Friday, April 23, 2010

Empowering Women!



So I am talking to this femtard. She assures me she is neither "doctrinaire" nor "extreme." She isn't a follower of the Femtard Goddess, Oprah, nor does she "hate men." She is a "reasonable" feminist.

So I say to her, "No, you are not a 'reasonable feminist.' Nobody on earth is a 'reasonable feminist' because nobody has ever become a feminist through reason. You are a feminist - to whatever degree - because of your emotions."

"That's the most outrageous thing I have ever heard in my life. I just believe that men and women are equal - that's not emotional, it's a fact." quoth my soon-to-be weeping femtard prey.

"Well," quoth I, "both you and the feminists say that you believe that men and women are equal. But here are two propositions that neither you nor feminists can argue with: first, there are NO facts which indicate that men and women are equal, and secondly, both you AND feminists believe that women are inferior to men."

"Feminists believe that women are inferior to men? You... you're...."

"Exactly," I said. "Listen, I hear your words. I hear you when you say 'Women can do anything that men can do.' I hear feminists say that as well. But I know you are all lying. Lemme ask you something: If women are capable of anything that men are capable of, then why have feminists spent the last 30 years trying to lower standards in the military (for both admission and promotion) so that more women can do what men have already been doing for hundreds of years? If women are capable of doing anything that men are capable of doing, why have feminists spent the last 30 years trying to lower standards in police forces and fire brigades so that more women can get jobs that men have already been doing for hundreds of years? If women are capable of everything that men are capable of, why have feminists spent the last 30 years trying to lower standards of admission - specifically for women, not across the board - so that more women can be admitted to law school, medical school, and MBA programs?"

"Well, just because a woman can't do everything a man can do physically...."

"Oh, so now you admit that men and women are not equally capable?" I said as I cornered her (the first time).

"Uh, no. No, I didn't say that."

"You just said that women can't do what men can do physically," I reminded her.

"Well, you aren't so stupid to believe that a woman who is 5'2, 120 pounds, is going to be able to do everything that a man who is 6'2, 230 pounds can do?" she replied.

"No, I don't believe that at all. But I am not the one who said women and men were equally capable. You said that. So now you are arguing with yourself?"

"No, of course not. But there are some women who are able...."

"But we aren't talking about some women, we are talking about women as a group. Feminists do not desire to hold women to the same standards as men - which would allow some women, those who are able to perform at the same level as men to get the same jobs or opportunities as men - I am more than happy to have women who are physically and otherwise as capable as men to do the things that men do. But that is not the feminist goal. The feminist goal is to lower standards for women so that women who are not capable of doing the things that men are doing can have the jobs that only men are capable of doing well."

"It's not just women, feminists want equality for everybody," she replied, both off-topic and smugly.

"Really? So what feminists really want is for men who are 5'2 and 120 pounds to be given jobs as firemen?" Trapped again, she was.

"Uhhh, maybe so." She lied, of course.

"Really? Because I have never seen any legislation ever introduced by feminists that would have accomplished that! Rather, what I see is a continual desire to define competency down so that - more women alone - so that women can finally manage to reach the ever-decreasing bar of competency and act as if they are equal to the guys who met minimum levels of competency that were much higher."

"That's outrageous."

"Maybe so. But is it wrong? Did I misspeak? Am I factually wrong? Can you tell me any feminist initiative that would have benefited men that are 5'2 and 120 pounds?"

Realizing she was unable to answer, and therefore refusing to do so, she retorted, "Well, just because women are not able to do what men can do physically doesn't mean they are inferior."

"Well, it certainly means they are physically inferior, if physical output is the measuring stick. But we aren't just talking about physically are we?"

"If there is any real difference between men and women, it is physical," she insisted.

"That may or may not be, we haven't established that yet," I replied, as if I knew a secret that she didn't. "But I can guarantee you that feminists do not believe what you just said. Feminists actually believe that women are also intellectually and morally inferior to men."

"I can't do this anymore..." she whined.

"Oh, come on. Don't let reality crowd your neurosis there, OK? You aren't afraid of the truth are you?"

"What you are saying is not the truth."

"How would you know? You haven't even tried to counter it!"

"But I've never heard all this before...."

"Of course not. Feminism depends on the ignorance of the populace - it can't prosper any other way. A mind that had ever been acquainted with merely ONE fact would thoroughly reject the 'Long ago in a land far away' ideology of feminism. But aren't you glad you are hearing it now for the first time?"

"You say such outrageous things. How do feminists believe that women are morally inferior?" At this point, my prey is near tears and is visibly shaken. Her voice quakes.

"Not just morally, but also intellectually inferior. Yes, feminists believe that. They reveal that they believe women are intellectually inferior when they attempt to lower standards for admission to law school, medical school, and MBA programs (among others) so that more women can be employed in the professions. Again, it is pretty clear that if women are equally capable, there is no reason to lower standards."

"No," she said, "what you don't get is that those 'standards' were set by men." When she said "standards," she indicated quotation marks with her fingers.

"What difference does it make who set them? If men and women were equally capable, women should have no problem meeting the standards whether they were set by God, the Queen, or a passing UFO. I mean, which aspect of 'equally capable' do you not understand?"

"Because women were not allowed to give input when these standards were set...."

"Foolishness," said I. "Nobody consulted me when the rules of basketball were designed. That has nothing to do with whether or not I am equally as capable at basketball as is Michael Jordan. Nobody consulted me when the rules of backgammon were designed. Nevertheless, if I am gonna play backgammon, competently or otherwise, I am expected to abide by the rules that were set by somebody else. And by the way, nobody consulted me when VAWA was passed either, and VAWA has far more impact upon men than the rules of backgammon, so your indignation seems both hypocritical and misplaced.... But who makes the rules is irrelevant. We all live in situations in which the rules have been provided by someone else and we are nevertheless expected to excel or demonstrate competence. If I want to claim to be equally as capable as Michael Jordan, then no matter who made the rules, I have to perform with him."

Silence. So I continued.

"So when feminists demand that standards to professional schools be lowered so that women can be admitted and practice law and medicine and whatever, when men have already been entering, leaving, and practicing from Harvard Law for a century or more, they are admitting that they do not believe that women are 'equally capable' with men intellectually.

"Now, let's talk morals..." I continued. "Feminists also do not believe that women are as morally sound as are men."

"See, this is what I hate. You are just being silly now." Smug again. Confident. Right where I want her....

"Well, OK. When feminists changed the Violence Against Women Act [VAWA] under Bill Clinton, it was the legislative enactment of the feminist myth that 'women don't lie about rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and abuse.' Of course that silly little fairy tale first gained wide exposure during the Clarence Thomas hearings, when that braying feminist ass, Anita Hill, was revealed to be lying about sexual harassment. And so people rightly guffawed at the myth at the time. But that pissed feminists off so much that they began to seek to have their mythology codified into law - one result of that compunction to enact feminist fairy tales into law was VAWA."

"I don't see what that has to do with women's morals," she interjected. Fair enough. I had been interrupting her as well. Though for two different reasons: I interrupted her because what she was saying wasn't worth hearing, and she interrupted me because she didn't want to face the truth.

"You don't see it because you are talking when you should be listening," I said quite righteously. "Now, as I was saying, the femtard fairy tale that 'women don't lie' was codified in several ways - in the presumption of guilt for those accused (inescapable in Domestic Violence Protective Order [DVPO] proceedings, where the standard of evidence is the 'subjective fear of the woman', but present also in rape proceedings where a woman is referred to as a 'victim' even when she is revealed to be lying about rape, and in shielding her identity without shielding the identity of the one slandered by her), in the exclusion of relevant evidence from courts (so-called 'rape shield' laws, but they represent the only time that I know of in Western jurisprudence in which character evidence that has a direct bearing on the allegations being brought are excluded, even though they could indicate that the accuser is lying), and a lowering of evidentiary standards. Again, the standard of evidence for issuing a restraining order prior to VAWA was 'the probability of harm.' In other words, if the order was not issued, it was probable that harm would accrue to the petitioner. But for a DVPO, the standard of evidence was changed to 'the subjective fear of the woman.' In other words, if a woman can convince a judge that she 'fears' her husband/daddy/lover, then she can take everything he owns and have him treated as a criminal - no evidence necessary."

"What the &^%$ are you talking about? I don't see this!" she objected.

"Let me ask you something: If women are so morally superior to men that they never lie - even if they only never lie about certain things, like sex or violence, why is it necessary to lower the standard of evidence? And by the way, they didn't just lower it, but they lowered it to the extent that it is essentially no standard of evidence at all - merely to make the claim is to be considered to be telling the truth by a court (quite a violation of the "innocent until proven guilty" tradition in Western jurisprudence, wouldn't you say?). If women are morally equal to men, shouldn't their ability to tell the truth be tested by the same standards of evidence that have always tested the testimony of men? Shouldn't the men that they slander be considered innocent except for objective evidence proffered of their guilt? Shouldn't women who slanderously accuse men have to meet the standards of evidence of 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' 'a preponderance of the evidence,' or 'probability/likelihood of harm?' Sure they should! They should, that is, IF it is true that they are just as capable of telling the truth as are men! But by insisting on an impossibly LOW standard of evidence for the complaints that only women make, aren't feminists simply demanding to be believed for the sake of their own complaint? And if I insist that YOU believe ME just because, am I not admitting to you that there is something wrong with me or my story, and asking to be given the benefit of the doubt? And if I am asking to be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to telling the truth in court under oath, am I not admitting that in the moral matter of telling the truth, I am morally inferior to those who must prove their complaints with real evidence?"

"You know, I don't think either of us is going to change each other's mind," she stated, rather than trying to rebut my exquisite logic.

"Of course we aren't. You won't change my mind because I am right and you are wrong. And I won't change your mind because you are not interested in truth and facts."

"What you are saying isn't the truth," she stated again.

"Then why won't you show the error in what I have said?"

"You know," she said, "It's not all about facts. People's opinions matter."

"No, people's opinions don't matter at all. They are all different, and generally contradictory. How can they all be true? And if they are not true, how can they matter? After all, it is our responsibility to form our opinions based on reality, not to try to bring reality into conformity with our opinions, as feminists do."

"There's more to it than that," she said. "It's not all about facts and truth. It's about self-worth and self-esteem. It's about a world in which I can feel good about myself."

"Thank you," I said.

"Thank me for what?" she asked.

"Thank you," I said again, "for admitting that you are a feminist because of feelings and not facts. As I said when we started talking about this, no feminist ever became a feminist intellectually. It's all about feeling, emotions, and a certain neurotic preference for castles in the air rather than cold, hard, reality."

Full circle....

7 comments:

  1. Jezus christ that was motherf***ing clockwork dude. I am very impressed. :D

    Full circle indeed.


    *Bows his head in awe*

    ReplyDelete
  2. mmm not so sure I agree with your logic... there are many ways to go about that topic... but well done in beating someone clearly not trained in debate and logic. I assure you there are many others who could give you a run for your money!

    ReplyDelete
  3. @2d Anonymous....

    That you do not AGREE with the logical masterpiece rendered above is wholly irrelevant to the fact that it is, indeed, a logical masterpiece. In fact, every statement that I made is true. And every conclusion necessarily follows from its factual basis.

    If there are feminists who can give me a "run for my money" on the above logical masterpiece, would you please produce them? Because I can assure you that I have, in both public and private, been using the above argument since the Clinton administration and have YET to find a self-professing feminist of any stripe who can even pretend to engage me on it.

    Current count of intellectually destroyed feminists by the single argument above... 127.

    And counting, of course....

    ReplyDelete
  4. 'FeminISM' is RacISM. Plain and simple.
    'FeminISM' is RacISM. Promoting explicitly Female interests is no different than any other form of racism that has ever existed. MAKE THE MEDIA OWN THIS FACT.

    Legal, institutional and cultural privileged treatment of females is legal, institutional and cultural KKK Racism. Feminists are in deed and in fact THE Neo-Nazi's. The one's in charge know this truth is self-evident. They only get by on our appeasement. Men, are you ok with appeasing terrorists?

    Paint them with their rabid bigotry as they deserve.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't think she'll be debating informed MRAs anytime soon.

    ReplyDelete