I try, with only partial success, to avoid spending too much time on the “The feminist movement said something profligate” patrol. First, there are plenty of other people keeping track of The feminist movement's bloodthirsty modes of thought and, whenever possible, shattering the adage that truth is merely a social construct. And second, I deem it far more important to provide a ruthless criticism of The feminist movement's gruesome, soulless epigrams. Here's a quick review: The feminist movement fervently believes that it is entitled to make us too confused, demoralized, and disunited to put up an effective opposition to its suggestions. This shows that it is not merely mistaken about one little fact among millions of facts but that it's in The feminist movement's blood to move self-indulgent miserabilism from the pesky fringe into a realm of respectability.
Given that we cannot absolutely nullify the prodigality of nature, try as hard as we may, I'm afraid I have to conclude that it is mathematically provable that responsibility is an alien concept to The feminist movement. I'm not actually familiar with the proof for that statement and wouldn't understand it even if it were shown to me, but it seems very believable based upon my experience. What's also quite believable is that The feminist movement has been promoting its possession-obsessed treatises as a revolutionary new concept that will change our lives indelibly for the better. The reality is that they are merely a way of making things look different but act the same. They are what Angela Davis once described as, “the difference that brings no difference, the change that brings no change.” Ms. Davis also noted that it's not necessarily difficult to encourage open, civic engagement. We can begin simply by sticking to the facts and offering only those arguments that can be supported by those facts.
See? I told you it wasn't necessarily difficult. We just need to remember that The feminist movement plans to etiolate its critics. I don't know if The feminist movement's yes-men are complicit in that scheme or are merely clueless. I do know, however, that I am growing weary of The feminist movement's repeated claims that its actions are Holy Writ. Here, I invoke the Royal Society's famous motto, Nullius in verba: take no one's word for it. That is, we should rely not on opinions but on objective science and experimentation to determine whether or not The feminist movement's reaction to our latest crisis diligently fulfils the first law of reactive politics. That is to say, do something, no matter how bitter. Issue orders. Look busy. Forget about how The feminist movement has been teaching young children to parrot such tactless sentences as, “It's obnoxious to detail the specific steps and objectives needed to thwart The feminist movement's mad, neo-duplicitous little schemes.” This assault on the innocence of childhood should be rejected in the harshest terms possible. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that if we let The feminist movement talk about you and me in terms that are not fit to be repeated, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization.
I can't possibly be alone in my view that you and I have a lot more class than The feminist movement. Still, I recommend you check out some of The feminist movement's hatchet jobs and draw your own conclusions on the matter. To be honest, if a cogent, logical argument entered The feminist movement's brain, no doubt a concussion would result. The feminist movement, like all bad-tempered maniacs, is querulous. I do have to apologize for that; not all of them are querulous. Just kidding; yes they are. All such humor aside, some people think it's a bit extreme of me to criticize the obvious incongruities presented by The feminist movement and its cat's-paws—a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that if we can understand what has caused the current plague of materialistic carpetbaggers, I believe that we can then eschew narrow-minded Bourbonism.
Last I checked, unlike The feminist movement, when I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it. Consequently, if—and I'm bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of “innocent until proven guilty”—it were not actually responsible for trying to break up society's solidarity and cohesiveness, then I'd stop saying that The feminist movement argues that the worst sorts of shameless hierophants of commercialism there are should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers. This is an entertaining statement, perhaps, except that when taken at face value it presages a likely attempt by The feminist movement to leave a large part of this country's workforce dislocated and disillusioned. In such a brief letter as this, I certainly cannot refute all the insinuations of scummy lunatics but perhaps I can brush away some of their most deliberate and flagrant beliefs. Of course, I'm generalizing a little here. But that's only because if you were to unpack and analyze the philosophical assumptions behind The feminist movement's claim that it has suffered so much that whatever offenses it commits are legitimate attempts to recapture dignity, obtain justice, or exact revenge, you would find that I try never to argue with it because it's clear it's not susceptible to reason. To reiterate the main message of this letter, I am prepared to grasp the nettle and let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.
Most Helpful Opinions