Squaring the Culture

"...and I will make justice the plumb line, and righteousness the level;
then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
and the waters will overflow the secret place."
Isaiah 28:17

01/12/2009 (7:16 pm)

Feminism Reaches Its Natural Conclusion

I remember mentioning a while back that the distinguishing undercurrent of socially progressive ideas was their frankly satanic hatred of humankind. Every now and again, one of them will slip and allow their Misanthropic Overlord to speak directly. We got a little taste of that this morning, when a hard-core feminist blog published an article encouraging feminists to “Just Say No” — to reproduction.

Along with the emancipation of women, sexual liberation has become very much a part of politics around the world. To the conservatives, both these issues challenge ‘family values’.

But what if there were no families? What if we say no to reproduction?

My understanding of reproduction is that it is the basis of the institutions of marriage and family, and those two provide the moorings to the structure of gender and sexual oppression. Family is the social institution that ensures unpaid reproductive and domestic labour, and is concerned with initiating a new generation into the gendered (as I analyzed here) and classed social set-up. Not only that, families prevent money the flow of money from the rich to the poor: wealth accumulates in a few hands to be squandered on and bequeathed to the next generation, and that makes families as economic units selfishly pursue their own interests and become especially prone to consumerism.

So it makes sense to say that if the world has to change, reproduction has to go.

She went on to explain that while ecological necessity requires that human population decrease, she actually arrived at this conclusion by other means.

The ecological reference is important here. There are several hard-core New Age and environmental groups that believe that a sustainable population is something like 1/20 of the existing world population, and are advocating — some are even expecting, as a natural result of our Bad Karma or whatever — a massive reduction of human population. Needless to say, if enough people heed the call and stop reproducing, they’ll get exactly that, and very possibly the extinction of humankind.

It’s very, very tempting to encourage these ladies to do as they’ve decided and refrain from duplicating themselves. I’m sure we’d all be a lot more peaceful for it in the long run. However, I mourn for the women who will be fooled by this into denying themselves involvement in the God-blessed, natural order of humanity.

10/13/2008 (6:50 pm)

Deconstructing Anti-Palin Feminism

The weekend’s blogging brought us Michelle Malkin’s response to the unbelievably disingenuous media theme of the rage among Republicans, a rogue’s gallery of unhinged leftists and their ongoing, gibbering fulminations against all things conservative. She’s got to be setting a new internet record, 139 trackbacks and counting. Two more just appeared while I was typing this, and mine will add one more. Malkin is the source concerning unhinged leftists.

I continue to labor toward my first presentation of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist,” part II, but I read this link from Malkin’s site referring to why feminists are filled with rage when they watch Sarah Palin, and had to comment. It’s been a long time since I saw anything so thoroughly irrational. It comes from a site appropriately named “Jezebel,” a label for a domineering harridan of a woman based on the wife of Israel’s King Ahab, from the Old Testament. The contemporary Jezebel admits that merely watching Palin on TV reduces her to a trembling rage, and incites comments from her feminist friends that include frequent f-bombs and crude references to female genitalia, expressions of intended violence and visceral fear and loathing.

She goes on:

Why does her very existence make us feel — and act — so ugly? New York Times columnist Judith Warner calls Palin’s nomination a “thoroughgoing humiliation for America’s women,” because “Palin’s not intimidating, and makes it clear that she’s subordinate to a great man.” Palin, who obviously is incredibly ambitious, masks that ambition behind her PTA placard and “folksy” talk…

I think what Ms. Warner is dancing around, but not saying outright, is that for a certain kind of feminist, Palin is a symbol for everything we hoped was not true in the world anymore. We hoped that we didn’t have to hide our ambition or pretend that our goals were effortlessly achieved (“I never really set out to be in public affairs, much less to run for this office,” the Governor has said.) We hoped that we could be mothers without having our motherhood be our defining characteristic, as it seems to be for Palin. We hoped that we did not have to be perfect beauty queens to get to where we wanted to be in life, that our looks, good or bad, wouldn’t matter. Whether or not you think it’s appropriate to comment on Palin’s appearance, the fact of her attractiveness exists, and is being used to her advantage by Republican sloganeers (“the hottest Governor in the coldest state,” et. al).

Incoherent poppycock. From the top:

1) “Palin’s not intimidating.” So, the goal of feminism was to create an image of women that is intimidating? I thought it was equal treatment for women. In what way is this intimidating image supposed to be helpful in a world needing better communication between people? How is the lack of it a humiliation for feminists?

2) “…makes it clear she’s subordinate to a great man.” So, it’s a rage-inducing humiliation to feminism that a woman aspires to be Vice President before one reaches President? Why? Would it serve feminism better if she expressed disdain for her running mate? How?

3) “We hoped that we didn’t have to hide our ambition…” Just a moment; didn’t Judith Warner say Palin “obviously is incredibly ambitious?” If it’s obvious, what’s hidden? And if the answer to that question is “Well, she’s trying to hide it,” who’s saying that she has to? It’s not alright if she didn’t have to, but chose to anyhow? Would it be equally humiliating to feminists if it turns out that she’s really not all that ambitious, but actually does want to serve the public?

And just for the record, didn’t Hillary Clinton also hide her ambition behind a folksy veneer? Is the problem that Palin’s folksy exterior is believable and probably authentic, whereas Clinton’s was emetic and insincere? How does an insincere, folksy veneer serve the goals of feminism?

4) “We hoped that we didn’t have to … pretend that our goals were effortlessly achieved (‘I never really set out to be in public affairs, much less to run for this office,’ the Governor has said.)” Um… Palin is not pretending that her goals were effortlessly achieved, she’s saying that high office was not her goal. That’s different, and in most politicians, if it were true we would regard it as a good thing. Selfish ambition is a vice, not a virtue.

5) “We hoped that we could be mothers without having our motherhood be our defining characteristic, as it seems to be for Palin.” So, it’s a humiliating defeat for feminism that a high-achieving woman actually revels in being a mother? Isn’t her motherhood a legitimate instance of the “choice” feminists refuse to stop railing about? Or is choice only choice when it chooses to end a life, but something abhorrent if it chooses to rejoice in one? How very, very revealing.

6) “We hoped that we did not have to be perfect beauty queens to get to where we wanted to be in life, that our looks, good or bad, wouldn’t matter. Whether or not you think it’s appropriate to comment on Palin’s appearance, the fact of her attractiveness exists…” I began to write “What’s the evidence that she had to be beautiful in order to get where she is?” And then it struck me, inducing a torrent of abrasive adjectives of my own: did this “Jezebel” woman just acknowledge that a woman has to be ugly in order to achieve the goals of feminism??? Oh my freakin’ GOD! She actually did! That’s the logical implication of the statement, the only way it can be parsed: Sarah Palin cannot serve feminism unless she’s ugly.

Well, gee whiz, now we understand why y’all are reacting in such an ugly manner.

Jezebel’s incoherence actually gives us a clear picture of what’s bugging her, because what makes it incoherent is the pack of lies feminists have been feeding us all along. The reality is that feminism took the entire package of natural femininity and ditched it, attempting to create a new, angry, intimidating, domineering, ruling feminine elite, basically a version of the Marxist-Leninist power dialectic with economics replaced by gender. However, they lied to us about it, and hid their goals behind a palatable facade of egalitarianism and fairness (which Marxists do invariably). Palin enrages them because she’s achieving the sort of thing at which they falsely claimed to be aiming, but without sacrificing natural femininity. She shows them up to be a lie. It’s not good enough for them that she’s a woman and achieving: they wanted her to achieve by cutting off the testicles of any man who dared cross her, and hanging the withered, bloody trophy from her belt. In fact, their rage at Palin makes it clear that achievement was never the point at all, they just wanted the trophies. They hate the fact that she’s civil and family-empowering. Their rage proves that the worst things their critics said about them, at the core of things, are true.

Jezebel’s ending achieves overweening elitism and logical incoherence at the same time:

For many of us looking back at high school, we can now feel a smug superiority towards the homecoming queen. Sure, she was pretty and popular in high school, catering to the whims of boys and cheering on their hockey games, but what happened to her after high school? Often, she popped out some kids and ended up toiling in some not particularly impressive job. We can look back and say, we might have been ambitious nerds in high school, but it ultimately paid off. What’s infuriating, and perhaps rage-inducing, about Palin, is that she has always embodied that perfectly pleasing female archetype, playing by the boys’ game with her big guns and moose-murdering, and that she keeps being rewarded for it. Our schadenfreude for the homecoming queen’s mediocrity has turned into white hot anger at her continued dominance.

Of course, what she illustrates is that Sarah Palin is anything but the homecoming queen. On the contrary, she gets where she’s going “… with her big guns and moose-murdering.” I thought feminism was about women being able to do what men did, just as well as the men. I don’t know any homecoming queens who hunted moose (or deer, which is what the men hunted in Pennsylvania where I grew up.) The archetype Jezebel claims to be rejecting would never have been caught dead handling a deer’s innards or discharging a weapon.

More to the point, she admits that she hates Sarah Palin because Palin is competent and successful. Sad.

The article sports the title “Why Sarah Palin Incites Near-Violent Rage In Normally Reasonable Women.” A clear answer would be to observe that the people who respond to her in this fashion are not “normally reasonable” women.