Thanks, but no thanks

A reader recently asked me: Shouldn't we be thanking feminists for 'waking us up,' helping us to 'take a look at ourselves'?

I so wholeheartedly agree. I've even thanked feminists on this very blog. I've thanked them profusely for - at least in part - making me the man I am. I've even admitted that I used to regard myself as a feminist! I don't any more - and I'll get back to why that is - but suffice it to say that I think feminism has been admirable and served a worthy, indispensable cause.

It has given us so much. Thank you, feminism.

It continues to give. So much. Thank you, feminism.

The girls
They will give it of course
But they give with such force
That it gives you remorse
(The Girls and the Dogs, Brel/Shuman)

Feminism has really given us plenty. Yes, society needed a wake up call back at the turn of the 20th century, because - whoops! - somehow it had forgotten to give women the vote and other civil rights. In fact, the notions of civil rights and equality were still relatively new when women got the vote. They were one of the last groups to get legal equality, along with another group that didn't have legal equality either throughout most of history: men. In its infancy, liberal democracy was for rich landowners. Sure, it was about liberty and equality for all. It's just that 'all' was rather a limited concept.

RICH LIBERAL DEMOCRAT: Liberty....equality...rights....blah blah blah...!

YOUNG RONNY: Surely these principles apply to all...?

RICH LIBERAL DEMOCRAT: Yes, to all.

YOUNG RONNY: All? As in absolutely, positively everybody? All of humanity, without exception? Every last motherfucker?

RICH LIBERAL DEMOCRAT: Yes, of course. All of humanity. Within reason. Now, get over here and polish me boots, boy, or else you'll feel the sting of me whip! You'll be getting above thy station, young scallywag! I don't like the cut of yer jib!

YOUNG RONNY: Aha! But...ow! That's not fucking equality! Ouch! I'm a human being too...!

RICH LIBERAL DEMOCRAT: (stopping up, gobsmacked) What on Earth do you mean? You're just a servant!

This was the sort of elitist repression the common people had to fight against, and thus the first wave of feminism was a movement against very real injustice. I myself am a child of second wave feminism, whose agenda was a fight for women's liberation in the face of both de jure and de facto inequality. This movement notably addressed norms and stigmatisation, challenging the moral ideal of monogamous marriage and its gender roles. The greatest contribution of this second wave of feminism was probably in terms of changing social attitudes towards the sexes. We can certainly thank it for equal opportunities, independence and ideas of free sexuality.

Importantly, this movement didn't generally have 'men' as its enemy. The moral compass it was up against was arguably an attribute of society as a whole, not just one half of it. Feminists, other free thinkers and sexual liberators in the 50s and 60s would have had as many female as male pointing fingers pointing at them. One of the great achievements of this movement, I feel, was a modernisation of men's roles to include all sorts of household chores and 'new man' shit. That development is not parallelled in women's roles. She's generally not the one changing the fuse or reading the map. She's not the one designing the gadgets or reinventing the wheel. Who or what is stopping her? If second wave feminism has come up short it's in terms of finally freeing women from social attitudes.

Whose attitudes? Men's? Hardly. Is the man snatching the map from the woman? Or is she handing it to him as if it's burning her feminine fingers?

Here's where the ways part. Some of us feel that second wave feminism was doing an absolutely splendid job and that it ought to just keep up the good work. Rome wasn't built in a day, but it did get built. More empowerment! More tits, cocks and cunts on the beach! More alternative family forms, free sexuality, men in makeup and women in suits. Whatever makes you happy and fuck what anyone else thinks, it's a free society, etc.

But along comes third wave feminism, which in many ways resembles a motorway pile up. (Who's got the map now? Everyone? No one?) I couldn't help noticing, with a few chuckles, that the Wikipedia page on third wave feminism carries the comment, "This article or section appears to contradict itself." I won't pretend I can untangle the different strands, but I will try to identify some of them:

Third wave feminism can in part be understood as reaction against second wave feminism, which is seen to have failed. It hasn't finished the job of liberation. Ergo it must be wrong.

No more self-empowerment in the face of society's norms and stigmatisation. That idea is replaced by the notion of special privileges and extra rights as the solution in the face of the enemy: men. The solution to what? Inequality? The principle of equality is also redefined: Where once it meant equal rights and opportunities, it now means equal representation. If the sexes aren't represented 50/50 in some area or walk of life, this is seen as evidence of injustice, inequality, discrimination. This only seems to count for areas or walks of life that feminists happen to be interested in. They'll happily leave men to take the heavy, dangerous work and the innovative risks, whilst screaming that all the cushy, fat cat positions and dividends should be divided equally, by force if necessary. It's not really quite rational or fair, but I guess those have been redifined too.

No more free sexuality. Women letting it all hang out and enjoying sexual partners as they see fit is seen as false consciousness. They're really being exploited by men, whose sexuality is seen as repressive and demeaning to women. A consequence of this neopuritanical reasoning is the exaltation of romantic 'love', which on closer scrutiny means monogamy, chastity and modesty (i.e. ostensibly marriage), and disapproval of promiscuity and immodesty. Thus this movement opposes public expressions of sexuality like pornography, prostitution and anything portraying women as sexual beings, whether as instigators or objects of sexual desire. The resemblance to religious morality is striking, as is the irony of this U-turn in the face of second wave free sexuality and raised consciousness.

Where women's liberation in the 60s and 70s was in essence anti-establishment, the third wave is emerging as a bastion of political correctness, the screaming, spoilt ward of nanny states. Self-empowerment and personal liberty seem to have been replaced by the self-pity of eternal victim status.

Third wave feminism can of course be understood as a natural consequence of the first two waves. You make gender a political issue, it's going to develop as one, for better or worse. Nevertheless, the inherent U-turns, the ideological contradictions, the lack of basic horse sense in it lead to a certain confusion about what feminism is and what it's after. Many second wave feminists feel the need to qualify their brand of feminism with a modifier like 'liberal,' 'pro sex' etc. in order to distance themselves from the dingbat lunacy that's taken a patent on the name 'feminism.' Others have stopped regarding themselves as feminists alltogether in the realisation that that movement is alien to their principles and that they can no more call themselves feminists than English can call itself a dialect of Chinese. 

So thank you, feminism, for levelling the playing field, raising consciousness and helping pave the way for people to live their lives as they see fit. Do we need all this undone now? No thanks.

Too much time, too little to do

If you think about leading world powers, Sweden is probably not the first nation to spring to mind. There are greater, wealthier nations. There are nations that have distinguished themselves on the battlefields of history. There are nations that once were home to great civilisations (and not just marauding thugs in longboats), the centres of vast empires. Sweden has a modest reputation on the world stage of history. But in one area, she surely leads the world.

No other country has implemented more radical feminist ideology and made it into law than Sweden. No other country has sacrificed more equal rights in the name of radical feminist ideology than Sweden. No other country has invested so much time, energy and money on politically correct tokenism than Sweden. The feminists have taken the political scene in that country hostage and somehow established a national consciousness around their wacky agenda. In that country, they seem to face no opposition.

This is strangely frustrating to write. For one thing, there are so many examples of Swedish dingbat-ism, it's hard to know where to start. And as the born pisstaker I am, I feel my writing skills are almost redundant here, because truth is not only stranger than fiction, it's frequently also funnier. You will find me uncharacteristically gobsmacked, dear reader, positively lost for words.

Anyway, where to begin? Let's begin in the eastern Swedish town of Uppsala, where a local policy on pedestrian crossing signs has caused a scandal. Back in 2007, the town of Hässleholm was the first to introduce a sign depicting a female pedestrian in the interests of gender equality. Fair enough. Whatever makes you happy. Perhaps it helped more women get across the road. Anyway, they didn't have to feel left out in that town any more. In 2008, this became national policy and a standard design was approved for the new sign.

The woman on the sign, known as Fru Gårman ('Mrs. Walkman'), is a gender-sensitive version of her male counterpart, Herr Gårman, a name that translates both as 'Mr. Walkman' and 'This is where you walk.'

But somehow, in Uppsala, they put up the wrong sign, thereby falling foul of the national policy regarding the correct depiction of a female pedestrian. It has to be taken down again - at no small expense to the taxpayer - and replaced with the approved version. What's wrong with Uppsala's alternative Fru Gårman? She is simply 'too feminine'. More specifically, the breasts are 'too perky' and the skirt too short. Women who cross roads in Sweden are somewhat frumpier, as the official sign (below, right) indicates.

Personally, I don't see how either of these signs is a benefit or a danger to road safety. And to give them their due in Uppsala, none of the residents have complained.

Street signs are one thing. Personal pronouns are another. The swedish kindergarten Egalia has cancelled the use of the pronouns 'han' (he) and 'hon' (she) and replaced them with the genderless 'hen.'

"We use the word "Hen" for example when a doctor, police, electrician or plumber or such is coming to the kindergarten," said school director Lotta Rajalin (52). "We don't know if it's a he or a she so we just say 'Hen is coming around 2pm.' Then the children can imagine both a man or a woman. This widens their view.

Right.

This is part of a wave of gender neutrality sweeping Swedish society these days. Apparently, the first children's book has just been published in which the gender of the leading character is not specified. I bet that's an exciting read. It's also reported that the younger generation in Sweden is most likely to take on board the new neutral pronoun. Perhaps the reasoning is that if we pretend it's not there, gender will go away. Experience doesn't seem to suggest it, however.

Uralian languages traditionally have gender neutral pronouns: The third-person singular and plural personal pronouns are hän and he in Finnish, tema (ta) and nemad (nad) in Estonian and ő and ők in Hungarian, respectively, which always refer to persons or animals. But this traditional linguistic trait has not done anything to diminish gender roles in the societies where these languages are spoken. But hey, ideas don't have to make rational sense or be supported by evidence to become policy in Sweden. They just have to be popular amongst feminists!

In 2009, 26 year old father Ragnar Bengtsson began pumping his breasts to see if he could produce breast milk. I have no problem with this enterprising experiment. Had it been successful, it might have made modern men even more independent of women than we already are. Among feminists, the argument went that if fathers could breast feed their children, their mothers could return more quickly to the workplace. Yeah, why not? Why do men have nipples anyway? Answer me that. Mine are a bit hairy, but if the kid doesn't have a problem with it....

The funny thing about this particular news item was the dingbat commentary that accompanied it.

"Men often have trouble finding things. And if the mother is out, the child is screaming and they can't find the pacifier I'm sure there are a lot of men who give their baby their breasts," says professor of endocrinology at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sigbritt Werner.

Do men have trouble finding things? Do women have trouble with reality? Perhaps men will be giving babies their breasts some day. What surprises me is that this dingbat thinks a lot of men do it already. What planet does she live on? Or is this a realistic scenario in Sweden?

One is of course naturally curious as to whether Bengtsson actually managed to get milk out of his tits. No. Apparently, all he got was sore breasts.

They do seem to be trying very hard in Sweden, don't they? I don't know if I find them charming or chilling. One can't help but wonder what they're actually trying to accomplish. I wonder if they even know, themselves. Why? What's the problem? What is it with Sweden? I don't pretend to know why, but The Stranglers had a stab at it back in 1978:

Fluctuations at a minimum
Hypochondriac tombstone
Sense of humour's gone astray somewhere.
Too much time to think
Too little to do!
Cos it's all quiet on the eastern front
(Sweden by The Stranglers)

That's enough samples of Swedish lunacy for now. There will be more. In the meantime, let's keep fucking with those feminists!

Prejudice and discrimination

Is prejudice the same as discrimination?

I would argue that we all have prejudices in the sense of preconceived ideas about the people we meet and interact with in our daily life. It's not necessarily a bad thing. If we didn't have social biases to guide us, we might inadvertently address small children in the same way as an international symposium on the subject of quantum non-locality using tripartite entanglement with non-orthogonal states....or something. Or vice versa. And no one would be any wiser. Without some prejudice, you might expect mother-in-law to laugh at the same joke that nearly made you shit the first time you heard it, instead of making her wonder whether her daughter's married a fascistoid schizophrenic from another planet.

MOTHER-IN-LAW: Oh my God! My daughter's married a fascistoid schizophrenic from another planet.

PROFESSOR RON: Holy fuck! I married the daughter of a crabby old feminist.

STEPHEN SONDHEIM: That sounds like the subject of my next musical.

WOODY ALLEN: No, it's the subject of my next film.

ED WOOD: I already made that film back in 1964. It's not the one I'm remembered for....

Do we have these sort of preconceived ideas because we experience that people are different, or are people different because we have preconceived ideas about them? Is mother-in-law only (allegedly) devoid of anything resembling humour because society expects it of her, or do we give her the benefit of the doubt because experience tells us that wit, sophistication and irony pretty much go over her head?

We use our prejudices wisely and unwisely every day as part of a set of social skills that - when succesful - paves the way for positive, productive relations, or at least keeps people from killing each other. Yes, we can overdo it. There's no need to talk to people with foreign accents as if they're morons, unless you want them to think you're a moron. There's no need to grovel to people in lab coats or uniforms, just as there's no need to condescend to the hired help. Unless you want them to think you're a moron. Maybe you are a moron, in which case you're just being yourself, which is and damn well should be your right in a democracy worth its salt. After all, the true test of liberty and democracy is not how well we all stroke each other and say 'pretty please with sugar on,' but how well we accommodate dissent, conflict and provocation. Democracy isn't there to make people nicer, but to enable assholes to live together. But the point is, prejudice is first and foremost a personal and social issue that rational thinking, free citizens should be able to figure out for themselves.

At what point does it become a political issue? When it becomes systematic and systemic unfair treatment, costing you your legally guaranteed rights of citizenship and fair opportunities. Feminists will tell you that's the case with gender, but the evidence doesn't support it. Sure, studies show that gender is a big cultural issue. We don't treat boys and girls the same. Whether it originates on a conscious or subconscious level, it's good to be aware of it if it can help one to be more socially adept. Do we make girls and boys different by treating them differently, or do we treat them differently because experience tells us they're different? Perhaps there's truth in both scenarios, in which case, the question becomes, how much? I'm all for challenging gender roles, freeing oneself from peer pressure, as well as one's own inhibitions, and helping others to do the same.

If you study prejudice in terms of gender, you will find prejudice based on gender. If you study it in terms of appearance, age, dialect, handicap or any other prominent human trait, you will find it based on these things too. Does it lead to discrimination? In some cases, surely, but that doesn't qualify it as a systemic problem that needs addressing politically. We have laws against discrimination, laws guaranteeing equal rights and opportunities. The rest is up to us as individuals and citizens of society.

Besides, we can't politicise everything, can we? I for one don't know what demographic I'm supposed to belong to. As a white male I'm judged by some to be an oppressor on at least two fronts. That makes me one of the bad people. As an ageing, ugly fucker with a distinctly Jewish looking nose, I'm probably subject to all sorts of prejudice and maybe even some discrimination in favour of the young and beautiful. Poor little me. I'm a victim. Who's going to pass a law solving all my problems? Can I even prove that they're not just in my own imagination?

BABS: Stop whining already! You call that a nose? This is a nose!

It becomes a campaign for political correctness, based on the fact that the sexes have different tastes, interests, humour etc. That's the difference between the different waves of feminism. The present one actually wants to dismantle equal rights in its quest for an artificial homogeneity, making a personal and social issue political at the cost of liberty and reason.

That's why I'm voting with my feet, so to speak, using ridicule and political incorrectness as an antidote to something I find absurd.

So fuck feminism! Not because I don't want equal rights and equal opportunities, but precisely because I do.

We have met the enemy....

Happy International Women's Day. Some background:

1917
On the last Sunday of February, Russian women began a strike for "bread and peace" in response to the death over 2 million Russian soldiers in war. Opposed by political leaders the women continued to strike until four days later the Czar was forced to abdicate and the provisional Government granted women the right to vote. The date the women's strike commenced was Sunday 23 February on the Julian calendar then in use in Russia. This day on the Gregorian calendar in use elsewhere was 8 March.

1918 - 1999
Since its birth in the socialist movement, International Women's Day has grown to become a global day of recognition and celebration across developed and developing countries alike. For decades, IWD has grown from strength to strength annually. For many years the United Nations has held an annual IWD conference to coordinate international efforts for women's rights and participation in social, political and economic processes.(Source: http://www.internationalwomensday.com/about.asp)

In commemoration of International Women's Day, it could be fun to see how far the feminist movement has come since its noble and laudable beginnings. It started with a battle for equal rights, equal opportunities. It started with women questioning some accepted norms, asking awkward questions, breaking taboos (and quite a few window panes) in a quest for the same legal and social status as men. The fact that they didn't enjoy the same status is frequently blamed on 'men', as if 'men' throughout history had been a homogenous group or class whose members enjoyed the same rights and status as each other. They weren't and they didn't. Not by any means.

In western democracies, men had the vote before women (with certain exceptions), but not long before that and throughout most of the history of civilisation, very few men had any rights either. Before democracy, and in its infancy, power was concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite. Rulers were often - though not exclusively - men, but the real power structures were families whose wealth and power were hereditary. Inequality was - and still is - far more a distinction between haves and have-nots than between males and females. Inequality - whatever the basis for groupings and comparisons - is a social phenomenon. If someone is more privileged than you, it's likely to have more to do with wealth and social connections than gender. Otherwise men as a subset would be wealthier and more influential than women as a subset, which is not the case. Gender is simply not a realistic basis for a class distinction.

We have met the enemy, and he is....

Back then, there was something at stake. Back then, feminism had a legitimate claim and it kicked ass, winning the equal rights and equal opportunities that women had coming to them as citizens of society. For a while afterwards - it can be argued - social attitudes lagged behind, resulting in de facto inequality, despite de jure equality. And now? Do women not have the same opportunities as men? Do they take them? Do they have to? If the situation today is still de facto inequality - at least on certain fronts - and still as a result of social attitudes, whose attitudes are at fault here? Is it the men, wondering where all the female applicants and candidates have got to? The same men who've mastered all the domestic chores as well as their own traditional areas of expertise? Have we got a shitty, archaic attitude, keeping women down? It doesn't really appear to be the case, does it? If you're looking for a non progressive, unproductive attitude to blame, try focussing on women, still never really venturing into anything unladylike as long as they can get a man to do it.

What's modern feminism fighting for? Preferential treatment. Enforced political correctness. Quotas. I wonder what the hunger striking, window breaking Pankhursts would have made of that.

EMMELINE PANKHURST: (turning in grave) I didn't break windows and go on hunger strike for these whiny dingbats. What the fuck went wrong?

PROFESSOR RON: They discovered a genie called 'socialism.' They'll rub that lamp till they've worn the fucker out.

EMMELINE PANKHURST: The lamp or the genie?

PROFESSOR RON: Does it matter? It's fucked up either way.

Perhaps feminism still has a role to play. It just doesn't have anything to do with men anymore. We've done our bit, held up our end. Now it's up to you. Sure there's a problem, if you've got a problem with things as they are. So deal with it. Grasp the nettle. Make your move. Stop trying to make your problem society's problem. The solution to a lack of independence is independent action, not the same old whining, until a man takes pity on you and once more comes riding to the rescue. That can't solve the problem, because that is the problem. But only if you've got a problem with it.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

There is no 'we'

I once had a friend who used to say that there were no problems, only situations. I used to think it was some positive thinking bullshit he'd picked up at one of those conferences where people walk on hot cinders and chant mantras. Being the sort of guy who went to those sort of conferences, he needed all the positive thinking bullshit he could lay his hands on. After all, walking on hot cinders is quite an achievement. I'm not sure what you use it for, but my hat's off to mind over matter.

The statement in question is a misappropriation, an oversimplification of a more complex idea. People tramping over hot cinders and chanting positivity mantras will often do that. Of course there are problems. Problems exist. If you find yourself on an upper floor of a burning building, there's a problem. Or more accurately, you've got a problem which no amount of denial can negate. The point is that problems are only problems from someone's point of view. Problems are subjective. A problem is a deviation from some standard of normality or desirability. Without someone to expect the norm or desire the object of desire, there is no standard and therefore no problem.

Now when a movement like feminism seems to be inventing problems where there weren't any, I'll gladly give it the benefit of the doubt. Sure it's a problem that women are underrepresented on the boards of companies. If you have a problem with it. Sure it's a problem that men and women trade with each other for sexual favours. If you have a problem with it. Sure it's a problem that male and female behaviour differ from each other and express themselves as gender roles in society. If you have a problem with it. Sure it's a problem that men piss standing up, or that women don't. But only if you have a problem with it. It just doesn't follow that it's society's problem, or for that matter, anyone's problem but your own. It doesn't follow that I have to take your problem on board or solve it for you, no matter how sympathetic I may be. And 'sympathetic' is practically my middle name.

FEMINISTS: We must.... We should.... We have to.... We need to....

PROFESSOR SYMPATHETIC PLANET: There is no 'we.'

FEMINISTS: But we....!

PROFESSOR SYMPATHETIC PLANET: There is no 'we.' There are no 'but's either.

FEMINISTS: But the problem is real. The problem is...

PROFESSOR NO LONGER VERY SYMPATHETIC PLANET: The problem is yours. There is no 'we.' Watch my fucking lips: There is no 'we.'

The following is an example from the little kingdom of Denmark. You might have heard of it. Shakespeare mentioned it once. You might have inadvertently covered it with a fat finger while pointing to Germany or Sweden on a globe. For whilst Sweden is a world power in terms of political correctness and feminism run wild (that blog post is coming soon, I promise!), Denmark is still hanging on to some liberal sanity, as long as stocks last. Anyway, in Denmark...

FEMINIST DINGBATS: Aha! The concept of sanity is also dependent on a standard of normality or desirability! Gotcha!

PROFESSOR PLANET: I neither expect nor desire you to question your own sanity. Apart from anything else, it would take all the fun out of our conversations. I'm not wanting or expecting society to certify you insane or curtail your rights. Now if I could just continue...

Anyway, that battle is still raging in little Denmark, making it noteworthy for that at least.

A recent conference at a music conservatory in Copenhagen weighed up the shocking revelation of a recent report (hold on to your hat) that popular music is dominated by the male sex. The discussion didn't touch on whether or not this indeed is a problem or (as I would put it) whose problem the problem is. It seems to be a foregone conclusion - supported by music unions, the Ministry of Culture and assorted dingbats in that country - that it's society's problem and that society therefore needs to do something collectively to solve it.

Now it would appear that women choose other activities than playing music. The report by Niras cites that only 2 out of 10 people in the Danish music bizz are women. The report also documents that gender roles differ in music. Women like to squeal into microphones, whilst guys prefer drumming and strumming. Girls and boys make different noise. Real breaking news.

The lack of female participation is not that surprising when you consider how many gadgets are involved in music. Girls don't seem to want to tune drum heads or change bass strings any more than they want to connect pipes together or shin up and down pylons. They seem just as uninterested in carrying and connecting amplification as they are in carrying and connecting air compressors. Microphones they can just about handle, especially if there's a guy around to stick the lead in, adjust the stand and mix the sound. Problem? Sure, if it's a problem for you. But if it's not a problem for the people involved, the ones actually making the choices, why should we care, as long as all of the jobs get done? I see a certain desirability in female participation and the challenging of gender roles, but not enough to make it society's problem. Is it society's fault that women choose as they do?

What's interesting in the dicussion is that it shows two camps of feminists. The first accepts the above phenomenon as society's problem on the basis of desirability. The challenging and negation of gender roles is so nice to have that it's seen as a worthy project for all. For this camp, there's a 'we' that ought to do something. Ergo, let's call in the big guns.

But the real dingbats are the other camp. Their argument is so irrational that I almost can't get my head around it. But I'll try. Here, the argument is that that males and females choose differently because they don't really have a choice. Yes, you read correctly. Let's just mull that one over.

How is a choice not a choice? When it's..... What the fuck? (I know, I know, but bear with me. Even the woolliest thinking has a kind of rationale).

If the sexes were the same, you'd expect them to choose equally. They don't, so maybe they're not the same. But they are the same, says radical feminism (regardless of any evidence to the contrary), so any difference in gender roles and choices is imposed by society. Ergo, choice is an illusion. There is no free will. Even if we chose according to the norms and desires of feminism, it would still be an illusion and would simply indicate that society had programmed us better (i.e. more in keeping with a feminist agenda).

For this camp, there's a 'we' consisting of automotons. There is no individuality, no individual will and no individual responsibility for actions, choices, successes or fuck ups. This 'we' apparently needs to act to reprogramme itself into making better (i.e. more gender neutral, feminist compatible) choices at individual level. That is, if words like 'choice' and 'individual' are at all relevant here. Confused? I don't blame you. Apart from anything else, it's hard to see where such thoughts originate, if not from a thinking mind with a free will, unless God put them there, and....

FEMINIST: I don't think you want to go there.

PROFESSOR PLANET: That's one thing we agree on.

Anyway, the dingbats whose arguments imply the above scenario don't seem to be lumping themselves in with the brainwashed masses they want to reprogramme. Women are slaves because there's no free will, only unconscious compliance with society's conditioning. But feminists are aware of this, so it can't apply to them. So the reason they're making the same sort of choices as the unconscious herd is.....no, wait a minute.....  Is this doublethink?

You can be a poor victim in need of preferential treatment, or you can be a strong woman, frightening all the poor little men into submission. It's hard to be both at once, but only if you let reason stand in your way. Perhaps these identities are like hats. You just choose the one that best suits the occasion. You could even have the other one ready to switch to in case the weather suddenly changes.

As for problems, they're real enough. Some of them are yours. Some are mine. Some are theirs. But none are automatically ours. Because there is no 'we.'

Watch my lips. There is no 'we.'

A moral patent

I've been doing my best to engange feminists in discussion. OK, I swear a bit and say 'cunt' when I mean 'vagina', but I hope this preference for Germanic straight talk over Latin prudishness isn't a stumbling block to constructive dialogue.

OK, I'm being ironic. But only a bit.

Feminists are obliging me by confirming what I'm saying about them. It's nice of them, but boring. They change the subject. They don't want to argue, but only want to preach to the converted. They don't debate the issue in question but revert to shaming tactics and ad hominem arguments. One of them is based on the idea that I don't know enough about feminism to be able to discuss it. I should study it in detail before I'm qualified to give opinions and present arguments about it. I say:

PROFESSOR PLANET: Fair enough. Where am I going wrong? Enlighten me.

FEMINIST: I wouldn't waste my time.

I fed this argument into Planet Translate and it came out as "I'm scared of getting my ignorant ass kicked in an argument."

Fair enough.

Feminists seem to entertain the notion that a knowledge of their ideology means agreement with it, as if they're walking around with some sort of a moral patent. This reminds me of something. Check out the the dingbat in this video:

DINGBAT IN VIDEO: If you're not a feminist, you're a bigot.

PROFESSOR PLANET: But what if feminism isn't what it claims to be? What if it isn't doing what it says it's doing? What if its concept of equality isn't equality according to the democratic principles I understand? I'm a bigot? Who's a fucking bigot?

Try this for size:

Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men. (The Declaration of Feminism , November 1971)

If you'd been waiting since 1971 for feminism to take up this agenda, you'd be pretty impatient by now. You could have turned to stone. You'd certainly be wondering why feminism in fact seems to be doing the opposite, upholding an institution that undermines women's liberation. Radical feminism argues for example for outlawing prostitution on the basis of a power imbalance between sex worker and john, contending that the correct framework for sex should be an equal relationship (with love as the basis and monogamy as an unstated condition). That's essentially marriage with a few feminist conditions imposed, e.g. the man and the woman taking turns to be on top, to change nappies, to defrost the ice box etc. Add to this the fact that very many radical feminists are middle class, married women who expect and demand fidelity (i.e. for whom monogamy is an unstated condition) and therefore actually oppose the actions of promiscuous men and women who are undermining marriage and sexually liberating themselves. 

I have a suggestion as to why. Marriage isn't specifically for the benefit of men. That's simply....not to put too fine a point on it.....WRONG! Marriage has suited a female agenda just fine and continues to do so. Feminists know that real liberation doesn't come free, that it costs something at a personal level. They know that it means accepting some things and exploring some sides of themselves that they don't like and would rather not delve into. It must be much easier to hide behind the protective shell of monogamous marriage and campaign for all the dividends of liberation without the hardships. 
  

It could be interesting to engange some real feminists in a discussion about this, but they only seem to want to change the subject.

FEMINIST: You're a misogynistic troll.

PROFESSOR PLANET: So tell me something I don't fucking know. But if we could just turn back to the point in question....

No, apparently not.

That's a bit of a cop out, isn't it?