Tag: society

Women’s rights are anti-freedom

The truth tends to reveal itself over time. Over the last ten years, I’ve observed that the intrinsically anti-freedom authoritarianism of feminism is increasingly out in the open. At this point, only those who aren’t paying attention can still pretend to buy into the idea that feminism and women’s rights are even remotely compatible with Western civilization or resemble anything that the Western intellectual tradition would consider legitimate rights.

Consider the words of one Barbara, who isn’t shy about speaking for all women when she quite seriously argues “we should be able to make you not offend us”:

I think that I can speak for all women when I say that this very
important because we cannot offend science fiction fans of other
religions. The right to free speech is irrelevant to women’s rights and
freedom of religion. People need to understand that being offended is a
really big deal and that we should be able to make you not offend us.
And science fiction cannot be sexist or minority-phobic either. This is
what it is. Period.

That is the true heart of feminism.  As I wrote when I pointed out that feminists are sub-civilized: “This is what the feminist’s vaunted concept of equality means.  This is
what it has always meant: the legal protection of a woman from all and
any consequences of her actions.  This includes a woman’s ability to
break any contract at will, to steal from anyone as she pleases, and
murder even the most innocent without having to even hear a whisper of
protest to make her uncomfortable.”

Barbara helpfully adds an element that I neglected to include, which is that women “should be able to make you not offend” them. Being intellectually incoherent and unjustifiable in the eyes of every rational observer, feminism is necessarily an ideology of force. This is why it has to be resisted every bit as strenuously as other such ideologies, including communism and National Socialism.

And a science fiction that cannot be sexist or minority-phobic is not science fiction at all, but a dogmatically limited sub-genre in which all literary value is necessarily subservient to ideological whimsy.

Mailvox: the failed metaphor

Congratulations to A. Man, who is the 150th commenter in the last five years to announce that I have, yet again, jumped the shark.  It’s amusing how often that metaphor has been heard from overly optimistic critics during the time when the readership has grown from 240k to 930k per month, especially when these critics are often the very same individuals who demand to know where they can find any indication of the economic and societal collapse I have predicted:

“Feminists are objectively worse than Nazis”

It’s nice to see that you were able to fully clear the shark.

“This
is what the feminist’s vaunted concept of equality means. This is what
it has always meant: the legal protection of a woman from all and any
consequences of her actions. This includes a woman’s ability to break
any contract at will, to steal from anyone as she pleases, and murder
even the most innocent without having to even hear a whisper of protest
to make her uncomfortable.”

The odd thing is that you know this
isn’t true, you know this statement cant be defended…and yet you make
it still. How does that work? What kind of reconciliation do you do in
your mind?

First, feminists are objectively worse than National Socialists.  I have demonstrated this in both logical and empirical terms.  The unborn and the recently born are much more helpless than international Jewry. The cost in human lives of feminism is quite clearly greater than the cost of National Socialism or Fascism ever was.  It could be debated whether feminism or communism has been more costly in those terms, but the mere fact that the matter is debatable suffices to prove what a terrible and evil ideology feminism is.

Second, the statement not only is true, but it can be easily defended. There is no reconciliation necessary to defend it because it is based on straightforward observation.  I direct the following questions to A. Man.

  1. Did American women not demand, and do they not presently possess, the right to break marital contracts at will?
  2. Have feminists not defended the right of women to kill men who abuse them?
  3. Does the feminist definition of abuse include non-physical abuse?
  4. Have feminists called for ban on actions that make a woman feel uncomfortable?

“Men have gone berserk”

Who could have possibly seen the likelihood of young men going berserk in a society where sex ratios are increasingly out of whack?

Ranjana Kumari of the Centre for Social Research think tank said there had been 127 rape cases registered in Delhi alone since the fatal December assault on the student.

“It is absolutely shocking and speaks volumes on how Indian society is treating women. The men have gone totally berserk. We’re feeling frustrated and in despair. What must we do to change their mentality? Women are becoming more vulnerable,” she said.

Women were being attacked even when they were with their husbands or male friends – and foreigners, previously regarded as less at risk, are also being targeted…. This latest gang rape is one of dozens reported in the Indian press since the December rape and murder shocked the nation and plunged it into a period of national soul searching.

It came just days after the Indian cabinet supported a new law to impose tougher sentences for rape and sexual assault, including the death penalty for cases where the victim dies or is left in a persistent vegetative state. 

Note that the problem in India is actually getting considerably worse despite the advance of sexual equality in Indian society that the feminists believe will solve everything.  As we’ve learned to expect, feminism wreaks societal devastation even in the process of supposedly offering a means of improvement.  In this case, it is the pro-abortion position that is leading to more rapes in India.

