Krypt3ia

(Greek: κρυπτεία / krupteía, from κρυπτός / kruptós, “hidden, secret things”)

Never question angry feminists views…

with 15 comments

For vitriol and great reverberating rounds of one dimensional chatter will ensue…

So, yesterday I made the mistake of chiming in on a post that someone made about the Santa killer in California. It seems that in this persons mind, the press coverage and the act itself were all about “men” and the man’s point of view. I, being the more of a humanist, decided to post the following after an initial exchange:

Aside from the estrogenic spin here, my point was rather clinical. He wasn’t right in the head. Neither for that matter was Elaine Wournos, and she killed around the same number, though, over a longer period of time.

Pathology is yet to be determined but, he was just malignant as people can be. Both men and women. Past history of abuse or just the twist of genetic fates could be the reasons for his actions.. Or, as just might be the case, there are and were no reasons.

As for the news, yes, you point out the obviousness of “headline grabs” to woo the voyeuristic audience to read their words. It was a crime that has been repeated many times but in different ways.

I am sure that soon enough there will be a docudrama for all to see and slather some more about it.

Now, in hindsight, I used estro-genic instead of estro-centric (it was 7am and coffee had not kicked in completely as yet) which was the wrong term to use, but, the owner of the LJ did understand my meaning. Still, this one exchange set off the “F” bombing of myself and the banning of my user name from the journal. Which, now I see the reaction is just fine I think. However, this gives me pause to look at in wonder as well as the follow up entries by the other magpies who jumped in to slather and gnash their teeth against the

TESTOSTERO INVADER!

Look, all I was doing was trying to point out that people are just that “people” we all can have the capability to kill and to do so heinously when pushed and or are mentally ill, as I think Mr. Pardo (santa) was. I believe he snapped and that was that. It was not some gyno hating misogynist. Had he been one, then he may well have just killed all the women in the house and let the men go.

Nope, instead the derision was piled upon me as well as semiotic who chimed in because the original poster, immediately took my posting, and posted a seperate “HE’S AN ASSHOLE” post for all to see. Now, this might be fine had she not redacted some of the history to the posting. Meh.

Anyway, what was that saying about LJ.. “We know drama” yeah, that’s it. Obviously that is the case still.

If one cannot and will not have a conversation, even if it is perceived as an argument, then what is the point of having a blog? I mean, are we all just out to have slavering acolytes? I guess that is an option and perhaps a vanity thing that some seek.

So much for discourse…

Written by Krypt3ia

2008/12/28 at 07:47

Posted in Uncategorized

15 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I noticed that you went and stepped right into it on that blog. I knew what you meant, and I also knew that it was going to degenerate into an f-bomb fest no matter what you said or tried to say. One can’t un-detonate a bomb there.

    I stayed out of it- .the gate of rational discourse had clearly closed, and I would have been shredded trying to defend you. When the blogger is in one of their moods, everything is black and white, no quarter given, no grey areas. I’ve been there, but have struggled to stay out of that mental quicksand- it’s a PTSD/MSI thing, sad to say. Its a struggle that doesn’t go away- I don’t write much about it, and that blog is sometimes hard to stomach because of all the triggers, but I have the option of scrolling by.

    But to return to the subject, the dude had clearly cracked, and there were warning signs there if people had hindsight to see them- like ‘babysitting’ his own kid from a previous marriage. The whole concept of a father ‘babysitting’ is truly absurd- real fathers don’t ‘baby-sit’ their own kids, but those who see parental child-minding duties as burdensome or beneath them (‘babysitting’) often harm their children, either by neglect as was this case, or by deliberate harm.

    sunfell

    2008/12/28 at 10:07

  2. I have long believed that feminism has the same relationship to women that Al Sharpton’s brand of race-victimization politics has to black Americans.

    One of the classiest, strongest women I’ve ever known was a fellow student of mine in undergrad, Anne. When a professor pilloried me for using “he” and “him” in a gender-neutral sense in a paper, Anne spoke up and said she didn’t find it offensive, and could we please move on? The prof tore into Anne, accusing her of being a quisling who was betraying the cause of women, etc., etc. Anne just listened to it all. Ultimately, she responded with, “Professor, I have more self-respect than to feel threatened by someone who uses English correctly.”

    I do not think Anne would describe herself as a feminist. Maybe she would. I don’t know. But Anne’s brand of feminism — if she were part of it — is something that emerges from some deep strength of the soul, something that neither threatens nor can be threatened. It is rooted, first and foremost, in reality.

    On the flip side, a few years ago I was having a discussion with several feminists of the other stripe. One of them made the bald claim that “all gender differences are, a priori, sexist.” This assertion was met with various nods and approving noises. I couldn’t let it stand. “Right,” I said. “It’s sexist that I can’t get an abortion. Equal abortion rights for men now! End this discrimination!”

    You would’ve thought I had just ritually slaughtered a kitten. What a deluge of abuse. I finally got a word in edgewise and explained that no, I didn’t really mean it, it was a reductio ad absurdum showing the statement was ridiculous. One of the aggrieved women then got all high and mighty and said that reductio was a “logical fallacy,” and she had a math degree so she knew these things.

    I stared at her slackjawed for a moment. “Russell and Whitehead proved it formally. It’s in the Principia, for God’s sake. All right! Fine! If all gender differences are a priori sexist, there will exist no gender differences that are not sexist. I can’t have an abortion. That’s a gender difference that’s not sexist. Ergo there exist gender differences which are not sexist. Modus tollens, not reductio. Is that better?”

    And oh dear sweet merciful bleeding zombie Buddha on a hardwood pogo stick, did they go nutso. To them, their brand of feminism was not rooted in strength, as Anne’s was, but out of a fear of being weak; it was not rooted in reality, as Anne’s was, but rooted in cultlike belief about what traits the universe had to possess in order to be just and right, rather than engagement with what the universe is.

    It has been my great honor to know a few feminists of Anne’s stripe. But the others … to hell with them.

    cipherpunk

    2008/12/28 at 11:22

  3. I think you’ve nailed it- the inner-strength versus the Victim Card that is modern ‘feminism’. I put the word in quotes because all the nonsense being passed on to women as ‘feminism’ is more like ‘victimism’. It’s all about power-over instead of power-within. They are not taught to build internal strength and resiliance, they are taught that they are !Victims! and seem to have hair-trigger responses like other people who are taught that they are oppressed. Your comparison to the Sharpton School of Professional Victimization is spot-on, sad to say.

    I prefer a reality-based outlook myself. I avoid the ‘f-word’ when describing my views about sex and gender because they really don’t compute or make sense. I have self-respect. And I respect the personhood and humanity of others- male and female- until they give me a reason not to do so.

    sunfell

    2008/12/28 at 12:32

  4. There’s a wonderful book by Daniel Keys Moran, The Last Dancer. The protagonist, Denice, is … I find her unlikeable and not someone I can respect, but for all that I find her realistic and the writing well-done.

    At one point she relates a conversation she had with a friend, McGee, when she called him on some sexist remarks he was making and asked if that’s what he really thought of women. McGee told her he thought women were useful for sex and making babies.

    Denice was offended by this. How could he think that?

    McGee explains that Denice was asking about women, not people. People are fascinating. Deep. Interesting. Wise. Courageous. But if you’re going to divide the world according to sex… all sex is about, really, is having sex and making babies. So the question wasn’t why McGee saw women in such sexist terms. The question was why, if Denice was going to divide the world according to sex, she was so insistent on the world not being sexist.

    I liked McGee a lot more than I liked Denice. I wish he got more time in the book.

    cipherpunk

    2008/12/28 at 12:43

  5. Someone could look at that exchange and see what is hiding in plain sight: women are not people. Men are people, but not women, unless they are disengendered. Our culture teaches us that boys are Good, and girls are Bad.

    This is a wall that I have collided with quite often in my life- the de-personalization of my humanity because of my gender and its presumed biological destiny. I first ran into it in the church, which caused me to leave it. I ran into it in the military, too- I was ‘stealing jobs from men’ because I chose to be an electronics tech. According to this sad logic, I wasn’t there to fix things, I was there to get into the way, or be a convenient piece of ass or object of poorly disguised contempt. My intelligence or competence did not matter to either of these institutions- the fact that I could put ‘girl-cooties’ on Boy Stuff made me The Enemy.

    It’s all a hard-fought load of crap. All of it. And my understanding that the boy/girl enimity is all a load of crap has given me an oddly sad sort of inner peace- what a waste! I am a human being who happens to be biologically female. And that is how I treat and view things- person first, sex second. I’ve only found peace by de-gendering both myself- and pretty much everyone I encounter. Leaving the sexual element out seems to defuse the whole sexual competition nonsense and returns humanity and personhood to both genders. Both estrogen and testosterone are mind-poisoning hormones. When the breeding juices dominate, they tend to eliminate real humanity and twist comprehension into black-and-white brute-reckoning. Girl bad, boy good. Girl good, get laid. Boy bad, girl good. Boy good, get laid.

    Ape-headed, biological crap.

    In order to see people as people one has to rise above the hormones- eliminating their toxic influence if possible, or understanding its effect on our comprehension of people. It’s a sad, awful path to take, though- and I dream of a world where women and men are secure in their sexual roles, and are capable of treating all human beings- regardless of ‘gender’ (or lack of it) as people.

    I am fascinating, deep, intelligent, wise, self-actualized, and- from bitter experience- courageous. And I am female.

    Try this mental exercise sometime: imagine you are not a person, but an object, a non-person, a target, prey, a receptacle for all the fantasies, hatred, obesessions, etc of those around you who consider themselves superior to you. Imagine that- even though you know that you actually are a real person, the culture in which you dwell insists on objectifying you at every turn. Imagine that just the act of leaving your home exposes you to all these things- and that everything you do is being minutely observed. Imagine that even your own home is not safe, because you are not a person, but some sort of object who isn’t human, but something to use, or even kill- because you’re not real.

    Imagine living your life like that every day. Yes, you can sometimes dampen the noise and find some moments of relative calm and peace- but then some asshole hollers at you from a passing car, or looks at you like you’re not a person, but something to be consumed.

    If I could impress what that feels like on every human being who believes that they are somehow ‘superior’ to others, I would. In a heartbeat.

    sunfell

    2008/12/28 at 13:39

  6. I don’t have to imagine it. That’s my life. Admittedly, it’s not catcalls and sexually charged, but that’s my life. And no, I don’t especially feel like explaining.

    cipherpunk

    2008/12/28 at 14:05

  7. kinda reminds me of Ginmargin , though she tended to be more literate and verbose before shutting someone down.

    deviantsaint

    2008/12/28 at 16:24

  8. I understand- and I emphasize. I hope you find some oasis of peace and well-being in your life.

    sunfell

    2008/12/28 at 16:54

  9. No linky, but I read it. Way to show women aren’t overreactive and hormonal there, “ladies”.

    Calling someone a sociopath is an excuse … wha??

    Internets is weird.

    rightc0ast

    2008/12/28 at 22:44

  10. Please.. No names to protect the angsty.

    crabbyolbastard

    2008/12/29 at 08:46

  11. imagine you are not a person, but an object, a non-person, a target, prey, a receptacle for all the fantasies, hatred, obesessions, etc of those around you who consider themselves superior to you. Imagine that- even though you know that you actually are a real person, the culture in which you dwell insists on objectifying you at every turn. Imagine that just the act of leaving your home exposes you to all these things- and that everything you do is being minutely observed.

    Last I checked, I’m biologically male, and you’re describing a significant portion of my life, until the age where I realized that I just plain didn’t care any more. Strangely enough, there came a day when I grew out of victimhood, and became something else. It wasn’t about sex, in my case, it was about being physically small, socially inept, and (most significantly) oversensitive.

    This doesn’t happen to women, it happens to PEOPLE. You also said (wisely):

    I am a human being who happens to be biologically female. And that is how I treat and view things- person first, sex second. I’ve only found peace by de-gendering both myself- and pretty much everyone I encounter. Leaving the sexual element out seems to defuse the whole sexual competition nonsense and returns humanity and personhood to both genders.

    In this, you seem to echo Moran’s McGee (paraphrased by Cyperpunk above):

    McGee explains that Denice was asking about women, not people. People are fascinating. Deep. Interesting. Wise. Courageous. But if you’re going to divide the world according to sex… all sex is about, really, is having sex and making babies. So the question wasn’t why McGee saw women in such sexist terms. The question was why, if Denice was going to divide the world according to sex, she was so insistent on the world not being sexist.

    Maybe I misunderstood you, and maybe you’re agreeing with him and I’m just missing the intent of your post. It seemed a bit contentious. If I am misreading you, please forgive the interjection. If not, please consider that both points seem to be congruent, and both seem (to my misogynistic, male-hormone-dominated, wrong-by-default-because-I’m-male mind) right. And both seem at odds with the current crop of “feminists” who were perfectly willing to sell out a secretary who was propositioned for sex by a sitting governor – because he was ‘their scoundrel’ (to quote an old Kingfish supporter).

    My point here is that it does look like the Crab did step in it, and Sunfell, I have always considered you a person (until today’s posts, I didn’t know you were a woman, and it really doesn’t make any change in how I read your posts now that I do).

    xaetognath

    2008/12/29 at 16:58

  12. Oh I stepped in it alright.. But then again, wtf.. If people can’t deal with common language that is not a direct attack, then I don’t need to deal with them.

    crabbyolbastard

    2008/12/29 at 17:04

  13. Oh I stepped in it alright.. But then again, wtf.. If people can’t deal with common language that is not a direct attack, then I don’t need to deal with them.

    crabbyolbastard

    2008/12/29 at 17:04

  14. I see your point and I thank you for making it. The congruency is subtle, but it’s there, now that you’ve pointed it out.

    It’s tough when life deals you a set of characteristics that make it difficult to be out in the world. I got a really girly body and a very nerdy (read: Mr. Spock) mind. Life was not pleasant when I was young- it’s much more bearable now that I have age and treachery as my main weapons. People actually listen to me- which is very gratifying.
    🙂

    sunfell

    2008/12/29 at 17:23

  15. Lucky you.. I keep railing at the wilderness and get nothing for my advice in most instances…

    crabbyolbastard

    2008/12/29 at 17:32


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: