New Radfem Theory

Regarding the new crisis manufactured by our malevolent mischief-making President over replacing Justice Ginsburg, and his lie this morning that Ginsburg didn't dictate her dying wish to her granddaughter: We're all treating the likely nominees, Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa, as silent puppets with no will of their own. It is being assumed that they will mindlessly accept the nomination if offered. Out of respect for a great woman justice and out of self-respect, I as a feminist expect them both to decline to become Trump pawns and to decline the nomination if offered before the election. This is why feminism has brought them to this crucial point in American history, made sure they could get into law school, and fought so they could practice law and rise to their high stations. They now have the opportunity to cut through the male power-maneuvers, amorality and lies and to demonstrate what real judicial integrity is, acting for the good of the country. I hope they sp...

Here is Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, in an article for Fox News dated September 19, 2020, one day after Justice Ginsburg's death ( https://www.foxnews.com/.../ruth-bader-ginsburg-death... ): "At first glance, they [Democrats] are making the demand that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell apply the rule the Senate used to put a hold on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. Only they know that rule does not apply in this case. "That procedural rule stipulates that, when an opposing party to the president holds the Senate, no Supreme Court confirmation should be confirmed during a presidential election year. "The reasoning behind it is that the people have spoken both in selecting the president and in giving the Senate to the opposing party, so they should consider that and decide which way to go with the nomination in the election. "That is not the case now. America elected Donald J. Trump as president (largely on his pledge about t...

The exclusion of women from the arts is one of the more painful losses women endure under male domination. It gets at our souls, not our bodies. Women painters, sculptors, poets, novelists, musicians, all face almost insuperable odds. Why is this? Why do men find it an affront for women to participate in the arts? Darwin's Theory of Sexual Selection explains why. Human culture is based around two male evolutionary reproductive strategies, while women's strategies are suppressed by the system of male domination. These two male strategies are 1) male competition with each other for mates, and 2) male courtship of females. Art is a way men compete with each other and court females. A female entering the arts is simply irrelevant or gets in the way of the real business at hand. That women have a need for creative expression for their own evolutionary reasons is ignored. That's why men are always trying to take Ms Ian's guitar out of her hands and will never stop. Check out ...

INTRODUCTION Readers might like to read for themselves Justice Gorsuch's words in the June 15, 2020 US Supreme Court case of Bostock v. Clayton County , interpreting how effectively Title VII of the Civil Rights Act can impact the class/structural nature of employment discrimination. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, race, national origin, and religion; the Bostock decision adds LGB and transgender discrimination  to the sex category . As a flagship for US civil rights law, the Bostock holding will control or heavily influence other federal and state civil rights legislation and regulations. In Bostock , Justice Gorsuch announces a new test for proving discrimination under Title VII's sex category, which extends immediately to the other protected categories: " An employer violates Title VII when it  intentionally  fires an  individual  employee based in part on sex." (bolding mine) In short, Gorsuch interprets Title VII to apply only ...

Where have all the transactivists gone lately? I mean, since June 15, 2020, when the U.S. Supreme Court, for its own reasons, unexpectedly handed them complete victory over women's spaces in the case of EEOC v Harris Funeral Homes, forever now to be incorporated into the case of Bostock v. Clayton County? I would expect them to be filling social media with congratulations, giving interviews, partying, and generally raising the roof with joy.  They've been handed an all-out victory, and their opponents have been handed a total rout. That's all of their opponents, with all their complex motivations: the evangelicals, the Executive Branch, the social conservative libertarians, the radical feminists, the gender-critical women, and the silent majority. Instead, they're quiet.  I think it's because the implications are so momentous they've had to take a pause. They, like their critics, are stunned. It's like watching one of those setups of hundreds of dominoes as ...

JANE CLARE JONES Search for: JUDITH BUTLER: HOW TO DISAPPEAR PATRIARCHY IN THREE EASY STEPS TRIGGER WARNING: Fucking Pissed Off So, as many of you are aware, the high-priestess of genderology decided to momentarily descend from her exalted academic plinth and  relay her ‘thoughts’  on the ongoing internecine shitshow that she, probably more than anyone else, has helped to create. Except of course that, with her usual intellectual integrity, the thoughts she decided to relay about said shitshow totally ignored what is really going on, in favour of pretending that this is a conflict between the wibbly-wobbly-gender-and-sex-is-fluid-rah-rah-liberation crowd, and, basically, um, the Pope. Despite being entirely predictable, this level of disingenuous erasure, is, nonetheless, pretty staggering. As Judy is actually more than well aware, this is a conflict which turns, fundamentally, on the fault-line in feminism that she, in fact, inaugurated – a fault-line between those of us...