Sunday, 16 January 2011

curtailed words: suzanne moore forecloses guardian comment section in furious femino-fascist damage-limitation exercize

the following post, drafted in response to a guardian article by suzanne moore entitled it's time to get angry - all this polite and smiley feminism is getting us nowhere, was proscribed by the aforementioned publication's prepubescent editorial staff:

within the isolated context of a sexual (and therefore interdependent) relationship, issues of sexism can be resolved if the footing of the relationship is positive - but if the balance of relations is bilaterally shipping negative-equity, the situation can only be resolved by one party admitting aggrievement and launching the lifeboat.

feminism, as a movement, is purely a revengeful reaction to a socially-entrenched male sexist conspiracy (or so i'm led to understand), and, as such, has defeated itself from the outset by adopting identical macho gang-tactics - much in the same way as black-power activists have sought to combat white racism by organizing themselves in mimical accordance with the structurality of the white hegemony, instead of taking a more individualistic or culturally-integral approach. in the workplace, feminists waste their time attempting to counter the self-shackling sexist 'slavery' of employment by means of legal redress-mechanisms established (or should i say granted?) by males, when they could simply subvert institutional sexism by choosing self-employment - but, of course, the promotion of self-employment would not only emancipate women, and effectively do whingeing writers like ms moore out of a self-perpetuating and profitably parasitic job, but would have the somewhat unwelcome side-effect of liberating those awful men aswell...and we couldn't have that, now could we?

overreaction to injustice by discrimination against an entire social grouping is normal, although ultimately immature, human behaviour which is expediently employed as an emergency safety-measure - yet surely it is preferable to neutralize oppression by arranging one's life in such a manner as to avoid 'doing business' with identified oppressors, unless, of course, it's in one's own interests and on one's own terms.

as for the question of a curfew on bristol city, i regard this suggestion as highly illiberal and a rampantly retrogressive restriction of personal and sexual freedom - and not a sensible solution at all. clearly, since the female sex is naturally loaded with the immense responsibility of bearing children, the law of this country should be prejudicially amended in order that our females are also permitted to bear arms.

boom boom baby

No comments: