||"dawnbreak in the west"|
Sunday, February 21, 2016
Ridiculous feminist arguments
In a hierarchy, sometimes there are barriers beyond which one may not rise. For instance I am an American citizen born elsewhere. Therefore I may not rise to the post of President. Such barriers are metaphorical "ceilings". Women have historically had several leadership "ceilings", for instance in the Catholic and Islamic hierarchies. I'll concentrate on that here; it can be extrapolated.
The glass ceiling refers to barriers that are not formalised. It is, you see, invisible. Usually it's female activists (feminists) complaining about such barriers these days.
I was considering this when I was reading Milo just now:
I started out disagreeing with that pyramid, at several stages. At the bottom, jokes aren't the issue - biology is the issue, coupled with a desire for stability. Above that come the "traditional roles"; above that, the ceiling - hammered into formal law and custom.
... and that's it. That's the "pyramid": two layers, resting upon two feet of (1) fact and (2) righteousness. I'd draw it out for you but it's so simple that it's a waste of time. All those harassment tiers above it don't come into play: if a woman overreaches, she is shunned from society or brought up on criminal charges. There is no rape; "harassment" just means some authority gives her a warning; and her death, should it come to that, is a lawful execution, or death on the streets far from home because she'd told her husband not to bother protecting her anymore.
But then I remembered that we in the West do not live in Patriarchia. And then I looked at the pyramid as an observation by a feminist of what she actually sees, or thinks she sees. When a woman breaks bad and goes feminist, and scrambles up the ladder alongside men, she is now a competitor with men. Feminists and non-feminists are (here) in a state of nature. She then faces irregular warfare - anti-feminist terrorism. And the thing about disorganised movements is... they escalate, in a natural pattern. And the pattern is as old as animal hierarchy: first by cheating, then by verbal confrontation, finally violence. This is wired into our DNA, both sexes'.
The only problem for the thesis of the pyramid is that its reductio ad absurdam is exactly that, at this point; absurd.
What Milo knows is that resistance needn't be chaotic and brutish. The dystopia which we inhabit - the feminists' ideal - is ridiculous, and is weak to ridicule; and what is also ridiculous is the argument that resistance to feminism must end in brutality. The weasel who posted that pyramid, you'll note, didn't even make that argument; she said only that jokes "contributes to a culture of violence". Well yeah, but so does breakfast. If the brute viciously beat an egg this morning and ate the omelette, that contributed to him being healthy enough to do whatever else he'd planned at noon. Since the feminist hasn't bothered to argue her point, she gave Milo no argument to counter. Best just to laugh it off:
Feminists want to make all resistance illegal, from top to bottom; this is why they seek to ban jokes and other forms of rhetoric. But only when the jokes hit feminism - and really, only when the jokes are in service of a confident Right. If it's for the greater (political) good, feminists are not even against rape. So ignore their rhetoric. What are they gonna do about it? Ban you?
On this site
Property of author; All Rights Reserved