The New Politics of Sex
Paul Craig Roberts
Several years ago four of us who were high school and Georgia Tech classmates got together for a reunion to remember the fun times of our youth while we could still remember. A day or two before our reunion there had been one of those massive “gay pride” marches in New York or San Francisco. One of us asked where so many members of the Queer Nation had come from as we had experienced high school and college without ever encountering a homosexual.
We poured over our high school class and the people we knew at Tech—in those days there were only 5,200 male students at Georgia Tech, most from Georgia as it was a state supported college—and couldn’t come up with a homosexual. Someone joked that there weren’t enough closets for the numbers of people in the gay pride parade to hide in. We all agreed that we didn’t have any idea where so many homosexuals had materialized from, acknowledged that we in our youth had suspected that homosexuals were a mythical creature like unicorns, and went on to more interesting topics.
Having just finished reading Stephen Baskerville’s book, The New Politics of Sex (https://www.amazon.com/New-Politics-Sex-Revolution-Governmental/dp/1621382893/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Stephen+Baskerville&qid=1578436071&s=books&sr=1-1 ), I found myself remembering the puzzlement of our classmate reunion and wondering if Baskerville had given us the answer. Has radical feminism driven men into each other’s arms? Has the relationship between male and female become so unsatisfying and loaded with danger for men that men have developed erotic interest in men?
Perhaps this is a politically incorrect question. It would be impossible to investigate, because, as Baskerville points out, any reasonable, even evidence-backed, criticism of feminism, is regarded as a personal attack on women.
Even in universities where free inquiry and free speech has, in the past, had the widest scope, opposition to feminist pronouncements can mean termination, tenure not withstanding.
In short, radical feminists rule academia. Even areas of science are being politicized. Academic feminists are proud of their power and boast about it in the same way that Israel’s leaders boast about their power over the United States.
The feminists’ power extends into the broader society. The cover of the Atlantic Monthly boasts “The End of Men,” and Hanna Rosin proclaims “women are taking control of everything.”
Unfortunately, this is not a false claim.
Feminists have politicized sex. They teach that heterosexual intercourse is men oppressing women. If the female partner doesn’t understand that she is being oppressed, it is because the “male world” has brainwashed her. Radical feminist Catherine MacKinnon has declared all heterosexual sex to be rape.
Inexplicably, heterosexual male legislators are legislating a radical feminist legal system in which a man who asks a woman for a date can be quilty of sexual harrassment, and a man who shows realization of an attractive woman is quilty of “eye rape.”
Feminists have destroyed marriage and the relationship between men and women, due process for accused men, and they have brought government into the family, endowing bureaucracy with the power to seize, with federal subsidies, children from parents, and to put them in foster homes where they are sedated and, according to some investigators, sometimes leased or sold to pedophiles.
Feminism has degenerated from the vote for women and acceptance in the work place of men –which is what many women who are not paying attention regard as feminism– into an attack on men. Heterosexual men have no greater enemy than feminists. Catherine MacKinnon makes that completely clear.
The marginalization of men, and perhaps their extermination, is the explicit goal of radial feminism.
Baskerville wonders if men are so weak and defeated that they will accept their demise.