 |
| Something to cry about... |
If I could peer through the Internet, I can almost visualize the taunting gestures...
Anyway, appears to be little more than an rather empty threat, perhaps intended to apriori marginalize any potential dissent. I'm sure "Feminist Mormon Housewives" is accustomed to more traffic, but this is my personal blog, more of a personal journal than a forum of public discourse. Though I'm not any kind of major player, my blog counts more than 50000 pageviews since Google started keeping track - just a bit more circulation than the ward newsletter, anyway.
As can be seen from Google Blogger statistics for this page, those originating directly from "Feminist Mormon Housewives" continue to visit this site in significant numbers.
Several years ago, I posted a rather innocent article reminiscing about Diamond Fork Canyon. I naively included brief mention of the hot springs in Fifth Water Canyon, which have the reputation of being frequented by skinny dippers. Immediately thereafter, I saw a huge flood of hits on my page from people querying their search engines for things like "naked boy pictures" and "skinny dipping coeds". I never put up any such pictures, just one innocent photo of boys from a Boy Scout troop swimming, fully equipped with standard bathing suits. Didn't make any difference to the perverts searching my site for porn.
I have the same impression of the surge of hits I got from the apparent gang of feminazis at "Feminist Mormon Housewives" blog. Turns out they're feminists first and foremost, and not much Mormon. They seem to fascinate about things that appeal to shallow prurient interests - like the popular erotic literature of the genre characterized as "Mommy Porn".
Mostly the feminist-incined seem to express endless interest in trivial things like repeating the names of respective genitalia, on the level that used to appeal to us when we were little children giggling about such secret words. But it turns out that this flock of females is neither as persistent or as single-minded as the average pervert seems to be. I still get many hits from pervs searching for pedophile porn.
...Thanks for the tip...
I ventured a few comments about the science of some unique characteristics of female genetics, and they concluded that I was some kind of nefarious "troll". And that I was mad at them, for some unfathomable reason.
I'm not mad, just baffled by feminists who claim to be Mormons, but apparently find cause to hate just about every aspect of Mormonism. "What does a woman want?", like Sigmund Freud, I ask myself. If they hate it so much, I would suppose they are free to go elsewhere to find satisfaction - they follow in the footsteps of noted examples like Sonia Johnson and other dissidents they seem to revere. They apparently feel totally unfulfilled by the possible outcome of exercising that option, and seem to feel that all the stubborn backward Mormons should just make themselves over in the ideal image of accommodation to the radical gang of feminists.
Anyway, I'll not again make the mistake of believing that information about females would be of interest to feminists. They seem to prefer issues from the lunatic fringe. They manifest a very narrow focus, and nothing that falls outside of that domain interests them.
Following the example set by those wiser than me, I am trying to devote my future studies to more scholarly and academic discipline. Things of a more serious nature. Like understanding Sokal's important journal article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity".
In yet another reprise, and against my better judgement, I ventured onto sacred feminist ground, once again. It's really sorta fun to play in their sandbox. They have proven once again to be the most intolerant and closed-minded clique, most anxious to pat each other on the back, and reassure each other that the expression of their thoughts are the most profound things ever uttered. Not all that different from some of those on the other side of the fence, I suppose.
 |
| The ubiquitous arch-villian of feminists |
And of course, they are living proof that anyone who disagrees with them is just wrong, and only to be censured or cast out. There were bits of reasoned argumentation here and there, but the predominant theme was mandated by the most unreasoning and seemingly much louder popular voice.
 |
| Feminist "reproductive rights" arch-hero |
| Minimum standards for an abortion facility must be equivalent to | ||
| the minimum standards adopted under Section 243.010 for ambulatory | ||
| surgical centers. | ||
Well, isn't it awful, that anyone would expect an abortion shop to meet the same standards that apply to any medical facility? Any objective observer would certainly be led to believe it was so. I offered the observation that surgical standards are apparently far less important than murdering babies, and all they really need for an "abortion chop shop" is the handy garbage dumpster out back to dispose of the hazardous waste. Apparently some of them fail to meet even those minimum standards. And yet the feminists clamor against shutting down such operations.
Nobody offered to correct my understanding of the bill, I suppose because none of them ever bothered to even read the thing. But several people expressed suspicion and doubt about my motives for such a remark, accusing me of "ad hominem" and similar tactics from the standard Internet playbook for marginalization. Most ironically, I am not certain that any my vociferous "ad hominem" characterizers even have a grasp of what this term is supposed to mean, they just seem to believe it is just something really bad to use to marginalize any presuming to express a dissenting opinion. After several other comments on similar issues, several of the groups "moderators" imposed obvious censorship, requesting for me to kindly get with the feminist program or get the hell out of their domain. Discretion being the better part, I decline to participate further. My lingering suspicion is that there may be a number who lurk in this forum, dissenting with the popular voice, but fearing to be shouted down if they dared to express their feelings. So I rather hope this is what I saw. Perhaps I am being far too optimistic. Unfortunate or not, absence of evidence never does constitute evidence.
An interesting study, but gets old fast, when everyone seems to regard you as representing the enemy. But I cannot say I expected anything different. I have collected more than enough data to confirm my hypothesis with regard to "feminists" so thinly disguising themselves as "Mormons - But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh.
After a couple of fairly unsubtle hints, I sorta got the idea that they don't care for my kind of observation, and my thoughts were not welcome. Funny, but along with similar online discussion forums, they pretend some sort of anonymity for the darkness that seems to characterize this genre of reverse-bigotry.
The major premise of the day here and in other such forums is that the Mormon Church is simply another bureaucratic organization ruled by the a bunch of domineering old men. Everything is subject to the post-modern reduction that views all such things as mere "social construct". Yet the leaders of discussion in these groups invariably assume a claim to moral high-ground, self-righteous posture. They presume to offer critical analysis of anything and everything that happens to be popular, informed by feminist ideology and the most sensational media coverage. There is no room for advocates of anything traditional or absolute. Everything is some ambiguous shade of gray.
Another foundational premise is explicated in the very name the FMH blog chooses to be known by. It is an expression of the dual-minded rationale, denounced by some LDS authorities as wanting to have "one foot in Babylon, and one foot in Zion". By choosing to identify with such an ambiguous name, the group belies any intent of loyalty to the Church. Their expression of contempt colors every blog post and comment.
One of the most reprehensible comments was offered in reaction to a comment explicitly solicited by this individual:
That’s some fancy dancing to cover your faux pas, Jim.
This responding to a comment I made expressing my scepticism that a devout Catholic would typically be supportive of advocacy for homosexual behavior. Not sure why this should be considered a "faux pas", but apparently it was generally regarded as a personal embarrassment in this particular forum, perhaps equivalent to farting in public or something. At least that is something to which I can relate. I have no clue what social code I violated on this blog. Ensuing comments amplified the idea at the specific challenge by this person.
Since I'm totally and completely handicapped, I considered this to be an insensitive slur of the most intentionally injurious intent. As if I could ever dance again, even if I wanted to. I'm certainly not interested to dance with any homosexuals. Not that I am unaccustomed to facing discrimination against handicapped on an every-day basis. It was just not what I expected from this forum. Most of the other comments were laughably over-the-top. So much for celebrating diversity.
Fine with me, I'll just roll my wheelchair away, and find someplace else to play. Probably we'll both be happier.
