About Me

My photo
Brutal Antipathy is a pseudonym for a blogger and forum debate enthusiast whose views often rest well outside of social baseline. A self confirmed atheist, misanthropist, and sadist, his commentary ranges from parched textbook facts to satire and sarcasm. He is a proponent of free speech and individual liberty even when these are taken to excess. His political views shift between lower case libertarian and enlightened despotism depending on the level of contempt he is feeling for his fellow humans at any given moment. His reading interests include history, general science, archaeology, comparative religion, psychology, & sociology. Other interests and hobbies include practicing various crafts, torturing his slave, blogging, playing with his dogs, collecting antiques, role playing & tactical simulation games, renaissance fairs, and cheerfully making other people miserable by holding up a mirror of their shortcomings and repeatedly bashing them in the face with it. L is the owned slave of BA. She basically has the same interests and views as her owner except in music.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Feminists Lose Philosophy Football Match 0-10

The National Organization of Women is always a source of mild amusement to me.  I don't pay their website a great deal of attention, but on days when the Onion fails to produce its share of laughs, I sometimes turn to to get a few more chuckles in.  Today was one of those days, so I decided to see what shenanigans the nations largest group of militant feminists were up to.  What I soon found there was Monty Python's Philosophy Football as performed by Special Olympics players.

Philosophy Football: Not a Sport for Feminists

The Nurture Not Nature N.O.W. Ninnies have turned their attention to a Newsweek issue which focuses on the women in the English speaking world's infatuation with Fifty Shades of Grey.  The hyper-hormonal harridans can't decide on whether the cover or an article inside is more offensive. One thing is certain though, even though they are more indecisive than a woman in a shoe store, they know that they are pissed.

The cover is obviously an affront to feminists.  It depicts a long necked, slim woman, seemingly topless, and wearing a scarf tied loosely over her eyes.  No doubt a morbidly obese and mustached wildebeest would have appeased our grumbling grannies, but that was not to be.  An elegant and refined blindfolded woman is just too much to bear in a society which is so unfair to women that we are forcing them at gunpoint to attend and graduate college at a rate twenty percent greater than men. 

Has Blindfold-Must Be Offensive
Apart from their distaste of anything less than repulsive women,. the gnarly NOW'ers are mostly worked up about the feature article Spanking Goes Mainstream.  Written by Katie Roiphe, an absolutely unimportant woman seeing as she is not a radfem, the article explores the Fifty Shades phenomenon and an analysis of twenty sex studies which concludes that-GASP-a very large percentage of women have forced sex fantasies. I presume that percentage is made up of radfems who are royally pissed that their secret is out.

Roiphe goes on to speculate that this new fascination with forced sex, bondage, and ass slapping (which makes me wonder which rock she has been living under as it is nothing new) might stem from women's liberation as women may be finding the energy expenditure and responsibility that comes with liberation  to be exhausting.  Perhaps surrender and submission offer these women an escape of sorts.

Start cranking those air raid sirens, 'cause the outrageometer just pegged the redline!  How dare this woman even suggest that responsibility, economic worries,  politics both within and without the workplace, stress, and pressure to succeed might possibly be grueling!  Surely none of those things could possibly account for men historically and today having a shorter lifespan than women.  In fact, since despite their claims that feminism is about equality, we shouldn't even bring up the subject of lifespan. Also lets not mention how feminists have seen to the creation of the White House Council on Women and Girls, and in the spirit of equality didn't bother worrying about Men and Boys.

I am straying off topic, though.  The entertainment, the real fun of this story comes from the round of radfem Special Olympics Philosophy Football. Not only can these poor girls not score a goal, they seem to have forgotten to bring the ball. The degree of illogic these dimwits bring to the game is enough to generate seismic activity as Kant, Hobbes, Nietzsche, and a thousand other philosophers spin in their graves. Appeal to outrage, appeal to emotion, paranoid hinting of conspiracy theory, false continuum, slippery slope, and I think there may even be a red herring in there somewhere.

Here are their arguments in their own words.

Picture for a moment a mainstream magazine arguing that men feel there is something "basically liberating about being overcome or overpowered." Imagine a male author positing that men have an "incandescent fantasy of being dominated." And try, just try, to envision that cover with a blindfolded male model.

