Attending yet another arduous class at an unabashedly Leftist university, the conversation about the benefits of Constructionist Theory in the realm of international relations had run out of steam.
It was the next conversation, that I politely told my professor through my headset and camera, that I was looking forward too.
That conversation would be, of course, the applications of Feminist International Relations Theory. Long-winded, I know. But I was chomping at the bit so loudly, the professor was forced to call on me.
He asked, “What do you think of Feminist Theory in IR (International Relations)?” This question was undoubtedly a softball, designed to trap me in one of his infamous Leftist argument tactics: If presented with facts and evidence, tell the student they don’t understand the question.
Regardless of this inevitable response, I proudly proclaimed that Feminism, though initially noble, has lost the plot. It no longer even represents women as an oppressed class, only their ultimate goal of domination over males and the vaunted “Patriarchy”. What I should have said now, in hindsight, was that women have exceeded men in every measurable economic and social category imaginable, and therefore have marked Feminism obsolete. But that is in the past now.
Then the equally inevitable “face palms” came from my classmates, an assortment of Leftist acolytes and a small cohort of military and conservatives (myself and two others). Why such a response, you ask? Well, because I had the audacity to claim that women, at least within my lifetime, have not faced any obstacles to success.
This curious historical a-memory, meaning, that they only remember history as they wish rather than how it actually occurred, fascinates me more than anything that was actually said by anyone tonight. How is possible that Leftists, who regularly disavow history and with astonishing frequency attempt to re-write it, are now adamant of its veracity?
Their Leftist talking points, no doubt drilled into their empty skulls during Cultural Marxism 101 their first year of college, maintain the incredible ability to recall collective misery that happened decades or centuries ago — but can barely remember the hypocrisy inevitably carried out by their fellow travelers at this riot or that one last week.
I should have seen the rest coming before I spoke, but I had made my bed. As a conservative, it’s inevitable that you will face a deluge of derogatory, insulting, rude, and ignorant comments if you ever attempt to speak the truth. It’s a fact of life as a minority, on which the irony to those insulting me is not lost.
My fellow students, several of whom I had considered allies or friends, suddenly betrayed me. How was this possible? We had agreed on the poor state of Socialism in international practice, as well as the rather obtuse and vague writings of Constructionist theorists, like Wendt. Was the paradigm shifting culturally, or was I simply so dumb?
As it turns out, much like “racism” and “sexism”, Feminism — and its many trappings — have become a taboo subject. You will sooner be attacked, either verbally or physically, for speaking out against Feminism and its virus-like behavior, than you would be for saying you’d actually attack someone.
This is where I knew the battle was lost. Though the professor made it clear that I didn’t understand the question (see above), he further expounded that it had “nothing to do with Feminism”. This confused me, since how is it possibly possible that Feminist International Relations Theory (FIRT) can exist, without a foundation to build on? Who had developed FIRT in the first place, and written thousands of books and “academic” articles on the subject? If Feminism did not exist, then what exactly was FIRT?
According to my professor, whose liberal sensitivities I take every opportunity to attack, it is “allowing women an equal opportunity in international decision-making”. A noble goal, I agree. But how do you “allow women an equal opportunity” in anything, without first arraying against it the bogeyman of “patriarchy”? Aren’t women already afforded an incredible amount of opportunity and freedom in the West?
These responses did little to deter my ideological foe from his line of thought. His response, as well as that of the rest of the class (80% are female, mind you), was that FIRT was designed to give women in THIRD-WORLD countries an “equal say”. To which I readily agreed, knowing that my trap had finally been sprung.
I responded in the following: Where then, are all of the feminists in the West — who enjoy the most freedom on planet earth — when it comes to FGM (Female Genital Mutilation), death for adultery, lack of access to education, jobs, or even equal treatment before the law? Why then have the blue-haired lesbianic whales chosen instead to “tear down the patriarchy” that has given them all of the rights to do so?