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.

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!