The Master’s Tools
Readers may recall a recent post on the wisdom of Margaret Jamison, a guru of sorts to a small circle of admirers. Ms Jamison is a lesbian feminist who defines rape as “all penile intercourse” on grounds that, “there is something wrong with this notion that a woman’s ‘consent’ is what separates a rapist from a non-rapist.” When not insisting that “all heterosex is rape,” Jamison’s thoughts turn a little too readily to the subject of harming children: “I believe male infanticide to be a better option than the current circumstances. I think it’s better than what we’ve got.”
Ms Jamison’s latest declarations concern a matter of some delicacy. It begins in the usual, rather grandiose way:
What I want more than anything is for women to achieve a state of being that is untainted. I especially want us to free ourselves from male rule and influence, for us to be unaltered in ways that are modeled on maleness.
Then it gets a little coy.
The reliance of women on various man-made implements to mediate their relations with other women, whether psychological constructs or manufactured goods, is an adulteration of the female.
Ms Jamison is very big on The Unargued Assertion and she likes to pile ‘em high. I’m not quite sure what the psychological constructs in question might be, but in case it isn’t clear, those “manufactured goods” include strap-ons, dildos and other such devices:
Femaleness cannot be enhanced by maleness, only denied, suppressed, and degraded, lessened. The master’s tools inhabit our minds and the realm of our physical lives… And I don’t think that a tool forged by males or in their likeness is any less male when wielded by women.
Oh, I do like that – The master’s tools. Very good.
Given the all-pervasive nature of The Crushing Patriarchy and its Symbols of Dominion™ – and given the obligation of all women to shun such indecencies – this can create problems of an intimate nature. Penetration is patriarchal degradation, see? Even when the penetrator in question is a lady. So what’s a girl to do? Are fingers and tongues okay? Will scissoring suffice?
Faced with this dilemma and eager to comply with the latest sexual protocol, Ms Jamison’s devotees share their umbrage and confusion:
I only wish there was a way out. You know those mirror rooms with the infinite reflections? I feel like I’m in one of those. I turn and turn and turn, looking for the male supremacy and how to take it down, but all I see is myself instead…
And,
This post ignites too much passion for me to be coherent. All I can spit out are phrases such as… “Don’t even let me see a strap on, much less discuss the desire for one.”
Some readers, however, feel more thrusting and empowered:
Thank you Margaret, I have not long started reading radical lesbian blogs and have felt disillusioned by this very issue. It is apparently easier to create some twisted justification as to why putting on a strap-on has nothing to do with heterosexuality than it is to admit that you are imitating and participating in a heterosexual transaction. Your words enable me to feel slightly less insane.
Remember, people – penetration is suppression; it’s heteronormative and a lessening of womanhood. Even lesbian penetration is a heterosexual transaction and an echo of The Patriarchy. Do try to keep up. There’ll be a test on Friday. It’s easy to mock, of course – though in this case I think that’s okay. But take a moment to ponder a worldview in which aversion to the penis, even in rubber form, is so rigid and unyielding, and where sex is above all an ideological activity. There are rules to be observed and things one mustn’t do, or even think about. All in the name of purity, empowerment and liberation.
(h/t, Randall Sherman)
Feel free to compensate me. I had to wade through this.
That site is just chock full o’ crazy, isn’t it?
It’s heaving at the seams. It could blow at any moment.
She’s going to absolutely love it if Islam succeeds in taking over.
Might almost be worth it just to see that.
“You know those mirror rooms with the infinite reflections? I feel like I’m in one of those. I turn and turn and turn, looking for the male supremacy and how to take it down, but all I see is myself instead…”
LOL. Well *there’s* your problem.
I remember when that happened to James Bond, but fortunately, he had a gun.
From now on, I will endeavor to pleasure my wife with a bowl.
Tell me she’s a performance artist and just making this up to shock people. Please.
Joanne,
Well, I think it’s a kind of… theatre, if that’s what you mean. It’s a theatre of vindictiveness:
“It’s always sort of irritated me to see women expound on the horribleness of men raping each other in prison. So many women seem to feel a compulsion to declare their opposition to its occurrence and their sympathy for the victims, despite the fact that males, as a class, including the ones being raped in prison, have no such compassion for raped female people. I’m not saying that if males did care about female people being raped that I’d give any more of a shit about their being raped in prison. I’m just saying that male nonchalance in the face of female people being raped makes all too stark the masochism of female people concerned about male-on-male rape.”
http://aroomofourown.wordpress.com/2009/10/06/why-should-i-care/
Note the quasi-Marxist framing and the assumption of generic and competing groups: “Males, as a class… have no compassion.” Thus, any man being violated is indistinguishable from any other man, all of whom are apparently monstrous by definition, and thus no man is deserving of sympathy, or help. The humanity is stirring, I think you’ll agree.
Dan – I think you are definitely in the loop with this bowl thing – plenty of potential here for scooping out the erotics of desire in an open-ended way rather than the *** bad word alert *** friction *** all clear now *** of the [@]@~@@ stiff member @@~@[@]. The bowl is where the useful meets the beautiful, representing peace, harmony and elegance. In particular the eggshell lightness of a well-crafted porcelain bowl may bring consenting partners to paroxsyms of pleasure, a ‘seeing’ in the mind where ultimately these acts might conceivably take place without the physical neccesity of the bowl itself.
Who needs a dick when you can have an imaginary bowl?
necessity! rather.
‘Female people’. What’s up with that?
Is it safe to say that Margaret Jamison is the walking definition of a malignant narcissist?
The nice thing about lunacy like that displayed here is that it makes for a good litmus test for your slightly nuttier lib friends: In essence, if you can’t send this to one of them and have them immediately come back with either unequivocal condemnation or side-splitting laughter (and God help them if they, in any way, seek to defend this sort of lesbian masturbatory nuttery) then they are without hope of redemption.
Thanks for the hat-tip, though it was unnecessary.
I’m afraid I read this sort of dross and find myself confronted with too much to handle, much as a trauma surgeon confronting an accident victim. Where does one begin? How does one triage such muddled thinking on all levels. Perhaps its best to just say “Vaya con Dios, muchachas” and call it a day.
Regards.
I love how sex isn’t an intimate personal experience, but a mere “transaction” (if cootie-carrying strap-ons are involved). Is “let’s have a transaction” considered pillow-talk in her circles?
Btw, I can’t find any posts by R. Sherman on his blog.
Oops, I meant “posts on this subject by R. Sherman”.
R,
“Where does one begin?”
That’s the nature of this particular beast. As I said before, it repels analysis. There’s very little logical structure to parse. It’s essentially just a pile of bizarre assertions and question-begging, all delivered with varying degrees of presumption and hostility. And as we’ve seen, any whiff of dissent is simply dismissed as “sheep-hood,” “patriarchy,” “male terrorism,” etc. It’s so much easier to play the role if everyone who disagrees is fiendish by default.
Once you assume the role of victim-by-birth, you can react to any questioning of your arguments – or to any statement of fact – as aggressively or dismissively as you wish. Dismissal, even of fact, becomes your unilateral prerogative. By virtue of belonging to a Designated Victim Group – as defined by yourself – you’re allowed to denounce all disagreement as either heinous or ignorant, irrespective of the particulars and motive in any given instance.
It’s a thing to behold, sure, but impervious to argument. Which is probably the point.
Ayn, my blog is devoted to perpetuating the Patriarchy generally, to wit: I love my wife and kids and vacations in the American West. You know, cowboys and all that.
I’m so ashamed.
Regards.
“The Crushing Patriarchy and its Symbols of Dominion™”
The sausage guy is hilarious.
http://davidthompson.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451675669e20120a5d953d2970b-pi
Good idea to probe into this nonsense. Ooops, did I say probe?
Will tall buildings like Canary Warf be banned?
Mad as f*ck.
From comments on the post “Am I Crazy?”
“Stopping the emergence of any more male human beings is essential to the survival and well-being of all females, human and otherwise.”
“and otherwise”? So, a female cat is preferable to a male child?
“If we lived on a female planet, I’d be delighted to see my daughter have a precious daughter of her own. As things stand, I can only imagine the horrors that would befall that girl.”
Um, how is she going to have a daughter on a female planet? Is some instruction in elementary biology required here?
Earlier I saw this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6267901/Chemical-in-sperm-may-slow-ageing-process.html
Which seems to say that the Austrians have found the fountain of youth and it is the …
penis.
But then again perhaps liberal feminists should abstain from this youth giving serum as one of the tools in the master’s tool bag.
Mark
Is it safe to say that Margaret Jamison is the walking definition of a malignant narcissist?
Many lesbians take narcissism to an art form. Look up “woman-centered life” and browse the links. The pressure to conform to a certain ideal of action and attitude is enormous. If you patronize male-owned businesses, go to events where men are welcome, make plenty of money, or (goddess forbid) have sex with men on occasion, you aren’t lesbian enough for a large segment of the lesbian community. You will be ostracized.
They don’t, however, hate men (and straight women) so much they’ll refuse their money, that’s why lesbian groups are so big on government-paid programs for women: health care, child care, job training, etc. If you can’t get rid of the men and convince straight or bisexual women they’re victims of the patriarchy, at least you can steal from from them in compensation.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088083/
Margaret Jamison appears to be a lesbian Pol Pot, eager to liquidate sex enemies instead of class enemies. The mind set is the same.
“Will tall buildings like Canary Wharf be banned?”
What? That thing is still standing after The Incident with the army of ghosts and the genesis ark?
What would Jamison say about women who have simply declined to engage in recreational sex of any kind? Is virginity OK in their minds?
Yeah, I know. Only Teh Patriarchy values virginity. Declining To Be Used By Anyone and dispensing one’s Oxytocin judiciously wouldn’t be a concept.
The Jamison site’s a goldmine of twisted.
“What I am saying is, simply, that all men are rapists… Even if a woman wants [heterosex] – and I’m sure plenty of women do – it doesn’t outweigh the fact that men would rape her anyway. The men are *rapists*. It’s what they do. “Wanting it” doesn’t change that…”
And paranoia…
“I really do feel sometimes as if people *willfully* miss my points. I’m not sure I understand why that is, but I have decided that it’s intentional.”
James,
“…a goldmine of twisted… and paranoia.”
Well, it’s important that Ms Jamison remains at the centre of her drama, besieged on all sides by unspeakable forces. Those who disagree or ask impertinent questions are at best obtuse or, more likely, Out To Get Her. I think it’s best understood as a kind of unhinged theatre and that’s the role being played. In concentrated form, this is what identity politics does. It leads to grandiose unrealism.
Thank you, David.
You ‘deliver’ the ‘goods’ as always. I hope I’ve ‘stated’ that without ‘too much’ ‘innuendo’. As we’ve seen, almost all things can be ‘misunderstood’, if one is so ‘inclined’.
AC1, I’ll have to watch this Polish gem again when I get home. It’s truly beautiful, in a sweet an humorous and non-scary way.
-S
“Once you assume the role of victim-by-birth, you can react to any questioning of your arguments – or to any statement of fact – as aggressively or dismissively as you wish. Dismissal, even of fact, becomes your unilateral prerogative. By virtue of belonging to a Designated Victim Group – as defined by yourself – you’re allowed to denounce all disagreement as either heinous or ignorant, irrespective of the particulars and motive in any given instance.”
David, have you ever considered compiling these thoughts into a book? If Glenn Beck can spit out a book every 4 months and still sell a hundred billion copies, YOU could certainly make some cash with a book here in the colonies. We’re not AS far gone down the PC road as the UK seems to be, and we’re much less “polite” and much more open to rebellion. 🙂
I don’t want to be the dumbass at the back but as someone ever asked her whether the reason lesbions and hetrosexual women enjoy sex toys that are penis shaped is possible because it feels ruddy good.
The fact that their penis shaped is not a sign of male domiance but more because that’s what nature or some inteligent designer decided would be the shape that would give maxuim pleasure.
This woman is a complete Nazi. I tried to debate some of the finer points of her lunacy on an earlier topic, and got banned as a result. For some strange reason, rather than include my comments in full she quoted them somewhat selectively, thereby setting up a nice easy straw-man (sorry, straw-person) to attack:
http://aroomofourown.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/an-expanded-reiteration/
I saw ‘Seksmisja’ on a coach-ride to Warsaw in January 1994. The driver showed it on the video along with a dubbed version of ‘Eye of the Needle’, and a somewhat bizarre film – a version of the ‘Lysistrata’ (in the loosest sense of the word) – called ‘When Cavemen Carried Clubs and Women Played Ding-Dong’.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067638/
If only I could strap Ms Jamison to a chair and show her this film and ‘Seksmisja’ on a perpetual loop – her head would probably fucking explode, and the human race would be better for it.
She sounds like an off-meds Sheila Jeffreys or Mary Daly.
Anon,
“She sounds like an off-meds Sheila Jeffreys or Mary Daly.”
Exactly. Jamison may be an extremist – or “radical” as she puts it – but it’s a hackneyed kind of radicalism. She’s largely regurgitating the fantasist bile of ideologues like Jeffreys. (See videos linked below.)
https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2009/06/uprising.html
Jeffreys also used quasi-Marxist rhetoric to define men and women as competing generic “classes,” as if individual distinctions were of no great significance. Ditto the heavy reliance on animus and the claim that people who disagree don’t know their own minds. Jeffreys, like Jamison, coughs up endless bald assertions. Things like, “Male supremacy is centred on the act of sexual intercourse, justified by heterosexual practice.” Or, “Feminists who sleep with men are collaborating with the enemy.” Or, “All feminists can and should be lesbians. We define a political lesbian is a woman-identified woman who does not fuck men.” And you won’t find much doubt or questioning in Jeffreys’ writing either, just question-begging and unargued assertion.
As a rhetorical strategy, you can see the appeal. Why risk being shown to be mistaken and then have to rethink? Just beg the question and assert things indignantly as if they *must* be true and denounce all dissent. When someone does this habitually you have to wonder if they actually want to be understood in any meaningful sense – understood logically with a testing of ideas. Maybe truth and logic doesn’t matter to such people (or wouldn’t serve their arguments). Perhaps they just want to be agreed with and obeyed, which isn’t quite the same thing.
Spiro,
“…have you ever considered compiling these thoughts into a book?”
Heh. Maybe I should use this blog as a notepad for The Great and Devastating Volume. I could call it “Bastards, They’re All Bastards.”
Inspired by a man who is to some extent a photographic negative of Ms. Jamison.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/10/dial-m-for-maternity.html
(Batshit crazy, misogynist, delusions of persecution, wants to get penetrated six ways from Sunday.)
Aynrandgirl: I love how sex isn’t an intimate personal experience, but a mere “transaction” (if cootie-carrying strap-ons are involved). Is “let’s have a transaction” considered pillow-talk in her circles?
I wonder what she’d think of Sylvia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlhCYC_TEFw
“Glenn Beck can spit out a book every 4 months”
Glenn Beck has a STAFF what does most of the heavy lifting. And ADHD. Which is frequently unmedicated.
So there’s that.
David, thanks for the videos link. I just finished the first two – they’re hysterical. Where do you find this stuff?
Anon,
Same place I found this, also recommended…
https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2008/01/lefties-revisit.html
If you rummage through the archives, you may find other items of interest.
I just realized, Ms. Jamison is the 21st Century equivalent of those Anglican missionaries of the Victorian era, who instructed the natives on the “most Christian” way to enjoy romantic congress. Insert (sorry) “radical lesbian” for “Christian” and you get it.
Regards.
David,
Now they’re being oppressed by other feminists… 🙂
“Now, why would they give a fuck if a woman does not want to stick some man made crap in her vagina? Well, because they want that woman to still desire penetration. You know, to keep her prime for the day that she may be lucky enough to be raped by the real deal… Sounds like they are reveling (and attempting to maintain) their oppressor status… They want to make rape easy.”
Anna,
Heh. Well, as a gay man I have practically zero interest in lesbianism per se, or in any particular subset of lesbian pleasuring. Dildos or not, it’s none of my business. What caught my attention was the doctrinaire raving and the persecution fetish. It’s the attempt to rationalise a dislike of penetration on ideological grounds, as if sex ought to be above all an ideological activity.
Hmmm. Why does this image spring to mind?
http://www.moonbattery.com/South-Park-tv-b78.jpg
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/10/some_weaponsgra.html
Does anyone here remember S.C.U.M. ? Is it still in existence? I think it was British based – or at least there was a British branch.
Did she happen to mention where we fit in?
David, looks like you’ve really pissed them off now. (Sorry in advance for the language.)
“The above is a messy fag’s justification for sending MRA-like trolls over to us. Now, tell me why should a gay man give a fuck what women do or say? Because they want those cookies that men will give them for keeping those women in their place. I think his real concern is with de-marketing butt plugs. Well, David, no one is worried about your butt plugs or your gerbils, you misogynist fuck. When hetero-homophobic men kick your ass one day, don’t hold your hand out for some ally support. Oh, if I haven’t said it already, fuck you, you raging misogynist (your gayness does not exempt you from hating women).”
And
“some faggot is worried about lesbian women not wanting any dildos in their lives. And the queers want me to believe that faggots are somehow the natural allies of lesbians.”
http://aroomofourown.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/the-female-body-unmodified/#comment-6266
They really don’t want to get it. It’s not because *they* have political fits over “oppressive” dildos and it’s not because *they* say “all men are rapists” and it’s definitely not because *they* talk about killing babies. It’s because you’re a misogynist! And evil! That must be it!
Anna,
“David, looks like you’ve really pissed them off now.”
Imagine my dismay. It’s worth noting that the heated bewilderment is immediately preceded by a quote in which I repeat the basic point of interest: “What caught my attention was the doctrinaire raving and the persecution fetish. It’s the attempt to rationalise a dislike of penetration on ideological grounds, as if sex ought to be above all an ideological activity.” Whether someone likes or dislikes penetration isn’t the issue; it’s the ideological superstructure that’s amusing. As a recipe for liberation and “a state of being that is untainted,” unrelenting animus and grandiose dogmatism leave something to be desired.
Oddly, given the umbrage, this isn’t contested. Nor is anything from the post itself, or the previous one, both of which are fairly clear in their particulars. There’s no rebuttal, just resentment. Perhaps such things are… indigestible. And besides, it’s easier to assign false motives, even ludicrous ones, especially if they reinforce the persecution schtick. If other, more liberal feminists can be dismissed as “oppressors” who “want to make rape easy,” then I guess it’s no stretch to dismiss me as being in thrall to The Patriarchy and its many tentacles.
As I said earlier,
“Once you assume the role of victim-by-birth, you can react to any questioning of your arguments – or to any statement of fact – as aggressively or dismissively as you wish. Dismissal, even of fact, becomes your unilateral prerogative. By virtue of belonging to a Designated Victim Group – as defined by yourself – you’re allowed to denounce all disagreement as either heinous or ignorant, irrespective of the particulars and motive in any given instance.”
Despite the personal epithets, I doubt the surliness has much to do with me personally. It’s pretty much a feature of the routine, don’t you think? That’s the whole point of the act. I mean, it’s never been sparkles-and-ponies over there.
“Despite the personal epithets, I doubt the surliness has much to do with me personally. It’s pretty much a feature of the routine, don’t you think? That’s the whole point of the act. I mean, it’s never been sparkles-and-ponies over there.”
It’s basically a cult so *anyone* who isn’t in the cult is stupid/evil.
“Because they want those cookies that men will give them for keeping those women in their place.”
Cookies again! Always with the cookies…
–Maybe I should use this blog as a notepad for The Great and Devastating Volume. I could call it “Bastards, They’re All Bastards.”–
I’d buy it!
Do cookies work with Women? If so I’m off to the shops.
Re: crazy man-hating lesbian dropping napalm on homosexual men.
I am amazed at how the grossly intolerant (by dictionary definition) Left is still seen as the beacon of acceptance and understanding. Is it just territorial for them? Is Jamison, who has wagered her entire life on victimhood, threatened by David b/c he fits into another “group” within the leftish victim totem pole?
Or, as with Mr. Obama and his new prize, have the Left become so tied up in the cat’s cradle (of their creation) of identity politics that everything an individual says or does MUST first be judged through the prism of color/gender/disability/sexuality?
guy 1: “AIDS was created by the U.S. government to oppress brown people.”
guy 2: “What??!!”
guy 1: “Hey, I’m African American and grew up in an urban atmosphere.”
guy 2: “Oh, then I think you make a valid point.”
“it’s never been sparkles-and-ponies over there.”
lol At least they’re not touchy-feely types. 🙂
What’s amusing is there’s an almost competitive aspect to it – as if each misanthropic proclamation has to be more bizarre than the last. “No, I am more radical! Hear me roar!” Maybe there’s prize money at stake.
The twisted icing on this mad cake is that most of these radicals will fall all over each other in the rush to defend genuinely oppressive cultures provided their skin tone is darker or their professed politics more to their liking. How many would have so much as one unkind word for, say, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, despite the fact that they actually execute homosexuals over there? Cultural relativism on that level makes the madness even madder.
‘David, looks like you’ve really pissed them off now.’
Indeed he has. I must admit that I’m surprised that Margaret Jamison’s misandry extends as far as those who are unlikely to commit ‘rape’/’heterosex’. But I suppose that (and her willingness to use the word ‘fag’) just goes to show what a bigoted little shit she is.
The blog in question is called ‘A Room of Our Own’. It’s your room, alright, Margaret. And it’s padded, with all the sharp objects removed.
Two men who are rapists…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8305281.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/8305142.stm
if you’re a lunatic lefty…
Perhaps you should offer a prize for the feminist rant which departs the furthest from reality. Iowahawk recently generated 89 unique entries in an art contest by offering the relatively small prize of $33.18 (congratulations to the winner Racist Pixel). Given the ability of your commentators to cut and paste think of the number of entries a prize of ten bucks would generate.
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/09/none-dare-call-it-art.html
Spiny,
“Is it safe to say that Margaret Jamison is the walking definition of a malignant narcissist?”
Well, it’s worth noting that when faced with criticism, Jamison very often responds with something close to outrage and heated accusations of “oppression” and “misogyny”. (See examples above.) Presumably she imagines that she, Margaret Jamison, represents All Women, or Womanhood Itself, and thus anything unflattering, whatever its particulars, is evidence of contempt for All Womankind. It’s a fairly grandiose manoeuvre, in that it presupposes no legitimate basis for criticism could possibly exist.
Does that answer your question?
“Well, David, no one is worried about your butt plugs or your gerbils, you misogynist fuck. When hetero-homophobic men kick your ass one day, don’t hold your hand out for some ally support.”
Lovely. First of all, not “if,” but “when.” Secondly, it’s positively splendid to see that radical lesbians, when called upon to do so, can spew homophobic invective in a manner befitting an angry, uninformed (i.e., gay sex equals gerbils) social conservative. It looks as though that even in their case, the biggest danger of vehemence is becoming what you despise.
What does MRA refer to at the linked post?
Oh, and I think you’ve earned the price of a cup of tea for having been verbally queerbashed by lesbians.
Franklin,
“What does MRA refer to at the linked post?”
I think “MRA” means men’s rights activists, which, all things considered, is tendentious in itself. And if you browse AROOO, you’ll see the term seems to cover just about any hint of dissent, including objections to being called a rapist for no reason whatsoever. I think it’s roughly synonymous with “oppressor” and “heretic”.
“I think you’ve earned the price of a cup of tea for having been verbally queerbashed by lesbians.”
Heh. Much appreciated. And that lion food isn’t cheap. For some reason I’m reminded of the line from I, Claudius: “Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Claudius
Looks like I missed the party but thanks for a great post and an even better thread. Consider yourself bookmarked.
Liz,
Welcome aboard.
Is it a coincidence that AROOO said aloud (and with enthusiasm) makes you sound like a lunatic howling at the moon?
hah, i noticed that too!
Today it’s this:
“Virginity is an instrument of female oppression. That is all it is, all it has been, and all it ever will be.”
So sex with dildos is oppression, sex with men is rape and now virginity is oppression too. Jeez. Can’t a girl get a break? ArrrOOOOOO!
Thanks, David. There’s comedy gold on every page.
>”Now, I personally have never made any claims of objectivity.”
Yeah that objectivity can be a *real* bitch.
>”I hate males, won’t tolerate misogyny, and can’t abide by racist-sexism.”
In. The. Same. Sentence.
Wow.
Are any of you following the thread of discussion she’s having with redmegaera. There is a comment from her where she is practically begging for forgiveness for some (real or imagined?) racial comment. Looks like wor Margaret is continuing to hound her in her latestg this next post. Will be interesting to see whether or not redmegaera continues to put up with it, or grows some balls.
(BTW, I don’t know whether redmegaera did say something racist, but she certainly apologised, and where I come from you respond to that by saying ‘i forgive you’. Not that I’d expect Wolflady to understand that.)
apologies, not margaret, there’s more than one were-lady on the blog!
It’s round-the-clock victimhood poker.
“The Patriarchy and its many tentacles.”
Oh my. (Fans self.)
Pete,
It helps to bear in mind how the changes in mainstream society can pose problems for self-conscious “radicals”. People who see radicalism as an end in itself – or as vital to their self-image – may have to seek out ever more marginal concerns in order to retain their “edgy” credentials. Hence there’s a tendency towards victimhood poker and competitive indignation. (“Femaleness cannot be enhanced by maleness, only denied, suppressed, and degraded,” or “all heterosex is rape,” or “all men are rapists,” etc.) It’s a standard pattern; it’s what prolonged exposure to identity politics does. See more examples below:
https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2008/10/insatiable-delu.html
https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2009/07/every-bit-as-hobbled-.html
https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2008/09/rebellion-revis.html
The extremity of the posturing has little to do with Western society supposedly becoming less tolerant and more oppressive, but precisely the opposite. The more accommodating society in general becomes – the less people care whether someone is gay or brown or whatever – the more extreme a “radical” person has to become, if only to continue playing the role of being radical. The goalposts have to keep moving and the sorrows must intensify. The result is a kind of passive-aggressive drama: “Feel my pain. Now do as I say.” (This is why apologies are so often rejected or contested – there’s leverage to be had.)
It’s what Horace described as “onanistic grandstanding.” And gosh, how radical is that?
Andrea,
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/HowTo:Avoid_tentacle_rape
Tentacles are a speciality of DTs, dare one say obsessed??
Does she matter?
(Discuss.)
The woman is a lesbian who dislikes splendid cocks, enough said.
David,
she’d probly have no problem with Onan since he was smote by YHWH for spilling his on the ground, i.e. not penetrating. (Altho he may have just pulled out at the happy moment)
The story of his widow, Tamar, is one of the Bible’s best, and would probably send the wolf ladies in an apoplexy of anti-patriarchal rage if they were to read it.
I’m finding an increasingly useful trope for understanding these people is that of illusory superiority, which finds its cognitive expression in the Dunning-Kruger effect. In short, the likes of Jamison have a self-image that is wildly at odds with reality. She has come to believe that her meanderings are somehow evidence of a deep intellect, whereas they are nothing more than the gender-feminist agitprop counterpart of awful adolescent poetry. She is too stupid (and thus too lacking in introspective faculties) to realise how stupid she is. The fundamental mismatch between her opinion of herself and the way the world actually views her generates a huge amount of psychic torment. Thankfully she’s too marginal a figure to be genuinely threatening, although she does disfigure the landscape (I have no idea what she looks like and thus have no idea of how literally true this might me. My hopes are not high). When all’s said and done, the only appropriate emotion to feel when confronted with this sort of florid, roiling hatred is pity (but keep your pepper spray handy).
She could always use a carrot.
R-Rated Holiday Monday Pinup
I’ve got shiny new rotors on my car and it only cost me a few stiff muscles and the price of a fancy new torque wrench. Not a bad deal, I’d say. Today I’m chilling out with my kids and…