Aaliyah was wrong
The very first thing that I noticed was that the front page of the host of this edition, "Women's Autonomy and Sexual Sovereignty", lists a whole bunch of sexual things that she supports. Well, it's of course hard for anybody coming from the Western liberal tradition to disagree with these demands, although I have to note that the tenet
Adults have the right to have sex according to their own sense of morality without interference by the state
was
somewhat odd, since it clearly uses the word "right" in the sense of a
negative right. Being good little collectivists, feminists usually talk
only about positive rights. If the idea that "adults have the right to
have sex" were interpreted the same way as "poor people have the right
to receive generous welfare cheques", an idea that all feminists
heartily support, I think that feminists would have a serious problem
as soon as somebody noticed that unattractive loser men should also
have the right to have sex. But so it is, everybody is an anarchist
libertarian whenever they are in control, and a totalitarian socialist
whenever they are powerless and at the bottom. Women are gatekeepers of
sex and socialism is fun only as long as you get the take and don't
have to give. And even if this tenet were interpreted as a purely
negative right, feminists have historically opposed a man's right to
have sex with a consenting woman if money has been explicitly used to
gain this consent. (See also this delightful comic strip.)
A second similar oddity that I noticed was that in feminist thinking, the tenet
Adults have the natural right to marry any other consenting adult
hasn't
traditionally applied to white Western men who want to marry poor women
from the Third World. So either the host is going a bit against the
grain here, or simply hasn't thought the whole thing through properly,
which might be more likely here.
The word of the day is
"heteronormativity", that is, the oppressive patriarchal assumption
that there are two sexes that have some important innate differences,
and that most people are heterosexual and thus desire sex and want to
pair up with an attractive member of the opposite sex. In capitalism
where decisions are made by consumers insted of the leftist vanguard,
this oppression has the practical consequence that in pretty much in
all media that has to turn a profit, most people that you see are
heterosexuals. And this makes the alternative and transgressive crowd
feel sad and neglegted, and then angry that the rest of the world
doesn't realize that it is out of step instead of them. But fear not,
our moral superiors are already on the case: "Blogging against heteronormativity".
Next,
we could take a look at another similar but even more handy word. For
women, mocking the men that they don't like as being "faggots", or in
some other way sexually inadequate losers who can't score with lots of
women, has always been an effective verbal weapon. To their dismay,
leftist women don't get to play the fag card as often as they'd really
really want to, since doing so would, like, you know, imply that male
homosexuality is somehow bad.
Of course, things like this rarely matter to feminists when they get a
chance to hurt the marginal men, but unless they are losing some
debate, feminists are usually sane enough to understand that this
tradeoff is not worth it. But no problem, since the solution is quite
simple: just use the word "homosocial" instead, since whenever the
leftists and feminists use this word, it has the exact same meaning as
the word "fag", but it sounds a lot less juvenile, it has a nice
plausible deniability and the best of all, this word strikes to the
very heart of the peer solidarity and support between men that
threatens the feminist goals so much. Oh come on, just look at the way
the word "homosocial" is really used by this bunch and you can see that
I am right as plain as day. (I have to thank Panu, the number one antifeminist of the Finnish blogosphere, for this simple observation that is crystal clear in retrospect.)
Moving on. A comment in the post "Social Construction of Disability" contains the following nugget of wisdom:
People with disabilities can't participate in sports because they can't afford the equipment or can't get to the practices or because there's no league in their area, not because they're physically incapable of playing sports.
I know what "ableism" is, so you might
guess that "disablism" would be the opposite system of thought in which
the disabled people believe that they are morally superior to us boring
normos. And lo and behold, that's pretty much what it is. Once again,
certain memes have been tightly entangled so that there is a whole "Blogging Against Disablism Day".
Since feminists believe that everything is socially constructed and
nothing is really "real", it is no big surprise that they also believe
that the only reason why a Down syndrome persyn cannot become a
computer programmer, a brain surgeon or a CEO of a multinational
corporation is because we evil and racist normos have constructed
society in a linear and phallocratic way that artificially prevents him
from doing so. Since everything is infinitely malleable, society could just as well
have been constructed in some other way that would make people with
Down syndrome succeed far better on average than us boring normos.
