Search Box

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

The new Puritans

On Saturday, a commenter ("Coco") related the following:

You've probably heard of the landing on the comet - I admit, I haven't been keeping up with space developments…'s a European venture, so the first I heard was on BBC News America. I don't know that it was scientifically such a breakthrough but it was a significant engineering achievement and, well, a neat trick! The probe landed on a speeding comet.

I guess it's a tic with me now, but I looked up pictures of the team to see whether it was "diverse" and sure enough, it was mostly white men. A few white women, which I have sexistically assumed are not doing the heavy lifting but are there doing "showcase" jobs. Maybe I'm wrong but that's my hunch.

As in these cases there were photos of the team when the landing occurred cheering. It seems the chief scientist, a working class Englishman, wore a shirt decorated with pictures of naked gals.

Some science writer feminist prune called him to task for this. She said it was "misogyny" and "no wonder there are so few women in STEM." He apologize, in tears. On twitter, the feminist prune, satisfied with her arson, wrote smugly, "Now can we all move on with our lives?"

I am speechless.

Well, I'm not speechless. The scientist should have told the feminist prune to go suck it. About the word "misogyny" - I have not heard this word so much as in the last two years. There is real misogyny in the world. I have for example just learned of a barbaric African custom called "breast ironing" where older women (it's always older women) try to prevent the developing breasts of young women. Then there is genital mutilation. Sickening.

I hate Western feminists. You shouldn't think that all women agree with them. We don't.

Thanks for outing up with my rant.

Here's the scientist, Dr. Matt Taylor (the girls are in fact not even naked, merely scantily clad):

After reading Coco's comment, it hit me: feminists are the new Puritans. These days we laugh at the Victorians and the Puritans as hopelessly outdated old fuddy duddies who didn't have the foggiest notion of how human sexuality worked, and had no inkling that one's sexuality is something to be enjoyed, and perhaps even celebrated, rather than repressed.

Today's feminists make those groups look positively enlightened.

Anytime a man lusts after a woman, the feminists say that he is "objectifying" her. The implication here is that he is somehow denying her humanity, and turning her into an inanimate object. It is in fact the opposite. Men evolved to lust after women, and to express that drive -- while complimenting a woman on her beauty at the same time -- is to acknowledge both of their humanity.

The only women whose humanity is being denied -- or at least, ignored -- are those whom men do not lust after. It hardly seems coincidence that those are the very women who usually end up as embittered feminists. They know they would look ridiculous if they complained that men weren't attracted to them, so instead they demand that men not comment on their attraction to any women.

Feminists even hate it when men look at women lustfully, and deem this "sexual harassment." Never in their wildest dreams did the Puritans ever think of castigating someone because of the way he looked at someone else.

Consider the recent incident where a young woman wore a skintight t-shirt and jeans meant to accentuate her curves and then flounced around Manhattan for ten hours, attracting comments from black and Hispanic males. The vast majority of women who wear this kind of clothing do so precisely to advertise their sexiness. (Why else wear clothing so uncomfortably tight?)

That majority would consider it frustrating if they walked the streets in a skintight outfit and didn't get male attention (otherwise known as "validation"). The feminists choose to ignore that dynamic and wail about how tragic it is that a woman cannot walk around without having men tell her she looks good. (Once again, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that the feminists' real resentment is that men don't find them attractive.)

The Puritans themselves seem to have preferred plainspoken (read: outspoken) folk. Was it not "Priscilla, the Puritan maiden," who -- according to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow -- said to John Alden, upon the occasion of Alden telling her that Captain Miles Standish wanted to wed her:

"If the great Captain of Plymouth is so very eager to wed me,
Why does he not come himself, and take the trouble to woo me?
If I am not worth the wooing, I surely am not worth the winning!"

And, as she eventually concluded: 

"Why don't you speak for yourself, John?" 

It's hard not to think that if Priscilla Alden were alive today, she would have nothing but contempt for the women of Hollaback.

Certain women's groups are now demanding the right to walk around bare-chested, just like men. To couple that demand with stern disapproval of men who look at women lustfully seems a bit, well, anomalous, to say the least.

Feminists want to be considered the equal of men, and to be hired as police, firefighters, and soldiers. Yet at the same time they want to be considered such delicate flowers that a dirty joke cannot be told in their presence.

(But isn't humor the best way to mock pomposity? Or am I somehow woefully misinformed, and the feminists are in fact known for their senses of humor?)

And what of the recent insistence that a woman must say "yes" to every stage of a seduction? This rule could only have been set by women who've never been seduced. What of the (majority of) women who prefer to play it somewhat coy and not appear wanton sluts to their suitors? Must they be vocal about their desires or otherwise have their fun be deemed rape? Do the feminists have any sense of what it's like to be a normal female?

That was a rhetorical question. On second thought, to call feminists puritanical is an insult to the Puritans.

They're really the new Shakers.


Steven said...

When I read about that story, my gut reaction was he should have called them out on their pettiness and basically told them to fuck off.

The shirt wasn't even that bad- it was artistic.

It sounds from what his sister said that he's an absent minded genius type who isn't so developed in other ways. He was just an innocent guy who had no intention of upsetting anybody.

Coco, here is a feminist you may like. I find myself in complete agreement with this woman's version of feminism.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Sounds as if that scientist may have Aspergers.

Christina Hoff Sommers is the new Camille Paglia, a "feminist" with common sense.

Steven said...

She just said he's absent minded and terrible at making decisions; for example he'll drive around a car park for ages because he can't decide where to park. I probably overstated it. He just seemed to have a certain innocence to me, to do it without thinking then cry.

Hoff Sommers I think is the one who made a distinction between equity feminism (equal rights) and gender feminism (gender is socially constructed and feminism has to challenge gender stereotypes and traditional gender rolls etc). She is an equity feminist who opposes the latter. She is also great at debunking feminist myths.

I think the key thing is to provide equality of opportunity while not expecting or trying to engineer perfect equality of outcome, because the fact is we are different for biological reasons and are probably naturally inclined to different interests and rolls and have different abilities (complimentary, I might add). We need acceptance of people who are inclined to non-traditional rolls but also acceptance of people who are inclined to traditional rolls, like stay at home mums.

The value of work isn't determined solely by its economic value and there are things in like that are more important or more fulfilling than getting ahead in your career. Feminists forget that in their dogged pursuit of financial equality.

Anonymous said...

Many of these feminists are irrational - they don't speak for all women.


John Craig said...

Birdie --
I agree.

There's another aspect to it I didn't mention. I think some of what's going on is that apart from being angry that men are not attracted to them, some of these feminists are lesbians who want the pretty girls for themselves, and are jealous that they can't really compete with the men for them.

Glen Filthie said...

Puritans? Perhaps.

Uncle Bob once said that 'Women are socialists and fascists by nature. The founding fathers of America understood this and that is why they were denied the vote..."

Other bloggers think that women in the old days were denied the vote for the same reason children were - that they lacked the objectivity and reason that comes with maturity.

I think there is something to that. Feminism in particular and liberalism in general largely appeals to women and young people. Up here in Canada our worst politicians are women and are largely elected by other women. It is my opinion that if the vote were restricted to productive men that had earned their vote and had a stake in the country - Obama would be laughed out of politics and probably Hillary, Bill and Jimmy Carter as well.

Yes, I know a lot of women aren't like that, and that many are able to rise above the immaturity and childishness that is inherent in feminism and liberal ideology...but there are legions upon legions of them that can't. That will not sit well with a lot of people but unfortunately I believe it to be true. I am not happy with any of that either...but perception is not reality.

John Craig said...

Glen -
My point was just that the feminists are puritanical in their sexual mores and in fact, in the end I said they are actually more like the Shakers.

Yes, women in general are less logical, though, as you say, there are some who are. And there are some who are exceptionally sharp.

I've always wished there were an IQ standard for voting.

jova said...

excellent post.

I always felt they should restrict voting to property owners. Would also help reduce voter fraud. Only those paying property taxes should be allowed to register to vote.

John Craig said...

Thank you Jova.

XelrisMZ said...

Matt Taylor's contributions to humanity:
-Aided in the understanding of the universe via comet composition.
-Aided in the expression of human possibility and ingenuity via LANDING A SATELLITE ON SOMETHING TRAVELING FASTER THAN A BULLET FROM MILLIONS OF MILES AWAY.
-Wore a shirt with cartoons on it.

...better tear him down for that last one. Wouldn't want anyone to think we had progressed on that whole sexuality issue.

Anonymous said...


You're right, the women weren't naked, they were scantily clad.

Since this exploded, a lot of people including men have criticized Matt for the fact that the shirt is unprofessional. I think they are missing the point - the shirt IS tacky and unprofessional. If the original feminist prune (Rose Eveleth) had confined her criticism to that, I wouldn't have objected. But she couched her criticism in specifically feminist terms, as if she is speaking for all women.

BTW, the shirt was designed by a woman friend of Taylor's.


I know who Paglia and Hoff Sommers are and although they are certainly more sane than the batshit crazy femme brigade, I disagree with them too. It's too complicated to go into here.


Anonymous said...

"And what of the recent insistence that a woman must say "yes" to every stage of a seduction? This rule could only have been set by women who've never been seduced. What of the (majority of) women who prefer to play it somewhat coy and not appear wanton sluts to their suitors? Must they be vocal about their desires or otherwise have their fun be deemed rape? Do the feminists have any sense of what it's like to be a normal female?"

This makes me concerned for socially awkward young men who might misread a girl's subtle signals or body language. I knew a male student who was accused of sexual assault (although the case never made it to court) because he tried to kiss a girl after putting his hand on her thigh, after she'd been behaving suggestively towards him. She didn't ask him to remove his hand, so he assumed consent. It was only when she physically moved away after the attempted kiss that he got the message. He then had to put up with months of threats and abuse from other men ("sexual assault" is so vague a term that they had assumed violence), to the point that he was scared of going out lest he get jumped. The sad thing is that the poor guy was a harmless dweeb; he'd never threatened or hurt anyone. The experience shook his confidence so much that he didn't date anyone else until graduation. I told this story to some guys on a men's rights forum and was told that it's rather common in universities these days. What a sad sign of the times. Of course men should respect women who want them to stop, but the women should verbalise that request in the first place!

Also, what about the men who get drunk - are they "raped" if a sober girl has sex with them? If not, why the double-standards?

- Gethin

John Craig said...

Gethin --
Exactly. It's the harmless dweebs whom these types of laws will hurt the most. The idea that that guy committed some sort of assault is a perfect illustration of the insanity of our times.

I'd have been in jail a hundred times over if these types of regulations had been in place 35 years ago.(And I'm basically a harmless dweeb myself.)