Tuesday, February 28, 2006
My personal suspicion is that much of explorative (geographic exploration, that is) history should be rewritten. For instance, I think it's very probable that Christopher Columbus walked into a female discussion between his wife and her mother-in-law in the kitchen right before he decided to go find India. "I'll see you in a few years, honey," probably seemed like the best thing to say at the time. He was almost certainly hoping that his mother-in-law would have gone home by the time he got back. And the search for the Northwestern (edited) Passage? Come on - that's obvious! (It must be conceded that vagina-blogging offers extremely fertile territory for puns and double entendres. Admit it - you are jealous that you didn't think of this first.)
I'll admit to a crestfallen, appalled unhappiness with what the women's movement in academia has become. In my high school days I was looking forward happily to a future in which my vagina was going to be a purely private possession off limits as a topic of discussion in public life. We were promised that it would have nothing to do with our right to participate in public life or our careers. In fact, I had no idea whatsoever that my vagina was ever going to be presumed to be some sort of a goldmine outside of a brothel. But reality has to trump optimism if rationality is to reign. It is clear that post-modernist feminism bears a suspicious resemblance to a cult, and the vaginahabis are developing terroristic tendencies.
As Anniebird wrote in a comment to my last post, weak thinking is contagious. If (in The Anchoress' terms), the "barbaric yawps" of enraged vaginas are going to be allowed to run rampant and unassailable through universities, pausing in only to fling the odd university president out of office for daring to question the brilliance of the holders of those sacred vaginas, it is clear that women who are less awed by their nether regions are going to have to speak up. The thing about basing any discussion on the wisdom of a vagina's brain is that it immediately disqualifies men from participating (as Pedro notes)- which is exactly the goal of the vagina-worshippers. There is a method to this madness, and it is to get men out of the kitchen altogether. That leaves you and me in here, sister. It's time to clean out the refrigerator. There's clearly some degenerative process going on in there - the brain in my nose tells me so.
Vaginahabism should not be allowed to succeed in any way. Pedro cannot really counter this madness - he would be marked down as an enemy of the vaginahabis and debarred from future participation in academics. If Summers can be taken down in part for a purely scholarly discusson of an observable statistical phenomenon, than who is safe? All of western women's position in society is a function of the humanistic doctrines of western society. We can discuss the patriarchy all we like, but it seems unequivocally self-evident that the patriarchy has been the best friend of the matriarchy, possibly due to the patriarchy's genetic tendency to vagina-worship. Basically, they'll do what we tell them, as long as it means they have a reasonable chance of getting some some.
So we'd better start thinking more clearly than Eve Ensler, the author of the Vagina Monologues. As The Anchoress notes, she has now moved from world redemption based on vagina-worship to world redemption based on stomach-acceptance. Isn't that middle age in a nutshell? Believe me, we don't want to travel into old age with this particular Eve leading the way:
...I have bought into the idea that if my stomach were flat, then I would be good, and I would be safe. I would be protected. I would be accepted, admired, important, loved. Maybe because for most of my life I have felt wrong, dirty, guilty, and bad, and my stomach is the carrier, the pouch for all that self-hatred. Maybe because my stomach has become the repository for my sorrow, my childhood scars, my unfulfilled ambition, my unexpressed rage. Like a toxic dump, it is where the explosive trajectories collide—the Judeo- Christian imperative to be good; the patriarchal mandate that women be quiet, be less; the consumer-state imperative to be better, which is based on the assumption that you are born wrong and bad, and that being better always involves spending money, lots of money. Maybe because, as the world rapidly divides into fundamentalist camps, reductive sound bites, and polarizing platitudes, an exploration of my stomach and the life therein has the potential to shatter these dangerous constraints.Good God in heaven. Anyone who really believes that a non-critical admiration of Eve Ensler's middle-aged stomach can save us all should stop reading now. Narcissistic navel-gazing never advanced society or protected us from any danger. It's no basis for science. It's no basis for public policy. Can we please return to the idea of objective, external reality? Can we lose the tribalism? Can we stop the glorification of the trivial and inane and return to searching for a consensus based on what's important and what is universal?
In order to get out of this irrational abyss we will need to agree on a few basic rules. Lawrence Summers had the perfect right to ask for the debate. We are all free to debate with him, but we are not free to conduct a vaginahabi jihad against him for opening the topic. The rules are going to have to be the same for men and women and any individual who is not sure of his or her particular category. Every individual must be allowed to question statistics and propositions. Sexual harassment may not be defined as disagreeing with a woman. Being offended is no indicator of being victimized. Can we agree that women are, first and foremost, capable of being rational beings and that conducting oneself as a rational being is no betrayal of each other or of our vaginas?
Otherwise, it's burkas for you and me. Ultimately, western society will stand or fall based on its ability to recognize, adapt and cope with external, objective realities. And if western society falls, the vaginahabis are doomed. Vaginahibism is fixated on destroying its own life support system.
Unfortunately the thought process at play here is a fairly common two step one now.
1. Do you disagree with my position?
2. Then we need to get you to stop talking while we determine what is wrong with you.
Tommy, by the rules of anti-vaginahabism, you have every right to post a comment. I think you pegged it. The mere utterance of disagreement is considered prima facie proof of enemy status by vaginahabis.
Pedro, I am sure the additional vegetables will do you good. Lower cholesterol AND increased future earnings - what a great package deal I offer you!
Shrinkwrapped succinctly wrote, that 'if you allow the Holocaust deniers to write the textbooks, soon enough, the Holocaust will have been foend nevewr to have occurred.'
Feminism has become very much like Holocaust denial. If the agendista feminists are allowed to write the textbooks, real feminism, as defined as empowering women to equal rights and opportunities, will have become a meaningless ideal, replaced instead with all kinds of adversarial agendas. That can only have a negative influence on society as a whole.
That was an interesting post
Though I may NOT agree to all what was said, your blog brought back a lot of old memories and thoughts about our country friends and relatives
While we as world citizens think that Justice and equality are the most important cornerstones of a civil society, does the ground reality reflect that ?
We are angered when outsiders, third parties are denied justice. We scream when we read of Jessica Lall, Mittal, Zahira, Iraq, or similar cases.
But what happens when our mother, the epitome of love, the best example of sacrifice is denied justice in her own family ?
Links to this post: