“Math Class is Hard” Sayeth 3rd Wave Feminism

I’ve pointed it out before; it’s usually the people who claim to be the most moralistic/progressive/unprejudiced who are the worst offenders.  No surprise really.  Anyone making a big stink about discrimination is probably doing so to cover up the knobby, bigoted cherry-pit they have instead of a heart.  But a recent post by Katja Grace got me thinking about feminism specifically and why it irritates me more than having an aroused ferret shoved down my pants.  She comments on some of the ‘pro-women’ statements she’s seen in the past:

Some examples from the advertising and equity policies of various academic places I’ve been:

‘Women can make valuable contributions to …’ implies that this is an issue of serious contention. If most people thought women were of zero value in some fields, this would be a positive statement about women, but they don’t. Worse, the author can’t make a stronger statement than that it is possible for women to create more than zero value.

Appeals to consider myself capable of e.g. engineering despite being female make the same error but this time suggesting that the viewer herself is likely in doubt. Such a statement can only be useful to women so ignorant of their own characteristics that they need to rely on their gender as deciding evidence in what career to devote their lives to, so it suggests the female audience are clueless. The smartest women have likely noticed that they are smart, and will not be encouraged by the prospect of joining a field where others expect them to be intellectually insecure special people to be reassured and included for human rights purposes.

Recommendations that courses like mathematics should be more focussed on women say that while existing mathematics is about completely gender neutral abstract concepts, not men, it is unsuitable for women. Presumably either women are not up to abstract concepts, or women can’t be motivated to think about something other than women. Despite whichever inadequacy, they should be encouraged to do mathematics anyway by being taught to work out the mean angle of their cleavage or something.

Damn, but it’s good to read something written by a woman who knows that her ideas have merit in and of themselves, and whether or not she sits down to pee doesn’t have any bearing on the issue.  Quite frankly, most of you female-types have been so inundated with an incoherent mix of 1st- 2nd- and 3rd-Wave ideals that you can’t even enjoy a good fuck if Emotional Ugliness isn’t tossed into the mix somehow.

I love Katja’s responses to each specific policy she brings up; after all, I never get tired of hearing that a Spade is a Spade.  When you live in a world full of doublethink euphemisms (‘Justice System’ comes to mind) it’s a refreshing change of pace.  She falls short at the end, however, when she asks what motivates these idiotic policies.  Ironically it’s because of her excess of sanity.  You’ve gotta stare down the rabbit hole and have it stare back at you, before you can really understand these lunatics.

Feminism as a political movement – which is all I’m going to focus on, I have no interest in Historical Analysis or Literary Theory – began as movement to extend the Basic Rights demanded by Enlightenment Thinking to the soft and curvy half of our species.  Given that some people have made half-convincing arguments that we ought to do the same for Chimps and Dolphins, I think it’s safe to take Women’s Equality as a given.

With a particular definition of Equality, that is.

I’m not sure when it started exactly – maybe it’s just a result of living in a wealthy society where so many of our toys and gizmos are divorced from the concept of labour, and even the poorest amongst us have access to 24/7 AC Current at a consistent voltage – but at some point the concept of Rights got mixed up with Entitlements.

As the comedian Doug Stanhope pointed out, if we’re that worried about discrimination we should just ban marriage.  The Right to Pursue Happiness – to fuck and marry whomever you want, in whatever arrangement you want – is a great idea.  But if you’re born ugly with a bad personality it’s not going to matter what your Rights are – no one’s going to sleep with you anyway.  If instead of Rights you’re concerned with everyone’s Entitlements – everyone’s Entitled to a Good Lay every now and then – if that’s the case you’ll pass laws forcing an anonymous sex lottery… but in doing so you’ll be copping to the fact that certain people are toxic assets in the open sexual market.

So what exactly are Feminists admitting, when they craft policies demanding equal gender participation?

A lot of people think that 3rd Wave Feminism is misandric in nature, because of the sorts of laws they pass (just ask any man who’s been divorced in the past twenty years).  It’s an understandable mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.  What Feminists really hate is women.  That’s the reason they’re so driven to hold men down.  They fundamentally believe that women can never compete in an open marketplace with their male betters.  It’s nothing but the old misogynist argument “Women are too soft and motherly to understand politics,” dressed up in the skin of empowerment.  And it’s just as disgusting when a woman says it.

You know, it’s rough being a dude in the current regime; hell, just the other day my Lawyer said “If I were a young man today I’d voluntarily go gay.” I’m still waiting for the “White Male Privilege” thing to come along.  But the real victims of this sort of ideology are the minority groups it pretends to protect.  It doesn’t matter how thoroughly competent, professional, and accomplished they are – the stigma of affirmative action will follow them around like a greasy fart.

So Katja; the answer to why these patently offensive policies come about isn’t the basic sort of confusion you were looking for.  It’s much deeper that cognitive error, and thoroughly pathological.  But I’ve gotta say, it speaks to your character that you don’t know these hustlers and their schemes.

Keep fighting the good fight, Sister – and keep a good edge on those throwing knives of yours.  We’ll all have to level up before we can take down The Master.

Leo M.J. Aurini

Trained as a Historian at McMaster University, and as an Infantry soldier in the Canadian Forces, I'm a Scholar, Author, Film Maker, and a God fearing Catholic, who loves women for their illogical nature.

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. Sarah says:

    I’m a woman, I study math, and I never really needed anybody to tell me that it was okay even though I was a girl. That’s pretty silly, at least in the present day. (Of course, if you want to give me extra funding for being a lady, I’m not going to say no…)

    I can see where feminists are going with this, because women would make a lot more money if only more of them would major in quantitative fields. I’ve seen the stats: college major is the single largest factor in explaining the wage gap between men and women. If you want to help women in general, talking young girls into science/engineering careers is actually a pretty effective way to do it.

    But you’re right, there is a dark side to that, a sort of “math class is hard” aspect. If you actually want to compete, you can’t allow yourself to focus too much on your gender.

    Mathematics for teh Win; my only real regret in life is that I didn’t pursue it harder after university, and nowadays I can barely remember my calculus. But least I understand the basics of Bayes Theorem. And all the power to you if you can get bursaries, whatever the reason.

    As for the education thing, I read somewhere [citation needed] that women now comprise 51% of post-secondary graduates nowadays. There is still a wage gap, but indicators suggest it’s due mainly to A)Time off for childrearing, and B) Choosing of lower-paying professions such as Daycare workers. Maybe this pattern will stabilize and remain consistent. Or maybe in 50 years women will be making more, without the help of Affirmative Action. Either way, we should let it be and let people do what they want to do, in my eyes. Sometimes crazy laws can be useful for a short period – eg: banning ‘whites only’ establishments during the Jim Crow era – but once the worst of the situation has passed, it’s best to let those laws retire.

  2. Zetamale says:

    thats an interesting take, holding men down not out of hatred for men but as a spin for women. I think they realize that women are just as competent as men (based on an individual level i despite being a sociology major i dont like to make overly broad generalizations) if they are willing to do the work. However they dont want to do it so they just demonize men instead

    no matter who is right, the policies end up being anti-male and thats the big problem

    Aurini: Justice for some is justice for none

  3. Sarah says:

    That’s pretty much what I’ve seen: women have just begun to outnumber men among college graduates, but they disproportionately study less quantitative subjects, get into lower-paying professions, and take time off for child-rearing.

    But yeah… there’s nothing sane you can do except “let people do what they want to do.” All the other options are pretty awful. The downside of all this women-in-science stuff is always having to wonder if people are just looking at you as a beneficiary of affirmative action. I like to believe I’m more than that — but the system is so mushy that you never have proof you aren’t.

    Samuel Johnson, on seeing a woman preaching, compared it to a dog standing on its hind legs: “It is not so much that it is done well, as that one is surprised to see it done at all.” It can get depressing to be the dog.

  4. T says:

    you forgot feminazis aren’t logical: manhood101.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.