Category Archives: feminists

The sort of thing one would expect in a dictatorship

Out come the candles: women must be believed qua women

Femaoism on the rise

Dalrymple writes that Brett Kavanaugh’s statement to the committee after Christine Blasey Ford had given her evidence

was a very bad one. As he was soon to recognise, he spoke in a way in which he should not have spoken and said things that he should not have said. To me he sounded more like a politician than a judge.

However, Dalrymple points out that those who demonstrated to the effect that the women who accused Kavanaugh of misconduct were to be believed qua women

are guilty of flagrant sex stereotyping. They degrade their sex and render it less than human.

Dalrymple does not say that Christine Blasey Ford lied, only that

to claim that she did not do so because women ex officio do not tell lies is to diminish women as human beings.

What Ford said

was not substantiated, and insofar as there is evidence other than what she said, the evidence is against her. This is not the same as saying that her testimony was untrue; but no criminal prosecution could be brought on the basis of what she said, and even a civil case would fail. What we are left with is a mere possibility, and it seems to me unlikely that, in the absence of startling new evidence, it will ever amount to more than that.

The protesters showed

how little they respected due and established process and how fragile was their belief in the rule of law. They would let unsubstantiated allegations—provided they were of the right sort—wreck a man’s career and perhaps deprive him of a living, certainly stain his reputation for the rest of his life if not longer, principally because they didn’t like his views. This is the kind of thing one would expect in a totalitarian dictatorship, complete with staged outrage and accusations against which there can be no complete defence.

The effect of the episode is the advance of the cause of what Dalrymple calls

femaoism, an amalgam of feminism and Maoism. For some people, there is a lot of pleasure to be had in hatred, especially when it is made the meaning of life.

Femaoism

Moral equivalence and egotism

The inability to distinguish between different scales of suffering

Dalrymple writes:

The inability of western intellectuals to distinguish between the major suffering of others and their own minor irritations and frustrations goes back a long way: Virginia Woolf is a prime example, as are the many who could not see the difference between the House Un-American Activities Committee and the NKVD. It is as if the suffering of a prominent Western intellectual counts many times as much as the suffering of anonymous exotics who will never so much as write a newspaper column.

It implies,

and will be understood by our enemies to mean, that we have nothing much in our tradition to defend. If there is no real difference between the oppressive practices of Moslems, including forced marriage on pain of death, and the treatment of women in the west only 50 years ago—and if any difference between the lot of western and Moslem women of today is ascribable solely to the recent efforts of a handful of feminists—then there cannot be much to choose between Western and Islamic culture.

She who must be obeyed

Screen Shot 2016-03-24 at 22.26.01The dreary tyranny of political correctness

Dalrymple looks up suicide in an online compilation of drivel that purports to be an encyclopædia, and steps into the following ordure:

As Baron d’Holbach pointed out, the contract between an individual and her society is a conditional one, presupposing ‘mutual advantages between the contracting parties’. Hence, if a society fails to fulfil its obligations under the contract, namely to provide individuals with the goods needed for a decent quality of life, then the individual is not morally required to live in order to reciprocate an arrangement that society has already reneged on. Moreover, once an individual has discharged her obligations under this societal contract, she no longer is under an obligation to continue her life. Hence, the aged or others who have already made substantial contributions to societal welfare would be morally permitted to commit suicide under this argument.

The baron was a philosophic radical, of course

The baron was a philosophic radical

One possible cause of loss of the will to continue living, Dalrymple points out, is

the impotent observation of the creep of political correctness through academe.

Screen Shot 2016-03-24 at 22.05.38

Screen Shot 2016-03-24 at 21.57.13

Fille de joie (nom féminin)

La prostitution: Bois de Boulogne

La prostitution: Bois de Boulogne

Feminists, writes Dalrymple,

ought to be ferociously opposed to ladies and gentlemen, with its connotation of bogus and condescending gallantry directed towards women by putting them first. They should be fighting for gentlemen and ladies (if the word ladies is permissible at all), for at least such a formulation would reveal plain and undisguised the oppressive and selfish nature of patriarchy.

The change from the impersonal he to the impersonal she in politically correct texts — i.e. most academic work — is, of course,

not spontaneous but ideologically driven. There is alternation between the two impersonal pronouns which could not have come about except by conscious effort.

We have entered, Dalrymple points out, the realm of Newspeak. The next step in the Orwellian struggle

would be to bring sanctions to bear on countries with languages whose nouns have gender. In French, for example, prostitution is feminine. Is this not a gross insult to women worldwide?

Sexmobocracy

Screen Shot 2016-01-10 at 14.07.01

Yet the feminists are silent — deafeningly so

And hardly a peep from the feminists

Muslim men, writes Dalrymple, are

integrated enough to want Westernised lives for themselves, but not integrated enough to want such lives for their sisters.

Or even for any non-Muslim women who happen to be around.

It is not, says Dalrymple,

  difficult to see the reasons for this.

But

where are our feminists, fearlessly fighting for speech codes and the use of the impersonal she in academic books, when women suffer such severe oppression? Hardly a peep is heard from them.

Screen Shot 2016-01-10 at 14.09.34Screen Shot 2016-01-10 at 14.10.52Screen Shot 2016-01-10 at 14.15.08Screen Shot 2016-01-10 at 14.16.24