Saturday, November 17, 2007

Dear Katherine

I received this comment on my post Never date Western Women

hello heretic,
i am an (sic) 19 year old feminist attending a prestigious university in california. as to your opinion that femininsts (sic) are lesbians gathering in secret blah blah crap, think about this:
the actually (sic) definition for feminism is believing that women should have equal rights to men. if you or your girlfriend dont believe that, welcome to the 21st century. times are changing, and your typical view of radical feminism and close (sic) minded conservativeness is falling further and further behind. not all feminists are bra burning lesbians (i'm certainly not). sexism is still prevalent today, which is why feminism is too. Feminists have an actual cause--were not just crazy women ranting about the unfairness that men like YOU caused. The ERA hasn't been passed--can you explain that? The government is full of conservative, close-minded, sexist men who still feel for some reason that men are superior to women. Anyways, I have ALOT more i could say, but i have to get back to writing my paper on how sexism is still present in the United States today. I actually found your site by typing in "sexist laws in the united states". Interesting, huh?
Oh well, I guess youre happy with your prejudiced, generalized view of feminists. As they say, "ignorance is bliss"

Dear Katherine,
Thank you for your comment. Not majoring in English then? I was a lot like you when I was 19. I thought I knew everything. I was full of reforming zeal to try to free the world from suffering. I was tempted to throw in my lot with fashionable causes which would give me access to a trendy, interesting bunch of cool new friends. It’s called adolescence. I’m sorry if that sounds patronizing, I really don’t mean it to, but it is true.

Back then, older people told me I was na├»ve for campaigning to have nuclear weapons abolished. To me, it seemed like a simple truth, and I was mildly insulted by their comments. Now, of course, I realize they were right. This is not a counsel of despair though. What you are going through now is a necessary stage in your personal intellectual and social development. The trick is not to give up trying once you’ve read a couple of books, assuming that you have all the answers. As you get older, you learn that the world is a good deal more complex than you thought, and that human civilization cannot just be arbitrarily re-made at whim. If it was that easy to create a paradise on earth, don’t you think someone would have done it by now? People a lot smarter and more powerful than you and I have tried and failed, usually with disastrous consequences. As Karl Popper said “Those who promise us heaven on Earth have only ever delivered Hell”.

“the actually (sic) definition for feminism is believing that women should have equal rights to men.

Well that might be your definition, but it is certainly not the view of everyone in the feminist movement, and it is not borne out by what the feminist movement does in practice. See for example my article Why Did Feminists Attack the Family?

The basic assumption of feminism is that women have fewer rights than men. My dissent starts right there. Women do not have fewer rights than men. There is clear evidence to suggest that they have more. It is also wrong-headed to talk of ‘rights’, as if that’s all there is. Rights and responsibilities are inseparable. In the past, men had more rights in some fields, but they also had many more responsibilities. Feminists demand rights without responsibility, which is a recipe for tyranny, and we are seeing the effects of this already.

Let me ask you this: What exactly is it that you feel you are being deprived of? As a middle-class American female, you are a member of one of the most privileged social groups, living in the richest and most powerful country on earth, and yet you regard yourself as a victim of organized political oppression. You need to start looking into your real motivations. Calling yourself a feminist improves your social position.

if you or your girlfriend dont believe that, welcome to the 21st century. times are changing, and your typical view of radical feminism and close minded conservativeness is falling further and further behind

The times they were a-changin’ back in the Vietnam era (Is it true that most Americans can’t even point to Vietnam on a map?), but today although the climate may be a-changin, politically the world has taken a major shift to the Right. This arguably started around 1979, with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iranian revolution, the Thatcher-Reagan axis, the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union, the subsequent aggressive Anglo-American wars of conquest in the Middle East, and the present resurgence of aggressive Russian nationalism. The summer of love was over before you were born, and it doesn’t look like coming back any time soon.

I am very far from being a closed-minded conservative. I suggest that, if anything, it is you who is a closed minded conservative. In any case, the crux of your argument is simply a threat: I must either agree with you or face complete social exclusion. I am prepared to take my chances.

Feminism sets itself up as the arbiter and the authority on all issues related to sexual politics. What do we want from such an authority? Surely, the primary duty of any such body should be to promote mutual understanding between all parties, so as to lessen conflict and produce better outcomes for all. Is this what the feminist movement actually does? Not at all. It goes out of its way to stir up sexual hatred wherever possible.

Feminism is simply not fit for purpose. It just doesn’t do what it says on the can. The very assumption that women are the victims of men, the very fact that it calls itself feminism, means that it cannot do the job it claims to do. It is gender-exclusive, to the very core. Imagine a movement set up to resolve the Middle-East problem calling itself Islamism. I think other parties to the conflict might have good reason to be suspicious, don’t you? I’m not suggesting Muslims don’t have a case, of course they do, but so does everyone else, and they couldn’t reasonably expect to get a fair hearing. The feminist movement insists that no-one has a case to be heard apart from them, and at the same time, they insist that they are acting selflessly, as honest brokers. If the UN went around causing wars whenever it could, we would be right to complain about its professionalism and to question its agenda. Yet this is what the feminist movement is like. Feminists are not the honest police officers they claim to be; they are vigilantes, organizing lynch-mobs at every opportunity.

Although useful, this is in some ways a false analogy anyway, because men and women are not in a state of war. The idea that we are is perhaps the greatest travesty of feminism, the most poisonous misrepresentation of them all. According to basic feminist theory, the most important - the defining - political relation in society is the relationship between men and women, and that relationship is characterized as being essentially antagonistic in nature. This whole premise is absurd, destructive and divisive.

Men and women’s interests are almost identical, and where they do differ, they are entirely complementary. Men and women want to have positive relationships with each other, and the feminist movement does everything in its power to ensure that this does not happen. That is, more than anything else, the source of my displeasure.

not all feminists are bra burning lesbians (i'm certainly not).

You’re putting words into my mouth. Bra-burning? The irony is that zealots like yourself are so busy accusing everyone else around them of being bigots, that they fail to see that it is they themselves who are the bigots.

sexism is still prevalent today,

Yeah, that quiet guy in your class is a real nerd, isn’t he? That male professor is probably a pervert. He’s probably a kiddie-fiddler. So what if 9.7 million men died in World War 1? Fuck ‘em. It’s their own fault.

which is why feminism is too.

Firstly, the idea that sexism only affects women is itself sexist. Secondly, I do not see any evidence that the feminist movement is either able or willing to improve matters. It is a self-serving cult.

Feminists have an actual cause--were not just crazy women ranting about the unfairness that men like YOU caused.

Men like me? You don’t know anything about me, and you are accusing me of ‘causing unfairness’, simply because I am male. This is sexist and prejudiced, the very things that you accuse me of.

The ERA hasn't been passed--can you explain that?

Yes, it’s a misogynist conspiracy by the Evil Patriarchy (TM).

I’m not an expert on the history of US constitutional law, but a very quick internet search reveals this article:

The House passed ERA on October 12, 1971, after rejecting the Wiggins Amendment which would have exempted women from "compulsory military service" and which also would have preserved other laws "which reasonably promote the health and safety of the people." Only 23 Congressmen voted no, of whom one was the senior female member, Representative Leonor Sullivan (D-MO), who made a strong speech opposing ERA because it would harm the family.

In the Senate, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., (D-NC) proposed nine separate amendments to ERA to protect the traditional rights of women.

The Ervin amendments would have exempted women from compulsory military service and from combat duty; they would have protected the traditional rights of wives, mothers and widows, and preserved the responsibility of fathers to support their children; they would have preserved laws that secure privacy to males and females; they would have continued the laws that make sexual offenses punishable as crimes. All these modifying clauses were defeated. When ERA was passed in strict, absolute language, only nine Senators voted "no."

Congress sent ERA out to the states on March 22, 1972. Within twelve months, 30 states had ratified ERA.

A small group of women in 1972, under the name "Stop ERA," took on what seemed to be an impossible task. In 1975, they founded "Eagle Forum" - the genesis of the pro-family movement, a coming together of believers of all faiths who, for the first time, worked together toward a shared political goal. Eagle Forum volunteers persevered through the years and led the movement to final victory over ERA.

The last state to ratify ERA was Indiana in January 1977. There have been perhaps 25 different votes on ERA since that time (in legislatures, committees, referenda, and Congress), but Indiana was ERA's last success.

As a student of feminism, you haven’t done your homework very well. You seem to think that ERA was supported by all women, but opposed by ‘sexist’, ‘conservative’ men. This is not true. You say it was never passed. This also appears not to be entirely true. You have no doubt been told this by your Women’s Studies ‘professors’, who wish to paint a picture of the world as being sexually polarized when it is not.

The government is full of conservative, close-minded, sexist men who still feel for some reason that men are superior to women.

I think this statement is probably just not true. I certainly don’t think there is much evidence for it. In fact, it is a generalization, a statement of prejudice and bigotry, the very thing that you accuse me of.

but i have to get back to writing my paper on how sexism is still present in the United States today.

I’m tempted to feel pity for you. What you are receiving is not a college education at all, but political indoctrination into a quasi-Marxist religious cult. They are teaching you to repeat the party line like a mantra, and not to ask questions. Here are some books that they won’t be mentioning in Women’s Studies.

They don’t want you to read this heresy, because you might start thinking for yourself.

I actually found your site by typing in "sexist laws in the united states". Interesting, huh?

Excellent! I’m glad my site is becoming more prominent in the rankings. I’m sure it didn’t show up very highly though. I’ve never written about American law.

Oh well, I guess youre happy with your prejudiced, generalized view of feminists. As they say, "ignorance is bliss"

My personal experience of feminism has been far from blissful, let me assure you. And that was back in the days when I actively supported them! Since I began opposing them, which they gave me absolutely no choice over, my life has been a lot happier, thank you.

Again, don’t be so quick to call other people ignorant. There is much that you don’t know. Since you are a college student, you may like to look into Title IX, and the effect it has had on campus life. You may like to look into the campus date-rape campaigns of the 1990s, which aimed to stir up anti-heterosexual and anti-male hysteria on campuses on which no rapes had ever taken place. You should be asking yourself: Who benefits from this? Obviously, someone does, but it almost certainly isn’t you. Good luck to you, and remember: always ask awkward questions. That's what college is for.


Anonymous said...

My response Heretic would be; Firstly you over usage of a moronic and illiterate term as (sic), shows to the casual user or viewer that you are in fact a moron. Secondly the fact that you say you are a feminist and do not actually show that you understand the Marxist and Socialist ideology in your response to Heretic’s observations of your original adolescent posting. You mention the ERA laws, affirmative action, Hell if you need affirmative action to get a job.
You should not be in that position of employment. It is a Socialist/Communist tool to put dumb asses in positions of authority, where they are easily duped or controlled. Affirmative action on a gender or racial scale is complete BS as you have claimed to be a feminist, this means that you believe in equality. If the government has to provide quotas for companies to employ people based on gender and racial traits, this is not equality that is inequality.
This is saying that “we must employ Mr/Ms/Miss/Mrs X because they belong to this gender/ethnic group and not Mr/Ms/Miss/Mrs Y as they do not belong to this group, although they may hay twice the skills of the person we employ/promote. This is talking from personal experience. Miss or Ms 19 year old is a first year women’s studies useful idiot and has not done her background reading and not had any useful life experience.

Peace Djaybeetoo

Heretic said...

I added "(sic)" to Katherine's text; it indicates a spelling mistake.

Davout said...

"am an (sic) 19 year old feminist attending a prestigious university in california"

Yet another woman who wants respect by association rather than demonstration. Jeez.

"Look at me! I have a degree from a big university. Never mind the fact that it's in wimmin's studies or that I got in on my daddy's dime but it's still a big name university, so there!!"

Heretic said...

"Look at me! I have a degree from a big university"

Yes, and she still can't write properly...

bozo the economist said...

Heretic wrote...
Yes, and she still can't write properly...

The powers that be have had to dumb down requirements in universities so wimmin and minorities (ok, I really mean blacks) can get their junk degrees.

Fat load of good it's going to do them when they can't find a high paying job to clear the student loans off though.

Richard Ford said...

In all my time writing Carnival of Reaction I have received not one inteligent comment from a feminist. Not one! Your idiot looks like a genuis beside mine.

I was looking forward with locking horns with them and testing the truth of my own ideas- but they bottled out. All they ever do is accuse me of impotence, piracy or some such. Once I was even sent a link to a child porn site in the hope I would post it with her comment (she claimed the site was about something else.)

Feminists are quite simply the stupidest bunch on the block.

Anonymous said...

What Feminists cannot do? Is to get Men to want a relationship with them. To Marry them, to have Children with them, to want a life with them. They believe they can shame, insult, villify or bully Men into it. They are severely mistaken on that assumption.

The 19 year old Katherine can be excused for her lack of Life experience. And no doubt insular College Environment. Where she is protected from competing ideas.

College Campuses are anti Male bastions of Gender and Radical Feminists. I wonder will she become a Lesbian Until Graduation? As her Feminist Professors would suggest?

Katherine has not been confronted with any other ideas. And cannot handle the competition. This is typical of the self reenforcing delusions of Feminists.


Anonymous said...

I must compliment you on a clear response to an amusingly adolescent posting. At my age it has become a sadness of how much of the idealism of the 60s has been lost in a miasma of selfish ideologies based around notions of "victims". In the wealthiest societies on earth,surrounded by humanity with real problems, it seems so many have leisure to invent difficulties. I sometimes believe this is just a means to avoid reflection on the greed of such pampered people. As my grandmother would say "much wants more".

Uncharted Thoughts said...

First comment, right on the money.
Feminism is a just a tool of Socialism to install useful idiots into positions of influence.

I'm friends with a few bikers who are drug dealers. They LOVE university girls, because they are so sheltered and ignorant of real life experience.

They brag about how stupid university girls are. 'University girls are great, we show up friday night, sell them a big bag of dope at stupid high prices, take there money, then smoke it with them and fuck em. *Laughs* Always get the money before you fuck em *Laughs*.'

Its daddies money anyways...
The universities have been dumbed down on purpose, to admit more people and make more money. These morons will be exploited there whole life and not even realize it. Just as the drug dealers do, exploit them.

Anonymous said...

whats so crazy about nuclear disarmament? I recently saw a lecture given by Richard Rhodes, who's an expert on the history of atomic weapons and someone noone would call naive, and he saw near total disarmament as real possibility. You can watch the video here

Mangawitch said...

I have to admit, that, as a woman in her thirties, I laughed myself silly at such an uneducated and almost naive essay.
Your response to Katherine was absolutely brilliant.

She has obviously done nothing more than skim through the posts without acknowledging your complete philosophy on this subject.

If your blog was written by a woman, you would have all the sympathy (and funding) that the world could offer - thereby proving that in the eye of the feminist the word 'equal' more often than not mistranslates itself as 'better'.

Anonymous said...

Mos feministst are brainwashed morons.


Ioana said...

Firstly, I want to apologize on behalf of Western women for indulging in man-hating, supposedly-feminist ideologies.

Secondly, I am a Western woman, and I am a feminist, also, I'm eighteen years of age. Before you decide to glide over the rest of this post, I'd like to make a case for myself. Heretic, I absolutely agree that men and women ought to pursue symbiotic relationships that foster mutual development and continued learning. I don't believe women are legally oppressed. However, I do find that men tend to base the value of a woman primarily upon her appearance.

