The Lesbian and Her Trophy Wife
Can you trust a cynical hunch more than feminist theory?
“Until I started studying radical feminism, I never thought of ‘normal’ as an achievement,” I wrote in April 2015. This is not only funny, but also true.
My life — married for 27 years, six kids, two grandsons — is what used to be considered normal, but the breakdown of the family in our society over the past half-century has made it increasingly difficult to be normal. The Sexual Revolution of the 1960s set off a cultural chain-reaction that involved normalizing a lot of stuff that had previously been considered deviant — divorce, pornography, abortion, premarital cohabitation and, most obviously, homosexuality. The intersection between politics and culture became my professional stock-in-trade while I was an editor at The Washington Times, reporting on such stories as Ted Turner insulting the Pope, the arrest of pedophile activist Lawrence Stanley, an ethics investigation of Professor Michael Bailey and a feature interview with Andrew Breitbart in 2007.
Neutral Objective Journalism — “Just the facts, ma’am,” as Joe Friday said — was what I got paid for, not for having any particular opinion. Nobody ever offered to pay me for the kind of let-me-share-my-personal-experience stuff that feminists have been cranking out for decades, nor did I presume that anyone was interested in my philosophical theory about such things. After I began researching radical feminism in 2014, however, it became apparent to me how feminists have exploited to their advantage an idea that was first articulated by Carol Hanisch: “The personal is political.” By encouraging women to share their personal tales of victimhood — that damned patriarchy is everywhere! — while constantly condemning men as oppressors, feminists produced an utterly one-sided tale of human sexual experience.
‘Bisexuality,’ in Theory and Practice
When Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004, one of the first women to become a lesbian bride was Robyn Ochs. Despite her marriage to Peg Preble, however, Ms. Ochs does not call herself a lesbian. In fact, she is a longtime advocate of feminist bisexuality:
Where does feminist consciousness come from? Why do some women begin to question what has been presented to us as given and, as a result of that questioning, come to understand the ways in which women have been systematically limited? . . .
My own route to feminism was long, convoluted and closely connected with my developing bisexual consciousness. . . . I began to understand that many of my choices had not been freely made, but rather had been made within the context of a system that Adrienne Rich calls ‘compulsory heterosexuality,’ a system that posits heterosexuality as the only way to be.
Like all feminists, Ms. Ochs condemns heterosexuality as part of a compulsory “system” by which men (yes, all men) oppress women (yes, all women). This belief has been a core principle of feminist theory for many decades, ever since a group of radical lesbians calling themselves the “Lavender Menace” took over a major feminist conference in New York in 1970.
What is taught in university Women’s Studies programs as “gender theory”— the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix, to paraphrase Professor Judith Butler — was the product of more than two decades of intellectual labor by lesbian activists, most of whom were employed full-time in academia. Others, like French novelist Monique Wittig (a co-founder of the left-wing Mouvement de Libération des Femmes), came from backgrounds in literature or journalism. Many were associated with Marxist-influenced sects of the 1960s New Left and, when universities began creating Women’s Studies programs in the 1970s, the faculty were aligned with this radical ideology, which was not only anti-male, but also anti-Christian and anti-capitalist and, to a remarkable degree, anti-heterosexual.
Professor Marilyn Frye asserted that “most women have to be coerced into heterosexuality.” Because female “subordination is the basis of male power,” as Professor Charlotte Bunch explained, heterosexuality for women means “submission to personal oppression.” As Adrienne Rich explained, “male power manifests itself . . . as enforcing heterosexuality on women,” so that for women, heterosexuality is “imposed . . . and maintained by force.”
Such was the “feminist consciousness” imparted to Robyn Ochs in the 1970s when, as a teenage college student, she took a women’s studies class. Later, when she was in her 20s and “considering a relationship with a woman,” Ms. Ochs “began to see the relevance of feminist theory . . . to my own life.” She offered this explanation in a 1992 essay, first published in an anthology called Closer to Home: Bisexuality & Feminism, in which Ms. Ochs seemed eager to convince her readers she had plenty of heterosexual success:
I always had a boyfriend. From age thirteen until after college I don’t remember going for more than a month without being in a relationship or at least having a crush. Having a boyfriend was a measure of my worth. I would select the boy and flirt with him until he asked me out. Most times, like the Mounties, I got my man.
If she was so popular with men, and so successful in attracting boyfriends, the reader may wonder, how did Ms. Ochs end up a lesbian’s bride in 2004?
One of the problems we encounter in attempting to discuss “gender” and “sexuality” with feminists is that no heterosexual man is ever allowed to cite his own personal experience as a basis of argument. Furthermore, if any man attempts to express his beliefs about female behavior — derived from his own observations — he will be accused of “mansplaining,” one of those latter-day categories of sin invented by the priestesses of the Cult of Social Justice.
‘Completely and Utterly Clueless’
Nothing a man says about women or relationships has any validity as all, according to feminists, and this anti-male prejudice (to call it what it actually is) has resulted in a phenomenon which I have described as “The Queering of Feminism and the Silencing of Heterosexual Masculinity”:
Why does a man love a woman? What makes women attractive to men? If you are a woman who is interested in men, questions like this may be worth considering, and perhaps heterosexual men could tell you something about this subject. However, if you’re a feminist, you never want to hear anything a man has to say, especially not about sex. Feminists believe men know nothing about sex. Everything men say or do about sex is bad and wrong, according to feminist theory, which condemns heterosexuality as an oppressive “institution” forcibly imposed on women by the social system of male domination known as patriarchy.
According to feminist theory, all social and behavioral differences between male and female (i.e., “gender”) are artificially created by patriarchy in order to oppress women, to subjugate them under a systemic hierarchy of injustice enforced by male power.
Feminism is a Manichean worldview, wherein males have a monopoly on evil, of which all women are innocent victims. In feminist discourse, everything men say about sex is tainted by their malicious selfishness, and/or invalidated by the complete ignorance which feminists attribute to men.
“Straight men are completely and utterly clueless when it comes to women,” lesbian feminist Zara Barrie confidently asserts. Any heterosexual man who claims to have a clue about women is not only a liar, but also a homophobic misogynist, according to such proponents of “feminist consciousness.”
Claiming that men are all ignorant, selfish and dishonest, feminists imply the logical obverse, that all women are wise, generous and trustworthy. And it therefore follows, inferentially, that the most wise and virtuous among women are lesbian feminists, who not only avoid oppression by eschewing male companionship, but also lead the resistance against patriarchy by encouraging other women to emulate their example. And . . . cui bono?
Who stands to benefit most from the propagation of such beliefs?
Let any astute reader study the biographies of such lesbian feminist pioneers as, inter alia, Rita Mae Brown and Karla Jay, and ask what personal benefit they derived from preaching their anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology.
You don’t need any expert training as a detective to spot the motive here. Nothing more than street-smart cynicism is necessary to understand this particular three-card monte hustle. When he was asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton famously answered, “Because that’s where the money was.” And if lesbians were honest about why they joined the feminist movement, they would answer, “Because that’s where the unhappy straight girls were.”
As a heterosexual male, of course, I’m “utterly clueless when it comes to women,” and I don’t know anything about gay people, either.
The lyrics of an old song from the hippie era come to mind:
Don’t be angry. Don’t be sad.
Don’t sit crying over good times you’ve had.
There’s a girl right next to you
And she’s just waiting for something to do. . . .
And if you can’t be with the one you love,
Honey, love the one you’re with.
You can learn more about love from old R&B songs than you can from all the feminist textbooks ever written. Nobody likes to feel unloved, and when you’re in search of romantic companionship, it is among the unloved ones —“just waiting for something to do”— that you can find it most easily.
The 1960s hippie hustle — “All You Need Is Love” — was shrewdly exploited by dudes who realized that idealistic girls spaced-out on LSD and marijuana could easily be convinced to believe that casual sex was a groovy trip, man.
“Yeah, all that moralistic marriage-and-monogamy stuff, that’s just your puritanical bourgeois hang-ups, baby. Like, I’m not into that kind of materialistic suburban keeping-up-with-the-Joneses thing, you dig? What I’m into is, like, just doing what comes naturally. So why don’t you ride along with me, baby, because I’m getting a really mellow vibe from you and . . .”
From the 1967 Summer of Love in San Francisco to Woodstock in 1969 and beyond, there were a million variations of that hustle made by millions of hippie dudes swarming around the scene trying to score with hippie chicks. “All You Need Is Love,” and maybe some antibiotics to deal with your STDs.
Product of a ‘Chaotic and Messy’ Childhood
The idea that sex should never be restricted by rules— “Sexual Anarchy,” as Matt Barber has called it — has very bad consequences. Certainly Robyn Ochs could testify to that. Her uncle, Phil Ochs, was a socialist anti-American folk singer, and also a mentally unstable alcoholic who committed suicide in 1976. Robyn Ochs was five when her mother, Sonia “Sonny” Ochs, divorced her father, then remarried, had two more kids and divorced again. By 1968, Robyn and her two half-brothers were living a crazy childhood with their crazy single mom, “a nonconformist” who “acted as a sort of den mother/magnet for lots of the area hippies and radicals, and we often had stray people living in our basement.”
Robyn Ochs grew up in a home that was “messy and chaotic” and it is no surprise that as an adult, her romantic life was also messy and chaotic: “Relationships have been hard for me — I didn’t have a lot of good role models growing up and so I had a hard time learning what a healthy relationship might look like and how to ask for what I wanted in a healthy way.” From age 13 until she was in her early 20s, Ms. Ochs “always had a boyfriend,” she says, but never had a “healthy relationship” with a man — just like her mother.
This isn’t hard to figure out, really. You don’t need a Ph.D. in Gender Studies to understand that a child who grows up in a family of kooks is likely to have problems adjusting to life among normal people. Misery loves company, and the unhappy misfits tend to cluster together, the way I was always hanging out with my dopehead hoodlum buddies back in the day. Circa 1975, when I was a drug-addled adolescent, the Vietnam-era hippie mentality was fading like an old pair of blue jeans, replaced by a mood of cynical hedonism, as the “liberated” lifestyle became just another commercial marketing pitch.
Feminism quickly became nothing but a hustle, a scam, a way for Madison Avenue to promote commodities. “Sex sells,” and feminism is always about sex. Maybe you’re the kind of natural-born chump who believes all that jargon about the “gender binary” and women being “systematically limited,” but I know a hustle when I see one, and feminism is the biggest hustle ever.
Big Tobacco cashed in selling the Feminist™ brand, and so did all those women who parlayed their talk of “oppression” into book contracts and TV appearances and tenured professorships in Women’s Studies programs. Meanwhile, of course, there were millions of young women who, failing to recognize “liberation” as a phony scam, were trying to reconcile feminist ideology with the reality of their own unglamorous lives. Here is where the concept of rationalization is crucial to understanding feminism.
In psychology and logic, rationalization . . . is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable — or even admirable and superior — by plausible means.
Anything from alcoholism to adultery to abortion can be defended or justified by rationalization, where people come up with “plausible means” to argue that doing the wrong thing is not really wrong. One of the greatest feats of rationalization I’ve ever witnessed was how defenders of Bill Clinton justified his perjury and obstruction of justice in the Jones v. Clinton civil-rights lawsuit with a simple four-word sentence: “Everybody lies about sex.” Maybe in some sense this is true, but not everybody (a) sodomizes a federal employee in the White House, (b) arranges for the aforesaid employee to sign a false affidavit, (c) gets the employee out of D.C. by having a campaign donor offer her a job in New York, (d) testifies under oath that he never had sex with the employee, (e) scrambles to conceal the evidence when the media finds out, (f) goes on TV and issues a false denial, and then (g) orchestrates a scorched-earth propaganda campaign to defame anyone who tells the truth. No, only one man in American history has even done all that, and to rationalize his behavior so glibly — “Everybody lies about sex” — is total bullshit.
“You have the right to remain silent,” as the famous Miranda warning begins, but you do not have the right to lie under oath. But I digress . . .
What does this have to do with Robyn Ochs, you ask? Because rationalization explains how an avowed “bisexual” became one of the first lesbian brides in American history. Before I get to that, however, I wish to share with the patient reader what we might call The Parable of the Cute Lesbian.
Once upon a time, a Young Prince sojourned on a campus in the Kingdom of Alabama, where he met a Fair Maiden with golden hair, green eyes and a bright smile. Alas, she had been cursed by an Evil Witch, and was a Lesbian.
Or so she said.
Everywhere the Fair Maiden went on Campus, she was accompanied by her girlfriend, the Varsity Athlete, who was as surly and sullen as the maiden was cheerful and friendly. They were inseparable, and so the Young Prince —knowing that there were many more fish in the sea — was content merely to befriend the Fair Maiden, and in return she told him certain arcane secrets of the Lesbian sisterhood. Happy to acquire this knowledge, the Young Prince was grateful to the Fair Maiden, and returned to the Kingdom of Georgia.
After a year had passed, the Young Prince heard from a Bard a startling tale — the Fair Maiden had become scandalously involved with a male!
“How could this be so?” the Young Prince asked the Bard who told him this. “Forsooth and verily, has not the Fair Maiden always been a Lesbian?”
“Oh, sire, not always,” said the Bard. “For when she was in high school, it is said the Fair Maiden had somewhat a different reputation.”
“What?” said the Young Prince. “Pray tell me!”
“To tell it frankly, Your Highness, ’twas said she was quite the whore.”
Many years later, after the Young Prince had become a King in his own right, he learned that the Fair Maiden had herself married another King, and she told him even more about the Evil Witch’s curse, which had magically expired as soon the Fair Maiden escaped the shadow of the Varsity Athlete.
And the Moral of the Story is, everything ain’t always what it seems to be.
“Feminism is about redefining our social value system.”
— Anita Sarkeesian, 2015
“Feminism is about change. It challenges the existing pattern of relations between the sexes. . . . In doing so, it necessarily takes issue with the customs and practices of existing societies.”
— Anne Phillips, Gender and Culture (2010)
“Sexism is the belief system that supports patriarchy: the rule of men over women. . . .
“Sexism relies on heterosexism. . .
“Political strategy must be based on a clear analysis and the goal of eliminating heteropatriarchy if we are to eliminate heterosexism.”
— Joy A. Livingston, “Individual Action and Political Strategies: Creating a Future Free of Heterosexism,” in Preventing Heterosexism and Homophobia, edited by Esther D. Rothblum and Lynne A. Bond (1996)
“Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization . . . to come to see oneself as a victim.”
— Sandra Lee Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression (1990)
Crazy Is as Crazy Does
Let there be no doubt that for some people, homosexuality is quite firmly established at an early age. However, in many other cases, homosexuality is merely an activity — a behavior — rather than an identity or an orientation.
Distinguishing between these different manifestations of homosexuality is perhaps impossible, when we are presented with the case of an adult who is actively engaged in a gay relationship, and who is determined to defend their relationship (or identity) against critical scrutiny. Nobody wants to be forced to justify their choices in an argument, nor does anyone want to be bothered with pseudo-therapeutic inquiries about their childhood, their family, etc.
What the wise King learned long ago, however, is that there are a great many ostensibly lesbian couples in which one partner is not exactly a lesbian. And in some such cases, the dynamic is like The Parable of the Cute Lesbian, where a teenager with a history of promiscuity gets tired of being a pump-and-dump for a series of immature boyfriends and more or less chooses lesbianism as a refuge from the heterosexual storm. When the Lesbian Avengers used the slogan “We Recruit” back in the 1990s, everybody who knew the score nodded in recognition. Of course, lesbians do “recruit” — their offices are open 24/7 to any attractive woman interested in joining their team. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is a liar. Trust the wise old King on this, because he learned many arcane secrets back when he was a Young Prince.
Let us now return to Robyn Ochs, who “always had a boyfriend,” but never a “healthy relationship” with a man and who therefore became a lesbian bride. When Ms. Ochs published her essay, “Bisexuality, Feminism, Men and Me,” in 1992, she was still in her 30s, and “empowered” by her bisexuality:
It was empowering to realize that men as romantic partners were optional, not required. I no longer feel pressured to lower my relationship standards in light of the shortage of good men. Yes, I might get involved with and spend the rest of my life with one, but then again I might choose to spend my life with a woman.
