A riveting question. Stacy McCain answers by looking at noted nut case Joyce Terblicot
America lost a valuable source of feminist craziness when Professor Joyce Trebilcot died in 2009 at age 74. For more than three decades, Trebilcot supplied the feminist movement with its necessary raw material — insanity — and in its obituary of this distinguished academic, Washington University St. Louis described her contributions:
Trebilcot, who joined the University in 1970 as assistant professor of philosophy, helped found the women’s studies major in 1972 and the program in 1975. She served as coordinator of the program from 1980-1992. . . .
“Working with a group of committed students and faculty, Joyce Trebilcot played an integral role in developing women’s studies at Washington University from a special major into an interdisciplinary program in the 1970s,” said Mary Ann Dzuback, Ph.D., associate professor and director of the Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies Program. . . .
A founding member of the Society for Women in Philosophy and of the editorial board of Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, Trebilcot grew up in Oakland, Calif., and earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of California, Berkeley, and a doctorate from the University of California, Santa Barbara.
Professor Trebilcot left behind a lesbian widow, her partner Jan Crites, as well as a formidable body of insane feminist writings. Perhaps most widely cited was her influential 1974 treatise “Sex Roles: The Argument From Nature,” a landmark work of lunatic feminism.
Addressing herself to the question of whether male/female sex roles are justified by “natural psychological differences between the sexes,” Professor Trebilcot in effect answered, “So what?”
In this paper I argue that whether there are natural psychological differences between females and males has little bearing on the issue of whether society should reserve certain roles for females and others for males. . . .
The question is, after all, not what women and men naturally are, but what kind of society is morally justifiable. In order to answer this question, we must appeal to the notions of justice, equality, and liberty. It is these moral concepts, not the empirical issue of sex differences, which should have pride of place in the philosophical discussion of sex roles.
There is much more nuttiness in the post, go read it all, and pass it around please! If we can make enough people understand how vile and KRAZY Feminism is we might be able to stamp out this curse in our lifetime. Now, I know that might seem strong but there is nothing but insanity in Feminism, it is not healthy, sorry, it just isn’t. What Feminism requires is for its followers to reject reality, nature, and reason and accept a delusional view of the world where natural, inherent differences between the sexes is not only frowned upon, but forbidden. In pursuit of “liberating” women, this Feminism seeks to enslave women to anger, bitterness, more anger, self-denial, still more anger and hatred towards motherhood, men, and their own natural desires to become mothers. SICK!