Your Masculinity Must Be Abolished
Some of you may remember Ms Lierre Keith, a former radical vegan activist turned radical advocate of a return to subsistence farming. Ms Keith has long been a vocal champion of vandalism, harassment and “militant action,” and taken at their own words, she and her colleagues would like to see those they deem “associated” with environmental accidents being killed by the state. They also like the idea of “sabotaging infrastructure” and cutting power lines, thereby leaving tens of thousands of people without light and heat, as this would somehow encourage “class consciousness.” Elderly people in remote locations would presumably embrace the finer points of revolutionary eco-socialism as they shivered in the dark and the feeling left their limbs.
In March 2010 Ms Keith was herself targeted for “militant action” by disgruntled vegans even more radical and pious than she, and who disrupted her lecture at an anarchist book fair by pelting Ms Keith with chili-flavoured cream pies. An experience our fearless titan found both bewildering and outrageous. “The whole thing was designed for social humiliation,” Ms Keith told the San Francisco Chronicle. “We’re supposed to be against sadism and cruelty and domination, and these people were willing to do this to me.” Unfortunately, the Chronicle didn’t ask Ms Keith whether this small taste of her own medicine, her own methods, had altered her position on changing the views of others by means of “militant action.”
Having since recovered from this traumatic encounter with slapstick protest, and armed only with an anatomical slideshow of male genitalia, Ms Keith has resumed her attempts to establish her own radical credentials in yet another sphere. And so, in the following video, recorded over the weekend at a public library in Portland, Oregon, Ms Keith – now a “radical feminist and gender abolitionist” – speaks truth to power, fearlessly, radically, and at enormous personal risk. Specifically, she shares the truth that, “Being a man requires a psychology based on entitlement, emotional numbness, and a dichotomy of self-knowledge.” Self-knowledge being a subject on which Ms Keith can speak with unassailable authority.
Naturally, Ms Keith’s latest area of expertise is not limited to maleness and its inherent wickedness; the entire world of manandwomanlyness™ is hers to describe, and of course correct. And so we learn that, “Gender is a political creation because patriarchy has to separate who counts as human and who counts as an appropriate target for violation. That’s what gender is.” Gender, it turns out, is merely a “caste system,” one “disguised as biology.” Therefore there must be “organised political resistance.” Which is to say, “The sex class ‘men’… needs to be abolished if women are ever to be free.” Because, “Liberty and a living planet will only be won when masculinity, its religion, its economics, its psychology and its sex is resisted and finally defeated.” These deep thoughts and more can be savoured more fully in the video below:
And being scarcely less radical, her acolytes applaud.
If she really wants to help wimmin then go to Iran?
http://mohabatnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8661:dictatorship-men-have-the-right-to-rape-unveiled-women&catid=35:inside-iran&Itemid=278
It’s also worth noting that Ms Keith described her pie-throwing assailants as “cowards” and suggested they direct their rage “at the powerful, not a fellow radical.” The notion of “the powerful” is quite important in Ms Keith’s social circle of anarchopaths and poseurs, and is often used to identify targets for some exciting vandalism. Companies that offer a popular product or service – Starbucks, McDonald’s – must be punished. However, self-designated radicals must never be regarded as “the powerful” in any scenario, even when they hope to endanger countless lives by “sabotaging infrastructure.” And during the Occupy pantomime in, say, Oakland and Portland, when mobs of masked anarchopaths smashed cars and windows with baseball bats and terrorised local residents with chants of “Whose streets? Our streets,” this was in no way a display of power.
It’s a subtle philosophy, full of nuance.
The notion of “the powerful” is quite important in Ms Keith’s social circle of anarchopaths and poseurs, and is often used to identify targets for some exciting vandalism. Companies that offer a popular product or service – Starbucks, McDonald’s – must be punished.
Heh.
In 2003, I was watching an ostensibly antiwar demo in Mexico City going past when a few enbalaclavaed youths ran out from the main body of the protestors to pelt the businesses lining the downtown avenue with water balloons filled with red dye.
They also produced buckets of manure from somewhere whose contents they dumped all over the entrance of a branch of KFC before they ran off whooping and shrieking.
What they didn’t see (but I did) was that moments after the ‘golden youth’ – who it’s likely were university students and quite possibly therefore fairly privileged – had gone on to enjoy the rest of the afternoon, all the staff from the KFC – who it’s likely were neither privileged nor at university – dutifully trotted out with mops and buckets to set about cleaning up the fake blood and the actual shit.
There’s an analogy in there somewhere.
I do love her invoking the “liberal tradition” when she is no-platformed. Of course, neo-traditional liberalism only allows platforms to neo-liberals (i.e. statist authoritarians or other bansturbators.) Intellectual and moral consistency is not, of course, required amongst the rad-fem or deep green bien pensant.
There’s an analogy in there somewhere.
For quite a few people, myself included, that was the most vivid message conveyed by Occupy, albeit unwittingly. It was a recurrent theme, the default attitude. As I said at the time:
The catalogue of squalor and sociopathy is worth revisiting. And my listing was by no means complete. Likewise, it’s amusing to juxtapose that avalanche of delinquency with the breathless boosterism of the Guardian and New York Times. A “new progressive movement” for a “new progressive age.” “A new generation of leaders is just getting started.”
Well, they were chili-flavored cream pies. That seems unfair.
Why not cinnamon?
Henry: “Even the Times is constantly churning out new pieces of gender political rubbish now.”
I suspect it’s because it struggles to attract female readers, but knows that flattering ‘Polly Filler’ feminism plus lifestyle stuff does the trick. Luckily this is all shunted off into the second section, so I just throw that way. The main section is still pretty good, and includes thoughtful writers like Libby Purves and Melanie Reid who are capable of discussing gender issues without descending into indignant yapping.
The catalogue of squalor and sociopathy is worth revisiting.
Oh my, it certainly is – I mean, depressing for sure, but kind of mesmerising too.
And of course, always in the vanguard, reporting from the frontline, I noticed there was that young woman reporter-slash-activist again.
During a recent bout of just-really-can’t-stop-prodding-at-this-loose-tooth madness, I ploughed through a bunch of her articles and came across this in one of them:
If you associate with a lot of anarchists, squatters or people under the age of 25, you will probably know that “ACAB” stands for “All Cops Are Bastards”.
See I would have said coppers not cops, but then I’m over 40 and not an anarchist or a squatter, so what do I know?
That she had to explain that acronym in that way is almost touching but mainly it’s just telling about the writer’s own background and of the average reader profile that she assumes she’s writing for (that is, assuming it’s not just her own super-reflection she has in mind when she writes).
Keith is a man’s name.
The creepy thing is there’s a room full of people applauding her.
R. Sherman – Evil thespian Tim Curry ruined fishnet stockings for me, the same way he ruined clowns and Curious George 2: Follow That Monkey!
David Gillies – Thank you! I don’t have a blog, that all seems very complicated these days. I did have a website on Geocities that had lots of fun animated gifs saying “under construction” and a site counter.
I was very proud of it. I think I got up to nearly 100 visitors – not all of them me – before Geocities closed. Alas, the expected offer from Microsoft to buy me out never arrived.
Pst314 – What Hal said. Tasha was originally the security officer on Star Trek TNG. She was supposedly hard, but I don’t remember her actually doing anything that would suggest toughness, other than having off-putting middle aged Mum hair. She then got killed by a puddle of tar.
She made Riker look plausible, and he – despite the show constantly telling us what a brilliant, heroic ladies man he was – was a cheeseball bumbling idiot who had to grow a beard and only be filmed head-on to disguise his Galaxy-class gut. Riker had all the genuine easygoing charm of a double glazing salesman who moonlights as a date rapist.
Even his girlfriend, a fake psychic, eventually saw through him and dumped him for Worf – who was similarly clueless but far too obsessed with “honour” to slip space-rohypnol in a woman’s synthahol.
The only good characters on that show were Q and Evil Data, because they were smart, funny and evil.
I used to be impressed with Picard before I realised he was actually a worse leader than Kirk. Kirk understood that you can’t go around the galaxy talking aliens and space-nazis to death, you need to beat them up. You can only talk sentient computers to death.
If you were a redshirt on Kirk’s crew you’d probably get killed, but only on away missions where you’d be armed and expecting danger. Under Picard’s command there was always a chance of being killed while on the ship, because he would probably endanger his crew in preference to doing something politically incorrect. One time he even got angry when someone killed a giant human-eating space snowflake! Kirk would have used its crushed remains to chill his Romulan Ale.
For my money the best captain in Starfleet history was Ben Sisko. He didn’t take any crap, knew that getting the job done was more important than sipping tea and moralising, wasn’t riddled with space-STD’s from green alien babes, didn’t get his entire command lost in the Delta Quadrant, AND he was a good Dad.
[ cough ] Thompson’s Law. [ cough ]
For my money the best captain in Starfleet history was Ben Sisko.
Just the same, my favorite character overall is Garak . . .
And if I had to do it all over again… I would. Garak was right about one thing – a guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. So I will learn to live with it…Because I can live with it…I can live with it. Computer – erase that entire personal log.”
Why does she have a very masculine hair cut if she despises masculinity to the point that she wishes she could destroy it?
OT, but did you folks see this brilliant display? I don’t remember it being discussed here.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/05/serious-crazy-towson-u-wins-national-debate-contest-by-repeating-n-word-and-babbling-nonsense-video/
D, you will note that according to Wiki, way back nearly 40 years ago this very debating forum came to the following conclusion:
RESOLVED: That education has failed its mission in the US
The list itself is rather amusing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_Examination_Debate_Association#Debate_Topics
OT, but did you folks see this brilliant display?
It’s quite special, isn’t it? It’s a new standard for oratory, and a measure of the education these young ladies have received. What’s interesting is that, having presumably watched video of themselves “debating,” or rather, performing, they don’t seem at all concerned by their dogmatism and irrelevance to the topic, or by the fact that for great stretches of time they were clearly mouthing gibberish. Actually jabbering.
this brilliant display?
