Usage of “political correctness” and “feminazism”

Salem witch trials – is this the payback?

A certain person asked me yesterday to desist from using “political correctness” and I’ll also throw in “feminazism” and possibly “thought police”. There’s more than one post in this but I’ll do what I can in one.

If you go to Orphans of Liberty, the centre-right and/or libertarian site, you’ll see all terms used and around the sphere too.

Political correctness

The concerned person writes:

PC, when it first appeared on the scene – political correctness (even then the term never rang quite right to me) was in relation to the use of offensive descriptive words, ethnic slurs, etc. about another individual or group. It was a matter of trying to enforce courtesy on those whose ignorant or thoughtless conversation or writing was upsetting to others. Since then it has gradually been the label for all kinds of stuff one group or another doesn’t quite like (along with socialist, fascist, Marxist….etc. also used too often in the wrong places). I know that’ll get you going.  😉

There’s much truth in there – it has been wrongly applied in many cases but also correctly used in many others. OK, here’s PCishness, as defined by Wiki:

Political correctness (adjectivally, politically correct; both forms commonly abbreviated to PC) is a term which denotes language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, certain other religions, beliefs or ideologies, disability, and age-related contexts, and, as purported by the term, doing so to an excessive extent. In current usage, the term is primarily pejorative,[1][2] while the term politically incorrect has been used as an implicitly positive self-description.

The reason for the broadening of the term is in the words underlined here. Thus, in this post from long ago, we see such things as:

· Early in 2005, in the United Kingdom, a government think tank wanted schools to replace the term “Failure”, for under-achieving students who did not pass their exams, with the term “Deferred Success”, so they would not “feel sad”.

· A London educational conference was told, in 2003: “Everything written before 1970 was either gender or racially biased” and that “reading and writing are merely technologies of control.” Therefore, writers like Shakespeare are now out of favour.

· American historian and educator, Diane Ravitch, in 2003, quoted guidelines by New York publishing houses for prospective writers:

“Topics not to include are: abortion, death or disease, criminals, magic, politics, religion, unemployment, weapons, violence, poverty, divorce, slavery, alcohol or addiction. Women cannot be depicted as mothers or caregivers or doing household work. Men cannot be depicted as lawyers, doctors or plumbers. African citizens are not to be portrayed in a negative light. None of these things can be themes in any publications handled by us.”

It’s hard to know which criticism should scramble to the top of the list to be addressed first. Perhaps the enormous damage done to society, its stagnation, its loss of discretion and common sense, the inability to think for oneself without referring to a tome of regulations – it goes on and on.

The issue is just as much psychological/political as it is practical. That concerned person, by the very act of even making that particular criticism, shows she’d be hardwired and inured against seeing the above examples as sheer lunacy, something any number of bloggers could actually see.   In fact, she might be trying to wind me up, rather than learn: “I know that’ll get you going. ;-)”.

To us, it’s self-evident, as Jefferson might have said. Actually, that thing Jefferson said was self-evident would not be evident at all to a hardwired globalist.

So there’s our first problem – nothing I can write here will sway the concerned person or anyone else who sees only the need to use nice words towards each other and that it’s quite OK for the State to enforce that, to beat us down with a big stick for not being tolerant.

The irony in that does pass undetected.

Another site puts it a bit differently:

What Is Political Correctness?
Political Correctness (PC) is the communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behaviour, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished. (see Newspeak) It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became unwritten and written law within the community. With those who were publicly declared as being not politically correct becoming the object of persecution by the mob, if not prosecution by the state.

The Odious Nature Of Political Correctness
To attempt to point out the odious nature of Political Correctness is to restate the crucial importance of plain speaking, freedom of choice and freedom of speech; these are the community’s safe-guards against the imposition of tyranny, indeed their absence is tyranny (see “On Liberty”, Chapter II, by J.S. Mill). Which is why any such restrictions on expression such as those invoked by the laws of libel, slander and public decency, are grave matters to be decided by common law methodology; not by the dictates of the mob.

Clear Inspiration For Political Correctness
The declared rational of this tyranny is to prevent people being offended; to compel everyone to avoid using words or behaviour that may upset homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the stupid, the fat or the ugly. This reveals not only its absurdity but its inspiration. The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation (those who fought the Second World War), which is why the terms niggers, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics and sheilas, have become heresy, for, in an act of infantile rebellion, their subject have become revered by the new generation. Political Correctness is merely the resentment of spoilt children directed against their parent’s values.

In this we see the destructive nature of PCism, the way it simply debilitates society. The expression “he doesn’t know whether he’s coming or going anymore” or “he doesn’t know if he’s Arthur or Martha anymore” is apt in this situation. By placing so many regulations on people, setting up huge, expensive bureaucracies to administer them, when those people could have been employed in something actually productive, in using the big stick of The Law to beat people down, to incarcerate and fine them for the slightest perceived offence, not to mention the sheer wastage of resources in trying to formally establish this, drags society away from its productive purpose in keeping itself strong and healthy and gets mired in an endless cycle of charge and counter-charge.

It also sets people at each other’s throats and creates bitter resentment, let alone a complete failure to communicate. Whereas once we could communicate with so many, PCism is the wedge which gets in and divides, creates tribes, defines labels.

It was put more clearly here:

The proponents of this social demolition achieve their irrational purpose by publicly embracing absurdity through slogans while vilifying any who do not support their stance. The purpose of the slogan is to enshrine irrational fears, or fancies, as truth through the use of presumptuous words, so public pronouncement:

  • Dissembles the real nature of the claim
  • Identifies any dissenters as enemies of the truth
  • Acts as an excuse for any crimes committed in its name

For example the slogan Australia is Multicultural is a claim that:

  • Different cultures are compatible.
  • People who contradict this claim are blinded by prejudice against other cultures.
  • People who contradict this claim are trouble-making bigots, which makes them enemies of the community, if not humanity, and deserving persecution.

All of which is an attack upon truth, clear thinking and plain speaking.

Now I’d lay money that those of a certain political persuasion would not be able to relate to that quote just quoted. Why not? Once upon a time, there was not the current day failure to communicate, the creation of almost new, mutually-exclusive species, each backbiting at the other.

There was an anecdote by a daughter in Australia of how her Italian father came to the country and realized early on that he needed to know about cricket to assimilate. So he studied the rules, attended a few games and then went up to a few of these locals and conversed with them about it. He was accepted, even though he was given stick for being Italian. Gradually, he became highly respected, that is he won his spurs and the locals started sampling his cuisine. He set up a shop in the area and it became famous.

Nowhere in this was there a police officer to charge those locals with social policy violations, nowhere was he thinking of doing anything but fitting in, just as I did in Russia. I didn’t go to Russia thinking I was going to impose my culture on them, as the gay mafia does on the 94%. I didn’t go there demanding my right to apartheid with no consequences. I went there knowing I had to fit in as quickly as possible.

Ditto when I went to France, got off the beaten track and insisted on trying to speak French to them. They put up with it for five minutes, made all sorts of outrageous jokes at my expense and then accepted me, still with the occasional joke. Give me that any time over standing in that bar as a foreign island, defensive, ready to fight.

PCism creates that latter scenario.

Quite frankly, it’s destructive by all rational measures and that which it attempts to beat into people is simply quietly resisted.  In fact, it polarizes people so much that they range from laughing about it to getting their backs up, as I do. Not only are they no further advanced in PCist “all love one another uniformly, using a common twisted lexicon” but they’ve actually gone backwards – intolerance is vastly more rife today than pre-PC.

Dropping the terms “PCism” or “political correctness” does not alter the phenomenon itself and so we’d need to find another to describe it. In those quotes, it’s called “communal tyranny” or “social demolition”. Perhaps we could call it “social engineering”. All of those terms touch on it but don’t quite encapsulate the issue.

Now you know and I know that it’s not actually just the term that certain persons would like us to drop but the ideas behind it too. That is, I should voluntarily forego one of the key targets. It’s like asking our authorities who detained a 911 suspect to let him go because he was part of an ethnic minority protected under social policy. The American public would really have loved that.  It’s like saying not to act the banksters because Jamie might be saddened or offended by this attitude.   It’s like saying not to refer to the Belgian paedophiles [tomorrow] as lowlifes because 1] we don’t use such language in front of ladies and 2] these offenders might be upset about the level of disgust.

One aspect which has been commented on endlessly about PCism is it’s hypocrisy. This below is about the rewriting of Huck Finn:

To me, this issue with Huck Finn pretty much summarizes the hypocrisy of political correctness (see Stephen Colbert’s great take on this). Replacing a word with another word that represents the same thing is not only pointless, but also ludicrous. This absurdity reaches its maximum expression when the “dirty” word is simply replaced by a made-up word consisting of the first letter, then a hyphen, then “word” (e.g., “n-word”, “c-word”, “f-word”).

And for what good purpose? However, it still doesn’t add up to hypocrisy per se, just mania. This does though:

And this takes me to something that, after all these years, still bugs me about the American culture: why are these words so bad for people to hear on TV, while the most graphic violence is perfectly allowed?

There is the hypocrisy. It’s being so tied up in irrelevance that one misses the actual oppression going on and not only that, utterly failing to own guilt in that when it is pointed out. By calling the police to arrest me for saying “black”, when it is a perfectly good term and one which blacks use themselves, is an act of oppression on me. In fact, my human rights are being violated. I’m so sensitive that you can hear me sobbing from your computer.

Ah but they’re not violated, are they, my human rights? My human rights actually don’t exist because I’m not written into the Social Policy chapter. I asked the head honcho at work what happens when a male over 50 is discriminated against? She answered that it doesn’t exist, that it’s not a designated group within the Social Policy chapter. Off the grid. When I asked her about the “fairness” of that, she smiled and said her hands were tied.

I’d like to pause for breath and ask that concerned person if she sees even the teensiest bit of hypocrisy going on in that response?  No?

Finally, what is the effect of all this on society?

Evidence of this effect is amply demonstrated by the Soviets, who embraced Political Correctness with the Communist Revolution. The lumbering, pompous, impoverished, humourless monster this Nation became is now History. And it should be remembered that in 1914 Tsarist Russia was considered by Edmund Cars, a French economist who then published a book about the subject, to be an economic giant set to overshadow Europe.


This is certainly pejorative, that’s conceded and the reason it’s employed is through anger, deep anger at the damage done by these evil people. Like the nazis who did do certain infrastructural things on the visible fabric, the damage they did was both visible and invisible. Nazism is used in feminazism because there is that element of coercion, of toeing the party line, of Correct-think and it’s particularly useful because the left loves to bandy about the terms “capitalist” and “fascist”, their twin betes-noirs [not sure of my French here]. It shows the feminists that they are just as fascist as anyone they attack, even down to figurative book burnings and rewritings.

That they singularly have failed to accept their guilt is indicative in itself. Feminazism is a most apt term. And it is just as hypocritical as PCism. Minette Marrin:

We hear endless complaints about misogyny, but actually misandry rules. Or if not exactly misandry, a profound misunderstanding of masculinity.

None of the sane women I know could be described as necessarily pro-male, as in anti-female. Of course they’re concerned about the lot of their sex but they’re more concerned with people as a whole, rather than with one section of people, be it women, gays, Bengalis or trainspotting anoraks. Like me, they’re into people’s right to freedom, rather than to women’s rights or men’s rights and that’s why we can do business together.

There do exist women though, plus a certain type of self-styled white-knight who would flat-out reject what was written above and detect “hatred for women” in it. Funnily enough, it is women who can be the most incisive and scathing, which is why they’re forever good value to quote from.

Linda Lichter put it nicely [link no longer works]:

At least a decade before the siege of political correctness, I was silenced by the unconscious but relentless intimidation of female friends and colleagues who are educated, self-sufficient, and eager consumers of the latest feminist books. I am supposed to owe the authors of those books unqualified gratitude for all the hard-won rights the Titanic women never enjoyed.

I would add another [thing here]: that emotional and physical esteem for women is central, not tangential, to manhood. The British statesman Lord Chesterfield, a favorite source of Victorian etiquette writers, believed everyday deference was due to all women because it provided their only shield against men’s superior physical strength.

He added, “no provocation whatsoever can justify any man in not being civil to every woman; and the greatest man would justly be reckoned a brute if he were not civil to the meanest woman.”

The feminazis are hellbent on provoking men beyond all reason into detesting them and unfortunately, by extension, all women. It is quite rampant in the UK and so many of my male friends and colleagues will either go silent or make snide remarks when no female is present. There’s no point a woman telling me the opposite because it is precisely from women that this has been hidden. Even Greer predicted this correctly, knowing that what she unleashed would have that effect, as night follows day and what was worse – not giving a damn about the other half of humanity.

Yet it’s sane women who know their sex best and how it fits in with the other sex for their mutual benefit.

Ruth Malhotra gets down to specifics:

The notion of victimhood, that “women are oppressed and exploited,” evokes strong anti-male sentiment.

Many influential feminists demonstrate extreme animosity towards marriage and family life, even likening the institution of marriage to that prostitution.

In Feminism: An Agenda, radical feminist author Andrea Dworkin declared that the home was a dangerous place stating, “Like prostitution, marriage is an institution that is extremely oppressive and dangerous for women.”

The feminist agenda is offensive to women. With Eve Ensler and her contemporary cheerleaders in the feminist movement, initiatives such as the “Vagina Monologues” have become a central part of Women’s Awareness Month programming on campuses around the country.

The “Vagina Monologues,” often promoted as a wonderfully inspiring event to empower women, is, in reality, nothing more than an atrociously written anti-male tirade, portraying women as pathetic sexual objects who will forever be victims. Such programs are not only blatantly offensive towards women but are vile and vulgar.

So there is this phenomenon that the very worst of humankind is found in feminazis and the very best in sane, rational women whom I’ve just quoted and who can put these things better than I ever could. I’m in awe of this kind of woman.

Having just said “the very worst of humankind is found in feminazis”, it’s because of their utter unreasonableness, their inability to take on board that they are not the white-knightettes for women they imagine themselves to be but the black knightettes committed to the destruction of women. They’re so quick to drop into the one or two word putdowns and their male supporters are the same – look at the armed forces post comments and the word I was called by the honourable and worthy namesake of an early English king.

So, is there justification for using the term “feminazi”? I contend that there very much is.


Emailed since yesterday’s post by a reader – LOL, so it’s not just me then:

And a few minutes ago from a real, live, honest-to-goodness actual woman [double LOL]:

Why can’t women put on mascara with their mouth closed?

16 comments for “Usage of “political correctness” and “feminazism”

  1. March 20, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

  2. Able
    March 20, 2012 at 12:45 pm


    I agree with your analysis and sentiments completely (but then being a white, heterosexual male that’s only due to my misogyny and my opinion is of course therefore worthless).

    As you say the examples of the feminist idiocy are all about us (my worst personal experience is the ‘Family’ Court where the belief that any woman, whether an alcoholic, drug-user, with psychiatric problems like my ex, is better than any man runs rife) the consequences for society are apparent to anyone who bothers to look.

    The only point I query is that of the ‘sane women’. Yes, I am fully aware there are some but, from experience, even those who decry the blatant bias in the system very rarely attack those mechanisms of that system which reward them. An example? How about the, previously mentioned, Family court (with womans automatic right to the children), the blatant bias in divorce settlements (stayed with a partner for two years, living off their income, and the automatic right to live of them for the rest of your life, doesn’t work for a man though), priorities in housing (because they’re equal but more vulnerable), benefits (because they’re equal but more in need of help) health (because they’re equal, and stronger, but ill more often and demand more attention) – the list is endless. At best the philosophy is questioned but very rarely the systems which tell them they are superior and then reward them for ignoring the hypocrisy.

    The other issue I thought of on reading was the every increasing feminisation of society. In that I mean the shift from black/white judgements (traditionally seen as masculine although not exclusively exercised by men) towards ‘shades of grey’ (traditionally seen as feminine, although again not exercised exclusively by women).

    The changes in the ‘Justice’ system, sentencing and justifications accepted illustrate this surely? The education systems shift to the ‘no one should lose or fail’ ideology. The general refusal to allow any aspect of risk in life (H&S anyone?).

    Ah well, what do I know, I’m just a scummy (closet rapist, paedophile, violent, oppressive) male 🙁 (Oh, and apparently I smell, am too stupid to know how to clean the oven, cook, can’t dance and have terrible chat up-lines too – yes I watch advertisements and films lol)

    • March 20, 2012 at 1:33 pm

      The demoralization of men [don’t count me because I have a strange CV] can be seen in comments like yours, Able and they are by no means isolated. Two years ago I was on a sort of work programme thingy and the entire room, bar the two females in there, was of the same opinion. Having returned from overseas not long before, I didn’t know what the hell had happened to the British male.

      Then I looked more closely at people’s blogs on the matter.

      • Able
        March 20, 2012 at 5:10 pm

        I’m not sure demoralisation is the correct word, what is? I’m not sure. I do believe, from talking and listening to other men, that there is a pressure cooker of resentment building.

        I wonder if the rash of ‘end of the world’ films, tv shows, books, etc. is an indicator of the subconscious wish for a catastrophic end to the madness? For then, and I suspect only then, would the feminists realise that society, as it was structured, was for womens protection/benefit, and that strong men protecting the weak, AKA chivalry, is not so out-dated as they thought.

        I’ll just get on with packing my TEOTWAWKI supplies shall I? What’s the best calibre for a zombie feminazi politician? 😉

  3. Voice of Reason
    March 20, 2012 at 12:58 pm

    1. If you want to know about the opposite of feminism, try Afghanistan, India, etc.
    2. One of the wonderful things about labelling ‘-isms’ (sexism, racism, scientism)is that once that label is attached, a party has only to invoke that same label to terminate discussion when losing on the facts.

    • March 20, 2012 at 1:28 pm

      No disagreement at all – the one does not mutually exclude the other and the other is a post which needs writing over and over.

      • Able
        March 20, 2012 at 5:24 pm

        Voice of Reason

        Whilst technically correct I feel it needs expanding.

        Feminism, as I understood it, was the belief that women are equal in all things to men. In fact the definition is listed as:

        “The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.”

        Feminism as it has been since legal equality was reached has been about the superiority of women. Morally, emotionally, intellectually whilst, of course, hypocritically demanding special, preferential, additional treatment for women as somehow either needing or deserving it more than men in similar circumstances.

        So in reality the opposite of Feminism is…. feminism as it is currently preached, so just as the article indicated then?

        I’m not disagreeing, just elucidating (waffling I believe it’s called) 😉

        • Voice of Reason
          March 20, 2012 at 8:37 pm

          I noted years ago that, in almost all US comedy shows, the father is portrayed as an idiot, while the mother is generally competent and in charge. Does this message get through to the kids.

          By the way, I consider myself a feminist, in the sense of equal opportunity, playing by the same rules. And yes, I have been dragged through the coals in divorce court, including on custody issues.

  4. March 20, 2012 at 5:18 pm

    Feminazi, like ecofascist, is a term which is pithy and accurate. That’s why feminazis and ecofascists detest those terms so much.

  5. Lilith
    March 20, 2012 at 8:36 pm

    I don’t like the term Feminazi but I do know what you mean. About the superiority and permanent victim status shit. My understanding of being a Feminist is that women are equal to men and not inferior. I read all of Dworkin back in the day. I loved her. She wrote like a man, ie. she asserted her opinions and observations like they mattered. She had a terrible life. A proper victim. To me Feminism is about sloughing off the victim role. Refusing to play it when life offers it to you on a plate.

    The Feminism that grew up in the seventies was a direct result of left wing women getting fed up of being called chicks and expected to shag anyone who asked. Of course for these women “All men are bastards”..they had been hanging out with narcissistic socialists ffs.

  6. March 20, 2012 at 10:52 pm

    I also considered myself a feminist but had to change the term as my idea didn’t sit well with the 1970’s Greer type feminists. They didn’t want equality they wanted a war. Part of the challenge to all things Western; family,education,politics. It all came straight out of the Frankfurt school. Lucky for me most of it turned me off the idea of a particular ‘women’s’politics. The ones making all the noise tended to be middle class and university educated. While little old me was working class and didn’t go to uni till in my 30’s both of which have greatly shaped my views on life. Equality for me was simply-don’t keep me out of the race just because I’m female. Let me at the line up. I win or lose according to my own character and talents. But I always knew equality with men would present women with trade off’s.We cannot be an equal breadwinner and claim we have some extra edge or bond when it comes to who gets the kids. If we do have these special bonds( I think we do and looked after mine full time), then are we not guilty of child abuse by not providing the child with those benefits that presumably they cannot get from their father or child minder. The biggest test though, and one I did a little piece on on my blog was the war test.If we have conscription again in the future-and it may happen- Do women, aged say between 18-35 get the choice or just given their enlistment orders equally with the young men. I suspect, given the way feminist politics has played out they will get a choice. Which is not equality but preference. Which is what most of them wanted all along. My views leave my feminist friends cold; they still think I’m probably brainwashed-“it’s all that patriarchy” they say. I say stuff you.

  7. Mustapha Bunn
    March 21, 2012 at 4:00 am

    Talking of Greer ….. she was on a chat show here in Oz a couple of nights ago and stated that the Prime Minister,Julia Gillard,wore silly coats…which she does … and that those coats merely emphasised the fact that she has a big backside … which she does.Greer went on to ask the P.M. to stop wearing this type of garment and then perhaps the peasants would stop taking the p**s when down at the pub.
    Naturally the S**t hit the fan.One T.V. presenter threw his dummy out the pram the next day and got really upset and said that the previously “Australian Icon” Greer should not be allowed to talk in such a way as this as she,” doesn’t even live in Australia” !

  8. March 21, 2012 at 5:32 am

    “It was a matter of trying to enforce courtesy on those whose ignorant or thoughtless conversation or writing was upsetting to others.”

    Ah! Once again, the concept that no-one should ever see anything that upsets or distresses them.

    How the hell did we ever have an empire? Did we not have these people around then, or did we just have the good sense not to listen to them?

    And, of course, if it’s for a ‘good cause’, you are positively encouraged to upset and distress people

    • March 21, 2012 at 10:43 am

      Yep – I can see it, you can see it, thousands of people on blogs can see it – why can’t she see it? Where’s the blockage?

  9. Maaarrghk!
    March 21, 2012 at 6:14 am

    I remember an exchange I had with a criminology lecturer on his site a few years back.

    He was of the opinion that words such as “nigger” should be “owned” by a particular section of society. That is to say that any person with black skin (apart from miners) can say “nigger”, but that anyone else cannot and that this should be law.

    Sadly I had no success in pointing out how dangerous a road this was for us to go down, or that it is the tone in which a word is used that can make that word offensive or not.

    Still, I had a little fun dropping “nigger” into our exchange as often as I could.

    “WILL YOU STOP SAYING JEHOVAH! (I mean nigger)

Comments are closed.