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?

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.

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.