See? Because men are generally inferior to lesbians, Robyn Ochs argued, “the shortage of good men” means that the only way she (or any other woman) can have a heterosexual relationship is by lowering her standards. The name of that particular rationalization is sour grapes, “pretended disdain for something one does not or cannot have.” If you were to take Robyn Ochs’ claim at face-value, you might imagine her as besieged by male suitors — movie stars, business tycoons, major league All-Stars, etc. — pleading their endless love for her, and yet failing to meet her “relationship standards.”
What your wise King suspects, instead, is that Robyn Ochs is the kind of tightly-wound bundle of emotionally unstable craziness which men colloquially call The Psycho Bitch Ex-Girlfriend From Hell.
“It’s not you, it’s me.” Everybody remembers that 1993 Seinfeld episode where George Costanza gets dumped by his girlfriend, right?
Gwen: I’m sorry George.
George: I don’t understand. Things were going so great. What happened? Something must have happened.
Gwen: It’s not you, it’s me.
George: You’re giving me the “it’s not you, it’s me” routine? I invented “it’s not you, it’s me”. Nobody tells me it’s them not me. If it’s anybody, it’s me.
Gwen: All right, George, it’s you.
George: You’re damn right it’s me.
Negotiating a break-up generally requires an explanation, and let’s admit that such explanations are often less than honest. Getting dumped always feels bad, but dumping someone can feel even worse. You probably don’t want to say something like, “Hey, it’s been fun, but I think I can do better than you, because I’ve been banging this really hot chick on the side lately and . . .” Nor do you want to dump someone by telling them that they are a dangerous psychopath who really needs to be locked up in a mental ward.
Were any of Robyn Ochs’ ex-boyfriends ever really honest with her? Probably not, and so she was able to rationalize the failure of all her heterosexual relationships with a sour-grapes defense: She couldn’t lower her standards. Her ex-boyfriends were all inferior, because there’s a shortage of “good men.”
Even though I’m not a neurotic nebbish like George Costanza, I accept complete responsibility for every romantic catastrophe I bungled myself into back in the day: “You’re damn right it’s me.” Even in the case of The Psycho Bitch Ex-Girlfriend From Hell, that was totally my fault, because I would have recognized the warning signs, if I had been sober when we met. She was cute enough, and I had no other prospects at the time and . . . Mea culpa.
Learning to accept your faults and shortcomings is painful, but it’s psychologically more healthy than sour-grapes and scapegoating, which is what “feminist consciousness” really is. Nothing could be easier for an unhappy woman than to put her faith in an ideology that tells her that her problems are never really her problems, but rather that men are always to blame. And here we return to Robyn Ochs’ 1992 essay:
I realized how I had been performing my designated gender role. It’s amazing how being in a same-sex relationship can make you realize just how much of most heterosexual relationships is scripted from the first date to the bedroom to the dishes. . . .
Finally, I made a personal commitment to hold men and women to the same standards in relationships. I realized that in our society women are grateful when a man behaves in a sensitive manner, but expect sensitivity of a woman as a matter of course. I decided that I would not settle for less from men, realizing that it means that I may be categorically eliminating most men as potential partners. So be it. . . .
My experience with being in relationships with women has been in a way like a trip abroad. I learned that many things I had accepted as natural truths were socially constructed, and the first time I returned to a heterosexual relationship things felt different. . . . I gathered more experience in lesbian relationships and began to apply my knowledge to subsequent heterosexual relationships. . . .
Question: Exactly how many relationships did “bisexual” Robyn Ochs have, prior to becoming Peg Preble’s lesbian trophy wife?
What would we discover, if we had a complete list of Robyn Ochs’ former partners, so that we could interview them all, and develop a sort of sociological profile of the men and women she had dated? Of course, we do not have that information, and Robyn Ochs expects us to accept her tidy little narrative at face-value, without any verification or skeptical inquiry. Should we believe that a lack of “sensitivity” on the part of her male partners was the sole reason for the failure of all her heterosexual relationships? What does Robyn Ochs means by “sensitivity,” anyway? Fawning obeisance, perhaps? Does “sensitivity” mean a willingness to tolerate her crazy bullshit?
