The assorted crude blunders, improprieties and perhaps crimes perpetrated by the grotesque Harvey Weinstein in his apparent unending quest for amorous satisfaction have given rise (as it were) to a renewed hue and cry among the purely man hating faction of the feminist movement for close scrutiny of ALL men on the principle, most vindictively and hatefully expressed by seminal "feminist" Susan Brownmiller, that all men are potential rapists; well! The obvious counter to such powerful nonsense is that which all unsociopathic men know; it is not possible for most men to generate penetrating power in the throes of emotions as violent as those required for the commission of as execrable an outrage as rape. Sorry, Susan, only men (and women who are willing to judge men as individuals) know that for sure.
Marxists are blithe to propose proscribed classes, membership in which is defined by relative wealth, education, private or public executive status, professional accomplishment , unforgiveable ownership of private property, or, in the opinions of radical feminists, possession of a penis. Once in power Marxists follow through in murderous fettle on these frivolous perceptions. Its a convenient tactic to be sure and has a fabled history of mass disenfranchisement, even unto death, in the 20th century. Those (including some men) who consider all males to be suspect at least, while violently and disingenuously denouncing any "stereotyping" of women are nonetheless, stereotypically totalitarian.
Oh Gads, where have we seen this before: the "rich" Kulaks in the Ukraine who were starved in the tens of millions by Soviet bureaucrats who declared their relative prosperity to be "oppression"; all who expressed any doubt about the insane post war tactics of the Khmer Rouge; etc , etc ad nauseum since 1917
It is surreal to have to express and affirm common sense but it is inescapably necessary in this Marxist infested time. Normal men and women are attracted to one another and in a social convention known as "courtship" seek to discover others interested in partnership. Vengeful feminist extremists would have this codified in penal law (so to speak) as criminal when men are the initiators of the dance. And as always with radicals, accusation is tantamount to condemnation and "sexual harrassment" is now, well, whatever they say it is.
In their unrelenting crusade to destroy our society and replace it with one in which advantages and dis advantages are rationed solely in accordance with one's membership in exalted or excoriated classes, leftists have attacked our religious fundamentals, the 5000 year old institution of marriage, our artistic sensibilities, our painfully evolved governmental and legal systems, our military and police, our right to self defense and any positive principle which attracts their basilisk gaze. Why not then seek to effect the actual outlawing of one of the most spontaneous and inevitable of human interactions? Why not indeed? Jack
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well put, as always. It often seems that the left is trying to create a world in which people they don't like are guilty until proven innocent, whereas people they do like are innocent, even when proven guilty. As I've said before, liberalism is one great morality play, and you and I have received starring roles as villains. It really is as simple as that.
Dr. Waddy: Equally well put. The last one hundred years, to the month that is, have put the lie to Marxism and its many metastisized tumors, including radical feminism. How convenient it is not to have to follow rules of evidence and time tested standards of legal proof. The one hundred million (is that number even comprehensible?) graves dug by Marxism's presumptuous and subhuman outrages attest to that reality. As you point out, they needs must resort to illusion and to speculation on an unknowable future, in an indescribably tragic theatrical setting.
Post a Comment