Sorry that I have been absent for so long. Bit of a burnout – plus I was really really really busy with behind-the-scenes anti-jihad activities…and translations of what has been happening in Europe.
But, all that aside: I’m back!
And, for your viewing pleasure, I shall present the latest from Thunderf00t…but, before I do, there are a few little details I’d like to bring to your attention.
First of all, I would like you to either recall or re-read CodeSlinger’s most excellent guest post on Cultural Marxism (along with its comments). It is an important primer to understanding ‘third wave feminism’ in general and Thunderf00t’s criticism of it in particular.
OK, let’s-a-go:
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 
January 9, 2016 at 12:20
Gender is so 2015.
January 13, 2016 at 18:01
Xanthippa:
It’s great to see Thunderf00t shine the light of reason on some of the intellectual excrement that passes for scholarship among feminists. Such has swill has spread to almost every nook and cranny of the cultural Marxist indoctrination facilities that were once universities.
However, to call feminism crazy is to whitewash the true state of affairs. Feminism is crazy like a fox: it’s psychobabble is carefully crafted to serve the cultural Marxist agenda. The proof is found in the writings of leading feminists, like Dr. Kelly Oliver, the W. Alton Jones Chair of Philosophy and Professor of Women’s Studies at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. Take, for example, her paper
Oliver, K, 1989: Keller’s gender/science system: is the philosophy of science to science as science is to nature? Hypatia, 3(3):137-148.
The abstract reads
I argue that although in “The Gender/Science System,” Keller intends to formulate a middle ground position in order to open science to feminist criticisms without forcing it into relativism, she steps back into objectivism. While she endorses the dynamic-object model for science, she endorses the static-object model for philosophy of science. I suggest that by modeling her methodology for philosophy on her methodology for science her philosophy would better serve her feminist goals.
And the paper ends with the following paragraph:
I propose that in order to be revolutionary, feminist theory cannot claim to describe what exists, or, “natural facts.” Rather, feminist theories should be political tools, strategies for overcoming oppression in specific concrete situations. The goal, then, of feminist theory, should be to develop strategic theories – not true theories, not false theories, but strategic theories. This strategy for theory making does away with the monodimensional power structure which polarizes all theories as either true or false. Theory legitimation no longer rests with the absolute authority of the Truth of nature. Nature itself becomes a function of a complex network of strategies of individual, and communities of, scientists and theorists. This is not to suggest that all of these strategies are conscious or intentional to all of those who employ them. Feminist theories, on the other hand, can be conscious strategies with which to undermine and dissolve the oppressive “strategy” of patriarchy, one part of which is the construction of the absolute authority of recalcitrant nature.
This paper presents mainstream cultural Marxist thought.
It was published in a peer-reviewed sociology journal, by a highly-respected feminist who holds professorships in Philosophy, African-American Diaspora Studies, Film Studies, and Women’s and Gender Studies.
Papers like this one prove that these “Minority Studies” are not legitimate academic disciplines; they are arenas for the formulation and execution of strategies to undermine and destroy Western culture, which they call the White Christian Hetero-Patriarchy.
They say so in their own words.
January 16, 2016 at 00:45
How do I get off this planet?