Sixteen Volts

Say kids, what time is it? It's Loony Toony time! With "Carnival of Feminists XIII" and other great posts being around, it is again time to take a look what our moral superiors have been up to lately. Let us take a look and learn so that we can better know our place in the coming order.

Seeing that even I have linked to "Cat and Girl" for years, I'm surprised that this delightful little webcomic seems to have reached the feminist consciousness only now. But I can be such a surprising feminist sometimes. For example, consider my old essay "My suggestion for an immigration reform". Is there anything in this proposal that feminists should oppose, since it aims to help the poor oppressed young womyn in the Third World by bringing them here alone, freed from their oppressors?

And oppressed these women are. The post "The unprolonged journey, from the womb to the tomb" at "Days in a wannabe punk's life" is an Indian girl's heartfelt scream and cry for her ten million dead sisters in India who were killed by sex-selective abortion. Now, since the official feminist opinion is that abortion doesn't kill an actual person, I don't quite see what the problem is in scraping away a few clumps of cells. How can you say that ten million girls were killed, unless you believe that a fetus is a person, and a fetus is not a person, right?

However, I have to say without slightest sarcasm or irony that I honestly find it admirable that unlike her ideological sisters here in the west, this little punkette is able to draw the logical connection between male-female numerical disparity and the certain predicable things that will begin to happen when a large number of men is mathematically guaranteed to remain unmarried, the same way that I wrote in "So what if polygamy?" It is not an environment where women's rights are given much weight, something that Western feminists would be smart to remember before embarking in creating a large underclass of loser males and taking delight on their misery. After all, feminism hurts the marginal males, and rarely reaches the men on the top that the feminists were supposed to hate. The Danimal once noted that if feminists were an army at war, their fighter planes would bomb pretty much everything else but their designated enemy targets, and on the way home they would first bomb their allies, then their own troops and finally their own runways and airplane hangars.

But it's not like these certain other cultures gave women much weight to start with, although just like Dennis Dale, I know that I am a "racist" for pointing out this inconvenient and uncomfortable fact. The post "Victim of the Tradition" at "Kyrgyzstan Student Blog" tells us that

This is just one example. According to some estimates, upwards of 30 percent of the country’s married women have been snatched from the street by their husbands in a custom known as "ala kachuu" which translates roughly as "grab and run."

According to some estimates in the Naryn region alone an estimated 55 percent of all women were abducted against their will and forced into marriage. Only 10 percent of abducted women dared to stand for their rights and leave their abductors.

and the post "Anti-gay law in Nigeria punishes...well, pretty much anyone" tells us that Nigeria is outlawing not only homosexuality, but also supporting and celebrating it. But who is to say that our Western ways are better? Who are we to judge? Aren't we in many ways just as bad as these people and even worse? Professor Peter Kurgman can explain these issues much better than I ever can. For example, see his post "Musings on Other Cultures X: Wife Beatings". For the life of me, I just can't understand why leftists and feminists are so insistent of importing here millions of Third World men whose religious and sociopolitical opinions make Vox Day look like a moderate in comparison. Or scratch that, since actually I do understand: as Lawrence Auster has often said, the real telos of liberalism (I would personally call it leftism, since I don't intend to give up this linguistic battle, but that's another post later) is perfectly evident when you think about the observable facts a bit.

Now that the news reports inform us that two of the infamous Duke lacrosse players are charged with rape and kidnapping, it is good to remember that these rapes are only a small tip of the iceberg. The post "The Spectacle Of It All" asks

Last year, a number of black women were raped, assaulted, beaten, burned to death, and were kidnapped by other men of color. However, the media gave little, if any attention to those incidents.
Why are we only important when whites are involved?

Oh, I dunno. Perhaps you should go around and ask the people who were the loudest to scream about the Duke lacrosse rape case why they don't make similar noise about the rapes where the perpetrators are black. I have a few hypotheses of my own about this, but I sure would be interested to hear the multi-culti feminists explain why they don't consider the rapes committed by black men to be much of a problem, even though statistically these crimes are quite real in America.

When all people get to freely choose what other people they associate with and date and marry, the market reality necessarily follows. But good little socialists that they are, feminists typically deny that any kind of market thinking or economic analysis could ever be applied to living human beings. That is, unless it is their perennial complaint that fat doofus sitcom husbands married to hot wives is somehow "unrealistic", then the tune suddenly changes. The idea that these pairings that are typical in sitcoms are unrealistic is itself unrealistic if we really make the feminist assumption that love is completely random and relationship pairings are unaffected by any kind of competition and scarcity constraints, so that every woman who wants a husband is entitled to get a man from the top 10% of most desirable men or so and shouldn't have to settle for anything less than that, regardless of her own looks and personality. Heck, when you are as innumerate as feminists, you can demand anything you want.

For the same anti-market stance, feminists also have to deny that young women have privilege because of their desirability and looks. The best and simplest way to examine this issue is to look at women who once had this privilege but then grew older and lost this privilege when they lost their looks. Middle-aged women tend to complain that they are "invisible", that is, they get the treatment that they deserve based on their skills and personality instead of their looks. You know, the exact same way that men are treated. It's just that men have to learn this starting from the childhood whereas women get to wait until they are thirty. No wonder that women tend to find this turn of events to be so saddening. But if women who have lost their looks expect the average men to sympathize with their plight, now there's a silly idea, especially if these men still remember how generous these same women were once they still had their looks. The posts "Life Begins at Forty? Not In the Jewish World" and "The Sharon Stone Treatment" can complain about this fact for all they want, but all fiftysomething women without exception are simply ugly and they have no place competing in anything beauty-based any more than I have a place playing in NBA or NFL. Udolpho recently put this issue a lot better than I ever could in his post "Old and looking it".

Of course, according to feminist thinking everything is socially constructed and thus infinitely malleable at will by the enlightened progressives. If only the dumb and stupid reactionaries like me could give our moral superiors the reins and learn to understand that everybody is equally good in everything. Then we would finally get our leftist utopia. In this light, the post "Conversation with the Comments" at "Body Impolitic" argue that beauty and ugliness don't really exist. Everybody is equally beautiful la-de-da. I think that it is hilarious that feminists correctly understand that a man who has to constantly announce that he is "nice" because nobody else says it for him rarely turns out to be so nice in reality, but they seem unable to understand that the exact same principle applies to women who have to loudly announce that they are "beautiful" because nobody else supports this position. For example, consider the disgusting morbos who yet insist on calling themselves "big beautiful women" (BBW). Well all right, I know that the progressive men consider these women hot, which goes on to show how out of mainstream these men are.

One of Panu's most apt observations is that totalitarian ideologies such as fundamentalist Christianity and feminism are perfect places for mentally ill people to operate in, as long as they remember to dress their psychotic delusions in ideologically correct jargon. Quite a few feminists out there seem to be losers who take psychiatric medicines (come on: if the word "loser" doesn't apply to these people, I don't see how it could ever apply to anybody), and it almost seems that they are proud of being so transgressive. Sanity is apparently a patriarchal scheme or something. Is it any wonder that these women are so bitter towards the male sex, since they have to settle for the loser males? Perhaps lesbianism really is a wise choice for these women. And the people that you see out there who really are mentally ill seldom seem that "edgy" or "transgressive" to me, but maybe I'm just being reactionary and insensitive again. The posts "So why am I on disability again? OH right, misogynist asshats...." and "The Slimey Side of Nice" illustrate this principle nicely.