Dunno, I find it somehow difficult to imagine what kind of society
would give the retarded people an insurmountable edge over us normos,
since simulating the externally observable behaviour of a retard is not
exactly a difficult task. But I am sure this is just because I am such
a narrow-minded reactionary. Perhaps some re-education would help.
Until
then, as we all know, feminists have the right to claim that women are
wiser than men and have higher linguistic and nurturing ability on
average and moral superiority, but men don't have a symmetric right to
claim that men are statistically superior in some other things such as
math and science. I find this feminist attitude somewhat puzzling,
since it is the very feminists themselves who proclaim that men think
with their cold binary logic whereas women are more holistic and think
with their emotions, affirming each other instead of considering
problems to be something that must be attacked and conquered. The
negation symbol is the basis of patriarchal oppression and the integral
symbol is an erect penis. The article "Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science" in the excellent Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy tells us more about the feminist view of how reality works.
In
addition to inventing cars that women can then add on the windshield
wipers that they invented, men have invented many other things such as
constitutional government. Fred Reed lists a few more things that men invented in his essay "White Males":
Euclidean geometry. Parabolic geometry. Hyperbolic geometry. Projective geometry. Differential geometry. Algebra. Limits, continuity, differentiation, integration. Physical chemistry. Organic chemistry. Biochemistry. Classical mechanics. The indeterminacy principle. The wave equation. The Parthenon. The Anabasis. Air conditioning. Number theory. Romanesque architecture. Gothic architecture. Information theory. Entropy. Enthalpy. Every symphony ever written. Pierre Auguste Renoir. The twelve-tone scale. The mathematics behind it, twelfth root of two and all that. S-p hybrid bonding orbitals. The Bohr-Sommerfeld atom. The purine-pyrimidine structure of the DNA ladder. Single-sideband radio. All other radio. Dentistry. The internal-combustion engine. Turbojets. Turbofans. Doppler beam-sharpening. Penicillin. Airplanes. Surgery. The mammogram. The Pill. The condom. The penis. Polio vaccine. The integrated circuit. The computer. Football. Computational fluid dynamics. Tensors. The Constitution. Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Aeschylus, Homer, Hesiod. Glass. Rubber. Nylon. Roads. Buildings. Elvis. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. (OK, that's nerve gas, and maybe we didn't really need it.) Silicone. The automobile. Really weird stuff, like clathrates, Buckyballs, and rotaxanes. The Bible. Bug spray. Diffie-Hellman, public-key cryptography, and RSA. Et cetera.
Speaking of rednecks, from the blog "Trash Talks Back" we can note the self-description that in one swoop explains what losers feminists are and why they want socialism so much. Imagine, for a moment, the hootering and hollering that would certainly erupt if some conservative blogger wrote a description of himself equivalent to this one:
I'm 28. I live in a double-wide trailer in East TN with 6 other people and 4 cats. Most of my time is spent working or thinking about ways to destroy the patriarchy.
As Fred once pithily said, contempt is the proper reaction to the contemptible.
Here
in Canada, the law says that you must speak on of the two official
languages, English or French, to get citizenship, and the compulsory
citizenship exam enforces this. Since the same thing also holds for
every other country out there, it is funny how the American leftists
are in a hissy fit because president Bush said that you should speak
English to be an American citizen. The post "Can I just say one more thing?"
is a good example of this. Hell, it even contains an accidental
explicit admission of what is the real motivation of the loser leftists
to import millions of Third World immigrants:
Oh how I hope Spanish-speakers take over our country. And then vote to take away the rights of stupid old white men.
Steve Sailer, who has an interesting post "Who is Adam Kidron, the man behind "Nuestro Himno?"" about the guy who wrote the Spanish version of Star-Spangled Banner, should note this with his observation of "The psychology of enthusiasm for illegal immigration":
even though open borders enthusiasm is a signaling mechanism for the
top-level white Americans to indicate that they are at the top level
that doesn't have to worry about the issue, the loser leftists who are
bitter for being losers want to simply smash and burn the whole
society, and they believe that immigrants would be a good tool in doing
this. Heck, this gang wannabe intellectuals has already lost and been
humiliated, so how could they lose any more? But of course they could be a lot
worse, which they might realize if they ever bothered to actually ask
those illegal immigrants what they think of women's rights, gay rights,
transsexual rights etc.
Speaking of trannies and their political agenda,
I noticed that even some feminists are growing tired of them. Having
seen a few episodes of the current season of The Surreal Life, I am not
that surprised. At least there is a chance of hilarious infighting
between the gang that wants to make bathrooms unisex and the more
mainstream women. The site "Questioning Trans Politics" and there especially the essay "12 Trans Myths and Feminist Responses"
explains why women-only spaces are needed. Perhaps it would be a good
thing to separate the sexes more, so that both sexes could have places
where they could follow their natural inherent essences. Womyn could be
supportive and emotional and freeload off each other, whereas men would
be competitive and attack problems in a linear fashion. Of course, this
could never possibly work, since womyn would immediately launch
lawsuits to complain against "unfair discrimination" and demand free
access into these men's spaces, since those places would pretty much be
where all productive work gets done.
As I wrote earlier, there
are two mutually exclusive possibilities: either everybody gets to have
as many children as they want, or some people are forced to have fewer
children that they would want to have. Take your pick of either one,
but both options have some pretty nasty consequences that you then have
to accept. The post "Why Girls Matter"
doesn't come out to directly oppose the China's one-child policy, but
dislikes it on the grounds that it leads to abortion of female fetuses.
The poster is then offended by the fact that some people oppose the
selective abortion of female fetuses on the grounds that this creates
"bare branches" of unmarriageable men later in life. Now, obviously
feminists couldn't care less about marginal males whose troubles and
pain they enjoy to watch since they seldom get to hurt the winner males
and have to settle for these inferior substitutes. I can therefore
understand why this argument against femicide doesn't carry much weight
with feminists, and they need better arguments to oppose abortion of
female fetuses. But really, what other arguments are there? Remember, a
fetus is not a person, so even if you aborted a hundred million female
fetuses, you haven't murdered even one actual girl or a woman and thus
have done absolutely nothing wrong, right? So pray tell me, feminists:
precisely what harm is done by selectively aborting millions of female
fetuses, and why doing so is in any way "wrong", assuming that a fetus
is not a person?
Even though all womyn are equally oppressed by
all myn who wield the power of rype over them, and rape is the most
horrible crime there is next to which everything else becomes
meaningless, there is bound to certain tension between the white
college-educated daddy's girls and their less well-off black sisters.
Feminism hurts mostly the marginal males and black men tend to be
pretty marginal, so black women might not be as enthusiastic about
hurting men as some white lesbian, since they get to see its
consequences in their own friends and relatives. So here is a question
that I have been entertaining for a while: for the average black
feminist, is blood thicker than the shape of genitals? In one sense, we
certainly know the answer to this question just by looking at the the
rare cases where a rape (or murder) accusation against a black man by a
white woman reaches the attention of the mainstream media because the
black man in question is a rich and successful athlete as in Kobe
Bryant or O.J. Simpson.
Another similar problem that I have
often wondered is what would happen if a brother of a feminist was
accused of rape. Which one would be thicker, blood or sisterhood?
Getting the answet to this question might take longer, though.
Meanwhile, the post "Gender Does NOT Trump Race" gives one answer to the racial question. "Lynndie England and Feminist Movements" gives another. On the other side of the fence, I have to admire Ginmar for her post
that basically admits that black men are morally inferior to white
wimyn. I really appreciate the honesty, since very few white feminists
have the balls to admit this belief that pretty much logically follows
from the feminist dogma.
Pandagon links to an amusing news article "Homosexuals headed for Jerusalem".
Who knows, perhaps next year this transgressive gang will also march in
Teheran, Baghdad and Mecca. Although I wouldn't really bet on it. And
of course the alternative, progressive and transgressive gang will not
admit that this would indicate that there is anything wrong
with these cultures. Heavens, no. Are you some kind of cultural
imperialist or something, not accepting that all cultures are equal?
There
are only few countries left in this world that fully satisfy the
socialist goals. There's basically North Korea, Cuba and Zimbabwe,
although these days the Western leftists tend to support only the last
two in public. The post "Dignity. Period!"
describes how women have it in Zimbabwe these days. Oh, if only we
could ship the whole gang of progressives there to experience firsthand
what their policies and ideology necessarily eventually lead to. I am
sure that they would enjoy it there, far away from the capitalist
oppression of white males.
Since we are talking about sending people somewhere to get an education, we can next note the post "Send Somebody to Clarion".
Frankly, my advice would be that if you can't afford $2,500 on your own
but have to beg for it, the last thing that you need to be doing with
your life is to attend some science fiction workshop for a bunch of
aspiring Mary Sues. Then again, if some guy goes by the handle
"HorseloverFat", that might be the least of his problems, so let's
perhaps take back what I said here.
I remember back in high
school, one assignment in the Finnish class was to select a short story
to read out loud in front of the class. I chose to read the short story
"The Big Homo" by Jouko Turkka. It was basically an essay what it would
be like if there was a really big and strong gay man who then grabbed
straight men into his bear hug, laughed deeply and then blew into their
hair and gently kissed their necks while they were trying to escape.
Some Hollywood producer should perhaps option this story and turn it in
a comedy. This was made even funnier in our clas by the fact that there
was this one guy head taller than the others who some chums said was
gay. While I was reading the story in front of the class, I did my best
to contain myself not to laugh when another, basically half-autistic
guy who was sitting at the front was grinning and fidgeting and trying
to refrain himself from turning back to point at the big guy and laugh.
I guess you had to be there. I don't know why I thought of this
incident right now. Perhaps the post "big fat carnival #3 call for submissions" at VeganKid had something to do with it.
Since
we are reminiscing here, during my freshman year in college, I tried to
play a MUD with a chum who had been in the same high school with me.
(Year later he went to do his military service, developed some kind of
cancer and died.) We sat on the text terminals, logged in a MUD,
created characters and walked around the game world together. Then we
came to a room that had some other player in it, and my chum typed in
"hi X" (where X was the name of the player that I couldn't remember) to
greet him. Unfortunately, to say this you would have to type "say hi
X", and "hi" is short for "hit". Talk about a serious design flaw in
usability! Anyway, I am myself not into MMORPG's or any computer games,
for that matter. But I can remember years ago reading about the
incident described in "A Rape in Cyberspace"
in which one MUD character had virtually "raped" another character.
It's pretty strange that you can steal, kill and mayhem other players
as much as you want in the game, but some other crimes are then out of
the question. As I said, I am not a player myself, so I don't know what
is going on in this front, but I would assume that this topic will
re-emerge pretty soon in some modern game that has realistic graphics
and freedom of movement. In the meantime, there is this video
about a gang of players that attacks the funeral of a player. Teenage
boys are probably not going to stop there, so I am looking forward to
feminists howling how they are constantly raped in online games. But at
least this would lend support to the feminist claims how one in four
women is raped.
By the way, whatever happened to all those wild
predictions about how pretty soon one in four people would be dying of
AIDS? You know, the predictions that the leftists and the gay community
for some mysterious reason constantly loved to proclaim up to about a
decade ago. I don't know if I am super-special or something, since
during all my life, HIV and AIDS have never been in any way a relevant
issue for any people that I have known and associated with. I wonder if
I am just enormously lucky, or if there could be something else that
explains this weird statistical anomaly. Nah.
I guess that is it for this week's edition of femo-socialist nutjobbery. Tune in again in two weeks for the next exciting show!
Comments