Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Radical Feminists: Useful Idiots

Expand Messages
  • Robert Brown
    http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven21.htm RADICAL FEMINISTS: USEFUL IDIOTS By Steven Yates August 1, 2006 A useful idiot is someone who, while zealously
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 1, 2006
       
      RADICAL FEMINISTS: USEFUL IDIOTS
       
      By Steven Yates
      August 1, 2006 
       
      A useful idiot is someone who, while zealously promoting one cause, ends up advancing a very different one through stupidity, naivete or inattention. The useful idiot never sees the big picture. Vladimir Lenin, the first Soviet dictator, is credited with coining the phrase, although according to P. Boller and J. George’s They Never Said It, he—well—most likely never said it. Not even in Russian. Whatever its origins, the phrase sometimes comes in handy.
       
      My first two experiences with radical feminists in academia didn’t make much of an impact on me until later. The first was in Fall 1987 at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. It was my first full-time job out of graduate school, and I was making a presentation on what was then my area of expertise: theories about the conceptual foundations of science and the dynamics of scientific change. After outlining four such theories, I took questions. At one point a female graduate student put up her hand and wanted to know to what extent I could relate the scarcity of women in science to scientific method. I hadn’t thought about it. The question had never occurred to me. A few women have made major contributions to science. Madame Curie comes to mind. Their methods weren’t different than those of men, so I considered the range of methods employed in the sciences to be gender-neutral. The relative scarcity of women in science I attributed mostly to women’s overall lack of interest in science. My politically incorrect answer caused me no problems at the time. This was, after all, before the main wave of feminist incursions into academia and the rise of political correctness (speech control, thought control).
       
      The second incident occurred a few months later at an American Philosophical Association (APA) meeting where I had a job interview. The APA is the largest organization of philosophy professors in the country.
       
      What I saw and heard was from the hall because of an unusually large, overflow crowd. A somewhat diminutive woman was being verbally attacked—hissed at, in fact!—by an audience that seemed to be mostly women. None of the panelists (also women) came to her defense. The meeting—supposedly of adults and professionals—disintegrated into chaos. I wasn’t sure what I had seen until months later, when reports began circulating and angry letters to the editor began appearing in the association’s flagship journal.
       
      The diminutive woman, I learned, was Christina Hoff Sommers, a then-unknown professor at tiny Clark College in Massachusetts. She had read a paper on “Feminists Against the Family,” arguing just that to an audience unused to having its basic premises questioned. Sommers had concluded that feminists in academia were more interested in promoting revolutionary social change than in furthering a responsible exchange of ideas. Their ends justified their means. Among the ends they wanted was an end to the traditional, nuclear (two-parent) family. According to their Marxist view of things, the family is a repository of gender-oppression.
       
      Men are bourgeois; women are proletariat. Such notions, however contrived and unoriginal, took academia by storm in the 1980s and even more so in the 1990s.
       
      Sommers distinguished between “liberal” feminism and “gender” (radical) feminism. The first promoted, e.g., equal pay for equal work, and opposed discrimination. The latter is a full-fledged worldview that subjects every institution of society to scrutiny through the lens of gender. Sommers had no quarrel with the former; she had plenty of quarrels with the latter. Its influence, which puts science under the gender microscope along with everything else, explained the question from the Clemson graduate student.
       
      I met Sommers a couple of years later. My interests had begun shifting from the foundations of scientific method to political thought and the foundations of a free society. I was interested in libertarian ideas and was networking with other libertarian philosophers, several of whom had befriended her. We were all outsiders, after all, because we were not collectivists. Based on what Sommers had to say, and on a few of her articles, I took a look at so-called “feminist scholarship.” What I found jolted me. One radical feminist called Newton’s and Bacon’s ideas about scientific method a “rape manual” (they spoke of “penetrating” nature’s secrets—get it?). Another compared a romantic candlelight dinner to prostitution. These are just two examples, and not even the weirdest (don’t ask!). Around this time it surfaced that a “feminist legal theorist, ” Catharine A. MacKinnon, had compared voluntary sexual intercourse to rape. That oversimplifies somewhat; what she says is that in “male-dominated, patriarchical, heterosexist society” the line between voluntary consent and coercion is blurred, so that in sexual relations between men and women a fine distinction between “voluntary” intercourse and rape can’t be drawn. Yup: under the insidious patriarchy, men as a collective are potential rapists; women are helpless victims.
       
      It seemed like a sick joke to me. Men dominating women? Where? At the time I couldn’t even get a date, much less find someone to dominate. Approach an academic woman? I’d have to have been out of my mind! But these people were being lionized and treated as heroines who had cracked the academic “glass ceiling,” and whose “scholarship” was “cutting edge.”
       
      They were employed permanently by their institutions and paid comfortable salaries, while guys like myself struggled to survive as academic cheap labor. We migrated from school to school to school on “visiting assistant professor” contracts or “adjunct” appointments every one, two or three years.
       
      It would not have been as bad if the world according to radical feminism weren’t pure fantasy. There is no “patriarchy”! The courts clearly favor women in divorce and child custody cases, and have for years. Women tend to live longer then men—possibly because men have long tended to work in more hazardous occupations, and are far more likely to die of work-related injuries than women. Far more attention is paid to—and government money spent on—women’s health issues than men’s health issues. Men have always been the ones to fight and die in wars, or suffer war-related disabilities. (Radical feminists apparently want as many women killed or maimed in wars as men—hence “women in combat.”)
       
      Radical feminist “research” on academic topics like the philosophy of science is often just silly. Some of their proposals, e.g., for “female friendly science,” seem to invite ridicule—which they sometimes receive, as when around 1990 a responsible woman philosopher named Marguerita Levin asked sarcastically whether “feminist airplanes would stay aloft for feminist engineers” (“Science and Feminism,” The American Scholar). The more I investigated affirmative action programs, the clearer it became that they explained the growing influence of radical feminism (also multiculturalism and other chicaneries of the politically correct era). At the root was the longstanding commitment to collectivism generally.
       
      Preferential hiring for “diversity” had led to a free fall in quality control. Political correctness, when it rushed across the landscape like a tornado in the 1990s, made the free fall semi-permanent. (Now to be sure, academic philosophy wasn’t setting the world on fire before this nonsense started, but that’s another article.)
       
      Christina Hoff Sommers went on to write Who Stole Feminism? (1994). Under sustained attack in academia, she dropped her APA membership and finally left teaching for a research position at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. There she researched and wrote The War Against Boys (2000).
       
      Today, the fruits of radical feminism are everywhere in evidence. The nuclear family is in trouble (although in fairness this is due more to the collapse of real, debauched-dollar-adjusted wages forcing both parents to work). Radical feminists dominate many academic humanities departments, including where I did my graduate work; they are well represented in many administrations at four-year research institutions; they control professional groups such as the Modern Language Association. Much contemporary “scholarship” is predictably sex-drenched and gender-obsessed.
       
      Meanwhile, enrollment statistics over the past few years indicate a fall-off in men enrolling in four-year institutions. This has begun to attract national attention. Recent stats indicate that the percentage of men on college and university campuses has fallen to 43 percent nationwide, with some institutions falling under 40 percent. This is treated like a great mystery: why are men falling behind? To those of us who have watched gender politics in academe since the 1980s, the answer is obvious. No man with self-respect is going to sit in a classroom, at the mercy of a radical feminist professor’s denunciations, if he has an alternative. With political correctness shackling free speech, men are speaking with their feet. Some are going to less-politicized technical colleges. Others are choosing occupations that don’t require a four-year degree.
       
      Has radical feminism helped women? A better question might be: was it intended to help women? Some think not. Many women have the careers feminism promised—but also kids born out of wedlock, from one-night stands and the feminist conviction that “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” They come home from work exhausted and then have one or more kids to handle. The result: stress, exhaustion, burn-out. Boys, meanwhile, grow up without proper male role models. One of the effects of radical feminism is the feminization of boys and men. Masculine assertiveness is “out”; “metrosexual” sensitivity is “in”—a recipe for trouble. As Christina Hoff Sommers argues convincingly, normal boys just aren’t wired that way.
       
      Some men are consciously deciding to stay single. They will not approach women, in college or at work, out of fear of guilty-if-charged “sexual harassment” allegations. And with one in two marriages ending in divorce, they are justifiably afraid of being cleaned out—of having their finances destroyed by divorce courts that favor women. Worse still, more than one man has had his life ruined by malicious child-molestation allegations. Again, guilty if charged. Not to mention the emotional devastation to kids after watching their parents fight, sometimes for years.
       
      All of which presages a lot of people—of both sexes—growing older alone.
      Could it be that someone wants things this way, because when people’s—especially children’s—families are dismembered and they are psychologically cut off from the most important support network a person can have in an impersonal, materialistic society, they are vulnerable? How does all this tie in with my opening paragraph?
       
      In a recent interview with The New American (June 12, 2006), Aaron Russo, currently of America: Freedom to Fascism fame, reports how he once defended his sympathy with the women’s movement and with equal opportunity to an unnamed member of the Rockefeller clan. Russo describes the chilling response: “He looked at me and said, ‘You know, you’re such an idiot in some ways. We … created the women’s movement, and we promote it. And it’s not about equal opportunity. It’s designed to get both parents out of the home and into the workforce, where they will pay taxes. And then we can decide how the children will be raised and educated.’”
       
      Behind the feminist movement, like a shadow, was the super elite lusting for control—over men, over women, over children, over the workplace, over education, eventually over society itself. Radical feminists—obsessed with gender politics but never looking behind the scenes—have been great useful idiots for over 40 years. Feminism was never really about women or their opportunities, which is why its benefits, viewed objectively, turn out to be illusory. A lot of women have filled their prescribed roles unwittingly. Still more have followed their leaders naively. Political correctness has been a good tool for gaining the cooperation of men—or, at least, intimidating many of them into silence.
       
      Thus today’s “feminized” order: women don’t trust men; men don’t trust women. Women have careers in record numbers; their children are in state-sponsored daycare where they begin their indoctrination into New World Order globalism and the Earth Charter. Neither men nor women have lives. Neither pays significant attention to their real enemies at the top.

      Steven Yates earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy in 1987 at the University of Georgia and has taught the subject at a number of colleges and universities around the Southeast. He currently teaches philosophy at the University of South Carolina Upstate and Greenville Technical College, and also does a little e-commerce involving real free trade. He is on the South Carolina Board of The Citizens Committee to Stop the FTAA.
       
      He is the author of Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (1994), Worldviews: Christian Theism Versus Modern Materialism (2005), around two dozen philosophical articles and reviews in refereed journals and anthologies, and over a hundred articles on the World Wide Web. He lives in Greenville, South Carolina, where he writes a weekly column for the Times Examiner and is at work on a book length version of his popular series to be entitled The Real Matrix (hopefully!) to be completed this summer.
       


      Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos
    • Kurt Stryker
      I absolutely LOVE this article and not just because of the content but because it is remidnig me of the conversations I m having with a feminist through e-mail
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 2, 2006
        I absolutely LOVE this article and not just because of the content but because it is remidnig me of the conversations I'm having with a feminist through e-mail right now about what feminism is really doing to everyone.
        It seems I have her bang to rights right about now and every time I out her responses to me to justice she seems to either use convenience or is twisting my words around.
         
        When this conversation eventually finishes I might post it as an article here for all to read to see what the eventual outcome is. 
        Kurt.

        Robert Brown <robertcedric2001@...> wrote:
         
        RADICAL FEMINISTS: USEFUL IDIOTS
         
        By Steven Yates
        August 1, 2006 
         
        A useful idiot is someone who, while zealously promoting one cause, ends up advancing a very different one through stupidity, naivete or inattention. The useful idiot never sees the big picture. Vladimir Lenin, the first Soviet dictator, is credited with coining the phrase, although according to P. Boller and J. George’s They Never Said It, he—well—most likely never said it. Not even in Russian. Whatever its origins, the phrase sometimes comes in handy.
         
        My first two experiences with radical feminists in academia didn’t make much of an impact on me until later. The first was in Fall 1987 at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. It was my first full-time job out of graduate school, and I was making a presentation on what was then my area of expertise: theories about the conceptual foundations of science and the dynamics of scientific change. After outlining four such theories, I took questions. At one point a female graduate student put up her hand and wanted to know to what extent I could relate the scarcity of women in science to scientific method. I hadn’t thought about it. The question had never occurred to me. A few women have made major contributions to science. Madame Curie comes to mind. Their methods weren’t different than those of men, so I considered the range of methods employed in the sciences to be gender-neutral. The relative scarcity of women in science I attributed mostly to women’s overall lack of interest in science. My politically incorrect answer caused me no problems at the time. This was, after all, before the main wave of feminist incursions into academia and the rise of political correctness (speech control, thought control).
         
        The second incident occurred a few months later at an American Philosophical Association (APA) meeting where I had a job interview. The APA is the largest organization of philosophy professors in the country.
         
        What I saw and heard was from the hall because of an unusually large, overflow crowd. A somewhat diminutive woman was being verbally attacked—hissed at, in fact!—by an audience that seemed to be mostly women. None of the panelists (also women) came to her defense. The meeting—supposedly of adults and professionals— disintegrated into chaos. I wasn’t sure what I had seen until months later, when reports began circulating and angry letters to the editor began appearing in the association’s flagship journal.
         
        The diminutive woman, I learned, was Christina Hoff Sommers, a then-unknown professor at tiny Clark College in Massachusetts. She had read a paper on “Feminists Against the Family,” arguing just that to an audience unused to having its basic premises questioned. Sommers had concluded that feminists in academia were more interested in promoting revolutionary social change than in furthering a responsible exchange of ideas. Their ends justified their means. Among the ends they wanted was an end to the traditional, nuclear (two-parent) family. According to their Marxist view of things, the family is a repository of gender-oppression.
         
        Men are bourgeois; women are proletariat. Such notions, however contrived and unoriginal, took academia by storm in the 1980s and even more so in the 1990s.
         
        Sommers distinguished between “liberal” feminism and “gender” (radical) feminism. The first promoted, e.g., equal pay for equal work, and opposed discrimination. The latter is a full-fledged worldview that subjects every institution of society to scrutiny through the lens of gender. Sommers had no quarrel with the former; she had plenty of quarrels with the latter. Its influence, which puts science under the gender microscope along with everything else, explained the question from the Clemson graduate student.
         
        I met Sommers a couple of years later. My interests had begun shifting from the foundations of scientific method to political thought and the foundations of a free society. I was interested in libertarian ideas and was networking with other libertarian philosophers, several of whom had befriended her. We were all outsiders, after all, because we were not collectivists. Based on what Sommers had to say, and on a few of her articles, I took a look at so-called “feminist scholarship.” What I found jolted me. One radical feminist called Newton’s and Bacon’s ideas about scientific method a “rape manual” (they spoke of “penetrating” nature’s secrets—get it?). Another compared a romantic candlelight dinner to prostitution. These are just two examples, and not even the weirdest (don’t ask!). Around this time it surfaced that a “feminist legal theorist, ” Catharine A. MacKinnon, had compared voluntary sexual intercourse to rape. That oversimplifies somewhat; what she says is that in “male-dominated, patriarchical, heterosexist society” the line between voluntary consent and coercion is blurred, so that in sexual relations between men and women a fine distinction between “voluntary” intercourse and rape can’t be drawn. Yup: under the insidious patriarchy, men as a collective are potential rapists; women are helpless victims.
         
        It seemed like a sick joke to me. Men dominating women? Where? At the time I couldn’t even get a date, much less find someone to dominate. Approach an academic woman? I’d have to have been out of my mind! But these people were being lionized and treated as heroines who had cracked the academic “glass ceiling,” and whose “scholarship” was “cutting edge.”
         
        They were employed permanently by their institutions and paid comfortable salaries, while guys like myself struggled to survive as academic cheap labor. We migrated from school to school to school on “visiting assistant professor” contracts or “adjunct” appointments every one, two or three years.
         
        It would not have been as bad if the world according to radical feminism weren’t pure fantasy. There is no “patriarchy”! The courts clearly favor women in divorce and child custody cases, and have for years. Women tend to live longer then men—possibly because men have long tended to work in more hazardous occupations, and are far more likely to die of work-related injuries than women. Far more attention is paid to—and government money spent on—women’s health issues than men’s health issues. Men have always been the ones to fight and die in wars, or suffer war-related disabilities. (Radical feminists apparently want as many women killed or maimed in wars as men—hence “women in combat.”)
         
        Radical feminist “research” on academic topics like the philosophy of science is often just silly. Some of their proposals, e.g., for “female friendly science,” seem to invite ridicule—which they sometimes receive, as when around 1990 a responsible woman philosopher named Marguerita Levin asked sarcastically whether “feminist airplanes would stay aloft for feminist engineers” (“Science and Feminism,” The American Scholar). The more I investigated affirmative action programs, the clearer it became that they explained the growing influence of radical feminism (also multiculturalism and other chicaneries of the politically correct era). At the root was the longstanding commitment to collectivism generally.
         
        Preferential hiring for “diversity” had led to a free fall in quality control. Political correctness, when it rushed across the landscape like a tornado in the 1990s, made the free fall semi-permanent. (Now to be sure, academic philosophy wasn’t setting the world on fire before this nonsense started, but that’s another article.)
         
        Christina Hoff Sommers went on to write Who Stole Feminism? (1994). Under sustained attack in academia, she dropped her APA membership and finally left teaching for a research position at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington. There she researched and wrote The War Against Boys (2000).
         
        Today, the fruits of radical feminism are everywhere in evidence. The nuclear family is in trouble (although in fairness this is due more to the collapse of real, debauched-dollar- adjusted wages forcing both parents to work). Radical feminists dominate many academic humanities departments, including where I did my graduate work; they are well represented in many administrations at four-year research institutions; they control professional groups such as the Modern Language Association. Much contemporary “scholarship” is predictably sex-drenched and gender-obsessed.
         
        Meanwhile, enrollment statistics over the past few years indicate a fall-off in men enrolling in four-year institutions. This has begun to attract national attention. Recent stats indicate that the percentage of men on college and university campuses has fallen to 43 percent nationwide, with some institutions falling under 40 percent. This is treated like a great mystery: why are men falling behind? To those of us who have watched gender politics in academe since the 1980s, the answer is obvious. No man with self-respect is going to sit in a classroom, at the mercy of a radical feminist professor’s denunciations, if he has an alternative. With political correctness shackling free speech, men are speaking with their feet. Some are going to less-politicized technical colleges. Others are choosing occupations that don’t require a four-year degree.
         
        Has radical feminism helped women? A better question might be: was it intended to help women? Some think not. Many women have the careers feminism promised—but also kids born out of wedlock, from one-night stands and the feminist conviction that “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” They come home from work exhausted and then have one or more kids to handle. The result: stress, exhaustion, burn-out. Boys, meanwhile, grow up without proper male role models. One of the effects of radical feminism is the feminization of boys and men. Masculine assertiveness is “out”; “metrosexual” sensitivity is “in”—a recipe for trouble. As Christina Hoff Sommers argues convincingly, normal boys just aren’t wired that way.
         
        Some men are consciously deciding to stay single. They will not approach women, in college or at work, out of fear of guilty-if-charged “sexual harassment” allegations. And with one in two marriages ending in divorce, they are justifiably afraid of being cleaned out—of having their finances destroyed by divorce courts that favor women. Worse still, more than one man has had his life ruined by malicious child-molestation allegations. Again, guilty if charged. Not to mention the emotional devastation to kids after watching their parents fight, sometimes for years.
         
        All of which presages a lot of people—of both sexes—growing older alone.
        Could it be that someone wants things this way, because when people’s—especially children’s—families are dismembered and they are psychologically cut off from the most important support network a person can have in an impersonal, materialistic society, they are vulnerable? How does all this tie in with my opening paragraph?
         
        In a recent interview with The New American (June 12, 2006), Aaron Russo, currently of America: Freedom to Fascism fame, reports how he once defended his sympathy with the women’s movement and with equal opportunity to an unnamed member of the Rockefeller clan. Russo describes the chilling response: “He looked at me and said, ‘You know, you’re such an idiot in some ways. We … created the women’s movement, and we promote it. And it’s not about equal opportunity. It’s designed to get both parents out of the home and into the workforce, where they will pay taxes. And then we can decide how the children will be raised and educated.’”
         
        Behind the feminist movement, like a shadow, was the super elite lusting for control—over men, over women, over children, over the workplace, over education, eventually over society itself. Radical feminists—obsessed with gender politics but never looking behind the scenes—have been great useful idiots for over 40 years. Feminism was never really about women or their opportunities, which is why its benefits, viewed objectively, turn out to be illusory. A lot of women have filled their prescribed roles unwittingly. Still more have followed their leaders naively. Political correctness has been a good tool for gaining the cooperation of men—or, at least, intimidating many of them into silence.
         
        Thus today’s “feminized” order: women don’t trust men; men don’t trust women. Women have careers in record numbers; their children are in state-sponsored daycare where they begin their indoctrination into New World Order globalism and the Earth Charter. Neither men nor women have lives. Neither pays significant attention to their real enemies at the top.

        Steven Yates earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy in 1987 at the University of Georgia and has taught the subject at a number of colleges and universities around the Southeast. He currently teaches philosophy at the University of South Carolina Upstate and Greenville Technical College, and also does a little e-commerce involving real free trade. He is on the South Carolina Board of The Citizens Committee to Stop the FTAA.
         
        He is the author of Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (1994), Worldviews: Christian Theism Versus Modern Materialism (2005), around two dozen philosophical articles and reviews in refereed journals and anthologies, and over a hundred articles on the World Wide Web. He lives in Greenville, South Carolina, where he writes a weekly column for the Times Examiner and is at work on a book length version of his popular series to be entitled The Real Matrix (hopefully!) to be completed this summer.
         

        Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada Photos


        All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine

      • Tom Smith
        This was, after all, before the main wave of feminist incursions into academia and the rise of political correctness (speech control, thought control). 1987?
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 2, 2006
          "This was, after all, before the main wave of feminist incursions into
          academia and the rise of political correctness (speech control, thought
          control)."

          1987? Are yhou shitting me? I see this happen over and over amongst
          young guys new to the movement. They think PC and rad feminism started
          in their times at the present obnoxious level. It started in the
          academy and everywhere else in the early Seventies and ramped up to
          it's present level no later than 1980. That's a fact Jack.

          Tom

          --- Kurt Stryker <kurtis_strykr@...> wrote:

          > I absolutely LOVE this article and not just because of the content
          > but because it is remidnig me of the conversations I'm having with a
          > feminist through e-mail right now about what feminism is really doing
          > to everyone.
          > It seems I have her bang to rights right about now and every time I
          > out her responses to me to justice she seems to either use
          > convenience or is twisting my words around.
          >
          > When this conversation eventually finishes I might post it as an
          > article here for all to read to see what the eventual outcome is.
          >
          > Kurt.
          >
          > Robert Brown <robertcedric2001@...> wrote:
          > http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven21.htm
          >
          > RADICAL FEMINISTS: USEFUL IDIOTS
          >
          > By Steven Yates
          > August 1, 2006
          >
          >
          > A useful idiot is someone who, while zealously promoting one cause,
          > ends up advancing a very different one through stupidity, naivete or
          > inattention. The useful idiot never sees the big picture. Vladimir
          > Lenin, the first Soviet dictator, is credited with coining the
          > phrase, although according to P. Boller and J. George’s They Never
          > Said It, he—well—most likely never said it. Not even in Russian.
          > Whatever its origins, the phrase sometimes comes in handy. My
          > first two experiences with radical feminists in academia didn’t make
          > much of an impact on me until later. The first was in Fall 1987 at
          > Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina. It was my first
          > full-time job out of graduate school, and I was making a presentation
          > on what was then my area of expertise: theories about the conceptual
          > foundations of science and the dynamics of scientific change. After
          > outlining four such theories, I took questions. At one point a female
          > graduate student put up her hand and wanted
          > to know to what extent I could relate the scarcity of women in
          > science to scientific method. I hadn’t thought about it. The question
          > had never occurred to me. A few women have made major contributions
          > to science. Madame Curie comes to mind. Their methods weren’t
          > different than those of men, so I considered the range of methods
          > employed in the sciences to be gender-neutral. The relative scarcity
          > of women in science I attributed mostly to women’s overall lack of
          > interest in science. My politically incorrect answer caused me no
          > problems at the time. This was, after all, before the main wave of
          > feminist incursions into academia and the rise of political
          > correctness (speech control, thought control). The second
          > incident occurred a few months later at an American Philosophical
          > Association (APA) meeting where I had a job interview. The APA is the
          > largest organization of philosophy professors in the country.
          > What I saw and heard was from the hall because of an
          > unusually large, overflow crowd. A somewhat diminutive woman was
          > being verbally attacked—hissed at, in fact!—by an audience that
          > seemed to be mostly women. None of the panelists (also women) came to
          > her defense. The meeting—supposedly of adults and
          > professionals—disintegrated into chaos. I wasn’t sure what I had seen
          > until months later, when reports began circulating and angry letters
          > to the editor began appearing in the association’s flagship journal.
          > The diminutive woman, I learned, was Christina Hoff Sommers, a
          > then-unknown professor at tiny Clark College in Massachusetts. She
          > had read a paper on “Feminists Against the Family,” arguing just that
          > to an audience unused to having its basic premises questioned.
          > Sommers had concluded that feminists in academia were more interested
          > in promoting revolutionary social change than in furthering a
          > responsible exchange of ideas. Their ends justified their means.
          > Among the ends they wanted was an end to the traditional,
          > nuclear (two-parent) family. According to their Marxist view of
          > things, the family is a repository of gender-oppression. Men
          > are bourgeois; women are proletariat. Such notions, however contrived
          > and unoriginal, took academia by storm in the 1980s and even more so
          > in the 1990s. Sommers distinguished between “liberal” feminism
          > and “gender” (radical) feminism. The first promoted, e.g., equal pay
          > for equal work, and opposed discrimination. The latter is a
          > full-fledged worldview that subjects every institution of society to
          > scrutiny through the lens of gender. Sommers had no quarrel with the
          > former; she had plenty of quarrels with the latter. Its influence,
          > which puts science under the gender microscope along with everything
          > else, explained the question from the Clemson graduate student.
          > I met Sommers a couple of years later. My interests had begun
          > shifting from the foundations of scientific method to political
          > thought and the foundations of a free society. I
          > was interested in libertarian ideas and was networking with other
          > libertarian philosophers, several of whom had befriended her. We were
          > all outsiders, after all, because we were not collectivists. Based on
          > what Sommers had to say, and on a few of her articles, I took a look
          > at so-called “feminist scholarship.” What I found jolted me. One
          > radical feminist called Newton’s and Bacon’s ideas about scientific
          > method a “rape manual” (they spoke of “penetrating” nature’s
          > secrets—get it?). Another compared a romantic candlelight dinner to
          > prostitution. These are just two examples, and not even the weirdest
          > (don’t ask!). Around this time it surfaced that a “feminist legal
          > theorist, ” Catharine A. MacKinnon, had compared voluntary sexual
          > intercourse to rape. That oversimplifies somewhat; what she says is
          > that in “male-dominated, patriarchical, heterosexist society” the
          > line between voluntary consent and coercion is blurred, so that in
          > sexual relations between men and women a fine
          > distinction between “voluntary” intercourse and rape can’t be drawn.
          > Yup: under the insidious patriarchy, men as a collective are
          > potential rapists; women are helpless victims. It seemed like a
          > sick joke to me. Men dominating women? Where? At the time I couldn’t
          > even get a date, much less find someone to dominate. Approach an
          > academic woman? I’d have to have been out of my mind! But these
          > people were being lionized and treated as heroines who had cracked
          > the academic “glass ceiling,” and whose “scholarship” was “cutting
          > edge.” They were employed permanently by their institutions and
          > paid comfortable salaries, while guys like myself struggled to
          > survive as academic cheap labor. We migrated from school to school to
          > school on “visiting assistant professor” contracts or “adjunct”
          > appointments every one, two or three years. It would not have
          > been as bad if the world according to radical feminism weren’t pure
          > fantasy. There is no “patriarchy”! The courts
          > clearly favor women in divorce and child custody cases, and have for
          > years. Women tend to live longer then men—possibly because men have
          > long tended to work in more hazardous occupations, and are far more
          > likely to die of work-related injuries than women. Far more attention
          > is paid to—and government money spent on—women’s health issues than
          > men’s health issues. Men have always been the ones to fight and die
          > in wars, or suffer war-related disabilities. (Radical feminists
          > apparently want as many women killed or maimed in wars as men—hence
          > “women in combat.”) Radical feminist “research” on academic
          > topics like the philosophy of science is often just silly. Some of
          > their proposals, e.g., for “female friendly science,” seem to invite
          > ridicule—which they sometimes receive, as when around 1990 a
          > responsible woman philosopher named Marguerita Levin asked
          > sarcastically whether “feminist airplanes would stay aloft for
          > feminist engineers” (“Science and Feminism,” The American
          > Scholar). The more I investigated affirmative action programs, the
          > clearer it became that they explained the growing influence of
          > radical feminism (also multiculturalism and other chicaneries of the
          > politically correct era). At the root was the longstanding commitment
          > to collectivism generally. Preferential hiring for “diversity”
          > had led to a free fall in quality control. Political correctness,
          > when it rushed across the landscape like a tornado in the 1990s, made
          > the free fall semi-permanent. (Now to be sure, academic philosophy
          > wasn’t setting the world on fire before this nonsense started, but
          > that’s another article.) Christina Hoff Sommers went on to
          > write Who Stole Feminism? (1994). Under sustained attack in academia,
          > she dropped her APA membership and finally left teaching for a
          > research position at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.
          > There she researched and wrote The War Against Boys (2000).
          > Today, the fruits of radical feminism are
          > everywhere in evidence. The nuclear family is in trouble (although
          > in fairness this is due more to the collapse of real,
          > debauched-dollar-adjusted wages forcing both parents to work).
          > Radical feminists dominate many academic humanities departments,
          > including where I did my graduate work; they are well represented in
          > many administrations at four-year research institutions; they control
          > professional groups such as the Modern Language Association. Much
          > contemporary “scholarship” is predictably sex-drenched and
          > gender-obsessed. Meanwhile, enrollment statistics over the past
          > few years indicate a fall-off in men enrolling in four-year
          > institutions. This has begun to attract national attention. Recent
          > stats indicate that the percentage of men on college and university
          > campuses has fallen to 43 percent nationwide, with some institutions
          > falling under 40 percent. This is treated like a great mystery: why
          > are men falling behind? To those of us who have watched gender
          > politics
          > in academe since the 1980s, the answer is obvious. No man with
          > self-respect is going to sit in a classroom, at the mercy of a
          > radical feminist professor’s denunciations, if he has an alternative.
          > With political correctness shackling free speech, men are speaking
          > with their feet. Some are going to less-politicized technical
          > colleges. Others are choosing occupations that don’t require a
          > four-year degree. Has radical feminism helped women? A better
          > question might be: was it intended to help women? Some think not.
          > Many women have the careers feminism promised—but also kids born out
          > of wedlock, from one-night stands and the feminist conviction that “a
          > woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” They come home from
          > work exhausted and then have one or more kids to handle. The result:
          > stress, exhaustion, burn-out. Boys, meanwhile, grow up without proper
          > male role models. One of the effects of radical feminism is the
          > feminization of boys and men. Masculine assertiveness
          > is “out”; “metrosexual” sensitivity is “in”—a recipe for trouble. As
          > Christina Hoff Sommers argues convincingly, normal boys just aren’t
          > wired that way. Some men are consciously deciding to stay
          > single. They will not approach women, in college or at work, out of
          > fear of guilty-if-charged “sexual harassment” allegations. And with
          > one in two marriages ending in divorce, they are justifiably afraid
          > of being cleaned out—of having their finances destroyed by divorce
          > courts that favor women. Worse still, more than one man has had his
          > life ruined by malicious child-molestation allegations. Again, guilty
          > if charged. Not to mention the emotional devastation to kids after
          > watching their parents fight, sometimes for years. All of which
          > presages a lot of people—of both sexes—growing older alone. Could
          > it be that someone wants things this way, because when
          > people’s—especially children’s—families are dismembered and they are
          > psychologically cut off from the most important
          > support network a person can have in an impersonal, materialistic
          > society, they are vulnerable? How does all this tie in with my
          > opening paragraph? In a recent interview with The New American
          > (June 12, 2006), Aaron Russo, currently of America: Freedom to
          > Fascism fame, reports how he once defended his sympathy with the
          > women’s movement and with equal opportunity to an unnamed member of
          > the Rockefeller clan. Russo describes the chilling response: “He
          > looked at me and said, ‘You know, you’re such an idiot in some ways.
          > We … created the women’s movement, and we promote it. And it’s not
          > about equal opportunity. It’s designed to get both parents out of the
          > home and into the workforce, where they will pay taxes. And then we
          > can decide how the children will be raised and educated.’”
          > Behind the feminist movement, like a shadow, was the super elite
          > lusting for control—over men, over women, over children, over the
          > workplace, over education, eventually over society itself.
          > Radical feminists—obsessed with gender politics but never looking
          > behind the scenes—have been great useful idiots for over 40 years.
          > Feminism was never really about women or their opportunities, which
          > is why its benefits, viewed objectively, turn out to be illusory. A
          > lot of women have filled their prescribed roles unwittingly. Still
          > more have followed their leaders naively. Political correctness has
          > been a good tool for gaining the cooperation of men—or, at least,
          > intimidating many of them into silence.
          >
          > Thus today’s “feminized” order: women don’t trust men; men don’t
          > trust women. Women have careers in record numbers; their children are
          > in state-sponsored daycare where they begin their indoctrination into
          > New World Order globalism and the Earth Charter. Neither men nor
          > women have lives. Neither pays significant attention to their real
          > enemies at the top.
          >
          >
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Steven Yates earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy in 1987 at the
          > University of Georgia and has taught the subject at a number of
          > colleges and universities around the Southeast. He currently teaches
          > philosophy at the University of South Carolina Upstate and Greenville
          > Technical College, and also does a little e-commerce involving real
          > free trade. He is on the South Carolina Board of The Citizens
          > Committee to Stop the FTAA. He is the author of Civil Wrongs:
          > What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (1994), Worldviews: Christian
          > Theism Versus Modern Materialism (2005), around two dozen
          > philosophical articles and reviews in refereed journals and
          > anthologies, and over a hundred articles on the World Wide Web. He
          > lives in Greenville, South Carolina, where he writes a weekly column
          > for the Times Examiner and is at work on a book length version of his
          > popular series to be entitled The Real Matrix (hopefully!) to be
          > completed this summer. E-Mail: freeyourmindinsc@....
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          > Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada
          > Photos
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ---------------------------------
          > All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity
          > and ease of use." - PC Magazine


