Cecilia writes to tell me that she doesn’t understand my ranting about politics. She’s way over there in Hyderabad, India, studying Indian film and trying to get to the U.S. on a Fulbright scholarship. Read Desipora to get the story. (And, thank you Cecilia for this link to an upcoming Indian film festival in Manhattan.)
I don’t have any politics, except for the politics of avoidance. As I wrote yesterday, Marxist feminist women in Manhattan and Woodstock are attracted to me. This is a problem. I’ll try to explain to you, Cecilia, why this is a problem, rather than a joy.
In the 1970s and 1980s, these women developed the theory that all heterosexual relations were a form of rape. (It’s insane, I know. I tried to explain this to the Karaoke Queen, who was blissfully unaware that this lunacy existed.) Men as a group, according to this theory, employ the threat of rape to “oppress” all women. A peculiar set of rules developed over the years as a result. I’ll try to summarize.
Gay men are saints. After all, it is hoped, they don’t touch some poor woman with their penises. Thus, one more woman is saved from terror and oppression. A hetero man who makes fun of gays commits one of the most serious human rights violations known to mankind. On the contrary, when gay men dress in drag to mock heteros, this is the highest form of humor imagineable.
White heterosexual men are the cause of all that is wrong with the world. Oddly, these same Marxist feminist women want to be married to or shacked up with a white heterosexual man, unless they are defiantly lesbian. Their partner is expected to strike a pose of abject contrition for his sins… and still get it up in bed.
Thus, hetero marriage is an abomination that oppresses women, while gay marriage is a sacrament, especially in that it outrages the hated evangelical Christians.
According to this political theory, all the problems of the world would be solved if only all men were sissified homosexuals. (This creates a dilemma for homosexuals who are not sissified… but they are forgiven because at least they aren’t straight.) War, pollution, racism and crime would cease to exist if only all men were sissies. (Whoops! I forgot. Black men alone are entitled to be macho studs. This provides a much deserved kick in the shins to white hetero men.)
This political theory also posits that the great spiritual center of the world is Asia, and all enlightenment ensues from there. Asian religions are brilliant combinations of practice and centuries of wisdom. On the other hand (and it’s hard to tell how to reconcile this), Asian women are backward doormats who don’t have the sense to be good feminists. So, the people who created those great spiritual systems are, in fact, stupid, backward and unenlightened.
White women must be allowed to sleep with any man of any race at any time, and white men must suffer in silence, lest they be accused of the most vicious racism. However, white men have an obligation to shack up with or marry a white feminist woman. If they prefer an Asian or Hispanic woman, it is because they are chauvinist pigs intent on oppressing a backward woman.
So, I am an old fashioned macho guy from the Midwest. Many of the Marxist feminist gals in Manhattan are attracted to me, for reasons that I cannot fathom. The problem is that they hate everything about me, think that I am the cause of everything wrong in the universe, and believe that I should spend my life hanging my head in shame. Long ago, I decided that I was better off without their company, and that I preferred the company of women who like me as I am. If they like Harleys, we’ll probably get along.
So, Cecilia, I hope that this helps you to understand my “politics.” I don’t really have any. I’m just trying to avoid being ensnared by crazy women who want to reform me. I can’t see any difference between them and pious, evangelical Christian women. Well, a Christian woman does believe that men can be forgiven their sins. Not so with the Marxist feminists. Karaoke Queen, has this helped? Do you understand now?
If any of my readers would like to add to this set of “progressive” rules, please list your additions in the comments. I’m sure I’ve left something out.
UPDATE: I neglected to mention that Liberal Larry, at BlameBush!, attempts daily to parse this strange code known as “progressive” politics. He’s been known to stab himself in the thigh with a plastic fork in order to properly atone for his sin of being born white and hetero. Today, he was apparently tossed from Frederick’s of Hollywood for “lurking” and “oogling.” This is an outrage! Gender is only a social construct.
John Rosenberg, at Discriminations, also reports that we’re all fed up with the Marxist feminists. Conservative women at the University of Virginia want to balance family and career. Imagine that!
Not to be outdone, Michael Blowhard at 2Blowhards, informs us that even young women at Manhattan parties dare to defy the conventional wisdom of the Marxist feminists:
“What a shock to learn that most people, left to their own devices, would choose to lead conventional lives! (Incidentally: And how lovely that some people would choose not to! But that's not the point of this particular story.)
It was the first time in a couple of decades that I'd been present when the partyline, capital-F feminists hadn't been able to dictate the terms of such an exchange.”