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?

Strange bedfellows or just pussy power?

Now, it is my contention that feminists are blaming men for something they're really doing to themselves and each other.

Take the question of monogamy, for example. Feminists would have us believe that the marriage scenario with the woman as a submissive doormat was down to a male agenda. But who is it that really wants marriage? Who is it that really wants monogamy? I don't see feminists arguing for free love and promiscuity. On the contrary, they see depictions or expressions of female sexiness as demeaning.

Feminism is remarkably close to Christianity in its attitudes towards sex. God says sex is evil, but tolerable within marriage, as long as the man's on top and no one enjoys it etc. The last part is a necessary concession to Mother(fucker) Nature. God realises, no doubt, what Tom Waits so brilliantly expresses as 'You can drive out nature with a pitchfork, but it always comes roaring back.' You can't stop people fucking each other, and even if you could, you wouldn't want to. You'd be cutting yourself off at the knees, so to speak. 

Anyway, the gurus of femi-dingbat-ism are also somewhat anti-sex, decreeing that it's demeaning to women and even damaging to their physical and psychological health if practised in excess, for example for money. They also realise sex ain't going away and that, more importantly, they want a good servicing themselves from time to time as well as kids down the line, so like the silly old God of religion, they have to find a compartment where it's tolerable. Feminists will tell you that sex is ok within a loving relationship. Love makes sex beautiful and uplifting. Feminist hysteria against prostitution, pornography and all promiscuous behaviour would seem to reflect a view that sex without love is dangerous and evil. Note, if you will: Love being exclusive and monogamous. Compare with the Christian notion that sex outside marriage is sinful and evil. Note, if you will: Marriage here being exclusive and monogamous. Hmm...

Strange bedfellows, feminism and religion.

An interesting little aside: Note that the same people who regard gender roles as a social construction don't seem to see romantic love as one. Funny, that. Nature is full of evidence of biological gender, but love is hard to see there. Unless you're a Christian. Hmm...

Strange bedfellows indeed, feminism and religion.

If feminism was what it claimed to be, then you'd think that it would fight against the straightjacket of monogamous marriage and similar exclusive relationships. People owning each other, having exclusive claims on each other is hardly conducive to independence, is it? But feminists don't like to share their lovers with their lovers' other lovers any more than any other western women do. Nor do they take at all kindly to promiscuous women. Women who do express their sexuality freely, unchastely, immodestly face the harsh judgement of their sisters. They're dismissed as victims of abuse. They're ignored on the basis of 'false consciousness.' They're showered with insults for treading on a sister's territory.

Evolutionary psychology has a good explanation of monogamy. When you produce one egg a month for as long as stocks last, you're going to be pretty selective about who gets to fertilise it. You're going to be looking for good genes in a potential mate. Having found that mate, you're going to want to monopolise him until he's fertilised an egg (at least), which means competing against rival females who'd do the same. Discrediting them - calling them filthy sluts on the basis of promiscuity, for example - is just part of that strategy.

Males on the other hand, who produce zillions of spermatazoa, are hardly served by monogamy in terms of getting their genes reproduced. Why keep pumping sperm into the same hole before you know it's even fertile? It makes much more sense to 'carpet bomb' and secure some hits that way.

The two women I'm currently fucking don't like the situation one iota and want it changed. Their strategies are different. One pouts and appeals to my sense of gallantry.

TAMARA: (making a face that says, 'I'm only a poor weak little woman. Be kind to me.') I know I don't have the right to ask it of you, but I'm asking anyway.

She's actually very dignified about it. I almost hear an orchestra start up in the background.

The other one creates a poisonous atmosphere, which is hard to get away from, as we're practically neighbours.

CINDY: (making a face that says, 'I do have the right to sexual exclusivity no matter what you say because I'm a woman and that's just the way things are.') Fuck you how could you I'm sick of the sight of you get out come back I'm not finished that bitch you bastard fuck you.....

It takes all my strength of will not to get sucked into either one of these pussy traps. I'm convinced that women have used this awesome emotional power throughout the ages to impose monogamy and shape the society we live in. I don't blame them. It's in their genes.

So here's the scenario: Sisters are empathic and supportive to each other as long as they're doing things according to a feminine code of conduct, but mercilessly damning as soon as one of them steps out of line. This code of conduct, uncriticísed and fully supported by feminism, closely resembles Christian virtue. In fact, I can't tell the difference.

