Posted on | March 19, 2016 | 99 Comments
Sometimes I’ll write about a feminist and a commenter will remark what happy news it is that this hateful creature will not reproduce. Alas, as a parent and a Christian, I feel tremendous sadness at such outcomes, for I know that every time some foolish young woman climbs aboard the express train to Crazy Cat Lady Land, she deprives her parents of the hope of grandchildren, and subtracts herself from the genetic future.
“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly and, above all other things, demanding . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, March 2014
What a profound irony that these atheistic women, believing Darwinism has proven that God does not exist — which the fool hath said in his heart — have consigned themselves to extinction in the name of Science.
They are free to curse God and die, and let us pray that their hateful doctrines perish with them. Yet this is tragic, and also unnecessary, if only parents were wise enough to study how this evil idea has flourished in our time, and thoughtfully guarded against this latter-day gnosticism. (When theologian Peter Jones wrote, “Gnosticism and feminism are a match made in heaven,” he was only half-right — this “match” was made in Hell.)
Bad ideas have a persistent appeal to the minds of fools, and so we must never be surprised to see old heresies strutting around in new clothes. Young adherents of obsolete errors call themselves “progressive” while insisting that those who stubbornly cling to eternal truth are behind the times. We watch them parade past us, chanting their slogans (“Social Justice!” “He for She!” “Black Lives Matter!”), a Grand Army of Fools marching in lockstep along a road Paved With Good Intentions, the proverbial destination of which they seem not to suspect. They call us ignorant for refusing to join them, but in fact we have far more knowledge than do the fools in the “progressive” parade.
“One sometimes gets the impression that the
mere words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ draw towards
them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist,
sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack,
pacifist, and feminist in England.”
George Orwell wrote that in 1937, but within 30 years, the same predictable phenomenon was apparent in the “hippie” movement, and now we see it all over again with “social justice” — cranks, crackpots and assorted kooks of every kind, too ignorant of history to realize that their basic type was a ridiculous cliché long before they were ever born.
Ordinary life is too ordinary for the bohemian dreamer with intellectual aspirations who longs to be part of History with a capital “H.” They are suckers for whatever seems avant-garde among the more sophisticated of their peers. Back when I was in high school, it was Carlos Castaneda (whom I never read) or Rick Wakeman (whom no one listens to now), and Earth Shoes and hip-hugger bell-bottom jeans, etc. Far out, man.
All that funky Keep On Truckin’ vibe circa 1975 is as passé as 8-track tapes and as dead as Gerald Ford, but it was cool then. What’s cool with sophisticated youth now is Third Wave feminist theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix:
To translate this to plain English, if you are a normal (feminine) woman who feels normal (heterosexual) attraction toward normal (masculine) men, this means that you have been brainwashed by society into accepting your own oppression under the system of male supremacy. Feminists believe that heterosexuality isimposed on women by the patriarchy — women are “coerced into heterosexuality,” as Professor Marilyn Frye explained — and feminine behavior is simply the performance of inferiority. Gender “glamorizes the subordinate status of females” and creates an artificial appearance of male-female difference in order “to clearly mark the subordinate class [i.e., females] from the privileged class [i.e., males].”
Thus, there are no natural differences between male and female, according to feminist theory, only the oppressive hierarchy of “gender” by which society enforces male supremacy.
Whereas once “queer” was an insult hurled by rednecks looking for a fight, now we have Mimi Marinucci proclaiming Feminism Is Queer, and who am I to disagree? She’s a professor of Women’s and Gender Studies with a Ph.D. from Temple University, and I’m just a guy with a blog.
Gender-neutral and gender-inclusive language . . . is inadvertently but inevitably exclusionary. What interferes with neutrality is the priority implicitly granted to heterosexual men. . . . Whether the division is between male and female, feminine and masculine, women and men, lesbian women and gay men, or whatever, is largely irrelevant. It is irrelevant because the binary system of gender, sex, and sexuality is not just an unrelated sex of categories, some involving biological sex and others involving learned behaviours and social or sexual roles. Rather, it is a holistic framework that regards gender, sex, and sexuality as expressions of a basic division of the human world into two distinct natural kinds.
Does that excerpt from Profesor Marinucci’s book (p. 75, a random selection) confuse you? Yeah, we could parse it out, read it carefully two or three times and derive some sense of her meaning, but why? Exactly what do we need to know that Professor Marinucci has to tell us? Not much. Insofar as we are normal human beings interested in sex as a matter of biology — we are mammals, OK? — it is not nearly as complicated as Professor Marinucci would have her readers believe. Heck, I figured all this out by the time I was in eighth grade and never once dreamed of using the phrase “holistic framework” to describe it. What did I dream of in eighth grade? Well, she played oboe in the band and I played trombone, but that’s not really relevant, is it?