I entered that video with fear and trembling.
I left it a broken man.
I think I might actually be crying.
What’s fascinating is that they can speak articulately when they choose to. They talk about researching their debate, either as a lie to make themselves seem like serious and intelligent debaters or, for all I know, truthfully (though how research applies to…that…I wouldn’t know, maybe they researched what means of baffling the judges had been effective in the past).
So essentially they become circus seals, making amusing noises and gestures to an appreciative audience. They choose to be no more than performing animals, doing whatever it takes to get a treat. Rather than rising to the level of intelligent people, and perhaps being defeated fairly, they prefer to make themselves into fools and win. It saddens me not only that such a foolish win would be awarded, but that they have not been taught the character to reject such an undeserved victory.
Witwoud
I suspect it’s because it struggles to attract female readers, but knows that flattering ‘Polly Filler’ feminism plus lifestyle stuff does the trick
The lifestyle stuff is definitely there for that sort of reason though between 5 and 10 times as many women read the Daily Mail (with it’s supposedly “misogynist” agenda and celeb-watching) than the Guardian, which specialises in the extreme feminist angle.
I’ve tried to figure out what the Times editorial people think they’re doing. There’s not only the lifestyle pieces but also recurring themes such as how we need more women engineers or in IT – which is fine in theory except if it turns out that women don’t want to do those careers in equal numbers.
The unspoken implication is – once again – that dark forces of misogyny and prejudice are at work. There’s no discussion that women may statistically prefer work that involves more social interaction and less technical problem-solving. There is research suggesting that this may be the case, but we seem to have drifted into the assumption that it’s sexist to claim that men and women may naturally think slightly differently.
Libby Purves can be really, really good, but is also given to saying things like “the bodies of others are inviolable” – which doesn’t seem very sophisticated to me. Melanie Reid I don’t know so well.
. . . how we need more women engineers or in IT – which is fine in theory except if it turns out that women don’t want to do those careers in equal numbers.
I don’t have the numbers and a short anecdote for evidence, but the actuality is somewhere around both Yes, get more women into I.T and engineering, and also Actually, all the guys aren’t that interested either . . .
The anecdote was an essay in a computer magazine a number of years back. The writer had gone to uni to learn programming, and was there with a good friend. They and their fellow students were a small cluster of, say, 150, and they did code and learned code, and wrote projects, and, in time, graduated.
The writer went off to work, his friend stayed in academia. 20 years later the writer went back to academia and rejoined his friend, by which point Being A Coder had become The Big Thing To Do because of Big Money!!!!!! And the lecture halls Were Huge . . . . . and then the writer noticed that in the halls, that guy was asleep, those two were having lunch, that couple in the back needed to get a room, but he did notice actual genuine students mixed in, doing code, learning code, being . . . a small cluster of, say, 150 . . . . . . . .
So, yes, if someone is bloody well up to the work, hell yes, he—Or She—should go into engineering, and in doing so, and being genuinely interested, should thrive . . .
There’s no discussion that women may statistically prefer work that involves more social interaction and less technical problem-solving.
But isn’t this another interesting issue? I like BS’ing with my buddies over a few beers. I could have been a bartender or barber rather than spending my life banging on this keyboard (as much as I do enjoy it for about the first 30 hours of the week) like some brain-electrode embedded rat in a psychology lab. For some stupid reason I have yet to understand, more was expected of me than say, my sister or any number of females who did better than I in English, humanities, etc. who now run boutique, antique, and chocolate shoppes subsidized by their husbands and ex-husbands and to some degree the taxpayers…schmucks like me.
“There’s not only the lifestyle pieces but also recurring themes such as how we need more women engineers or in IT – which is fine in theory except if it turns out that women don’t want to do those careers in equal numbers.”
I bet they mention the gender inequality in a field such as, oh, garbage collection or septic tank pumping.
Sorry, that should have been:
I bet they don’t mention the gender inequality in a field such as, oh, garbage collection or septic tank pumping.
I bet they don’t mention the gender inequality in a field such as, oh, garbage collection or septic tank pumping.
I once shut up my sister-in-law, works in the medical field, talking about how “the sisters” be doing so much relative to the men by suggesting she sit outside the prosthetics lab at her hospital and count how many men vs. how many women pass through that door.
for great stretches of time they were clearly mouthing gibberish. Actually jabbering.
I’m lost for words. Not made-up words and gasping – actual words that go in an order.
From io9:
“PETA has restarted a campaign to try and pretend there’s some link between ‘autism and dairy products,’ in an attempt to scare people into going Vegan.”
“PETA has restarted a campaign to try and pretend there’s some link between ‘autism and dairy products,’ in an attempt to scare people into going Vegan.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . I have a complete synaptical logjam from just trying to pick which direction to go with any or all of the absolute and effortless comedic potential in just that announcement alone . . . .
Verily, verily, I state unto you that People Eating Tasty Animals does indeed rival the Marx Brothers in the quality of their surreal . . .
: – ))))