Disappointment expected with pension proposals

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=4&art_id=164455&sid=45801378&con_type=1&d_str=20151222&fc=2

 

There was speculation that a government- backed proposal for a retirement protection scheme would only benefit those whose assets fall below HK$80,000.

That came with Chief Secretary Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, who is also Commission of Poverty chairwoman, set to launch a public engagement exercise on retirement protection this afternoon.

A commission member responsible for the scheme earlier predicted that the public may be very disappointed in the more concrete documents released after more than 10 years of discussion in society on the issue.

The document is said to contain six proposals submitted by scholars and other groups, classified into two categories.

 

The category labeled as “regardless of rich or poor” was initially proposed by University of Hong Kong professor Nelson Chow Wing- sun, who was asked by the government to outline a plan.

Chow last year proposed that each senior citizen could get a HK$3,000 pension every month.

But different government officials have been saying the scheme would empty public coffers and lead to a HK$540 billion deficit, and that taxpayers would need to pay 8 percent more to support the scheme by 2064.

The government then proposed an alternative category that means-tests grassroots elderly people with less than HK$80,000 of assets, including property and savings.

The plan proposes those who are eligible after the means test to be given HK$3,230 a month. This would mean a total outlay of HK$56.4 billion by 2064.

Knowing that the government is not backing his suggestion, Chow raised a new idea to get the government to commit to a universal pension plan setting a 13-year ceiling for seniors to be entitled to the scheme starting from age 70.

Chow said the limit should be extended if the average life expectancy currently at 83 is longer.

KINLING LO

Lawyers to challenge constitutionality of security laws

http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/lawyers-to-challenge-constitutionality-of-security-laws

 

TOKYO —

A group of legal experts said Monday it will file lawsuits with district courts across the country, arguing that the newly enacted security laws violate Japan’s war-renouncing Constitution.

Nearly 300 lawyers support the move and the first of the lawsuits could come as early as next spring, the group said. The laws, aimed to expand the role of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces overseas, were enacted in September amid fierce public opposition.

Many scholars as well as a former chief justice of Japan’s Supreme Court have criticized the legislation, a major shift in Japan’s postwar security policy, as violating the country’s pacifist supreme law.

The group of experts said the lawsuits, to be filed after next March when the laws come into force, will seek a court order to forbid the deployment of SDF troops overseas, saying that the laws make them “afraid of becoming a terrorism target or getting involved in a war on a daily basis” and violate their right to live peacefully.

In a separate lawsuit, the group will also seek damages from the government for causing emotional distress due to the enactment of the laws.

The group will criticize the Cabinet’s reinterpretation of the Constitution to lift the country’s ban on collective self-defense and the way the ruling parties pushed through the security bills in the Diet in the face of strong public opposition.

Collective self-defense—or coming to the aid of the United States and other friendly nations under armed attack, even if Japan itself is not attacked—will be allowed by the new laws in a limited way.

Kazuhiro Terai, co-head of the group, said many people have said to him, “What is the judiciary doing against reckless acts that run counter to the Constitution?”

“There are many challenges over the lawsuits but unreasonable acts by the Cabinet and the Diet are not permissible under the Constitution,” Terai told a press conference in Tokyo.

© KYODO

Canadian Muslim leader appears to blame gays for Ontario “lurid” sex education

http://en.cijnews.com/?p=17096

 

Arif Jahangiri, is the Secretary General of ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America) – Canada, and alsoworks as a design specialist at TELUS in Toronto.

According to its official website, ICNA Canada is striving “to build an Exemplary Canadian Muslim Community” by “total submission to Him [Allah] and through the propagation of true and universal message of Islam.”

ICNA Canada emphasizes that “the propagation of true and universal message of Islam is only possible in Canada when whole Canadian Muslim Community transformed into a Dawah community by practicing and propagating the true Islamic Way of Life. With the vision of building an exemplary Canadian Muslim community it is very important to spread the word of Islam…”

Zunera Ishaq, the woman that stood at the centre of the “niqab debate” in the Canadian election campaign, works for the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA).

On August 23-24, 2014, ICNA Canada held its annual convention entitled “Carry the Lightat the “The International Centre” in Mississauga, Ontario (6900 Airport Road, L4V 1E8). The main topic of this event was “Canadian Muslims ― Opportunities & Challenges.”Prophet

Arif Jahangiri‘s speech at the event dealt with “Social Justice – Examples from Life of of Prophet Muhammad.”

In his speech, Arif Jahangiri said among other things the following:

“It’s really a great honour for me to speak to the Muslim community that showed a significant development and growth it the last two decades in this part of the world. By the mercy of Almighty Allah, we are over 1 million in Canada in population, and a half of the population 0.5 million are living in GTA…

“We are living in a society, there are lot of challenges we are facing every day. We are Ummah [nation] of balance, as Quran speaks out, we are a balanced nation and we are the Ummah [nation] that Almighty Allah gives us the responsibility of promotion of virtue and prevention of vice [الأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر].

“Almighty Allah also gives the responsibility to us to establish the justice on the earth so the mankind can live with peace and harmony…

“I’m myself deeply concerned, being a citizen of Canada, that the people are not talking about the real threats and the injustices happening to our society…

“Our media is promoting human degradation of a man and woman by showing different types of reality shows and the music shows. That is increasing teen pregnancy only, school drop-outs and crime among the youths, but nobody is speaking.

Our children, their school curriculum was changed and introduced a chapter about different life styles and sexual orientation. We gave our right of making policy on education in the hands of those who are not capable of giving a birth of a child even.”

Arif Jahangiri is known as a staunch opponent of Ontario’s updated Health and Physical Education Curriculum also known as the “sex ed”, which deals with issues of different sexual orientations, gender identity, making decisions about the first intercourse and other sexual activities, identify common sexually transmitted infections etc. He called the “sex ed” a “radical curriculum that teaches lurid sex to little kids throat” and attended activities and protests against the Ontario government education policy.

Arif Jahangiri called for voting to the Jamaat-e-Islami in the last Pakistani elections. The Jamaat-e-Islami, the ideological sister group of the Muslim Brotherhood, was founded by Sayyid Abul Ala al-Maududi. His view, according to his own book, is that: “Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it.”

CIJA CEO says Omar Alghabra’s former Riding Association President Advocates Vicious Anti-Semitism

http://tsecnetwork.ca/2015/12/19/cija-ceo-says-omar-alghabras-former-riding-association-president-advocates-vicious-anti-semitism/

 

Speaking to Paul Lungen, a staff reporter for the Canadian Jewish News, Shimon Fogel says that Elias Hazineh is an advocate of vicious anti-Semitism which has no place in Canada.

Shimon Fogel is the Chief Executive Officer of the Centre for Israel Jewish Affairs (CIJA) which is a “national, non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to improving the quality of Jewish life in Canada by advancing the public policy interests of Canada’s organized Jewish community.”[1]

Elias Hazineh was president of the Mississauga-Erindale Federal Liberal Riding Association when Omar Alghabra was running for Parliament in that riding in 2005/2006. He was also a former president of Palestine House which was de-funded by the federal government in 2012. According to a ministerial statement that was published by the Canadian Jewish News:

Palestine House has in the last few years aligned itself with terrorist causes, including celebrating the release of terrorists and honouring the founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), one of the groups that formed the Palestine Liberation Organization and “in the 1960s and ’70s, was responsible for numerous armed attacks and aircraft hijackings.”[2]

Omar Alghabra is now an MP and a Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

Mr Fogel was responding to the Al Quds Day Rally which was held in Toronto in August of 2013. At that rally, Mr Hazineh, referring to the Jews in Israel,  said:

“We say get out or you’re dead. We give them two minutes, and then we start shooting, and that’s the only way they’ll understand.”

Mr Hazineh, a Palestinian Christian who may have converted upon his marriage, quoted the Qur’an and said:

And prepare against them [non-Muslims]/ Your strength to the utmost/ Of your power including/ Steeds of war to strike terror/ Into the hearts of the enemies.”

At that point, CIJA asked the Toronto police to treat this as a hate crimes and “to determine whether the statements made by the speaker constitute a violation of the Criminal Code of Canada.”[3]

A Toronto Police spokesperson, Const. Wendy Drummond, told the Canadian Jewish News that “We have received a complaint with regards to things said at the Al-Quds Day rally. There is an investigation ongoing.”

When speaking to the Canadian Jewish News on this issue, Mr Fogel said:

“It is disgusting and outrageous that a speaker at a rally in Canada would call for the murder of Jews in Israel. This is a hideously new low for Al-Quds Day and speaks to the reason why it was necessary for Queen’s Park to refuse the protest access to the Legislature’s grounds.  We call on our fellow Canadians to recognize and condemn this incident for what it is: vicious anti-Semitism that has no place in our country.”[4]

.

 

 

[1] http://www.cija.ca/about-us/

[2] Kenney halts funding to Palestine House, Canadian Jewish News, Andy Levy-Ajzenkopf -February 23, 2012, http://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/kenney-halts-funding-palestine-house

[3] Police investigating comments at Al-Quds Day rally, Canadian Jewish News, By Paul Lungen, Staff Reporter –

August 7, 2013. http://www.cjnews.com/news/police-investigating-comments-al-quds-day-rally

[4] Police investigating comments at Al-Quds Day rally, Canadian Jewish News, By Paul Lungen, Staff Reporter –

August 7, 2013. http://www.cjnews.com/news/police-investigating-comments-al-quds-day-rally

The Feminist-Industrial Complex: Guilt and Queer Theory in Wisconsin

http://theothermccain.com/2015/12/20/the-feminist-industrial-complex-guilt-and-queer-theory-in-wisconsin/

 

“The excitement around [Jessica] Valenti’s visit ignited activism among Women’s Studies Program faculty and students. . . . The students enrolled in WMNS 250: Feminist Methodologies felt inspired to join the national and international viral movement called ‘I Need Feminism Because’ . . . University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire feminists felt that Valenti’s visit was a good time to get their fellow students talking with their own signs and a video. . . . The weather was chilly, but Women’s Studies Program majors and minors dressed warm and stood on the newly opened campus sidewalks leading to Davies Center with their signs.”
Women’s Studies department newsletter, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, 2014

More than 10,000 students attend the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire (UWEC) of whom 85 were enrolled in the Women’s Studies/LGBTQ Studies program in 2014. “The good news is that with thirty-one minors, sixteen majors, thirty Women’s Studies certificate students, and eight Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer (LGBTQ) Studies certificate holders, our program is flourishing,” Professor Asha Sen wrote in the department’s newsletter. “The challenge, though, is to sustain and grow us in a time of budgetary crisis.” Exactly why this department has any budget at all is something of a mystery.

Fewer than 1% UWEC students are pursuing degrees or certificates in this program, and the offerings are replicated in many similar programs on other campuses in the University of Wisconsin system. Among these choices, one could pursue this subject in the Women’s and Gender Studies program at UW-Green Bay, or the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies program at UW-La Crosse, or the Gender and Women’s Studies program at UW-Madison. Is it really necessary — “in a time of budgetary crisis,” as Professor Sen says — that Wisconsin taxpayers support so many similar programs at campuses all over the state?

Of course, efficient use of taxpayer dollars has no part in the agenda of Women’s Studies, which is basically a full-employment program for women with Ph.D.s. Perhaps someone in the Republican-controlled Wisconsin legislature could undertake an investigation of exactly how much is being spent to support these programs in the state’s university system, how many professors are employed in these programs and what they are teaching. If any Republican in Wisconsin cares to examine this 2014 newsletter from the UWEC Women’s Studies program, I’m sure there would be some questions that come to mind.

For example, “What’s the point?” A recent UWEC Women’s Studies graduate, Gretchen Bachmeier, wrote to praise the program:

The women’s studies courses I took were truly transformative. Being raised in Eau Claire, I came into college with a limited perspective. I quickly learned my white, middle-class, Catholic, heterosexual background left much room to examine and challenge the privileges in my life. For me, as for most people, challenging my privilege hasn’t been the smoothest of roads. It’s been a road filled with much guilt. I’ve learned to redirect that guilt and to learn privilege does not prohibit me from being a good-enough or a true-enough feminist.
I’ve been blessed to have many opportunities as a women’s studies undergraduate. The summer after my freshman year, I attended the National Conference for College Women Student Leaders. . . . The last three semesters of my academic career, I had the incredible opportunity to intern in the Women’s and LGBTQ Resource Center.

And what has she done with this “transformative” feminist education?

 

In June, I will be starting a job with Target in the Minneapolis area.

 

Working for a discount retail store isn’t necessarily a bad job, but why did she need a Women’s Studies degree to do it? Was the whole point to teach Ms. Bachmeier to feel guilty about her “white, middle-class, Catholic, heterosexual background”? Can’t privileged white kids learn to hate their middle-class backgrounds without spending four years (at $8,744 annual tuition) to get a diploma in Guilt Studies?

Guilt isn’t the only thing taught at UWEC, however. The Women’s Studies newsletter reports the 2013 program award winners, including the Helen X. Sampson Graduate Research Paper or Project Award, which went to Christopher Jorgenson for his thesis, “Like a Girl: A Gay Man’s Theoretical Exploration of Identity.” Whatever the value of this “theoretical exploration” to Mr. Jorgenson personally, we must ask, “What benefit did the taxpayers of Wisconsin derive from it?”

Wisconsin taxpayers might also be interested in the course syllabus for “Queer Theory and Sexual Politics” (WMNS 406) as it was taught during the spring 2014 semester at UWEC. Among the four assigned texts for this course were The Routledge Queer Studies Reader, edited by Donald Hall and Annamarie Jagose (2013) and Unlimited Intimacy: Reflections on the Subculture of Barebacking by Tim Dean (2009). Far be it from me to say that the “subculture of barebacking” (i.e., unprotected anal intercourse) is not an interesting topic, but the question is why this must be studied as part of a course at a state university. Let us quote the course syllabus as to the aims of WMNS 406:

 

Queer theory is an interdisciplinary set of approaches that resists categorization. In A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory, Nikki Sullivan highlights the frustration that many students and scholars new to queer theory feel: She writes that queer theory “is a discipline that refuses to be disciplined, a discipline with a difference, with a twist if you like. In saying this, however, I don’t mean to endow Queer Theory with some sort of ‘Tinkerbell e!ect’; to claim that no matter how hard you try you’ll never manage to catch it because it is ethereal, quixotic, unknowable” (v). Queer theory can be so difficult to “catch” because of its interdisciplinary approaches and because it questions and critiques binaries, hierarchies, and assumptions that are commonly held, including those about the regulation of sexuality, gender and sexual identity, knowledge production, citizenship, rights claims, family, and ethics. In this seminar, we will attempt to “catch” queer theory by reading and responding to a variety of queer theorists.
Queer theory finds its genealogical roots in poststructuralist theory, feminist theory, and the grounded theory of queer activism of the 1970s, ‘80s, and ‘90s. We will begin by reading and responding to poststructuralist theory (Michel Foucault) and feminist work that began to address the categories of sex and sexuality in the 1980s and 1990s (Gayle Rubin, Judith Butler). From there, we will explore various approaches to queer theory: historical and temporal scholarship, psychoanalytic work, explorations of new relationalities, negative thinking and utopian thinking, critiques of the sexualization of citizenship, the mediatedness of intimacy and sex, critiques of heternormativity and homonationalism, relationships between theoretical work and explicit activism and social life, critiques of metro-normativity, anthropological approaches, critiques of liberalism and neoliberalism, and critical race and disability-based critiques of queer theory.

 

So with its “interdisciplinary approaches,” Queer Theory “questions and critiques binaries, hierarchies, and assumptions,” but for what purpose? How does this benefit the Wisconsin taxpayer, who seems to be on the receiving end, so to speak, of this “unlimited intimacy”? The total budget of the University of Wisconsin system is more than $6 billion — I repeat, SIX BILLION DOLLARS — and it was big news in July when Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill that reduced the taxpayers’ share of that budget by $250 million, which would amount to about a 4% cut. However, it seems this reduction did not cause anyone to question the necessity of Women’s Studies. In fact, UWEC posted a help-wanted advertisement for a “tenure-track faculty position at the rank of Assistant Professor . . . with an appointment in either the Department of Sociology or the Women’s Studies Program. . . . The successful candidate will contribute to both Sociology and Women’s Studies/LGBTQ Studies.”

The ad didn’t say whether the “successful candidate” will teach barebacking. Certainly the state’s university faculty have been know to pursue “interdisciplinary approaches” in the field of sexuality:

 

A UW-Madison African Studies professor was charged Wednesday with lewd and lascivious behavior for allegedly exposing himself last month to a student near campus, who, it turned out, had taken one of his classes.
Kennedy A. Waliaula, 47, of Madison, an assistant professor of African languages and literature, was charged with the misdemeanor for allegedly exposing his genitals to the woman as he walked past her on North Charter Street mid-afternoon on July 10, according to a criminal complaint filed in Dane County Circuit Court.
When police located Waliaula about two hours after the student reported the incident, he first said he discovered after seeing the student’s shocked expression that his zipper was down. But he later admitted that he opened his pants himself so that he could expose himself to women and that he had exposed himself to about five women, the complaint states.
Waliaula admitted to police that he has a problem exposing himself in public, according to the complaint.
Waliaula was placed on paid leave after his arrest, UW-Madison spokesman Dennis Chaptman said.

 

More recently:

The University of Wisconsin-La Crosse has canceled the summer school contract of a professor charged with sexually assaulting a minor . . .
Paul Miller, 47, of La Crosse and has agreed to remain off campus until the case is resolved.
Miller was charged [in July 2015] with second-degree sexual assault of a child younger than 16. The incident occurred June 13, when several children were staying overnight at Miller’s residence in preparation for a birthday party the next day, the complaint states.
According to a La Crosse Police Department report, a 14-year-old girl told investigators that Miller slept in the same bed as her, as well as kissed, fondled and performed oral sex on her.

Neither of these men were Women’s Studies professors, who are paid to expose students to indecent ideas and assault their minds.

 

Quota-Mongers, Gender Nihilism and the Insane Logic of Radical Feminist Theory

http://theothermccain.com/2015/12/18/quota-mongers-gender-nihilism-and-the-insane-logic-of-radical-feminist-theory/

Ashe Schow at the Washington Examiner reports:

For further evidence that outrage feminists believe gender trumps all else, a new report from the Women’s Media Center bemoans the fact that more articles about campus sexual assault in major newspapers were written by men than by women.
Forget the content of those articles — women should write about rape, and men should write about whatever the modern feminists tell them they can write about. . . .

(Actually, feminists want men to shut up.)

WMC claimed that the gender of the writer skews the content.
“Furthermore, our research shows that the gender of the writer had a significant impact on how stories were covered, with women journalists not only interviewing the alleged victims more often than male journalists, but also writing more about the impact of the alleged attacks on alleged victims,” WMC wrote.
“A higher share of women journalists covered university policies and the prevalence of rape on campus, while a higher share of male journalists focused on campus proceedings and sports culture on campus,” they added.

You can read the whole thing. Feminists want to control who is allowed to write about rape as a means of controlling the narrative. Remember thatfeminism is a totalitarian movement to destroy civilization as we know it. Totalitarians rely not only on propaganda to promote their own ideology, but also seek to suppress dissent and silence opposition. Feminists have succeeded in effectively prohibiting criticism of their ideology on university campuses, and now seek to extend their hegemonic dominance throughout the culture. What feminism cannot withstand is the kind of sustained critical scrutiny that points out the fundamental absurdity of the feminist movement.

New Deadline for Submissions (May 15th, 2016):
F–k Your Gender Neutral Prison!
A Nihilist Insurrection Against Gender

Due to strong and intensified interest in the anthology, and to the increasing attention being given to Gender Nihilism and other critiques of Western Feminism and Transgender politics, it has been decided to push the deadline to May 15th. This is the new deadline for submissions.
When originally this anthology sought submissions this was a fairly new set of ideas, that mostly existed in online communities and did not have a lot of crossover appeal. Over the months these ideas have exploded and expanded into infinite directions of critique, expansion, and interpretation. It is because of this that I am expanding the anthology and pushing back the deadline.

There is a ‘crisis’ in Western Feminism and Transgender politics: the crisis of the female subject, transmisogyny, homonationalist imperialism and the (settler) coloniality of gender. Lost, driven out, abused, alienated and isolated — we are the victims of a regime of boundaries and definitions, a panoptic gaze of disciplinary behaviors and the ever-shifting goalposts of authenticity. We are the sacrificial lamb at the altar of respectability and profit. The ontological notions of gender and the essentialist politics of every gender based community, even ‘radical’ ones, has pushed us to this. We, much like those before us, call for the Death of the Female Subject and an opposition to trans identity politics of every form.
We cannot allow ourselves to be destroyed through what others call “liberation.” Our close friends call for an infinite expansion of gendered ontologies, new essentialisms, and new identity markers they wish would become intelligible in the eyes of others. Our distant friends see imperialist warfare as the highest form of gay and trans justice. They wish only to be murderers wrapped in a rainbow flag and the military insignia of their nationalist home. Our enemies hold on with their last breath the sex essentialism and gender ontologies of men and doctors – believing they know the real truth.
In every case, we see nothing as the only alternative to their reforms and reactionary essentialisms. We are declaring war. This war will not be fought with rainbow flags and military inclusion, hate crime legislation or prison construction, gentrification or settler-colonization, state recognition or ‘visibility’ politics. This war will be fought against the alienation of daily gendered life.
Inspired by Baedan: The Journal of Queer Nihilism this anthology would focus on the false ontology of gender and essentialism, radical trans politics, transmisogyny, the coloniality of gender, homonationalism, queer nihilism and more.

This is at once both manifestly insane and entirely logical as a consequence of feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix. — which denies the reality of human nature.

Translating academic jargon to plain English, feminists believe thatequality between men and women can only be achieved by eliminating alldifferences between men and women. Feminist theory is premised on the denial that there are any meaningful natural differences between men and women; all apparent differences are a result of the artificialinfluences of a male-dominated society and culture (“patriarchy”). Feminists believe that the traits we think of as human nature — the masculinity of men and the femininity of women — are a coercive imposition of male power, which maintains the patriarchal order through systematic violence against women that Dee Graham called “sexual terror.” The key institution of patriarchy, according to feminist theory, is what Adrienne Rich called “compulsory heterosexuality.”

“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. . . .
Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men.”

 

Anyone who wishes to make sense of feminism must begin at the beginning, tracing this ideology to its origin in the radical Women’s Liberation Movement of the late 1960s and ’70s. Arguably the most important early statement of the movement’s beliefs and objectives is the1969 Redstockings manifesto:

Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total, affecting every facet of our lives. . . .
We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . They have used their power to keep women in an inferior position. . . . All men have oppressed women. . . .
We regard our personal experience, and our feelings about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation. We cannot rely on existing ideologies as they are all products of male supremacist culture. . . .
Our chief task at present is to develop female class consciousness through sharing experience and publicly exposing the sexist foundation of all our institutions.

What is crucial about the highlighted passage is the assertion that only women are able to understand their condition of oppression, and that only their “feelings” are “the basis for an analysis.”

Male experience and male feelings are irrelevant. Nothing any man says has any validity to feminists, who assert that their subjective “feelings” about their “personal experience” are a form of knowledge superior to whatever any man can ever claim to know, dismissing in a single phrase (“products of male supremacist culture”) everything that Aristotle, Aquinas, Shakespeare, Locke, Burke, Marx, Freud or any other man has ever said about the human condition. Males know nothing, and thisnegation of male knowledge is essential to understanding feminism as a totalitarian ideology based on a belief in female supremacy.

This is what confuses people who naively accept feminist claims that their movement is about achieving “equality.” Disregarding all evidence and logic to the contrary, feminists insist that women are still as much “an oppressed class” in 2015 as the Redstockings said they were in 1969. (Never mind, of course, the many articulate critics of feminism who denied that such “oppression” actually existed. Steven Goldberg’s 1973 book The Inevitability of Patriarchy was the classic refutation of that claim, but there is no need to repeat Professor Goldberg’s arguments here.) A careful examination of feminist arguments reveals that what they assert is not the equality of men and women, but rather the intellectual and moral inferiority of males. After all, if men were virtuous and intelligent, we would not need constant lectures from feminists about how stupid, wrong and evil we are. Rebecca Solnit’s recent 2014 bestsellerMen Explain Things to Me is a shrewd distillation of this feminist worldview. Although she is careful to insert disclaimers of the “not all men” variety into her arguments, the astute reader perceives that Solnit never met a man whom she considered her equal, and condescends totolerate males only insofar as they acknowledge her infinite superiority to them. She has no faults or weaknesses; she is omniscient in her wisdom, incapable of failure or error. To disagree with Rebecca Solnit is to be not merely wrong, but also evil. Therefore, no man can speak in her presence except to praise her.

Feminist ideology justifies and rationalizes this narcissistic perspective, and raises the question of how any man can be expected to love a woman who regards him with complete contempt. Supposing that Rebecca Solnit is actually desirous of any romantic involvement with males, on what terms would such a relationship be acceptable to Her Majesty? This question expresses the mystery that has perplexed critics of feminism for more than four decades. Stipulating that everyone is free to arrange their domestic life as it pleases them, where are the men who will agree to serve as subjects under feminist dictatorship? What sort of sadomasochistic psychology could possibly be a basis of mutual attraction? Encountering a woman who never speaks of males except to scorn them as her inferiors, only a man with a depraved appetite for humiliation could desire her companionship.

This is the obverse, incidentally, of what is wrong with “pickup artist” (PUA) discourse. Men who proclaim that they consider sex to be a sport, and view all women as natural prey in their game, thereby disqualify themselves as desirable companions. Would any self-respecting woman wish to add herself as just another number in the long roster of the PUA’s conquests? If he disparages all his previous partners in this manner — just so many pretty fools he has “played” — why should any woman imagine that she would be an exception to the otherwise universal rule? PUAs and feminists mirror each other in their narcissistic selfishness and derogation of the opposite sex. It would be an interesting experiment to see what would occur if the notorious Daryush (“Roosh V”) Valizadehwere to gather a half-dozen or so of his most adept young PUA disciples and infiltrate the next National Young Feminist Leadership Conference. Could the habitual womanizers and implacable man-haters find love together? Certainly, they deserve each other, but I digress . . .

Feminism’s function as a rationalization of selfishness makes it impossible that any feminist could ever justify or defend the normal roles of men and women as husbands and wives, mothers and fathers. Marriage requires cooperation and parenthood requires sacrifice, and feminism encourages women to adopt an attitude of extreme selfishness that is incompatible with any sense of conjugal or maternal duties.

Feminism condemns marriage and motherhood as oppressive “institutions” by which “male power” is used to “keep women in an inferior position,” to quote the Redstockings manifesto. The co-founder of the Redstockings collective, Shulamith Firestone, was emphatic on this subject in her 1970 book The Dialectic of Sex: “Pregnancy is barbaric,” (p. 180), and women are “the slave class” (p. 184), because “marriage in its very definition . . . was organized around, and reinforces, a fundamentally oppressive biological condition” (p. 202).

Accepting these assertions as the premises of the feminist syllogism, we cannot reject the obvious conclusion of the argument. Here we may quoteRebecca Solnit’s book (p. 62), where she says “feminism made same-sex marriage possible”:

Because a marriage between two people of the same gender is inherently egalitarian — one partner may happen to have more power in any number of ways, but for the most part it’s a relationship between people who have equal standing and so are free to define their roles themselves.