I said it once and say it again: feminism and socialism are one, and that one is socialism. For all practical purposes, all feminists are socialists, except those who actually had to live in socialist countries. That is, they believe that some central planning mechanism should take from each according to their abilities and redistribute to each according to their needs. Of course, this time this planning mechanism should be led by wise women, so that all reasons of psychology, economics and computational theory that make socialism impossible would magically not apply any more. But perhaps it surprises my readers that I actually support this principle, as long as it is also applied to men's sexual needs and women's sexual abilities --- and let's not forget which sex is capable of multiple orgasms when we determine which sex wants sex more and is therefore more capable of supplying sex. There should be some central planning mechanism that would allocate each woman a bunch of needy men to satisfy each week. I think that this would be only fair: if feminists think that they are entitled to 50% of wealth created by productive men that these men would selfishly want to keep to themselves, then those men should be correspondingly entitled to 50% of sex that the feminists are able to provide to men but selfishly choose not to. This arrangement would show us how committed feminists really are to socialism when they for once get to be the givers instead of the eternal takers. This should probably also drive through the point that socialism is great fun only as long as you get to be the taker.

As I noted earlier, it is not exactly difficult for a man to get feminists to like him. Steve Gilliard's post "What bothers me about Duke" tells us that strippers don't have to fear rape when they strut their naked stuff around Steve. You truly are this white boy's hero, Steve. And this apparently makes him a radical feminist. Andrea Dworkin must be spinning in her grave.

Speaking of witch, as much as the feminists try to deny this whenever the issue comes up, the simple reality is that Andrea Dworkin is their ideological hero and idol number one. See, for example, the post "‘but I don’t agree with everything she says…’". Oh, come on, prove me wrong! For example, point me out even one post at any issue of the Carnival of Feminism that defends pornography or in any way contradicts anything that Dworkin ever wrote! Oh, you can't? That's pretty funny, since I thought that these mythical pro-porn "third wave" feminists were supposed to be the mainstream these days.

And of course it's impossible to mention Dworkin without also mentioning her eternal partner-in-manhating: "Catharine A. MacKinnon is my hero." Oh, I am sure she is.

Leftists usually think that it is evil when white people move away from black people because of the fear of crime, but on the other hand, they think that it is just splendid when women move away from men for the exact same reason. I am sure that there is some logic behind these very different attitudes to the exact same phenomenon. The post "I'm sick of heterosexism too" is an important call to battle to all feminists to become fat lesbian separatists just like the womyn who wrote it. Of course, you should first remember that a threat of exit increases your voice only if you are a net positive for the community's well-being in the first place, which makes the exit of the white middle class a significantly more serious threat than the exit of lesbians, transsexuals and other such welfare and morality drains. For proof, just take a look at any area that the white middle class has left, and then try to think of a few groups whose threats of exit would probably be met with enthusiasm by the surrounding mainstream community.

For the life of me, I have never really understood how lesbian separatism could work even in principle, since few modern women would want to live in what is essentially a stone age society, which is pretty much what women could ever achieve on their own without men around. And of course, my cynical side keeps whispering to me that for all their rejectance of men, lesbian separatists would still be eager to accept the generous welfare cheques that are paid from the tax dollars of productive men. And they would have to assuming that they wanted to eat (and usually lesbians do eat a lot, as you can tell just by looking at them), since such women would be essentially unemployable with their ucca-pucca-wicca philosophy. In addition, any real-world organization that really were run according to "non-patriarchal" and "non-competitive" principles of "women's ways of thinking" would soon collapse under the inevitable freeloading.

The problem with engineers and scientists in the hard sciences is that unlike their humanist brothers and sisters, they seldom bother to be politically correct and they don't have much time or inclination for any kind of tolerance for incompetence, since the objective reality that they work under has no such tolerance either. The essay "The Down Side of Slashdot" examines a certain downside of this phenomenon. Since it is Wednesday, I had to check whether the post "Exam Boycott" is from The Onion or if it is real. The old adage "dumb, dumber, humanist" is so often so true. I wonder if anybody would notice if all humanities departments went on a strike or were simply shut down as useless. Probably not.

After all this mockery, I have to admit that I have sometimes enjoyed the writings at "Utopian Hell". I can kind of understand what she goes for with the beefcake pictures she posts, but since she advocates such a very narrow, unrealistic, restrictive, destructive and mainstream view of what kind of men are physically attractive, I guess that she doesn't believe in the feminist idea that all people are equally beautiful and nobody's looks or body could ever be improved in any way since we are all perfect in our own way la de da. Although the feminists probably mean this only for women: it sure would be funny if the fat middle-aged guys started to honestly believe in the message of all people being equally attractive and desirable, and thus started hitting on young beautiful women, thinking that they had the same chance with these women as the young handsome men.

But let's keep slogging on. As I explained in my earlier post "Can't judge this (oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh)", feminists have to proclaim rape to be the most horrible of all crimes, since this way the fat Western middle-class feminist gets to be equally oppressed by men as her Third World sisters. In this spirit, I see that there is an initiative to "Blog to Raise Awareness About Sexual Violence". Again, my cynical side suspects that for all the talk about "genital mutilation" or "honor killings", I don't think that we can really expect the leftists and feminists to raise a loud ruckus about these particular crimes, since rich white fratboys very rarely commit them. All Western feminist complaints about how bad Muslim women have are really intended to prove that Western women are morally superior to Western men because Third World men commit these crimes against Third World women, of course.

Since homosexuals pretty much by definition accept that there are pretty important differences between men and women, and the real male homosexuals often tend to fall short on many leftist and feminist ideals (whereas lesbians are usually good little socialists at heart, as explained in "Why Lesbians Aren't Gay"), the progressive community will soon have to move on to glorifying transsexuals instead, or whatever cissexuals the trannies insist on being called these days. (With the gay men, I have never quite understood what feminists expect to get from men who don't really need women for anything, since the same approach previously worked so well with Catholic priests, yes?) As the post "Why I Am Not “a Trans”" at Feministe explains, there is quite a lot to learn here for the correct terminology. "The Fifth Carnival of Bent Attractions" can perhaps teach us more, although not necessarily in the sense that its proprietor intended.

Perhaps I shall now end this post with a more personal touch. Last year when I was googling for something that I had written, I came upon a feminist website that had a whole post and discussion thread about me. The post and the thread were already several months old by then, so there was no point in adding comments, but the comments that were already in it were quite revealing. For example, because I had written elsewhere that if you walk through a university, you can get a pretty clear statistical picture of what the average twentysomething woman looks like, I was a "creep who likes to check out his students". I wonder if Hugo Schwyzer, who constantly writes about how her female students look like, ever has to face similar anonymous slander. Probably not, since quod licet Bon Jovi and so on. Another commenter in the same thread was astonished that I can express the opinions that I tend to express, and took delight in fantasizing how I will lose my job and wife for these opinions and will then have to live in a cheap hovel and cook my meager food on a hot plate. Dunno, I guess that that particular feminist had mistaken me for Amanda Marcotte or something, but after this little outburst I kind of forgot why I was supposed to feel sympathy towards the poor people. They deserve what they got, I guess.

I was ticklingly annoyed about this issue for a while, but in a sense this was a very useful find, since you could call this almost a watershed event. When you think about these two commenters, don't both of them reveal pretty clearly what the world would be like after the Feminist Revolution, the way feminists want it to be? These women thought that they were in their "safe space" where they can already express postrevolutionary concepts in our prerevolutionary world. Most feminists believe that a man who expresses anti-feminist sentiments the way I do should automatically lose his job and marriage for this heresy. To answer the few people who have ever emailed me asking why I am such a committed anti-feminist: there is your fucking answer. If I have to explain this any further, there is no point even trying, since even if I filled the whole Internet with my explanations, you still just wouldn't get it. Go read a book by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to educate yourselves about what life would be like under feminism and the totalitarian thought police that it necessitates, since few people would choose and obey its demands voluntarity.

Posted by Ilkka Kokkarinen on Wednesday, April 19, 2006 at 3:22 PM