Deconstructing the Trojan Unicorn

It must be tough being a feminist today.

Imagine your whole world consisting of a hatred of something you simply can't quite define? Feminists like to call it patriarchy, this invisible system holding women back from achieving their full potential as individuals in their own right. What they like to call "patriarchy" is in fact simply Western society as a whole. The 2.4 children, housewives chained to the kitchen sink trapped in a mans world of oppression must have been oh so very tough back in the 50's.

Now not to say that women have always been treated just as fairly as men (because we know they haven't) Things really weren't that bad. This "patriarchal" capitalist system has lifted more people out of poverty than any civilization previously known to mankind

Nowadays women have an equal footing to men the likes of which has rarely been seen historically, so who takes credit for all this? Common sense tells us that our ever evolving liberal and democratic society would inevitably get there eventually. In fact, its something both women and men can take a lot of credit for, we are the different sexes, but we do complement each other and when we work together we can achieve great things.

But there is a group, known for taking credit where none is due, this group are called feminists and the following article is in response to a series of essays written by one feminist "Dr. Em" whos desperate attempts to label "Queer theory" as a men's rights movement is so incredible I'm surprised she hasn't dislocated her back.

But with pretty much every conspiracy theory that has ever existed, at its heart does lie a kernel of truth, that's why conspiracies are so intoxicating. Now imagine one that absolves feminists of ALL blame and leaves them as sole champions of every true and just cause that has ever existed throughout the annals of humankind. That's their favourite kind of conspiracy. After all, no-one likes to look like the bad guy.

So while I agree with pretty much most of what Dr. Em claims, lets just extract the sleight of hand moments that regularly pop up throughout these 4 articles.

"Queer theory is based on an interpretation of power which claims that children can consent to having sex with adults"

Well, not quite it doesn't. queer theory is the deconstruction of sex and gender culminating in children being given agency to having sex with adults. It doesn't seem all that different a statement, but the key word here is "power"

When I see the term ‘queer feminist’ or ‘queer feminism’ I suspect, maybe hope, that those using these descriptors have not done the reading. As the old proverb states ‘the road to hell is lined with good intentions’. I do not believe that all these young woke people, charities, institutions and arts festivals are supportive of rape and paedophilia, of ‘queering’ and transgressing boundaries feminists have worked tirelessly to establish

not quite it doesn't. Straight out the gate, Em seeks to not only position feminism as the complete opposite to queer theory, she's already claimed that feminists are the ONLY group who have fought against the boundaries of rape and paedophilia, which is a flat out lie.

Age of consent and rape legislation was an important part of first wave feminism’s agenda

Once upon a time feminism did support very noble and honourable causes, but that time was a long, long time ago.

‘The term “Queer”… is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, and the dominant, and aims to destabilize dominant ideas of identity, whether that identity is sexual, gendered, ethnic, national, and political and so forth’.

Or what normal people would call "society" or what a feminist would label "the patriarchy"

This sounds liberating and progressive until we remember that ‘the normal, the legitimate, and the dominant’ include the idea that adults should not sexually abuse children.

Yes, the patriarchy really isn't such a bad thing after all. There's "progressive" that can be a force of positivity, then there's "feminism progressive" which seeks to deconstruct our whole society and ultimately "feminist queer theory" which breaks down sexual taboo's regarding sex with children

Queer theory is anything but progressive.

Queer theory is extremely progressive to the point of being outright disgusting.

Professor Alassandra Tanesini outlines, a ‘characteristic trait of queer theory is its opposition to any view that treats sexual orientation as anything other than socially constructed’.

A cornerstone of progressiveness is that everything is up for grabs. Its bastardised Marxism. Everything needs to be stripped away from the traditional patriarchal family model. With queer theory we end up at the point of sex with children.

She then goes on to talk about Michel Foucault, the founding father of queer theory

Feminists have attempted to develop the cultural norm that rape is bad and that children cannot consent to sexual activity.

Yes, she really typed this sentence. I have no idea how old Em is and I've studied a lot of history (in particular 20th century history) which also covers the rise of feminism. At NO point was there a cultural norm that rape is good and its perfectly OK to fuck kids.

These activities — rape and child sexual abuse — become reframed in postmodernism, and therefore queer theory, as repressed and a transgression of boundaries which is thus challenging power and helping to liberate the individual.

Yes, this is how Foucault thought. Thankfully, society (the patriarchy) rejected that opinion outright but already (and we're only on essay 1 of 4) you can see the picture Em is trying to paint *If it wasn't for feminism, rape would be legal and so would paedophilia* History however, tells us otherwise.

So why is Em trying to subvert the truth by championing feminism? Because Em can see where the transgender issue is going and she knows that many hundreds of feminists support trans rights so she's seeking to reframe the argument back to her more familiar target of hate...Men.

Early supporters of Foucault, were indeed all men, but when he passed away in 1984 you would have hoped his twisted ideas on progressivism would die with him. But no, who would willingly pick up such a poison chalice? Well wouldn't you know, its our regular heroes of every hour "feminists"

Gayle Rubin.

Along with Foucault, Rubin took a constructionist approach to sexuality. The constructionist approach has been useful in radical feminist critiques of heteronormative sexuality — the notion that normal sex is when the man is dominant and the woman submissive

No, that's not what heteronormative actually means (more sleight of hand) heteronormative is the idea that the normal/default setting of sex is that it is between a man and a woman, its feminists who bring the idea of power into this equation (Marxism 101) something must always be dominant and something must always submit to that dominance. Heteronormative is better than homosexual or lesbian its something that needs to be torn down (deconstructed) Feminists were perfectly happy with this deconstruction it is, after all another way to tear down the patriarchy.

What feminists didn't bank on however, was that there were feminist, progressive voices that were arguing for the inclusion of children into this deconstruction.

So there is a lot of good in a constructionist approach. However, this is overshadowed by Rubin’s support of paedophilia. Rubin posited that ‘the notion that sex per se is harmful to the young has been chiselled into extensive social and legal structures designed to insulate minors from sexual knowledge and experience’.

They've caught on now though. The idea that sex is something that can only be consented by children at 16 years of age is very much the patriarchy's hand at work. In fact even at that age it is only considered morally acceptable if it was children under the age of 18 engaging in it. Society (that patriarchy) will still willingly pour scorn in a 30 year old engaging in sex with someone under the age of 18. Try Islam for a spin, as soon as a child hits puberty its game on (that could be as young as 9) thank god for our society (the patriarchy)

Pat Califia.

Califia is probably the most twisted of the queer theorists. Its thanks to Califia that we now have fetishists and furries dominating gay pride

We are currently watching feminists being attacked and labelled transphobic for supporting child safe-guarding.

Another sleight of hand from Em. Society outright rejects the idea of giving trans children drugs, its just nice to see that some (but not all) feminists are on board with this.

Its not just feminists being attacked, its pretty much everybody who rejects queer theory

Califia argued that ‘what the cops called “protecting children” looked like repression of queer youth’. These arguments are back as we see child safeguarding policies described as ‘transphobia’.

Yes they are indeed

Califia compared opposition to teaching children and teenagers that paedophilia was an acceptable, if not potentially desirable, sexual experience to abstinence-only sex education pushed by the Christian right-wing. Surely there is a middle position?

indeed Yes there is a middle position, its called western society and its this middle position where 99.9% of people live.

Feminists manage to argue for sex and relationship education without promoting paedophilia to children and teenagers.

Well some of them do. Quite why they would argue this I find to be strange considering its very much mainstream thinking.

Indeed, the two theories — feminism and queer — are totally opposed

Actually no they're not, while most feminists would reject queer theory outright (like the rest of society (patriarchy) they are actually uncomfortable progressive bedfellows. They are both deconstruction movements, they both support the abandonment of traditional societal roles and they both champion the dismantling of the family unit.

Nevertheless, queer theory’s influence has poisoned a wave of feminism

Finally, Em has inadvertently admitted something, yes, many feminists love a bit of queer theory.

Judith Butler.

Taking over the baton to captain this backlash against feminism was the high priestess of queer theory gibberish — Judith Butler — who, unsurprisingly, defended incest. Furthermore, she did this without making a single reference to the fact that most familial child sexual abuse is by a male relative to a female child

OK, I skipped ahead to where the evidence of this male relatives on female children comes from. And it appears to have come out of thin air. Male children are vastly less likely to come forward and claim they were abused as children. The catholic church scandal is proof positive of that and empirical evidence clearly shows that boys/men are a lot more disposable than girls/women. But more on this later, Em will references this again

.A study by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner in the United Kingdom found that ‘there is considerable evidence to suggest that a substantial amount of child sexual abuse is committed by close relatives or those known to the victim. Victims can be both boys and girls, but the majority of victims are known to be girls’.

Yes, about 4 times more likely according to studies, in fact it tallies with the fact that girls are 4 times as likely to admit and come forward about being abused as a child than boys are.

Also, its important to note how Em has switched from a very USA centric view to using a UK study. While UK & US societies do share a lot of similar principles, they are also 2 very different animals. The UK has never had segregation, neither has it had an organisation like NAMBLA infest its society, it is also a lot less religious than the US so why the change-up? Because we need yet another sleight of hand, blink and you'll miss it. She needs this British study to push forward the idea that queer theory is a men's rights movement.

The researchers for the Office of the Children’s Commissioner further delineated from ‘recent evidence that the ‘typical’ young person with sexually harmful behaviour is a white male

What did I just say? While the study does indeed mention it, it also mentions and admits to a glaring lack of research, Em also conveniently misses this paragraph

'59 male survivors of sexual abuse (57 of whom were abused as a child, with 53 being abused by a family member or someone close to the family) participants felt that the police did not make enough effort to investigate their case and/or follow-up with them about the outcome of the investigation.'

Yes, the study readily admits that boys are being thrown under the bus, but that's not the narrative Em wants to spin. But her cognitive dissonance goes further the study she uses is explicitly regarding familial incest, queer theory is a much, much larger beast than this.

These young white male sexual abusers and rapists will grow to become adult male rapists and can count on the support of queer theorists championing their transgressing of sexual boundaries and norms.

And behold! Em finally gets to where she wants feminists to be!

This is one of the reasons this is a men’s sexual rights movement

It appears to be the ONLY reason you can come up with, a study that admits to having gaps in its findings and expressing a need for further research can be taken out of context and paraded right under our very noses that queer theory is simply men that want to have sex with children. 

queer theory — is diametrically opposed to feminism

Yeah, Em has said this before, I wasn't convinced the first time, I'm not convinced now either. If it wasn't for feminists like Butler and Califia pushing this agenda she may have a point.

The recognition and then cultural and legal prohibition against incest as a form of child sexual abuse was a cause championed by second wave feminists, the ones branded ‘terfs’ now.

Just because you support something doesn't mean you can just stroll up and take all the credit for. Society (the patriarchy) has always been keenly aware of the need for child-safeguarding. This feminist claim is just grandstanding. That would be like me claiming that a husband is no longer able to legally rape his wife since 1991 because I thought it was a terrible law was all thanks to me.

Louise Armstrong has analysed how ‘the issue of incest… was born of the women’s movement in the U.S., which is a political issue, an issue of violence toward women and children

Similarly, Gillian Harkins has outlined how ‘feminist researchers broke ‘the silence’ of this patriarchal conspiracy when they documented incest as a common form of child sexual abuse

So finally, Em has linked here rather bizarre thinking to society "patriarchy" Not quite sure how she got there and I cant be bothered to check on Armstrong and Harkins work, but they are both feminists so its a safe bet to assume their theories are as full of holes as Ems are. Also, don't forget to note how we've switched back across the Atlantic once more.

Prior to feminist agitation in the 1970s, ‘incest had been treated as an isolated breach of proper alliance and normative conduct’, it was covered by marital laws rather than rape.

Now we appear to be living in some kind of dystopian fantasy created by Ems fertile imagination.

I grew up in 1970's Britain, incest wouldn't even be close to being treated as an isolated breach of proper alliance and normative conduct! I don't know where or how Ems was raised, but it appears to be a very scary place indeed.

Butler is foundational to queer theory and shines a light on how anti-feminist queer theory is.

So for a third time Ems claims queer theory to be anti-feminist, now once would be enough, twice suggest oversight at best, to do it a third time suggests she's trying to convince herself as much as she's trying to convince the reader.

But that was the final sentence (hurrah)

I can honestly say I agree with about 90% of Ems work, it really is a tremendous 90% but as good as the 90% is the other 10% is awful, disingenuous at best, but I prefer to call it flat out lying and a desperate attempt to distance feminism from queer theory.

For me though, I remain unconvinced. whilst feminism has run rampant throughout society in the 20th century causing arguably more harm than good, they forgot to keep an eye on those skeletons in their progressive closet.

Oh, in what would amaze absolutely nobody, the UK study that Ems is so excited about was compiled by a group of feminists.