If you study history, you learn to see patterns. What happened in the French Revolution was replicated in the Russian Revolution — destruction in the name of “equality,” and the implementation of “reforms” according to a radical ideology, followed by a bloody nightmarish failure. Last night I received an email from a reader:
What would a feminist-approved rape trial look like?
I know what the verdict would always be 100% of the time, but I just want to know what the procedure would be in order to reach that verdict. We all know that current justice system is not good enough for feminists and that the campus sexual-assault system isn’t quite up to the feminists’ liking either. So… then what? What would a feminist-approved system look like?
I imagine a dunce cap might be required at some point. Thoughts?
It’s like anything else with the Left: They are against the status quo. The existing society is unjust, and therefore …
Well, therefore what? Ever since the French Revolution we have seen a repetition of the same pattern: Destroy the system, replace it with something dreamed up by intellectuals and the result? Catastrophe.
The regime of Lenin and Stalin was infinitely more cruel than the czarist regime.
So, feminists want to destroy the current legal system and we ask, “What will you replace it with?”
The answers are always either (a) vague or (b) frightening, or (c) both vague and frightening.
What is clear, going back to Catharine MacKinnon in the 1980s, is that feminists think the law is on the side of the rapist, and that the normal due-process protections of defendants shouldn’t apply in rape cases. We see the kind of kangaroo-court proceedings established on university campuses, where the accusation alone is tantamount to proof, and where exculpatory evidence is ignored, and if you point this out as an injustice, you are accused of being a “rape apologist.” We can therefore assume that this is what feminists would institute as the basis of legal “reforms” in our courts, if they had the power to do so — which they might someday get, if Hillary is elected.
Some people observing this step-by-step advance of feminism may think, “Well, I’m not a rapist. My son is not a rapist. This will never affect me.” Yet the secondary and tertiary effects of such policies are difficult to predict, and the Law of Unintended Consequences can take decades to work itself out. Many of the problems we see today are consequences of policy changes that happened in the 1960s and ’70s, such as the end of university administrators acting in loco parentis. Once upon a time, a boy caught in the girls’ dorm (or vice-versa) outside regular visiting hours was subject to expulsion. Now most universities have coed dorms, and no effort at all is made to curb sexual promiscuity, and then everyone acts surprised when rapes happen. But conservatives who opposed the coed dorm policy decades ago are not heeded when they say, “I told you so.” Some consequences are not intended, but they are to some extent predictable, and letting college kids run wild was certain to have negative results, even if not all of the results could be foreseen.
Feminism fails because feminism is a War Against Human Nature.
In times of revolution, when society begins spinning out of control, the wise course is to protect yourself and your family from harm — insofar as this is possible — while warning others about the danger ahead. Prophets of doom are never popular, but when we see history repeating itself the way it is now repeating, we have a duty to sound the warning.
Study the life of Leon Trotsky. He sided with the Mensheviks when Lenin first split the Marxist movement in Russia, but when the crisis of 1917 erupted, Trotsky saw that Lenin’s strategy could succeed, and so cast his lot with the Bolsheviks. During the subsequent era, Trotsky’s leadership of the Red Army was decisive in saving the Leninist regime, but when Lenin fell ill, Trotsky was reluctant to push himself forward as Lenin’s successor. This enabled Stalin to gain the dictatorship, and Trotsky was subsequently purged and exiled and ultimately assassinated — a victim of the revolution he had helped make possible.
Now, consider this headline:
The source for that headline is a radical feminist site. For more than two years, I’ve reported how radical feminists — especially including Cathy Brennan — have opposed the transgender movement. To a great extent, such feminists are like Trotsky, warning against the danger of Stalinism.
While it would have been difficult, if not entirely impossible, to predict such weirdness as Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner being named Glamour magazine’s “Women of the Year,” still these bizarre developments are not altogether surprising to conservatives. “Equality” is a corrosive solvent, totalitarians are never satisfied by any compromise, and Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It. If you grant every demand feminists make today, tomorrow they will return with a new list of demands. Once it was obvious that the Supreme Court would side with LGBT activists on same-sex marriage (and the Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003 was a clear signal of this intent, as Justice Scalia foresaw), the question was, “What next?”
No one predicted in 2003 that, as a result of the Lawrence ruling, by 2016, the White House would seek to impose gender-neutral restrooms on America’s schoolchildren but . . . “Equality!”
Radical feminists now see themselves depicted as bigots — lumped in with Christian conservatives in this regard — for insisting that separate public facilities are necessary for the safety of women and girls.
All of us who feel a sense of foreboding about the impending disaster know that we will be denounced as paranoid fearmongers if we speak bluntly about the kind of dangers that lurk in the future. The frog has been boiled slowly for a long time and I’m reminded of a once-famous title by Lewis Grizzard: I Haven’t Understood Anything Since 1962. Sure, I was only 3 years old in 1962, but I understand now what Grizzard was saying. The cultural upheavals of the 1960s unleashed destructive social and political forces, and every effort to put the genie back in the bottle — e.g., the so-called “Reagan Revolution” — has only occasionally slowed the tempo of catastrophe. We have had a few short periods of apparent calm, when it seemed that order was finally restored. Yet these are merely brief halts in our Long March to the Gates of Hell, because the forces of anarchy and depravity will never rest until America is finally destroyed.
Remember the Minnesota parents who are raising their 5-year-old son as a girl? We recognize this as Munchausen Syndrome by proxy, and yet we see how feminist theory can be used to justify this pathology:
For more than 40 years, radical feminists have advocated androgyny — the abolition of gender — as the means of achieving “equality.” . . .
Feminism condemns normal human behavior as “male privilege” and “tyranny” (Firestone), “patriarchal power” and “sexual repression” (Dworkin), “male sexual dominance” (MacKinnon), and “the systematic oppression of women” (Scanlon). Because of feminism’s hegemonic influence in academia, these ideas have become widely accepted on university campuses, and inevitably have begun influencing policy and curricula in public schools.
Just today, I was skimming a 2005 anthology edited by Professor Chrys Ingraham (SUNY-Purchase). This academic text includes an essay by Professor Diane Richardson (Newcastle University) in which she invokes “critical perspectives on the social construction of gender and sexuality” to condemn heterosexuality as an oppressive “system of privileged, institutionalized norms and practices.” In feminism’s “theoretical framework,” Professor Richardson explains, “sexuality is seen as a key mechanism of patriarchal control.” Because I know what feminist theory actually is — and can cite the sources by name — what am I to say of those feminists who insist that the transgender phenomenon is anti-woman?
When radicals decided to destroy the social order (e.g., “patriarchal power”), who could predict what would emerge from the chaos?
Promoters of “gender-neutral” childhood want to convince parents that our common-sense objections to their bizarre schemes are motivated by ignorant prejudice. Feminists now consider “normal” a synonym for wrong. Heterosexuality is the worst thing in the world, and parents who try to raise normal kid are obviously haters, guilty of homophobia.
Teaching girls to hate boys is perfectly OK with radical feminists, who likewise approve of deliberate anti-male discrimination in the name of “diversity,” and what did they expect would be the result? After radical feminists have waged a four-decade crusade to destroy families and undermine Judeo-Christian morality, to what system of values can they now appeal in opposing the transgender cult? “Social justice”?
Chicago billionaire James “Jennifer” Pritzker is funding the transgender agenda.
Do feminists expect chivalrous courtesy from deranged perverts? Do they think transgender billionaire James “Jennifer” Pritzker gives a damn what happens to girls and boys subjected to sex-change “treatment”? Do they think George Soros actually cares about women and children?
Ignorance of history does not excuse the folly of radicals who have forgotten (or perhaps never learned) that Roberspierre went to the guillotine and Trotsky died at the hands of a Communist assassin.
“When we’re talking about rape culture and idealism, we have to talk about Slut Walk. . . . The fallacy here is not wanting to end rape culture. The fallacy is that marching around with ‘End Rape Culture’ on my back was actually going to end rape culture.”
— Rachel Ivey, 2013
In response to Saturday’s post — “‘Feminist Motherhood’ and the ‘Transgender Kindergartner’” — Professor Donald Douglas of American Power complimented me that my “range of citations is extremely impressive.” Contrary to what some people think, the eruption of transgender madness has very deep roots in feminist theory, as I demonstrated with quotes dating as early as 1970, when Shulamith Firestone declared “the end goal of feminist revolution must be . . . not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself.”
Among the other sources I cited was a 2011 Ms. magazine article about feminist motherhood and a 2015 book about campus sexual assault policywhich blamed heterosexuality and masculinity for “sexual violence” as an expression of “patriarchal power.” One reason I keep piling up quotations like that is to demonstrate, from a multiplicity of sources over the course of time, that all feminism is fundamentally alike, in terms of its hostility to human nature. For more than four decades, the feminist movement has been against men, marriage, motherhood, capitalism and Christianity — and ultimately against heterosexuality, per se. When feminists speak of “equality,” they do not mean simple fairness; rather, they intend the destruction of all social distinctions between men and women, to bring about a genderless utopia of androgyny. Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It. I keep providing more evidence to further corroborate this conclusion, and will continue doing so until this truth is universally acknowledged.
Saturday, I called attention to a 2013 video, “The End of Gender: Revolution, Not Reform,” by Rachel Ivey of the radical environmental group Deep Green Resistance (DGR). About three-and-a-half minutes into this presentation, Ms. Ivey notes the irony that her organization’s position on gender has provoked more controversy than the fact that DGR is “a group advocating the forcible dismantling of civilization.”
This destructive agenda is where radical environmentalism and radical feminism merge to become coterminous phenomena. What most people fail to understand about feminism is that its ideology is essentially destructive, in the same way that Marxist-Leninist ideology is destructive and that this is no accident, because modern feminism arose from the crypto-Marxist radical New Left of the 1960s. So-called “Red Diaper babies,” the children of Communist Party members, were prominent and influential among early leaders of the Women’s Liberation movement. A crucial moment in the formation of this movement was when Shulamith Firestone used a mailing list of women in the New Left group Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) to organize feminists in New York. (See In Our Time: Memoir of a Revolution by Susan Brownmiller, pp. 18-20.) The feminist concept of “consciousness-raising” was borrowed directly from Communist organizing tactics: “In the Old Left,” Red Diaper baby Anne Forer told Brownmiller (p. 21), “they used to say that the workers don’t know they’re oppressed so we have to raise their consciousness.”
“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
Ms. Ivey here summarizes an idea — that every misfortune, hardship or unhappiness experienced by any woman is the result of a system of oppression — which is the fundamental basis of all feminist theory. This produces an ideology and rhetoric I have described thus:
Feminism justifies anti-male attitudes by promoting an ideological belief that I call feminism’s Patriarchal Thesis:
1. All women are victims of oppression;
2. All men benefit from women’s oppression;
Believing that normal human life is a system of injustice in which all women (collectively) are victimized by all men (collectively), feminists can justify anything they say or do as part of their struggle against historic oppression.
Just as Marxists believe that workers are oppressed by capitalism, feminists believe women are oppressed by patriarchy, and a basic task of feminism is to help women gain consciousness of their oppression.
“Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization . . . to come to see oneself as a victim.”
— Sandra Lee Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression (1990)
“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. . . . Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men. . . .
“Being around any man constitutes a threat to us, because they are our oppressors. Being wanted by a man and him treating you as if you were his is inherently violent.”
— Radical Wind, 2013
You see that while Professor Bartky and the anonymous feminist blogger are saying different things, they begin with the same premise, namely that oppression (“victimization”) is the universal condition of women. Where the blogger goes further than the professor is in making explicit that heterosexuality is both cause and effect of this oppression. This feminist argument can be traced back to the early 1970s, and was developed into a comprehensive theory by Professor Dee Graham in her 1994 book, Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence and Women’s Lives. It is from Professor Graham’s theory that the blogger Radical Wind derived her claim that women are “hostages” who cannot escape men.
To argue that male heterosexuality “is inherently violent” may seem extreme, but this claim has very deep roots in the history of the feminist movement, and continues to influence feminism today. When we see feminists protesting “rape culture,” we must understand that what they mean by this term is quite nearly synonymous with heterosexuality.
“In terms of the oppression of women, heterosexuality is the ideology of male supremacy.”
— Margaret Small, “Lesbians and the Class Position of Women,” in Lesbianism and the Women’s Movement, edited by Nancy Myron and Charlotte Bunch (1975)
“This is the essence of so-called romance, which is rape embellished with meaningful looks. . . .
“The traditional flowers of courtship are the traditional flowers of the grave, delivered to the victim before the kill. . . .
“The annihilation of a woman’s personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality . . .”
— Andrea Dworkin, “The Night and Danger,” 1979, inLetters From a War Zone (1988)
“I think that widespread heterosexuality among women is a highly artificial product of the patriarchy. . . . I think that most women have to be coerced into heterosexuality.”
— Marilyn Frye, “A Lesbian’s Perspective on Women’s Studies,” speech to the National Women’s Studies Association conference, 1980
“In contrast to young women, whose empowerment can be seen as a process of resistance to male dominated heterosexuality, young, able-bodied, heterosexual men can access power through the language, structures and identities of hegemonic masculinity.”
— Janet Holland, Caroline Ramazanoglu, Sue Sharpe and Rachel Thomson, The Male in the Head: Young People, Heterosexuality and Power (1998)
“As many feminists have pointed out, heterosexuality is organized in such a way that the power men have in society gets carried into relationships and can encourage women’s subservience, sexually and emotionally.”
— Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)
Feminist “rape culture” discourse extends far beyond the crime of sexual assault to condemn practically all male/female relationships as based in the coercive patriarchal system of “male dominated heterosexuality.”
The recent protests against “rape culture” on university campuses, demanding the enforcement of policies that effectively criminalize heterosexuality and deny male students due-process protections, must be understood in context of the feminist movement’s history:
The origins of feminism’s “rape culture” discourse can be traced back to the Women’s Liberation movement of the late 1960s and ’70s. Treatises like “Rape: The All-American Crime” (Susan Griffin, 1971) and Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape (Susan Brownmiller, 1975) depicted rape as an exercise of male power that was inherent in, and necessary to, the system of male supremacy. Brownmiller described rapists as “front-line masculine shock troops, terrorist guerrillas” who served to keep women captive and subjugated under a regime of pervasive sexual fear. . . . Radical feminists denied that heterosexual behavior was “natural.” There was no biological “urge” or “instinct” involved in the observable patterns of male and female sexual behavior, feminists insisted. Instead, all of this was “socially constructed” by an oppressive male-dominated system that proponents of feminist gender theory now call heteronormative patriarchy. Viewing sexual behavior in this political context of systemic and collective male power, it is impossible for feminists to view any sexual behavior as private or personal. No man or woman is merely an individual in feminist theory, but each is viewed as acting within a system where men (as a collective group) exercise power to unjustly oppress women (as a collective group).
This collective mentality, where all relationships are manifestations of an oppressive system of “male supremacy,” makes it impossible for the feminist to view herself (or any man) as an individual, each responsible for his or her own actions. No matter how wealthy, well-educated or influential the feminist may be, she always considers herself a victim of oppression and every man — no matter how honest or kind he is, no matter how lowly his place in the world — is part of the system that oppresses her. Feminism, like Marxism, is a profoundly irrational worldview, a secular religion that claims for itself the authority of science in order to justify a revolution to destroy civilization as we know it.
“Women organize to overthrow male power and thus the entire gender system,” Rachel Ivey said in describing the feminist movement’s ultimate goal. “Because without patriarchy there would be no need for gender.”
You may read the transcript of Ms. Ivey’s 2013 DGR presentation on gender and, if you are a student of history and political science, you will notice she insists on a materialist understanding of patriarchal oppression. “Gender is a material system of power,” Ms. Ivey says. “Rape culture, right along with female poverty, lack of education, the trafficking of our bodies — it’s maintained through material structures. Not through people’s ideas.” This is a feminist adaptation of the Marxist doctrine of historical materialism, and its application to “gender” is likely to produce effects quite like what Lenin, Stalin, Mao and other Marxist tyrants achieved in the 20th century, namely catastrophic failure.
Ask yourself this: Why did Margaret Thatcher hate feminism? Was she infavor of rape and oppression? And why did feminists hate her? One might think that feminists would celebrate as a heroine of their cause a woman who had fought her way to the pinnacle of political power, as the first woman ever to become Prime Minister of the British empire. Yet feminists knew, as did Lady Thatcher, that their movement was not hermovement, for feminism is exactly like Communism, in that it is implacably hostile to individual liberty and human dignity. Lady Thatcher famously said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” She might well have added, the problem with feminism is that eventually you run out of other people’s daughters.
How many children does the typical feminist have? Not many. Insofar as they do not eschew heterosexual intercourse altogether, feminists are more likely to have abortions than to have children.
“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, March 2014
Feminism is a totalitarian movement, a systematic ideology of cruelty inspired by hatred — not only hatred of men, but of human life itself.
Feminism is poison. It is not merely wrong, but also evil.
David and Hannah Edwards are raising their 5-year-old son as a girl.
“From a very young age, Hannah said, her son always identified with the female characters in stories. This translated into dressing up as the girl character during playtime and requesting princess costumes to wear not just for Halloween, but for everyday attire.”
— MinnPost.com, Feb. 2
“The Edwardses filed a complaint with the St. Paul Human Rights Department on March 24, claiming their child was bullied at [a charter school] after starting kindergarten as a boy and switching that identification to a girl midway through the year.”
— Minneapolis Star-Tribune, April 13
When I saw the headline on a Think Progress tweet — “It takes a village to bully a transgender kindergartner” — my left eyebrow arched. This is anautonomic reflex, I think, although academic experts might theorize that arching an eyebrow in profound skepticism is socially constructed along with the gender binary and the heterosexual matrix. Professors get paid to overthink everything, and after two years of researching radical feminism, I’ve come to realize how this hyper-intellectual tendency makes it impossible for some people to live a happy, normal existence. When you need a theory to explain everything, especially if you are the kind of “progressive” who sees oppression all around you, the ordinary tasks of daily life become unnecessarily complicated. Parenting, for example:
When Dave and Hannah Edwards were lucky enough to win the lottery to enroll their child at Nova Classical Academy in St. Paul, Minnesota, they were excited about the charter school’s small classrooms, the kind teacher they’d met, and the special attention their kid would receive. What they didn’t anticipate was an entire community rising up against their family as they became the latest victims of an anti-transgender backlash sweeping the country.
Over the course of the school year, the kindergartner would transition from a gender non-conforming boy to a transgender girl. . . .
At the beginning of her Kindergarten year, the Edwards’ daughter still identified as a boy. She still wore the boys’ uniform and identified with male pronouns. But they already knew she was gender non-conforming from the many girly things she liked. Plus, Hannah told ThinkProgress, “She would say things like, ‘In my heart, I’m a girl,’ or ‘In my heart, I think I might be half and half.’”
This proved problematic at school. Classmates would make fun of her for her shoes, backpack, or other preferences that were more associated with girls than with boys. The Edwards, both teachers themselves, approached Nova to discuss ways to minimize that bullying. “We came from a place of both being educators and really believing in children having the educational tools and language to talk about things and how that might make a difference.” Hannah explained. “Kids, when they’re given the opportunity, can really learn and grow and they want to be good people.”
Their first impression was that the school was on the same page. In fact, administrators agreed to incorporate the book My Princess Boy into an anti-bullying lesson about gender diversity. But when they emailed the school community on October 14th to inform them of this lesson, the backlash began. “Once parents knew, things changed completely,” Dave said.
You can read the whole thing, but the fact that the parents of this boy/girl are both teachers should give you pause. What sort of theory of “gender” did Dave and Hannah Edwards learn in college, and how are these theories being implemented in public school policies and curricula? Furthermore, if the Edwards’ son is so profoundly confused, why?
Is it possible that the parenting methods of Dave and Hannah Edwards were influenced by what they learned as part of their own education? Isn’t it true that feminist influence in academia promotes hostility toward “gender” distinctions? Aren’t feminists against normal manifestations of sexual differences — men being masculine and women being feminine — because they believe these traits are “socially constructed”?
“Humanity has begun to transcend Nature: we can no longer justify the maintenance of a discriminatory sex class system on grounds of its origin in nature. . . .
“And just as the end goal of socialist revolution was not only the elimination of the economic class privilege but of the economic class distinction itself, so the end goal of feminist revolution must be . . . not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sexdistinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally. . . . The tyranny of the biological family would be broken.”
— Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (1970)
“We want to destroy sexism, that is, polar role definitions of male and female, man and woman. We want to destroy patriarchal power at its source, the family; in its most hideous form, the nation-state. We want to destroy the structure of culture as we know it, its art, its churches, its laws . . .
“The nuclear family is the school of values in a sexist, sexually repressed society. One learns what one must know: the roles, rituals, and behaviors appropriate to male-female polarity and the internalized mechanisms of sexual repression. . . .
“We must refuse to submit to all forms of behavior and relationship which reinforce male-female polarity . . . “
— Andrea Dworkin, Woman Hating (1974)
“Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of its dominant form, heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989)
“Gender, as radical feminists have always understood it, is a term which describes the systematic oppression of women, as a subordinate group, for the advantage of the dominant group, men.”
— Joan Scanlon, 2010
For more than 40 years, radical feminists have advocated androgyny — the abolition of gender — as the means of achieving “equality.” Radical feminism “sees gender not as an identity or personal choice but as a caste system designed for the perpetuation of male supremacy.” This is distinct from the so-called “Third Wave” feminist theory of Judith Butler, et al., but neither the radicals nor the postmodern disciples of Professor Butler are in favor of what most people would consider normal behavior.
Tobias “Tobi” Hill-Meyer, the boy who was raised by a lesbian feminist couple and grew up to become a transgender pornographer, is the tip of a large iceberg of evidence about what “feminist motherhood” produces.
Feminism condemns normal human behavior as “male privilege” and “tyranny” (Firestone), “patriarchal power” and “sexual repression” (Dworkin), “male sexual dominance” (MacKinnon), and “the systematic oppression of women” (Scanlon). Because of feminism’s hegemonic influence in academia, these ideas have become widely accepted on university campuses, and inevitably have begun influencing policy and curricula in public schools. Feminist ideas about “gender” are also influential in the entertainment industry and the news media, so that we see Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner featured on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine and celebrated as Glamour magazine’s “Woman of the Year.”
The liberal media employ a rhetoric of “diversity” surrounding these issues, and activists exploit children to create a dishonest narrative about “victims of an anti-transgender backlash,” to deceive the public and distract parents from the bizarre agenda being promoted. Many people are understandably shocked by efforts to normalize “transgender” identity for children — parents like David and Hannah Edwards calling their son “her” — but what is in some ways even more radical is the obverse effect, i.e., stigmatizing normal behaviors. Expressions of ordinary beliefs that boys should act like boys are condemned as “bullying,” and the celebration of “gender non-conforming” children implies that parents who raise their sons and daughters normally areoppressing their children by forcing them to conform to an artificial “social construction.”
“The view that heterosexuality is a key site of male power is widely accepted within feminism. Within most feminist accounts, heterosexuality is seen not as an individual preference, something we are born like or gradually develop into, but as a socially constructed institution which structures and maintains male domination, in particular through the way it channels women into marriage and motherhood.”
— Diane Richardson, “Theorizing Heterosexuality,” inRethinking Sexuality (2000)
“If we accept that gender is constructed and that it is not in any way ‘naturally’ or inevitably connected to sex, then the distinction between sex and gender comes to seem increasingly unstable. In that case, gender is radically independent of sex, ‘a free-floating artifice’ as [Professor Judith] Butler puts it, raising the question as to whether ‘sex’ is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps sex was always already gender, so that the sex/gender distinction is not actually a distinction at all. Butler dispenses with the idea that either gender or sex is an ‘abiding substance’ by arguing that a heterosexual, heterosexist culture establishes the coherence of these categories in order to perpetuate and maintain what the feminist poet and critic Adrienne Rich has called ‘compulsory heterosexuality’ — the dominant order in which men and women are required or even forced to be heterosexual.”
— Sara Salih, Judith Butler (2002)
“Heterosexuality and masculinity . . . are made manifest through patriarchy, which normalizes men as dominant over women. . . .
“This tenet of patriarchy is thus deeply connected to acts of sexual violence, which have been theorized as a physical reaffirmation of patriarchal power by men over women.”
