The Other McCain

by Smitty

Roxanne gets me thinking with this one:

Now, I suspect that the retort is “That’s not what I meant by fungible,” but that leads us to the question: in what way are men fungible with each other but not with women? Can we really not take a male scientist and replace him with a talented female scientist, but he could be swapped out with another male scientist? In that situation, the premise of not being fungible is downright sexist – assuming that men can do things competently but women cannot.

Raaaaacism and sexism, I contend, are both DNA-based decision making. To say that any individuals are completely fungible is a joke: a Venn diagram will never have a complete overlap. I daresay that if you, the reader, could be cloned and never see your genetic copy for a decade, you wouldn’t even be fungible with yourself. For all the genetic makeup of you and otherYou, retroviruses notwithstanding, may be identical, a decade’s worth of neurological state changes are going to matter. Stacy’s clone, for example, might have made peace with Tabitha Hale.

However, I’m no longer convinced that feminists are even arguing in good faith. I suspect they understand that XX <> XY, in their heart of hearts, but will continue to argue, contra rationality that XX = XY simply because being contra rationality is more important that being correct. When people reject the possibility of Truth, all that remains is dishonesty. It’s who they are; it’s what they do.

None of the preceding should be taken as disagreeing with Roxanne’s post. She merely prompted.

On the same topic, Goldstien has some powerful words, emphasis mine:

That the term feminism has been corrupted — just as the terms “liberal” or “tolerance” or “fairness” have been corrupted — does not mean we as classical liberals / legal conservatives need give up the fight to take back ownership. In fact, ceding ownership over such terms has enabled the left to claim the mantle of being liberal, tolerant, and fair — to claim that it is they who are advocates of the equal rights of women, even as their corruption of feminism has rendered them particularly cynical special pleaders — which of necessity suggests of their political opponents the obverse: legal conservatives / classical liberals — now framed as racist, homophobic, misogynistic and patriarchal right-wingers — must be illiberal, intolerant, unfair, and resistant to allowing the “equal rights” of women.
It has been my argument here over the course of the last ten years that by rejecting and then countering the left’s attempts to usurp the language of individual liberty, we as conservatives are able to then forcefully and consistently make the case that the left’s entire political facade is based on the ideological perversion of what are fundamentally classical liberal principles.

Preach it, Jeff!

From the abstract pits of Postmodernism, to the vermin of the #Occupy movement, everything about the Left is an assault on the Enlightenment values that inform America. They hate you; they hate your face. For the end result of Progress is a vast mob of purely emotional, state-dependent rodents squeezed by iron fisted demagogues.

Our task as Americans and bloggers is to oppose the Left at every turn.