Thursday, December 11, 2014
Atheist Coffee and Feminist Envy
This post is originally by past-version John Wright of 2011. But see my note below.
“I would love to see your thoughts on the current dust-up the Atheist community is having (right now) over coffee.”
For those of you who have not heard of this case, the fact pattern is this:
The young lady in question objected to a man attempting to court her according to what the modern world holds as a perfectly acceptable method of courting: after talking with her until four in the morning at a bar, he asked her to go up to his room for a cup of coffee. She objected, not that his attentions were unflattering or ill timed, but that he was sexually attracted to her at all. In other words, it is the fact that mother nature made her female that the young lady find appalling. With the utter inability to restrict her comments to proportionality (or sanity) typical of the Left, she likened the awkward proposition to rape.
Richard Dawkins, in the scathing fashion typical of the Internet, left a message on her blog mocking her for complaining about what was at most an imposition on courtesy, hardly an act of oppression or male dominion.
Need anything be said? It is one of the few times I agree with Richard Dawkins, who otherwise is a disgrace to the cause of Atheism I once served. He is right to hold the belligerence of the feminista up to mockery, and to contrast it with the real oppression of women by the Mohammedans
If the young lady were sane, or sincere, or in other words not a Leftist, she would be agitating for the return of Victorian standards of modesty, such that men and women would have a set of unwritten rules, known to both beforehand, as guidelines for when a young lady can be courted, and by what means, and when not.
You see, the idea of leaving the rules up to the individuals to agree upon each man for himself contains an absurdity: you cannot court a woman, or even ask her to dance, if you are already in a relationship with her and know her well enough to negotiate your own rules. The rules of courtship are rules on how to approach a woman who is a partial or a total stranger. Strangers can only be bound by unwritten rules that bind the whole society, with few or no exceptions.
And, of course, the hypocrisy of a woman who has been out drinking until 4.00, without an escort, suddenly wanting the protect of Victorian rules of modesty, but without being willing to pay the price demanded, i.e. to act modestly, is rank. If you are in a bar without an escort, and you are young and female, expect to be hit on. You and yours helped make this society exactly what it is: you cannot expect men to act like gentlemen when every single damn word out of your collective mouth for the past three generations has been a denunciation, a mockery, an insult, and a discouragement to gentlemanly behaviors.
In morals as in economics, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Do you regard modesty and chastity to be mere patriarchal restrictions and oppression, O ye ladies of the Left? Then utter no complaint when immodesty and unchastity of yourself and your sisters is answered by immodesty and unchastity by your menfolk.
That all parties involved are atheists makes the situation deliciously ridiculous. So, you think you can create a rational set of moral and ethical guidelines to guide human behavior, based merely on human reason and human appetites? Go ahead.
Behold the result: once group of morality-hating zealot screaming in holier-than-thou perfection of hot temper at another group of morality-hating holier-than-thou zealots. The cool reasoning powers that atheists praise seems not much in evidence.
Current John Wright (AD 2014) makes his comment below:
I am recycling the above post so that the following proportion might exist in the reader’s mind:
As the young atheist lady’s outrage is to the young geek swain’s comment that provoked it, so is the outrage of the White Liberal segment of the Black Community over the cop in Ferguson who shot a huge, strong, violent and dangerous robber while the robber was charging him is to the event that provoked it.
In the same proportion is the outrage of the feminists over the designs on the shirt of a space scientist to the actual degree of degradation such a shirt would impose on the female half of the race, if women still adhered to Christian standards of modesty, rather than, say performing simulated acts of anal sex with crucifixes in front of the Pope in order to protest something or other.
In the inverse proportion is the outrage, or rather, lack of it, expressed in public over the rapes, stonings, honor killings, female genital mutilation, and dress code imposed by Shariah Law.
Now, please notice what is going on and what is at stake. In cases where there is real racism, such as, for example, the expressed desire of the Muslim world to wipe Israel off the map, the Left is deliberately silent, except when they break out with enthusiastic aid and applause for the Muslim ambition. In cases where there is real misogyny, rape, and abuse of women, the Left is deliberately silent, except when they break out with enthusiastic aid and applause for the Muslim ambition.
In cases where either (1) there is nothing even remotely offensive to any woman, not even accepting the fact pattern as stipulated by the screaming ninny girl as totally accurate and true or (2) there is something which might be mildly offensive to a Christian lady of good taste and refined upbringing, but the feminists who both dress as vaginas and put on plays where vaginas talk, are estopped from voicing any complaint against a lack of chivalry in gentlemanly behavior in their menfolk on the grounds that they themselves are the foremost perpetrators of the degradation of Christian standards of chivalry in men and modesty in women, which they reject utterly and entirely and thoroughly.
So: in these cases and countless others, not only is the outrage, which is absolute and infinite, disproportionate to the offense, which is either microscopic or nonexistent, the reverse is also true: namely, when real offenses arise where real people are really hurt, killed, enslaved, maimed or abused, the Left either holds their tongue with a silence that betrays their true intent, or they voice sympathy and solidarity with the perpetrators of the atrocities.
There is a consistent pattern here. It is not random. If the Left were stupid or insane, they would sometimes, by sheer statistical random chance, sometimes voice real outrage over a real injustice, or dismiss as unreal a complaint that actually was, for once, unreal. But they are always silent over real outrages and injustices, except when (“Little Eichmanns”) they applaud them, and always outraged over imaginary outrages.
The only way to get a nearly perfect score of absolute unreality and absolute injustice in each and every stance voiced by countless people over countless years is if three things are true:
1. They all share, openly or tacitly, the same assumption
2. That assumption influences, informs, or controls each and every stance
3. That assumption, either directly or indirectly, substitutes justice for injustice in their thinking, reality for unreality.
If this were true, then the Left would have for unreality the same longing, adoration, loyalty, and hunger for truth which philosophers, scientists, reporters, engineers, and all men of good will by rights should have, and the same longing, adoration, loyalty, and hunger for justice which both victims and those lawmen and law-abiding citizen eager to avenge them by rights should have.
I submit that the one assumption all Leftists share in order to be Leftists is that life is unfair, and the unfairness is manmade, springing from the laws and customs, institutions and habits of mankind, which exploited a unsuccessful victim to the benefit of the successful victor; ergo any man, church or nation who is successful won its success under the crooked rules and corrupt practices of these same unfair laws and practices; ergo the successful are in the wrong, and the more successful they are, the more wrong; ergo again the only way their victims can be made right is for the successful to give away the ill-gotten fruits of success to the victims, and the laws and practices of man shall and must change to prevent the unfairness from happening again.
That assumption controls their every stance. For the Marxist, the assumption is that wealthy classes or nations prosper due to an unfair set of laws and practices, namely, the institution of private property, which victimizes the impoverished class or impoverished nation for the benefit of the successful. For the feminist, the assumption is that men prosper at the expense of women, due to the unfair institution of marriage and romance, and the subtle influence of grammar and tee-shirts, and the ever present threat of rape; for the race-hustler, the assumption is that Caucasians prosper due to racism and exploitation of lesser races, due to the freedom of association and freedom of hiring practices, which must be abolished and replaced with quota systems.
Now, in any case where the successful are successful not for the reasons claimed by the Left, that is, the success is due to merit, their remedies of abolishing freedom, abolish marriage, and abolishing private property are counterproductive to the stated goal. Race-hustling and quotas create more friction between the races and less success for the unsuccessful; abolishing romance and marriage removed the traditional protections women enjoyed against cads and cuckoos who leave their eggs for other men to raise, or Uncle Sam; abolishing private property abolishes even the possibility of success for anyone except the Nomenklatura and other pirates, monsters, and wild beasts.
Please note that if there were cases where the successful were actually ‘the exploiters’ as the Left describes, let us say, the Stalinists in Russia or the Muslim slavers abducting nubile Christian girls in Africa, it is the Rightwing Americans and the Christian gentlemen of the Western World who take the steps needed to abolish the evil laws and practices which allow for the injustice to continue, as when, for example, the Republicans fought the Civil War at disastrous and heartbreaking costs to free the slaves from their Democrat masters, only to receive feckless ingratitude in return (which is, sadly, how it must be, whenever true evil is abolished).
In all such cases, the Left have nothing to do. The problem is either in battle and being fought by the Right, or is already solved by the Right, or the Left are fighting and screaming the throwing hysterical fits to prevent the problem from being solved, on the grounds that the Stalinists or Oil Sheiks are in the ‘oppressed victim’ category.
Even if they had something to do, they could not do it. If they could fight a real injustice, then they would be heroes, and that would put them in the category of the successful. But, then, by their primary and axiomatic assumption, anyone who is successful is a cheat and an exploiter and a villain. So they cannot fight any real injustices.
That leaves only the imaginary injustices, things that cannot be solved because they are not problems to begin with. You cannot change something that does not exist. You cannot abolish the institutional racism in modern America because there is none. You cannot halt the conspiracy of men to keep womenfolk from studying science and math because there is no conspiracy: whether women could perform at the same average level as men or not is not an issue here. The conspiracy is an article of faith the Leftists MUST believe, because the alternative, the fact that women by their nature will not or cannot perform in the field at the same average level, is a possibility that leads to the conclusion that the institutions are not corrupt, but fair.
But if the institutions are not corrupt, and life is fair, then the failure and low station of the Leftist is deserved and merited and earned. He is poorer than his neighbor because his neighbor works harder. He is dumber than his neighbor because he lost out on the Darwinian crapshoot when it came to genes, or perhaps the stars frowned on him in the hour he was born. Who cares what the answer is?
Any answer that does not blame THE ESTABLISHMENT is equally unpalatable and unacceptable to the Leftist, because it directly contradicts the one assumption he must make in order to be a Leftist.
Any man who does not blame his fellow man for the injustices of nature is not a Leftist. He lacks the proper level of resentment to qualify.
Leftism is politicized envy.
You see, the Left are losers. They are stupid people who want to be thought smart; people with no taste who want to be thought cultured and artistic; selfish cowards who want the palm leaf of martyrdom and the gold medal of heroism; but who, in no case, can actually perform.
Foolish male vanity
Australian Weetbix above. Known as Weetabix in UK, Canada and the USA
A girlfriend recently asked a waiter at a beachside cafe "what is your most delicious cake?" to which the waiter replied, absolutely straight-faced: "I don't know. I don't eat cake. Or bread. Or dairy. I train".
What he was training for save looking fabulous was not immediately evident but my friend said he was very symmetrical and neat, one of the growing cohort of exquisitely muscled, depilated young men who, a generation ago, may have been mistaken for homosexual porn stars.
Nowadays, I'm told the "aesthetic revolution" in fitness is all about getting "shredded" so other men are "jelly" (jealous) and the ladies be "mirin" (admiring).
While I'm sure these gentlemen have suitably impressive nicknames for themselves within their sub-culture, a younger female friend told me she and her gal pals call these beautiful creatures "crispy Weetbix" because they are yet to lose their shape in the warm milk of daily life.
"I know it's because of my insecurity that I'm too chubby for crispy guys, but I like my Weetbix soggy," she says.
"Sogs" are thus men with normal bodies, sporting a hint of paunch, the cuddly suggestion of a spare tyre. Blokes can be "semi-soggy" or "super-soggy", yet they all have one thing in common - their most attractive feature is not their body.
Another lady, who calls herself "The Sog Slayer" because of her success with these mishapen mortals, says there is an irony in so many Aussie men being obsessed with perfecting their bodies. Ostensibly it would seem to be to attract women, yet their dedication to their appearance actually scares off regular girls, themselves less than perfect and, perhaps, intimidated by men who spend more time in front of the mirror than they do.
These are women under the age of 30, who grew up as involuntary disciples in the global cult of youth and beauty. Systemic vanity has seemingly conjured a search for the genuine; "the gold on the inside" is their primary concern, rather than it being a checkbox down their list or something they hope might reveal itself months into a relationship.
"If the eyes are the windows to the soul," says the Sog Slayer, "etched abdominals are the doorway to years of boring conversation. If someone is so concentrated on their body, it makes you wonder how much they have left for bigger questions or their partner for that matter."
Some of us, she says, are not so much attracted to a man's body but the relationship he has with his body.
A third young woman, working in Sydney on a tourist visa, also recently bemoaned the dearth of "normal" men in her locale. When I questioned how this could be, one of the aforementioned "crispies" walked into her fish shop, bare chested, looking like he'd stepped off a niteclub podium in his hot pink, short shorts.
He frowned and sighed, absentmindedly cupping his gorgeously hewn pectorals and biceps as he sipped a protein shake and discounted each menu item as unsatisfactory.
Then he left, none the wiser about the attractive, single, French woman who'd been observing what she later described as his "hands of self-interest".
"Do you know what Weetbix are?" I asked her.
Catholic Bishops: Obama's 'Gender Identity' Regulation 'Serious Threat to Freedom of Conscience'
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) condemned new regulations to implement President Obama’s July 21 executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating "on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.”
These regulations were put in place by the Department of Labor last week in an update “to add gender identity and sexual orientation to the classes it protects” against discrimination.
"This rule will extend protections to millions of workers who are employed by or seek jobs with federal contractors and subcontractors, ensuring that sexual orientation and gender identity are never used as justification for workplace discrimination by those that profit from taxpayer dollars," said Patricia A. Shiu, director of the department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.
However the bishops called these regulations “a serious threat to freedom of conscience and religious liberty.”
“Additionally, the regulations advance the false ideology of ‘gender identity,’ which ignores biological reality and harms the privacy and associational rights of both contractors and their employees,” the bishops noted.
“Our Church teaches that '[e]very sign of unjust discrimination' against those who experience same-sex attraction 'should be avoided' (Catechism of the Catholic Church, CCC 2358)--but it appears on an initial reading that these regulations would prohibit far more than that ‘unjust discrimination,’” the bishops said in a statement on Friday.
“In particular, they appear also to prohibit employers’ religious and moral disapproval of same-sex sexual conduct, which creates a serious threat to freedom of conscience and religious liberty,” the bishops explain.
They point out that the regulations conflict with Church teaching against the approval of same-sex sexual conduct, quoting the Catechism, which says that “[u]nder no circumstances” may Catholics approve of such conduct (CCC 2357).”
The bishops also note that “very many other people over a broad spectrum of different religious faiths hold this same conviction.”
“In justice, the Administration should not exclude contractors from federal contracting simply because they have religious or moral convictions about human sexuality and sexual conduct that differ from the views of the current governmental authorities,” the bishops conclude.
Four USCCB committee chairmen signed the statement: Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco, chairman of the Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage; Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore, chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty; Bishop Richard J. Malone of Buffalo, New York, chairman of the Committee of Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth; and Archbishop Thomas G. Wenski of Miami, chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development.
Earlier this year, Bishop Lori and Bishop Malone issued a statement saying that the July 21st executive order was "unprecedented and extreme" and in effect "implements discrimination."
The Australian Left loves Islam too
Socialist President of France, Francois Hollande claimed recently that, “Islam is perfectly compatible with the values of France". Labor Leader in Australia, Bill Shorten claimed recently that, “Labor stands shoulder to shoulder with Australia’s Islamic community”.
As ISIS prepares to publicly behead another Westerner, Shorten went on to say in an open letter to Islamic leaders, “ISIS has no right to use the name of Islam”.
He continued, “The Islamic story in Australia has a rich history and grows stronger each year. Australia’s Muslim community continues to do our nation a great service by fostering enduring cultural and religious harmony.
“Australian multiculturalism”, said Shorten, “is a story of cultural enrichment, social cohesion [!!!!] and economic growth and it is a story that the Labor Party is committed to and will always defend.
“Labor will continue to work with you to stop misinformation, bigotry and prejudice directed at the Australian Islamic community.”
France, which has had an enduring love affair with Socialism and a history of flirting with Communism, is now suffering under violent Islamic oppression and is increasingly reliant on vigilante groups to protect French nationals.
Swathes of major cities are under Shariah Law where no gendarme dares go as five million Muslims declare whole electorates as caliphates.
Hollande grabbed a surveyed 95% of Muslim votes in 2012 but has since sunk to his lowest popularity rating yet in the wake of his lack of support for Hamas in Gaza, his attempts to protect French Jews from Islamic gangs intent on murdering them, a burkah ban and some serious legislation against the more outrageous of Islamic excesses.
A serious lesson lies ahead for Shorten: “If you decide to support Islam, don’t ever turn your back on it.”
Shorten has ignored an evil Islamic agenda in his grovelling rush to gain its electoral support with stupid statements like, “ISIS has no right to use the name of Islam”. Muslims don’t really want to hear that Bill because, unlike you, they understand that ISIS is a proponent of, and is symbolic of, the purest form of Islam... the original hadith of Shariah law that every good Muslim aspires to... Wahhabism!
And Abbott’s pathetic attempt to substitute its correct name of the “Islamic State” with the “Death Cult” doesn’t alter its vile agenda one iota.
If what Bill Shorten says is true, where are the protesting “moderate” Muslims, where are the placards denouncing ISIS atrocities, where are the signs saying, “ISIS is not Us”, “Stop beheading innocent aid workers”, “Stop raping women and children”, “Stop the massacres”?
Nup, not one placard to be seen.
Perhaps Muslims are shy people, averse to overt political activism? Not really, because there are plenty of signs saying, “Behead all those who insult Islam”, “The Caliphate is coming”, “Democracy is evil” and “Islam will dominate the World”.
And where are Bill’s army of Labor feminists? Why haven’t they asked Muslim women to join them in marching with signs saying, “Stop female sexual disfigurement”, “Stop the paedophilia”, “Stop honour killings”, "Bigamy is illegal”, “Burkahs debase us”?
Nup, don’t see any of those placards around either.
What the world sees now from ISIS is the very essence of Islam and no Muslim will deny it without invoking the law of takiyya which legally condones the act lying if it furthers the cause of Islam.
The ISIS atrocities are the exact same atrocities committed in every single war in history, the only difference is that these atrocities are graphically documented and uploaded to Youtube to excite everyone everywhere to, “come join us”, and they do. But only Muslims do.
It’s amazing what is ignored by both sides of politics when it comes to an electoral advantage.
Pandering to, placating or appeasing Islam is a sign of weakness it welcomes.
Rather than politely ask serpents not to inject their lethal poison into you, you must either release them to where they can do no harm or sever their heads.
...and their heads are always found in mosques, on Fridays.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.