Friday, June 07, 2013


(Please note – there are rational comments below – please DO NOT PROCEED if you do not want to take further thought!)

Having a rhetorical discussion with refugees from the fringes at "Feminist Mormon Housewives" kinda reminds me of the scene from "Unforgiven"...
"Any man don't want to get killed, better clear on out the back..."
Every contact I have with people of this ilk ends in a violent gunfight.  Further confirms my suspicion that they aren't interested in open discussion, or anything that really "celebrates diversity" other than their own approved brand of weirdness.  That they speak it in public forum belies the unwritten protocol of silencing.

One of the beloved paradigms of feminist misinformation
Run, run, fast as you can!
Can't catch me, I'm the Genderbread Man, er, Person!
I always loved the story about the gingerbread man.  Now they have redefined the terms to appeal to simple-minded naive deviants.  Worse than Sesame Street.  I fail to see how this distorted thinking differs significantly from the pejorative "whitebread", referring to people of European ancestry.  The gingerbread man used to be a man.  Now we can't tell what he is - and he can't either.

The language perversion of feminism and homosexuality is one of the things that provokes me.  They tend to isolate on perfectly understandable things, then warp them to their own nuanced meaning.  Like it is somehow more natural and gentle to call yourself "gay" and pretend that it's all about rainbows.

Not that it is any sort of celebration of diversity anyway.  My suggestion about implications of the genetic mosaicism that is unique to all human females produced feeble responses.  They seemed to obsess about abnormal human genitalia and deviant behavior, to the point of gushing in effusiveness.  I had thought that a forum for women's issues would share my intellectual interest in a subject that personally affects more than half the human population.  It was my mistake to suppose that women would find anything of interest in such cerebral rhetoric.  Obviously it was just too demanding.

The main focus of the post in question seems to be on establishing some kind of parallel between abnormal embryology and deviant sexuality.  This is a specious premise, there is no such parallel.  Abnormal development of unborn babies is not characterized in behavioral habits.  Deviant sexuality is characterized by nothing other than superficial self-identified behavioral preferences.  The only comparison is that neither characteristic is anything to be admired or praised.  Misuse of well defined terms of science disciplines to justify social trends and abnormal behavioral habits is highly irrational.  Anyone can copy graphics from the Internet these days, but it takes something more than that to frame a convincing thesis.

Generally the blog participants seem to be talking because it so gratifies their own egos to hear themselves talk.  Talking without purpose seems to be another trait that characterizes human females.  Most of the outspoken proponents seem far too deeply invested in their own "social constructs" to consider that there might be more legitimate points of view.

I continue to reserve the right to apply the same personal preferences and tyrannical ground rules on this blog.  Dissenters will be moderated by the neck until dead.

...reason and accountability...

Ugarte: You despise me, don't you?
Rick: If I gave you any thought I probably would...
Regardless, I still can't even pretend to ever be quite as capricious and arbitrary as this troupe of illiterate misinformed gossips.

One of the politically-correct categorizations that has evolved in Internet parlance is the modern-day epithet "troll".  The etymology and semantics are rather interesting.  Most who use it now seem to believe the term has roots in reference to some mythical ugly little sub-human creature to be driven away and shunned, although this is simply another distortion of real meaning.  In general terms it has become the online equivalent to labelling someone "nigger" in pre-civil-rights days.  Not that it really means anything in particular.  Calling someone a "troll" has become one of the de riguer labels for disparaging and marginalizing one who disagrees with you.

Make no mistake - these folks are haters. The whole feminazi business is so ludicrous, it's laughable.  :-)

No comments: