Taking the plunger
What do you know, during all this enthusiasm for other things I didn't even notice that the fifteenth edition
of Carnival of Feminists is up again! The pickings in this edition are
somewhat slim (and for some reason, the mythical pro-porn third wave
feminists seem to be again absent), but following the established
tradition of this blog in which I reveal on a biweekly basis what the real face
of this one of the most beloved social movements looks like, let us
once again dive into these sewers of humanity and see what kind of
smelly dumps stick to the collection net. The unpleasant task is dirty
but somebody has to do it, and based on the emails I have received, for
some people these posts are the most enjoyable parts of my writing. As
a humble and obedient servant of my readers, I aim to please them.
But first, it might be an interesting comparison for someone to calculate which group, rapists or socialists, caused more death and misery during the 20th century. I strongly suspect that this comparison would be somewhat one-sided, like comparing a gnat to an elephant. The objective harm caused by even the most prolific rapist or pedophile is pretty insignificant compared to that caused by the typical leftist intellectual and a bootlicker of totalitarianism. The first does harm only to physical bodies (which are only temporarily-abled anyways, yes?), whereas the second one violates truth and reality itself and kills not only the body but the spirit, and not only for this generation but for all future generations to come. For this reason, it is so funny-strange that all feminists are such ardent socialists (oh come on, I bet that you can't name even three who are not), apparently unaware of the real place of women in socialism as it has manifested in the real world (see, for example, "Tampons Are a Woman's Right and Human Rights Issue", but remember, "Having more does not mean things are better."). The most comical example of this phenomenon that I know must certainly be the blog "Capitalism Bad, Tree Pretty".
Speaking of rape, frankly, I find it hard to muster much sympathy whenever some feminist is raped, since if she got her way with the world, I would soon find myself in a concentration camp for a long stretch of re-education. Hence when I read about some feminist man-hater suffering from being raped, it brings about as little sympathy in me as some Jew might have felt walking away from liberated Auschwitz and seeing a dead Nazi soldier stuck in the barbed wire. Fortunately, as even a casual reading will quickly reveal, feminists are typically losers, often mentally ill, and thus not likely to grab power in the postindustrial world, unless they get to ride on the coattails of some slightly more reality-based movement and then subvert it to their own purposes. So I probably don't need to worry that much about ending up behind the chemical sheds of some gulag. Even so, we can perform a simple gedankenexperiment. If some staunchy anti-feminist man such as myself were raped by other men, perhaps after being sent to prison as an innocent, what you do think the feminist reaction to this incident would be? Heh. I am sure we all know what their typical reaction would be. I choose to give my sympathy only to those who would give it to me if the tables were turned, thank you.
Sticking to the topic of rape for a bit longer, I am sure that we can soon hear feminists loudly condemning the present system and the mainstream culture of South Africa, especially as it recently manifested itself in the news article "Zuma rape accuser 'flees to exile'". And for that matter, the Indian culture as it is depicted in the post "And we must think no further of you". Remember, kids, all cultures are equal, and it's nothing but shallow privilege of straight able-bodied white males to claim that they are not!
Enough of rape, let's proceed to something more lighthearted. I read "Self-Made Man" in a bookstore a while back, and kind of liked it. Wasn't great, but an okay read nonetheless. However, the post "Self-Made Man, by Norah Vincent" at "Alas, A Blog" finds this book problematic in the sense that it featured only straight white men, that is, the mainstream, instead of illustrating the lives of perhaps a few transmen or maybe some morbidly obese cross-dressers, since concept of manliness of these important and representative groups of men is just as important and valid as that of the "mainstream" men. Bad Norah! Bad!
By the way, I just love it when feminists, who obviously couldn't care less about men and their needs (except when these men are brown, gay or love to cross-dress, in which case feminists gush with adoration), try to score points by declaring that "patriarchy hurts men too", which somehow then implies that it would be better for men to submit to the ideological whims of the feminist vanguard. (This is even better than their constant misuse of the word "entitlement", a magic word that never seems to apply to leftists themselves when they claim to be entitled to the wealth of the productive members of society to redistribute to their allies as they please. Even more mysteriously, this word does apply to men who are competing for something, even though entitlement and competition are logically exclusive concepts, as you need to compete for something that you would like to have iff you are not entitled to it.) It is especially hilarious when feminists try to use the existence and plight of marginal men to defend their cause to reorder society to their liking, since the marginal men tend to be hurt worst by feminism.
With the concept as conveniently vague and fluid as "patriarchy", feminists get a free pass to imply that all things that are less than perfect in this world (which of course means pretty much everything by definition, since anything could always be better in some sense) are somehow the fault of the "patriarchy", and if feminists were in power, all those things would in some unspecified way be better and the problems associated to them would just magically be gone, even if they are deeply rooted in economic or sociobiological explanations. And of course feminists have no duty whatsoever to explain which one of the various mutually incoherent policies that they advocate exactly would even begin to address, let alone solve, those problems. Nice position to be if you can get it, I guess.
I can't help but point out that this very technique used to be, surprise surprise, the standard rhetorical trick of communists to gain support from various minority groups who weren't otherwise that enthusiastic of socialism. The stalinist evangelists approached them and explained that the problems and concerns particular to their group had already been solved or were moot by definition in the Soviet Union. The only alternative is to stick with the present system, of course, and surely you don't want that, do you? Naturally, the communists never allowed outsiders to come and see the reality of their system, except in carefully staged unrepresentative areas that had no relation to reality. Modern feminists, who are the present-day ideological descendants of communists, are much luckier in the sense that their utopian society safely exists only in the la-la land of their dreams. We can't go there to look around and find out if, for example, the feminist medical and social engineering techniques have finally given both men and women equally long average lifespans, or whether both sexes really die equally often in workplace accidents (oh right, let me guess: "In our glorious non-patriarchal and non-capitalist system, there are no workplace accidents! Even the wheat grows faster here, sisters!").
But what do I know. Perhaps the average male really would be better off in a system that gives him complete freedom to go out wearing a dress or to have gay sex with his buddies, and if anybody thinks less of him or discriminates against him for this, the thought police will come and put these bigots back in line. Perhaps it would be good if feminists did indeed come to power in some distant country and show us how their ideology really works. Once the walls come up to prevent people, both male and female, from leaving that country, the rest of the world should see that the jig is up.
Moving on. Certain memes seem to be entangled in a very tight bunch. For example, feminism and vegetarianism. After all, meat is not only murder, but the root cause of patriarchy. So it's not really that surprising that feminists have recently been huffy about the new Burger King commercial "Manthem", in which a crowd of singing men throw away the burden of feminism from their shoulders and enjoy being men and eating delicious Burger King burgers. Crimethink! Sacrilege! Being "politically incorrect" and "rebel" "against authority" sure aren't funny any more when, instead of edgy "hipsters" and "punks", the wrong people start engaging in it. (As an aside, one of Panu's most significant observations is that feminism has lost any claim to being an "alternative" a few decades ago, and ever since the real independent thinking has come from the side of anti-feminists.)
The post "Shame of the Week (Musical)" is hilarious since it immediately starts by implying that men who like to eat meat are fags. Another instance of the hunter being blind to mountains while chasing a rabbit, I guess. It never ceases to amaze me that for such a supposedly gay-friendly group, feminists simply can't help but imply that their opponents are faggots, although they often disguise this schoolyard-level intent with convenient big words such as "homosocial". It is in feminist interests to denigrate homosociality, of course, since there is no bigger threat to feminism than solidarity, co-operation and camaraderie between men.
Another thing that puzzles me about this commercial brouhaha is that feminists, who normally categorically deny that obesity would in any way be problematic and who proclaim that there is no statistical connection whatsoever between weight and health, have apparently caught some kind of total amnesia, since they are now saying that eating fast food and especially meat is somehow unhealthy. Curious. And of course, there has to be that "patriarchy hurts men too" angle too, since men are somehow "forced" to eat meat. You know, by the patriarchy. I guess I can conclude that in the feminist system, there would not be hamburgers for men to eat freely, but only healthy vegetarian and thus more feminist-friendly options? (Since feminism is socialism, that one is actually probably true, since socialism has never been that interested in avoiding starvation of its subjects.)
For all their queer-loving in abstract, feminists are so very often disappointed by the ideological shortcomings of the real-world male homosexuals. What, men who don't really need women for anything aren't always that eager to please their whims and willing to jump up and down on their command? Gee, I never would have guessed. The post "Queer Misogyny" at "Center of Gravitas" laments certain behaviours and attitudes of the modern sodomites.
Homosexual men are also the driving force behind fashion and beauty industries, as depicted in women's magazines. It's funny that the vast majority of women doesn't embrace alternative magazines that depict fatties, but vote with their dollars for the conventional "impossible" standard of beauty, to the great dismay of feminists. Well, that's just yet another place where feminism and leftism fails a simple free market test. Myself, I can't even understand what kind of argument the impossibility for the average woman to reach beauty standards is supposed to be, even if this premise is accepted. The best-looking women simply don't have to resemble the average woman any more than, say, the top athletes have to resemble average men, or the richest businessmen have to resemble the average working-class people, or a luxury gold watch has to resemble a $2 plastic timepiece. And you know, for some reason, you rarely read men complaining how unfair it is that it's plain impossible for the average man to become a world championship level athlete, no matter how hard he trains.
Women tend to have it best when they are young adults, but once they start to gradually lose their looks, they inevitably notice that they have to bedazzle the rest of the world with their skills, personality and attitude. It certainly is no wonder why middle-aged women constantly complain about being "invisible", having now entered the world that their brothers entered twenty years earlier. (I can hear the feminists already: "See? see? Patriarchy hurts men too! And no, we will not bother to elucidate how exactly the average man would have it better in feminism in this respect, so shut up!") The post "How to succeed in the academic world" gives ladies some hints on how to ensure success in their midlife.
To wrap up this week's edition of ugly and smelly floaters, we can note that the basic technique of totalitarian mind control is to break down its subjects by making their world an unpredictable minefield of a myriad of obscure and illogical rules, all designed so that it is simply not possible to avoid constant infractions and thus be a good person. It would certainly be difficult for me to find a better example of how this works than the post "You do not know me" at "I Hate People". Once the subject has been broken down, rebuilding of his persona and cleansing him of his incorrect thoughts and attitudes can commence in seemingly friendly spirits. For an example of how this part of the program might work, see the post "From the Perspective of a Man", written by the host of this carnival.
But first, it might be an interesting comparison for someone to calculate which group, rapists or socialists, caused more death and misery during the 20th century. I strongly suspect that this comparison would be somewhat one-sided, like comparing a gnat to an elephant. The objective harm caused by even the most prolific rapist or pedophile is pretty insignificant compared to that caused by the typical leftist intellectual and a bootlicker of totalitarianism. The first does harm only to physical bodies (which are only temporarily-abled anyways, yes?), whereas the second one violates truth and reality itself and kills not only the body but the spirit, and not only for this generation but for all future generations to come. For this reason, it is so funny-strange that all feminists are such ardent socialists (oh come on, I bet that you can't name even three who are not), apparently unaware of the real place of women in socialism as it has manifested in the real world (see, for example, "Tampons Are a Woman's Right and Human Rights Issue", but remember, "Having more does not mean things are better."). The most comical example of this phenomenon that I know must certainly be the blog "Capitalism Bad, Tree Pretty".
Speaking of rape, frankly, I find it hard to muster much sympathy whenever some feminist is raped, since if she got her way with the world, I would soon find myself in a concentration camp for a long stretch of re-education. Hence when I read about some feminist man-hater suffering from being raped, it brings about as little sympathy in me as some Jew might have felt walking away from liberated Auschwitz and seeing a dead Nazi soldier stuck in the barbed wire. Fortunately, as even a casual reading will quickly reveal, feminists are typically losers, often mentally ill, and thus not likely to grab power in the postindustrial world, unless they get to ride on the coattails of some slightly more reality-based movement and then subvert it to their own purposes. So I probably don't need to worry that much about ending up behind the chemical sheds of some gulag. Even so, we can perform a simple gedankenexperiment. If some staunchy anti-feminist man such as myself were raped by other men, perhaps after being sent to prison as an innocent, what you do think the feminist reaction to this incident would be? Heh. I am sure we all know what their typical reaction would be. I choose to give my sympathy only to those who would give it to me if the tables were turned, thank you.
Sticking to the topic of rape for a bit longer, I am sure that we can soon hear feminists loudly condemning the present system and the mainstream culture of South Africa, especially as it recently manifested itself in the news article "Zuma rape accuser 'flees to exile'". And for that matter, the Indian culture as it is depicted in the post "And we must think no further of you". Remember, kids, all cultures are equal, and it's nothing but shallow privilege of straight able-bodied white males to claim that they are not!
Enough of rape, let's proceed to something more lighthearted. I read "Self-Made Man" in a bookstore a while back, and kind of liked it. Wasn't great, but an okay read nonetheless. However, the post "Self-Made Man, by Norah Vincent" at "Alas, A Blog" finds this book problematic in the sense that it featured only straight white men, that is, the mainstream, instead of illustrating the lives of perhaps a few transmen or maybe some morbidly obese cross-dressers, since concept of manliness of these important and representative groups of men is just as important and valid as that of the "mainstream" men. Bad Norah! Bad!
By the way, I just love it when feminists, who obviously couldn't care less about men and their needs (except when these men are brown, gay or love to cross-dress, in which case feminists gush with adoration), try to score points by declaring that "patriarchy hurts men too", which somehow then implies that it would be better for men to submit to the ideological whims of the feminist vanguard. (This is even better than their constant misuse of the word "entitlement", a magic word that never seems to apply to leftists themselves when they claim to be entitled to the wealth of the productive members of society to redistribute to their allies as they please. Even more mysteriously, this word does apply to men who are competing for something, even though entitlement and competition are logically exclusive concepts, as you need to compete for something that you would like to have iff you are not entitled to it.) It is especially hilarious when feminists try to use the existence and plight of marginal men to defend their cause to reorder society to their liking, since the marginal men tend to be hurt worst by feminism.
With the concept as conveniently vague and fluid as "patriarchy", feminists get a free pass to imply that all things that are less than perfect in this world (which of course means pretty much everything by definition, since anything could always be better in some sense) are somehow the fault of the "patriarchy", and if feminists were in power, all those things would in some unspecified way be better and the problems associated to them would just magically be gone, even if they are deeply rooted in economic or sociobiological explanations. And of course feminists have no duty whatsoever to explain which one of the various mutually incoherent policies that they advocate exactly would even begin to address, let alone solve, those problems. Nice position to be if you can get it, I guess.
I can't help but point out that this very technique used to be, surprise surprise, the standard rhetorical trick of communists to gain support from various minority groups who weren't otherwise that enthusiastic of socialism. The stalinist evangelists approached them and explained that the problems and concerns particular to their group had already been solved or were moot by definition in the Soviet Union. The only alternative is to stick with the present system, of course, and surely you don't want that, do you? Naturally, the communists never allowed outsiders to come and see the reality of their system, except in carefully staged unrepresentative areas that had no relation to reality. Modern feminists, who are the present-day ideological descendants of communists, are much luckier in the sense that their utopian society safely exists only in the la-la land of their dreams. We can't go there to look around and find out if, for example, the feminist medical and social engineering techniques have finally given both men and women equally long average lifespans, or whether both sexes really die equally often in workplace accidents (oh right, let me guess: "In our glorious non-patriarchal and non-capitalist system, there are no workplace accidents! Even the wheat grows faster here, sisters!").
But what do I know. Perhaps the average male really would be better off in a system that gives him complete freedom to go out wearing a dress or to have gay sex with his buddies, and if anybody thinks less of him or discriminates against him for this, the thought police will come and put these bigots back in line. Perhaps it would be good if feminists did indeed come to power in some distant country and show us how their ideology really works. Once the walls come up to prevent people, both male and female, from leaving that country, the rest of the world should see that the jig is up.
Moving on. Certain memes seem to be entangled in a very tight bunch. For example, feminism and vegetarianism. After all, meat is not only murder, but the root cause of patriarchy. So it's not really that surprising that feminists have recently been huffy about the new Burger King commercial "Manthem", in which a crowd of singing men throw away the burden of feminism from their shoulders and enjoy being men and eating delicious Burger King burgers. Crimethink! Sacrilege! Being "politically incorrect" and "rebel" "against authority" sure aren't funny any more when, instead of edgy "hipsters" and "punks", the wrong people start engaging in it. (As an aside, one of Panu's most significant observations is that feminism has lost any claim to being an "alternative" a few decades ago, and ever since the real independent thinking has come from the side of anti-feminists.)
The post "Shame of the Week (Musical)" is hilarious since it immediately starts by implying that men who like to eat meat are fags. Another instance of the hunter being blind to mountains while chasing a rabbit, I guess. It never ceases to amaze me that for such a supposedly gay-friendly group, feminists simply can't help but imply that their opponents are faggots, although they often disguise this schoolyard-level intent with convenient big words such as "homosocial". It is in feminist interests to denigrate homosociality, of course, since there is no bigger threat to feminism than solidarity, co-operation and camaraderie between men.
Another thing that puzzles me about this commercial brouhaha is that feminists, who normally categorically deny that obesity would in any way be problematic and who proclaim that there is no statistical connection whatsoever between weight and health, have apparently caught some kind of total amnesia, since they are now saying that eating fast food and especially meat is somehow unhealthy. Curious. And of course, there has to be that "patriarchy hurts men too" angle too, since men are somehow "forced" to eat meat. You know, by the patriarchy. I guess I can conclude that in the feminist system, there would not be hamburgers for men to eat freely, but only healthy vegetarian and thus more feminist-friendly options? (Since feminism is socialism, that one is actually probably true, since socialism has never been that interested in avoiding starvation of its subjects.)
For all their queer-loving in abstract, feminists are so very often disappointed by the ideological shortcomings of the real-world male homosexuals. What, men who don't really need women for anything aren't always that eager to please their whims and willing to jump up and down on their command? Gee, I never would have guessed. The post "Queer Misogyny" at "Center of Gravitas" laments certain behaviours and attitudes of the modern sodomites.
Homosexual men are also the driving force behind fashion and beauty industries, as depicted in women's magazines. It's funny that the vast majority of women doesn't embrace alternative magazines that depict fatties, but vote with their dollars for the conventional "impossible" standard of beauty, to the great dismay of feminists. Well, that's just yet another place where feminism and leftism fails a simple free market test. Myself, I can't even understand what kind of argument the impossibility for the average woman to reach beauty standards is supposed to be, even if this premise is accepted. The best-looking women simply don't have to resemble the average woman any more than, say, the top athletes have to resemble average men, or the richest businessmen have to resemble the average working-class people, or a luxury gold watch has to resemble a $2 plastic timepiece. And you know, for some reason, you rarely read men complaining how unfair it is that it's plain impossible for the average man to become a world championship level athlete, no matter how hard he trains.
Women tend to have it best when they are young adults, but once they start to gradually lose their looks, they inevitably notice that they have to bedazzle the rest of the world with their skills, personality and attitude. It certainly is no wonder why middle-aged women constantly complain about being "invisible", having now entered the world that their brothers entered twenty years earlier. (I can hear the feminists already: "See? see? Patriarchy hurts men too! And no, we will not bother to elucidate how exactly the average man would have it better in feminism in this respect, so shut up!") The post "How to succeed in the academic world" gives ladies some hints on how to ensure success in their midlife.
To wrap up this week's edition of ugly and smelly floaters, we can note that the basic technique of totalitarian mind control is to break down its subjects by making their world an unpredictable minefield of a myriad of obscure and illogical rules, all designed so that it is simply not possible to avoid constant infractions and thus be a good person. It would certainly be difficult for me to find a better example of how this works than the post "You do not know me" at "I Hate People". Once the subject has been broken down, rebuilding of his persona and cleansing him of his incorrect thoughts and attitudes can commence in seemingly friendly spirits. For an example of how this part of the program might work, see the post "From the Perspective of a Man", written by the host of this carnival.
Dear Ilkka,
Ive gandered at your blog and read many of your entries over a couple of nights. Ive noticed you really detest feminists. I alternately hate and believe it or not feel DEEPLY sorry for many of the young mislead ones at the same time.
Try this Ilkka:
Remind them that European native populations, Russia's population, Canada's population and America's white and now black populations have BELOW REPLACEMENT BIRTH RATES.
Ilkka, DO THIS OVER AND OVER.
Let them know that Spain, with a birthrate of 1.2 and Germany with 1.38 are close to halfing the size of each successive generation.
Even they, with the help of a chalkboard can see that 100 million adults of equal sexual distribution would become 50 million, their children's generation 25, their grandchildrens 12.5 and their great-grandchildren's genereation 6.75 million if we averaged 1 child per female.
Of course by then, we'd be overrun by the caliphate on the earth and they would be wearing burkha's and be routinely beaten for merely showing their faces anyway...........so that wouldn't matter so much.
Also Ilkka, ask them if they'd rather live in South America, Mexico, Russia, The Arab world, Mongolia, China, etc.? Where would be better than Canada or America that is not quickly dying out? Australia, New Zeland, and Japan also have this problem.
Also Ilkka, on a personal note......................let a few that really get under your skin MEET YOUR wife. Your wife can tell them how happily married you are, show them your children (if you have any) and tell them how much the two of you love and enjoy your little ones and how they have changed your life.
You are right when you state feminists are often miserable. Some, its obvious to me, are physically unnatractive in a genetic way......even if they spent hours in a gym every day they'd never be pretty. I honestly think they are mad at God (or just genetics) for their predicament and strike out at the men who dont notice them. Others suffer from an aggressive moral vanity and have picked up on a set of beliefs that they can endlessly loudly assert that they feel makes them "the victim" and gives them special priveledges "all in one".
Ive said this many times......."there are more lonely, childless, bitter 40-something women as a result of gender-feminism than this centuries wars produced".
Posted by Anonymous | 4:07 PM
Each time I laugh at the 'You do not know me' essay, that opresses her.
Posted by C. Van Carter | 3:01 AM
Anon: Try this Ilkka:
Remind them that European native populations, Russia's population, Canada's population and America's white and now black populations have BELOW REPLACEMENT BIRTH RATES. (etc.)
This is highly hilarious, taking into account the fact that Ilkka is childfree.
Posted by Panu | 9:10 AM
It can't get any more sad and ironic than this.
"Each time you made a comment on a woman’s appearance to your uddies and especially her “fuckability” or another equally repulsive term- you oppressed me."
A huge load of this kind of angst on a page that proudly wears the phrase "The patriarchy has a really small penis" in its subtitle.
Every time you joke about penises, especially small ones, you oppress me.
Posted by Anonymous | 11:05 AM
Oh and by the way, I enjoy these posts a lot, but please tone the copromania down a notch.
Posted by Anonymous | 11:08 AM
Re "You do not know me" (Ilkka, where do you find all those creatures?):
Is it just me imagining things, or do being easily oppressed by ridiculous things and general hatred of people correlate with each other fairly strongly?
BTW, I just answered her question "What have I ever done to you?". Let's see if she lets the answer appear in the comments.
Posted by Vera | 8:39 AM