Thursday, September 4, 2014

Feminism Transcends Normal Craziness

My last post was about evolution, and it strikes me that liberalism is undergoing a sort of natural, or perhaps unnatural selection, also. It's selecting for illogic and craziness. Back in the old days, like the 1950's and early 1960's, there were liberals who, while in my opinion wrong about a number of things, still thought about things, and actually used logic to arrive at conclusions. True, often their logic came from false assumptions, but at least it was logic.

Such thinking and logic is slowly being expunged from the liberal species. Indeed, one mutation of liberalism, "feminism," has been so successful socially, Darwinistically speaking, that it's spreading its alleles rapidly into the rest of the species, and one of its dominant alleles is a total rejection of logical thought.

Now, there are a few Jurassic liberals left — those who still think and respect logic, and who see, or at least try to see, reality instead of the rainbows and unicorns.  They're a dying breed, and it'll be a shame when they're all gone, because then there will be no way to even communicate with the new breed that liberalism will have become.

I've often said that Ted Rall is one of my favorite liberals, and he remains so. Oh, he infuriates me when he's wrong about stuff, but I like him because he's clearly trying to be right, which is what I try to do also. Most liberals, of course, don't have the slightest intention of being right, and instead pull out all the stops trying to be politically correct, and to hell with reality.

And you can't be politically correct any more without adhering 100% to whatever the current feminist trendy party line is, which Ted has failed to do, God bless him. In his syndicated column today, he writes:

Why Are "Feminists" Telling Women Not To Protect Themselves from Rapists?


Identity politics, a writer friend reminds me, is where liberalism goes to die.

The oceans are boiling, freelance journalists' heads are getting lobbed off, and there's not the slightest sign of resistance to income inequality so out of control it would worry Cornelius Vanderbilt. Yet the Internet's politically-correct "social justice warriors" are dedicating their formidable energies into attacking pissant trivialities.

Anyone who doubts that online slacktivists have their heads so far up their collective asses that they can't see daylight need only read up on the controversy over Undercover Colors, which is a nail polish that allows women (or men, but they're not the target audience) to discreetly discover whether their drink has been spiked by one of several common "date rape" drugs.

(My advice to women: if you're at a party or with a guy so sketchy that you think you may have been slipped a mickey, don't bother with the fancy polish. Just scoot. You don't want to be there anyway.)

Better safe than sorry, right?

Wrong.

"Anything that puts the onus on women to 'discreetly' keep from being raped misses the point," writes Jessica Valenti, a once-influential feminist blogger whose hammer-to-the-skull-obvious post-motherhood columns for The Guardian add to the case for automatically censoring any piece of writing by a parent about their children. "We should be trying to stop rape, not just individually avoid it."

Um, what?

Valenti is serious about this: "So long as it isn't me isn't an effective strategy to end rape. 'Undercover Colors' polish and products like it only offer the veneer of equality and safety. And that's simply not good enough."

Which is true. And stupid.

Read the rest of this column here:

where his column is also reproduced, and read the comments. One is from a very brain-dead feminist who is completely incapable of following his logic, and replies to his points with "SAY WHA'?" in a classically feminist way. I guess it's a form of the usual liberal repartée phrase, "Oh, Wow!"
--------
Quibcag: The illustration is one of my favorite non-feminist anime girls, Oka of Mysterious Girlfriend X (謎の彼女X. Nazo no Kanojo Ekkusu).

2 comments:

  1. Rape is a crime. It is a bad thing to do. Rapists are bad people (and there are women who rape.) Good people therefor do not rape. By definition rapists are people who have chosen to disregard being "taught not to rape" just as all bad people disregard being taught to not do other ad things. It is therefor contingent on good people to prepare to defend themselves from bad people, by wearing special nail polish, learning how to fight, going armed etc.. It is amazing to me that people who claim their goal is to achieve a society where women control their own destinies is against women learning how and acting to defend themselves, which is part of controlling one's destiny.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My take on evolution:

    http://www.stephenwbrowne.com/2011/03/evolution-two-views/

    ReplyDelete