Sixteen Volts

It should be painfully obvious anybody who is not bli... I mean visually challenged that feminism and socialism are one, and that one is socialism.

Just like all leftists, all women's rights advocates must necessarily oppose the free market and advocate the collective, because their ideas have failed the free market test so often that they have learned to not even think about it. The memetic entanglement between feminism and socialism is so strong that I bet that nobody who reads this is able to name even one significant feminist who supports free market and freedom of association, who wants taxes to be lower and various welfare transfers decreased, or who thinks that nuclear power is a good and clean way to produce electricity and electricity itself is a good thing.

In a free market where people get to freely choose how they want to live their own lives as long as they pay for it themselves, feminists would have the right to be feminists and discriminate against men as much as they want. However, the problem is that the vast majority of normal people would never voluntarily choose any aspect of leftism and feminism into their own lives. Given a free choice, few men will voluntarily pay more taxes so that single mothers could have a cushier and materially more comfortable life, enjoy the poetry of Maya Angelou and accept transsexual people to be anything else but mentally ill and pitiful freaks. This is why feminism will necessarily become totalitarianism, since it absolutely needs the state to legislate its edicts for the rabble, and a thought police to enforce them.

And why is it that in the grassroots level, so many feminists seem to be total losers in both their financial lives and their relationships with men, and so many seem to be taking psych medications or have lost their battle against morbid obesity a long time ago, or both? As inherently humorous as such people are, it would be truly interesting to once see even one feminist that doesn't fit any of these criteria.

A while back, I submitted my earlier post "They won't wait, they won't rest, they attack continuously" to the Carnival of Feminists, thinking that I would get at least humourous rejection message out of it. Well, lo and behold, the proprietor of the carnival didn't apparently "get" the subtle satire in my post and was therefore tricked to include it! I have to chuckle when I think of all progressive leftists who read this post and first felt massive outrage because of the true woman-hating incident described in it, but then suddenly realized what was said between the lines which makes it forbidden for them to say anything negative about these naughty and sexist men or even think about the whole incident. I didn't find anybody linking to it, but judging from what I could see in SiteMeter, there was certainly some emailing going on.

I doubt that I could be similarly lucky in future. Perhaps in this spirit, we could take a quick look at what feminists are really like, in their own words, seeing that the eleventh carnival and "Link Farm and Open Thread #16" are up for handy perusal. This way, you don't just have to take my word for it, but can see for yourselves what feminism is like. It's time to mock the mockable and dig up the ridiculous --- it's a dirty and disgusting work, but somebody has to do it, and I shouldn't complain that this important task has fallen on my shoulders.

I wonder if it would be possible to be more politically correct and pomo relativist than "Definition". Hey, when somebody can write things like "You are what you are, and no matter what you look like, someone out there will think you’re the most beautiful thing on the face of the Earth" with a straight face, they shouldn't be surprised if somebody will think that they are the most inane thing on the face of the Earth.

The proprietor of "Den of the Biting Beaver" seems quite angry against the male gender. One can't deny that she writes better than many others, though, and at least she is honest and open in her hatred of men and porn. The post "Another day, another rant about marriage" explains why she is headed towards financial bankruptcy. The hypocrisy of this post is astonishing: feminists are eager to claim that in divorce, at least half and preferably all ex-husband's assets and future earnings should rightfully belong to the wife, but then don't seem quite as eager to claim that then the ex-husband's debts also belong to the wife. Not quite as fun that way, methinks. For some reason, the post "Stripping...my experience" gave me an impression of a young woman with above-average looks getting involved with various violent and thus exciting men and rejecting the decent men, and now that she is older, she hates all men for the consequences of this choice. Tough cookies. Also, once again, when a hunter is chasing rabbit, she is blind to mountains:

When a man would pay me to give him a lap dance I would spend the entire time internally laughing at his breath, his pimples, his fat belly, anything and everything I could.

I guess that not everybody is "beautiful", especially the fat middle-aged men. Naturally, for reasons that anybody can infer by thinking about it for a minute, "fat acceptance" really means acceptance of morbidly obese women, since otherwise those disgusting fat guys might get ideas. The post "I Wanna Dance Naked" of Vegankid makes me wonder if the music accompanying the picture was "Baby Elephant Walk". A few months ago conservative columnist John Derbyshire made the mistake of admitting that women's attractiveness peaks around 16 or 17 or so, and was widely chastised for this. But remember, this picture is what the progressive men consider attractive. Tell me, which preference is really more mockworthy? Vegankid also features "Blog Against Heteronormativity Day", which at least I am already looking forward to.

(Speaking of Derbyshire, all my chums at the go boardgame club might enjoy listening to Derb Radio. Yes, this means especially you, Markku and Tiedemies. It's like, I knew that Derb is a Briton who later became a naturalized American, but never really realized this fact until I heard him speak.)

Statistical discrimination of groups based on their average propensity of violence and mayhem can be either good or bad, depending on who engages in it. The post "Pink Taxis" describes one situation where it is apparently perfectly acceptable. Although I do have to wonder: will this company pick up black customers?

Speaking of discrimination, the host blog "Angry for a Reason" has a post "Can't afford rent?" about men who advertise for a female roommate who pays her rent with certain nonmonetary means. This seems to make feminists angry, since they think that women are so oppressed that they should be entitled to free housing without any mutually agreed obligations such as rent or anything else that both participants voluntarily agree upon. And to get money, women can't just collect it from trees or take it from the other people's wallets, but they actually have to do something for the person that gives the money. For socialists, such voluntary transactions are somehow "slavery". And this from the crowd that is constantly complaining about male "entitlement", even though they obviously don't even know what the word "entitlement" means, since they can't even see their own hypocrisy when these little socialists act like they are entitled to the wealth produced by other people, which is to be collected by force and then distributed to women aby some central committee of wise women. The next quote doesn't use this particular word, but still contains the same strange idea:

Oh yesiree, we have reached the age where men (no women place the ads, how strange) seem to think that it's ok to exploit women's need for shelter and their inherent belief that all women will want to have sex with their socially inept, misogynistic, slimy selves.

Frankly, I just don't get this logic. Obviously, the men who placed these ads don't believe that all women want to have sex with them. If they did, they wouldn't have to advertise and look for a woman that will, but they could just grab the nearest woman who walks by.

In a related topic, the post "Prostitutes = Pizza" complains about the way the bad-boy alpha male actor Colin Farrell, soon to play the part of Sonny Crockett himself, defended his use of prostitutes in a recent interview. I am not entirely sure why prostitution should not be allowed to be a straightforward commercial transaction but the client must be made to jump through hoops first, but then again, I am not enlightened. The comments soon start wondering why it is that men in general have to pay women for casual sex more often than other way around, considering that women's sex drive is "just as strong" as men's. Dunno, maybe those men are "fat", "pimply", "socially inept" or "slimy". Of course Colin is none of these things, but he perhaps echoes the sentiment of an earlier pussyhound who said that he pays women to leave his bed, not to enter it. Dang, if I could find the article that I once read that reported that when Colin goes to a strip club, the strippers there compete who gets to service him. And here I thought that strippers were supposed to despise all their customers. I guess "all" in this context really meant "gamma males".

This thread also reminds me of a panel discussion I saw many years ago on Finnish TV. The topic was prostitution, and the numerous gang included the head of the largest feminist organization of Finland. She said with a straight face (and I don't think that I'll ever forget this) that prostitution should be unnecessary, because any "tidy" and "smart" man is able to go out and find himself a sex partner. The qualifiers "tidy" and "smart" are here translated from the original Finnish words "siisti" and "fiksu", but the problem is that when used in this context, these words have connotations that their literal translations into English don't have. In the practical usage, a man is said to be "tidy" if he shows outward signs of higher-than-average social class. (As an amusing sidebar, a similar but even more humorous euphemism that is used in personal ads is to look for a "university-educated" partner, which in reality has nothing to do with education but means that the person shouldn't display any obvious working-class mannerisms or ways of speaking.)

There is one delightfully sane commenter, though, and this is made even more delightful by the fact that she is a lesbian woman. In the follow-up post "A comment that deserves its own post", even the blog proprietor has to admit that she has certain points.

Prostitution and rape are, of course, the same thing, as far as feminists are concerned. What makes the feminist opposition of rape so particularly funny is that male prison rape is a standard staple of leftist humour. I guess rape can be perfectly OK, depending who it is used against.

"Persephone's Box" offers a passionate defense of Valerie Solanas. Oh, but of course we don't think that wanting to cut up men is good, but it is a simple fact that the ideal woman of modern feminism is mentally ill, which I guess is somehow intrinsically rebellious. As Panu has often pointed out, in practice a "strong woman" is indistinguishable from somebody with a narcissistic or sociopathic personality disorder.

As an analogy why men should be inherently suspicious of feminism, The Danimal once asked readers to imagine that children came up with an ideology of "childism" and then start rewriting the laws to their advantage, especially laws that coincidentally make it easier for children to have adults thrown into jail, all the while proclaiming that despite the name of their ideology, they just want equality between all people. Fortunately, children are stupid and weak, so that is not going to happen, but it is an interesting thought experiment. I was reminded of this by the post "Children and the Vote" which doesn't really argue this, but presents an interesting question why exactly children are not allowed to vote.

If there is one thing that you learn here, it's that despite what you might have heard, feminists really really really don't like porn. Especially "lesbian" porn, which must be the single greatest act of "culture jamming" ever executed anywhere. The patriarchy can said to be many things, but at least it is very tricksy! Since the producers of the show "The L-Word" know what the mainstream audience wants to see, the show can't really cater to actual lesbians and maintains its ratings and be profitable at the same time. The post "Fuck The L-Word" by "Black Academic" seems very angry about this.

To conclude, let's hope that feminists will one day get to live in their beloved socialism. But I hope equally vehemently that I don't have to live there.

Posted by Ilkka Kokkarinen on Monday, March 27, 2006 at 1:14 PM