Marxist Feminists' Ruined Lives (blast from past: Kate Millet's sister writes too briefly about)

[St_Francis]

Link to article

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

Excellent, too brief analysis of what a large group of feminists were doing and the effects. Really took me back to the 70s when I was in high school and college.

And the sad thing is, this is still out there…

 

[Exiled_Child]

Link to article

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

Excellent, too brief analysis of what a large group of feminists were doing and the effects. Really took me back to the 70s when I was in high school and college.

And the sad thing is, this is still out there…

This is just a fantastic article, St. Francis, thanks for posting it. Actually, this is the second great article I’ve been turned on to today via CAF. I really don’t know too much about Kate Millett, but my sense is that she’s actually somewhat less insane than the psychotic separatist brand of feminists a’la Valerie Solano. But that’s not saying much, I suppose. I think Mallory Millett’s perspective is right on target, with the exception of her views on Chomsky and Zinn, neither of whom should be lumped in with the Marxists she describes. It’s truly heartbreaking. I think this line of thinking has produced a lot of unhappy people. One thing I find confusing is, what is the actual definition of a feminist? At one point it was a word to describe people who advocated human decency and just common sense: women should receive equal salaries and be allowed to vote, etcetera. It was just a matter of basic human rights at one time. Now, I honestly have no idea what it is.

 

[Kaninchen]

While Kate Millett might have been terribly, terribly naughty, that litany sounds more like “Mummy, Mummy, Kate made me (insert raucous sibling squabble nonsense)!!!”

I mean:

“How can we destroy monogamy?"
"By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

Gizza break.

 

[St_Francis]

This is just a fantastic article, St. Francis, thanks for posting it. Actually, this is the second great article I’ve been turned on to today via CAF. I really don’t know too much about Kate Millett, but my sense is that she’s actually somewhat less insane than the psychotic separatist brand of feminists a’la Valerie Solano. But that’s not saying much, I suppose. I think Mallory Millett’s perspective is right on target, with the exception of her views on Chomsky and Zinn, neither of whom should be lumped in with the Marxists she describes. It’s truly heartbreaking. I think this line of thinking has produced a lot of unhappy people. One thing I find confusing is, what is the actual definition of a feminist? At one point it was a word to describe people who advocated human decency and just common sense: women should receive equal salaries and be allowed to vote, etcetera. It was just a matter of basic human rights at one time. Now, I honestly have no idea what it is.

Had to look up Valerie Solanas, but I did remember the SCUM manifesto!

I recall reading a book in the mid-70s which outlined 5 types of feminism, so i have to admit, feminism is hard to define. Liberal feminism was what you would be talking about: equal pay, etc. but other groups were much different.

Chomsky and Zinn were definitely looked up to by the radicals of the time.

 

[St_Francis]

While Kate Millett might have been terribly, terribly naughty, that litany sounds more like “Mummy, Mummy, Kate made me (insert raucous sibling squabble nonsense)!!!”

I had the impression that Mallory Millet distanced herself from the group quite quickly, so I am not sure I understand what you are saying. She was quoting the chant Kate Millet, et al, opened their meetings with.

I mean:

“How can we destroy monogamy?"
"By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

Gizza break.

I don’t know if you were around at that time, but what MM wrote filled in some gaps for me about what I saw and experienced from the mid-70s on.

 

[Kaninchen]

I had the impression that Mallory Millet distanced herself from the group quite quickly, so I am not sure I understand what you are saying. She was quoting the chant Kate Millet, et al, opened their meetings with.

I’m saying I don’t believe her - at the very least she’s seriously over-egging her anti-feminist pudding.

I don’t know if you were around at that time, but what MM wrote filled in some gaps for me about what I saw and experienced from the mid-70s on.

I was a child in the 70’s so I have no idea of what Women’s groups you belonged to and I was a Young Conservative so radical feminism rather passed me by. Mind you, even at that age, I’d learned that believing your own side’s propaganda could be as ridiculous as believing the other side’s propaganda.

 

[Crosscut]

Seems like a more radical off sping of the larger feminist movement.

Also, Ive been seeing the sentiment of “High education turns you into a liberal/communist/feminists/whateverelsepeoplethinkisbad” a lot. Very interesting to me.

Why do people change their views after education? Are they brainwashed or are they enlightened?

 

[Sarcelle]

Seems like a more radical off sping of the larger feminist movement.

Also, Ive been seeing the sentiment of “High education turns you into a liberal/communist/feminists/whateverelsepeoplethinkisbad” a lot. Very interesting to me.

Why do people change their views after education? Are they brainwashed or are they enlightened?

Depends on who does the educating.

 

[Exiled_Child]

Why do people change their views after education? Are they brainwashed or are they enlightened?

Looking back, I really think this is a hugely interesting lesson regarding education, and college specifically, to reflect upon. People influence each other, and when people are together in a group setting the natural tendency humans have is to reach a consensus. It seems like whatever the prevailing views of the group happen to be, one automatically sort of tries ways to empathize and understand others perspectives by trying them on for size. Unless a person has an aspect of inborn contrariness somewhere in their character makeup, they will generally go out of their way to conform to group demands. It just happens, and we often aren’t particularly aware of the process. I think one of the greatest lessons to be learned from being thrust together with a large group of strangers in setting like school is that we don’t necessarily have to go along with the crowd. It seems to me that’s one of life’s great lessons. Young people in college lose themselves in all manner of herd thought before they even recognize the necessity of breaking away and finding themselves on their own terms. One of the most precious gifts Catholicism gives is the reminder to listen to one’s own heart and to struggle to be true to one’s conscience.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

It’s funny, I was required to take 2 gender studies courses while I did my undergrad, at a liberal state university. Monogamy, motherhood, and men were never talked down. In fact, the professor was a wife and mother herself and her husband taught at the same university.

But hyperbolic articles like this one who are aimed at people who have never actually experienced modern academia, read any of the philosophy that they’re “arguing” against, or even know any of the people who work in these fields do make for heated internet debates.

Really though, this is just more of the same “all women are evil” inflammatory stuff that has been making its way into this forum a lot in recent weeks. I mean, c’mon, the author attacks women for all looking the same and having common names such as ‘Julie’. In the very next sentence, it goes from “all women are the same” to being mad about the individualistic, tattooed party girl. The author doesn’t really seem to know what she is upset about, but she knows she’s mad.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

It isn’t educated, upper middle class women who shun marriage. Their marriage rates are high and their divorce rates are low. It’s the lower class, less educated women that aren’t getting married. And that’s really sad, because the lower class needs marriage the most.

 

[Crosscut]

Depends on who does the educating.

I disagree. If what you said is true, then people will take on views of their teacher/school/peers regardless of their own individual thoughts. I think higher education, in most cases, offers more perspectives than the one you were brought up with. You are able to mull over new points of view and see how you feel. I dont think that people will simply latch onto whatever fish dangles in front of them that everyone else is eating…(maybe in apperances they will) but in reality they will hold true to what they TRULY believe.

If a new perspective is offered that contends with the current view but makes more sense to the individual, they may abandon their former thoughts and adopt new ones.

I guess I just dont like the insinuation that people are mindless trendoids.

Looking back, I really think this is a hugely interesting lesson regarding education, and college specifically, to reflect upon. People influence each other, and when people are together in a group setting the natural tendency humans have is to reach a consensus. It seems like whatever the prevailing views of the group happen to be, one automatically sort of tries ways to empathize and understand others perspectives by trying them on for size. Unless a person has an aspect of inborn contrariness somewhere in their character makeup, they will generally go out of their way to conform to group demands. It just happens, and we often aren’t particularly aware of the process. I think one of the greatest lessons to be learned from being thrust together with a large group of strangers in setting like school is that we don’t necessarily have to go along with the crowd. It seems to me that’s one of life’s great lessons. Young people in college lose themselves in all manner of herd thought before they even recognize the necessity of breaking away and finding themselves on their own terms. One of the most precious gifts Catholicism gives is the reminder to listen to one’s own heart and to struggle to be true to one’s conscience.

I can see what youre saying. There are a few proven phenomena called information cascades and social polarity that deal with this very thing.

An information cascade is basically when person A, with little to no knowledge of a particular subject, hears person B say erroneous information on said subject, they adopt that information as fact because they dont have the personal understanding to know otherwise. This happens frequently especially on the internet. We should always check things we dont fully understand to make sure we understand things correctly and not simply trust people who seem like authorities.

The other thing is social polarity. Its not uncommon to search out like-minded people to discuss like-minded ideas. But this leads to further polarization. When people cut themselves off to alternative points of view, polarization occurs. This is extremely problematic especially right now in our political system. The two parties are more polar than they have ever been.

 

[Crosscut]

But hyperbolic articles like this one who are aimed at people who have never actually experienced modern academia, read any of the philosophy that they’re “arguing” against, or even know any of the people who work in these fields do make for heated internet debates.

Really though, this is just more of the same “all women are evil” inflammatory stuff that has been making its way into this forum a lot in recent weeks. I mean, c’mon, the author attacks women for all looking the same and having common names such as ‘Julie’. In the very next sentence, it goes from “all women are the same” to being mad about the individualistic, tattooed party girl. The author doesn’t really seem to know what she is upset about, but she knows she’s mad.

I agree completely. I think this is a very one-note, inflammatory article that is only showing a tiny slice of the feminist pie. I found it very degrading for the same reasons you thought…ad hominem with names and appearances. Why why why does everyone just want to talk about looks with women? Srsly.

I think its also very dangerous for those who dont fully understand the scope of the feminist movement…what it means and what it is for. I dont feel this article seeks to do anything positive.

 

[Sarcelle]

I disagree. If what you said is true, then people will take on views of their teacher/school/peers regardless of their own individual thoughts. I think higher education, in most cases, offers more perspectives than the one you were brought up with. You are able to mull over new points of view and see how you feel. I dont think that people will simply latch onto whatever fish dangles in front of them that everyone else is eating…(maybe in apperances they will) but in reality they will hold true to what they TRULY believe.

If a new perspective is offered that contends with the current view but makes more sense to the individual, they may abandon their former thoughts and adopt new ones.

I guess I just dont like the insinuation that people are mindless trendoids.

I can see what youre saying. There are a few proven phenomena called information cascades and social polarity that deal with this very thing.

An information cascade is basically when person A, with little to no knowledge of a particular subject, hears person B say erroneous information on said subject, they adopt that information as fact because they dont have the personal understanding to know otherwise. This happens frequently especially on the internet. We should always check things we dont fully understand to make sure we understand things correctly and not simply trust people who seem like authorities.

The other thing is social polarity. Its not uncommon to search out like-minded people to discuss like-minded ideas. But this leads to further polarization. When people cut themselves off to alternative points of view, polarization occurs. This is extremely problematic especially right now in our political system. The two parties are more polar than they have ever been.

I have never intended to imply that people are mindless.

How did you get that from my post?

I have merely intended to say that someone’s education may take on different forms under different learning environments.

 

[Exiled_Child]

It’s funny, I was required to take 2 gender studies courses while I did my undergrad, at a liberal state university. Monogamy, motherhood, and men were never talked down. In fact, the professor was a wife and mother herself and her husband taught at the same university.

But hyperbolic articles like this one who are aimed at people who have never actually experienced modern academia, read any of the philosophy that they’re “arguing” against, or even know any of the people who work in these fields do make for heated internet debates.

Really though, this is just more of the same “all women are evil” inflammatory stuff that has been making its way into this forum a lot in recent weeks. I mean, c’mon, the author attacks women for all looking the same and having common names such as ‘Julie’. In the very next sentence, it goes from “all women are the same” to being mad about the individualistic, tattooed party girl. The author doesn’t really seem to know what she is upset about, but she knows she’s mad.

Actually, the woman who wrote the article definitely was not saying “all women are evil,” or even saying anything remotely close to that. She was merely describing the hateful and heartless idiocy of Marxist feminism. Her tone was one of sadness, as she described the wrecked and lonely lives of females who went with the flow back in the seventies. I found her arguments very precise and insightful.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Actually, the woman who wrote the article definitely was not saying “all women are evil,” or even saying anything remotely close to that. She was merely describing the hateful and heartless idiocy of Marxist feminism. Her tone was one of sadness, as she described the wrecked and lonely lives of females who went with the flow back in the seventies. I found her arguments very precise and insightful.

Except that she doesn’t seem to have any idea what exactly Marxist feminism is, and if she does, she makes no reference to it other than to say ‘Marxist’ as many times as possible. It has nothing to do with promiscuity, hating men, rejecting marriage, or abortion. It was actually much bigger in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, and it focused on how women end up shut out of public life because their rigidly defined roles always keep them economically dependent on men. They were most known for advocating “pay for housework”. Nowadays, the few Marxist feminists out there advocate for workplace childcare, longer maternity leave, paternity leave, and educational outreach opportunities for minority women.

There are so many schools of thought within feminism and articles like this one just pick out the most “dangerous” or “scary” words, throw them together, and somehow tie it into “feminism” being responsible for every social ill out there.

It’s not only insulting to women, it’s insulting to the readers’ intelligence. Feminists did not set out to destroy the family, and in fact, they fixed a lot of things that were terribly wrong with our society. The way that rape was handled, sexual abuse, domestic abuse, equal pay, voting rights, rights of divorced women, women in the workplace, etc are all huge issues.

Of course, this article makes no mention of that. Nope, society was just fine until these horrible women got together and decided to demolish the family. Yep, that’s what they were fighting for. And they definitely succeeded. That’s why you never see college-educated, career-minded, self-identified feminists getting married, having kids, and buying houses in the suburbs.

And of course, if the laws of this nation are so bad, it’s definitely the fault of women. After all, women have always been the majority in Congress, we have never had a male president, and women dominate every state legislature and make up most of the nation’s governors. Oh…wait…

 

[manualman]

It’s funny, I was required to take 2 gender studies courses while I did my undergrad, at a liberal state university. Monogamy, motherhood, and men were never talked down. In fact, the professor was a wife and mother herself and her husband taught at the same university.

But hyperbolic articles like this one who are aimed at people who have never actually experienced modern academia, read any of the philosophy that they’re “arguing” against, or even know any of the people who work in these fields do make for heated internet debates.

Really though, this is just more of the same “all women are evil” inflammatory stuff that has been making its way into this forum a lot in recent weeks. I mean, c’mon, the author attacks women for all looking the same and having common names such as ‘Julie’. In the very next sentence, it goes from “all women are the same” to being mad about the individualistic, tattooed party girl. The author doesn’t really seem to know what she is upset about, but she knows she’s mad.

You realize that the author not only IS a woman, not only lived it herself, but her sister is a legend in the community, right? Yours and my more recent experience in academia with the wymyn’s movemynt (yes, they really did that at the UW-Madison when I was there) is with feminism 3.0. Her’s was with 1.0. Very different level of sophistication and, in honesty, some reform and refinement. What you and I experienced does not negate what she experienced. And in many ways, hers was the raw and unfiltered version stripped of its current slick PR veneer.

Her underlying criticism remains valid. It boils down to an assertion that much of the identity of feminism is hostility to femininity. The embodiment of this was Simone Debouviex who essentially agreed with the misogynists that woman is inferior unless she asserts her absolute sameness (not just equal dignity) with man. From what I’ve read of her work so far, she’d despise you BEL. You haven’t rejected your womanhood. This, I feel, is the fatal flaw of feminism 1.0 and possibly far beyond. They aren’t really feminists. They see nothing innately good in that which is distinctly female. All that they hold up as truly good are things that men can be and can achieve as well. There’s something really broken in that thinking!

 

[Xantippe]

You realize that the author not only IS a woman, not only lived it herself, but her sister is a legend in the community, right? Yours and my more recent experience in academia with the wymyn’s movemynt (yes, they really did that at the UW-Madison when I was there) is with feminism 3.0. Her’s was with 1.0. Very different level of sophistication and, in honesty, some reform and refinement. What you and I experienced does not negate what she experienced. And in many ways, hers was the raw and unfiltered version stripped of its current slick PR veneer.

Her underlying criticism remains valid. It boils down to an assertion that much of the identity of feminism is hostility to femininity. The embodiment of this was Simone Debouviex who essentially agreed with the misogynists that woman is inferior unless she asserts her absolute sameness (not just equal dignity) with man. From what I’ve read of her work so far, she’d despise you BEL. You haven’t rejected your womanhood. This, I feel, is the fatal flaw of feminism 1.0 and possibly far beyond. They aren’t really feminists. They see nothing innately good in that which is distinctly female. All that they hold up as truly good are things that men can be and can achieve as well. There’s something really broken in that thinking!

You mean Simone de Beauvoir (author of The Second Sex), don’t you?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

You realize that the author not only IS a woman, not only lived it herself, but her sister is a legend in the community, right? Yours and my more recent experience in academia with the wymyn’s movemynt (yes, they really did that at the UW-Madison when I was there) is with feminism 3.0. Her’s was with 1.0. Very different level of sophistication and, in honesty, some reform and refinement. What you and I experienced does not negate what she experienced. And in many ways, hers was the raw and unfiltered version stripped of its current slick PR veneer.

Her underlying criticism remains valid. It boils down to an assertion that much of the identity of feminism is hostility to femininity. The embodiment of this was Simone Debouviex who essentially agreed with the misogynists that woman is inferior unless she asserts her absolute sameness (not just equal dignity) with man. From what I’ve read of her work so far, she’d despise you BEL. You haven’t rejected your womanhood. This, I feel, is the fatal flaw of feminism 1.0 and possibly far beyond. They aren’t really feminists. They see nothing innately good in that which is distinctly female. All that they hold up as truly good are things that men can be and can achieve as well. There’s something really broken in that thinking!

I’m aware that she’s a woman. I’m also aware that much of what she’s saying is meant not to inform, but to illicit a knee-jerk reaction. I’m not stupid, I do not give someone’s opinion more or less weight on the basis of their gender.

I also believe that you aren’t stupid. You know as well as I do that there is not ‘Feminism 1.0/2.0/30’. There are socialist/marxist/radical/conservative/modern/post-modern/cultural/etc schools of feminist thought. Rolling up the positions that you do like and calling them Feminism 1.0 and taking the ones you don’t like and calling them Feminism 3.0 is inaccurate and dishonest. Even modern-day feminist activists have very deep disagreements on what issues women are currently facing, and what to do about them. Pornography, prostitution, maternity leave/equal pay/workplace issues, treatment of rape victims, what to do with female criminals, etc are all very contentious amongst feminists. And this is without even considering the various feminist positions on gay marriage, transgenderism, abortion and what the government’s role should be is reproductive issues. This oversimplification of a movement that gave women the right to vote, opened up universities, the military, and career opportunities for women, offered protection to rape and abuse victims, and so much more is insulting to what a lot of women went through and what they fought for. And like it or not, what they are still fighting for.

Her underlying argument is not valid. Modern feminism does not require the shedding of femininity. It just calls for allowing women to decide how to display that identity. Again, it is the women who identify as feminists who are doing what you would call “feminine” things. More to the point, what she’s complaining about happened in the 1970’s! Women were still much further behind in society then than they are now. It was in the mid-70’s that my mother was told that she couldn’t buy car insurance, because she was a divorced woman and she might use her car to run over her husband.

As for the use of ‘Womyn’, that’s usually used by people who are trying to minimize feminism more than it is feminists. Yeah, you can find it occasionally in fringe groups, but you don’t see it from mainstream scholars and activists. Now, there is a music festival in Michigan that uses it-but it’s an annual thing geared towards college kids. Not exactly what we’re talking about here.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

You mean Simone de Beauvoir (author of The Second Sex), don’t you?

Thank you, I couldn’t find who that was.

And yes, I think he’s saying that the height of the feminist destruction of society was in the 1940’s. I never read it cover to cover, but I had to read several chapters from the book. In the parts I read, she was very quick to acknowledge the natural differences between men and women and she frequently affirmed that they had to work together and respect and support each other.

Regardless, the book was pretty divisive when it came out (and it still is). Feminists themselves have varying opinions on. But it got people thinking and talking, and that’s the important part. Just as with any other area of social science and theory, no one author or school of thought will have it right, and there will be serious disagreements. Everyone is just adding their own perspective the the larger picture. Saying “Feminists think…” is a lot like saying “Philosophers say…” The real contribution is the discussion and reflection that these thinkers cause.