Expecting “sensitivity” of men is a good way for a woman to set herself up for disappointment. Men are not generally “sensitive” that way, because any boy would get himself beaten to a pulp on the grade-school playground if he displayed the feminine traits that Ms. Ochs calls “sensitivity.” Furthermore, women don’t like sensitive men. Or to put it another way, women are contemptuous of men who are too “nice” to them. Women are apt to interpret male kindness as a sign of weakness, and women don’t like weak men.
What women value most in men is competence — savoir faire —and other traits associated with male success: Being tall and muscular, hard-working and cheerful, extroverted and sociable. Women like men who are diligent, honest and reliable — in a word, virtuous. However, if a guy is tall, athletic and good-looking, he could be the most narcissistic creep imaginable and still have plenty of girlfriends, because so many women are completely superficial.
Guys are not all as “utterly clueless” as Zara Barrie thinks we are, nor are we all such fools as to be deceived by Robyn Och’s self-justifying tale about how her “designated gender role” was a dreadful patriarchal oppression that could only be escaped in the arms of her lesbian lover. Spare me your pious feminist sermons, ma’am, because in the immortal words of an old Lynyrd Skynyrd song, “I know a little about love, and baby, I can guess the rest.”
Evangelists of the Feminist Sex Cult
When and why did it become necessary for everyone to announce their sexual preference — to “come out” ? How did the Sexuality-Industrial Complex become so profitable that women like Robyn Ochs make a career of traveling from place to place lecturing about their concupiscent desires? You may check Ms. Ochs’ itinerary and see that she will be appearing Jan. 18–22 at the Creating Change conference in Philadelphia, Feb. 17–19 at MBLGTACC (Midwest Bisexual Lesbian Gay Transgender Ally College Conference) in Chicago, at Emerson College Feb. 23 and so forth. Exactly why do so many people need to hear Robyn Ochs say once again the same thing she’s been saying for the past 20-odd years: “Bisexuality is awesome!” Is this something no one could decide on their own without Ms. Ochs to advise them?
MBLGTACC will be at Navy Pier in Chicago, IL the weekend of February 17–19. This year’s conference is being hosted by the Chicago Coalition of Queer and Allied Students (CCQAS). CCQAS is the first collegiate coalition of schools to host the conference since the first MBLGTACC in 1993, when it was hosted by Iowa State University and Drake University. The theme for MBLGTACC 2017 is United in Solidarity and will be the 25th anniversary of the conference. The conference will focus not only on celebrating the various identities within the LGBTQ community but also discussing the unique oppression faced by various members of the community and how to resist them.
Tickets to this conference are $75, which is pretty cheap for a three-day freak festival, I guess, but why do they need to discuss their “unique oppression”? How can you “celebrate” your LGBTQ “identities” for three days in Chicago, while simultaneously asserting that you suffer “unique oppression”?
Why? Because people say rude things about you on the Internet? People say some pretty rude things about me on the Internet, so when will I be invited to speak at a conference to “celebrate” my identity as an old white guy? Am I the only one who sees this LGBTQ hustle as a scam, like Big Tobacco selling women Virginia Slim cigarettes because “you’ve come a long way, baby?”
Some of my Christian friends say we should pray for women like Robyn Ochs to repent their sins, just as some of my non-Christian friends aren’t bothered by “bisexuality,” which they hope might lead to a ménage à trois. However, I’m not sure there’s any religious hope for feminists, because I don’t know how you can repent of sin while “celebrating” your sin as an “identity,” and how can you save Robyn Ochs’ soul, when she’s an atheist who doesn’t believe she even has a soul? Feminists do not believe that there is any eternal truth — no right and wrong, no good and evil — nor do feminists believe that human life has any intrinsic value, which is why feminists kill babies.
If you want to spend time praying for soulless atheist baby-killers, go right ahead, but there are a lot of other people who probably could use God’s help, and would actually be grateful for it. And if any of you guys can imagine a ménage à trois involving Robyn Ochs, you’re just sick, buddy. Seek help and repent your sins, because if you don’t, you’re going to Hell, and guess who will be waiting for you there? Yeah — your Psycho Bitch Ex-Girlfriend.
Say what you will, but don’t say nobody ever tried to warn you.
What can we learn about sexuality from Robyn Ochs’ story? Feminist theory tells us our sexual identity is “socially constructed,” and Robyn Ochs says she had to marry a lesbian because men failed to meet her “standards.” However, by the time Robyn Ochs was a teenager, feminism itself was one of the influences that “socially constructed” her identity.
Coming from a left-wing family, and growing up in a “messy and chaotic” home that was a “magnet” for 1960s “hippies and radicals,” Robyn Ochs was predictably drawn toward the feminist movement. She took a Women’s Studies class as a college freshman in 1976 and, because she never had a “healthy relationship” with any of her boyfriends, she drifted into bisexuality. This was part of her “long, convoluted” path to “feminist consciousness,” including her discovery that “women have been systematically limited” by expectations that they perform a “designated gender role.”
Robyn Ochs was born in 1958 and I was born in 1959. Because she and I are of the same age cohort, we could compare notes about our experiences and influences, but one obvious difference is that she was a woman, and therefore part of the target audience for the Feminist™ brand. Robyn Ochs came of age in an era when this product — the “liberated” lifestyle — was being sold to young women, and it is fair to say feminism “socially constructed” her expectations, those “relationship standards” she says men failed to meet.
Robyn Ochs attributes her sexual choice — her status as lesbian trophy wife — to a shortage of “good men,” but isn’t it true that the 1960s Sexual Revolution also “socially constructed” male expectations, especially among the kind of “hippies and radicals” with whom the Ochs family was associated? Was it likely that Robyn Ochs ever dated a Republican or a born-again Baptist? Probably not. Most of her boyfriends were probably part of the left-learning milieu of secular radicalism in which she was raised. I don’t know the guys she was dating, but I’m guessing most of them were cynical hedonists, whose interest in women was more about cheap thrills than “relationships.”
Question: Is any woman required to play that game?
Feminist theory has made Adrienne Rich’s “compulsory heterosexuality” concept into a patriarchal bogeyman with which to frighten and confuse young women who discover that “liberated” sexuality is a scam.
Cui bono? Who benefits from “liberated” sexuality? Not the girl who, as a teenager, begins bouncing around from boyfriend to boyfriend, from one shallow “relationship” to another. The cheap thrills of cynical hedonism may be amusing, but to quote an old song, “there’s something you forgot”:
What about love?
Don’t you want someone to care about you?
What about love?
Don’t let it slip away.
What about love?
I only want to share it with you.
You might need it someday.
Spare me your pious feminist sermons, ma’am. No one can tell me that I am “utterly clueless about women,” because the Young Prince learned a few things back in the day. While I have the right to remain silent, and cannot be compelled to tell everything I know (or how learned it), I refuse to play along with the feminist game that requires men to shut up and be lectured by fools like Robyn Ochs and Zara Barrie who claim a monopoly on wisdom.
Women want love. Women want trust and security. Women don’t want to waste their youth giving away love with no hope for the future. The reason there was, and still is, a “shortage of good men” is because so many boys “didn’t have a lot of good role models growing up,” just like Robyn Ochs. Because feminists have no empathy for men, it never occurs to them that boys who grow up in “messy and chaotic” homes — families fractured by divorce, substance abuse or mental illness — are suffering in their own way. For more than 40 years, feminists have sought to destroy marriage, condemning the traditional family as an oppressive institution, and what are the consequences of the deliberate destruction feminism has wrought? What kind of emotional damage do boys sustain from the turmoil of their childhood?
Feminists don’t care who suffers. Feminists crave only power. In their Manichean worldview, all men are oppressors and all women are victims. They claim that feminism — “liberation,” “equality,” “social justice” — is the only solution to women’s problems. They will never admit that feminism itself has become a major factor in creating problems. Nearly half a century after the feminist movement emerged from the radical New Left, aren’t young women even more frightened and confused than ever? And aren’t young men, growing up amid the chaos feminism has created, even less able to form stable relationships than the boyfriends Robyn Ochs dated in the 1970s?
Feminists do not believe in truth, so they will tell any lie that serves their purposes. Feminists do not believe in right and wrong, and they see no difference between good and evil, which is why they are so easily deceived.
“See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil . . . I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live . . .”
— Deuteronomy 30:15, 19 (KJV)
“Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself . . . she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1786
Only by silencing those who speak the truth can liars hope to prevail. What is my opinion of Robyn Ochs? Nobody cares, nor should they, and neither is it necessary for me to provide any theory to explain her choices. All that is necessary is to report the truth like Joe Friday: “Just the facts, ma’am.”
Let any young person — or their parents — examine the facts of this story. Let them study how Robyn Ochs “didn’t have a lot of good role models growing up,” and was never able to find a “healthy relationship” with a man, even though she “always had a boyfriend” from age 13 until she was in her 20s.
Was she “born that way”? Don’t be absurd. No one with two eyes and a brain could ever believe such a thing. Were her choices “systematically limited” by patriarchal oppression? This is nonsense, a self-serving rationalization the same way her sour-grapes complaint about the “shortage of good men” was a rationalization. America is a free country. All the rhetoric to the contrary is a scam like selling women Virginia Slims cigarettes with the Feminist™ brand.
Individual Liberty vs. the Feminist Death Cult
The core myth of feminism is that women are a collective group suffering collective oppression, rather than individuals capable of making their own choices, pursuing their own interests in accordance with their own values.
Each of us faces the choice between “life and good, and death and evil,” as the Bible says, and every day we make choices that affect not only our lives, but also the lives of others, including people we will never meet. My mother died in 1976, when I was only 16, and my oldest daughter wasn’t born until 1989. Could my mother have ever imagined that her granddaughter would graduate summa cum laude, marry a lawyer, and become a teacher whose students are the children of Haitian immigrants? My father was an Army sergeant in World War II who died more than 15 years ago. Could he have imagined that one of his grandsons would complete Army Ranger training and become a sergeant leading a squad of paratroopers? What would my father say if he knew that another grandson would become a successful contractor, with a wife and two children, by age 24? And then there are our three younger children, now teenagers with great potential, preparing for their own futures. Whatever we may accomplish during our lifetimes, as parents, our influence over our children will continue to influence the lives of others long after we dead.
Just being normal is quite a difficult achievement nowadays, and it’s probably not going to get any easier in the future. However, if “the personal is political,” as feminists say, raising normal kids is the most important political project anyone could ever hope to pursue. Providing the world with good children — including boys who grow up to be good husbands and fathers — requires a lot of work, and feminists refuse to do that work. As much as feminists hate men, they hate babies even more. Feminists destroy families and kill babies.
“Marriage means rape and lifelong slavery.”
— Ti-Grace Atkinson, 1969
“Pregnancy is barbaric. . . .
“ Women were the slave class that maintained the species in order to free the other half for the business of the world.”
— Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (1970)
“Women’s oppression is based in the fact that she reproduces the species. . . .
“In terms of the oppression of women, heterosexuality is the ideology of male supremacy.”
— Margaret Small, “Lesbians and the Class Position of Women,” in Lesbianism and the Women’s Movement, edited by Nancy Myron and Charlotte Bunch (1975)
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
— Simone de Beauvoir, 1975
“The first condition for escaping from forced motherhood and sexual slavery is escape from the patriarchal institution of marriage.”
— Alison M. Jaggar, Feminist Politics and Human Nature (1988)
“[P]atriarchy is a system of male domination in which men dominate women through the control of female sexuality. The control of female sexuality through the institutions of patriarchal marriage is not incidental to patriarchy, but rather is central.”
— Carol P. Christ, 2013
“I don’t want a baby. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . .
“This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, January 2014
Given the choice between “life and good, and death and evil,” what choice do feminists usually make, and what choice do they urge others to make? Feminism is an entirely destructive ideology, which views motherhood — the creation of human life — as oppression. Feminism condemns marriage — a man supporting a woman and their children — as a “patriarchal institution.”
Is anyone surprised that “feminist consciousness” appeals mainly to women like Robyn Ochs, who are emotionally incapable of finding “healthy relationships” with men? And isn’t a cynical hunch about the motives of lesbians like Rita Mae Brown and Karla Jay the best common-sense explanation for why feminism became an anti-male hate movement?