Post: #1

This story has been developing for some time, but the first shot fired was on January 3rd of this year.

McCain profiled the radical feminist, witchwind, who runs an execrable blog "radical wind."



After this blog post, witchwind followed up on January 18th, with a post about the 85,000 views she got on her blog because of McCain's expose.

Think she isn't crazy?

Quote:Gaslighting is an abuse tactic of individual abusers against individual women. But all male abuse patterns work on the structural level, too. If we apply gaslighting to reformism – which men institute globally as a mode for liberation through state policies, daddy-funded NGOs, the UN, male-led activism etc – well that gives us, as Tracy mentioned, a campaign of gaslighting women at a global scale: therefore reformism is worldwide psychological abuse of women. The repetitive, circular nature of reformism, the erasure of the radfem alternative to reformism (liberation / separatism), the fact it’s always planned from within patriarchal institutions (or with their approval) and applied in ways that assault women, also defines it as brainwashing of women on a global scale: it’s the fabrication and implantation of a false reality into women’s minds on a mass scale – as with all other false feminisms.

Quote:Historically, it fits, at least from a western-centric perspective, but as far as I can see, western treatment of women and genocide tactics in occupied territories mirrors and complements its own internal genocide of women. We have, from the 12th or 13th century up until the 19th century, a very long period of overt genocide of women by western men across the globe. It has never really stopped of course but at the time there was no illusion that male institutions and colonialists were and could be helpful to women. In Western countries, this wave of genocide was itself a reaction by the religious states to women fleeing men en masse and taking more and more importance in society to the extent that they threatened the monopoly of the states’ power. So what ensued was mass, organised slaughter of women to physically prevent them from gaining autonomy, and men’s global colonisation, resource pillage and genocide served to increase their institutional caste power over all women and reinforce the global rapeability of women with worldwide trafficking in women for prostitution.

On February 11th, McCain clapped back, once again combing through her works and her obvious mental delusion. The problem with rebutting such seriously deluded people is that it is tough to separate the truth from the projections, wishes and outright lies. Her claims of bad experiences with men sound dubious at best, but her reflexive fear of men seems to be a reflexive fear of emotional connection and judgment. Her terror over losing her anonymity doesn't stem from losing her job or anything other reasonable claim. No, she is worried that all her views came from men who would harm her. Insane, I tell you.

The next day, McCain exposed more mainstream radical feminists, infesting -- you guessed it -- academia.

Quote:Are we clear about this? Lesbianism is the “highest state of feminism” and feminist insights “are incompatible with men’s interpretations of reality.” This isn’t what I say about feminism. This is what feminists say about themselves. And if you think they don’t take themselves seriously, you’re not paying attention.

McCain goes on to highlight their pet theory isn't just that all heterosexual intercourse is rape, but that all women are socialized into heterosexuality, as all women are really lesbians. Sapphic narcisissm, anybody?

Quote:To summarize radfem’s beliefs:

1. All acts of male-female sex are inherently violent.
2. All women are naturally lesbians.
3. Patriarchy manipulates women into thinking they want to have sex with men; women’s feelings of “love” toward men are actually the psychological side-effect of violent trauma.
4. Women’s “choice” in the context of heterosexual relationships is an illusion; the patriarchal system of oppression means that women are always victims of male violence.

Now, you may think that these women are simply outliers, but they are the explicit manifestation of the dark, damp cellar of feminist psychology. Member Lizard Of Oz once remarked that Andrea Dworkin was brilliant but extremely disturbed. He was right. Her intense mind and rhetorical flourish paved the way for ridiculous theories such as "rape culture" and "male domination results in violence against women." Key writers like Kate Millet and Susan Brownmiller got play in the media before Dworkin in the '70's, as outlets in the media were simultaneously fascinated but apprehensive of this aggressive feminism developing. Dworkin's ascension resulted in a -- to this day -- permanent rift between regular, garden-variety feminists and radical feminists.

They draw from the same wells, as they all approvingly cite Millet and Brownmiller, but mainstream feminists do not take their assertions to their logical conclusions. Feminists, when considering ROK, sometimes assert the site makes them want to go full radical feminist, so they admit that the end of the tunnel leads there, but they know it isn't healthy or nice. So in their ideological torment, they thrash about in the shoals of radical feminist theory, agreeing with all the assumptions about society radical feminists do, but refusing to implement the logical solutions or admit the deep-seated disappointment with men that come attend to admission of the assumptions.

The truth is, these radical feminists are where feminism *could* end up, but for the moment, society at large regards these women with a deep sense of scorn. They wear their mental illnesses on their sleeves like badges of honor and a way to universalize their personal disquiet. Yes, it is narcissistic, but what did you expect from women who spend their time treating everybody around them as inherently dangerous and only concerned with their own life and experiences?

BTW, McCain runs an excellent blog, so check him out!

Post: #2

Great post! This is why I avoid arguing with radical feminists. They are so far gone in the head its not worth wasting a breath on them. "Don't argue with an idiot, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Although the ones who do make such an argument as "all heterosex is rape" just ask them why not be in a happy lesbian relationship and stop worrying about what makes others happy.

Post: #3

If women were naturally lesbians then human race would have ended already.

This is all that needs to be said.

Post: #4

What Mage said.

I'm curious to know how they'd explain reproduction.

Post: #5

Quote:4. Women’s “choice” in the context of heterosexual relationships is an illusion

A lot of the thinking in this corner of the internet is remarkably similar. That women can't help going for the assholes. It's really only a difference of degree, and that the same applies to men with respect to T&A. As David Deangelo said back in the day when I was on that email list, Attraction is not a choice.

edit, I guess the counterpoint is something like, Men are always victims of dat ass.

Post: #6

2Wycked's postings are usually quite good and usually result in using google to look up meanings of certain words, like sapphic.