Skip to content

Amanda Marcotte’s “Enemies of Feminism”: Feminists who disagree with Amanda Marcotte

September 15, 2014

 “No True Feminist”!

1. Christina Hoff Sommers. Sommers is a pioneer in the art of arguing that it’s men who are actually the oppressed class in modern society. Her 2000 book The War Against Boys tried to argue, falsely, that feminists are ruining young men’s lives by oppressing them through the educational system. (Somehow those distressed young men continue to graduate and go on to have better job opportunities and make more money than their female peers.) She was most recently spotted offering her support to an organized online campaign to harass a young video game developer over her sex life.

2. Cathy Young. While Christina Hoff Sommers specializes in facetious claims about imaginary feminist oppressors, Young focuses on minimizing the problems of sexual abuse and harassment of women. Recently, she made a shoddy and dishonest claim that men get harassed more than women online, a claim that necessarily leads to the conclusion that women’s greater stress over harassment must be the result of their inferior constitution. Young also objects to the new movement to pass laws requiring men only to have sex with women who want the sex, on the grounds that men can’t be expected to handle something as simple as reciprocity.


Here’s Christina Hoff Sommers on feminism:

Sommers uses the terms “equity feminism” and “gender feminism” to differentiate what she sees as acceptable and non-acceptable forms of feminism. She describes equity feminism as the struggle based upon “Enlightenment principles of individual justice”[14] for equal legal and civil rights and many of the original goals of the early feminists, as in the first wave of the women’s movement. She describes “gender feminism” as having “transcended the liberalism” of early feminists. Instead of focusing on rights for all, gender feminists view society through the “sex/gender prism” and focus on recruiting women to join the “struggle against patriarchy.”[15] A reviewer of Who Stole Feminism characterized gender feminism as the action of accenting the differences of genders in order to create what Sommers believes is privilege for women in academia, government, industry, or the advancement of personal agendas.[16][17]

And here’s Cathy Young:

Her writing covers a variety of topics in politics and culture, with particular focus on gender issues and feminism, reflecting an individualist feminist perspective (c.f. Wendy McElroy), frequently agreeing with men’s rights activists, while calling them to task for emulating the identity politics associated with some forms of feminism.

Shorter title for Marcotte’s essay: “7 Women I Don’t Like.”

Amanda Marcotte A true feminist

Posted by Charlotte Allen

From → Uncategorized

  1. Lastango permalink

    “Seven women who don’t pimp Marxist hegemony” would be more truth than Mz. Marcotte is up for.

  2. False Rape Accusations and Made Up Numbers permalink

    I don’t see why Cathy Young, or anyone, would object to this;

    “Affirmative consent” is an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity. Consent is informed, freely given, and voluntary. It is the responsibility of the person initiating the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the consent of the other person to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.”

    • The problem is when you try to turn that into legalese: you can’t do it. It isn’t precise enough to ever be legally binding. Even the authors of these laws have said they have no idea how one could properly define consent or prove consent. The laws that are being crafted are more about creating a dragnet for men and pandering to a [small] loud group of people that hate men. It isn’t hyperbole to suggest that the only way that a man can protect himself is to make sure he tapes all of his encounters….of course that too is probably considered an invasion of privacy and would be illegal.

      There are very good, solid reasons why the burden of proof must be on the prosecutor. To change this around is to go back in the bad old days and is far from progressive.

    • Lastango permalink

      The purpose of a reliance on codified “consent” is to set a trap for men. Under these parameters, even when a man has secured consent he can’t rely on it. Any college tribunal can (and will) discover that the consent was obtained under duress, or that the complainant was otherwise unable to grant consent. It will be immaterial that the defendant had no way of ascertaining this. It will be enough for the complainant to assert the consent was not valid.

      These outcomes will not be accidental. Consent formulations are deliberately constructed to provide a false veneer of process and equal protection, while in fact establishing a highway for the manufacture of complaint statistics which validate the “War on Women”, and while protecting complainants from being charged with false accusations. Now, there can be sexual assault without an actual assault. There need only be a claimed lack of valid consent, at any point in the interaction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: