| Females Thinking Systems. |
Anyway, I just found that I couldn't live that way. A woman is going to do whatever
makes her cheerful at the moment and that, in my experience, is the extent of her
perception of ethics. In order to maintain a relationship with an emotion-based being it is
necessary to be cheerful about anything that makes her cheerful. Coupled with a
“woman's right to choose” as central ethic – or, rather, “ethic” – this involves a wide and
variegated spectrum of feminist actions and behaviours and opinions. At one time, I
rated sex as being very, very, very high on my list of life's pleasures. Ultimately, for myself,
the spiritual toll which was exacted by maintaining a rictus grin in the face of all feminist
actions, behaviours and opinions across the full range of that spectrum made the price of
sex too high – which, considering how highly I once rated sex as a pleasure is really
saying something, I think.
[I discovered, through celibacy and the avoidance of masturbation that sexual desire
is a lot like a rash. If you keep “scratching it” you make it worse and, thus, “scratching it”
comes to seem like an urgent, toppermost of the poppermost, central necessity in your
life. If you learn to leave your penis alone, I discovered, your penis will learn to leave you
alone.]
This dovetailed with the “second source” in answering “Where do you think your
ideas about women come from?”: my own decision to alternate periods of intentional
celibacy (as opposed to “not getting laid”) with periods of monogamous sexual activity
and semi-monogamous sexual activity. Having gone back and forth between the two
states over the course of a decade, I can state unequivocally that celibate Dave Sim
sees reality more clearly than sexually-active Dave Sim (who wilfully hypnotized himself
into seeing the world in a manifestly untrue way and persuaded himself that feminist lies
were true, that many feminist lies contained elements of truth, that feminist lies were not
wholly untruthful). Surrendering an accurate perception of reality for a world of fairy-tale
falsehoods was part of the high price of sex, a price I was no longer prepared to pay.
I got tired of Believing Five Impossible Things Before Breakfast.
(Odd to say that one out loud for the first time.)
“For instance?” the fellow asked.
“Well, take Government-Funded Daycare,” I said, “a central plank in the platform of
the fairy-tale world emotion-based beings inhabit – Their belief/feeling that it is the
responsibility of government to raise children. Feminists and their hollowed-out
ventriloquist puppet husbands . . .
(. . . please bear with my use of that … admittedly . . . prejudicial phrase until I've had
the chance to elaborate . . .)
. . . have universally adopted Government-Funded Daycare in principle. Not only is it
fiscally irresponsible and an inherently unfair use of public funds (benefiting only those
mothers who choose to work), it is diametrically opposed to a central tenet of any
civilized society: that children are the responsibility of their parents to rear. When was the
last time you even heard it described as ‘rearing children’? ‘You rear children. You raise
hogs.’ What the feminists and their ventriloquist puppet husbands are talking about doing
with Government-Funded Daycare is raising children as if they were a herd of
interchangeable swine. No surprise coming from a gender which has no ethics, no
scruples, no sense of right and wrong. Just hand the kids over to the voodoo profession,
social workers, government bean counters and go along with whatever happens to be the
Ethical Consensus du Jour. ‘Raise’ boys to be girls, ‘raise’ girls to be boys.”
How?
“Well, I'm sure I don't know. I'm just Porky/Petunia's mother. They have experts who
know how to ‘raise’ boys to be girls and ‘raise’ girls to be boys. I'll let them decide. Listen,
I'd love to chat about this, but I have a meeting with a client at 9:00 and I'm going to be
late as it is.”
This connected quite neatly with an article I had read in that morning's Globe & Mail
which said that some astronomical percentage of parents thought it was the
responsibility of public schools to teach sexual morality.
I mean, that one just stinks of feminism.
“Homosexuality is just another lifestyle choice, completely normal.” “Homosexuality
isn't a choice, it's a genetic reality” Oh. Okay. So (leaving aside the obvious fact that
those two realities contradict each other) [my own view is that all sexuality is a matter of
choice since it is not a life-sustaining necessity: what or whom you have sex with – or
whether you have sex at all – is optional. I would not be here if it weren't for sex, true, but if
I choose never to have sex, I am still “here”], when do you want to start teaching this
lifestyle choice/genetic reality in the classroom? What age? Six? Seven? Ten? Twelve?
And how do you want to teach it? Bring in a couple of dykes and a couple of interior
decorators to talk to a bunch of third graders?
