploitation than we are now.”
Beth Kelly, another professor who in March 2010 has been named as the head of Chicago city’s LGBT advisory council, and who recounted a sexual relationship she experienced beginning when she was 8 years old, and described her personal involvement in similar relationships both “as a girl and as a woman.”
Heather Corinna, a feminist who oversees a sex-advice site for teenagers called “Scarleteen,” who wrote in Rage of Consent that one of the most common criticism she gets is “How can you say that a child has the right to be sexual?” Before responding: “Who are we to say anyone does or does not have a right to enjoy their bodies, to be intimate with others by their own consent, and to make their own choices sexually, as full beings, when we permit such rights in nearly every other aspect of human life?” and said, “Rape is sex without consent. Though child molestation is rape, it does not follow that all sex with a minor is rape.”
In California, her book “S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-to-Know Sexuality Guide to Get You Through Your Teens and Twenties” was promoted by Health Education Framework (as the new sex-ed standards are called) as a “school-wide read” before parents objected and had it removed.
Judith Levine, a feminist and humanist who wrote a book “Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex,” where she questioned whether “so-called pedophiles” even exist. When asked for an article whether a boy’s sexual relationship with a priest could be positive she said, “yes, conceivably, absolutely,” and noted that when she was a minor she had sex with an adult, which she considered to be a “perfectly good experience.”
In her book she described the case of 22 year-old man who manipulated a 13 year-old girl and was convicted for felonious sexual assault, as “young love.” She also said that: “More important, sexual contact with a child does not a pedophile make,” and quoted John Money who argued that most sexual abuse was committed by men in relationships with adult women and men, not “pedophiles.”
John Money was a psychologist and sexologist who contributed quite a bit to gender theory. Notably, he tried to raise David Raimer as a girl after a botched circumcision. Other than sexually abusing him, which he justified with his belief that “childhood ‘sexual rehearsal play” was important to form “healthy adult gender identity,” and arguing on subject of pedophilia that there’s an important distinction between sadistic & affectional pedophilia, he also testified for the editors of the Body Politic defending their publication of an essay on pedophilia, wrote a favorable introduction to Theo Sandfort’s Boys on Their Contacts with Men, was interviewed by “pedophile movement publications” Paidika and OK both based in Netherlands, and claimed that:
[W]hen a grandfather fondles his own beloved grandchild while sleeping in the same bed, the act is not incestuous in the same sense as when a visiting uncle forces his screaming, terrified, new pubertal niece to copulate with him.
Eve Ensler wrote a notable episodic play called “The Vagina Monologues,” which is still part of standard dramatic repertory in student productions on college campuses. The original play explores a young girl’s ‘coming of age,’ beginning with a 13-year-old girl enjoying a sexual liaison with a 24-year-old woman (later versions changed her age to 16). It also originally included the line, “If it was rape, it was good rape,” which was removed from later version.
This isn’t a definitive list nor is it a list documenting all the things feminists have said or done (like terrorism or arguing that “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race”). Instead, the list is meant to demonstrate a clear pattern of feminists, some of which have played a key role in shaping feminism, gender theory, and queer theory, expressing support for pedophilia or saying things that can be interpreted as such.
Other topics like feminists being from the beginning anti-nuclear family and anti-marriage are worth talking about, but it’s not something I want do here. For those interested, I’d suggest this article by @NikitaCcoulombe which points out more than few such examples and discusses it in detail.
What I want to focus on pedophilia and betrayal of sisterhood. As a HuffPo writer and a feminist notes, taking the lesson from Handmaid’s tale, “silence is complicity.”
Yet in 2014 after a report from Rotherham, UK, found that over 1,400 children — most of them white working class girls — were exploited by grooming gangs in previous decades with grooming still happening, that’s all that feminists offered: silence. The abuse as was later revealed had happened in over a dozen towns. Even National Review noted as much in an article titled “Feminists’ Failure on Rotherham,” published on 29th August, 2014.
It’s worth nothing that despite the silence of most feminists, there was a lone feminist that stood up and spoke out for the white working class girls that were sexually abused — Sarah Champion, who is also a politician. She wrote an article titled “British Pakistani men are raping and exploiting white girls… and it’s time we faced up to it,” for which she was sharpy criticized by Naz Shah who is one of her colleagues, describing her as “irresponsible” for making “blanket, racialized, loaded statements” and said it sets a “dangerous precedent.”
Naz Shash is a muslim Labour MP and a feminist, that also liked and retweeted a tweet which said that “[T]hose abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity!” She later described it as an “accident.”
A few days after she wrote the article Sarah Champion resigned. According to The Telegraph which cited a source close to the Labour leader, he requested her to leave his team adding that it wasn’t appropriate for her to suggest that Pakistani men are largely responsible for the grooming and rape of young white girls. As a later study showed, 84% of grooming gang members are “Asian,” with most of them being of “Pakistani origin with Muslim heritage.”
Other than Champion, however, most feminists were — and are — silent. No protests. No outrage. No righteous indignation over the systematic abuse of white working class girls in dozen of cities. It’s not as if protests by feminists are a strange or rare thing, after all when Philip Davies objected against a sexist bill that was intended to deal with domestic violence but focused only on violence against women, and argued that that shouldn’t be the case since “all violence is unacceptable and all violence against the person should be punished by law … I believe in true equality and want people to be treated equally when they are a victim of crime and when they’re a perpetrator of crime,” feminists organized a protest against him.
Asking for equal treatment was apparently too radical for these members of Women’s Equality Party, so they laid a wreath of white roses at his office door as a protest against him. Sophie Walker who is a member of the party even ran against him in an election.
So, why the silence? I should make it clear that I don’t mean to suggest that most of those feminists were or are pedophilia supporters — though certainly, it can’t be denied that key feminists who’ve shaped feminism have been — but their silence certainly was and is betrayal of sisterhood and white working class girls that were abused.
There’s another pattern that’s both visible among leftist politics and feminism — political correctness. While I don’t intend to make this article about leftism, it’s worth noting that Labour itself had a role in this. A former North West Prosecutor Nazir Afzal, who reversed initial Crown prosecution Service decision not to prosecute Rochdale grooming gang, said: “You may not know this, but back in 2008 the Home office sent a circular to all police forces in the country saying ‘as far as these young girls who are being exploited in towns and cities, we believe they have made an informed choice about their sexual behaviour and therefore it is not for you police officers to get involved in.’”
The state of Labour party, however, isn’t much of a surprise. Andrew Neather a former adviser to Tony Blair, revealed that Labour wanted mass migration to make UK “truly multicultural” and to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity,” something that another Labour politician has confirmed years later.
Feminism on the other hand is supposed to be for women’s rights and support of women, according to feminists. But, after the system failed and politicians acted like they tend to do, after a researcher trying to raise alarm over sexual abuse of girls in Rotherham was allegedly silenced, told she must “never, ever” refer to the fact that the abusers were predominantly Asian and was forced to attend a “diversity course,” after their own parents couldn’t protect them with some getting arrested themselves, the women that were supposed to be there for them after all of it was revealed, whether it’s by trying to hold the government accountable, protest, or offer support to the girls that suffered such horrific abuse, were nowhere to be found. All except one. When it was the most important, feminists failed them. Like they’ve failed children when some of the key feminists supported pedophilia, like they’ve failed men by labeling them as oppressors and pushing for discrimination against them, like they’ve failed women, men, and children by politicizing domestic violence, opposing marriage, nuclear family, and so forth.
Beyond political correctness, however, there’s a reason for that. Feminists (in particular intersectional ones) and some leftists tend to consider most of western societies to be white supremacist & patriarchal, among other things. Part of what feminism does — something notable through all of their actions, beliefs, and things they say — is trying to flip the hierarchy they believe exists, and side with those considered “oppressed” which would thus be their in-group. It’s something that can be noted with a progressive stack. But, feminists have their own issues and interests and other groups have their own. What happens when the issues conflict?
Consider Germany where a leftist politician lied about race of her rapists because she didn’t want to encourage racism, or “MeToo” feminist in Sweden who refused to report sexual abuse of her preteen daughter by a “refugee” who she had live with them because it would lead to his deportation from Sweden, or the women in Germany at the meeting about “MeToo” issues who after #120db women activists came on stage, holding a banner “We are the voice of the forgotten women” in effort to bring attention to “increasing rate of sex assaults by migrants,” slandered those women as “nazis.”
When it comes to feminists, between fears of “racism” towards “Asians” and abuse of white working class girls, it’s clear who came out on top. If this is the state of a movement that’s supposedly for Women’s Rights, then perhaps rather than referring to feminism as a movement for women rights, it should be described as a movement “For women’s rights… sometimes.”
“Sometimes” to denote that support for pedophilia may be more important than women (and girls) rights, or that if migrants or non-white people do bad things, that white girls and women will be left on their own, or worse, condemned and slandered if they speak about it. Where’s housewives or married women, and others.
It’s my opinion that what’s needed is an alternative, a pro-women, pro-western movement. One that doesn’t consider men oppressors, harassers, sexists, but isn’t afraid to stand up for women on important issues especially if their issues conflict with interests of men. One that emphasizes that women need men and vice versa, and doesn’t promote blatantly harmful things in pursuit of transgression. One that is able to stand up for western women and girls when that’s needed.
As long feminists are allowed to hide behind what used to be a Women’s Rights movement, the future is grim for both western women, men, and their children.
