Tuesday, February 12, 2008

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."

4 comments:

John said...

I appreciate your commment; I'm the fellow who wrote that article, and reading through a lot of the flaming on the feministing site is frustrating. Partly because of the personal attacks, partly because most of them completely ignored what I was saying, decided I was saying something else, and took a shot at me. I expected it, I'm not that naive, but it is still disappointing, particularly since I seem to have lost my job writing at the Lode because of all the furor.

A Wiser Man Than I said...

John,

That's a shame. You could call Rick out for it if you wanted to; he had that ridiculous editorial about how he's print anything, the consequences be damned. But I guess he did print the article.

I've seldom met a group of hysterical adolescents as infuriating as the radical feminists. Their sites are nothing but ponderous back-patting. Part of me is going to enjoy it when the become old and have to hang out with cats because the wenches can't find the men who exist only in their imaginations.

Take heart! Feminism won't be around much longer; the ideology is so mind-bogglingly stupid that it is self-defeating. Concern yourself with truth, not with those who care not for her.

Richard Goodell, Editor in Chief - Michigan Tech Lode said...

I'd like to point out two things:

1) The link was not removed from the Web site, the site has been shut down for completely unrelated reasons and will be back up soon, and to the best of my knowledge, with Mr. Bustrak's article as well. The reference to the Lode Editorial staff as "cowards" is completely ill-informed and I take personal offense to such an implication, while we stood behind your right to free speech, Mr. Jackson, just as much as we would ever do for any of our other writers.

2) Mr. Bustrak did not, in fact, lose his job due to the "furor" generated by his article. Bustrak lost his job because he dropped out of Tech and chose not to enlighten our Editorial staff to the fact. We both encouraged and applauded Bustrak's controversial articles, and I was delighted, on many occasions (only the latest of those being the feminism controversy) to defend our unwillingness to censor any of our writers for *almost* any reason.

While I do not take a stance in either radical end of the spectrum on the issue I support your right to free speech whole-heartedly, and applaud anyone who is willing to express even their most touchy and controversial views.

Kevin said...

Hi all,

Actually, I believe John lost his job because he is no longer a MTU student, and it has nothing to do with his article. I'm sure if he would like to write an article and submitt it to the Lode it would be considered and might very well be published, just like any other article. The Lode is student run, takes more time than most realize, could but lots better if we had a much larger pool of interest/passion, but in the end if there is space for an article and the article isn't poorly written or seen to be basically dumb, it'd probably be published. I am speaking my own opinion here of how I see things.

Also, Eric, though it seems a bit "sensationalistic" (if that's even a word) (though I love you still ;)) to call the Lode "cowards" for "removing the article" in reality our website just sucks, and every week when the new paper came out the old one was lost. In fact at the moment the entire mtulode.com page is gone and is going to be replaced by something new. Hopefully our new system that will be in place this summer (hopefully) won't be such shit. For the (somewhat unrelated) record I absolutly hated the Lode website and am happy to see it gone. There are plenty of things to beat up on the Lode about, but honestly I don't think anybody at the Lode cared enough about John's article to go through the trouble of removing it or making a big deal out of it based on it's content. We talked about it, some people agreed with aspects of it, in general I think we found it cool (or embarising) that the Lode was mentioned on some fairly large media outlets. Actually in general the Lode editors (not including myself) are more "conservative", most (other than myself) are Christian and perhaps more "traditional". Not that anybody is anti-feminism (at least not that I know of!) but the Lode in general isn't a huge hippy super pro-feminism group of people. Of course this is all in my humble opinion.

Eric, just FYI I suppose, lots of people at the Lode are sad to not have you writing anymore, your articles normally generated interest and were (for obvious reasons) the most discussed.

I like to think that I personally look to find the "real" in everything, and although I think that you Eric as well as John are not "right" in everything you think/believe based on my beliefs I certainly agree with aspects of the stuff you say, including some of the more extreme stuff! I'm not a "liberal" or a "conservative" or anything else that I know of (maybe part objectivist) but I agree with bits of most things. Most of my "beliefs" stem from my personal belief that there is no god, there is no point to life. What I feel is always much more complicated and less "cold", but whatev.


peace love and seashells,
kev

btw, Eric as you know I'm a terrible writer so forgive me ;)