The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Fun Gerbils

Posted on | January 10, 2012 | 11 Comments

by Smitty

Roxanne gets me thinking with this one:

Now, I suspect that the retort is “That’s not what I meant by fungible,” but that leads us to the question: in what way are men fungible with each other but not with women? Can we really not take a male scientist and replace him with a talented female scientist, but he could be swapped out with another male scientist? In that situation, the premise of not being fungible is downright sexist – assuming that men can do things competently but women cannot.

Raaaaacism and sexism, I contend, are both DNA-based decision making. To say that any individuals are completely fungible is a joke: a Venn diagram will never have a complete overlap. I daresay that if you, the reader, could be cloned and never see your genetic copy for a decade, you wouldn’t even be fungible with yourself. For all the genetic makeup of you and otherYou, retroviruses notwithstanding, may be identical, a decade’s worth of neurological state changes are going to matter. Stacy’s clone, for example, might have made peace with Tabitha Hale.

However, I’m no longer convinced that feminists are even arguing in good faith. I suspect they understand that XX <> XY, in their heart of hearts, but will continue to argue, contra rationality that XX = XY simply because being contra rationality is more important that being correct. When people reject the possibility of Truth, all that remains is dishonesty. It’s who they are; it’s what they do.

None of the preceding should be taken as disagreeing with Roxanne’s post. She merely prompted.

On the same topic, Goldstien has some powerful words, emphasis mine:

That the term feminism has been corrupted — just as the terms “liberal” or “tolerance” or “fairness” have been corrupted — does not mean we as classical liberals / legal conservatives need give up the fight to take back ownership. In fact, ceding ownership over such terms has enabled the left to claim the mantle of being liberal, tolerant, and fair — to claim that it is they who are advocates of the equal rights of women, even as their corruption of feminism has rendered them particularly cynical special pleaders — which of necessity suggests of their political opponents the obverse: legal conservatives / classical liberals — now framed as racist, homophobic, misogynistic and patriarchal right-wingers — must be illiberal, intolerant, unfair, and resistant to allowing the “equal rights” of women.
It has been my argument here over the course of the last ten years that by rejecting and then countering the left’s attempts to usurp the language of individual liberty, we as conservatives are able to then forcefully and consistently make the case that the left’s entire political facade is based on the ideological perversion of what are fundamentally classical liberal principles.

Preach it, Jeff!

From the abstract pits of Postmodernism, to the vermin of the #Occupy movement, everything about the Left is an assault on the Enlightenment values that inform America. They hate you; they hate your face. For the end result of Progress is a vast mob of purely emotional, state-dependent rodents squeezed by iron fisted demagogues.

Our task as Americans and bloggers is to oppose the Left at every turn.

Category: Feminism, Protein Wisdom, Roxeanne de Luca

Comments

11 Responses to “Fun Gerbils”

  1. Panterra
    January 10th, 2012 @ 8:52 am

    Smutty, you’re one sick puppy.

  2. Bob Belvedere
    January 10th, 2012 @ 8:54 am

    I can understand wanting to take back the terms ‘liberal’, ‘tolerance’, and ‘fairness’, as their original definitions are politically neutral [they are words which describe conditions in Reality], but why would we want to take back a term [‘Feminism’] that has always been a Leftist term?

    This is the mistake many on the Right make because they have come to believe what we believe is based on an ideology – a system of ideas.  As Russell Kirk wrote:

    …For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.

    The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

    In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers….

    Feminism, as it is a part of Leftism and sprang fully-formed out of the head of the Collectivist god, is opposed to individual Liberty because it seeks to deny Reality.  In order for it to succeed, Truth must be denied, 2+2 must equal 5.

    Please conservatives – I beg you – question every -ist or -ism because you will find most of them are ideologically-based and, therefore, have origins in Leftist Thinking.

  3. Redeeming The Language / Rejecting Feminism « The Camp Of The Saints
    January 10th, 2012 @ 9:25 am

    […] with the term Feminism and wherein he makes his argument utilizing the tools of Right Reason, Admiral Smitty cites this quote from JG: That the term feminism has been corrupted — just as the terms “liberal” […]

  4. Charles G Hill
    January 10th, 2012 @ 10:24 am

    From a slightly different direction, Gilbert Keith Chesterton:

    “We grow conservative as we grow old, it is true.  But we do not grow conservative because we find so many new things spurious.  We grow conservative because we find so many old things genuine.”

  5. And Then He Wrote: “The End” | Daily Pundit
    January 10th, 2012 @ 10:32 am

    […] Then He Wrote: “The End” Posted on January 10, 2012 7:32 am by Bill Quick Fun Gerbils : The Other McCain For the end result of Progress is a vast mob of purely emotional, state-dependent rodents squeezed […]

  6. Anonymous
    January 10th, 2012 @ 11:08 am

    Stacy’s clone, for example, might have made peace with Tabitha Hale.

    Another reason I oppose human cloning.

  7. Dammit, Smitty! How Many Times Must I Tell You, ‘No Quarter to Feminists’? : The Other McCain
    January 10th, 2012 @ 12:09 pm

    […] couldn’t get a “Roll Tide” from Rick Santorum and now . . . Et tu, Smitty?“Roxeanne gets me thinking with this one,” indeed!The redheaded temptress has evidently beguiled and confused you by asserting that […]

  8. Beating The #Feminism Dead Horse Back To Life « That Mr. G Guy's Blog
    January 10th, 2012 @ 12:14 pm

    […] with the term Feminism and wherein he makes his argument utilizing the tools of Right Reason, Admiral Smitty cites this quote from JG: That the term feminism has been corrupted — just as the terms “liberal” […]

  9. BAM! BIFF! POW!…Take That #Feminism « That Mr. G Guy's Blog
    January 10th, 2012 @ 2:12 pm

    […] up in New Hampshire bringing us news we can use, has to take time off to post a rejoinder to the flack he’s taking for his latest diatribe against Progressive Feminism. I still say the friggin’ horse is dead […]

  10. Adjoran
    January 10th, 2012 @ 3:30 pm

    Roxy should ask Goldstein what “fungible” means. 

    Speaking of Jeff, we should arrange a Steel Cage Death Match between him and Chomsky.  He’s been training for it his whole life.

    This needs to happen before Stalin calls Chomsky home.

  11. Ryan Martin
    January 10th, 2012 @ 4:45 pm

    “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” –George Orwell, 1984