What they mean by this is that normal expectations for women, including

ideals of beauty as well as common beliefs about marriage, motherhood and

heterosexuality, are a form of oppression.
As the author of that manifesto says, this is a controversial politics and,
when you translate all that jargon into plain English, what they aim to
liberate women from is femininity and heterosexuality.
This is what I mean when I say that feminism is a journey to lesbianism. If
we take feminist ideology seriously, if we study the doctrines and objectives
of the movement especially as manifested in the teachings of Womens
Studies professors we must admit that these revolutionary goals are
incompatible with everything most people take for granted about women,
about men, about sex.
Feminists have declared war on human nature. In arguing that men and
women should be equal, proponents of feminist gender theory are in fact
arguing that men and women are the same.
This intellectual commitment to androgyny, whereby differences between
the sexes are deconstructed and analyzed with the presumption that sexroles are an unnatural condition imposed on women by the system of
male supremacy called patriarchy, is a radical idea with radical
consequences. These radical ideas are not new; they have been part
of feminist doctrine for more than four decades. However, it is only in recent
years, with the political triumphs of the gay-rights movement, that
academic feminists have cast aside the mask of moderation to declare
heterosexuality itself the essence both cause and effect of
female subordination under patriarchy.
Yet in the 21st century, the most precious of our rights, including freedom of
speech and religious liberty, are now menaced by feminists and their allies
in the gay-rights movement. Revolutionary developments in our law, our
education system and our culture have quite nearly reversed the situation of
which Wanda Henson complained. What seemed radical two decades ago
has now become the law of the land. The 2013 Supreme Court decision in
Windsor v. United States has had the practical effect of overturning the
constitutions of more than 30 states where voters had ratified amendments
defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Seizing on the triumphant narrative of the black civil-rights movement,
liberals adopted the habit of framing political debates in terms of minority
rights versus majority discrimination. . . .
Rights talk allowed liberals a means of preemptively delegitimizing their
opponents and thereby to avoid arguing about policy in terms of necessity,
utility and efficacy. If all legal and political conflicts are about rights, there
is no need to argue about the specific consequences of laws and policies.
Merely determine which side of the controversy represents rights and the
debate ends there.

The gay rage in California can be traced directly to the Supreme Courts
2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision, which voided a Texas sodomy law
because, as Justice Anthony Kennedy declared, our laws and traditions in
the past half century . . . show an emerging awareness that liberty gives
substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their
private lives in matters pertaining to sex. . . .
If homosexuality is a right, and denying legal recognition to same-sex
marriage is a violation of that right, then the rage of gay activists against
their opponents is entirely justified. Proposition 8 does not deny tolerance,
safety and freedom to gays and lesbians, whose right to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness is as secure in California as anywhere in the world.
Tolerance, safety and freedom are not the same as equality, however, and
equality is the freight that liberals seek to smuggle into arguments via
rights talk. Gay activists do not construe their rights in terms of liberty,
but in terms of radical and absolute equality. They insist that same-sex
relationships are identical to entirely analogous to and fungible with
traditional marriage.
Only the most shallow minds could fail to recognize in the 2003 Lawrence
decision a radical revision of American societys basic understanding of the
relationships of men and women under the law, a revision which predictably
led to the 2013 Windsor ruling.
If any recognition of differences between men and women
is discrimination, if homosexuals are oppressed by our belief
that heterosexuality is normal, if ordinary expectations about masculinity
and femininity are socially constructed delusions imposed as a means of
oppressing women, then the legalization of same-sex marriage is merely the
first stage of a new radical era.
Heterosexuality, these authors argue, is never a womans own free choice,
nor is female heterosexuality the result of natural instinct or biological
urges. Rather, according to radical theorists whose works are commonly
taught in Womens Studies courses at universities everywhere, women
who are sexually attracted to men have been indoctrinated brainwashed
by hetero-grooming to believe that male companionship is desirable or
necessary to their happiness.
The blogger whose anti-PIV rantings inspired so much laughter (Was she
dropped on her head?) was, in fact, able to cite as sources for her
arguments such eminent feminist authors as Mary Daly, Dee Graham and
Sheila Jeffreys. To say that these lesbian feminist authors are
controversial, and that their radical views are not shared by the majority
of American women who call themselves feminists, is by no means a
refutation of their arguments. Such attempts to separate mainstream
feminism from the more radical aspects of its ideology cannot avoid the
problem that the faculty and curricula of university Womens Studies
programs where feminism wields the authority of an official philosophy
are overwhelmingly dominated by radical lesbians. Within the campus

environment of Womens Studies, where todays feminist intellectuals train

tomorrows feminist spokeswomen, it is normal heterosexual women who
are the intimidated and oppressed minority.
Whatever feminists say in popular media their exoteric discourse,
intended for dissemination to the larger public when these intellectuals
speak to each other in academic journals, in classrooms and conferences
and in online discussions, it is impossible to ignore their profound hostility
toward men, and toward womens role in normal relationships with men.
Normal womens lives and beliefs must be deconstructed, analyzed and
theorized in the context of her oppression within a patriarchal society.
Yet the critic of feminism who calls public attention to these esoteric
doctrines, who translates the academic jargon into plain English, is
automatically accused of fomenting prejudice. If you say these professors
are man-hating lesbians who have made their selfish grievances the basis of
a philosophy, you are a homophobic sexist.
Such is the fate of the truth-teller in an age where intellectual dishonesty
has become standard practice in our news media, in popular culture and
especially in our most prestigious institutions of elite higher education.
Despite feminists willingness to use such hateful anti-female rhetoric to
insult normal women, however, it is always and only the opponents of
feminist who are accused of misogyny.
On Pages 155-156 of the 20th anniversary edition of Ms. Dworkins most
famous book, she compares womens condition to that of prisoners at
Auschwitz, insisting womens oppression is actually worse than the deadly
fate of victims of Nazi genocide.
The slogans of liberal feminists, who want women to believe they can have
both equality and heterosexuality, are intellectually dishonest. Sexual
equality ultimately means androgyny, the elimination of both mens
masculinity and womens femininity this is what feminists mean when
they speak of gender roles so that all humans are essentially identical,
neither masculine nor feminine. No sane person desires this androgynous
egalitarian utopia that is the ultimate teleological destination toward which
feminisms core ideology would lead us. Whether we are male or female,
gay or straight, conservative or liberal, the vast majority of people
understand that human nature the basic difference between men and
women is one of the most delightful aspects of life.
Feminists have declared war on human nature. They are at war not only with
men, but against women who love men, and also against all that is beautiful
about the love between man and woman. Every love song, every kiss, every
walk in the moonlight insofar as anything in our culture and customs
celebrates the love of man and woman, somewhere a Womans Studies
professor is deconstructing it and subjecting it to a gender-theory analysis
that interprets our love stories in the context of male oppression. When the

only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. When the
only ideology you have is feminism, every problem looks like
heteronormative patriarchy.

Feminists Against The Unnatural, Yet Universal Roles Patriarchy Has

Assigned
by Robert Stacy McCain
http://theothermccain.com/2014/07/28/feminists-against-the-unnatural-yetuniversal-roles-patriarchy-has-assigned/