— Sara Carrigan Wooten, The Crisis of Campus Sexual Violence: Critical Perspectives on Prevention and Response (2015)
Feminism Is Queer, as Eastern Washington University Professor Mimi Marinucci has explained, requiring what Professor Butler calls “the subversion of identity.” Feminist gender theory aims not only to eliminate normal adult roles associated with marriage and family (men as husband/father, women as wife/mother) but also to eliminate the traits and behaviors associated with those roles — the masculinity of men, the femininity of women, and heterosexuality, per se. Framing their arguments in a rhetoric of “social justice,” Third Wave feminists depict males and heterosexuals as “privileged” (bad) while women and homosexuals are “oppressed” (and therefore good). We see this attitude displayed by Everyday Feminism editor Melissa Fabello, who constantly voices her contempt for heterosexual males while working for a website that celebrates “LGBTQIA” sexuality:
How to Respectfully Love a
Trans Woman: Navigating Transmisogyny
in Your Romantic Relationship
— Kaylee Jakubowski, Jan. 19, 2015
5 Ways to Stand Up to Toxic Messages
and Accept Yourself as a Bisexual Person
— Erin Tatum, Jan. 25, 2015
Your Top 10 Questions About
Being Genderqueer Answered
— Kris Nelson, July 17, 2015
What Is Heteronormativity — And How Does
It Apply to Your Feminism? Here Are 4 Examples
— Kris Nelson, July 24, 2015
Ever Been Told You’re
‘Too Pretty to Be a Lesbian?’
Here Are 3 Ways to Respond
— Maddie McClouskey, Nov. 2, 2015
Yes, I Chose to Be Queer —
I Was Not Born This Way,
And Here’s Why That’s Okay
— Hari Ziyad, Nov. 5, 2015
3 Things ‘We’re Not All Lesbians’ Is
Really Saying (And Why It’s Anti-Feminist)
— Carmen Rios, Dec. 13, 2015
Why Freezing My Sperm Matters
to Me as a Trans Woman
— Rhiannon Catherwood, Dec. 25, 2015
3 Ways Gender and Sexuality Are
More Fluid Than We Think
— Alex-Quan Pham, Feb. 4, 2016
6 Ways Transphobia Directly Contributes to
High Rates of Suicide in Trans Communities
— Brynn Tannehill, March 19, 2016
I’m Gender Non-Conforming — And I Need
People to Stop Pressuring Me to ‘Pass’
— Alex-Quan Pham, April 10, 2016
7 Ways Parents Can Be More
Body Positive Toward Their Queer
and Transgender Kids
— Meg Zulch, April 26, 2016
This sampling of headlines from Everyday Feminism indicates the extent to which a bias against normal sexuality and normal “gender identity” has become characteristic of the feminist movement in the 21st century.
Feminist mothers actively seek to undermine their sons’ masculinity from an early age. A typical example from a 2014 column by Rosita Gonzalez:
When I first learned I would have a son, my first thought was, “Well, I don’t know what to do with a son!” I had come from a family of girls. I had babysat only girls. And I was a feminist. . . .
So, when my son was young, I began teaching him to be compassionate. I stressed the importance of his feelings and the feelings of others. . . .
In my feminist frenzy, I bought him dolls and dressed him in neutral-colored clothing. I endured comments like, “What a sweet, cute girl! How old is she?”
Fiona Joy Green, a professor of Women and Gender Studies at Canada’s University of Winnipeg, wrote in 2001, “Since the birth of my son . . . I have been raising him with the conscious understanding that the mother-son relationship as proscribed by patriarchy is limited, damaging, and dangerous.” Professor Green wrote of “the struggles of feminist mothers to raise sons in ways that challenge the status quo.” Natalie Wilson, who teaches Women’s Studies at Cal State University-San Marcos, wrote inMs. magazine in 2011 that she “dreaded” giving birth to a son:
I wanted a daughter — a girl that would grow into a woman with whom I could fight the feminist good fight, a girl whom I could give the feminist upbringing I never had, a girl who I could let know from Day One was as strong, smart and capable as any penis-privileged human. Looking back, this dread of having a son embarrasses me. I see now that it is just as important to raise feminist sons as it is to raise feminist daughters. . . .
As a card-carrying member of the ‘gender is socially constructed club,’ I thus believed I could raise my son to love justice more than football, peace more than toy guns and hot pink more than camouflage.
Football and toy guns are bad, because masculinity is bad, according to feminist theory, and the project of raising “feminist sons” therefore requires mothers to find ways to “challenge the status quo.”
Encouraging boys to identify with girl characters in stories and wear “princess costumes” during playtime? That’s feminist motherhood.
Evalion is a babygirl!
The Harvard thesis of Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s quasi-celebrity COO, has been shared with Breitbart, casting new light on the depths of the ardent feminist’s gender politics and the possible ideological preoccupations of the social network she now helps to run.
Revealed during a week the progressive bias of Facebook’s top staff has come under intense scrutiny, the thesis suggests that the upper echelons of the company may be even more radically progressive than previously believed.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg indicated last week that he would be reaching out to influential conservativesafter it was revealed that the site was ignoring and deprioritising conservative news sources.
Breitbart executive chairman Stephen K. Bannon and editor-in-chief Alex Marlowresponded that they weren’t interested in a “photo op” but wanted “transparency and the truth” from the social network. Instead, Breitbart challenged Mark Zuckerberg to a public debate on camera with me.
Sheryl Sandberg’s senior thesis, overseen by former Clinton staffer Larry Summers, might suggest why Facebook has developed a problem with conservatives. It provides a rare insight into the psychology and politics of a senior executive at one of the most powerful tech companies in the world.
In the thesis, Sandberg uses bizarre, discredited statistics and fashionable but shaky arguments about the “pervasive influence of the patriarchy” to explain domestic violence. The full thesis can be read below.
The Facebook COO appears to have wholly bought in to feminist pseudo-statistics, making the extraordinary claim that 95 percent of domestic violence victims are female. The true ratio of male to female domestic violence victims is now known to be far more even, with meta-analyses of over 200 studies showing a rough gender symmetry in domestic violence.
Sandberg can’t be excused by the date of publication (1991). By then, researchers had long been aware that men and women abused each other on a roughly equal basis. By 1988, this research had already been published in mainstream journals.
At one point in the thesis, Sandberg does acknowledges male victims, noting that she does “not mean to imply that men are not also subjected to acts of violence by their partner,” but later goes on to approvingly cite an argument from two academics – without evidence – that “by and large” most women who attacked men did so “to defend themselves.”
In the thesis, provided to Breitbart News by journalist Charles Johnson, Sandberg makes it clear that men, “traditional attitudes” and “western society” are the driving forces behind domestic violence. “Intimate violence is not only fostered by traditional attitudes towards marriage, but by the hierarchical, male-dominant nature of Western society” writes Sandberg.
She does not find space to compare the state of women in the Islamic world with their peers in Europe and the United States.
“The pervasive influence of patriarchy in society has resulted in the widespread acceptance of the ideology of male dominance,” Sandberg writes.
With growing awareness about the hidden epidemic of male domestic violence victims, male users of Facebook – particularly those affected by domestic abuse themselves – may be concerned that such a high-ranking member of the company apparently believes them to be in such a tiny minority.
Those seeking to understand the achingly right-on progressive politics at Facebook will be reading Sandberg’s thesis today with keen interest.
We reached out to Facebook requesting a comment from Sheryl Sandberg. Facebook’s Director of Strategic Communications Anne Kornblut responded: “This was a college paper written over 25 years ago. It’s amusing — or maybe sad — that anyone would try to take lines and footnotes from this 90+-page paper and use them out of context.
“And it’s too bad that more people in 2016 aren’t concerned about domestic violence and its victims – women and well as men.”
Guess who got a ~6000 word report published by the established and respected conservative think tank, Capital Research Center? Why, none other than yours truly.
This report has been the culmination of a year’s worth of investigation, and I’m incredibly proud to bring you a highly detailed paper that exposes massive corruption in the Obama administration, as well as MacArthur’s plans to censor both Twitter, Facebook, and all of the UK through a governmental Ministry of Truth, among other treachery like reforming learning assessment with social-justice based video games that have been purposed specifically for leftist political indoctrination. And thanks to new investigative tools that were at my disposal this time around, all financial links are for more detailed than any of my previous works on the subject.
Some of you might remember the time I’ve touched on MacArthur Foundationhere at The Ralph Retort, or maybe you saw my poorly produced 3 hour documentary which admittedly did not have all the hard evidence at the time of production to really back up some of the serious claims I was making. To those people that were dissatisfied with my previous cringe-fest, I want to apologize and say that the past year has been a huge learning experience for me and I’ve worked hard to improve and focus on hard evidence as opposed to circumstantial bullshit. It turns out I wasn’t wrong in my accusations, however, and the claims were true — I just needed to spend more energy digging and getting to the bottom of the story.
While this report is not exhaustive and somewhat limited in scope, the reader will be left with a full understanding of how desperate the radical left is to control all speech in all institutions — from the campus, to social media, to the video games we play for leisure. And more importantly, the report fully explores why the globalist, cultural elite at the top of the pyramid became so desperate and increasingly Stalinesque in their machinations for enforcement and censorship, as time went on.
A Swedish business owner will have to pay thousands in damages to a lesbian couple who wanted to have their wedding at her rural venue. The religious owner of the establishment didn’t want a gay wedding on her property, which counts as discrimination and a crime.
This is just one of many examples of how legalising same-sex marriage is not about love or equal rights, it’s about about making people accept something their consciousness and beliefs find unacceptable. It’s about criminalizing conservatism and infringing on people’s freedom of religion.
Lesbians pressed charges after being turned down
Trollebo Gård on its web page describes itself as a “paradise.” Situated in Småland, Sweden, the farm dates back to the 14th century. According to its own description, a knight by the name of Lionface gave it to his wife as a wedding gift in 1361. Now it’s for sale, with a starting price of 15 million SEK (about 1.8 million USD).
In November 2014, the farm wasn’t on the market yet. For what I assume was a high price, you could arrange parties, conferences and other festive events there. A lesbian couple decided they wanted to have their wedding at the scenic location. They called up the owner who said that it wasn’t possible, there were no times available for a wedding. But only four days later, a heterosexual couple had no problem making a reservation for their wedding at the same place.
Somehow the lesbian couple found out about this and charged Trollebo Gård for discrimination. Now the case has been settled and the owner has admitted to the charges. The owner, a woman, did in fact not want homosexuals to be married at her venue, so she turned the couple’s request down. She claimed that the reason for this was her religious beliefs.
The Equality Ombudsman says that religiosity is not a valid reason to turn down a customer. Therefore, Trollebo Gård now has to pay 15.000 SEK to each of the women, 30.000 total ($3,664 USD), in damages.
Freedom of religion ended with gay marriage
I haven’t seen this case get a lot of attention in the media. Maybe it’s because people don’t see it as a big deal. Maybe they think it’s right that the owner got this punishment for discriminating against gays. Or maybe they think it’s too embarrassing that this has happened in a country that purports to have freedom of religion. Obviously the right of this woman to live by her moral principles, rooted in her religious beliefs, has not been respected.
What’s interesting is that the law doesn’t seem to treat all people the same in this matter. The Swedish parliament decided to make marriage laws gender neutral in 2009, and so same-sex marriage became legal. The same year, the Lutheran Church of Sweden changed their own statutes to make it possible for gay couples to get married in church. However, the new rules also meant that no individual priest was obligated to conduct same-sex weddings.
What this means is that a priest can legally refuse to marry gay couples with reference to his own conscience and deeply held beliefs. Yet when a business owner for the same reasons don’t want to have gay weddings on her private property, it’s deemed discrimination and a violation of the law. To me, this doesn’t make any sense at all. It does seem like the church and its clerics have privileges that normal citizens don’t have.
Traditional values have become illegal
I’ve never really given gay marriage that much thought. I’m not a religious person, so I don’t see it as an issue in that sense. But when you get the government involved in things, it’s never as simple as a private matter. Now we’re all involved, because the government’s dictates can’t be ignored. If the politicians want you to approve of same-sex marriage, you have no other choice than to abide. (Or they’ll put a gun to your face.)
But wait a minute. Maybe I’m the bad guy in all of this. Gay people should have the same rights as straight people, shouldn’t they? So if straight people can get married, gay people should be able to do that too. Wouldn’t you be a really bigoted homophobe if you thought that marriage could only be between a man and a woman? And shouldn’t that kind of thinking be a crime, since it can make gays feel badly treated?
My answer to that last question is: nope. I don’t think any opinions or values should be criminal. Freedom of religion means you can practice your religion in whatever way you like, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. Getting some angry dyke’s feelings hurt doesn’t count.
Gay marriage isn’t really the problem here, it’s the laws that force everyone to accept it. They make you think it’s about tolerance, “being nice,” yet the very idea behind these laws is that traditional, conservative values can’t be allowed to exist and must be suppressed. The political scene is infested with Marxists who are by far the most intolerant people on this planet. Yet they are also great deceivers and can make you think that their intolerance is really about being nice and inclusive, 2 plus 2 equals 5.
Tyranny is being sold as tolerance, and it’s unfortunate that so many are buying into it.
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
— Barack Obama, Oct. 30, 2008
Whatever you say, you can’t say America had no warning about this:
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is planning to issue a sweeping directive telling every public school district in the country to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity.
(Never mind whether their “gender identity” matches their genitalia or their chromosomes. Ignore what you learn in biology class, kids.)
A letter to school districts will go out Friday, adding to a highly charged debate over transgender rights in the middle of the administration’s legal fight with North Carolina over the issue. The declaration — signed by Justice and Education department officials — will describe what schools should do to ensure that none of their students are discriminated against.
It does not have the force of law, but it contains an implicit threat: Schools that do not abide by the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law could face lawsuits or a loss of federal aid.
(Transgender totalitarianism, in other words.)
The move is certain to draw fresh criticism, particularly from Republicans, that the federal government is wading into local matters and imposing its own values on communities across the country that may not agree. It represents the latest example of the Obama administration using a combination of policies, lawsuits and public statements to change the civil rights landscape for gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people.
After supporting the rights of gay people to marry, allowing them to serve openly in the military and prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against them, the administration is wading into the battle over bathrooms and siding with transgender people.
“No student should ever have to go through the experience of feeling unwelcome at school or on a college campus,” John B. King Jr., the secretary of the Department of Education, said in a statement. “We must ensure that our young people know that whoever they are or wherever they come from, they have the opportunity to get a great education in an environment free from discrimination, harassment and violence.”
(Via Memeorandum.) How did we get here? You have to go back to 1977, when the city of Miami passed an ordinance forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and Anita Bryant publicly opposed it. Bryant was a popular singer (her song “Paper Roses” hit No. 5 on the charts in 1960) who subsequently became famous as the celebrity spokeswoman for the Florida citrus industry. Her opposition to gay rights resulted in Bryant being demonized by the Left, but her Save Our Children campaign was prescient in recognizing that activists were using dishonest claims of “discrimination” to normalize abnormal behavior.
The question, viewed from a legal and political standpoint, exposed a widespread confusion between tolerance (most people don’t want to be bullies or bigots) and the far more radical concept of sexual “rights” advanced by gay activists. This parallels a confusion, which I note in the introduction of my book Sex Trouble, over the meaning of the word “equality.” Most people think of “equality” in terms of basic fairness, which is a much different idea than what feminists mean by “equality.”
Modern feminism, a movement originating in the radical New Left of the 1960s, advances a totalitarian notion of “equality” derived from Marxist-Leninist ideology. Many of the early leaders of Second Wave feminism (i.e., the Women’s Liberation movement) were so-called “Red Diaper babies,” the children of Communist Party members, and brought to the feminist movement of the 1960s and ’70s the conceptual framework of Marxism (historical materialism and class struggle) which were adapted to create what Shulamith Firestone famously called The Dialectic of Sex.
In the crypto-Marxist analysis of Firestone and her radical comrades, men were an oppressive “sex class” (analogous to the capitalist bourgeoisie in Marxist thought), women were victims of oppression (analogous to theproletariat), and feminists were the revolutionary vanguard, the sexual Bolsheviks who would overthrow the unjust tyranny of male supremacy.
This was dangerous insanity, of course, and was widely ridiculed at the time. How could such preposterous ideas ever succeed? Yet radical feminists had influential allies in the news media, academia and the entertainment industry, but more importantly in the Democrat Party. During the 1972 presidential campaign, George McGovern had won the Democrat nomination with the support of the New Left, and one of the things the McGovernites did at the 1972 Democrat convention was to change the party rules and platform to reflect a feminist agenda. After Jimmy Carter was elected president in 1976, he was expected to advance this agenda, and in 1977 — the same year Anita Bryant began her Save Our Children campaign, and also the year I graduated high school — the“National Women’s Conference” controversy erupted.
The chairwoman of this taxpayer-funded event was Democrat Rep. Bella Abzug, a radical leftist from New York, and the pro-abortion agenda of the conference in Houston sparked protests from Catholics and other conservative Christians. Among other controversies emerging from this 1977 event were reports from the handful of conservative women delegates in Houston about the disproportionate number of lesbian feminists among the 20,000 or so attendees. Lesbian rights were on the conference agenda, a strategy that had been planned from the very outset, with the approval of the Carter administration. In an interview with Anahi Russo Garrido, included in a recent anthology on the history of gay activism, radical lesbian Charlotte Bunch explained how this happened:
I participated in the first White House meeting with LGBT groups in 1977 . . . where I spoke about the immigration problems faced by LGBT couples from different countries. . . .
One of the most important projects we organized was a lesbian caucus for the National Women’s Conference in Houston in 1977. Houston was the national event forr the UN International Women’s Year — the only one ever sponsored by the US Government. . . . We coordinated a national network of lesbians, who attended their state events and sought to be elected as delegates to Houston, as well as to get lesbian rights on the agenda. We built alliances with feminist organizations like NOW and worked with mainstream groups like the YWCA and the AAUW . . .
This broad feminist coalition was successful in getting agreement on a 26-point platform that included planks on sexual preference, reproductive rights, poverty, minority women, etc. It was a turning point for me in seeing that the future of sexual rights lay in building coalitions.
