Those darned strawfeminists

Because everyone knows Sweden is imaginary:

A few months before Schyman bolted the Left party to form the Feminist Initiative, she had stirred up controversy by proposing a “man tax:” a tax leveled only on men, to help pay for the government’s extensive array of feminist-run shelters for battered women. Schyman’s “man tax” idea stirred outrage from more moderate commentators like Liza Marklund: “To declare that all men are guilty of all rapes, that all men are guilty of violence against women — that’s not just offensive and wrong; if the purpose is to get anywhere with this issue it’s just plain stupid.”

Marklund’s comments proved prophetic. Yet the man-bashing had to reach an unheard of pitch before the reaction finally began. So long as the “man tax” and business-board quotas were the issue, Schyman’s promise to “break down the patriarchal order of power” through FI (the Feminist Initiative) enjoyed wide support. Early polling showed that five percent of the public would “definitely” vote for FI, and an amazing 20-25 percent said they would at least consider supporting FI. Numbers like that could easily have brought business-board quotas, a man-tax, and many other feminist proposals into law.

Even during this early period of popular support, the Feminist Initiative floated some remarkably radical ideas. FI planned to change Sweden’s rape laws by requiring men to ask women permission for sex (something like the famous rules of sexual engagement at Antioch College). There was also a call for “comparable worth” legislation, to equalize pay between professions dominated by men (e.g., truck drivers) and women (e.g., phone operators).

The FI is the current poster child for why women should not be allowed to vote or hold office in any society which wishes to remain free. The only reason that the USA is significantly less culturally radicalized than Norway or Sweden is because there are relatively few women in office. The universal franchise is incompatible with freedom, as the victory of Hamas should serve to demonstrate, and the female vote is the most reliably anti-free one.

While the uninformed simply dismiss the Founding Fathers as irrational sexists, although even a brief perusal of their writings should suffice to demonstrate that their desire to avoid the “tyranny of the petticoat”, as John Adams called it, was neither irrational nor unfounded.

Mailvox: this could be interesting

MH talks some smack… can he back it up?

I teach logic and I would politely suggest that you have no familiarity with the concept. However, your site has served of some use in providing more real life versions of fallacies to employ in my critical thinking courses.

Bring it on, teacher man. Choose the subject and we’ll see how your “logic” and “critical thinking” holds up. Make it an example for your class. I’ll be happy to post your arguments and critiques in their entirety.

Do you teach the concept about walking the walk as well? Or are you just an academic who teaches because he can’t do?

UPDATE: Hey, at least he’s not a chicken:

The claim that intelligent design is a scienfitic theory which should be taught as an alternate to evolutionary theory in the high school curriculum. State your view and give an argument and I will respond.

Though I was never a fan of George Bernard Shaw, the author of the “can’t do” remark that conservatives are so fond of invoking as a subtitute for argument, I will wager that one thing you cannot do is argue or refrain from the ad hominem comments which is all I found at your website.

Hmmmm.. perhaps we can find something that we actually disagree on. I have never claimed that intelligent design is a scientific theory, nor have I ever asserted that it should be taught in the high school curriculum. (I think MH is confusing me with some of my readers.) I am an evolutionism skeptic, I am not a supporter of intelligent design in or out of the curriculum.

How about the following: The American public school system is detrimental to human liberty. Since MH is a teacher, I assume he’d disagree with that.

I will, by the way, take that ad hominem bet. Did you see any in the discussion about the utility of air power yesterday?

If I remember correctly, the salutation of my initial email was “to whom it may concern” and was sent in response to a short piece which consisted in nothing but ad hominem abuse of liberals. Your response included an attack on people who teach, the cliché adopted from Shaw, which is offered with remarkable frequency from conservatives as if it is an argument. So, the ad hominem claim I made was well substantiated by what I encountered in the initial piece and your response.

I didn’t know your view on intelligent design. I suggested it because of the popularity among conservatives and especially among Southern Baptists, since the convention assumed an official fundamentalist position some years ago, our benighted president seems to endorse its teaching in our schools, and the recent legal battles over its status. I’m not particularly interested in the topic you suggested and I don’t think it is well focused enough for an actual thesis. I am also not a public school teacher but teach philosophy in a community college.

Suggest another topic and if I have time I will respond. I don’t normally devote much time to any political websites, irrespective of ideology, usually only visiting them and the occasional talk show to maintain a stock of recent examples of “real life” fallacies. Many critical thinking and informal logic texts draw from such sources as well as the more traditional letters to the editor. They are gold mines for a variety of informal fallacies which are taught in all such courses.

Given you describe yourselves as a “Christian libertarian” website, why not a topic on religion?

That’s fine… of course, there’s also five years worth of columns and three years worth of blog posts to choose from. “To whom it may concern” did seem a little strange, considering that there was only one individual involved. Obviously, you’re not quite as familiar with my work as you first made it seem. Regardless of the apparent soundness of your reasoning, it obviously led you to an incorrect conclusion…. [As for the subject] how about this: Islam excluded, religion is not among the major causes of war.

