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.

Knight in shining armour? Don't kid yourself...

For a substantial part of my life - and I'm not that young - I have been the sort of man that avoided what I regarded as unnecessary conflicts. I practised monogamy, not because I saw a value in in, but because society and - more to the point - the woman I was fucking at any one time evidently saw a value in it. 

This was the source of a constant dilemma. Monogamy is a norm, and as such, is an expected behaviour. Alternative principles - promiscuity, polyamoury, hedonism - are taboo. You may think and reason that monogamy is for the birds, but if you act according to your own principle, someone's going to feel hurt and betrayed. The dilemma arises because knowingly hurting another person - even if you think it's for the greater good in the end - seems to go against another, equally strong principle. As the emotionally stronger party, is the issue at hand really important enough to warrant hurting the other person, as long as you can choose not to? For me, this reasoning always led to stalemate: In one sense, following my own sexual principle would be the braver, nobler option. In another, it could be seen as self-indulgence, favouring a principle - and a certain gratification - over empathy for the person one was potentially hurting. 

This latter principle, I've since realised, is about self-sacrifice, and is as bogus, misguided and monotheistic as the monogamy principle it supports. Treating others gently, humouring their illusions is all well and good, but losing oneself in the process does no one any favours in the long run. It just perpetuates the same bullshit, generation after generation. It keeps people erroneously equating fidelity with monogamy and using that to justify value judgements against any behaviour that even vaguely threatens the monogamous ideal.

By humouring the woman and her norms, I could be regarded as strong in one sense: I was behaving like a good Christian or Jew, even though I am neither! But in terms of modern principles like self-assertion, individualism and free will, I wasn't being the least bit strong. My excuse is that I was raised to do the former, by virtue of growing up in a western society, whilst the latter needs to be actively learned or chosen. Taboos are indoctrinated: free thought is not. Our culture is saturated with the notion that love (whatever that is) is for two and forever, and that any deviation from this ideal is a negative tendency.       

Let's drop the misguided gallantry. Treat her like an equal. Don't kid yourself you're a knight in shining armour when you're really a sap in a straightjacket. If it makes her a bitch to live with - and the chances are, it will - then leave for the sake of your sanity, if nothing else.