How'd they miss me?

I don't write primarily to cause a racket; it's merely a delightful side effect. Most of my columns failed to generate a significant response, even on my small campus. So how on earth did one of my fellow writers get so much attention?

Feministing picked up an article by John Bustrak. The paper has since removed the link--cowards--so I can't read the whole thing. Nonetheless, I quote therefrom:

This day and age feminism has gone too far. I have several female friends whose greatest ambition is to be a wife and mother, but feel social and cultural pressure to go to college and get a prestigious job simply because it is expected.

Since feminism is supposed to be about freedom of choice, there's nothing untoward so far. But feminism isn't really about choice, so the writer thereupon starts to rant, in the sarcastic but unfunny style angry womenfolk always use:

Poor, poor women. Because of feminism, they feel like they have to go to college, instead of following their much more natural urge to pick up Bustrak's dirty socks.

This is because men, who have somehow managed to invent just about everything, can't manage to pick up their own socks. I know, we men were privileged; we used our inferior intelligence to create a male-dominated society which lasted for centuries, and will continue once egalitarianism retreats.

What escapes the attention of every feminist, is that without children, societies no longer exist. This is, quite literally, the only thing a society must do. Technology, indeed, civilization, is nice, and most of us wouldn't last long if they were to go, but a society which does not reproduce goes the way of the Shakers. This is also why egalitarianism must eventually retreat. A society with a centralized state depends on a larger number of worker bees in every generation. The mass importation of Mexican migrants will stem the tide for awhile, but one envisages a future republic in which women will be forced to breed, for the good of the state of course.

It should go without saying that I'm opposed to any forced breeding, but I'm opposed to most state action. Not desiring something to happen doesn't make it implausible. It might strike the reader as ironic that feminists would thus seek the state to do their bidding, but feminists have never been terribly rational, so the criteria for irony is not met.

This is because feminism is an evolutionary dead end. It's not impossible to have a job and a family, but if you put your career goals ahead of your familial ambitions, you'll find that it's hard to start a family. All the men will either be married, or completely disillusioned with the prospect thereof, and our liberated women will be confined to her wonderful little career making power points in cubedom--though her cats will comfort her.

I note in passing that a large number of Catholic women have sacrificed the married life, not so they could reach self-fulfillment in careers, but so they could teach arrogant fellows like myself, and bring the love of Christ to hearts, desperate for the love that only He can bring.

The problem with feminism is that it's ultimately narcissistic. The perceived happiness of the individual is not the measuring stick whereby the goodness of particular good should be judged. It is telling that a movement which ostensibly seeks to liberate women from the bonds of the patriarchy has tried to make women guilty for wishing to raise children--not pick up their husband's socks--instead of "working". Worse, the liberation has come at the cost of some 45 million dead, at least in this country.

As Vox Day once pointed out, "In the end, it's not that hard to understand. A little girl who is not born will never vote, work or raise a little girl of her own."