Oh, how cute!  For equality reasons, you want the exact same magazine with the role reversed.  If you had bothered looking into some of those twenty studies like Roiphe did, you might be able to answer those questions without having to ask.  I know that women's studies professors don't conduct actual research like real professors do, but if you would give it a try sometime you might actually learn something useful.  I'll do the hard work of finding one of them for you even though the effort might shave a second or two off of my life.  But hey, I'm like wired to be a provider, ya know.  So here is one of those studies.  In it you will note that there are men who do have those fantasies.  Had you bothered to do any research you would have discovered that a large percentage of  Penthouse Letters show that men often fantasize about assertive and dominating women.  It seems that some men do want to be overcome and overpowered by a woman.  This doesn't mean that all men want that.  Then again, the author of the article didn't claim that all women wanted to be overpowered by a man.  You created a strawman argument to attack, then tried, badly I might ad, to blow it down with typical radfem hot air, hyperbole, and appeal to outrage.  Kinda dropped the ball of logic on that one, didn't ya?

Is it paranoid to suggest that Newsweek and Roiphe intentionally portray women as fearful of equality in order to grease the wheels for rolling back their rights?

Yes, actually that is kind of paranoid.  Roiphe only followed the data in the direction indicated.  Does actual research scare you that much?

Is it too extreme to suggest that the cover image and the article work together to convey the message that women want to throw in the towel on being in charge of their sexuality and their lives in general? 

Are you sure that you are even in the right playing field?  Where except in your paranoid little heads could that notion have wandered in from.  Hyperbole makes your ass look fat.

Would it be going too far to characterize articles like this as contributing to a cultural environment where it's not so bad when men physically assault women, even rape them, because that's what women really want?

I guess that if I squint really hard, it might.  But what are the odds of someone in Somalia reading this?  That kind of cultural environment quite simply does not and cannot arise in a country that isn't in anarchy.  Hyperbole and the appeal to fear logical fallacy  makes your ass and thighs look fat.

Roiphe argues that feminists are "perplexed" by the persistence of dominance/submission fantasies, but when Gloria Steinem tries to explain it, Roiphe shrugs her off, writing that "maybe sex and aggression should not, and probably more to the point, cannot be untangled."

Seeing as Steinem did not base that quote on one iota of fact or research, I don't see why Roiphe shouldn't shrug it off.  Just because a loud mouthed bitch says something doesn't make it fact.  Unlike Steinem, Roiphe is basing her opinion on research, not radfem propaganda.

Sure sounds like a writer with an agenda that's hostile to women's empowerment and safety. 

Really?  Because it sounds to me as though Roiphe was stating her informed opinion.  I think women still have the right to their opinion.  Or is that right reserved only for radfems?

Not to mention the fact that Roiphe never asks why men might want to dominate and hurt women, and what that might say about them.

She also failed to ask why women might want to dominate and hurt men and what that says about them.  Do you actually have a point other than to throw out another logical fallacy?  Didn't think so.

That this magazine rolled off the presses just as advocates are struggling to get the Violence Against Women Act reauthorized in Congress should make even the most trusting person stop and think.

Oh, the Violence Against Women Act!  Yeah, the one that Clinton bought the Radfem vote with.  The act that radfems helped draft, but even though they are sooooo concerned with equality for both women and men, somehow forgot to include men or children (except female children) in.  The act that grants money to radfems so that they can give training to police and judges where they present falsified claims of one in every four women being raped and pretends that women don't throw the first blow as often as men in domestic violence.  The act that instructs police to arrest the person which is able to hit the hardest in domestic violence instead of arresting the instigator.   The act that allows women to obtain restraining orders without due process which aids them greatly in custody battles.  Yes, I'm familiar with that act.  Since the Republican's have tied it up, I keep hoping that it winds up in the trash and we can replace it with an Anti-Violence Act that actually is equal.

But are you really so paranoid that you think the article is some great conspiracy to sabotage the radfem gravy train?  Then again, you do pitch that whole Patriarchy conspiracy in which your entire ideology is built around, so it isn't that much of a stretch to think you suffer from delusional paranoia.  And  we can see from your radfem reaction that you have no critical thinking ability.  This makes me wonder if perhaps equal rights are not a good thing for radfems.  Possibly some women were granted equality too soon.  The strain of responsibility with equality is too much for you.  VAWA is evidence that radfems have no inkling as to how to moderate their power, else they would not abuse the power of equality by using it to subjugate men.  It might be a good idea if we reverse our decision to grant them equal rights under the law so that radfems have a few more generations of tutelage to learn how to balance power and responsibility.  We could use that time to teach them the basics of logic while they are down there.  Naturally we wouldn't want to do this with all women.  Most women are level headed and are not intentionally attempting to manipulate courts and lawmakers in order to gain more power and control for themselves.  No, only the illogical, hyperbolic, fear mongering, power mad, hysterical radfem nutjobs of N.O.W. should see the reversal of women's suffrage.

No comments:

Post a Comment