Last week, I posted “More Feminists, More Gender Theory,” about the radical feminist Rachel Ivey’s video declaration: “Gender is a hierarchical system which maintains the subordination of females as a class to males through force.” In the comments, Fail Burton remarked:

The reason gay feminists push comics like Lumberjanes is because they don’t produce children but instead prefer to harvest those of others. As you say, eventually a civilization will run out of children to turn into an alphabet squad of weird genders and the birthrate falls below that capable of sustaining a civilization. Naturally, you will then be raided and conquered by some other civilization which has not learned to hate itself. But then, feminists aren’t the brightest lightbulbs when it comes to figuring out how all this sustains itself in real world terms. I’m having trouble seeing a cult of transvestites harvesting sugar cane using donkeys in central Egypt.

Now, it helps to know that “Lumberjanes” is a sort of cult/fringe comic-book series that is (a) badly drawn and (b) showered with critical praise, as anything vaguely “feminist” tends to be nowadays. Back when I was 13 or 14, I was into Robert Crumb and other “underground” comics, but there was no Internet social media circa 1973, so “The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers” never got a deal with a major studio, whereas 20th-Century Fox is all over “Lumberjanes.” Anyway . . .

This comment by Fail Burton caused much amusement for the “alphabet squad of weird genders” on Feminist Tumblr:

this is literally the least coherent or logical thing i’ve ever read

HARVESTING CHILDREN I CAN’T STOP LAUGHING

I understand all these words separately but not together

I’m so confused, is this like… insulting even? It’s too incoherent to even offend me

The claim that the comment was incoherent, you see, derives from the lack of context. All these LGBT feminists saw was Fail Burton’s comment, and not the extended discussion of gender theory that prompted the comment. And what I had written was this:

Lady Thatcher famously said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” She might well have added, the problem with feminism is that eventually you run out of other people’s daughters. . . .

How many children does the typical feminist have? Not many. Insofar as they do not eschew heterosexual intercourse altogether, feminists are more likely to have abortions than to have children.

Why this caused Fail Burton to think of “Lumberjanes,” I don’t know, but you see the relevance: Celebrations of “alternative” gender/sexuality aimed at children and teenagers certainly are intended to encourage such deviant behavior, which predictably will reduce birthrates. This is not a trivial concern, as I have explained: “The demographic collapse of industrialized societies, due to their abnormally low birth rates, is a very serious social problem.” Fail Burton is correct in saying feminists utterly disregard “how all this sustains itself in real world terms.”

Within the Cult of Social Justice, the only problems anyone cares about are racism, sexism, homophobia, global warming, etc. Their worldview is the stuff of Bernie Sanders speeches and Women’s Studies textbooks — the sort of silliness gripping the campus of Oberlin College.

And just incidentally, how do you think sugar cane is harvested in Egypt? Did you know that Egypt is one of the top 20 sugar-producing countries in the world, producing some 2 million metric tons annually?

You can learn a lot reading this blog . . .

Share this: Share

Twitter

Facebook



Reddit



Comments