When anyone challenges preconceived ideas, orthodoxies, he’s going to come in for flak. The State, as captured by the ideologues, has ensured that a new generation and a proportion of the older sees things in a certain light and has ways to scorn alternative views:
caricaturing the speaker, marginalizing, mocking, punishing
… and this sort of thing written in comments at OoL:
Whilst accepting that everyone has a right to voice their opinion I’m afraid that the inclusion of this … story reduces for me the trust that I feel in this site. I feel I cannot let this nonsense go unchallenged.
In other words, he wants the story withdrawn because he doesn’t like it. Is he any different from the bansturbators everywhere today?
That’s what is happening here with the Duflot issue. Too easy to see a post against what she is doing and interpreting that as a post against her. Actually, she’s quite pretty and might be nice in real life in a domestic context. She might even have some good ideas but feminism isn’t one of them.
Look at her statement about greens being feminists. That’s an amazing statement because it is an admission of deep captcha, i.e. to appreciate the countryside, one must be feminist.
As the former is helpful to the planet and the latter is deeply destructive, that ideological statement is bunkum and yet she fervently believes in it, as she’s been brought up to believe such falsehoods.
And what exactly is wrong with feminism? It is an ideological position which maintains that everything should be given to one section of society at the expense of all others. It is concerned primarily with itself and not the good of society overall. Therefore it, along with its fellow-running philosophies, lead to oppression, euphemistically called “social policy issues” by the government. It is a pressure group within the society which has grown way beyond what it should ever have done and is the tail wagging the dog.
It needs to be vehemently opposed because it is self-serving and does not serve that which it purports to. This is why so many women oppose it, as well as men. It is a wedge between the sexes and as my politics is to remove wedges between the sexes, then it is obviously anathema in my book.
So it is not her, herself, as a malfunctioning human being but her policies which have caused all the trouble, which shows I’m not alone in this view. Hence the frustration in the lower picture. Now when she identifies herself with this cause, i.e. she merges her personality with the cause, then in opposing the cause, one must oppose its spokesperson, i.e. her.
Yet her as a human being I’m not against in the least. I could have a cup of coffee with her until she opened her mouth and started spewing this garbage.
When I converse with people in RL, I never bring this feminism in as it is best left to the blog. I suspect she couldn’t get off the topic in a RL conversation and it’s so utterly humourless and coercive.
So whilst she stands there alone in a sea of catcalling men, a forlorn but brave woman against a torrent of prejudice, it’s also as well to remember that she has big money behind her rhetoric and what was coming out of that pretty mouth was real prejudice against a huge section of society, based on false premises.
That aspect did not get publicity.
It’s too easy to trumpet “women are strong, women can do anything, women can special plead and should be given huge advantages over men” and then, when challenged on that, to retreat into the poor put upon damsel against a ravening monster. Too easy to invoke the old charge of “unchivalrous behaviour” when she is the most unappreciative of chivalry of anyone.
This is rank hypocrisy. She is using a power position in a parliament to push something fundamentally wrong. Therefore she is to be stymied. If she doesn’t like it, she at least should understand why this is.
And lastly, the fanaticism in her eyes is the giveaway. The moment I saw that, it reminded me of the pic of the female terrorist in the Beslan horror – those same fanatical, intolerant eyes which are so convinced she’s hard done by that any atrocity is justified. I’m not saying Duflot would condone that but it’s the same fanaticism.
You’ve all heard of the honeytrap – well, this is a variant – a pretty pretty spouting decidedly unpretty rhetoric – what she’s actually saying doesn’t come out in the pic of the floral dress – and though those men are reprehensible in their tactics – they should have just booed as they would any other faux policy – they did that to make a point. The way it happened the instant she took the floor showed that this was not just some idle prejudice but a targetted message to her as a feminist.
And the message is – if you set yourself against one half of society, if you seek no accommodation with them, then this sort of thing will happen, as night follows day.
Filed under: Politics & economics