Reddit reviews Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism (American Intellectual Culture)

Daphni Patai is a whilstle blower on this sort of thing, feminist academics using false accusations and so on against other academics, even each other.


>With a lot more restraint, if also a lot less style, than Katie Roiphe or Camille Paglia, Patai argues that the proliferation of sexual harassment lawsuits, particularly in academia, is bad for feminism. She blames feminist ideologues for creating a repressive?and sexually repressed?atmosphere in universities, and she forcefully documents cases in which faculty members (both men and women, though mostly men) have had their reputations and careers ruined by false allegations, frivolous complaints and opportunistic charges. Patai, a professor of women's studies and comparative literature at U. Mass-Amherst, calls herself a "still-avowed feminist" who rejects the presupposition of a rigidly patriarchal world in which men are innately predatory while women are inherently virtuous and potential victims. She criticizes the "sexual harassment industry" comprised of campus administrators, radical feminists and "post-trauma" therapists who continue to expand the definition of sexual harassment and habitually disregard due process. Not surprisingly, she singles out Catharine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin and Mary Daly as "notorious heterophobes," slamming their "pathological aversion to men...and antipathy to heterosexuality." While her basic arguments?that women are not protected but infantilized by such zeal and that we neither can nor should try to expunge sexuality from the fabric of everyday life?have been articulated by others, Patai brings common sense and muscular reason to the task. Though focused on academia, her outspoken study should be required reading for the workplace.

http://www.amazon.com/Heterophobia-Harassment-Feminism-American-Intellectual/dp/0847689883

This book is very relevant

http://www.amazon.com/Heterophobia-Harassment-Feminism-American-Intellectual/dp/0847689883

>Ah, you are in fact correct.

...now you're making it hard for me to hate you. :P Your coda at the end made me feel bad about not giving you a chance (I've been burned many, many times), so I'm going to apologize for attacking you and give you a chance.

Okay, since you seem to be willing to listen and discuss this, I''m going to break this down into several responses. So you understand my position: in college my major was criminal justice and my minor was women's studies. I was a feminist until I was in my mid-twenties, and I have been a antifeminist for about 11 years now (I'm 39). I successfully predicted the rise of tumblr feminism in 2004, three years before Tumblr even existed.

I have been to the belly of the beast, seen the dark heart of feminism, and I promise you: It is not what you think it is. It is a cult of man-hating, and everything you think you know about feminism is a carefully crafted lie to trick you into supporting a cadre of radical misandrists who wish to completely destroy society with an ultimate goal of gendercide.

That's right: The end goal of feminism is the eradication of men. Most feminists do not realize this -- just as most fascists in 1938 had no idea that the goal of fascism was ultimately to murder hundreds of millions through war and genocide.

Also, I'm going to respond to your comment several times. I'll break this conversation into three conversations: 1) rape culture, 2) patriarchy, and 3) gender roles. Let's start with "rape culture", which is a feminist code word that actually means "criminalizing male sexuality."

>No, I do not, but I also never hear this described as rape culture. I hear people not understanding date rape or raping drunk girls as rape culture.

Okay. so let's talk about "raping drunk women." Now, obviously an incapacitated woman can't consent. We're not even addressing that. Consciousness is a clear prerequisite to consent, and we don't need feminism to tell us that.

But what about a woman with a BAC of 0.07? That's below the legal limit for driving in the strictest states, and if one can drive, one can presumably give meaningful consent, right? Most women would not agree that if they drank one or two beers and had consensual sex an hour later that they had been raped -- and they'd be justified in thinking this, as an average sized woman (120-140 lbs) can handle about two drinks an hour without going over a .08.

We know that women don't agree with this definition of rape because if they did, that would mean that millions of women go out every weekend with the intent to get raped. Because every weekend millions of women in this country go to bars, have a few drinks, and go home with a stranger or casual acquaintance for casual sex.

But the thing is, feminists count them as rape victims. That's how they get that 1 in 5 statistic, that's how they prove that "rape culture" exists. By counting women who had any amount of alcohol prior to having sex as victims, regardless of how those women define themselves. Remove those women and that statistic drops to about 1 in 50, which not coincidentally is about the same statistic the Bureau of Justice finds -- BoJ being run by criminologists who don't have an agena.

So why are feminists trying to redefine women having sex when under the influence of any amount of alcohol as rape victims? Because they want to define as much of heterosexual sex as rape as they can, by any means necessary. Where does this need to define all heterosexual sex as rape come from?

Susan Brownmiller. Her work Against Our Wills: Men, Women and Rape is a foundation text of modern third wave feminism, and "rape culture" is synonymous with the model of rape as a social phenomenon. Brownmiller argues that rape "is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear."

