Feminism: Reality Is a Social Construct
Feminism was always crazy, but since the 1990s, the movement’s inherent madness has been augmented by the French-influenced postmodernism of academic intellectuals. The enormous influence of Professor Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity has served as the vehicle by which French philosopher Michel Foucault (The History of Sexuality) became a feminist idol. Butler’s book is also the means by which American college students have been introduced to the work of French feminists Luce Irigaray (This Sex Which is Not One) and Monique Wittig (The Straight Mind). Keep in mind that Butler’s book is lodged more or less permanently among the Top 10 Amazon bestsellers (as of 8 a.m. ET today, #4 in Media Studies, #6 in Women Authors, #8 in Gender Studies) not because it is pleasant reading, but because it is required reading in so many college and university courses. Every year, many tens of thousands of young people enroll in Women’s Studies classes, and are introduced to Professor Butler’s version of feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix. This one book by a University of California professor, therefore, has had an enormous effect in popularizing what has come to be known as Queer Feminism. The core logic of 21st-century feminist theory is that heterosexuality is wrong because it is “a socially constructed institution which structures and maintains male domination,” to quote Diane Richardson, a professor at England’s Newcastle University who is, among other things, an editor of the textbook Introducing Gender and Women’s Studies, now in its fourth edition.
“By the end of the 1970s feminist theories of gender were becoming increasingly sophisticated. . . . [T]hey questioned the idea that gender is a universal category. . . . Instead, they defined gender as a socially constructed product of patriarchal hierarchies.”
— Diane Richardson, Introducing Gender & Women’s Studies (3rd edition, 2007)
The young feminist can cite the authority of eminent professors and their influential books in condemning “patriarchal hierarchies” and the oppressive “socially constructed institution” of heterosexuality. As to proposed alternatives, however, feminists seem to have no definite blueprint for a post-patriarchal society. Their ideas for the future are mainly expressed in slogans — Equality, Diversity, Inclusion, etc.
What does feminism mean in practice? How does the student live her life in accordance with the ideology her professors teach her? This is something she must work out for herself, which can be quite confusing, and particularly so when the young feminist happens to be male.
Regular readers may recall Justin “Riley Jay” Dennis, “a polyamorous, atheist, gender non-binary transwoman . . . educating people on the nuances of gender, sexuality, and intersectional feminism.”
Just two years ago, Justin/Riley graduated from Whittier College, a private school in California where annual tuition $44,574, plus $12,902 room and board, bringing the total cost to $57,476 a year. This may seem a high price to pay to learn “the nuances of gender, sexuality, and intersectional feminism,” but it takes highly qualified instructors to educate polyamorous, atheist, gender non-binary young people.
Trans women are not male, and saying that they are allows some people to justify the mistreatment of trans people. . . . For a long time, gender has been assigned to people based on their perceived sex. A doctor looks at a baby’s genitals and determines what gender it will be raised at. In our culture, this used to be unquestionable fact. You were raised as the gender you were assigned at birth, and being transgender wasn’t an option. . . . Now we can say that your gender is based on how you identify, because we realized that basing gender on perceived sex was oppressive. . . .
Well, I could transcribe more of that video, but I’ve already cited five different authors (Butler, Foucault, Irigaray, Wittig and Richardson) whose books you could order from Amazon and read them yourself. That would cost a lot less than $57,476, but then again, you’re probably not a 24-year-old polyamorous, atheist, gender non-binary transwoman, and you don’t need a Ph.D. to tell you that Justin/Riley is crazy.
Everyday Feminism tells its readers that it is an “act of violence” to say that 24-year-old “Riley Jay” Dennis is the same human being as Justin David Dennis, the 18-year-old male student from a Seattle suburb who enrolled at Whittier College in the fall of 2011. These are what we used to call facts, back in the old days when people believed in something called “reality.” However, we didn’t have Women’s Studies professors and their theories to explain “patriarchal hierarchies” to us, so we were ignorant of “the nuances of gender, sexuality, and intersectional feminism.”
Justin/“Riley Jay” Dennis can change his/“her” name to Sheena Queen of the Jungle, and demand to be called Your Highness, but this would not oblige the rest of us to play along with his/“her” make-believe game.
What part of crazy do I have to explain here? Feminists are berserk, bonkers, deranged, demented, delusional, irrational, non compos mentis, unhinged, wacky, psycho, off their rockers, nuttier than squirrel farts, a few fries short of a Happy Meal and cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.
The craziest thing of all is that parents would pay $57,476 a year to send their son to Whittier College where his professors will help him explore how “gender formations . . . intersect with other relations of power.” After a few semesters of this lunatic gibberish, your son will realize that he is “she,” because basing gender on perceived sex is oppressive.
The Whittier College football team went 0-9 last fall, and this is probably not a coincidence. It might be difficult to concentrate on football when you’re trying to figure out whether you identify as male or female. What if the quarterback decides he’s “non-binary,” changes his name to Sheena and demands to be addressed with “they”/“them” pronouns?
“Gender is a hierarchical system which maintains the subordination of females as a class to males through force. Gender is a material system of power which uses violence and psychological coercion to exploit female labor, sex, reproduction, emotional support, etc., for the benefit of males. Gender is not natural or voluntary, since a person is not naturally subordinate and no one chooses to be subordinated.”
— Rachel Ivey, 2013
“Sexuality, then, is a form of power. Gender, as socially constructed, embodies it, not the reverse. Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989)
“The patriarchal construction of the difference between masculinity and femininity is the political difference between freedom and subjection.”
— Carole Pateman, The Sexual Contract (1988)
More than once, I have explained what’s wrong with the Third Wave feminist T-shift slogan, “Raise Boys and Girls the Same Way.” The slogan presumes that a gender-free androgynous childhood will eliminate inequality (“the subordination of women as a class”) by eliminating differences between men and women. Actually, what gender-free childhood will produce is failure, at the most basic level of biology. Insofar as sex is about reproduction, sexual success requires young people to acquire the traits and skills necessary to attract a mate and establish a family. Your son must become the kind of man whom a woman will find desirable as a husband, and as the father of her children, while your daughter must become the kind of woman whom a man will find desirable as a wife, and as the mother of his children. This is so obvious, from a common-sense perspective, that it should require no explanation.
Human being are mammals. Whatever else might be designated by the word “sex,” from the perspective of science, sex is about reproduction, procreating offspring. Does anyone think it likely that “non-binary” Justin/Riley Dennis will succeed in this Darwinian sense of what sex is?
Some people are so “smart” that they are incapable of understanding basic common sense. Justin/Riley Dennis is typical of the kind of intellectual decadence that prevails on 21st-century college campuses. Feminism is both cause and effect, both symptom and disease. On the one hand, no sane person can believe that Justin/Riley is a woman, but on the other hand, Justin/Riley must have been emotionally disturbed before he was exposed feminist gender theory. Any psychologically healthy would laugh at the ideas that Justin/Riley seems to take so seriously.
“Hillary is our only option to prevent a Trump presidency. That’s the only reason I really needed.”
— Justin “Riley Jay” Dennis, Oct. 30, 2016
You had to be crazy to vote for Hillary Clinton, so no one is surprised to learn that Justin/Riley is a Democrat. And if you want your kids to grow up to be “non-binary,” then you should definitely vote Democrat.