No, what I want to write about is Feminist Tumblr, that swirling vortex of estrogen-induced Internet madness where Friday I found this:
Okay but… I’m surrounded by f–kboys?? Like ALL the time. Even the moderately decent ones are 100% f–kboys. WHY?? WHY?
I got the skeeziest once over from one of the new f–kboys and then one of the other ones that I’ve been having issues with BECAUSE HE SUCKS AT HIS F–KING JOB BUT THINKS HE’S HOT SH*T SO REFUSES TO DO BETTER decided to try flirting with me and then say “Well, you know, I only date people I work with” and I rolled my eyes so f–king hard holy shit and actually said “Yeah, well, I literally have no interest in dating anyone so” to which THE ENTIRE TEAM OF F–KBOYS RESPONDED THAT THEY DOUBT THAT because obviously their personalities and their d–ks are so f–king magical that I MUST want them, righT????????? so then I just “Sweetheart, trust me, if it was a lie I wouldn’t be wearing a shirt that literally says it” (wearing my “Asexual pirate isn’t interested in your booty” shirt today) AND THEY STILL WEREN’T STOPPING AND OMG THEY’RE SO SELF IMPORTANT LIKE WHY???
Mostly it just wasn’t that bad because they’re all children to me, regardless of age and how mature they think they are. So lots of eye rolls. A few of them aren’t 100% awful (1 is actually kinda chill) but yeah, no. Still f–kboys.
Wow. What a fun person to work with. This charming discourse intrigued me, so I was eager to learn more about Ms. Angry Asexual:
Panromantic asexual//demi-romantic asexual (because I rarely experience romantic attraction but when I do gender’s not a factor).
I’m 22, and I didn’t know that I was asexual until I was almost 21 years old . . .
Until then, I dated and generally did a LOT of things I didn’t really care for/want to do because I was expected to do them and whenever I expressed that I didn’t care for them people told me I was broken and there was something wrong with me . . .
(What? They said “there was something wrong with” you? Why would anyone think there was something wrong with a demi-romantic asexual? Gosh, ma’am, this is completely mystifying to me.)
Pretty much when I figured out and accepted I was ace I figured I was most likely panromantic because if sex doesn’t apply, why should gender? And I was proven right which was mostly cool because the butterflies and excitement of actually liking someone romantically is super interesting and cool to me. I’m still basically refusing to actually attempt to date anyone or even think about it because I don’t trust allosexual people not to try to manipulate me or resent me (BECAUSE IT HAPPENS EVERY F–KING TIME BECAUSE OUR CULTURE MAKES US THINK THAT IF YOU DON’T F–K SOMEONE YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT THEM WHICH IS SUCH BULLSH*T, OKAY??!!?! ALSO THAT PEOPLE ARE OWED SEX WHICH IS LIKE, WOW, NO F–K OFF) so even if I end up liking someone irl (which hasn’t happened yet but that’s probably a good thing) it probably will not be a good idea for me. Hooray. Anyway, I’m cool with it, I’m a very goal-oriented person and I have a super awesome best friend and really cool friends through here and FRIENDSHIP IS F–KING AWESOME. So. Uh. Yeah.
You can read lots more about her asexuality at her blog, just in case you haven’t been getting enough existential despair lately.
— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) March 18, 2016
Cruel sarcasm may not be the most enlightened way to react to this, but what else can we do? Life was a lot more fun back in 1975 even if all we had was 8-track tapes and Earth Shoes. Were there angry asexuals in 1975? Probably, but there was no Tumblr to tell them they were “asexual” or “panromantic” and the rest of us just avoided weirdos like that.
I always think of Glenn Reynolds’s phrase “Broken People” — he was talking about Kate Millett — when I encounter this kind of RAVING IN ALL CAPS WITH LOTS OF FOUR-LETTER WORDS feminist rage.
You don’t need an advanced theory or a Ph.D. from Temple University to explain everything that’s wrong in the world. Some people are just weirdos, and maybe a visit to an endocrinologist — a thyroid problem? some sort of vitamin deficiency? — could help them, or maybe not.
There are plenty of passengers on the express train to Crazy Cat Lady Land nowadays, and nobody in the scientific community seems interested in researching this phenomenon. Why? Because feminists blame it all on the heteronormative patriarchy, and if you doubt their explanation, they’ll start SHOUTING IN CAPITAL LETTERS ABOUT WHAT AN OPPRESSIVE MISOGYNIST F–KBOY YOU ARE.
Feminism is mental illness disguised as a political movement.
If a feminist's social media is an incessant monologue of anti-male rhetoric? She's the problem. pic.twitter.com/4jNgdKltDC
— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) March 17, 2016
— FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) March 18, 2016