“The personal is political,” radical feminist Carol Hanisch famously proclaimed, but Rebecca Solnit makes no disclosures in Men Explain Things to Me that could help us understand whatever personal stake she might have in the same-sex marriage issue. Has she ever married? Does she have children? If she made any mention of either a husband or offspring in her book, I missed it, and spending more than an hour skimming through online profile features about her divulged no evidence that she has ever married or given birth. A life of unmarried childlessness is entirely common among feminists, of course. There is a long roster, from Shulamith Firestone to Amanda Marcotte, of women who condemned men, marriage and motherhood from the perspective of the barren spinster. Given the fact of Rebecca Solnit’s enthusiasm for same-sex marriage, and that she has lived almost her entire adult life in San Francisco, some might suspect she has followed the feminist syllogism to its obvious conclusion. Avoiding mere speculation, however, we may cite many other authorities on this subject. For example, in 1978, Professor Linda Gordon wrote an essay, “The Struggle for Reproductive Freedom: Three Stages of Feminism,” that was included the anthology Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism, edited by Zillah Eisenstein. Professor Gordon wrote:

“The lesbian liberation movement has made possibly the most important contribution to a future sexual liberation. . . . What the women’s liberation movement did create was a homosexual liberation movement that politically challenged male supremacy in one of its most deeply institutionalized aspects — the tyranny of heterosexuality. The political power of lesbianism is a power that can be shared by all women who chose to recognize and use it: the power of an alternative, a possibility that makes male sexual tyranny escapable, rejectable — possibly even doomed.”

This article was quoted in Feminist Politics and Human Nature (1988) by Professor Allison Jaggar, who commented:

“The abolition of compulsory heterosexuality would have an enormous impact on the system of male dominance. . . . The abandonment of compulsory heterosexuality would reshape the sexuality of both girls and boys and, if psychoanalysis is correct, would have tremendous consequences for the structure of the unconscious and for people’s sense of their own gender identity.”

Let us stipulate that both Professor Gordon and Professor Jaggar are correct in their analyses. However much I dislike seeing heterosexuality described as “male sexual tyranny,” we must remember that feminism requires the negation of the male perspective. The man’s experience, and his feelings about that experience, are entirely invalid in feminist discourse. He must remain silent, because only feminists have any basis for analyzing their oppression. Because it is impossible for any man to dispute what Professor Gordon and Professor Jaggar say, I am compelled to agree: Feminism and the “lesbian liberation movement” are essentially one and the same. Heterosexuality and feminism are fundamentally incompatible, and therefore the success of feminism means that the “male sexual tyranny” of heterosexuality is “doomed.”

Once you accept the premise of feminist theory — “Women are an oppressed class. Our oppression is total. . . . All men have oppressed women.” — it is impossible to reach any other conclusion. Feminism aims to destroy “the system of male dominance,” as Professor Jaggar calls it, and this requires employing what Professor Gordon calls the “political power of lesbianism” to destroy “the tyranny of heterosexuality.” If you disagree with this conclusion, your argument is not with me, but rather with these eminent professors. Disagreeing with feminists, however, is now considered a hate crime. This was made clear in June 2014:

Efforts are underway to stop the anti-woman group “A Voice for Men” from holding its first international conference in Detroit the last weekend in June. This “Men’s Rights Advocates” group, based in Houston, promotes male supremacy, sexism and sexual violence against women. It was designated a hate group in 2012 by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate crimes against oppressed people in the U.S.
Hundreds opposed to the conference rallied and marched through downtown Detroit on June 7. Organized largely through social media, the diverse and mainly youthful crowd rallied at Grand Circus Park where speakers denounced the misogynist, hate-based terrorism of MRAs and their anti-woman agenda. Some spoke about surviving sexual assault. Several raised the group’s anti-lesbian-gay-bi-trans-queer agenda and racist nature of MRAs. The LGBTQ community was well represented in the crowd, and Motor City Pride weekend started later that day. . . .
UNITE HERE Local 24 representatives passed out signs to “Boycott Doubletree” and denounced the hotel for hosting the conference of bigots. The union is waging a struggle for union recognition, decent wages and dignity for hotel industry workers, many of whom are women and people of color.
Unafraid and undeterred by male supremacist threats and possible MRA spectators, the protesters marched right up to the Doubletree Hotel and held the street in front of it. . . .
The crowd chanted “Hey, Doubletree, what do you say, would you host the KKK?!” and “Racist, sexist, anti-gay, MRAs go away!” as hotel management refused to accept more than 3,000 petition signatures demanding Doubletree cancel its reservations for the “men’s rights” conference.

Heterosexual males are the KKK, and anyone who speaks a word in favor of men must be part of an “anti-woman . . . hate group.”