Strange bedfellows, feminism and religion. But maybe not so strange after all. They both serve the real feminine agenda: monogamy. Perhaps they're just two fancy words for pussy power.

So let me get all this straight in my tiny mind: You tie yourself down with rules about monogamy, chastity and modesty (and shrilly demand that everyone around you respects them and adheres to them), then wonder why you don't feel free. It must be the fault of men, The Patriarchy, glass ceilings and all the other bogus shit. Anyone or anything but you yourself. You're looking anywhere and everywhere but in the mirror.

Religious dingbats often defend their hocus pocus with the argument that 'His ways are greater than ours.' You just have to accept things, and if they don't make sense (which they don't), then it's because logical reasoning has no value in the face of some dusty old crap that a bunch of dingbats wrote down in the year dot. It's in the book, so it must be true. I say, fair enough. Just keep it out of my neighbourhood.

Feminists just change the subject. They want us to accept their non-reasoning and nonsense without discussion. And it's in my neighbourhood.

I say no. Let's change the subject back.

This was the fucking gospel according to Professor Ron.

Sister solidarity and its downside

In my last post I drew attention to a phenomenon I referred to as 'the feminine regiment'. Feminists bang on about some bogus patriarchy conditioning them and keeping the sexes in stereotypical roles, but it seems to me that the strongest influence on women is peer pressure. If women really do want to work as auto mechanics, play drums in rock bands and fly jumbo jets, then I contend that the thing holding them back is not male discrimination or even fear that men will look at them in a funny way (which is pretty fucking scary, I grant you). No, it's a fear of other women's disapproval.

Female peer pressure works both ways. It's a solidarity thing. My observations have led me to believe that women expect empathy from each other in a way that men don't necessarily. Being a woman seems to involve a sort of code of sisterhood by which one knows what the other's going through (and expects this) by virtue of shared womanhood. It's something about the womb, the cradle of life that they have in common.

Men are more individualistic. Knowing you have a cock and balls in common with other men doesn't make you feel all warm and brotherly towards them. It makes you wonder who's got the longest cock and the biggest balls. One woman saying about another, 'I don't think she ever did anything for another person in her life' is fighting talk, insulting the object of the criticism by casting doubts on her empathy, and thereby her femininity. The same statement about a man has no such impact. Not being burdened by feelings for others could be interpreted as a masculine strength, even the source of a competitive edge.

Real women care. They're sympathetic to each other and kind to small furry animals. Real men don't give a fuck. They keep each other at arm's length and eat small furry animals as a mid day snack.

The sisterly feeling has a negative counterpart. If a sister doesn't live up to the code, she's ostracised as a pariah. It's like all that sisterly love and solidarity turns to a river of piss.

Tamara knew about Cindy before we fucked and does a mild little song and dance about it, but knows she can't really make any demands. But when Cindy finds out about Tamara, there's hell to pay. Not that she knows Tamara, or learns her name. She's only aware that there's another woman on the scene, which I haven't attempted to conceal. I've never promised her anything. In fact, I've made it clear that I don't do monogamy, so I cordially invite her to take the charge of 'infidelity' and insert it where the sun don't fucking shine. She does this, as far as I can tell, after some door slamming. She's practically smoking with rage, but I'm not really the object of it. No matter how treacherous and immoral she considers my behaviour to be, she doesn't really expect better. I'm a man. That sort of explains everything. Her girlfriends will comfort her, stroke her ego, tell her she deserves better than that asshole. But it's the other woman that gets the real scorn. "I'm so pissed off that her. That slut! How could she do this to me, to another woman?" The girlfriends will shake their heads and wonder the same. They will reduce the unnamed other woman to the level of pond life. Even worse, they'll feign pity, casually diagnosing her promiscuity and lack of solidarity as the result of abuse or neglact in her upbringing.

Liberation must be difficult when you've got the wrath, indignation and disapproval of all womankind poised to make you a leper for challenging norms and stepping out of line. No wonder feminists would rather blame men, The Patriarchy, glass ceilings or any other bogus shit for their conformist timidity. Their sisters wouldn't forgive them for telling the truth.

Debunking the feminist mythology

Time to debunk some good old mainstays of radical feminist mythology. These myths exist to support the idea that the woman is a victim, no matter what she does or doesn't do.

1. Sex as a social construction

This is the idea that sexual roles are entirely nurtured, with little or no relevant biological influence. But just see how visible sex is in nature, both as physique and behaviour. When one sex produces one gamete a month, and the other several million a day, it's hardly surprising that biological sex influences behaviour, choices and social structures amongst humans. Now, I'm a social constructivist too, so I see the point of liberating oneself from the primordial slime. We don't have to remain filthy, grunting troglodytes (although it has its appeal at times). But we didn't consciously invent sex and sexual roles any more than a peacock invented its tail or a male baboon decided it wanted a big ugly red ass. The primordial slime's part of us, so liberation has a personal, individual element that no one else can do on your behalf, although they might be able to help you with it.

That's why I'm here. To help. Amongst other things.


2. The Patriarchy

This is a dingbat buzz word for the social system she sees as having been designed and built by men, solely for the benefit of men. This is a social construction that's easily debunked: How could the hand that rocks the cradle have no influence? Are we to believe that the female throughout history has been nothing but a mindless incubator with no free will and no capacity for making choices? And that she suddenly woke up - in terms of the history of civilisation - sometime last week and realised that she might have a bit of leverage here?

WOMAN: Civilisation springs from my womb! Well, fuck me....

PROFESSOR PLANET: Exactly.

WOMAN: Hmm... There's an angle here somewhere, but I just can't seem to put my finger on it.

PROFESSOR PLANET: I'm sure you'll figure it out.

Now, if women seem to be perpetuating some ovine role that this 'patriarchy' has bestowed on them - and I agree that they do - whose fault is that? Mine?

I used to be married, so I lived with one. Did she read women's magazines and doggedly follow fashion for my benefit? Did she shy away from any physical, technical or practical task just to give me the pleasure of doing it? Even when I sucked at it and couldn't be bothered? Did I tell her to leave that shit to me? Hardly. On the contrary.

SLIGHTLY PUSSY WHIPPED PLANET BACK THEN: You could do it yourself. After all, it's called 'do-it-yourself' for a reason. Otherwise it would be called 'get-some-sucker-to-do-it'.

WOMAN: (giving me a look that says 'you fucking asshole you never do anything for me I'll cry in a minute and make your life a misery and forget fucking me for the next five days'). Don't start... I mean it, don't start...

Whose opinion was she really concerned about while buying designer furniture, dressing the kids like fashion mannequins, telling me what to wear, do and say in other people's company? Mine? Other men's? No fucking way!

Women perpetuate their own socially inhibiting bullshit collectively. Keeping up with the Joneses is about keeping up with Mrs. Jones. Fretting about what the neighbours think is fretting about what Mrs. Neighbour thinks. All the hair dye, cosmetics and accessories of the feminine uniform are about living up to the standards of the feminine regiment she's still marching in, because she lacks the courage to turn heel and stop giving a fuck. We all know it, but we pretend we don't. We've been raised to be gallant and humour her. If we're doing something sexist, it's treating her like a fragile flower and letting her get away with the easy option. The best thing we can do for equality is to ask her if she really wants it.

WOMAN: Yes.

Well take it then, for fuck's sake!

Some thoughts on women's liberation

Believe it or not, I used to call myself a feminist. How can this be? Did I change my tune? Did I have a hole in my head, or have I got one now? Did I cross over, like some Darth Vader of sexual politics, to the dark side?

No. I want the same thing I did then. I just lost some of my naivety. 

I feel it's in my interests to help women liberate themselves (from their own inhibitions and victimhood, not some spurious discrimination), because all the women I know are simply too predictable, conformist and dull. I miss women who can give me some intellectual feedback and not just the same vitriolic scorn, the pouting and sulking. I admire that women feel things. They could teach many men a thing or two about that (and have done). But I miss women who can control and use their feelings, instead of being in the grip of their feelings.

But you don't help women liberate themselves by extending a hand and talking about equality. The effects of that are almost comical. Talking to professional victims about life (or anything for that matter) is like talking to hypochondriacs about illness. How dare you even presume to enter a world where you know nothing, and they are the experts? Even if you can get a word in edgeways past 'Nobody knows the trouble I seen....' you will, at best, only get stung and scorned. You may respect them and consider them your equals, but you are mistaken. To them, you are not their equal. They look down on you from a great height, simply because you will never, never know what it's like to be a woman, a victim of biology. 

One should never be lulled into sympathy at that point. One should never make the mistake of conceding to the argument that women have it worse than men and always have, just because they're women. Confirming them in their victimhood doesn't help them (or you) at all. On the contrary, it's the very heart of their problem: A self-fulfilling prophecy by which we let them be inferior because they seem to want it so much. Contradicting them is just as hopeless.

FEMINIST DINGBAT: I can't do anything. I'm useless and worthless. I can't boil an egg without burning it.

PUSSY WHIPPED DICKHEAD JERKOFF: I think you're very clever and intelligent and able, daaarling. My egg was fine.

FEMINIST DINGBAT: Are you patronising me, you patriarchical slime? I'm only good for boiling eggs and being your servant, because that's how you see me. Don't you think I can do anything else? I could be on the board of a public company if only you'd buy me one. Buy me one! I want one! Now!

FAIRY GODMOTHER (closely resembles Vivane Whatshername-Dingbat from the EU): Give her what she wants, or we will! 

PROFESSOR PLANET (waking up): Oh Jesus Christ, what a fucking nightmare....

We've held doors and rolled out red carpets for too long. We've fought the battles, taken care of business, done the rationalising and the satirising and consequently still have to indulge females who lag way behind any postmodern or even modern intellectual development. For all intents and purposes, the world may as well still be flat.

It's not really my problem, except that they're too dull to fuck.

We'll help them best by ignoring them, leaving them to stew in their own juice. As my mother said to my father in an earlier paradigm: Iron your own fucking shirt. So I say to the pampered woman: build your own house, start your own company, fix your own wheels, dig a hole and fill it up again. If anything, it's more efficient than screaming.

Or just keep screaming. I can't hear you anyway.

You ain't seen nothing yet, b-b-b-baby, no you ain't....

Luxembourgian EU Commissioner and feminist dingbat Viviane Reding is going to launch a legislation proposal on 8th March this year which, if passed, will impose quotas for the percentage of women on the boards of public companies. Read her earlier bullshit here:

FEMINIST DINGBAT: Women are much clearer than men: they talk less, have short and efficient meetings and see no need to discuss things until midnight.

Women may well be much better than men at many things, if not all things. They just seem to be rather slow at proving it. They're not on the boards of companies, presumably for the same reason that they're not digging holes in the road or changing the oil on your car: They're not really into it. If women really are so much better and more efficient than men, why do they need legislation to compete with us? Why not on their own merits?

Of course, what makes this whole scheme really bogus is the idea that 'equality' can be created or improved through discrimination. It's a contradiction in terms. It's nothing to do with real equality, which is about equal rights and equal opportunities. Feminist dingbats like this Reding woman are confusing equality with equal representation. If there's 'inequality' on boards because there are less women, does that mean there's also inequality in the nursing profession or at your local auto workshop? And if the solution to this 'inequality' is quotas in the case of company boards, does that mean that quotas are the solution everywhere where the sexes aren't equally represented? If not, why not? Chew that shit over.

Of course, feminist dingbats like this Reding woman don't like to get into that discussion. They talk less, have short and efficient meetings and see no need to discuss things until midnight, especially if their arguments don't make sense and they're losing the discussion.

You know, I almost hope that feminist dingbat Reding gets her legislation through, thereby actually legitimising sexual discrimination by law. I will feel vindicated....nay, actually obliged to practise misogyny and male chauvinism on principle, if only to counterbalance the injustice and real inequality the legislation will cause by actually dissolving the principle of equal rights. I will feel obliged to discriminate against women, diss them, call them cunts and bitches and all manner of colourful epithets in order to defend equal rights. Being dissed and shunned and called cunt is but a small price to pay for extra rights and preferential treatment, wouldn't you say?

If you think there's discrimination now, you ain't seen nothing yet, baby.

I started this blog with a song quotation, and I'll end with another.

Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me.
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me.
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me.
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me.

Tits and a cunt ain't enough. Next!

I like Roosh V, here ranting about the hopelessness and lacking sex appeal of Danish women. As someone with approximately one thousand years of experience with Denmark and Danish women, I'm laughing out loud and breaking my neck nodding. OK, he's a bit of an asshole about it, but that's misogyny for you: the pot calling the kettle black. He's also American, for better or worse, which warrants a few pinches of salt, i.e. creative interpretation of his use of words and concepts. But funny as fuck, nevertheless.

You see, I know Danish women. I've fucked them, sucked them, fertilised their eggs, raised their spawn with them, put up with their crap, listened to their bitching and then divorced them. They're lovely, but needy and clingy. Then they wither, until only their needs are left, and you try to remember what it was that's now missing from the other side of the scales, the thing that made you want them at the start, that used to balance out all the neediness and clinginess, but isn't there any more......oh, yeah, they were young and lovely once. Now they're not. They could still be sexy, if they put their minds to it, but if the sexiness was based entirely on youth and loveliness, well, that's gone too, leaving you wondering what other attributes still warrant sharing living space with one of these women.

Such attributes could be an open mind and a free spirit. It could be her not worrying what the neighbours might think and just dropping the whole monogamous drudgery of the same tired dick in the same tired hole until one of us fucking dies. I mean, that attitude in itself could be sexy enough to want to fuck. I could stay with that kind of personality. Personality is the key here.

Anyway, it seems that a lot of Danish women are actually basking in Roosh's criticism, believe it or not. They're flattering themselves with it, interpreting it as evidence that Danish women have become oh so strong and oh so independent and oh so intimidating that all the little men are fightened away and can't get a hard on any more.

Wrong! Where are all these strong, broad-shouldered, independent women? I don't know a single one. All the women I know rely heavily on men for anything that might break a nail or give rise to unseemly beads of sweat on the delicate feminine brow. Compare with most of the men I know, who gave up the equivalent sensibilty years ago, who were brought up not to shy away from any role on the strength that it might be too feminine. I'd love to meet this mythical, independent woman who doesn't give a fuck. The closest I've come are the prostitutes who trade for exactly what they want - no more, no less - without snivelling about it. Respect for that. I'd fuck one if I could afford it.

It is alarmingly hard to get and maintain a hard on in Denmark. Not because the women are strong and intimidating. They're not. They just moan a lot, and that ain't strong, and it ain't sexy. And not because the dick really wants 'submissive' and 'obedient'. It doesn't. These are just two sides of a silly myth that feminists keep alive by saying it again and again, probably to explain away a lack of sexual interest in them.

FEMINIST DINGBAT: I've frightened all the men away, because I'm so strong, and they only really want a passive servant.

REALISTIC PROFESSOR: Wrong! We're just yawning, because you're so fucking dull.

Ironically, it's actually a kind of passivity about their own sexual role that makes these dingbats sexually uninteresting and not worth the effort to flirt with, let alone seduce. They think feminine looks, tits and a cunt are enough, so they'll be fighting them off without actually doing anything to warrant sexual attention. Wrong! These attributes come two a penny.

If I have to think of someone else anyway, I might just as well use my right hand. It doesn't get jealous or want a conservatory built or think I don't love it enough because I can't read its mind or some other bogus shit. But it's not that my right hand's uncomplicated, that I prefer it. I don't mind 'complicated' if the sex is worth it. The fact is, my right hand's as boring as hell. Yet still, it seemingly faces no competition! How can this be?

Women: Liven up, for fuck's sake!

'Sex addiction' is like 'original sin' on crack

I was tickled to death to read this article by Caspar Walsh in The Guardian this morning. The man calls himself a 'recovering addict of sex addiction' and claims 'evidence of an epidemic' in the form of sex-related diseases, societal problems, marriage breakdowns and family dysfunction. Sex addiction is apparently a disease that no one's taking seriously. We prefer a 'stiff upper lip approach' according to Walsh, and to 'keep calm and carry on' in the face of a problem, which - and get this breaking news sensation -  only gives us a lust for more.

Shocking. It certainly explains how I got so fucked up. I don't quite see where the stiff upper lip comes into it though, I must admit. Nor the keeping calm and carrying on. I'd say the upper lip was distinctly sweaty, and as for calmness....is that another word for 'exhaustion'?

Don't get me wrong. I really want to believe in Walsh's scary daemon, but am not yet convinced that it's anything but a bunch of bogus crap. As bogus crap goes, it is quite amusing though, so I must declare myself grateful to dingbats like Walsh for filling my world with things like this to chuckle out loud about, even in public.

I haven't seen the film Shame, directed by Steve McQueen, which puts this 'extraordinarily important issue' (McQueen 2012) 'on the media map' (Dingbat 2012), but will see it at the first opportunity, as it sounds quite sexy and perhaps promises the prospect of some juicy scenes to jerk off to. Hey, it might even convince me that sex addiction's a real disease.

But don't hold your breath. Walsh's so called evidence isn't worth shit. Marriage breakdown and 'family dysfunction', for example, strike me as evidence that monogamy is a straightjacket we're finally finding our way out of. They're only evidence of something negative if you buy into the old time God-fearing crap about sex being a sin and only blessed in marriage. Conjuring up the idea of sex as an addiction, a disease, a dysfunction, seems to be taking that silly Christian dogma a step further. It's like the concept of 'original sin' on crack cocaine. I wouldn't be surprised if this Walsh wasn't one of those door-to-door salvation salespeople.

As for the pornography argument, I would think that the very fact (I take Dingbat's word for it, that it is a fact) that '$89 per second is spent on porn' was evidence that it's harmless: It's enormously popular and widespread, and we're still here. 'I have yet to meet anyone who puts across a convincing argument for the safe and harmless use of porn,' moans Walsh. Try your own statistic, Dingbat. Of course, in a rational society, the burden of proof is on the other party: If you don't like porn and want it removed, you have to prove it's harmful. Just believing it's harmful, however doggedly or passionately, isn't enough. We don't have to buy into your evangelical agenda, whether it's Christian, feminist or both.

As for Steve McQueen, I guess a lot of water's flown under the bridge since he was jumping barbed wire on a motorcycle. "People saying that there is no such thing as sex addiction is like saying the world is flat," rants McQueen. I would rather think that the idea of sex as sinful and dangerous stems from a time when people really did think the world was flat.

I can't help but wonder whether sex addiction - real or spurious - can't be cured surgically. Sex hating manginas don't absolutely have to suffer inside their evil, sinful, nasty male bodies. Snip! Go on! Mummy would probably be proud of you.

It's hard to be a feminist dyke. Get the Kleenex.

Yesterday, I saw the film 'The Hours' by director Stephen Daldry. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. The intention is presumably the latter, as all three female protagonists seem to be doing that all the way through the film: crying and pissing and moaning. And about what? The message seems to be that life sucks, no matter what. It doesn't matter if shit happens or not, whether it's events or non-events shaping these women's existences: it's all fucked up. Boo hoo. I feel sorry for their men. If I'd been Nicole Kidman's husband in it, I'd have just let the frumpy bitch sod off to London, throw herself under a train or whatever. While Julianne Moore's character suffers in silence, which is probably a blessing for everyone, Meryl Streep's is more the atmosphere Hoover type, sucking all the air out of any room she enters, until people just have to escape by putting on a spacesuit, or leaving by the nearest exit, even if it's a fifth storey window.

Then it dawned on me: they're all dykes. The road to fulfillment is the love of another woman. Fair enough: I can see that. And what with the world being so square for the first two - frumpy Kidman in the 1920s and Julianne Moore in the 1950s - they're understandably down in the mouth, having to do the done thing, marry men (yuk), have their children, bake cakes and so forth. As for Meryl Streep in the more permissive 21st century, living with her female lover, well you'd think she'd be happier, but if anything she seems the most miserable of the lot, although it's a close run thing. She's certainly the most vocal with it. What really kills it is the sterile exclusion of any semblance of humour. You could forgive them their interminable misery if only they cracked a joke occasionally.

Don't get me wrong. I really wanted to understand and enjoy this film, respect its premise, but in the end must conclude that it's a crock of feminist bollocks. 'We're all sad. We're all suffering.' Suffer, suffer, suffer... The burden doesn't seem to be hardships, losses, let downs, abuse or anything else remotely legitimate. No. The burden is simply the fact of being a woman. They're victims of biology.

Thank you, Stephen Daldry. You helped me get into the heads of these silly, narcissistic cunts. Next time I meet one, I'll run even faster, wasting even less time than I do now. On second thoughts, perhaps it's a masculist film, after all, the female leads all being so immensely unlikeable. He could have just made it a bit funnier.