Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Thought experiment number 2

There is one academic feminist who is both a fan of parthogenesis [‘virgin birth’ – reproduction without the use of men] and advocates the elimination of men (and most women) -- Mary Daly. Until a few years ago, Daly was a professor at Boston College. She was finally forced out there because she refused to allow men to participate in her classroom.
Daly has long advocated for research into parthenogenesis to dispense with men. Her book, Quintessence is half-science fiction novel, half bizarre manifesto in which she explicitly lays out her views. Daly herself is a character in the book who visits a utopian continent where -- thanks to the influence of Daly's books -- a lesbian elite reproduce solely through parthogenesis.
And there is no doubt that Daly considers this both desirable and possible.

For our second thought experiment, let us imagine what would happen if Mary Daly got her way. She will exterminate all the men (and most of the women too, it seems), and then artificially breed a population of identical lesbian clones. This is the stated intention of Daly, Solanas, and other right-wing radical feminists. Would such a society be viable?

Let us remind ourselves of the original evolutionary purpose of sex – it was to produce and maintain genetic diversity in a population. Genetic diversity is necessary to protect the population against parasites.

As Matt Ridley argues in ‘The Red Queen’
Let us concentrate on viruses, bacteria and fungi, the causes of most diseases. They specialise in breaking into cells…Parasites invent new keys, hosts change the locks…At any one time a sexual species will have many different locks; members of an asexual one will all have the same locks. So a parasite with the right key will quickly exterminate the asexual species, but not the sexual one. Hence, the well-known fact: by turning our fields over to increasingly inbred species of wheat and maize, we are inviting the very epidemics of disease that can only be fought by the pesticides we are forced to use in ever larger quantities. (pp71-72) The immune system would not work without sex. (p74) Sex is about disease. It is used to combat the threat from parasites. Organisms need sex to keep their genes one step ahead of their parasites. Men are not redundant after all: they are a woman’s insurance policy against her children being wiped out by influenza and smallpox…Women add sperm to their eggs because if they did not, the resulting babies would be identically vulnerable to the first parasite that picked their genetic locks. (p86)

Ridley goes on to point out that other organisms such as toadstools have not just two sexes, but many: but the fact is that we are human, and we have exactly two. Daly and the other feminist neo-nazis wish to eliminate one of them.

The fact is, a population consisting of identical lesbian clones would be wiped out by the first disease that came along.

However, if Daly or Solanas got their way and exterminated all the men and heterosexual women tomorrow, the lesbian population would start off with genetic diversity already in place, but only because of the men and women it had wiped out. Our lesbian-feminist utopia would be parasitic upon the genetic legacy of males and heterosexual women.

This genetic diversity would diminish with each generation. After the glorious revolution, some women would choose not to have children, and others would choose to have several, and every child would be a clone of its mother, so the result would be that the next generation would be less diverse than the previous one. This would be true in every generation. In other words, the genetic diversity produced by heterosexuals would gradually decrease over time once they were removed, leaving the population increasingly vulnerable to disease. The bottom line is that a single-sex population simply has no long-term future. Not only do fish need bicycles, but bicycles also need fish.

Can you imagine for a second the outrage if men in and outside of academia got together to celebrate the works of a misogynist who complained of female "contamination" and advocated "a drastic reduction of the population of females"?
And that in a nutshell is what is wrong with contemporary feminism -- that such nutcases are not only tolerated, but openly celebrated. And they still wonder why so few college-aged women want to self-identify themselves as "feminists."


Monday, July 31, 2006

Never Date Western Women

I have a policy of never dating Western women, and certainly never feminists.

Big cities like London, New York and Sydney are jam-packed with beautiful foreign girls from Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia. They are sexy, fun, good company and they treat men like human beings. They have not had their minds poisoned by feminist hate-speech. If they have recently arrived in this country, they want nothing more than to fit in, work hard and get on in life. What a contrast from those spoiled, manipulative, over-privileged, endlessly-complaining women who grew up here. As far as I am concerned, they have priced themselves out of the market.

My current girlfriend is from South America. She is far from being some downtrodden submissive as the feminists would no doubt say. Ironically, she should be a feminist role-model, having risen by her own efforts from a one-parent family in a third-world country to become a manager at a major international company. She regularly travels the world business class, personal achievement that I have nothing but admiration for. But she does not espouse the theories, so she doesn't really count as a feminist. She is shocked and sympathetic when she hears about the situation for men in this country, being seperated from their children, and being scared to help a lost child in the street in case they are accused of trying to molest it. These things are really just a curious Western fetish manufactured by feminists.

I urge all Western men to boycott Western Women if they can. Don't date them, don't marry them, don't have children with them. Find yourself a nice foreign girl, and find out what women should be like. If anyone asks you why, tell them it is a protest against feminist ideology. Once enough men start boycotting them, women will turn away from feminism.

Mental Abuse

When I was at university, we used to live in five-person, single-sex flats. We each had our own room and we shared a bathroom and a kitchen in which we each had our own cupboard. One student would be responsible for paying the bills, and would have to claim the money back from the others.

A female friend of mine told me about an incident which had happened to her best friend. She had lived in a flat which the other four girls had ganged up on her. Their bullying of her was concerted and highly organised, but never physical. She came home one day after class to find the flat empty, but everything in her food cupboard had been taken out and arranged in a circle on the kitchen floor. There was an agreement among the other girls that when everyone was in the flat, whenever you walked past her bedroom door, you would kick it. She must have been sitting in there waiting for the next blow. It happened that she was the one responsible for paying the bills. Non-payment would have meant censure from the University authorities, including failure to graduate. So the others let her pay the bills and then refused to contribute their share.

This kind of treatment causes extreme psychological stress, and is bound to have negative consequences for the victim’s academic performance. In extreme cases it could lead to mental breakdown, self-harm or suicide attempts, and all without a single blow being struck. The girl in the story managed to get a transfer to another flat eventually, but she still had to endure weeks of mental and emotional abuse, and then a period of psychological counselling

One of the key features of bullying is that the victim will not complain, but will suffer in silence. One of the key features of female passive aggressive bullying is deniability; being able to distance oneself from it afterwards. If that girl had complained to the University authorities, and an officer had visited the flat, what would have happened? As long as they all back-up each others’ stories, who is to know any different? “I don’t know what she is talking about. We all liked her. She must be imagining it”. This is how girls behave when they want to get nasty.

This kind of mental abuse is very much more common than people suspect. By its very nature, a lot of it will tend to pass undetected.

My sister-in-law had an affair for over a year. She used to have sex with her lover in the marriage bed while my brother was out at work. He suspected that something was going on, but if he mentioned it to her, she would not only deny it, but act offended. She would tell him that he had a dirty mind, that he was a pervert. She would tell him he was paranoid until she had him convinced that he was losing his sanity. Of course his instincts were correct. Eventually, she moved in with her lover and took the children with her. As if her infidelity was not bad enough, the part that really gets me is that she forced him to start questioning his own mental health in order to cover her tracks.

I have come to believe that a lot of mental illness is created in this way, and it is mainly women who are doing it.

Further reading

Mental Abuse

Female Manipulation

Sunday, July 30, 2006

The Pay Gap is a Myth

The pay gap is a myth. Once you control for the fact that men work longer hours, and don't take career breaks to have children, you find that men and women earn the same amount.

The feminist analysis rarely takes into account the fact that men and women have different priorities and make different life-choices. Instead, they describe everything in terms of this simplistic conspiracy theory in which poor little women are oppressed by evil nasty men. It might make you feel better, but the world just isn't like that. It's about time we all grew up and started taking responsibility for ourselves. If women are happy with the choices they make, what's the problem? The fact is, feminists are not happy with the choices that women make.

Feminism does not acknowledge the fact that men have much greater cultural and psychological incentives to pursue high wages than do women. Women have many choices in life; men have only one - work or face complete social exclusion.

That's why we do all the more dangerous, boring and thankless jobs, and suffer the most industrial deaths. The Feminist theory of the pay gap does not acknowledge the fact that women have access to other socially-acceptable ways of acquiring money, other than working for it, such as living off a man. Feminists seem to think that women can have children any time they like, consequence-free, and everyone else will pay for them. During the time you were off on maternity the man next to you got promoted, and you seem to think you should be able to go back in at the same level as him. You chose to have the children - you take responsibility for them.

Once these factors like career choice, longer hours and maternity leave are taken into account, there is no pay gap. It's a spurious feminist cause celebre. It is illegal to pay two workers differently for the same job purely on the grounds of sex, yet feminists claim that this is what is happening. So where are all the court cases? If it is really happening as you say, then rather than embark upon these elaborate, quasi-Marxist cultural theories, why not just sue your employer?
You disagree? Answer this simple question:

If women are cheaper to employ than men, then why do employers ever hire men at all? Why don’t they just hire women, who are just as good, if not better, thus saving money?

Until feminists can provide a plausible answer to this question, I will never take their pay gap complaints seriously.

Notice also that feminists never bother to mention the 'workplace death gap'. Over 90% of industrial deaths are suffered by men, but, hey, who cares?

Double standards over parenting

Big Sister says that in a family, mothers and fathers are interchangeable; there is no reason to think that the mother should provide the best childcare. Mothers should have the same opportunity as fathers to pursue a career outside the home, and in order to make this possible, fathers should do more housework and childcare. Anyone who says that the mother should be the principal child-carer is a misogynist.

However, if the parents divorce, all of this changes. Suddenly, the mother is the best natural parent, and she should get custody by default. The father is an unsuitable parent, and the children belong with their mother. A complete turn-around.

This is a blatant contradiction. But like everything else that Big Sister says, it does not have to make sense; it just has to serve the interests of women.