I was talking to a friend of mine about the women at AROOO who I've been posting about, Miss Margaret Jamison and Miss E. Kitty Glendower. He made the comment that they "all probably look like Andrea Dworkin anyway." I went looking for pictures of Miss Dworkin to add to the articles I wrote, when I found something that made me stop in my tracks.

This is a picture of Andrea Dworkin. The pain in her eyes is evident. This is a woman who has been hurt, who has been hurt badly enough that she has started to hate the world. Yes, I do believe that all radical feminists look like Andrea Dworkin. At least in the eyes.

I'm reminded of the movie American History X. It's about two brothers whose father was killed by black men, and his death wounded them so deeply that they began to see all black men as the enemy. It's the only explanation I can think of to make radical feminist thought make even a semblance of sense. These women were hurt by a man, and they see all men as the enemy. Perhaps you think I'm exaggerating, that these women hate "patriarchy," not men. Rather than try to explain myself, I'll let their words speak for themselves. While you read, think of what kind of woman can think these things...what kind of person can be filled with such blind hatred that they wish to criminalize the male gender and even murder one half of the world's population to create their version of a safe utopia.

Radical Feminism, as described by radical feminists:

On Gendercide:

Male sex ought to be enough to render a particular fetus undesireable even when pregnancy itself is wanted. -May 13, 2009

I will rank the following three scenarios, options, if you will, in order of my preference:

1. Male infanticide.

2. Female infanticide.

3. Females continue living as males’ slaves.

I believe male infanticde (sic) to be the best of those three options. That is to say, I believe male infanticide to be a *better* option than the current circumstances. I think it’s better than what we’ve got. Note that I also feel that female infanticide is a better option than being born into patriarchy as it stands, as well. -May 17, 2009

--

On Rape, Consent, and All Sex Is Rape:

And when I say “rape,” of course, I mean to talk about all penile intercourse. [...] there is something wrong with this notion that a woman’s “consent” is what separates a rapist from a non-rapist. -May 4, 2009

In fact, I’ve almost detected an air of disappointment in the women who disagree with my stance that all men are rapists, as though I have somehow let down the team. -May 21, 2009

I cannot bother with discussing [...] how to get a man or how to keep a man...because...it is more than likely that he will rape and/or murder a woman so why want him? -April 29, 2009

You know, it’s strange to me that when I say that all heterosex is rape, women assume I’m talking about *women’s* desires. They think that what I’m saying is that no woman is capable of deciding she’d like to have sex with a man. This is a mistaken interpretation. What I am saying is, simply, that all men are rapists. Even if a woman wants it – and I’m sure plenty of women do – it doesn’t outweigh the fact that men would rape her anyway. The men are *rapists*. It’s what they do. “Wanting it” doesn’t change that, though I’m not denying that some women do in fact “want it.” -May 19, 2009

--

A dose of hypocrisy from Miss Glendower:

When the police show up, you know, the very profession that disproportionately have wife abusers in their ranks, they will do all they can to believe the woman is guilty of some wrongdoing. They will ask her accusatory questions. Their questions will insinuate that she provoked her abuser. -June 16, saying that police don't help domestic violence victims

vs.

When the sister told the group that she found her child alone and wanted to teach her brother a lesson, most everyone felt she was wrong and the brother was justified in hitting her. Only the police, the f****** police thought it was wrong for Joe to hit his sister. -April 14, two months earlier, saying the only ones to help a domestic violence victim were the police.

--

And A Stronger Dose by Miss Jamison:

So, while I will not excuse, justify, celebrate, or applaud getting married or mothering sons, I’m also not going to vilify women who are, for whatever reason, stuck doing exactly that. -April 20, saying she won't vilify women who get married

Upholding misogynist ideologies by calling women who’ve had heterosexual experiences in a world where heterosexual intercourse is demanded outright when it isn’t simply acquiesced to by default ‘contaminated’ and those who were never so bowled over ‘pure’. -May 28, criticizing those who call women contaminated for having heterosexual sex

vs.

A bunch of house slaves. Grateful, fawning, ass-kissing, dick-sucking house slaves. I might have compassion if not for the fact that they make it more difficult for women in worse circumstances, and women who see through all this bullshit, to free ourselves from this oppression. -July 6, vilifying married women using words far uglier than "contaminated."

--

On the "Separatism" they claim to want:

Separatists must come to see that male-loving women are our enemies.

The best separatists might be able to do is save ourselves.  And I’m not even sure how it is we can do that.

What bothers me most about the necessity of separatist dependency upon non-separatists is the thought of little girls being raised in and by male-supremacist “family” units before they’re ever given a chance or a choice about freedom. Is separatism really to be denied until adulthood, except in those few cases in which a woman who has chosen separatism brings her daughters? How are we to get men’s women to agree that their daughters deserve the opportunity of separatism (Editor's note: I think mothers would take issue with the fact that you "feel that female infanticide is a better option than being born into patriarchy"), even if they do not want it for themselves? I think I need to understand better about what motivates women to actively work against other women who would rather opt out of the competition. Is it possible to trust these women to present separatism as a choice to their daughters, without derision or disdain or anger?-July 20, 2009

--

All I want to say to this, is...nobody is stopping them from leaving. From creating their own self-sufficient communes out in the middle of nowhere, where there won't be a man around to bother them for miles. And if I had a daughter, I would show her exactly what separatism meant. I would show her this post in my blog. I would let her know that feminist separatists would prefer that I had aborted her rather than raise her in a household where I was married to her father. And more importantly, I would try to protect her from experiencing the pain that would drive a woman to embrace blatant misandry. But there is no way I would indoctrinate my daughter with this feminist garbage, any more than I'd imagine these women would encourage their daughters to get married and love their sons as much as their daughters.

I once saw an episode of Law and Order (I believe) where it was discovered that a woman had killed her mother when she was a teenager. Her mother had adopted this woman's child (her own grandchild) and was raising him as her son. This grandmother would torture the boy, scrubbing his penis raw with a Brillo pad, while she told him that he was evil and dirty for being a boy, that his penis was wrong and would make him do bad things. Radical feminism is a hate-filled, destructive doctrine. If there were a doctrine that advocated killing all female fetuses, saying that women were criminal by nature, there would be a nationwide outrage. How is it that these women have managed to remain under the radar?

ETA: Apparently David Thompson just blogged about Miss Jamison - I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who wants to expose this nutjob for what she is. I wholeheartedly support free speech, but when the speaker is encouraging women to kill their sons (Jamison used the term 'infanticide' rather than 'feticide' or 'abortion') I think that a line needs to be drawn.

(Originally published 02 August 2009 @ The Femmenist)