Of Minds and Matters

Ahh, those ladies at AROOO!

Just been mulling over this little gem:

Any response at all given to the women of privilege, those who have the power of the status-quo behind them when they propagate their ignorant perspectives, is first and foremost either a deflection or counter against the initiating violation.  That is to say that there is no such thing as a “hostile” response by oppressed women to the gall of privileged women to assert their sheer ignorance and hubris as fact.  There is only retaliation, counter-attack, deflection, or retreat, all of which reactions to such a transgression are entirely warranted.

Now, there are several things wrong with this. I’ll try to list them in order they occur:

1. Accusation of ignorance unsubstantiated

One of the foundations for Margaret’s rhetoric is that women of privelege are ignorant of the situation of those less priveleged. (A moment to digress: Margaret is by no means less priveleged, it is apparent she is educated, has a home, electricity, Internet, and enough leisure time to keep up a rather useless blog. To me, this is middle class, the largest class of all people in the USA, and well same domain as most white women and other supposed women of privelege. Margaret likes to appropriate the situations and experiences of others as her own, however do not forget that the vast majority of topics she talks about in an authoratative capacity she has no direct experience with. Back to the topic.) This assumption is not substantiated in any way, it is simply presumed to exist. As with most forms of circular reasoning, this pillar of the radical feminist doctrine must exist because if it didn’t radical feminists wouldnt have anything to complain about re: other women. Nor will Margaret ever know if that ignorance exists or not, since she does not engage in debate or discussion, but rather simply expouses what she believes. As close minded people go, the lid is tightly shut on this one, and strapped in place with several leather belts, an iron band, and two pounds of padlocks. It aint open, and it aint opening. Even Houdini couldn’t get through those mental locks.

2. She started it!

A very mature gem of a perspective. Aparently every last bit of hate and hubris that Margaret has spewed against women, and particularly white women, is their fault because they attacked her first. Tell me Margaret, which came first, the chick on the egg? Margaret suffers a bit from inability to focus on her goals. Sometimes it’s the male supremacy, other times its white women of privilege. The two are not the same issue, but Margaret switches from to the other often in the middle of a sentence and often more than once per paragraph. The pattern bears out – usually such alternation is a symptom of poorly understood or explored foundation assumptions, and that is clearly the case here.

3. Being rude and crass, abusive, and derogatory is okay if you’re defending your position and arguments, and you can place yourself at the bottom

Most of us realised a while ago that being rude, crass, and abusive simply weakens and defeats your own arguments, and undermines your position. This is one of the foundationals of disemmination. Being rude and abusive simply demonstrates to all and sundry that you don’t actually have a valid reply to the argument made. Rather than meet the question or statement on the basis of logical and substantive response, the responder simply attacks the person asking the question or making the statement. Margaret, in particular, mixes a strawman with ad hominem to create her own particular brand of defense: The “You aren’t an oppressed black woman so nothing you say has any merit”. Margaret, Margaret, Margaret. You aren’t an oppressed black woman either. Never-the-less, when you consider your only options “retaliation, counter-attack, deflection, or retreat”, you have a very shakey platform and know it. You cannot convert people to your cause by beating them over the head with rude accusations of gender-treachery, suggesting they are incompetent, incapable, brainwashed, and indoctrinated. To convert you must convince, to convince you must meet the arguments made and show how and why they are invalid.

As to whether such personal attacks are warranted, well, let me put it clearly. No. They. Are. Not. First, two wrongs have never made a right. Your mother should have taught you that long ago. It’s not a new concept, Margaret. The phrase “Violence begets violence” dates back to at least 1798, and probably well before then. All you are doing, in your relentless and disgusting attacks, is perpetuating the very system you supposedly want to destroy. A calm and open minded, welcoming approach would garner you far more listeners, and open far more minds to any legitimate message you might have. One is less, therefore, with the impression that you don’t actually care about effectiveness or progression in your campaign, but rather want to be recognised and approprobated for being a self-declared radical feminist.

I took some time to do a little psychoanalysis on Margaret and came to the conclusion that:

She is probably a latent homosexual (no, homo does not come from any root meaning ‘man’ it means ‘one’ or ‘all the same’ as in homogenous). If she has never experimented with women, it is hard to categorise her as a lesbian or bisexual. For the degree of self hatred expressed, she probably was raised in an environment that was very strong on heterosexual relations, and in which being homosexual was seen as an abomination, something filthy and disgusting. That is, she was raised to hate some of the deepest feelings in herself. I’m going to go out a bit further on this limb and suggest that she tried boyfriends, and for the sake of her parents perhaps, peer pressure, or because she wanted to be normal. It didn’t go well, primarily due to her homosexuality, and at the far end of possibility, she went to the point of attempting intercourse, or was forced.

Under that analysis a lot of the rabitiy, and the stark hate is explained, and if I’m right it is a bit of a sad story. That doesn’t make the rhetoric and doctrine any more palatable or acceptable.

http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2009/08/in-the-church-of-the-sisterhood.html

Pretty much exactly the conclusion I came to on reading that drivel.

I view women as strong, intelligent, able, and independent. Capable of making decisions that have value and  taking responsibility for those decisions and the consequences of them. This is one of the fundamental precepts of the entire concept of ‘freedom’. Freedom – the opposite of oppression, Margaret.

It’s lose-lose situation, catch 22. If you are not a androcide-promoting man-hating radical feminist then you have clearly been indoctrinated, duped, and oppressed by the male gender. Thus your decisions are not your own, nor your loves, desires, wants, dreams, ideals,  et al. As such, you cannot be trusted to make decisions for yourself. The only way to be ‘free’ in Margaret’s book is by destroying everything male. Male children are not to be mothered, such would instill in them the belief that women are subject to them. Male children should not even be born – if a zygote is confirmed to be male, it should be terminated forth-with. In fact, being male should be a crime and we should all be kept on leashes, locked up, or killed off. Only when women are free from the disease that is the human male, will they be capable of making their own decisions.

That’s Margaret’s utopia. Now, keep in mind, Margaret is a self-declared spinster, that means she has never been married, and never had children. She was – by her own words – popped forth from her mother’s womb fully cognizant of the evils of men and the need for their erradication. So vehement and violent is Margaret’s distaste for male-kind that not only does she promoted killing male offsprint before they are born, but killing female offspring before they are born should their birth be into a ‘male dominated society’ such as we live in today.

Of course, Margaret completely misses the fact that swapping one set of doctrine for another still results in indoctrination, and if women are not free to make decisions in the current cultural environment, then they will be no more free to make their own decisions under her totalitarian ideals.

Despite her vocabulary, and propensity for describing simple concepts in long legal-political-ese, Margaret displays nothing more than ignorance and hate. Which is not suprising, since each is the birth place of the other. For a woman who has never been married to comment on the evils of marriage is ridiculous. For a woman who has never born a child to comment on the evils of child birth and motherhood, is beyond ludicrous. For the same woman to do both is simply certifiable. That kind of intellectual appropriation of the lives and experiences of women is dishonest, and nearly as abhorrent as the vile and abusive doctrine it is used to support.

The Femmenist has a new post up today about our recently unearthed (in the sense of lifting a rock to find the bugs and worms beneath it) radical feminist friends over in AROOO.

Honestly, these women are vile. Their views are hypocritical and nothing less of twisted. The holocaust is roundly and rightly condemned for the murder of millions of Jewish and non-Aryan peoples, yet such a horror pales beside the androcidal utopia expoused by these women. This is hate speech, sexual discrimination and vilification, racism, bigotry, and on the whole not only reprehensible but intolerable. These women belong in an institution or prison, not the society they revile so much.

There is plenty of cheap land around the world where they can establish their little Gondola and hopefully die out in a generation. If you hate society so much ladies, what are you still doing here? Why are you using man-made technology, inventions and innovations that owe more to male progressive thought and creativity than female (not to diminish the work of female scientists and inventors, Mrs Curie), why even live in a culture that is so antithetical to your beliefs? No one is twisting your arm. You’re free to leave at any time.