MacDworkinism and VAWA: The Fraud of the Millennia
Part 3: Mind-Programming of the Masses
(Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3)

July 22, 2005

The MacDworkinism is the ideology of hate and destruction. Never mind that millions of men, women and children suffer dearly. Neither Dworkin nor MacKinnon ever cared about women, let alone children and families, which their ideology sought to destroy. As an overwhelming body of research points to the essential importance of fathers on positive child development and outcome in life, Dworkin had to despise Psychology, child psychology specifically, lest it would “force-fuck” her mind:

“… I had trouble conforming in class as I got older because of the intellectual vacuity of most of my teachers. I followed enough of the social rules to keep adults at bay. There weren't therapists in schools yet so no adult got to force-fuck my mind. I was smart enough to be able to strategize.”

Although they were not the real ‘Founding Mothers’ of this secular hate religion, these high priestesses of lesbian dictatorship seeking annihilation of men as an “oppressor class” were never liked even among the feminists of various hues. Reading Dworkin and MacKinnon is essential to understanding MacDworkinism as an indoctrination technology, a giant machine of mind-programming in the fringe “philosophy” of female biological superiority, their cunningly victimology as a tool of acquiring social and legal privilege for “the underdog,” the special treatment effectively putting women as a class above the law and subjugating men to a presumption of guilt, on a grand scale unparalleled, unprecedented in history. Like all else done on a grand scale in America, MacDworkinism ™ is monstrous in its impact on lives.

While many feminists would never agree to subscribe to Dworkin’s unabashed men-hating, or her austere sexual regiment, most of them quite agree on the need to hold on to the social privilege and clamor for more, and most of them agree on the need to destroy the institution of the family.

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."

(Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor)

The social privilege, the lives of leisure these middle-class women enjoyed, resulting in life expectancy 10 years longer than those of men, and material wealth accumulated and redistributed by the iron hand of the feminists’ law, which men would be never able to attain, was never enough. They had to prove that the slave was the oppressor, and the mistress slave driver – the oppressed. Whatever the shrill crowd of their defenders and followers may scream in defense of these feminist “Goddesses,” The MacDworkins legitimized, and turned into the law of the land – with the help of such fascist demagogues and political opportunists as Joseph Biden, Democrat Senator from Delaware – a religion of relentless hatred towards men, including the very young, innocent and vulnerable boys:

“Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman”

– Dworkin, Our Blood, 1976).

As a former NOW researcher Christina Hoff Sommers pointed out in her seminal bestseller “Who Stole Feminism,” the National Organization for Women, N.O.W., is seeking to convert as many women as possible into the belligerent brand of lesbianism, and behind the façade of ‘gender equality’ as its ostensible goal (which has long been turned into special privileges for women) it is seeking to destroy the heterosexual family and convert the males of the species into slaves:

“The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist.” ( Sheila Cronan, National NOW Times, Jan.1988)

As the women's movement turned fanatical and ugly in the 1960’s, 70s, 80’s, and 90’s, its focus drastically shifted from equal opportunity for women to special opportunities, special privileges, and preferential treatment for women as their gender birthright, and used its contrived, self-perpetuated, vengeful rage against males as a tool of social engineering. Their rage became hip, fashionable, a lasting fad, and a sign of being “progressive.” The feminist leaders – pugnacious, humorless, militant and angry with their own lot in life, launched loud media propaganda campaigns that were anti-family, anti-male, anti-capitalism, anti-birth, anti-heterosexual sex, anti-Christian, anti-religion, and fostered a virulent hatred of anything having to do with men, boys, fathers, families and religion. They found much support among politicians in the bloated government of the US, secretly seeking Nazi-styled (or more appropriately, Stalinist) control, censorship, and expansion of their already strong choke-hold on the American system of government, the country’s democratic institutions and traditions and its educational system as means of projecting their ideology into the future.

“In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.”     – Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Women

“Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.”(Feminist leader Sheila Cronan)

“The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft.”(“The Declaration of Feminism,” November 1971).

While their fathers and husbands were slaving away at two-three jobs, as did father of Andrea Dworkin, to keep up with their daughters’ and wives’ quirky imaginations and high maintenance demands, the MacDworkin feminists set off to annihilate the very Civilization whose natural enlightened egalitarianism gave them, practically on a silver platter, their unprecedented equality and freedom; They used their leisure time, the idle boredom of which they filled with mischief to acquire more privileges, lots of them, the privilege of attaining highest levels of education and writing skills among them, with little to no effort, little to no money they earned themselves. What could be more fun than destruction of and a spiteful hatred of the great Western Civilization, in which each and every accomplishment ever achieved was achieved by men?

“Why have any men at all?” wrote Sally Miller Gearhart in a 1982 article titled “The Future – If There Is One – Is Female.” The “feminist thinker” Gearhart is an advocate of ovular merging, a process of merging of two eggs, which has been successfully shown to produce a female-only offspring in laboratory rats. “ The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race”, she wrote. If this isn’t “a nice, sweet, and peaceful” feminazi “final solution, what is? Since it comes about by attrition, not murder, isn’t it highly ethical and humane, the latter being a ‘purely feminist quality’?

Just like her Nazi predecessors in the “science” of eugenics proclaimed biological inferiority of Jews, Blacks, Gypsies and Slavs, the “feminist icon,” “Goddess” and crowd-gathering spokeswoman, the revered Germaine Greer, in a lengthy November 2002 column in the prestigious Britain’s Guardian goes off into a creepy eugenics diatribe as to why women are genetically superior to men in every respect and why men are, and always have been, “redundant.” “What can be the root cause of all this male dysfunction? Feminism, that's what. When feminism came along and drew women out from under men, men found themselves in freefall… Women made men redundant; redundant tissue inevitably turns malignant.”[and must be surgically removed, as a natural sequel to her unfinished thought.] She elaborated, “ I describe them [men] as "freaks of nature, fragile, fantastic, bizarre", as idiots savants, "full of queer obsessions about fetishistic activities and arbitrary goals, doomed to competition and injustice not merely towards females, but towards children, animals and other men.”

Greer makes a staple feminist nod to a “science.” After all, the public policy and the whole body of feminist thought is strictly “scientific,” or so these self-appointed ‘progressive’ “intellectuals” would like us to believe – perhaps the hiccup from the “Scientific Communism” pushed down the throats of citizens in the now defunct Soviet Union. The difference between the USSR and the USA, however, is that the Soviet masses were well-educated in a classical cense, in hard sciences, thus much less gullible than the brainwashed college graduates in the U.S. The “research” by a crazy genetic “scientist” to which Greer alludes attempts to “prove” the inferiority and redundancy of the males at the very basic level, the X-Y chromosomes. So, if feminist justice strips men off all constitutional rights, their children and their worldly possessions, if in the context of alimony and child support the feminist judges impute totally unrealistic incomes these men would never be able to earn, then throw them in jail or forever turn them into slaves confined to a life of miserable existence and work round the clock – they are genetically inferior deadbeats, anyway, and being slaves and fodder to feminists industries – divorce, and domestic violence – is their natural destiny. Save the Earth, convert them into a fertilizer material, pronto. There are very few differences, if any, in the feminists’ ideology of today and that of the Third Reich. Greer’s rhetoric is not new. Ernst Rüdin began incorporating eugenic rhetoric into the racial policies of Nazi Germany in 1930’ and aligned it with the demonstrably genocidal “master race” ideologies of the Nazism.

The 60-year-old “feminist icon” Germaine Greer wants to revive the ideological sludge fund within which feminist “thought” has been mired, so she dredges up “scientific research” of male “chromosomal inferiority,” yet coyly admits that she recently “fell in love” with a man, actually a very young man, “a boy” she says, so there’s something that men, specifically the young boys, may be good for, after all. So, what is, Ms. Greer? – It is their “sperm that runs like tap water.” Just like Dworkin, she even makes a few bucks on the side of this affair, publishing a book, The Beautiful Boys – a sad commentary on the feminists’ sexist-pig consumer mentality, repetitive triviality of their pseudo-intellectualizations. As another “icon,” Valerie Solanas, the authoress of the S.C.U.M. Manifesto put it, “To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” – A snappy phrase with which she’d earn popularity and win high scores with a handful of men looking for recreational sex, but what an effrontery, what an insult to Dworkin’s prohibitions on vaginal intercourse, the ultimate “act of violence against women”!

Being glorified and reassured of her genius by the self-congratulating crowds of rapt feminist sycophants, Dworkin seeks a status of a cultural icon writing the blueprint of transforming human sexuality, no less: "For men I suspect that this transformation begins in the place they most dread -- that is, in a limp penis. I think that men will have to give up their precious erections and begin to make love as women do together.” – Ever wondered why the epithet “castrating” is appropriately attached to MacDworkinist femmes?

Men, families and boys were not the only targets of The MacDworkin’s rage, mental and sexual dysfunction. Andrea Dworkin fiercely feuded with other lesbians and non-lesbian feminists, especially when it came to such issues as their engaging in jinks, frolicking acts of “fisting,” or any sexual acts involving vagina, putting her at odds with many: As for women in general, Dworkin despised and hated them as much as she despised and hated her own mother:

“I wanted to be around her, and I would have been her slave had she been generous enough to accept me. She was my first great romance.

But I was the wrong child for my mother to have had… She valued conformity and never even recognized the brazen emotional ploys of a child… My emotions were too extravagant for her own more literal sensibility… She saw malice in almost anything I said or did. When I would be stretching my brain in curiosity – and dancing my brain in front of her to dazzle her – she thought it was defiance… I could never excite her or make myself understood or even comfort her…

She often told me that she loved me but did not like me. I came to believe that whatever she meant by love was too remote, too cold, too abstract or formulaic, to have anything to do with me as an individual, as I was… But to the extent that she knew me, there was no doubt that she did not like me, and also that I could not be the child that she would find likable. I wasn't, I couldn't be, and I didn't want to be. She understood only that I didn't want to be.

When we fought she said I was killing her. At some point, I don't know exactly when, I decided not to care if she did die. I pulled myself away from her fate and tried to become indifferent to it. With a kind of emotional jujitsu, I pushed my mother away in my mind and in how I lived. I did this as a child. I knew that she might really die, and maybe I would be the cause, as they all kept saying. I also knew I was being manipulated. I had to make a choice: follow by rote her ten thousand rules of behavior for how a girl must act, think, look, sit, stand--in other words, cut out my own heart; or withstand the threat of her imminent death--give up the hope of her love or her friendship or her understanding. I disciplined myself to walk away from her in every sense and over time I learned how. She told me I had a hard heart.

She had many heart failures, maybe heart attacks, and at least one stroke before I became officially adolescent. She would be short of breath, maybe fall down; then she'd be gone, to a hospital, but Mark and I never really had any way of knowing if she had died yet.”

Andrea felt betrayed: her beloved father apparently did not share in her wish for her mother to ‘just drop dead already.’ Was her pathological hatred of men a retaliation against her father, or an opportunistic stint of a mediocre writer seeking money, fame and political power? Was she a psychopath or a sociopath? – The answer is both. A major portion of the body of contemporary feminist thought is a hallmark of psychopathy, sociopathy, social dysfunction and destruction. Dworkin wallowed in her own brand of hysterical, poetic and passionately venomous fiction-writing, political propaganda and agitation in which all love is rape, all women are victims, raped, savaged and blooded by the “patriarchy” in marriage, outside of marriage, in any sexual position, and in each and every aspect of life.

As all demagogues, she played on her audience’s lowest instincts. In this respect she may be likened to Leon Trotsky, a highly effective Bolshevik agitator and demagogue who, armed only with a gentleman’s cane, would lead the attacking Red Army’s infantry chains into a hand-to-hand combat, and could persuade a regiment of savage royalist Chechen cavalrymen to turn around and – mesmerized by his demagogic agitprop – obediently fall under his command in advancement of the Bolshevik’s cause.

Called “the eloquent feminist” by syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman, Dworkin has been a featured speaker at universities and conferences in North America and Europe, speaking out against crimes of violence against women, against “the right wing” women, racism, and anti-Semitism. The New York Times described one of her lectures on pornography at New York University Law School as “highly passionate,” and reported that the audience responded with a standing ovation. “She moved this audience to action,” said a Stanford University spokesperson. A University of Washington spokesperson said, “She empowered the women and men present; in fact a coalition on violence against women came out of her lecture.” Ms. magazine described “Her gift . . . is to make radical ideas seem clear and obvious.”

Her provocative writings of a delusional “victim” could have landed her in a psychiatric ward elsewhere in the world, but were turned into a money-making machine in the good old USA. It was a purely American cultural phenomenon of “angry feminism,” bolstered by the feminist-controlled, mind-programming media and “progressive” leftist academia, hell-bent on teaching MacDworkinism, and Queer theory instead of “dead white males” -- Socrates and Pluto, or God forbid, Quantum Mechanics, Calculus or any studies in hard sciences. She used America’s cultural vulnerabilities with an adroit skill of a shrewd political marketer, as building blocks to craft her brain-child, the fascist dictatorship of “the oppressed class” of women, dictatorship legislated and adopted by the US Congress as VAWA and administered with an iron fist of a police state, backed by multi-billion dollar budgets and incentives expropriated from the federal tax revenues. Dworkin described her brand of “feminist justice” for men in Mercy (1990, 1991):

“ I fucking smash their faces in; I kick them; I hit them; I kick them blind; I like smashing their faces in with one kick, I like dancing on their chests,…with my toes, big, swinging kicks, and I like one big one between the legs, for the sake of form and symbolism, to pay my respects to content as such... I like smashing the bottles into their fucking faces and I like taking the knives, for my collection; I like knives. I find them drunk and lying down and I hurt them and I run; and I fucking don't care about fair; discuss fair at the U.N.; vote on it; from which I enunciate another political principle, It is obscene for a girl to think about fair.”

The Observer called Dworkin’s Ice and Fire an effort to “elevate the temper tantrum to an art form”. But Mercy impressed a New York Times critic, who opined on it in rather politically-correct terms, as “lyrical and passionate — a cross between the repetition of the early Gertrude Stein and, ironically, the unfettered flights of Henry Miller”. The reviewer added, however, that Dworkin’s positions were sometimes “intolerant . . . and just as brutal as what she protests. Ms. Dworkin advocates nothing short of killing men.” For the NYT it must’ve been a real shocker.

Her feminist justice, the junk-science of her cohorts, the gradual concoction of the monstrous body of societal mythology and urban legends of violence against women, violence which never was or will be, but which was sold to the gullible public as “science”, have nothing to do with reality, fairness, science or law, but that’s the beauty of it, “It is obscene for a girl to think about fair.”

She viciously vilified men, claiming all men are rapists of women and their daughters:

“you fucked me to ground meat…lover, husband, boychick, brother, friend, political radical, boy comrade; I can't fucking tell you all apart…” “Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat… Men have claimed the earth, called it “Her”. Men ruin Her”… “On the Left, on the Right, in the Middle; Authors, statesmen, thieves; so-called humanists and self-declared fascists; the adventurous and the contemplative, in every realm of male expression and action, violence is experienced and articulated as love and freedom.”…

Dworkin’s Electra Complex, complicated by becoming a prostitute, her highly regimented brand of lesbianism, and a sex life that had to follow her own strictly prescribed protocol excluding vaginal contact of any kind as “improper,” “violative” of her inner self, and degrading to a woman, her overeating and gaining a monstrous weight of 300-400 pounds were such obvious manifestations of self-loathing and self-destruction, that her men-hating can be also reasonably explained as her unstable mind’s Devilish way of fooling herself as to the true target of her [self-] hatred.

Her life’s work – the demonizing and dehumanizing of the male of the species – was devoted to bringing him to the well-deserved -- in her sick mind -- poetic justice, in which women are rewarded for their earthy, nurturent virtue, and men are punished for their naturally evil deeds, their oppression of women, their biological vice. She plied the lucrative trade of crafting the demarcation line between the oppressed good (female), and the oppressive evil (male) on her typewriter working nights and sleeping during the day.

A level of acceptance of her deranged “feminist justice” came out of the societal traditions of chivalry, egalitarianism, tolerance and acceptance of women’s pranks and emotional manipulation, men’s protectionism of their cherished families, wives, sisters and mothers and – above all – the good ole’ American political wisdom of “the motherhood and apple pie” which always worked election time wonders for politicians of all hues.

In her sick mind of a grand-scale sociopath, it is the ultimate justice to use false allegations as the staple tool of the viciously anti-male “feminist justice”, state-sponsored and committed Nazi-style violence against men, on the massive scale, with men being thrown out on the street in thousands, daily; arrested, jailed, killed, stripped of their rights and dignity, their children and parental rights, and turned into financial slaves to the gleeful cheers and hollering of the lynch mobs of feminists armed with VAWA’s law, the massive inflows of billions in taxpayers’ money, mass media they control and censor for political correctness MacDworkin style, massive police protection and political chicanery and demagoguery of their fascist-Marxist supporters, of the likes of Senators Joe Biden of Delaware and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. She expresses the essence of the “feminist jurisprudence” lauded and glorified by generations of American-trained lawyers, “I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.”

But none of her delusional rants can be discarded as simply a product of an unstable mind stuck on the idea of women as victims of sex, violence and rape. The MacDworkins are cunning and ruthless creatures, they use their alleged victimhood as a tool for achieving societal dominance; they know perfectly well what they are doing:

I am writing a plan for revenge, a justice plan, a justice poem, a justice map, a geography of justice; I am martial in my heart and military in my mind; I think in strategy and in poems, a daughter of Guevara and Whitman, ready to take to the hills with a cosmic vision of what's crawling around down on the ground; a daughter with an overview; the big view; a daughter with a new practice of righteous rage, against what ain't named and ain't spoken so it can't be prosecuted except by the one it was done to who knows it, knows him; I'm inventing a new practice of random self-defense; I take their habits and characteristics seriously, as enemy, and I plan to outsmart them and win…

From the 1970’s through today the feminist movement had been and is overtaken by a particularly rigid, doctrinaire feminism, the MacDworkinism. Some among avowed feminists find it stifling but only a few ever dared to challenge it – to their public and professional detriment and even demise. Among them were the sex-positive or sex liberal feminists who viewed any sexual activity as pleasurable and healthy, their ranks included S/M lesbians, and were perhaps typified by Susie Bright whose contemporary weekly show “In Bed With Susie Bright” is distributed by Audible.com. She opines on a wide variety of topics from politics to book and movie reviews, but it’s sex that’s the lifeblood of the show, and she concludes each show with her trademark catch phrase “Clits up!”

Camille Anna Paglia, an avowed feminist intellectual and college professor (and a far better writer than Andrea Dworkin, I might add), enjoys challenging the left-wing doctrinaire positions on sex and education. And she does so by arguing from a position which embraces homosexuality, fetishism, and prostitution, as well as… classical education combined with modernistic queer and other such studies.

Over to Camille Paglia’s characterisation of Dworkin's credentials:

Dworkin…has turned a garish history of [her own] mental instability into feminist grand opera. She publicly boasts of her bizarre multiple rapes, assaults, beatings, breakdowns and tacky trauma, as if her inability to cope with life were the patriarchy's fault rather than her own. Dworkin's shrill, kvetching, solipsistic prose has a sloppy, squalling infantilism.

Paglia notes that Dworkin was “the pudgy, clumsy, whiny child at summer camp who was always spilling her milk, dropping her lollipop in the dirt, getting a cramp on the hike, a stone in her shoe, a bee in her hair…this type – pasty bilious, and frumpy – is constantly sick from fall to spring.”

And this type, we should add, turned her mental instability into the feminist grand opera finale – the ridiculosly sick fraud of VAWA they continue to perpetrate on the American people.

Photo by Permission from Murdo Macleod, Scotland’s photo artist extraordinaire www.murdophoto.com

By Murdo Macleod.

http://www.erinoconnor.org/archives/2002/11/feminism_and_ma.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,839992,00.html

http://www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/greer/

Perhaps Andrea’s mother was much wiser than the famed feminist gives her credit for.

Copyright © Eric Ross, Ph.D., 2005.

Eric Ross, Ph.D.