          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com
        • MrMtnHiker
          Message 4 of 4 , Aug 3, 2006
            <<< Men are bourgeois; women are proletariat. Such notions, however
            contrived and unoriginal, took academia by storm in the 1980s and
            even more so in the 1990s. >>>
            -----------

            What a great article. This anti-family socialist garbage is
            really starting to come out and be understood now.

            As I see it, shortly the earthly powers-that-be that propegate
            this stuff will have no excuse. Lets pray what they are doing will
            come to be seen by the many for what it is, the destruction of the
            family an unprecedented toll on true children. These are crimes
            against humanity. There should be an accounting.

            Larry

            ===============================
            --- In aum@yahoogroups.com, Robert Brown <robertcedric2001@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven21.htm
            >
            > RADICAL FEMINISTS: USEFUL IDIOTS
            >
            > By Steven Yates
            > August 1, 2006
            >
            >
            > A useful idiot is someone who, while zealously promoting one
            cause, ends up advancing a very different one through stupidity,
            naivete or inattention. The useful idiot never sees the big picture.
            Vladimir Lenin, the first Soviet dictator, is credited with coining
            the phrase, although according to P. Boller and J. George's They
            Never Said It, he—well—most likely never said it. Not even in
            Russian. Whatever its origins, the phrase sometimes comes in
            handy. My first two experiences with radical feminists in
            academia didn't make much of an impact on me until later. The first
            was in Fall 1987 at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina.
            It was my first full-time job out of graduate school, and I was
            making a presentation on what was then my area of expertise:
            theories about the conceptual foundations of science and the
            dynamics of scientific change. After outlining four such theories, I
            took questions. At one point a female graduate student put up her
            hand and wanted
            > to know to what extent I could relate the scarcity of women in
            science to scientific method. I hadn't thought about it. The
            question had never occurred to me. A few women have made major
            contributions to science. Madame Curie comes to mind. Their methods
            weren't different than those of men, so I considered the range of
            methods employed in the sciences to be gender-neutral. The relative
            scarcity of women in science I attributed mostly to women's overall
            lack of interest in science. My politically incorrect answer caused
            me no problems at the time. This was, after all, before the main
            wave of feminist incursions into academia and the rise of political
            correctness (speech control, thought control). The second
            incident occurred a few months later at an American Philosophical
            Association (APA) meeting where I had a job interview. The APA is
            the largest organization of philosophy professors in the
            country. What I saw and heard was from the hall because of an
            unusually
            > large, overflow crowd. A somewhat diminutive woman was being
            verbally attacked—hissed at, in fact!—by an audience that seemed to
            be mostly women. None of the panelists (also women) came to her
            defense. The meeting—supposedly of adults and professionals—
            disintegrated into chaos. I wasn't sure what I had seen until months
            later, when reports began circulating and angry letters to the
            editor began appearing in the association's flagship journal.
            The diminutive woman, I learned, was Christina Hoff Sommers, a then-
            unknown professor at tiny Clark College in Massachusetts. She had
            read a paper on "Feminists Against the Family," arguing just that to
            an audience unused to having its basic premises questioned. Sommers
            had concluded that feminists in academia were more interested in
            promoting revolutionary social change than in furthering a
            responsible exchange of ideas. Their ends justified their means.
            Among the ends they wanted was an end to the traditional, nuclear
            > (two-parent) family. According to their Marxist view of things,
            the family is a repository of gender-oppression. Men are
            bourgeois; women are proletariat. Such notions, however contrived
            and unoriginal, took academia by storm in the 1980s and even more so
            in the 1990s. Sommers distinguished between "liberal" feminism
            and "gender" (radical) feminism. The first promoted, e.g., equal pay
            for equal work, and opposed discrimination. The latter is a full-
            fledged worldview that subjects every institution of society to
            scrutiny through the lens of gender. Sommers had no quarrel with the
            former; she had plenty of quarrels with the latter. Its influence,
            which puts science under the gender microscope along with everything
            else, explained the question from the Clemson graduate student.
            I met Sommers a couple of years later. My interests had begun
            shifting from the foundations of scientific method to political
            thought and the foundations of a free society. I was
            > interested in libertarian ideas and was networking with other
            libertarian philosophers, several of whom had befriended her. We
            were all outsiders, after all, because we were not collectivists.
            Based on what Sommers had to say, and on a few of her articles, I
            took a look at so-called "feminist scholarship." What I found jolted
            me. One radical feminist called Newton's and Bacon's ideas about
            scientific method a "rape manual" (they spoke of "penetrating"
            nature's secrets—get it?). Another compared a romantic candlelight
            dinner to prostitution. These are just two examples, and not even
            the weirdest (don't ask!). Around this time it surfaced that
            a "feminist legal theorist, " Catharine A. MacKinnon, had compared
            voluntary sexual intercourse to rape. That oversimplifies somewhat;
            what she says is that in "male-dominated, patriarchical,
            heterosexist society" the line between voluntary consent and
            coercion is blurred, so that in sexual relations between men and
            women a fine
            > distinction between "voluntary" intercourse and rape can't be
            drawn. Yup: under the insidious patriarchy, men as a collective are
            potential rapists; women are helpless victims. It seemed like a
            sick joke to me. Men dominating women? Where? At the time I couldn't
            even get a date, much less find someone to dominate. Approach an
            academic woman? I'd have to have been out of my mind! But these
            people were being lionized and treated as heroines who had cracked
            the academic "glass ceiling," and whose "scholarship" was "cutting
            edge." They were employed permanently by their institutions and
            paid comfortable salaries, while guys like myself struggled to
            survive as academic cheap labor. We migrated from school to school
            to school on "visiting assistant professor" contracts or "adjunct"
            appointments every one, two or three years. It would not have
            been as bad if the world according to radical feminism weren't pure
            fantasy. There is no "patriarchy"! The courts clearly
            > favor women in divorce and child custody cases, and have for
            years. Women tend to live longer then men—possibly because men have
            long tended to work in more hazardous occupations, and are far more
            likely to die of work-related injuries than women. Far more
            attention is paid to—and government money spent on—women's health
            issues than men's health issues. Men have always been the ones to
            fight and die in wars, or suffer war-related disabilities. (Radical
            feminists apparently want as many women killed or maimed in wars as
            men—hence "women in combat.") Radical feminist "research" on
            academic topics like the philosophy of science is often just silly.
            Some of their proposals, e.g., for "female friendly science," seem
            to invite ridicule—which they sometimes receive, as when around 1990
            a responsible woman philosopher named Marguerita Levin asked
            sarcastically whether "feminist airplanes would stay aloft for
            feminist engineers" ("Science and Feminism," The American Scholar).
            > The more I investigated affirmative action programs, the clearer
            it became that they explained the growing influence of radical
            feminism (also multiculturalism and other chicaneries of the
            politically correct era). At the root was the longstanding
            commitment to collectivism generally. Preferential hiring
            for "diversity" had led to a free fall in quality control. Political
            correctness, when it rushed across the landscape like a tornado in
            the 1990s, made the free fall semi-permanent. (Now to be sure,
            academic philosophy wasn't setting the world on fire before this
            nonsense started, but that's another article.) Christina Hoff
            Sommers went on to write Who Stole Feminism? (1994). Under sustained
            attack in academia, she dropped her APA membership and finally left
            teaching for a research position at the American Enterprise
            Institute in Washington. There she researched and wrote The War
            Against Boys (2000). Today, the fruits of radical feminism are
            everywhere in
            > evidence. The nuclear family is in trouble (although in fairness
            this is due more to the collapse of real, debauched-dollar-adjusted
            wages forcing both parents to work). Radical feminists dominate many
            academic humanities departments, including where I did my graduate
            work; they are well represented in many administrations at four-year
            research institutions; they control professional groups such as the
            Modern Language Association. Much contemporary "scholarship" is
            predictably sex-drenched and gender-obsessed. Meanwhile,
            enrollment statistics over the past few years indicate a fall-off in
            men enrolling in four-year institutions. This has begun to attract
            national attention. Recent stats indicate that the percentage of men
            on college and university campuses has fallen to 43 percent
            nationwide, with some institutions falling under 40 percent. This is
            treated like a great mystery: why are men falling behind? To those
            of us who have watched gender politics in academe
            > since the 1980s, the answer is obvious. No man with self-respect
            is going to sit in a classroom, at the mercy of a radical feminist
            professor's denunciations, if he has an alternative. With political
            correctness shackling free speech, men are speaking with their feet.
            Some are going to less-politicized technical colleges. Others are
            choosing occupations that don't require a four-year degree. Has
            radical feminism helped women? A better question might be: was it
            intended to help women? Some think not. Many women have the careers
            feminism promised—but also kids born out of wedlock, from one-night
            stands and the feminist conviction that "a woman needs a man like a
            fish needs a bicycle." They come home from work exhausted and then
            have one or more kids to handle. The result: stress, exhaustion,
            burn-out. Boys, meanwhile, grow up without proper male role models.
            One of the effects of radical feminism is the feminization of boys
            and men. Masculine assertiveness is "out";
            > "metrosexual" sensitivity is "in"—a recipe for trouble. As
            Christina Hoff Sommers argues convincingly, normal boys just aren't
            wired that way. Some men are consciously deciding to stay
            single. They will not approach women, in college or at work, out of
            fear of guilty-if-charged "sexual harassment" allegations. And with
            one in two marriages ending in divorce, they are justifiably afraid
            of being cleaned out—of having their finances destroyed by divorce
            courts that favor women. Worse still, more than one man has had his
            life ruined by malicious child-molestation allegations. Again,
            guilty if charged. Not to mention the emotional devastation to kids
            after watching their parents fight, sometimes for years. All of
            which presages a lot of people—of both sexes—growing older alone.
            Could it be that someone wants things this way, because when
            people's—especially children's—families are dismembered and they are
            psychologically cut off from the most important support
            > network a person can have in an impersonal, materialistic
            society, they are vulnerable? How does all this tie in with my
            opening paragraph? In a recent interview with The New American
            (June 12, 2006), Aaron Russo, currently of America: Freedom to
            Fascism fame, reports how he once defended his sympathy with the
            women's movement and with equal opportunity to an unnamed member of
            the Rockefeller clan. Russo describes the chilling response: "He
            looked at me and said, `You know, you're such an idiot in some ways.
            We … created the women's movement, and we promote it. And it's not
            about equal opportunity. It's designed to get both parents out of
            the home and into the workforce, where they will pay taxes. And then
            we can decide how the children will be raised and educated.'"
            Behind the feminist movement, like a shadow, was the super elite
            lusting for control—over men, over women, over children, over the
            workplace, over education, eventually over society itself. Radical
            > feminists—obsessed with gender politics but never looking behind
            the scenes—have been great useful idiots for over 40 years. Feminism
            was never really about women or their opportunities, which is why
            its benefits, viewed objectively, turn out to be illusory. A lot of
            women have filled their prescribed roles unwittingly. Still more
            have followed their leaders naively. Political correctness has been
            a good tool for gaining the cooperation of men—or, at least,
            intimidating many of them into silence.
            >
            > Thus today's "feminized" order: women don't trust men; men don't
            trust women. Women have careers in record numbers; their children
            are in state-sponsored daycare where they begin their indoctrination
            into New World Order globalism and the Earth Charter. Neither men
            nor women have lives. Neither pays significant attention to their
            real enemies at the top.
            >
            >
            >
            > ---------------------------------
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Steven Yates earned his Ph.D. in Philosophy in 1987 at the
            University of Georgia and has taught the subject at a number of
            colleges and universities around the Southeast. He currently teaches
            philosophy at the University of South Carolina Upstate and
            Greenville Technical College, and also does a little e-commerce
            involving real free trade. He is on the South Carolina Board of The
            Citizens Committee to Stop the FTAA. He is the author of Civil
            Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (1994), Worldviews:
            Christian Theism Versus Modern Materialism (2005), around two dozen
            philosophical articles and reviews in refereed journals and
            anthologies, and over a hundred articles on the World Wide Web. He
            lives in Greenville, South Carolina, where he writes a weekly column
            for the Times Examiner and is at work on a book length version of
            his popular series to be entitled The Real Matrix (hopefully!) to be
            completed this summer. E-Mail: freeyourmindinsc@...
            >
            >
            > ---------------------------------
            > Share your photos with the people who matter at Yahoo! Canada
            Photos
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.