“According to the decennial Indian census, the sex ratio in the 0-6 age group in India went from 104.0 males per 100 females in 1981, to 105.8 in 1991, to 107.8 in 2001, to 109.4 in 2011. The ratio is significantly higher in certain states such as Punjab and Haryana (126.1 and 122.0, as of 2001).”

Anyone with more than half a brain has been expecting serious problems out of China and India since Western technology gave them abortion and the means of prenatal sex identification.  The world is quite fortunate that India’s excess male population appears to be inclined to occupy itself in pursuit of gang rape, considering that the more customary outlet is foreign invasion.

Of course, John Scalzi doesn’t rape due to sex ratios, John Scalzi rapes women, because, as he explains: “I will tell you one of the details about why I do it: I like to control women and, also and independently, I like to remind them how little control they have.”

Land of the Not-so-much-Free

The USA is not the least free country in the world.  But it is becoming increasingly obvious to everyone that it isn’t even close to being the most free country in the world that many Americans have always assumed it be:

So, in just a week’s time, the political elite in the Land of the Free gave us bills which:

1) ensure the government cannot assassinate its own citizens with drones
2) impose price controls with insurance premiums
3) award the government with more power to initiate biosurveillance operations
4) create a quota system in the labor market

It really makes me wonder… how much more will it take for people to notice how rapidly they’re losing freedom, or how destructive the political leadership is? 

The problem is that too few natives genuinely want freedom anymore, and virtually none of the immigrants from Asia, Africa, or South and Central America place any value upon it at all.  The USA may only be a quasi-democracy, but in the end, the people will get the government they are willing to tolerate, and one of the prices of modifying the population is that the government one group of people are willing to tolerate is usually at least moderately different than the government another group of people, with different history, cultures, and tradition, are willing to tolerate.

The important distinction is that the determining factor isn’t what sort of government people actually want, but rather, what sort of government they are willing to tolerate.

The high discourse of Twitter

Captain Beagle: Which is worse, work or rape? I know 2 women who were raped. Go fuck yourself #sorrynicepplhadtohearthat

VD: Hey, talk to @johnscalzi not me. I certainly didn’t rape them.

Captain Beagle: no your article suggested an increase in rapes was less harmful than women handing out resumes. Insensitive & absurd

VD: I didn’t suggest it, I proved it. By what metric do you claim that rape is more harmful to society than women working?

Captain Beagle: I was unaware one needed statistical data to prove rape is harmful.

VD: You need something, at any rate. What is your basis for claiming rape is worse for society than female employment?

Captain Beagle: thanx for this fascinating study in hyperbolic misogyny. I’m thinking of using you as the template for my next villain.

Mailvox: impeccable girl logic



How can one possibly hope to refute these fiendish adversaries?  Or to confound their impeccable and diabolically clever arguments?  And seeing as how Miss Paradis is not only breaking out logic, but Latin, I can only conclude she must be a witch!  In fear and desperation, I attempted to dismantle her argument, but there were simply no flaws to be found!

  1. I did, indeed, write that widespread rape makes a society uncivilized whereas widespread female employment makes a society demographically unsustainable.
  2. And in doing so, I did, without question, show a certain lack of empathy.
  3. And furthermore, this dreadful dearth of empathy did inspire the Paradis sisters to collect THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY FIVE DOLLARS from similarly disgusted individuals and give it to an incest charity… in my name!

Thereby proving, beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt, that my thesis concerning the demographic unsustainability of widespread female employment and the relative damage it causes to society vis-a-vis widespread rape can only be completely and totally incorrect.

I stand corrected.  Quod sherat demonstrandum.

UPDATE:  Miss Paradis expounds upon her dialectical approach: “I’m not attempting to refute an illogical argument. The argument is
based on false premise and was meant only to be inflammatory, either
that or your ‘super intellect’ has no understanding of capitalism.”

Why regulate?

What is the point of regulating anything, given the difference between theoretical regulation and its actual results?

 In the 120 samples labeled red snapper and bought for testing nationwide, for example, 28 different species of fish were found, including 17 that were not even in the snapper family, according to the study, which was released Thursday.

The study also contained surprises about where consumers were most likely to be misled — sushi bars topped the list in every city studied — while grocery stores were most likely to be selling fish honestly. Restaurants ranked in the middle.

Part of the problem, said the study’s chief author, Kimberly Warner, is that there are quite simply a lot of fish in the sea, and many of them look alike. Over all, the study found that about one-third of the 1,215 fish samples bought, from 2010 to 2012, were mislabeled. 

I understand why people like the idea of regulation.  But if it fails nearly one-third of the time, is it actually doing anything?  What would happen without all the expense and effort of government regulation, would everyone be eating cod-oil infused vegetables instead of fish instead of only one-third of the people getting the wrong fish?  Would anyone even notice if the SEC employees weren’t keeping their eagle eyes on internet pornthe markets?

Societal devolution

The anti-suffragettes of 100 years ago have been proven correct:

When a smart young man receives a big salary it is a good thing for the race. He can marry and transmit his smartness to posterity.  When a young woman receives a big salary it means disaster for the race, and the wiser, handsomer, more efficient the woman is to-day the more likely she is to have a salary instead of a husband.  You couldn’t run a chicken farm on those principles. Suppose you took all the best hens and set them aside to go to college or run a feather factory for the other hens.  It’s a tragedy!

It has taken the race millions of years to produce the high salaried women of to-day, and now those qualities are allowed to perish. The spark carried through the centuries is snuffed out by a salary!

On the plus side, Powerpoint slideshows have never been prettier and filing clerks now have bachelor’s degrees and $100,000 in student loan debt.

Natural selection in action

Roissy foresees karma taking its course in what we are informed is an SWPL fad for rescuing pit bulls:

To understand this sudden and perplexing SWPL adoration for pitbulls, you must know the SWPL psyche. The SWPL’s greatest fear is confronting the demands of her ego and discovering that everything she believes is a pile of horse shit. Oh no, can’t have that, no way no how. Equalism is the gargantuan hamster pellet that feeds her head, and the pitbull is a fortuitous animal proxy for the underprivileged humans that the SWPL happily (and relievedly) carries on believing are equally capable, equally worthwhile, and equally oppressed (except for that one group, yuk they’re soooo creepy).

Dog “breeds” are a social construct. The pitbull is just like any other dog! The pitbull is misunderstood! The pitbull is a victim of the caninarchy! The pitbull just needs the right training. You’re a pitbullist! Gross, pitbullist! Look at the pitbullist! Point at him! Isn’t he evil? Evil evil EVIL PITBULLIST! Now watch, gross evil pitbullist, how tolerant I am. See how I benevolently guide the pitbull through medical school, out from under your pitbullist oppressive bigotryprejudicefearinsecuritynarcissism…

CHOMP!

ooow, my face… it’s missing.

I will smile every time I read of a stupid white SWPL getting her face chewed off by one of her pitbull redemptions. Does she deserve it?

Yes. Yes she does.

I had no idea that this was a fad, but then, I am happily very far out of the zone of effect of the American SWPL.  Now, I love dogs and live with one that could eat a pit bull for lunch without making much of an effort, but it seems to me to be a very bad idea to have young, inexperienced, and small dog owners rescuing dogs that have the potential to do reasonably serious damage.  I’m not concerned about the fate of the SWPL, but the problem is that it won’t take too many daughters of liberals getting eaten by their poor rescue pets before there will be renewed calls for banning the breed.

Which simply underlines the hazards of the equality myth.  Not everyone can safely handle a Doberman, a Rottweiler, a Ridgeback, or an American Staffordshire.  But the fact that not everyone can doesn’t mean everyone can’t, much less that no one should.

And what do you do with witches?

“The thesis of The World Until Yesterday is that we in
industrialized societies have much to learn from people who make (or
recently made) their living by hunting-and-gathering or small-scale
farming.”
– National Public Radio on Jared Diamond’s latest ode to the primitive life in Papua New Guinea

“A young mother was tossed screaming on to a pyre of tyres and burned alive after being accused of killing a neighbour’s six-year-old son with sorcery.  Kepari Leniata, 20, ‘confessed’ after she was dragged from her hut, stripped naked and tortured with white-hot iron rods.  She was then dragged to a local rubbish dump, doused in petrol and, with hands and feet bound, thrown on a fire of burning tyres. As the mother-of-two screamed in agony, more petrol-soaked tyres were thrown on top of her….  The tragedy unfolded after Miss Leniata’s young neighbour fell sick on Tuesday morning. He complained of pains in the stomach and chest and was taken to Mt Hagen hospital where he died a few hours later. Relatives of the boy were suspicious that witchcraft was involved in the death and learned that two women had gone into hiding in the jungle.  After they were tracked down, the pair admitted they practised sorcery but had nothing to do with the boy’s death. Miss Leniata, they said, was the person responsible.”
– Mail Online

Clearly we have a lot to learn from such a simple and noble way of life. I don’t know about you, but I find it more than a little amusing that the poster boy for modern pop science is advocating a Rousseauean idealization of a state of nature that happens to include the great historical secular bugaboo, witch-burnings.  As I have repeatedly pointed out, far from being progressive, secular post-Christianity is more regressive than 7th century Islam.  It’s ultimately a return to the mores of precivilized paganism.