Mailvox: the Mommy Wars

FD sends an email:

The morning show Good Morning America on ABC is doing a 2 day segment called “The Mommy Wars” debating whether or not moms are making a mistake by staying home and giving up their careers. Professor Linda Hirschman is being challenged for her article last year in a magazine touting moms leaving their careers are making a mistake. The only statistic provided is 54% of women polled with college and graduate degrees would rather stay at home with their children because they think it is better for the child. Hirschman thinks they are making a mistake because it is no better for the children and bad for the moms.

Hirschman says statistics show that stay at home moms are not giving their kids any advantage. – that the kids are well adjusted. They are taking comments from people on their message board.

Ah yes, the famous “statistics show”. What statistics, precisely? And how does one define this nebulous well-adjustedness of Ms Hirschmyn speaks so highly? Does she take into account the increased likelihood of divorce, which was once similarly touted as good for children? Does she take into account the greater number of days sick and illnesses enjoyed by the children abandoned to day care? And what about the fact that every educationist insists that the prime determinant of scholastic success in the public schools is parental involvement? Given the scholastic superiority of homeschooling over both public and private schools, it is obvious that a mother’s career condemns a child to second-class schooling, at best.

I suspect that Ms Hirschmyn is a typical abortionette for whom the personal is the scientific, who clings to her demonstrably errant beliefs in order to justify her own decisions.

UPDATE: The self-justifying moronics in the comments are hilarious: I have a career outside of the home. I find it to be very fulfilling. As soon as I pick up my daughter after work, it’s our family time. I feel like I’m able to be more energetic and fulfilled at home, because I do have something outside of the home during the day. Well, since the primary factor in a child’s development is obviously her mother’s self-fulfillment… what are the chances that she doesn’t one day hear the words “self-obsessed bitch” from her daughter?

I am so thankful that someone else realizes that both are possible. I am the mother of a 7 month old and I am both a full time mom and work full time. Translation: I’m a half-assed mom and a half-assed employee, but if I keep repeating the have-it-all mantra, I’ll be able to delude myself until my kid grows up and calls me on it.

I’m a mother of a 3-year-old daughter and a research scientist with a Ph.D. in psychology. I know that my continuing to work is the right decision for our family but I struggle with feelings of being judged as somehow *less* of a mom. Why should she struggle with them? She IS less of a mom. Turn it around… if she had her doctoral degree but was only helping out with someone else’s research for a few hours in the evening, would anyone see any controversy in considering her less of a research scientist than her counterparts who are working full-time?

UPDATE II: Yes, I am aware that some women have to work. In fact, in 1950, 33.9 percent of women were already in the labor force; the feminist concept of “working women” refers solely to married middle-class white women, (and potential married, middle-class white women), who do not have to work in order to survive. This should be obvious, given that the entire discussion revolves around those who face a “choice” between children and career; one seldom refers to the career of a waitress, janitor or retail clerk.

Oh come, all ye fascists

Tony Blankley calls for a liberal-conservative totalitarian alliance:

Next week a vastly important book will be published: “Preemption, A Knife That Cuts Both Ways” by Alan Dershowitz. Yes, that Alan Dershowitz: the very liberal civil libertarian, anti-capital punishment Harvard Law School professor. And but for my lack of his legal scholarship, there is nary a sentence in the book that I — a very conservative editor of The Washington Times and former press secretary to Newt Gingrich — couldn’t have written.

The premise of his book is that in this age of terror, there is a potential need for such devices as profiling, preventive detention, anticipatory mass inoculation, prior restraint of dangerous speech, targeted extrajudicial executions of terrorists and preemptive military action, including full-scale preventive war.

It seems that Dershowitz’s central state worship liberalism trumps his former civil libertarianism. And to be “conservative” these days is, of course, to pray at the shrine of the central state as well. So, it seems the cloak is finally being removed from the so-called rival factions, who can be united publicly at last in one totalitarian anti-terror party.

Yes, Mr. Blankley, ten “possibly preventable terrorist attacks” are preferable to abandoning the rule of law and developing “new standards for a new age”. New standards? New age? Promising security in exchange for ruling power is the second-oldest con in the book.

Terrorist attacks cannot and will not destroy America. Only America or an external power with a superior military can destroy America. Mr. Blankley and Mr. Dershowitz represent an alliance designed to do precisely that. As Arnold Toynbee astutely noted, civilizations die from suicide, not murder.

I think Gibbon’s initial error lies in supposing that the ancient civilization of the Graeco-Roman world began to decline in the second century after Christ and that the age of the Antonines was that civilization’s highest point. I think it really began to decline in the fifth century before Christ. It died not by murder, but by suicide; and that act of suicide was committed before the fifth century B.C. was out.

Romance awaits you

Courtesy of The Elder:

Republicans know where to find one another, according to Stephen B. Venable, president of CELSIUS, an exclusive new dating service for educated, well-off Minnesota liberals. We were chatting in his office the other day when Venable ventured that conservatives are meeting each other “at work,” “in bars” or “in the parking lot at Vikings games.” But liberals, he said, unless they’re doing “social organizing,” could use a little more help getting together. Thus was born CELSIUS, an acronym for the Collective for Educated Liberal Singles Interested in Unearthing a Soul Mate, whose slogan, spotted on Venable’s business card, reads, “Improving lives by making extraordinary relationships possible.”

