Kate Millett’s “Feminism:” A Vehicle for Totalitarianism

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Kate_millet_1.jpg/220px-Kate_millet_1.jpg

Kate Millett, author Sexual Politics

Mallory Millett published a fascinating essay this past week in Front Page Magazine.  Entitled “Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives,” it’s about how her sister Kate Millett, author of Sexual Politics (1970) went about organizing a totalitarian movement which she labelled as a form of “feminism.”  Mallory describes how Kate invited her to a meeting with about a dozen other women in the late 1960’s.  Here’s  an excerpt:

They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China.  We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”

Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears.  Was I on planet earth?  Who were these people?

“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women.

You ought to read the whole thing.  At this stage of her life, Mallory, having seen the hurt and cruelty pushed by the agenda of her sister, says she’s come to identify with the daughter of Joseph Stalin in speaking out against the harmful work of a family member.

It’s strange indeed how a small coterie of privileged women like Kate Millett (educated at Columbia and Oxford) would go about ruining and trying to control the lives of everybody else.  In fact, I find it hard to believe such women — so enamored of totalitarianism — really look down at all on the idea of patriarchal domination. More likely, they’ve adopted the mindset they pretended to abhor, and have now become that patriarchy.

 

Admiring the Resistance of Radfems Against Transgender Cultists

Last week in The Federalist I wrote at length about the conflict between radical feminists – or “radfems” — and transgender activists.   I was especially pleased to see Catholic Culture author Phil Lawler take this up in his recent article “The Rising, Dangerous Influence of ‘Transgender’ Ideology.”   I hope you’ll read both. 

I think the dissension among leftist factions here is fascinating.  The radical feminists are true purists in their beliefs, so much so that they are not at all willing to conform with the political correctness of the Transgender Project.

They stand firm even as so many in America – including the vast majority of their liberal feminist sisters – comply.  And even though this puts radical feminists in the same camp as conservatives on that particular issue, they do not waver.  They believe that the female experience cannot be impersonated or counterfeited by a male who decides to transition to female, and they are fearless in saying so.  They cede no ground,  So whether or not you agree with them on other issues, it’s gratifying to see such courage of conviction by a minority so shunned and smeared by erstwhile allies.

The trend to normalize transgenderism in our society has all the hallmarks of a cult. We’re beyond the phase of Hollywood and the media softening the ground for the transgender movement.  We are now in the phase of enforced compliance, complete with smear tactics and social punishment – labels of “bigot” or “transphobia” — for those who dare to resist. Everyone is getting with the program:  the medical community, schools, and even churches.  It’s reached the point that children are being prepared – by their parents — to have sex reassignment surgery when they turn 18.

So I’m encouraged by radical feminists who resist all of this.  And not simply because they take a stand on transgenderism that I happen to agree with.  It’s far, far more than that.  The radfems’ display exceptional resistance the pressures of the cult mindset,  impressive to behold.  And they are front lines in this war right now.  If the trans activists succeed in shutting them down, everyone else is next.  More power to the radfems in their resistance.

When a Rock Duo Took on Abortion in 1974

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e0/UnbornChild200.jpgI hope you’ll look at my blog post over at The Human Life Review today:  Unborn Child at Forty.  It’s about an amazing choice made by the famous 1970’s rock duo Seals and Crofts.  They released a pro-life song right in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision to legalize abortion.  We may view this as a courageous decision, but they viewed it simply as the right thing to do.

In so many ways abortion serves as machinery for destroying and poisoning all human relationships.  The abortion culture not only kills children, but it drives a wedge between mother and child, which I think is the most fundamental of human relationships. And, of course, between man and woman.  The implications for all other relationships are vast.

In 1974 when James Seals and Dash Crofts released “Unborn Child” as an album under the Warner Brothers label, they were at the pinnacle of their fame and success.  You may remember their gold hits, which included “Summer Breeze” and “We May Never Pass this Way Again.” Those songs are still played frequently on oldies radio stations.  But you probably don’t remember “Unborn Child,” because it was boycotted.

Warner Brothers strongly advised Seals and Crofts against releasing “Unborn Child,” but they proceeded as a matter of conscience, and it damaged their careers.  You can imagine.  Roe vs. Wade was already sowing very deep seeds of division and bitterness in American society and culture.

They could have chosen risk-free career advancement.  Instead, they chose an act of mercy.  A glorious choice.

When Mom says she’s Dad and Dad says he’s Mom

“We have the parts so we will use them.”  That’s what Bianca Bowser told Yahoo News about his spouse Nick getting pregnant. Their two biological children, identified as sons named Kai, 3, and Pax, 1, share both Bianca and Nick’s DNA.  That’s because Bianca’s sperm fertilized Nick’s egg.  That would make Bianca the actual father and Nick the actual mother.

But wait!  That information is classified!  Or hate speech, or something.  Right?  No, this is the biological truth that Bianca and Nick as representatives of the transgender movement — and self-confessed publicity hounds for the cause — insist that we must reject. The agenda requires that the entire world reject this, which means that if it doesn’t apply to them, then it must not apply to you.

Neither Nick nor Bianca have undergone sex reassignment surgery, so  their reproductive systems are still intact, though they each must take a lot of hormones to sustain their transgender appearances.   They do plan to have surgery done, later on.  You can read the whole thing here:  “Transgender Parents Speak Out about What Makes a Family.”

I’m convinced that the transgender movement is at root a War on Language.  I doubt that the ultimate goal of the movement — so driven by raw power — has much if anything to do with equality for transgender individuals.  By forcing you to change your understanding of pronoun usage, the transgender project succeeds in undermining any common understanding of human identity, including your own identity as male or female.  I refuse to get sucked into this rabbit hole.  And I hope you agree.

However, I’m fine with name changes.  If a man named Richard decides he wishes to be called Emily, I’ll defer and call him Emily. But if Emily then decides I must change the definition of pronouns to suit his self concept, that’s where I draw the line.  Because in essence he’s asking everybody else to change their own perception of reality to suit his.    This is how cults operate.  The first thing a cult leader does is work to destabilize the recruits’ sense of self or self-concept in relation to the world.  Indeed, the transgender movement has all the earmarks of  a Cult.

What is a Human? — Part V

This is how everybody happens, whether they like it or not: the union of one male and one female. Lest we forget: every male and female and intersex person happens this way, and that would include all individuals who call themselves transgender.

To answer to the question “What is a human?” for the purpose of this blog series, we need only refer to the simple and existential question of the child:  “Where did I come from?”

A human being is a creature who is born out of the union of one male human being and one female human being.  This is true for every man, woman or child who has ever been conceived, whether male, female, or ambiguous/intersex.   Transgender persons may wish to deny this, but their own humanity is based in their origins of one male united with one female.   Whether we know our biological parents or not, they are how we came into being.  Whether it happens in a bed or a petri dish doesn’t matter.

A human being may present as the opposite sex or as a sexless being or both sexes or genders or as many as they imagine, but it doesn’t change the reality of their humanity.  Nor anybody else’s.

The transgender activists’ idea that a person may identify as male or female regardless of biological sex is nothing new.  There are  plenty of famous cases in history and literature.  The idea of androgyny — the male/female being —  is an old concept that goes back to ancient times.  

Here’s what’s new:  The attempt to force onto everybody the transgender idea of human identity, and the push to codify it as quickly as possible into law under the guise of “non-discrimination.”   The key phrase slipped into these laws is that our sex is merely “assigned” to us at birth. If we accept that premise, then we will certainly reach a point at which nobody can be legally identified as either male or female.  Eventually, we all become “other” in the eyes of the state.

How are we supposed to understand our origins in this scheme?  Answer:  It looks like we’re not intended to understand our origins.   Nor, ironically, are we supposed to chart our own destiny in this vacuum of ambiguity.  It’s a destabilizing prospect, but that’s where we’re headed with this.  The transgender movement has less to do with equal rights than it has to do with a war on language, aimed directly at destabilizing our sense of human identity.

What is a Human? — Part IV

Newborn

Contemplate this:  a Slate article entitled “Don’t Let the Doctor Do this to Your Newborn.”  According to the author, obstetricians all perform a “procedure” that is very harmful: Announcing whether the baby is a boy or a girl.  Yes, that’s the “procedure.”  Pointing out the obvious.  It seems truth-telling is getting to be more of a crime with every passing day.

And you thought that your son or daughter was your son or daughter.  The Slate piece tells you “Not so fast!”  You have no right to call your newborn a son or daughter. Doing so is committing the offense of  “infant gender assignment.” It’s deemed “harmful” to the transsgender population who say all children should decide on their own, usually as pre-schoolers.  Anyway, here’s a short excerpt:

Obstetricians, doctors, and midwives commit this procedure on infants every single day, in every single country. In reality, this treatment is performed almost universally without even asking for the parents’ consent, making this practice all the more insidious. It’s called infant gender assignment: When the doctor holds your child up to the harsh light of the delivery room, looks between its legs, and declares his opinion: It’s a boy or a girl, based on nothing more than a cursory assessment of your offspring’s genitals.

The article ends by stating “infant gender assignment” is like playing “Russian Roulette” with your child’s life.

You may have seen a related piece on this propaganda campaign in the story of Ryland Wittington, a girl being raised as a boy by her parents.  Ryland’s parents are pretty much acting as an arm of the LGBT lobby. Click here for the manipulative Youtube video they produced about Ryland.  Also, click here for a compelling rebuttal to it:  “I am Ryland: The Story of a Male-Identifying Little Girl Who Didn’t Transition.”

It’s unsettling to me how many folks still underestimate the reach of the transgender lobby. Its tentacles are long, and it has huge implications for growing state power.  The insanity grows with articles like that one in Slate, essentially intended to engineer how each and every one of us sees ourselves.

When a group demands that everybody — particularly the 99+ percent who do not identify as transgender — stop identifying any infant at all as either male or female, it’s time to wake up.  Transgenderism is an assault on truth.  It requires us to deny the obvious, to deny biological reality.  For everybody. And it won’t end there.

 

What is a Human? — Part III

“Greetings from Earth” Image of male and female, representing the reality of humanity, as inscribed on plaques in Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecrafts, launched by NASA, 1972, 1973.

If you’re a reasonable person, you probably don’t mind engaging on a topic that involves the reality of things.  Facts are within this realm.  Observable truth, is, for example, that Boston is north of Washington.  Of course, we must all agree on the definition of the word “North” in order to arrive at any agreement. And we must all agree on the relative locations of Washington and Boston.  If everyone in the room were suddenly to challenge this fact, and say that Boston is south of Washington, you’d be taken aback.

When a fact is challenged loudly, it’s destabilizing because that takes us to a place of unreality.  If we’re stuck in that realm long enough we can lose our compass, our anchor. And things start looking very surrealistic as we enter that Twilight Zone.

Exchanging opinions, beliefs and various dogmas are a different story.  If you believe something very strongly, but it’s not part of the realm of universally observable fact, you should expect some skepticism when you express it publicly.  UFOs fall into this category.  And I would say transgenderism does as well.  The problem is that transgender law is hellbent on challenging essential facts about human reality.

One observable fact about humanity — defined in science as well as biblically and in the plaque of the Pioneer spacecraft illustrated above  – is that it comes in two kinds. Males and females are the same in all of their biological systems, except for the reproductive system. In that they are absolutely distinct.  The question transgenderism raises for us is:  Can a person who rejects the sex they were “assigned” at birth become the other sex because he or she believes it to be so?  If you say the answer is “Yes,” then pray tell: what does that mean for our sense of reality?

It means some seismic things.  If we no longer agree on the definition of terms “male” and “female” that has vast implications for everything else in the landscape.  When the terms are corrupted, when the map is compromised, people easily become displaced and disoriented, without direction — which means ripe for manipulation.  This changes the whole experience of being human, placing us in a trap of ambiguity as to who and what we are.

If that’s where transgenderism leads us, what does it bode for human relationships?  And power and freedom?

To be continued . . . .

 

What is a Human? — Part II

The New Yorker piece I discussed yesterday — “What is a Woman?” — has gotten quite a bit of attention.  I noticed in my news feed that even Rush Limbaugh picked up on it during his show yesterday.  You can read the transcript here, in which Limbaugh talks about what he calls “The Feminazis vs. the Transgenders.”  Limbaugh confessed little understanding.  (And, boy, he sure doesn’t get it.)  The transcript reveals that the caller was likely a transgender activist.  He seemed to use quite a bit of humor and ingratiating wile to promote the trans agenda and steer Limbaugh’s listeners into dismissing the radical feminists. (Rush should give rad fems equal time.)

So, what is the agenda of the transgender activists?  On the surface, it’s supposed to be about non-discrimination.  About allowing people to present to society whichever gender they say they are, and not suffer any negative consequences in employment, housing, business, or anything.   But the underlying premise of transgender rights is that our sex is “assigned” to us at birth.  This is key to understanding how it affects each and every one of us in law.   The insidious term “assigned” has been sneaked into legislation as a given, and is not even up for debate.  And so the trans agenda’s first order of business to shove their laws through and silence anyone who questions them.  Which brings us to a thorn in their side — the rad fems.

What is the agenda of the Radical Feminists?   Transgender activists have dubbed them: “Transgender Exclusionary Radical Feminists” and use the acronym “TERF” as a slur.  (This is partly because rad fems believe women have a right to ban male-to-female transgenders from women-only facilities and venues, and refuse to use trans “preferred pronouns.”)  Rad fems argue that being born male is a privilege and any man carries that privilege with him even if he “transitions” to female.  The act of transitioning only accentuates gender, and perpetuates and promotes a patriarchal society, according to rad fems.

I will add one more important thing about the radical feminists. In my view, they’re doing a great service by lending their voice against the transgender push to transition and sterilize children based on a child’s perceived “gender identity dysphoria.” We all should be glad and grateful that they are speaking out against this barbaric practice.

The transgender route to power is strewn with evasion, deception, and dysfunction. It uses a lot of strong arm tactics (which we might even call patriarchal) of silencing all opponents, especially a vocal minority who stands for a much purer version of their purported agenda of equality.  The trans agenda also has a lot of influence and huge sums of money behind its agenda, including the full support of the Obama Administration. Trans activists have pushed very hard through their window of opportunity which remains open only so long as enough people stay ignorant of their real aim:  which is to redefine the humanity of us all.

To be continued . . .

 

 

 

 

What is a Human?

“What is a Woman?” is the title of a very recent feature about transgenderism in New Yorker Magazine.    It focuses on a bitter debate going on between transgender activists and radical feminists.  The trans activists would have you believe that being a woman is something you can define for yourself.  They’d say a man is a woman if he believes himself to be so.  “Not so!” retort the radical feminists who reject that idea pretty much as just another example — quirky but more insidious than ever — of male chauvinism.   The latter call themselves “rad fems” and seem to be a remnant of the feminism of the 60’s.  Rank and file feminists of today have marginalized and abandoned them, choosing to fall in line with the trans agenda.

If you have the chance to read the New Yorker piece at the link above, you’ll want to ask yourselves these questions:  What do the trans activists want?  What do the rad fems want?  What exactly is going on here?  And what has it got to do with me?  On the last point I would say it has everything to do with you.  This is not a debate we can chuckle about on the sidelines.  For those not tuned into the gender wars, this may seem amusing.

But I personally see nothing amusing about it.  There’s something seismic going on beneath the surface and we ought to be very aware of it.  What is really at stake here is not merely a matter of defining what a woman is.  There is a hidden and much bigger question at stake:  “What is a Human?” And that’s the question the trans agenda really intends to settle for each and every one of us.  It’s intended to define all of us and all of our personal relationships.

Let’s pay attention . . . to be continued tomorrow.

 

With Big “Borg” Government, Resistance isn’t Futile. Submission is Futile.

I’ve never been a huge fan of Star Trek, but I’m fascinated with one of its stock villains “The Borg.” The Borg is a collectivist hive mind that goes through the universe, sucking in everyone in its path, erasing individual identity.   Up at the Federalist today is my essay about the dangers of big government, with my take on the Borg:  “The Government is the Borg and Resistance Isn’t Futile.” Click here to read it in full.

The Borg’s stated goal is utopian: to “achieve perfection.”  It greets its victims by saying “Resistance is futile.”  Sounds a little bit like how bureaucracies work.   My point is that whenever power gets too unchecked, too unbalanced, too centralized, it’s on a trajectory to abuse that power.  And the ultimate destination if left unchecked seems always to be imposition of death.  That’s just a fact of history and a fact of life.

I wish everyone would become familiar with two fascinating studies that have been done on the dangers of centralized power.  The first is the book Death by Government, by R J Rummel (d. 2014) His central point — echoing Lord Acton’s famous quote that  “power corrupts” — is that power kills and absolute power kills absolutely.  Rummel spent much of his career compiling statistics of 20th century death tolls from government abuses of power.  The bottom line?  169 million lives lost through government killing of its own people.  How does this compare with all the casualties — both military and civilian — of all the wars and conflicts of the 20th century? 38 million.   Death by government was more than four times more lethal than all the wars of the 20th century combined.

The second study is a course entitled “Utopia and Terror in the 20th Century” in which University of Tennessee Professor Vejas Gabriel Liulevicius draws the direct connection between master plans for Utopian societies and the terror that is always required to push those utopian programs forward. (You can obtain this series of  very engaging lectures from thegreatcourses.com.) Seems utopian dreamers have no patience or tolerance for any kind of resistance whether active or passive.

I think the best defense is for everyone to champion their own individuality with the understanding that other people matter.  That’s the whole basis of de-centralized power. Speak your mind thoughtfully, with the understanding that free speech is a use-it-or-lose-it proposition. Cultivate friendships. Reach out in goodwill, one on one and face to face.  And be of good cheer.  Solid relationships are the best bulwark against state power.  A sense of humor always comes in very handy, too.

In the end, it is not resistance that is futile.  Submission is what really kills us all in the end.  Submission is futile.