“Well, I'm sure I don't know. I'm just Porky/Petunia's mother. They have experts on
cultural diversity and alternative lifestyles now, don't they? I'll let them decide. Listen, I'd
love to chat about this, but I have a meeting with a client at l0:30 and I'm going to be late
as it is.”
[This is actually “jumping the gun” a little on Tangent II's examination of the feminist-
homosexualist axis, but suffice to say that their feminist-homosexualist consensus view of
teaching homosexuality in the schools seems to be a) it's a very good idea and b) men
are wrong. It's difficult – actually impossible – to discern any agreement beyond that
point].
But, this is way too many words for our CNN “Get To The Point News” Information
Age, isn't it? So, let's distil Daycare and Government-Funded Daycare into short and
concise Impossible Things to Believe Before Breakfast form:
1. A mother who works a full-time job and delegates to strangers the raising of her
children eight hours a day, five days a week does just as good a job as a mother who
hand-rears her children full time.
2. It makes great sense for the government to pay 10 to 15,000 dollars a year to
fund a daycare space for a child so its mother – who pays perhaps 2,000 dollars in taxes
– can be a contributing member of society.
All you husbands and daycare daddies are just nodding like crazy. “Makes sense to
me, Dave.” “Gotta have it. Government-Funded Daycare. No way around that. Gotta have
it.” “A woman's right to choose! A woman's right to choose!”
For the benefit of the rest of my readership, I decided to compose a partial list of
Impossible Things To Believe Before Breakfast (jotted down over the course of an hour
while working on a Cerebus page – I figured a dozen or so would get my point across).
I'll just continue the numbering from our Daycare entries.
3. A woman's doctor has more of a valid claim to participate in the decision to
abort a fetus than does the father of that fetus.
4. So long as a woman makes a decision after consulting with her doctor, she is
incapable of making an unethical choice.
[I was going to allow the Impossible Things to stand alone and “hatch out” however
they might in each individual reader's mind once they had been planted – to mix a
metaphor. However, in the aftermath of Carol West's resignation, that seems
unnecessarily naive, given the wilfulness with which the hard questions are ignored in our
society. So, here, interposed, is my more elaborate opinion on abortion:
The far larger question, to me, is one of “what God therefore hath joyned together let
not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6, Mark 10:9). (This, so far as I know, being the only
genuinely Biblical quotation – the Synoptic Jesus again, caveat emptor – in the otherwise
wholly and completely secular Christian wedding ceremony is a major reason that I have
no objection to gay marriages. I'm reasonably certain that marriage is a completely
pagan, completely female invention no more sacred as an institution than are feminism or
communism. It is, after all, called Matrimony and not Patrimony, isn't it? I mean, duh.) It
seems to me utterly foolish to ascribe virtually any of our society's haphazard – literally
“catch as catch can” – marriage unions to our Creator. In my view, an omnipotent and
omniscient being simply wouldn't have that lousy a track record.
Pregnancy, it seems to me, is an altogether different matter.
Inexplicable as it is that some acts of coitus produce offspring while others do not
(despite the best efforts of medical science to establish irrefutable “laws” of cause-and-
effect) it seems to me that here, God's hand is very much in evidence and “what God hath
joyned together let not man put asunder” – sperm and egg, fertilized egg and uterine wall
– very much applicable. If abortion is, as the feminists insist, a matter of a woman having
control over her own body, then I think a public demonstration of a woman willing herself
to become un-pregnant or willing her fertilized egg to detach itself from her uterine wall
would settle the issue once and for all. At which point I would happily go along with the
secular-humanist consensus view.
But, of course, a woman no more has control over her reproductive functions – apart
from abstinence – than she has over the number of hairs growing on her head or the
colour of her eyes.
Thus, to me, “a woman's right to choose” constitutes little more than an imbecilic
paraphrase of “free will”. That is, we are all, by the grace of God, free to choose. That is
what free will is. We can choose to commit murder, we can choose to steal, we can
choose to commit adultery. The underpinning of the life of the God-fearing individual is
that there is a price to be paid – sometimes in this world, sometimes in the world to
come, sometimes in both – for choosing incorrectly. The ritual sacrifice of babies is well-
documented among the pagan peoples named in the Torah and is, irrefutably, an
abomination in the eyes of God.
Is abortion in the same category?
As a global civilization, here in the first nanoseconds of the 21st century the present
consensus would appear to be “yes, no and/or maybe”. Half of us believe that abortion is
in no way comparable. Half of us believe that it is. To me, all that is relevant is God's
opinion and – since medical abortion evolved well after the death of God's Last
Messenger and Seal of Prophets, Muhammad (peace be upon him) in 632 CE – that is
unknown to us. It is unknown to me and it is unknown to you and it is unknown to Pope
John Paul II, his predecessors and his successors. Likewise with God's opinion on
condoms (ribbed, coloured or plain) and birth control pills.
On the Last Day when all is made plain to us, I would not be terribly surprised – from
my present vantage point of self-admitted absolute ignorance – to find that abortions and
birth control will be indictable offences for some and non-indictable offences for others,
based on God's superior and perfect knowledge of each individual . . . just as I would not
be terribly surprised to find that abortion and birth control will be deemed murder, High
Crimes against one's own soul and (far worse) the soul of another . . . or to find that
abortion and birth control are considered lesser transgressions against one's own soul:
more comparable to, say, smoking than to, say, murder. Genuine faith in God, it seems to
me, brings one face-to-face with the profound level of one's own ignorance about what is
right and what is wrong, post-632 CE. The fact that the various church hierarchies refuse
to acknowledge their own ignorance in no way alters my own belief that we are all
ignorant in these areas. But, the bottom line, to me is a) we won't know until the Last Day
and b) “a woman's right to choose” contributes nothing to the debate.
In my own sexually-active days, I found the idea of “a woman's right to choose” to be
more than a little “ethically convenient”. Had any of the women I had had sex with gotten
pregnant (none did, so far as I know), I could just take the secular-humanist “high road” of
saying that I believed in “a woman's right to choose” thus (theoretically anyway) allowing
her to assume whatever “karmic debt” or “spiritual burden” results from having an
abortion while, on my own part, “escaping” with just the financial burden of a few hundred
dollars for the cost of the operation. Even in my secular-humanist days it seemed just a
little too, as I say, “ethically convenient” considering what was actually involved: the
irresponsible initiation of a human life followed by the equally irresponsible (to me)
eradicating of that human life. Two wrongs don't make a right, at the point of greatest
reduction. It seemed to me a double ethical pitfall and, no, I don't blame women for that.
Women have as natural an affinity for medical science as they had for its progenitor,
magic. If there is something that women can make use of that, in their view, will provide
them with immediate tactical gratification or relief from anxiety, they will make use of it
and then welcome any voodoo-professional feminist ideology band-aid assistance in
rationalizing away their (I think, natural) feelings of guilt – so long as the
assistance/rationalizing comes “after the fact”. It is, in my view, part of a man's ethical
obligation to his own soul and to his Creator to endeavour to be (or become) sufficiently
wary of this female trait and for men to not allow their penises to lead them down specific
unethical paths where a man's own fate in this world and possibly the next becomes
“bound up” with those disposed (predisposed?) to believe in these sorts of “ethical
conveniences”. In saying that, I no more believe that women are to blame in any way for
those occasions when I allowed my own penis to lead me down specific unethical paths
than, as an example, cigarettes are to blame for the fact that, a year and a half after
quitting smoking, I still want to smoke a cigarette. “It was my choice to smoke my first
cigarette at the age of eleven and it was my choice to smoke every cigarette I smoked
thereafter.
We now return you to your regularly-scheduled list of Impossible Things to Believe
Before Breakfast, already in progress:]
5. A car with two steering wheels, two gas pedals and two brakes drives more
efficiently than a car with one steering wheel, one gas pedal and one brake which is why
marriage should always be an equal partnership.
6. It is absolutely necessary for women to be allowed to join or participate fully in
any gathering place for men, just as it is absolutely necessary that there be “women only”
environments from which men are excluded.
7. Because it involves taking jobs away from men and giving them to women,
affirmative action makes for a fairer and more just society.
8. It is important to have lower physical standards for women firepersons and
women policepersons so that, one day, half of all firepersons and policepersons will be
women, thus more effectively protecting the safety of the public.
9. Affirmative action at colleges and universities needs to be maintained now that
more women than men are being enrolled, in order to keep from giving men an unfair
advantage academically.
10. Having ensured that there is no environment for men where women don't belong
(see no.6) it is important to have zero tolerance of any expression or action which any
woman might regard as sexist to ensure greater freedom for everyone.
11. Only in a society which maintains a level of 95% of alimony and child support
being paid by men to women can men and women be considered as equals.
12. An airline stewardess who earned $20,000 a year at the time that she married a
baseball player earning $6 million a year is entitled, in the event of a divorce, to $3 million
for each year of the marriage and probably more.
13. A man's opinions on how to rear and/or raise a child are invalid because he is
not the child's mother. However, his financial obligation is greater because no woman
gets pregnant by herself.
14. Disagreeing with any of these statements makes you anti-woman and/or a
misogynist.
So, how did you do, fellas? Don't worry if there were a few statements there that you
disagreed with. Just use a few of these handy feminist obfuscations, like: “Well, of
course, these issues are very, very complicated,” Or “While I see what Dave is saying, I
have to say that I agree more than I disagree,” Or “Of course, these issues are all ‘works-
in-progress’. I'd like to hear a few more opinions before I make up my mind,” Or “There
might be some inequality but compared to the centuries of women being oppressed it
seems a small price to pay temporarily until it all gets worked out.” If you notice that none
of these obfuscations has anything to do with any of the statements just keep repeating
“A woman's right to choose! A woman's right to choose! A woman's right to choose!” until
you stop thinking and/or start to feel better.
Although I have given the husbands a hard time here, I am not without sympathy,
having been one myself once. Husbands, it seems to me, are caught between the Rock
of Feminism and the Hard Place of their own marriages: that is, capitulate or leave.
“Deadbeat Dads,” to me, is a skewed feminist perception. It is not that men are deserting
their families in many cases, so much as it is that they are being driven from their families
by the pressure to Believe Five Impossible Things Before Breakfast, to capitulate, that is,
to Feminist Ideology, to admit to the Orwellian imperative to believe that Feminist Lies
are the Truth and that Masculine Truths are Lies. Reason can't win in an argument with
Emotion. Reason can capitulate to Emotion or Reason can leave. In either case Emotion,
being without any sound intellectual foundation, will always find itself fully justified in its
every action.
For feminists, for wives, for women, for Emotion-based beings, it is a win/win/win/win
situation. Either her husband a) capitulates to her views and, thus, places himself and his
assets under her jurisdiction or b) portrays himself to her as having capitulated to her
views and, thus, places himself and his assets under her jurisdiction or c) removes
himself from her jurisdiction and surrenders half of his assets to her voluntarily or d)
removes himself from her jurisdiction and is forced to surrender half of his assets to her
by the courts (Did you hear about the new Divorced Barbie? She comes with half of
Ken's stuff).
It is ridiculous to discuss equality between the genders as anything but a feminist
hallucination until women agree to surrender their “right” to alimony. Of course women will
never surrender alimony because they are not, contrary to their very vocal protestations,
equal to men. A percentage of the female population is capable of providing, for
themselves, the basic necessities of life. But it is a small percentage, indeed, when
compared with the female population which relies on the largesse of boyfriends,
husbands, ex-husbands, fathers and/or the government . . .
[These hidden, obfuscated transactions – the husband who finances the start-up of
the wife's boutique business, the fat alimony settlement which serves the same purpose,
the father who co-signs his daughter's car loan or mortgage, who pays all or part of the
down-payment – compel self-deluding women to believe that they are self-reliant
feminists]
. . . and of that small percentage a still smaller percentage of the female population
is capable of generating surplus wealth – that is, creating employment, creating excess
capital which provides not only for themselves but for others. That still smaller percentage
exists in numbers sufficient only to make possible banner headlines and full colour photo-
spreads of anecdotal success stories in Cosmo and People magazines: anecdotal
success stories which are evasive of a central reality: that for every much-celebrated,
much-heralded female success story in a given profession, discipline, art or business,
there are hundreds – if not thousands – of male success stories in that same profession,
discipline, art or business which are unheralded and uncelebrated: which are “merely” the
fiscal foundation of our society and the source of our society's – and most feminists' –
material wealth.
If this is false, then women are self-sustaining. If women are self-sustaining, then
alimony is unnecessary and must be eliminated.
If this is true, then equality between the genders is an hallucination, a cul de sac of
delusional societal “thinking”.
Women are the chauvinists, not men. Nicholas Chauvin was a devoted soldier and
overzealous supporter of Napoleon Bonaparte and all things French. Chauvinism is
defined as “Unreasoning (italics mine) attachment to one's race, group, etc.” To
celebrate, herald and champion one woman publicly for doing what hundreds and
thousands of men are doing in obscurity is chauvinism: unreasoning attachment to
female achievement out of proportion to its contribution to society, just as Chauvin's
devotion to Napoleon and all things French was drastically out of proportion to the limited
importance of Napoleon, the limited importance of the French.
Next....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |  |  |