Thursday, September 3, 2015

Gander Geese

Oh, this is gonna be fun. Ahem:
Intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically breaking a man's will: communicating to him cell by cell his own depersonalized instrumentality, drawing it from him, tearing it from him by pulling him into her, over and over, grabbing and engulfing until he gives up and gives into her— which subtraction is called completion in the female lexicon. In the experience of intercourse, he loses the capacity for integrity because his body—the basis of privacy and freedom in the material world for all human beings—is trapped and sundered of its genetic and generative essence; the cohesion of his physical body is—neutrally speaking— violated.

Wow. Does the preceding paragraph sound batshit insane to you? It mostly does to me and I wrote it - not all by my lonesome of course but cribbing a bit (or snatch) of Andrea Dworkin's famous 1987 feminist gospel, Intercourse:

"Intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically making a woman inferior: communicating to her cell by cell her own inferior status, impressing it on her, burning it into her by shoving it into her, over and over, pushing and thrusting until she gives up and gives in— which is called surrender in the male lexicon. In the experience of intercourse, she loses the capacity for integrity because her body—the basis of privacy and freedom in the material world for all human beings—is entered and occupied; the boundaries of her physical body are—neutrally speaking— violated."

The subconscious symbolism of sex is a valid area of inquiry... so long as one keeps in mind that male and female evolved side by side, each trying to game the system using their particular advantages with the sort of partly randomized success rate so common in evolved systems. Unfortunately we feel obligated to treat egotistical feminist propositions as righteous or at the very least significant, cowed into unthinking acceptance by our instinctive bias toward assuring female needs are met compounded by the thunderous unending claim of victimization. Were we capable of ignoring this dogmatic bias, how would feminist claims look? If either version of the preceding lurid, paranoid trip into a malformed, monomaniacal psyche sounds ludicrous, then they both do. If it's ridiculous when I say it, it's ridiculous when anyone does, and so much of modern pop-feminism from Twitter to the United Nations consists of precisely the sort of sadistic/narcissistic rambling normally only found smeared in feces on the walls of insane asylums (or the Bible.) It may very well be that after careful consideration we find cause to accept their claims but the starting point should always be the same skepticism with which we'd meet male demands. Equality implies equal scrutiny.

There may be some truth as well to Frank Herbert's infamous Honored Matres' control of men through sexual addiction but I've never heard anyone cite Heretics of Dune as serious academic discourse on gender relations. We understand that it should be taken as hyperbole, a cheaply sensationalistic literary device meant to spice up a work of fiction and boost sales of an aging series. The difference is that con artists and lunatics like Dworkin who couch their lunacy in political correctness and pretend their PseudoScience Fiction is real are glorified as social activists, handed book tours and university sinecures and a share in the male-bashing media circus. The very fact that she saw sex as basically some scene out of the movie Alien should have elicited a very harsh and thorough skepticism of any of Dworkin's claims on gender relations from any reader, male or female. Yet before her death she was not only a bestselling popular author but shamelessly pandered to by would-be academics and other intellectuals and is still routinely apologia'd and held up as an exemplary feminist... which, in all fairness, she was and is.

Random unrelated case: a women's studies professor at a 12000-student American mid-west university last year declared during a lecture that civilization only began when women sat around the fire to converse... based on what archaeological evidence? Fuck if anyone knows but she said it and you're obligated to believe her or at least pay lip service to her 'cuz ovaries. Imagine a male professor making the same sort of claim, that civilization is the product of men's epic poems told by hunting parties. Imagine how quickly you'd slam him down as a chauvinistic prick... and try to realize that the same reaction is warranted by some chauvinistic cunt trying to glorify half the species and demonize the other half. What's good for the gander's good for the goose.

By the way, I will bet anything that most of you inadvertently, semi-consciously cringed just a little bit at my using the insult "cunt" even though you'd casually glossed over my calling the man in that scenario a "prick" precisely fourteen words prior. That's how brainwashed we are. We assume, unquestioningly, that men deserve whatever abuse is hurled at them at the same time we assume a priori that women require special social, legal and interpersonal protections and favoritism. We're convinced that misogyny lurks around every corner but misandry can't exist because women are perfect and innocent and good and also, you shut up shitlord! Now, given my theatricality you might be asking yourself whether I'm actually male or I'm going to spring the plot twist that I'm female on you - to which I have to say that the Reflector of these reflections, who hopes that Reflector is not bad English, now Governess is happily of the masculine Gender and should be accorded the same consideration as a female speaker.

Yes, I'm paraphrasing again, this time from a much older source back in the days when feminism was not yet feminist but egalitarian and even more importantly aspired to Reason, when Mary Astell strongly but sedately challenged the public's prejudice:
'Tis a very great Fault to regard rather who it is that Speaks, than what is spoken; and either to submit to Authority, when we should only yield to Reason; or if Reason press too hard, to think to ward it off by Personal Objections and Reflections.

The apples have indeed fallen far from the tree.
Whenever you hear a woman make a claim of victimization, imagine a corollary like the one I created at the start of this post being claimed by some bushy-bearded, barrel-chested male lumberjack, by a strong, threatening figure instead of a sympathetic, superficially vulnerable little girl. Ask yourself: if a man claimed he was being abused in whatever area of society constitutes the current male crime of the week, based on your experience, knowledge and the evidence at hand, would you believe him? When women's groups make demands, imagine some burly, beer-swilling trucker or a pasty little male nerd demanding the same and ask yourself whether you'd still be so gullible, if you haven't been prejudiced by the dogma that women are abused by men in every way, everywhere and in perpetuity, the unanalyzed fundamentalist justification for feminist entitlement.

Modern-day feminists are themselves merely a new incarnation of various old abuse. They spout the same pretexts which they pretend to oppose:
Women are inferior to men because Eve was an imperfect copy of Adam's rib.
Men are inferior to women because the Y chromosome is an imperfect X chromosome.
Women are dumber than men because their skulls are smaller.
Men are dumber than women because they use fewer words on a daily basis (excepting male bloggers who just ramble on and on and on.)
Women are evil because they steal men's chi.
Men are evil because they invade women's bodies.
Men are closer to God.
Women have "different ways of knowing." Woo, and woo again.
Women are inferior because their uterus controls their behavior.
Men are inferior because their testicles control their behavior.

Same old bullshit with the polarities reversed.

The very term "feminism" should elicit, instead of the currently accepted reflexive sympathy, the same vision induced by any self-justifying "masculinism" - crass bigotry masquerading as humanism, which should have to work a helluva lot harder to support its heinous accusations and demands than paranoid, florid, self-serving dogmatism.

On a lighter note, speaking of geese and ganders, maybe Dworkin saw sex as so... intrusive because she was thinking of a duck penis. Now that thing'll enter and occupy ya six ways from Sunday! Also, if that's the case, Andrea, you were doing it wrong...

No comments:

Post a Comment