So, here in 1977, you have “mainstream groups like the YWCA and the AAUW” forming a coalition with Bunch, who had divorced her husband, formed a lesbian collective known as The Furies and authored the 1972 radical manifesto “Lesbians in Revolt.” What became apparent at the Houston conference was that feminists were not only determined to destroy the marriage-based family, but that in pursuit of that goal, they welcomed as allies radicals like Charlotte Bunch who were opposed to heterosexuality, per se. As early as 1977, it was apparent that the official feminist agenda was not about “equality” in the sense of basic fairness, nor was “the future of sexual rights,” as Bunch saw it, about meretolerance toward “alternative lifestyles.” By 1977, feminists already had been saying this for years, and they have continued saying it.
“Sexism is the root of all other oppressions … Lesbianism is not a matter of sexual preference, but rather one of political choice which every woman must make if she is to become woman-identified and thereby end male supremacy.”
— Ginny Berson, “The Furies,” 1972, in Lesbianism and the Women’s Movement, edited by Nancy Myron and Charlotte Bunch (1975)
“Gay revolution addresses itself to the total elimination of the sexual caste system around which our oppressive society is organized. . . . The lesbian is the key figure in the social revolution to end the sexual caste system, or heterosexual institution.”
— Jill Johnston, Lesbian Nation: The Feminist Solution(1973)
“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.”
— Linda Gordon, “The Struggle for Reproductive Freedom: Three Stages of Feminism,” in Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism, edited by Zillah Eisenstein (1978)
“To the extent that women harbor negative attitudes toward lesbians and lesbianism, we demonstrate identification with men. To the extent that women express negative attitudes toward lesbians in our words and deeds, we strengthen patriarchy.”
— Dee Graham, Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence, and Women’s Lives (1994)
“Because sexism is the root of all oppression and heterosexuality upholds sexism, feminists must become lesbians and lesbians must become feminists if we are to effect a revolution. . . . To state that feminists must become lesbians assumes that lesbianism is a matter of choice and conviction, not biological conditioning or sexual behavior. Moreover, lesbians must also become feminists, that is, they must ground their sexuality in a political discourse if any social change is to occur. . . .
“I believe it can be shown that, historically, lesbianism and feminism have been coterminous if not identical social phenomena.”
— Bonnie Zimmerman, “Confessions of a Lesbian Feminist,” in Cross Purposes: Lesbians, Feminists, and the Limits of Alliance, edited by Dana Heller (1997)
“Heterosexuality is a category divided by gender and which also depends for its meaning on gender divisions. . . .
“The view that heterosexuality is a key site of male power is widely accepted within feminism. Within most feminist accounts, heterosexuality is seen not as an individual preference . . . but as a socially constructed institution which structures and maintains male domination.”
— Dianne Richardson, “Theorizing Heterosexuality,” inRethinking Sexuality (2000)
“From the beginning of second-wave feminism, sexuality was identified as a key site of patriarchal domination and women’s resistance to it. . . .
“While heterosexual desires, practices, and relations are socially defined as ‘normal’ and normative, serving to marginalize other sexualities as abnormal and deviant, the coercive power of compulsory heterosexuality derives from its institutionalization as more than merely a sexual relation.”
— Stevi Jackson, “Sexuality, Heterosexuality, and Gender Hierarchy: Getting Our Priorities Straight,” in Thinking Straight: The Power, the Promise, and the Paradox of Heterosexuality, edited by Chrys Ingraham (2005)
“Heterosexism is maintained by the illusion that heterosexuality is the norm.”
— Susan M. Shaw and Janet Lee, Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions (fifth edition, 2012)
“Heterosexuality and masculinity . . . are made manifest through patriarchy, which normalizes men as dominant over women. . . .
“This tenet of patriarchy is thus deeply connected to acts of sexual violence, which have been theorized as a physical reaffirmation of patriarchal power by men over women.”
— Sara Carrigan Wooten, 2015
Rationalizing and justifying this radical agenda required the development of feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — which in turn leads to the idea that it is “discrimination” to keep boys out of the girls’ restroom:
“Equal rights” sounds so wonderful. Who can be against equality?
Yet as Richard Weaver warned us long ago, Ideas Have Consequences, and the sledgehammer logic of “equal rights” brutally dismantles every common-sense objection. Even the most obvious facts — e.g., boys and girls are different — must therefore be suppressed to conform with The Equality Principle.
Because this radical conception of “equality” has become such an intrinsic component of the Democrat agenda, it is promoted by the liberal media and is also taught in public schools, because the schools are controlled by teachers unions that donate millions of dollars annually to Democrats. You will be accused of “hate” if you oppose this agenda.
“As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children.”
— Anita Bryant, 1978
People called her crazy for saying that. However, when the Democrat Party owes its success to the support of gay activists, feminists, and teachers unions, and when everyone in the education system is required to support this bizarre anti-heterosexual agenda, is it any wonder that Democrats are imposing transgender cult ideology in public schools?
“Fundamentally transformed,” just like Obama promised.
Barbara Ellen ” do we seriously think that a female teacher sleeping with a male pupil is on a par with a male teacher sleeping with a girl pupil? I don’t.”
A social worker has been struck off the register after engaging in a sexual relationship with a ‘vulnerable’ teenage boy.
Claire Runkee, 38, was struck off the register of social workers after her relationship with the 16-year-old, during which she took him to a hotel for the night and sent him a string of explicit messages.
At a Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) hearing it emerged the boy – who was placed with his foster carers at the age of four and known as Child A – had to undergo therapy after the liaison was uncovered.
Ms Runkee was caught when the boy’s foster carers saw more than 100 ‘graphic and sexually explicit’ messages on Facebook.
She qualified as a social worker in 2012, and had been working with a children’s safeguarding team for a year before developing ‘a friendship’ outside of work with Child A.
The boy was vulnerable, had struggled at school and was under a care order.
His foster carers saw the Facebook messages from Ms Runkee between January 1 and February 13 last year, which showed she had ‘placed pressure’ on the boy not to reveal their relationship.
One message stated: ‘Choose what you want to say and stick to it, don’t rock the boat baby.
‘Think about keeping your mouth shut as to deviate will cause us problems.’
The foster carers sent the messages to the council that had placed the boy in care and an investigation began.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3576664/Social-worker-38-sex-vulnerable-boy-16-hotel-sending-string-100-graphic-sexually-explicit-messages-Facebook.html#ixzz484LLTLWe
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook