Weird-Ass Feminist Nonsense

This is apparently a big meme in modern feminism. See if you can spot the weirdness.

Marcotte:

The Christian version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal, where god is viewed as so powerful he can impregnate without befouling himself by touching a woman, and women are nothing but vessels.

A Marcotte worshipper, reviewing the lame-ass Pan's Labyrinth:

Fascist ideals of masculinity had no real use for women other than as the vessels through which passed the next generation of fascist males. Its aesthetic was built upon a world where women were the conduits for sexual release and the pride that came from having reproduced a junior version of yourself who would carry on the ideals with which you yourself had been inculcated. Women, when they were not serving their purpose as mothers, or as virgins—potential mothers—were garbage, part of the larger population of undesirables and vermin who needed to be brought to heel, to be destroyed.

The weirdness here is that the new generation of feminists apparently grew tired of being thought of as anti-sex shrews and decided they'd embrace the pooter. Fine. But this presented a problem for them, because most men also seemed to subscribe to an embrace the pooter philosophy, and men were the enemies.

What political statement could be made by putting it out if men were eager acolytes of the new feminism? How can one rebel against the oppressive partriarchy by giving them pretty much everything the wanted?

How then to fit this round peg into this sort-of-oval shaped hole?

Easy -- it just required a thoroughly fantastical re-write of basic human impulses:

Men do not in fact embrace the pooter. All they see women as are baby-making machines, reproductive robots, and in fact the act of sex itself is physically repulsive to men. (Hence Marcotte's strange fantasy about a male dream of impregnating a female without going through the sweaty hassle of "befouling" oneself by touching her -- whereas, of course, everyone in their right mind knows that it's the befouling that's the fun part.)

We men wanted (per Feminism 2.0) women for nothing but sexual release. But now feminism 3.0 also (claims to) be big into sexual release, and yet men must still be portrayed as the Oppressors. So Feminism 3.0 postulates that men really aren't all that into sex after all -- in fact, we're vaguely repulsed by the vagina -- and, ergo, forcing men to have non-procreative, purely-pleasure-oriented vaginal sex is the new form of Feminist defiance.

I will have sex with you until you're shaking from exhastion, but damnit, I will not bear your child! Eat it, Men! Nailed ya! Hah-hah, suck on that one! (And, when you're done, the other one too!)

Oh sure, there are the occasional statements here and there about how motherhood must be respected as the noble sacrifice it is and blah blah blah, but basically, it seems to me that Feminism 3.0 wants to imagine a childless, slam-bam-thank-you-ma'am Sex & the City lifestyle as, somehow, a rebellion against, and repudiation of, The Oppressive Patriarchy, TOP down wi' OPP, Lysistrata in reverse.

This is the problem with empty, airy theorizing with no attempt to check one's strange philosophies against the empirical evidence.

Not to start any conspiracy theories have, but if this is what The Oppressive Patriarchy has deluded Feminism 3.0 idiots into believing, then I've got to say -- my Oppressive Patriarchy dues checks have been well spent, and worth every last dime.

I'm not going to do much intellectual heavy lifting to disabuse Feminist 3.0 morons of this odd notion of male impulses, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone not named "Amanda Marcotte."

I will just say, as dryly as possible so as not to alert these women to their fundamental misapprehensions, that threatening males with a lifetime of non-monagmous, non-procreational, purely-hedonistic sex is a threat most likely to produce the response "I double-dog dare ya," and that "monkey-fucking the oppression out of the patriarchy" is not, I think, a strategem likely to advance the cause of equal work for equal pay.

I hope I'm not giving the game away when I say that, as a member of the TOP, such threats do not exactly cause our hands to tremble in such vagina-induced panic that we can't manage to steel our nerves enough to unhook a bra or two.

We've been dreaming of that since we first saw Logan's Run.

The new left makes me pine for the old one. The old left was thoroughly Marxist and dopey, but at least their objects were tangible and non-frivolous: More money. More influence over corporate management. Shorter hours. Greater regulations of factories to increase workplace safety. Etc.

Same with the earlier versions of feminism.

But both seem pretty unconcerned now with economic issues, and have recast themselves largely as the Students Action Committee For Busting A Nut. I'm not sure if the devolution is a sign of degeneracy of intellect, an impulse towards the most intellectually-easy of programmes (and, conveniently enough, the most liberated from math and rigorous analysis, noted tools of The Oppressive Patriarchy, in favor of the most emotion-driven and bullshitty form of "politics" imagineable), or if it's a sign that they've basically won on every point that genuinely matters and can now idle away the hours writing about their twats all fucking day long.

And yeah, a lot of men do want babies -- just like a lot of women do. And without such a state of affairs, populations would die out, as native European populations are doing.

But as many wags have said, post-pill, post-Roe -- the Sexual Revolution was won, all right, and won conclusively, but by men. Women's sexual autonomy increased, of course, but so did men's; and if women were more freed from the consequences of sex, men were freed even more. How could it be otherwise? How could women's sexual freedoms not move in tandem with men's?

But Marcotte and the rest of the gynocranks seem to want to spin this as some great victory for women. Well, fine. So long as you keep giving up the nookie, you can call it whatever you like.

On the good side: I now get those Walking Vaginas on campuses. This is what these dopes really think -- they're teaching us oppressive patriarchs by wagging their pooters in our faces.

I never understood them until now. True, the explanation makes no damn sense. But at least it's an explanation.

Ah. I see. You're showing me you have a vagina. Eek. Yes yes, I'm very afraid. It's I'm so afraid I need some help finding my way back to my frat-room; will you help me?

Eulogy For Amanda: JayC captures the moment with this sweet poesy--

Of all the words
Of tongue or pen,
The saddest are:
It fucking might have fucking been

Feminism Is Like Climate Change... in that the conclusion never varies, but the premises offered in support of that conclusion mutate radically. No one seems to notice or care, so long as the New, Improved Premises -- which utterly contradict the ones offered just ten or twenty years ago -- point to the same conclusion.

In the seventies, the world was freezing due to Global Cooling and we had to severely reduce polluting emissions (which dangerously cooled the earth by reflecting away the sun's warming light) and severely limit economic activity to forestall this grim fate.

Then, in the mid-eighties, the world was boiling due to Global Warming and we had to severely reduce polluting emissions (which dangerously warmed the earth by trapping in the sun's heat) and severely limit economic activity to forestall this grim fate.

The premise was completely reversed. The concusion remained as fixed and constant as the North Star.

And so too with feminism. Previously men were rape-obsessed brutes only interested in sexual gratification. Conclusion? Men are sexual fascistst enslaving women.

But now feminists want to be all hip and pro-sex and all. No problem: Men are now procreation-obsessed brutes only interested in passing their genes on to a near-clone of themselves for the sole purpose of aggrandizing their egos. Conclusion? Men are sexual fascists enslaving women.

What a difference fifteen years makes! It seems we've gone from only caring about gratifying our dirty sexual needs to not caring enough about gratifying our dirty sexual needs in less than a generation!

But no problem, so long as the conclusion remains eternally true.

Hint: If you're utterly reversing your fundamental premises in between the time it takes for culottes to go out and then come back into fashion, while your shrill conclusions remain all but immutable, you just might have a case of backwards-reasoning on your hands.

posted by Ace at 01:33 AM

| Access Comments