Grievance “Scholarship”

“The law of gravity is nonsense. No such law exists. If I think I float, and you think I float, then it happens.”

—O’Brien, talking to Winston Smith in 1984

Grievance scholarship is ideologically focused scholarship, not legitimate inquiry into topics like race or gender. In that sense, grievance studies are no different than university study under a totalitarian regime like Naziism or Stalinism. Or Big Brother. The point of inquiry is not increased knowledge, it is to advance the ideology. It is propaganda to advance the Big Lie. Grievance studies professors are not so much liberal arts scholars but missionaries: they do not exist to investigate the world but to change it.

The Big Lies around which all grievance studies are organized is the theory of intersectional group oppression and its solution—“equity.” They are just-so stories appropriated from Marxist theory that contain a kernel of truth, but also massive, fatal flaws. The theory’s essential purpose is to justify the ressentiment (in the Nietzschean sense) of the theorizers. You can tell this by simple reasoning: “Hate” in itself is not a societal problem for grievance theory. Only the supposed hate of men for women or whites for blacks is a problem for society. The very real hatred of (some) women for men and (some) blacks for whites is never an issue. Continue reading “Grievance “Scholarship””

The Empress Has No Clothes

The Brett Kavanaugh hearings were devastating in terms of exposing the Cult of Intersectional Oppression (CIO), especially its feminist faction, the Our Lady of Perpetual Martyrdom Cadre, and their meltdown is epic. This is a moment in history when Democrats, especially their “progressives,” have shown us who they really are.

Do any Democrats really think their handling of this episode was good for the Party? Feminism? Women?

For Democrats the key objectives seem to have been to derail the nomination and whip up their base for the midterms. Clearly the first objective was not met. As for the second we have to wait and see, but there are some early signs.

The Democrats now have a new issue for November—investigation and impeachment of Kavanaugh—but they also handed their opponents several issues. Continue reading “The Empress Has No Clothes”

Tear Up The Contract

The entertainer John Mayer, ironically a well-known serial womanizer, responded to the Kavanaugh hearings and #MeToo by saying we should tear up the social contract between men and women and replace it with a new one in which men were expected to behave better. I agree with him as far as he goes, but not out of male guilt. We need to tear up the contract and renegotiate a whole slew of things between men and women. After recently learning of the female supremacist views of powerful Democratic women like Senator Mazie Hirono, I think everything up to the Nineteenth Amendment needs to be on the table.

What is at stake for society is whether we achieve the purported feminist goal of equality or whether the third-wave backlash wins and women are stuck in (and men stuck with) limbo—where women are legally equal adults to men, but “special needs children” in most other respects. Feminist women of the 1970s were tougher, more equality-minded and probably closer to the overall equality goal. Today’s third-wave feminist victims think they can have their cake and eat it too, as if “equality” could be made into a safe “equitable” space where all disparities that favor men are eliminated but those that favor women persist. That is impossible, and their continued delusion is untenable for our society.

Because the one-sidedness of feminism (literally “pro-woman”) is at odds with the stated goal of equality, there has never been a real negotiation of what equality is. There has only been demand on one side and acquiescence on the other. This has actually resulted in many double standards being enforced and great harm to society. But real equality is equality, not just whatever women decide they want.

Feminists have portrayed history falsely. Women were not legally treated as property pre-feminism, they were treated as children. Continue reading “Tear Up The Contract”

Unpacking “Believe Women!” – Further Thoughts

In a previous post, I outlined why I think “Believe Women” is profoundly misogynistic and misandrist at the same time. Evil. It infantilizes the women who make accusations, emotionally manipulates other women and men, and is a declaration of man-hate all in one. It is a regressive witch hunt logic that sets basic ideas of justice back a millennium.

But it is also just profoundly stupid as a practical matter. For three main reasons:

1.Some women lie about rape.
Let’s just get this one out of the way. It should be obvious, but for some reason it is controversial.
Women have the same capacity for lying as men. We don’t know how often they lie about rape, in terms of a percentage of cases, but we know some women do. Why would a woman lie? Continue reading “Unpacking “Believe Women!” – Further Thoughts”

The Real Issue: Roe v. Wade

Feminist SJWs are such profoundly stupid people they think there is such a thing as a right to an abortion in the US. There isn’t. The landmark Roe v. Wade ruling says that a woman’s constitutional right to privacy must be balanced with society’s interest in protecting human life, that until a fetus is viable outside the uterus the decision to have an abortion is a private one and therefore protected.

I agree that the compromise Roe represents is a great model for thinking of the issue, but it clearly has its flaws for absolutists on both sides. The pro-life side says that even a non-viable fetus is sacred human life and abortion at any point after conception is murder. The pro-choice side thinks viability is irrelevant and abortion on demand must be a “right” up to the moment of birth.

But there are at least two major forces at work in our society that will undo Roe v. Wade and render it moot regardless of who is on the court—one on each side of the compromise.
Continue reading “The Real Issue: Roe v. Wade”