This is why I asked you if believe that all men at all levels of society benefit from the rape and abuse of women. Because all modern feminist discourse on rape is rooted in the theoretical work of Susan Brownmiller, with heavy influences from Andrea Dworkin (who never said "all sex is rape"...she just said "Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women.") and Katherine Mackinnon (who taught at University of Michigan and turned Ann Arbor into a major center of feminist legal activism). If you want to really understand how these women's definition of rape is rooted in heterophobia and the desire to demonize and criminalize male sexuality, read Daphne Patai's Heterophobia.

There is a long term goal here. It is to draw lines in the sand and say "Men cannot cross this line." And every time a line is accepted, a new line is drawn perpendicular to the last line, a little closer to where men are standing. Eventually the lines form a box, and the box gets smaller and smaller and smaller.

In the end, this is what the box looks like: If you look at a woman, you are a rapist. If you touch a woman, you are a rapist. If you suggest sex to a woman, you are a rapist. You have no right to even fantasize about women. If you imagine having sex with a woman in your mind, you are a rapist.

You have the right to be attractive, but only passively. You may stand in your box, looking at your feet, and if a woman wants to have sex with you, she can initiate it, at which point you will pleasure her -- but not with you penis, which is oppressive and harmful. You must remain flaccid while having sex, or you are a rapist.

Your reaction to reading that is to think I am joking, that I am paranoid. But Brownmiller, Dworkin and MacKinnion decided back in the early 70s, before you and I were born, that this was what the future would look like. This is their idea of Utopia, a world where men's sexuality -- which is rape incarnate -- is completely suppressed, and men's only sexual pleasure is feminine sexual pleasure.

It only takes a few dedicated people to change the world, and these women are very dedicated (Dworkin died a few years ago, but Mackinnon and Brownmiller are still active). They have trained up legions of followers who share their core beliefs but hide them behind more palatable arguments.

They understand that the world at large thinks they are insane for believing that every man everywhere is engaging in rape every time he has sex with a hard cock, for thinking that being fucked by a man's hard cock destroys a woman's will to resist and stand up for herself by training her to submit to male dominance.

They have embraced the post-structuralism of Foucault and decided that there is no fundamental need to be limited by facts, and that they are free to manipulate and distort and lie to the public in order to provoke outrage and action.

They understand they need to lie and manipulate people, slowly drawing in the lines on the box until male sexuality is finally abolished.

What you, as a man, need to understand is that this is their goal, and all of their activism on rape is just drawing those lines tighter and tighter around us.

Here is a book about sexual harassment laws.

It is supposed to target men, its based on ideas from hatful ideologues like McKinnion.

When this ideology was developing feminists started making false accusations against each other in the gender studies departments.

Now it has leaked out of there and its a normal part of our legislation.

https://www.amazon.com/Heterophobia-Harassment-Feminism-American-Intellectual/dp/0847689883

>"heterophobic" (god, that word is laughable)

Its a feminist coined word.

Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism (American Intellectual Culture)

http://www.amazon.com/Heterophobia-Harassment-Feminism-American-Intellectual/dp/0847689883

>Also could you please explain to me how I'm imposing anything upon anyone?

You imposed a hateful caricature of heterosexual masculinity on the OP.

>Twisted his words?

Yep, he never said average men have no feelings as you are claiming.

Btw this isn't true:

> Sexual assault is defined as unwanted touching of a sexual nature

It's a very weirdly defined set of laws because of the way the entire field got invented by arch man hating radical feminist Catharine MacKinnon to piggy-back on the idea of sex discrimination as a legal concept.

Sexual harassment is actually the discrimination an institution (school or employer or other institution subject to the civil rights act) directs at an individual who is female if that institution allows a "hostile environment" to exist which has a "disparate impact" on women because nasty men are allowed to do things like look at women or tell jokes, or whatever weird thing offends women in some sense.

So in particular if it doesn't happen at work or university it's not sexual harassment.

Initially they also defined sexual harassment to include quid pro quo sex for promotion deals but i this case the harassment is of all the OTHER women who didn't get the promotion.

It's a bizarrely weird set of legal precedents. Basically a way to twist existing laws to approve of man hating sex discrimination created by an arch bigot.

Years and decades later people began to think of sexual harassment as you think it's defined. and they even began to pass some new laws based on that idea but it's still very rare to have laws that would make sexual harassment any sort of issue outside of institutions -- ie on the street as this was. In large part that's because at that point you've just created a Victoria era etiquette law that legislates politeness and mandates people be polite to women but not men, which would be unconstitutional on its face.

For more on this topic I recommend Daphne Patai's books on the subject:

https://www.amazon.com/Heterophobia-Harassment-Feminism-American-Intellectual/dp/0847689883

Patai is/was a feminist dissident, like Warren Farrel, Cathy Young, Christina Hoff Sommers, Donna Laframboise, etc.