Only five minutes into our sit-down, we’d already comfortably griped about racism, sexism, and classism. Much nodding went on. Eventually, Venable and I moved onto the topic of our love lives. Both of us fancied ourselves to be reasonably good catches, and agreed that we felt “baffled” to find ourselves single after thirty. Venable loosened his necktie and unbuttoned his collar. He confided to me that back in his Berkeley Law School days, he had to beat the ladies off with a stick. But with those days behind him, he’s now focused on finding the two qualities he most desires in a mate: intelligence and kindness. He assumes both things are inherent in liberal women.

If this guy’s business acumen is as keen as his judgment of liberal women, I think we can safely conclude that there won’t be an IPO any time soon. A nastier bunch of crocodiles you will not meet this side of the Nile. But I suppose I can understand why so many liberals don’t believe in Hell; if Hillary Clinton is your dream girl, the concept is obviously redundant.

It’s particularly amusing how Mr. CELSIUS recognizes that liberals don’t meet at work, a tacit admission that liberal men are seldom gainfully employed outside of the law firm – government bureaucracy – non-profit organization – university quadrumvirate of social parasites. If you consider the women who work at such Aphrodite-forsaken places, only the law firms are host to the superficially attractive and those are predominantly confirmed evolutionary dead ends.

Liberal men might do better to take a page from their feminist sisters and work to change the dating culture to suit their needs. I’m sure a thirty-year campaign to convince women that passive-aggressive behavior is hot, whiny Gamma Male submissiveness is sexy and a willingness to hide behind women’s skirts is alluring will work wonders. I mean, changing the culture has worked so well for all those career women who are just beating off men with sticks as they desperately try to make it to their childless 40s without being saddled with a husband, a home and a family.

Curtains for college

Advanced Learning in Australia:

A UNIVERSITY graduate student abandoned the institution in frustration after a marking fiasco during which a lecturer told him to produce “more smarter writing”.
Former Queensland University of Technology Master of Business Marketing student Rohan Duggan, 38, said his nine-month ordeal included seven meetings and hundreds of pages of correspondence, some farcical.

The original marking of a 2000-word paper included a comment from lecturer Edwina Luck advising Mr Duggan to present “more smarter writing”. After Ms Luck graded the paper at 65 per cent, Mr Duggan questioned the grade and Ms Luck passed it to another staffer, Dr Yunus Ali, who downgraded it to 35 per cent.

In re-marking, Dr Ali questioned the use of the terms “Yin” and “Yang”, a Chinese concept of balance, and said they should have been listed as references in the bibliography (a list of the books used as reference material). Yesterday, Dr Ali admitted he had “no idea” what the terms meant and thought they were references to people’s names….He insisted Dr Ali was “very well qualified academically”.

No doubt Dr. Ali was very well-qualified academically, that’s the entire point, isn’t it. It doesn’t much matter if you’re in the USA or Oz, this brave new world of grade inflation and dumbed-down university means its almost entirely pointless to waste 4-6 years going into debt in order to “learn”.

Note that the reporter felt the need to explain what a bibliography is. And yet, people wonder why I am so massively contemptuous of the public schools and the voting public.

Mailvox: a significant difference

Jess asks for a distinction:

Again, considering we’re at an impasse over interpretation of one key issue, I invite you to consider that we probably agree more than we disagree. However, just as you claim to be a libertarian, while advocating a lesser citizenship for half the populace, I can claim to be a libertarian while advocating an end to established bigotry.

Sure, quite possibly. However, the difference between what I’m advocating and what you’re advocating is that voting is not, and has never been, a right. Furthermore, a universal franchise is completely at odds with freedom and libertarianism; the masses, especially the female masses, will vote for the security and chains every single time. This is why the Founding Fathers severely restricted the franchise, and despite that, the free Republic was lost within 88 years.

At some point, theory has to admit its flaws and bow to the reality of history.

In like manner, the only established bigotry is that created by government, generally by the same democratic means of enshrining the masses’ momentary feelings into law. The absurdity of citing Jim Crow as a justification for government is profoundly stupid – not that Jess did – considering that Jim Crow was a government establishment in the first place! In fact, those laws were passed specifically in order to control the behavior of the non-bigoted masses.

The absurdity of Jess’ position here is that the government that can legally ban bigotry is a government with the power to legally impose it. In a system with the universal franchise that Jess favors, the law will favor bigotry or anti-bigotry depending on the current mood of the people, which, as can be seen in US history, is subject to fairly rapid change. History does not move in only one direction.

Meanwhile, an individual practicing his right to free association affects only those who interact with him, moreover, his actions are in keeping with liberarianism as he exerts no government force on others. The same is obviously not true with the government imposing its momentary anti-bigotry on the entire populace. A genuine libertarian will support another individual’s choice to be bigoted, however distasteful to him those beliefs might be; merely substitute speech or religion for bigotry and the truth of the matter should be obvious.