I suppose under the veil of internet anonymity, you could peg my beliefs as having arisen from bitterness caused by my possibly being unattractive. You have nothing but my word that this is not the case. Assuming, for the sake of my argument, that I'm being genuine, I don't feel it's just that even an attractive woman of reasonable intelligence and merit ought to be regarded by men who're far less intelligent than her as naught but a piece of meat. I'm not saying you've done so, but it happens to me often. There is no denying that there are many men whose sole interest in choosing a mate is appearance. In fact, I commend you for boycotting feminists; at least you'd take the time to listen to what a woman has to say before deciding whether or not to date/marry her. I am going to go out on a limb and assume that if the average man were watching TV, and he came across an unattractive man who was saying something intriguing, the TV-watcher would disregard the man and consider his ideas. If it were an unattractive woman saying the same thing, I believe the TV-watcher would take into consideration only the way the woman looked.

Perhaps I'm being long-winded. What I essentially mean to say is that I don't believe feminists today are still pining for more legal leverage. In fact, I believe child support, among other things, is an abomination of modern justice. I do believe, however, that women are still faced with much more pressure than men to tend to their appearances before they're considered good mates, and often before they're even hired.

I'd like to hear your take on this.

Aaron said...

First off, thank you Ioana for participating in the conversation rather than coming in and ranting. I think yours is a valid claim. Men are visual creature by nature (at least I am) and as such we have the unfortunate response of judging a women based on appearance. Of course we try not to automatically dismiss a woman's opinion simply because we find her unattractive but this will take a social readjustment that i believe will take place naturally over time. We are in a very aggressive point in gender relations and as such some people will take the extreme sides whilst others will try to remain impartial. But as true equality begins to emerge men will recondition to see women as individuals with an opinion worth its own merit. As it stands now though, a lot of men who feel the sting of modern feminism are more concerned with achieving that equality. We feel that feminism is not about equality and that men are being demonized unjustly.

My question to you is this: do you really consider yourself a feminist? Perhaps your more interested in true equality and social progress. If thats the case please reexamine your statement that 'there are many men whose sole interest in choosing a mate is appearance'. This is the kind of idea we are trying to combat. Yes, we do choose mates partially based on physical appearance, but its certainly not our 'sole interest'. And do women not choose mates based on social status and wealth? Is this somehow a more valid way of determining a partner? Is a man who doesn't choose to pursue a high paying job; who would rather avoid a stressful career, be doomed to remain single just as the 'ugly' girl is?

The fact is, that whether we are designed evolutionarily to make decisions this way or if its a social condition we adapt to during our adolescence it is a trade off so to speak. Women primp and preen themselves to attract men and men learn valuable skills that will earn them some prestige in the community thus ensuring women see them as successful and reliable partners.

Finally, I and many men here would argue that feminists are indeed pining for more legal leverage. Take a look at many of the articles Heretic has linked to and you can see for yourself how low some can sink whilst using Feminism to justify their behavior.

Eltiteretista said...

Wow, her post went completely over your head, didn't it?

You focused in belittling her for spelling mistakes and some factual errors instead of actually answering about the heart of the matter.

I seriously don't know where you get this idea that "Men and women want to have positive relationships with each other, and the feminist movement does everything in its power to ensure that this does not happen."

Really, from where do you get this?

Feminism supports relationships wholeheartedly, what we have a huge problem with is when these relationships are abusive or non-consensual.

Are you honestly denying that sexual violence sexists today, in the 21st century in Western countries?
Are you also denying that the majority of this violence is aimed at women?

If you are, you, my friend, are truly blind.

As a feminist, I don't have a problem with you boycotting Western women for your own childish and misguided reasons, nor do I think your girlfriend is stupid because she is submissive (as you implied all feminists would say).

I really couldn't give a shit.

What I care about is women who are truly at risk, be in developed countries like mine or third-world countries like Yemen.

It's insulting that because I care about the rights of 13-year-old Muslim girls to not be sold as sexual slaves I am "spoiled and self-entitled" as you label me.
Pardon me for having a moral stance in favour of those who cannot defend themselves.