The Limits of My Misogyny

Since on this blog I’m coming clean and stating outright that I am a misogynist as well as an antifeminist, I should probably define the limits of my male chauvinism.

Dave Sim’s two (in)famous misogynist essays are beyond my limits. The essays, I hasten to add, have some vital points. For example, this bit from his Tangent:

It seems to me that it is typical of the “ists” – communists, feminists and homosexualists – that they genuinely see “re-education” as viable and not a violation, tolerant and not totalitarian and that they have always failed to see – whether it is in their communist or feminist-homosexualist incarnation – that “politically correct” is an oxymoron. It is only the totalitarian who sees the goal of politics to be the determination of the One Right Way to Think and it is only the totalitarian who fails to recognize that politics is the vital give-and-take, parry-and-thrust – the on-going give-and-take and parry-and-thrust – implied by the existence of contending viewpoints. As an example, I firmly believe that feminism is a misguided attempt to raise women above their place, which I firmly believe is secondary to that of men. I firmly believe that homosexuality – not homosexualists themselves – belongs at the margins of society and behind closed doors. I firmly believe that it must be tolerated just as I firmly believe it should not be publicly celebrated. “In your face” celebrated, I mean.

But I do not envision a world – nor would I endorse a world – where the feminist and the homosexualist needed to be “re-educated” or “have their consciousness raised” (or whatever feminist-homosexualist euphemism you prefer for brainwashing, indoctrination and sloganeering) so as to compel them to make their beliefs conform to my beliefs. Nor do I become indignant when my beliefs are challenged. I am more than willing to sharpen and clarify distinctions between my own views and the views of others (as I am doing at considerable length here) and I am always more than content to “agree to disagree,” but I confess that it does trouble me a great deal when political arrivistes like the homosexualists and the feminists think that what engenders a natural visceral reaction in another human being should – or even could – be modified to suit their prejudices as to what that reaction in their view – should be.

He is certainly right that women are chiefly creatures of emotion, and some of his arguments against feminism are penetrating; these essays do belong on any misogynist’s reading list. But he also goes into a lot of blather about “the female Void” that makes very little sense. That kind of vague mystical speculation belongs to the other side; we, the adherents of hard masculine reason, need to stick to the hard, proveable facts. (Mr. Sim also asserts that the owning of house pets was 1) invented by women, not by the cavemen who domesticated dogs to help them hunt, and 2) will bring about the doom of civilization. So we see that he is a bit of a nut.)

At least Mr. Sim acknowledges that there are exceptions. Otto Weininger, whose Sex And Character is often cited by misogynists, does not. He points out some common female flaws, but does not have the insight Mr. Sim does. Instead he relies entirely on mystical blather far more absurd than Mr. Sim’s “female Void”: “The man of genius possesses, like everything else, the complete female in himself; but woman herself is only a part of the Universe, and the part can never be the whole; femaleness can never include genius. This lack of genius on the part of woman is inevitable because woman is not a monad, and cannot reflect the Universe.”

Before I get on with not reflecting the Universe, let me relate that the book also contains many antisemitic statements. Mr. Weininger was what is now known as a “self-hating Jew” (a category to which Karl Marx also belonged). The book is a disappointing waste of time. If you are curious, the book is available online; don’t waste your money as well as your time.

There are a handful of female geniuses in every century. They will always be rarer than male geniuses, no matter how much social engineering we indulge in to try to change it.

Men invented the sciences and most fields of human endeavour. While the women who could discover the structure of DNA or invent the hydrometer are astronomically rare, there are quite a few women who can learn to be doctors, engineers, and so on. There are more women with the mental ability to finish medical school than there are women with the temperament to spend decades working in medicine or similarly demanding fields, however. And of course, in this age when women can force employers to hire them by threatening lawsuits, a sensible person will question whether a given woman in a difficult profession got there by merit, and will avoid her services. Yet another service feminism has done for women!

There are many more women who can be quite competent (in endeavours less difficult than, say, engineering) and moral so long as they have male guidance and authority supporting them. This can be somewhat indirect. A single young woman living on her own during the first half of the 20th century might not have had a husband or father directly guiding her, and possibly there were several female supervisors in between her and her male boss, but she nonetheless was living under a male government, protected and restricted by a male police force, educated by a school system which had been designed and was still at least headed by men, and morally educated by religions operated by male clergymen with a masculine Deity at their center. She knew that even if she didn’t have a father or husband to put his foot down if she began behaving badly, there were still policemen, male judges, male lawmakers, and at the end a masculine God, all of whom would put their feet down if her behavior warranted it.

Indeed, I often think that feminism is a prolonged plea on the part of women for men, as a class, to put their feet down. Feminist excesses, like disruptive behavior from a neglected child, are an attempt to make some man tell them to sit down and shut up. Unfortunately, the time when this would have been effective was some decades ago. After what has been done to our laws and our social fabric, one man’s putting his foot down is ineffective. Things will not improve until all men can be persuaded to do so, and that is not going to happen anytime soon.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: