House of Eratosthenes

About six months ago I had laid out a treatise explaining exactly why I regarded feminism as being deader than a coffin nail. It boils down to this: To assess fairly whether or not it is still breathing air and above the daisies, one must first define it, and a central pillar to the definition to which most of us would agree would have something to do with: Choice. As in, individual choice. You choose to be this, you choose to be that, nobody’s getting in your face telling you something else, and they certainly aren’t telling you that because you’re a girl.

And the feminism we have nowadays, is really all about women getting in each other’s faces telling each other they’re supposed to be this-or-that. It is the opposite of what it used to be…or perhaps it always has been the opposite of what it was supposed to be. You know what? I don’t even give a good goddamn anymore. In the here-and-now, if feminism is indeed supposed to be about individual ambitions and choice, it’s certifiably dead.

Well, it occurs to me that perhaps it’s overly simplistic and unfair of me to assess it that way. The reason I’m having that epiphany, is because I’m reminded of a second pillar of what feminism is supposed to be: Equality. That has very little to do with choice, and it is undeniable that this is also a central definition of feminist goals. Men get paid a dollar, women get paid seventy cents, why, that’s just fundamentally unfair isn’t it? Sure it is. And so when ordinary, common-sense folks resolve to become feminists, in many cases that is the agenda, and a noble agenda it is.

The sad part is, what inspires me about that is this item over at Ace’s place, about which I learned via Cassy Fiano.

A satirical response to a feminist publication at Colorado College has landed the college and two of its students in the middle of a fierce debate over freedom of speech.

Chris Robinson and another student at the Colorado Springs institution decided to print “The Monthly Bag” after seeing copies of a feminist and gender studies newsletter, “The Monthly Rag,” in restrooms around campus.

The edition of “The Monthly Rag” that prompted action included an announcement for a talk on feminist pornography, information on gender-bending practices, and a tidbit about a myth involving male castration. According to Robinson, it was representative of what appears every month.

A thumbnail of the Monthly Rag is below, and you can view the original by clicking it. Included are such items as Can Feminist Porn Exist? And an explanation of the word “Packing” (Creating the appearance of a phallus under clothing). A quote from Gloria Steinem that a woman today has the choice of being either a feminist or a masochist.

Money quote:

Did You Know?

Vagina Dentata is the Latin term literally meaning “toothed vagina.” Many cultures have myths and cautionary tales about the dangers of sex with women. It is associated with the fear of male castration.

It cries out, IMHO, for parody and parody was not long in coming. Enter the Monthly Bag mentioned above:

Which reflects the “Did You Know” section by means of the following…

The Barrett .50 Caliber sniper rifle has an effective range of 2000 meters?

See, that could be taken to mean someone’s lying in wait at the top of campus buildings, waiting to pick off feminists with a .50 cal. Bu-u-u-ut…could not the vagina dentata item be taken to mean some campus ladies are implanting their bodies with male castrating devices, in a conspiracy to mutilate men? I mean, I can see how the sniper rifle thing might be unintentionally intimidating, but ya gotta admit the toothed vagina thing seems to be inextricably fused to an intent to intimidate.

I mean, the appearance is that intimidation is the entire point. I don’t see how you can get around that.

Well, if you’ve been conscious and breathing sometime for the last thirty-five years, you know exactly what the campus did. Yup, you got it. Rag Good, Bag Bad. The Barrett .50 caliber thing is not only intimidating, but “demonizing.”

Ace sums it up adroitly:

Isn’t the academy supposed to promote truth? Then why not tell the truth: There are very different rules for different people. Why the constant lying about rules which are ostensibly objective and apply to all equally?

I would add just one other thing, though. And my frosting-on-the-cake is not kind to feminism, but it is, as Ace has requested, true. Here it is:

Inequality is the point. Nowadays, if it has to do with “equal” treatment between the sexes, it is not feminism. Feminism is about a sloped playing field. One of the key features of success in any feminist endeavor — other than that thing about telling people what to do — is the degree of slope. What, exactly, can a female be allowed to do that a male cannot? How BIG is that gap? If there is no delta to show, then that particular item on the feminist wish list went unfulfilled.

How did feminism get here? Well, the argument could be made that it started here — all the sloganeering about equality was just a recruiting tool and nothing more, from the get-go. But even that doesn’t explain it. Babies mature into adults, and even cultural changes in public policy are supposed to normalize over time.

The plain truth of it is that feminism is the wrong kind of bureaucracy for the mission it has been trying to support. Some bureaucracies are, by nature, moderate and become more moderate with the passage of time. One person expresses a strong opinion, and the consensus of the group is going to be “you seem to have a little bit more of an axe to grind than someone should have if they’re going to have a position of authority here”…and so an ineffectual management suck-up will be nominated to the positions in which important decisions are made.

That can be irritating when you’re trying to get something done. But perhaps the time has come, to admit that this is exactly what feminism should have been. Over the last four decades, though, it’s been the exact opposite: Whoever has the most passion — whoever is angriest — is promoted to the position of authority, and calls the shots. The cooler heads are gutterballed, sent out to the sidelines.

The tragic part is that people in general are very willing and quick to accept a taboo, when it concerns how to treat females. Even other females have this trait. And so, because feminists want us to, we think of feminism as having to do with “choice” — when it’s inherently anti-choice — and “equality” — when it is inherently anti-equality.

This reminds me of my favorite joke about feminists:

Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: That’s not funny.
- Duffy | 04/16/2008 @ 14:29

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Feminists and EqualityTuesday, April 15th, 2008

Feminists and Equality
Tuesday, April 15th, 2008