On
4 June, 1913, suffragette Emily Davison died from her injuries after
throwing herself under King George V’s horse at the Epsom Derby, and this
after being jailed nine times and force-fed forty nine times in the cause of
women’s suffrage: a deliberate tactic employed by these brave women was to
deport themselves, for lack of a better term, obnoxiously. This was an
excellent tactic in the staid context of the times, to break down centuries old barriers.
However,
the Obnoxious School of Feminism in the twenty first century has failed to
grasp an important occurrence: times have moved on. What this has meant is that
being obnoxious, now, serves no good political end for the feminist movement, or for
any of us; it has simply ended in
hate sites such as run by the likes of Queen of Thorns (remember her), full of
swearing, and railing against decency, f-this and f-that, and then
unfortunately with the inevitable false and (of course) anonymous, undeserved impugning of people’s characters. Which is to say, this still active branch of obnoxious feminism has
become simply that, obnoxious, and upon that, brainless and absurd. Such as the
solo mum in the below story:
A father-son bonding session planned by a North Island primary school was cancelled after a single mother demanded to be included.Two "Band of Brothers" seminars were arranged by Matakana School to help fathers get more involved in their sons' lives, and as a forum for dads to share their issues. One session was for dads and another was for fathers and sons.A solo mum wanted to attend but was told she couldn't because her presence would inhibit discussion. She was told a mother and son seminar was planned for later in the year.…The woman's son was welcome at the second seminar and the guest speaker offered a specific session with her and her son but she continued to insist on attending, Goosen said, so the school board decided to cancel the event.
In
this piece, solo mum’s reasons for destroying this father-son bonding session
are never given, but, let me go out on a limb here, put a label on it, Thorny,
and attribute this to the further school of Marxist feminism, by which I mean,
if solo mum was to be asked, I’d take a wager that one of the following two words
would be in her explanation: click the link, you’ll see I’ve covered
both words constantly in this blog, the mantras of the surveillance state: equality and/or fair.
This
behaviour is obnoxious, childish, and in this instance, doing a very real harm
to every person involved in this story. These women need to grow up, and start
being responsible for their actions.
Update 1:
The Cult of Thorny is still strong as ever in the Twitterverse. Most of its reaction to this is inane, but as to the accusation that this woman reasonably wanted inclusion, I would like an answer to the following question. (Ignore the typos, it's Twitter).
Update 1:
The Cult of Thorny is still strong as ever in the Twitterverse. Most of its reaction to this is inane, but as to the accusation that this woman reasonably wanted inclusion, I would like an answer to the following question. (Ignore the typos, it's Twitter).
@graveydice @verbscape @qot_nz 1 of big points of Marxist feminists who've reached out to touch me is u r under no obligation to me/men 1/2
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) June 2, 2013
@graveydice @verbscape @qot_nz Well why are fathers and sons under an obligation to include this mother in father-son sessions to their detriment?
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) June 2, 2013
They're right: women have no obligation to men, per se, but then, turn the logic around: why are these exclusive father-son bonding courses obliged to include women?
Does solo mum feel these men are obliged to allow her in, say, the men's changing rooms?
... and then the final corollary from those who cannot sustain debate on their world-view - the block:
Good gravy, and @graveydice employs the block: can't debate your position, block #tiresome
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) June 2, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment