The Exploding Vest

Your Politics are Depressing Me, Therefore You're Wrong

2008-10-25T20:41:00.007+11:00

Allow me to spin a tale.

My girlfriend and I have had a rough time of it. Or, should I say, we 'once had' a rough time of it. I'll put it bluntly - we only ever had one conversation. She (or I) would arrive home, we would greet one-another, I'd comment on the weather, bring up the state of party politics in this country, ask how work had been. She'd then ask if I'd made plans for dinner, I'd respond usually that it was cooking, or that we'd head out, or that it was her turn or whatever else. That's it - that's all we ever said to each other. Minor variations on greetings and what have you, but little more than that.

Then one day, we rented a 'drama' video. I'd heard about them, but as far as drama went, I was pretty much a novice. Well. The people in these videos spoke about anything and everything you could think of - their lives, their feelings, plays they'd seen, films, concerts they'd been to, books they'd read. They'd talk about how these experiences made them feel, what thoughts they had while viewing, listening, reading... then the other would shoot back with his or her thoughts on THOSE thoughts. Some characters were more endearing or intelligent than others; sometimes they spoke in groups, sometimes just in pairs. The point is, it opened up a whole new world for us. Suddenly, all the experiences I'd been having in life immediately became things I could share with her. Instead of just being 'greeting, politics, dinner', we were able to introduce all kinds of new elements to our conversation. Art, politics, philosophy, sport, human psychology - and more besides!

Now here's the thing. What kind of woeful sad cretin would need to watch a drama before they could freely converse with their partner? Don't people just kind of learn to talk, then in turn learn to converse, and improve with each tentative experience? Switch in 'sex' for 'conversation', and 'porn' for 'drama', though, and all of a sudden this sad cretin's perfect analogue becomes edgy as all hell and ready to tell prudish feminists a thing or two about the hot sex she's having, and how much she enjoys it. Give me a fucking break.

Anyway, I'm off to tell some World War II veterans all about how they don't know what life is. I bet they'll get hostile almost immediately, the old jerks! Hah!

I wonder...

2008-09-08T10:45:00.003+10:00

When Helen Garner watches The Matrix, does she think Cypher's the good guy?

Not a Good Analogy

2008-08-28T13:10:00.012+10:00

I remarked to a friend earlier today that a useful argument (or at least conversation-stimulator) for anti-porn activism is (paraphrased, because in real life I'm fucking not articulate, like, much at all).

"What if the only source of information on conflict resolution were the action movie, and there were no special effects: the people in the films were really being shot, stabbed, dropped off buildings... what kind of a culture would this create with regard to any kind of disagreement between any two parties, and how would people respond to the harm depicted in these films? A necessary evil? An essential and deplorable fixture of the genre?"

There's room, of course, for debates on whether or not pornography is an expression of eroticised dominance formed elsewhere in patriarchal culture, or is in fact the source of this dominance (If it's not literarily constructed, then it'd have to come from somewhere, by golly, but it could also be a two-way street).

Here's the thing, though: It's a shitty analogy, because people who get shot and stabbed aren't expected to act like they enjoy it. Except, I suppose, in those really hardcore action movies which, as we all know, are the only kind that should be banned. Because they're so extreme. Maybe if they anaesthetised the cast before filming? - but then who would suggest such a revolting 'solution' to a fundamentally destructive problem? Who indeed.

- Mr. Morgan

I Promised Eighty Billion Excellent Posts. I Deliver: This!

2008-08-15T11:15:00.009+10:00

I think it might yet be time to beat everyone in the face with a hearty dose of brutal honesty. I haven't been posting nearly often enough. Get this - it's true! That's not to say I haven't been working on drafts, but attempting to express complex arguments in satire is a grueling process, and I am simply not that talented.

It wasn't always like this - I spent a number of years engaging opponents directly. Having seen the draining effect that direct engagement with anti-feminist arguments could have, I decided that my energies were better spent in producing work that would energise the people who considered me an ally. Most of the scholastic work has been done -- done to death, in fact. The plan was to provide a little hilarity by presenting my own arguments by use of a self-deluding narrative voice who would present his opinions in such a way that the uncovering their internal condradictions and harms might be more rewarding, not to mention more amusing. Doing it with any sort of regularity, however - like I said, I'm not that talented.

So I'm going to rename The Big News as 'The Exploding Vest', a reference to the Strom word for, if memory serves, 'cost'. I shall write serious posts and pepper them with forays into parody and dramatic irony. My politics are as they ever were.

To anybody who might have been interested, here are some of the ideas I'd been working on:

- a post on the 'oppression paralympics', which would allow the differently-oppressed to participate in their own internecine disagreements. The line between 'expression of solidarity' and 'agent provocateur' can be surprisingly narrow, and that temptation to get stuck into adversarial debate is what led me to drag out the 'oppression olympics' analogy to its conclusion. So overall, the idea was to show that a desire to identify with somebody in need doesn't necessarily develop from wanting to offer any kind of substantive support.

- a list of subjects to be offered under Asian Studies, one in particular on 'Japanese responses to Orientalism in the 20th century', which would organise Japanese history around dates relevant only to the U.S., objectify nouns in translation eg: 法律 as 'Japanese Law'. The post wound up being far too personal - too geared toward making myself giggle. When I cleaned it up, I realised there wasn't any kind of point to me made.

- one titled 'Examing My Privilege is a Luxury I Don't Have Time For', in which the author would speak at length about his busy but essentially labour-free life. He pined about all the free time the downtrodden probably had to examine society, but then dismissed their ideas out of hand because they'd 'probably had so little education'. It was a shit post, so I chucked it.

- An editorial rant from an American man who analogises the Iraqi resistance to the invasion with the U.S. Forces' attempts to defend themselves against insurgent attacks. It was a comment on a tendency I've seen for any nation that ever fought a war of 'liberation' to then identify with the victim / see itself as a weapon for the weak.

- Another, interview format, in which a young woman whose wealth protects her from the oppressive aspects of patriarchy speaks extensively, and with little or no emotion, about just how interesting and complex feminism is. The point was to give the article the sense of cool rationality people often demand of feminist women, demonstrating that to treat these issues dispassionately turns out to give a person a dissociative, sociopathic air. It was a post about the centrality of emotion in the human experience, and the delusional hypocrisy of demanding anybody give it up.

- a deliberately comic attempt to engage with Jonah Goldberg's statement 'the white male is the Jew of liberal fascism', which went to ridiculous lenghts in unpacking our conceptual notions of 'white male' and 'Jew'. I don't think this one had a point, I just think Goldberg is a fuckwit. I didn't coin that insult, either.

So that's about the size of the situation. Coming up soon - probably tomorrow - the kind of stuff you'd expect from a normal blog!

(c) 2008 - Mr. Morgan

UN Implicated in Child Sexual Abuse, World Appalled

2008-05-29T07:09:00.004+10:00

I come to you with preliminary reports of possibly the most shocking, most astonishing news ever to be heard in the history of news. I am literally exploding with outrage, the pieces of me spattering passersby. Are you ready? Are you ready? UN workers have been implicated in child sexual abuse. And like that, the world - nay, the universe - just stopped.

The once-unimpeachable UN is now, as far as this reporter is concerned, a lost cause. Where previously you could only charge it with being an accessory to genocide, for its crucial role in the almost century-long foot drag on global-warming policy, and for normalising oppressive military occupations around the world, the supranational has now finally crossed that line. The opinion-holding world, for its part, has been delightfully amazed to find that if you hire men, you risk hiring rapists. How 'bout that?

For my part, I certainly hope the UN publicly reiterates its organisational position on child sexual abuse: that they are against it! I assume they're against genocide too. Good for them! Be sure and check in next week for my mind-blowingly incredible exclusive on the prevalence of racism in the Israeli Defence Force, a special report on really obvious jokes, and an investigation into the unusually high rates of naivete in the professional media.

(c) Mr. Morgan 2008

How Feminists Lie With Statistics: A Case Study

2008-04-03T20:08:00.011+11:00

'Jo22' over at I Can't Fly has decided, bless her, to rattle off a few of the standard stats about women in prostitution. Like arguments against intelligent design, these things just keep coming back no matter how many times they're dismissed. It's about time somebody bore their brunt, and it's a brunt I can bear to put up with. You might even say it's a... brunt I can stand to bear. Rather like the old 'women earn 77c to each dollar a man earns' chestnut, Jo's post throws up more questions than it answers, and then sets about neglecting to answer any of them.

First, let's come to grips with that '77c to the dollar' zinger. This sounds fairly bad, as if women are exploited in the workforce. But if you compare the scale of corporate profits to what male workers earn, the difference between men's and women's becomes almost irrelevant. Rather in the same way that a fifteen year age difference starts to look smaller when the man hits his 60s. In the scheme of things, working men and women are both exploited - women just slightly more. I'll break it down for you. Most of the productive work women perform is - you guessed it - completely unpaid! By not including non-market labour in wage parity statistics, feminists can make it appear as though women are being paid less for doing the same work as men. In reality, it's only some women who are being paid less than their male counterparts. Most of the sectors in which women work - prostitution, garment manufacture, plantation labour - have few or no male representatives, so wage comparisons are difficult - assuming the women are paid at all! So, while the statistic certainly sounds bad, in reality it tells us absolutely nothing about how bad women have it - and that's as good a reason for inaction as any I can think of. But I digress. Jo was kind enough to write in point form, so I shall return the favour by responding to her list of facts - sorry, 'arguments' - in like fashion.

Millions of women and children in the UK are abused to satisfy many men's desire for 'sex'.

Why stick to the UK, Jo? The link you used was for an activist group confined to the UK, yes, but that's part of the problem. Why choose that particular set of national boundaries? Once you get outside the UK, what are the figures like for sexual abuse of women and children? Given its proximity to major human trafficking routes, the UK could simply, given its position as terminus, be a statistical outlier abuse-wise. Although these women and children are being kidnapped all over Europe, Russia, China, Vietnam, Thailand, South Korea etc, the actual sexual abuse Jo refers to doesn't begin until they arrive in England itself. I don't dispute that millions of women and children are legally raped in the UK each year, but this number is made up of women from all over the Sino-Russian continent. It's rather arbitrary to count these rapes as 'UK rapes' just because the victims have been brought across the Channel. Jo has to pay into the patriarchal division of the Earth into 'states' just to make her statistic on prostitution look nasty. Let's cordone off a tiny bit of land and count up how many women there have been raped! Once you get past that, these 'millions of abused women' are just a drop in the ocean - less than one tenth of one percent. Whether or not women outside the UK are being repeatedly abused for the pleasure of men is a question beyond the scope of this debate, but good luck getting grant money to do research with such an obviously feminist agenda!

Prostitution affects how men view all women.

Okay, now... how can she possibly back this up? 'All women' - really. So, does a man's view of a woman he has never met and will never meet change if he rapes a twelve-year-old girl in Thailand then pays her owner $800? This kind of stuff is more the purview of Zen Buddhism than of scholastic pursuits like feminism. How about we stick to what's knowable? Prostitution might affect a man's view of every woman he has ever met and will ever meet, but this is hardly 'all women', now is it? Even if you include all men in this statistic, there's still an outside chance that there are some women born in lesbian-separatist communes who've never seen a man before. You can't invoke the male gaze unless you're able to back it up with numbers, and the above assumptions and broadsides demonstrate that Jo might perhaps have done just that.

The average age of entry into prostitution is 13.

Anybody who has even a passing familiarity with statistics will probably have laughed out loud as this one.To know anything at all about the ages of the women and children currently in prostitution, it would be a help to know the median and mode ages or - heaven forbid - actually see the raw data! With the information Jo provides, it's still possible that the vast majority of prostituted women are in their late teens or early twenties, and that a small set of five or six year old girls and boys in Eastern Europe is throwing the numbers off. Hell, they could all be children save for some ageing courtesan in the American Midwest - we just don't know. While I get to grips with statistical potentialities, Jo - bless her heart - is stuck, tyres spinning, in reality. Suspiciously, she is loathe to actually prove me wrong before she simply rolls in with her own ideas.

90% of prostituted women want to exit immediately.

Oh, and that means we should abolish prostitution, does it? What about the remaining 10% who, I assume, love the job and never ever want to leave it? It's called the 'tyranny of the majority', Jo, the corollary being that the devil you know is preferable. Sure, millions are suffering needlessly, but they've grown accustomed to their suffering! Change would mean taking the tiny percentage of prostituted women too traumatised to care and introducing them to the shameful world of food-stamps and welfare. Not a tough decision, methinks - particularly when you don't give a fuck about women. Worse still, if Jo had bothered to do her research properly she'd have found the number was in fact 92% (Farley, Baral, Kiremire, Sezgin (1998)).

All women and children have the right NOT to be prostituted.

Oh, so Jo can just pass rights legislation now? Last I heard, this had to go through the UNHRC. Does a woman's right to life necessarily preclude a man's desire to rape her? I might as well just invoke a 'right to rape', as it would have precisely the same argumentative weight. Never mind that, in reality, men rape women and children all the time and get away with it despite all the laws feminists can come up with. Why the sudden obsession with rights, Jo? Why bother to give your argument this faux-legal clout when we all know the only weight it carries lies in reality?

None of this is to say I'm antifeminist. It's just that I don't know much about intersubjectivity and I haven't read a lot of Fanon. If I see something that looks wrong, I'll set about criticising its minutiae with such vehemence that I often lose sight of the overall goal. It is my curse - and for this they call me a traitor! The feminist blagosphere seems to contain many such errors, and it's no surprise I keep finding them: I barely look anywhere else! That's how much I respect 'the movement'.

go here

(c) 2008 Mr. Morgan

Hot New Releases from RealHarm Media

2007-05-12T10:42:00.000+10:00

(warning - this heavily uses the language of pornography)

Hey guys! Get ready to gingerly massage your semi-erect penises to some of the most embarrassingly oversold acts of coerced penetration ever captured on film! RealHarm Media bring you only the most palateable, the most long-suffering and dominated of women. Nothing like any of the women you know in real life, these sluts will let you live out the fantasies we tell you you've always had, and you still get to conceal from yourself the fact you aren't certain you can help from seeing your daughters in the same light.

Just look at these saleably 'hot' new titles:

It Takes Six Watch in feigned horror as a group of physically dominant black men use penises the likes of which you thought couldn't physically exist to forcibly penetrate a woman who had no other way to escape eviction! You'll feel strangely at home and yet vomitously repulsed by the spectacle as we attempt to use the worst scripts you'll have ever seen to conceal the fact that individually these men were so intimidated by female sexuality that they were incapable of lovemaking, but even then could only fuck in groups of six or more. Deny to yourself the existence of obvious homoerotic overtones as you get lost in a pinheaded backstory about a woman so desperately horny she 'needed' not only six men, but six men from a race you've designated inherently sexual. It's a double whammy of pornographication - revel in your fear that you're sexually insufficient while you ejaculate weakly to thoughts of the social power you can lord over your only competition!

- $15.95

Just Feels 'Right' 4 Do you find dead eyes a turn-on? Well you're gonna bust a nut at this one! We've scoured the East Coast for girls who may or may not have been molested as children, and we're sticking them in the kind of pornography economic desperation alone could never get them into. Conflate the feelings of empathy, horror, and arousal into one frightening mix as these conventionally attractive victims fall repeatedly back into the only situation that feels right to them! Only thing better than a whore - a whore with agency!

-$17.95

It's Not Real 2: It's Not It's Not It's Not Next time you feel 'the twitch', escape the need for moral confusion and indulge yourself, courtesy of the human being's ability to dissociate its mind from its body! You'll do permanent harm to your ability to recognise suffering, and you'll cum a fucking mile while doing it! These smokin' babes have taken deliberate and specific steps to take their minds away from the sexual violence they're paid to suffer. Why do they have to use lubricant? Will they ever enjoy sex again? Is pornography even sex at all? Ask yourself none of these questions as you objectify and degrade yet another person who's not a stone's throw from the specific, individual women you still think you love!

-$24.95 (NEW RELEASE)

Unwomen 3: Ethnic Niggers And you thought 'It Takes Six' was the hottest way of veiling race-hate? Crudely sexualised slurs abound as we hide our contempt for women behind some of the worst writing you'll ever see. Pretend that your pissweak desire to dominate is an indicator of strength, then designate as sluts a group of dark-skinned women, and call them names ranging from the moronic to the truly offensive. Hey, but don't whisper 'you black whore' too loud - you might just blur the boundaries between your pornlust and your opposition to racism!

-$12.95

Acceptable Gangbang 2: College Skanks Get the friends round for this one! This video features some of the most quasi-extreme action ever seen in the kind of porno that you can leave lying around in plain sight! Repulsive and painful sex acts are hidden behind jokey frat-boy idiocy, and the only men here are skinny and inoffensive - so there's no risk you'll wind up talking about cock! Get your mates round and together you'll pull off the intellectual trickery it takes to pretend such obvious acts of sexual violence are as make-believe as any action movie... but don't forget that, real or not, you're still gonna be learning to crack a boner at pictures of women being raped! and how!

-$14.95

Horny guys of the world! Is your wife or girlfriend failing to do her duty? Are you not getting the exact amount of fucking you feel you deserve? Well there's another way! Distance yourself from their pain today, courtesy of RealHarm Media.

Order now on 1800 - 449 - 449, and for just $10.95 extra receive a copy of Michel Foucault's classic, 'History of Sexuality'. And you thought you couldn't have felt less guilty about what you're doing to women!

(c) 2007 Mr. Morgan

Non-Posts Now de Rigeur

2007-04-23T23:29:00.000+10:00

The world has been driving me into a humourless rage of late. Having to study my way through 'The Case for Israel' and 'The Case for Peace', 'Why Terrorism Works' has sort of broken my boyish spirit. For anybody who's still guessing, the arguments in the above tomes were so bad you'd think they were written to besmirch the good name of Jews everywhere.

Unlike Protocols, however, all of Dershowitz's work is real.

Today was ANZAC day in Australia, and such a transparent display of warlust I've not seen in all my years. The significance of 'lest we forget' has sort of paled into the slogan of a dystopian future, in which children are named 'Coca Cola' and '95% fat free'.

Oh and the blogosphere is once again in a cretinous uproar over some idiot being vaguely intellectually threatened by something she thought she might hold up as a representative example of radical feminism. "I was made to feel as if I shouldn't wear make-up, and I like wearing make-up", "I don't enjoy feeling that my personal choices are influenced by culture and effect other people, ergo they are not and do not", and so forth. I'm at a loss for words. I've seen arguments go better when they were about which was better of the Wii and the PS3. For anybody who cares, it's the Wii. Radical feminism is in a similar position of deliberately misunderstood awesomeness. If you're looking to extend the metaphor, I guess some people love to spend $1000 on a console that has features they'll never be able to use.

It'll end soon - it has to. And then, I'll be back.

(c) 2007 Mr. Morgan

In the Pipeline, I say!

2007-04-02T09:28:00.000+10:00

Yes, I know I haven't posted for almost a month. I've been writing a thesis proposal. Apologies go out to all six of you, and I promise you there are new posts in the pipeline. All this reading and the obligation to engage people civilly is starting to weight on my soul.

(c) 2007 Mr. Morgan

A Theory of Justice For Theories of Justice

2007-03-04T14:42:00.000+11:00

Within the Hobbesian 'state of nature', there is a certain abhorrence of academic fairness. Those theoreticians and political scientists who are more intelligent, unbound by self-interest, and better able to make arguments that stand successfully against the arbitrary power-base of their opponents, would simply dominate those whose conceptions of how a society should function were premised on flimsy appeals to the utility of monetary wealth as an inherent and necessary dimension of human existence.

Equal distribution of wealth was the expected ultimate outcome of Rawls' theory, posited as the desired outcome of a society wherein all were granted liberty to the greatest possible degree that could exist without also placing at risk the universality of that liberty - in short, adherence to the First Principle. Similarly, the equal distribution of academic prestige is the primary goal of this, my 'Theory of Theoretical Justice'.

Imagine, if you will, a place before society - you do not know your place in that society, and have somehow divested yourself of all knowledge of the philosophical utility inherent to the universe we inhabit in such a way as to also remain capable of both reasoning in abstract and comprehending self-preservation. You wish to formulate a theory of social justice to be applied in this society, but have no way of knowing what your theory's standing in the society will actually be.

What standards, then, would you apply in judgement of political theories? What rules would you develop to determine which theories were considered important, or even deemed functional? Would the internal consistency or applicability of their arguments actually count for anything - or would they be judged as works of genius provided they were the sole article on political philosophy published that decade? If your ideas turned out to be woefully narrow, would the private sector's ability to appropriate and use them to confound and dominate distributive governmental institutions be considered a risk? Most likely, not knowing your position in this hypothetical society, you would devise a system under which all political theories were judged as pretty much equal.

This is, of course, only a hypothetical. Nobody can really imagine themself outside society as a burgeoning political scientist. The best we can do is use the hypothetical as an intellectual exercise to force ourselves to consider what it could be like if we weren't rich. Rawls was exhaustively aware of all the traits that might disadvantage a person in human society: their height, strength, intelligence, income. This carefully considered and exhaustive list of all potential variables within the human condition allowed Rawls to develop a theory of justice that would surely provide for the equality of every man in existence. Every man. You heard me.

Of course, it's naive of me to assume that exhaustive consideration alone will guarantee success. As Rawls himself admits, private transactions whose goal was to achieve equality would be beyond the scope of his theory of justice, which applied only to redistributive institutions such as governments. Given his work was primarily completed in the 1970s, it's fair to extend him a hand of contextual understanding. How could he have known what private-sector capitalism would do to the welfare state? At the time, it was a system in its infancy, and had barely even crossed oceans and subordinated human and ecological need for the past two centuries.

My considerations of the criteria on which we judge a sociological theory will no doubt be subject to the critiques of history, but since there is no way to escape this end, I have no choice but willingly to submit to it. To give my work a breadth that, I think, transcends context, I will simply say that in developing a Theory of Theoretical Justice, one must consider and then provide for the elimination of every substantive critique that could possibly be mounted against an idea. Only then can true theoretical justice be fashioned.

So then: taking a leaf out of Rawls' book, I have worked my Theory of Theoretical Justice out to limit the chance that one political scientist be judged as inferior to another, and thus have their work deprived of unending praise and exposure. It is surely true that without the input of academic institutions that hold prestige in higher esteem than demonstrable truth, theories would be judged on little more than their ability to actually deliver the ends they promise. A world governed by my conception of theoretical justice, however, would ensure that to the greatest possible extent, educational institutions would grant equal merit to all ideas, regardless of their ability to account for contingency or actually deliver any kind of justice to people so disadvantaged as to escape the theorist's consideration altogether (eg: women).

In closing, while my conception of theoretical justice is quite broad, in practice it is based around the ability of political and educational institutions to artificially maintain a theory's primacy. While I can guarantee any theory a place in a first-year political science reading pack, it would be beyond the purview of my approach to defend it from the crushing attacks of feminist, anarchist or communitarian critiques. This limitation might well serve to expose particularly poorly-considered or infantile conceptions of justice to a serious risk of refutation, but frankly: that's a risk I'm willing to take.

(c) 2007 Mr. Morgan

Watch Out, Sheila!

2007-03-03T14:50:00.000+11:00

Two days ago, dear readers, I went along with some friends to one of Sheila Jeffreys' lectures on the 'construction of sexuality', or some-such feminist essentialism, and I want you to trust me when I say that pretty much everything she said was just plain beyond ridiculous. One thing's for sure, though: when I present her with my devastating counter- arguments, she will have no choice but to abandon all her opinions.

As the lecture opened, I must admit that - despite being male and thus obviously a target - I was genuinely interested in what she had to say. As she spoke, however, I began to notice how strongly I disagreed with what I thought she was getting at. First, it was something about how gender wasn't inherent to biological sex - that is was some kind of social invention. Crap! I can't tell you how strongly I disagree with that claim. I certainly haven't seen any evidence that'd support it. So, it looks like just another example of feminists inventing theoretical 'truths' that sound intellectually satisfying but don't, as far as I'm aware, carry any supporting empirical evidence.

She compared sex-change operations to the surgical amputation of healthy limbs, asking us why the former was embraced as a wondrous medical solution to a dire psychological problem, while the other was considered a travesty. Now, I'd never heard of body-identity dysmorphia, but I can tell you that cutting off a leg is a really big deal! Not like constructing a vulva out of penile tissue. That might be a challenge for the surgeon, but can you imagine really being a woman trapped in a man's body? It would be horrible! Whatever she has to say about 'social constructs', in her books - none of which I've actually read, but I bet are all full of crap - the fact is that surgical removal of healthy limbs is awful, but surgical removal or addition of a penis is simply a means to a most worthy end. People who want healthy limbs cut off need psychological help, but Sheila's efforts to extend this idea to victims of Gender-Identity Dysphoria (GID) reveals her ingrained desire to see trans-gendered people suffer. What solution does she propose instead? "Change society". Does she really think that's very likely, what with all the really good debate that her opponents could probably give her?

My gut feelings in opposition to her beliefs are one thing, but that's just the start of it. The killer arguments that I will deliver to her... man, they are going to BLOW HER MIND. I mean, I'm sure there are some really excellent biological or medical arguments against non-surgical or sociological cures for GID. If our poorly developed surgical and hormone-maintenance techniques cause chronic pain and deadly cancers, then surely that's a sign not that we must abandon the techniques for some trumped up 'alternative', but that we must go out of our way to improve them? What, incidentally, would Sheila's 'alternative' bring - a gender-bending society where men who naturally act like women are embraced as people? How would you know how to treat people if they could just act the way they wanted, instead of in a way that was socially mandated? There would be bedlam! I can't actually back that up with arguments, but why should I have to, when it's so obvious that she's wrong?

And as for her idea that gender is a construction - rubbish! Gender has been around forever. If it was 'constructed', as she says, then there'd probably be some really good arguments in favour of that belief. As far as I can imagine, though, there are only arguments against what she believes. I haven't actually checked yet, but I'm next to certain that if I look up biology and history textbooks that aren't tarnished through their taking on a 'feminist perspective', I will no doubt find some truly killer retorts to Sheila's ideas. I'd bet money she hadn't addressed any of them in the numerous articles she's had published.

So, it's pretty clear that radical feminism is in some serious trouble. There are so many great arguments against its most basic ideas, I bet - not to mention that the theory is pretty unpalateable from the outset. Yeah, I disagree with you, Sheila, and look around! - the world reflects my views far more than it does your hopes, so who do you think is more correct? One of these days, I'll present my Earth-shatteringly powerful counters to your feminist position, and you'll just be struck dumb, unable to come up with any retort I'd consider listening to. Until then, though, I'm content to just sit back and enjoy life. If gender and power dynamics were really such an issue as you seem to think, then there would have been some huge rift in positivism, say around the end of the 19th century - instead, we just get feminists making the same old claims, despite the really great arguments against them that probably exist.

(c) 2007 Mr. Morgan

In Defense of People I Agree With

2007-02-25T20:03:00.000+11:00

Why all this argument? It seems like for months now, the feminist blogosphere has been completely dominated by infighting. Instead of focusing on whatever they happen to think the important issues might be, feminist writers have been wasting their time debating one-another about which of their goals is actually helpful to women, and which perpetuate and apologise for serious harms against them.

The most recent battle is between those who believe the pro/anti-porn dichotomy is a result of a patriarchal divide-and-conquer, and those that hold it's a legitimate difference of opinion. There are feminists who understand sex workers would face destitution without their employment, and feminists who want a world where they wouldn't. I have to admit that, yes, fighting for such a fairy-tale existence is admirable, but let's be realistic: it's insulting to tell a prostituted woman that she's 'exploited and has no agency'. Frankly, I struggle to think of a worse way to treat someone. Remember, these women are only dissociated from sexual abuse, not from quasi-offensive theoretical debate! If I'm out of line here, then I'm sorry, but the radical anti-porn crowd needs to take a long hard look at itself and realise that occasionally its remarks might hurt somebody's feelings a bit. Ending suffering is well and good, but can't you try to do it without offending libertarian sensibility?

And what about the sex workers themselves? Assuming they weren't trafficked or are trapped in debt bondage or by a drug habit that was forced upon them, they probably need the money like any other employed person does. To pay the bills, send the kids through school - you name it. The Divide-and-Conquer Believers can argue all they want that 'forcibly pitting a person's immediate biological self-interest directly against the emancipation of her social class is a common technique of the ruling classes', but if that's the way the world is, that's the way it is. You can't change reality any more than you can rely on activist politics to actually help. Especially not when you keep insisting the movement needs support - I mean: some people might not agree. Maybe they'd join you if you weren't so demanding about how they need to join you, duh!

So, it's pretty clear that the only solution for feminists of all stripes is that they agree to disagree. Those who believe that feminists should represent an organised front of women who fight to free themselves from patriarchy can go and do just that, and those women who disagree completely can use their spare time to do other feminist stuff, like pick up some porn on the internet and argue about whether or not it's 'erotica'. The only thing, really, that could conceivably cause problems now would be an argument about which was the 'one true feminism' - about which one actually helps women.

Well, let me answer that for you. They all help women! That's the great thing about feminism in this modern age: it doesn't need to be a radical position. Whether you're a wealthy white woman who makes her day-to-day life less stressful by pretending a kidnapped teenager has agency; whether you're an aid worker who would try to rescue that same teenager from the man who's pimping her... you can ALL stand tall and proud as feminists, each helping women in your own way.

But please don't fight - remember, feminism is about freedom for women. If that includes something you 'radicals' would call the 'freedom to do active damage to the feminist cause', then so be it. What are you gonna do, argue about it? I weep to think what this once proud movement has become, but you have only yourselves to blame. To make this point, I'll hereby refuse to change my position no matter how persuasive your arguments are. If you think I want to feel guilty, you've got another thing coming!

(c) 2007 Mr. Morgan

New Brassiere Design Promises Improved Lift, Separation, Welts

2007-02-17T17:20:00.000+11:00

[Rome, Italy 17 February] Unveiled today at the internationally renowned couture fashion show 'Fash', was designer Sergei Bruger's revolutionary brassiere codenamed 'alpha-bra' which, he claimed, promised the 'appearance-conscious young woman of today' improved breast lift and separation at the cost of only negligible physical harm.

The choice to reveal the new technology at a couture fashion show was, according to analysts, a shrewd business decision on the part of Mr Bruger since, as he remarked during the show "the women here are quite, quite beautiful - and in a world that values beauty like ours does, who wouldn't jump in utter desperation at even the slimmest chance to look more like that". Next to his insight into the industry, other designers seem almost childishly naive - no doubt his design will command considerable earning power once it's brought to market.

Alpha-bra has received grudging support from numerous medical and political groups across the country, with the UNHRC ruling it 'technically legal', as well as numerous independent studies concluding that the design caused '...little or no clinically significant injury...' A Stanford Medical School study found that only 18% of respondents reported 'lasting discomfort' following a half-hour test-run with the brassiere. With avenues of legal opposition exhausted, Alpha-bra is only a short approval process away from reaching market.

Studies, however, can only provide a small part of the picture. The undue focus on injury and pain denies the positive aspects of the product. The parts of a woman's breasts which are visible while wearing a low-cut top will, with the aid of alpha-bra, look hotter than ever. The fact that just centimeters below there may lie a seeping cut from the underwire can be, as Sergei said in a developer round-table earlier this week "the woman's little secret", although he also advised women to avoid lightly coloured outer garments. Men who have seen the brassiere in action agreed unequivocally, although generally also stated they'd rather it was not used on a relative or close personal friend, preferring to see the brassiere on "hookers, and girls in the street and shit (sic)". Whether this reaction was due to what respondent Michael Brendon called "[Sergei's] suspiciously aggressive refusal to show us any design specifications" is not known at this stage.

It's hard to imagine that even in the face of such ringing endorsement, the product could face any real criticism. Nevertheless, there have been a handful of reactions comprehensible to a mainstream audience. "What's the point of a bra that makes a girl's breasts look hot, but in reality puts a big cut under them? Who'd want to see that?", asked Men's Studies Professor Stanley Barge. Proudly showing his feminist stripes, Sergei responded that he was embarrassed by Professor Barge's misogynistic remarks. "He's a dinosaur. The man needs to understand that the modern woman is free not to have sex, just as her 1970s counterpart was free to have it all the time, even if she didn't really want to". The alpha-bra is not just used to attract men for sex, but also to promise them sex and thus empower the wearer. "It just gives a young woman one more way to succeed in the world". Suggestions that the bra will be used by cynical defence counsel to place women at increased disadvantage when prosecuting rape have been dismissed as 'feminist'.

I spoke to Mr. Bruger today, who said that while he was "happy to produce a design solution to women's lack of influence", also confessed to me that he was in fact puzzled by "their obsession with their breasts". Unfortunately, he was distracted by a rather buxom passerby, ran from our table crying "hot damn, I've found our new VP of marketing!", and I was unable to continue the interview.

Sergei Bruger remains at large.

(c) 2007 Mr. Morgan

Vagina Policy Institute Offers Hope For Your Revolting Cunt

2007-02-11T10:52:00.000+11:00

It is not such big a secret that many women everywhere want to learn the secret of a more youthful, tighter vagina! Along with breasts size and breasts shape, vagina asthetics is one of the most troubling issues of young women today. The Vagina Policy Instituet can answer all of their questions, and put them on their road to a better, more thrilling! sex live.

First of all, did you know that the majority of woman are not satisfied with her vagina? The Vagina Policy INstitute has colated statitical data on various attributes of vagina including shape, size, length, magnitude and smell or 'odor'. Following is a photograph of the actual vagina, what would be usually expected by a man.

As you can see from the image about, the vagina is located between a woman's legs, and is commonly surrounded by pubic hair(s). Ladies, you can use this picture to see if your one is normal!! If it is not, then don't worry - your insecuritys are very normal. Many women believe they are being held to a too high standard of vagina beauty, and you are probably no exception!

Something that has been for a long time uncovered because societies prevent men from saying about such a taboo topic is on the vagina shape and beauty. Our studies clearly demonstrating that over a majority of men actualy prefer to above vagina to their girlfriend's or even wives.! The reason they offer more often was 'droopy, sagging labia minora' and 'pubic hair down the side bits', one another thing is 'loosening tightness'. According to science, the vagina research was begun more than two hundred years ago, on the beginning of the Renaissance. Here, the essential femininity of the vagina was first studied and understood. Desirable features such as even labias or a nice vaginal 'funk' (usually emanates from woman with a smaller, tighter vagina) began to be understood.

As you can see from the above image, the vagina shown in fact conforms to the rare Golden Ratio, the universal standard for human beauty. No wonder you probably thought it was so beautiful! Studies have shown that people who's bodies stand to this ratio are happier and more loved, so of course the same can be said for your vagina!!!

Aging is a natural part of life, but remember it doesn't have to reach to your vagina! Often in their old age, men well seek other partners than their wives or girlfriends - not because they no longer love her, but because of her vagina getting old. Women therefore must want a young, beautiful vagina that confirms to a virgin status and to every day standards of vaginal beauty. The Vgaina Policy Insitute employs trained gynacologists who can return your vagina to its normal, ideal appearance, with pleasing 'odor' and a beautiful, even shape. The vagina which is a key to the enhancing sex life for you - and your husband - deserves!

- The Vagina Institute, trading under VI2993-2991cas conforms to all statutory
requirements under C132, ss18 (3-5). All models were over 18 years of age at time of filming.

(c) 2007 Mr. Morgan
inspired by Twisty

Ratings of CBS's 'Cretinous Italian Oaf' Dive Following Fan Convention

2007-02-09T18:53:00.000+11:00

[Seattle WA, February 9] At a CBS-run convention this week, fans of the hit series 'Cretinous Italian Oaf' were given a rare opportunity to meet with the show's creator, Al Miller. In the quarter following the convention, however, ratings sank almost immediately to a record low. The Big News was there, and examines its transcript for clues as to the show's sudden failure.

Centering around the family life of a charmless and endearingly arrogant Italian-American man and his affable and unrealistically patient and attractive wife, the show details the minutiae of day to day life in the United States. Issues ranging from infuriating in-laws, the petty annoyances of raising children, or the benefits of marital compromise were all touched upon - themes which would seem to account for the show's previously consistent popularity.

Responding to a question at the convention, Miller explained "my show is basically just harmless family fun. It takes a light-hearted look at the ins and outs that normal people - white people - face in their lives. One of the best things about Italian Man is how different people can find it funny. It brings us together by showing common experiences", and he was certainly right. The convention hosted fans from virtually all walks of life: tertiary-educated feminists, skilled labourers, home-makers. Each had something positive to say about Cretinous Italian Oaf.

Kathleen Bickel, a grad student visiting from Harvard, identified herself as a long-time fan of the show. "I love how [the husband] is so oblivious to his wife's suffering. The fact her character is written to give so little indication of her plight sheds light on the beauty of the quiet resistance American women wage every day".

"It's great the way they make such a big deal out of her parents visiting all the time", said professional joiner Daryl Owen. "It's totally taken to extremes, but this show just tells all us men that we need to appreciate our wives, because underneath everything they really do just love us".

Miller was of course delighted that his show had received such rave reviews from its fans, but also expressed relief that he was not in a position of greater responsibility. "You know", he told The Big News, "I'm glad I have the ability to write a show about all these crappy aspects of our lives and just be free to make it fun and entertaining. You've got serious shows like Queer as Folk, or Chapelle's Show - they have a lot of responsibility, [and] can't just get away with making jokes all the time".

His response to Women's Studies Professor Amelia Ellis was rather less cordial. In answer to criticisms in the Professor's book 'Romanticising Domestic Abuse', which described Cretinous Italian Man as 'a vehicle for male America to conceal behind a veneer of quasi-romantic farce the day-to-day abuses that constitute married life', Miller raged. "I don't know what's wrong with her! What she's read into my show just isn't there at all - there's not one hint of apology for the situations the show portrays. It's just a comedy - it's not supposed to contain some big message or something".

The Big News believes that the drop in ratings could be attributed to the fact certain fans overheard Miller's remarks and couldn't reconcile them with their interpretation of Cretinous Italian Man. Certain viewers, who wished to remain anonymous, approached me following the convention and commented that they were disappointed to find that Miller's vision did not match their interpretations. "I thought he was making an argument about women's quality of life, but it turns out all those jokes really were just about withholding sex. Fuck that".

Pending the cancellation of Cretinous Italian Man, CBS will have to produce something very special to compete with NBC's new 'Law and Order: Strip Club', which focuses on the number of times you can show a dead woman's breasts in forty-five minutes, simultaneously revealing the true criminal horror of the sex trade.

(c) 2007 Mr. Morgan

Letter of the Week: Freedom of Identity

2007-02-08T13:38:00.000+11:00

Ever since my girlfriend dumped me for being, in her words, a 'fucking idiot', I've had an interest in the plight of women. After devouring all the proto-feminist, second and third-wave literature at my local library, my interest was fully piqued. At the time, my major wouldn't allow me to take any subjects in women's studies, but as soon as some spare credits opened up, I shelved my interest in meta-fiction and enrolled in 'Women, Gender and International Politics'.

To be brutally honest, I was at first dismayed. I found that my somewhat masculine way of delivering argument led to my exclusion from discussion. This supposedly inclusive group I'd been reading about was actively excluding me on the basis of my ideas. If they cited appearance or sex, I would have sympathised, but I was there to develop my understanding, and how could I do that without being constantly able to bounce my thoughts off the rest of the class? Nevertheless, as the semester wore on I found myself growing more submissive, more understanding, more feminine. I began to understand what it was to be the other, the downtrodden. For these reasons, I made the decision to identify as an unemployed black lesbian.

Although sexually I am absolutely a man, and although my skin is white and I am very wealthy indeed, I can't help but feel that I don't belong in these groupings. I don't behave like a man - I barely ever hit people, and I don't shout much. I listen to rap music from time to time, and I don't use my credit card that often. Once or twice a week at most, and only for clothes. So anyway, I couldn't help but feel that it would be more honest for me to start identifying more honestly with the groups my behaviour put me in.

In the past, I've been attracted to women, but now that I identify as a lesbian my attractions have taken on a political weight they previously lacked. You've heard of woman-oriented women? Well, I'm a woman-oriented man. At least, I like to fuck them. I refuse to wear make-up or undergo breast augmentation, wear skirts or shave my legs - and I gladly endure the drawbacks I suffer in life for having made these choices. No longer do I have to resign myself to vicariously supporting the struggle through vague communist allusions to 'solidarity' - I know from my reading that now I suffer, despite my appearances, sexuality and socioeconomic status, numerous oppressions that I must fight and overcome. Not without the help of my sisters, of course.

Sadly, I've noticed that more than a little prejudice has been leveled against me, and not from the people you'd expect! Apparently using some stereotype of how an unemployed black lesbian should behave, people are judging me on my skin colour and political orientation. I faced outright hostility in the Womyn's Space, despite my pleas that they should just think of me as a female-to-male transsexual. They treated me like a dilettante - I can't help it if I look like a rich white man! No doubt this is the 'double discrimination' I have read about. Oddly enough, men seem to accept me as readily as they ever did. Sure, I don't come right out and just tell them I'm a black woman - it's a personal matter, not something you just announce - but my consistent efforts to ignore patriarchal dictates have barely been noticed. Just the kind of hypocrisy you'd expect from men! I hope at least that when classes resume, my new identity as the most downtrodden of all will mean my ideas get the attention they deserve.

Frankly, you have to wonder about the women who oppose my decision. I stand for the liberation of all women from the oppression of patriarchy. It's not easy being a woman, let alone black, so you'd think they could cut me some slack here. Clearly the influence of patriarchal capitalism runs deeper than they care to admit. Indeed, I'd suggest that anybody who finds something wrong with my decision take a good long look at their attachment to gendering. In a perfect world, there'd be nothing wrong with a man claiming to be a woman - provided he also acted like one.

Bastet Hatshepsut (formerly Henderson Smith-Whedon)
Baldwin North

(c) 2007 Mr. Morgan

Microsoft and Sanity Offer Consumers Theoretical Chance of Savings

2007-02-01T23:45:00.000+11:00

[Sydney, Feb 1] With the recent release of their new computer operating system, Windows Vista, Microsoft have announced a partnership with Sanity music stores that will offer subscribers access to unlimited downloadable music.

The service, which is yet to be named, will offer unlimited downloads from Sanity's entire database of music - a selection ranging from rock & pop to 'dance' - for an ongoing fee of around AU$60/month. Downloaded tracks can then be copied to as many as one (1) portable media players for the subscriber to listen to wherever he or she wishes. The service remains subscription-only, meaning that cancellation will result in the deletion of all downloaded tracks from the member's hard-disk.

For those who find this prohibitive, the new partnership will also offer consumers the freedom to make permanent downloads from a limited library of individual tracks at a cost of around AU$1.70 per track.

Earlier today, I met with Sanity spokesperson Elran Simyoni to speak about the new service.

The Big News: So Elran - tell us a little about what you're offering here.

Elran Simyoni: Well, essentially we'll be offering a subscription service for -

TBN: Yeah, look I covered that in the introductory paragraphs.

ES: Oh, sorry dude.

TBN: No dramas. Look tell -

ES: I -

TBN: Wh -

ES: No, you go.

TBN: Elran, do you think that with your business model, there's any risk that you'll suffer losses when consumers move from retail media to subscription media?

ES: We think there's a considerable risk of this, but we see it more as being a side-effect of our efforts to offer an even better service to our customers.

TBN: Who would stand to benefit from the new system?

ES: Well, our market research tells us that a significant proportion of our buyers are in a group that enjoys music enough to spend far more than $60/month, every month, for their entire lives on it, but also wouldn't mind giving up ownership of the CD, the case, the insert, and their freedom from DRM in order to save money.

TBN: What about customers who want to make individual downloads?

ES: Well, the service will bring them considerable savings too. Say you know exactly what tracks you want to buy -

TBN: Now, just to be clear - you offer previews of your downloadable tracks?

ES: Every downloadable track has a 30-second preview, yes.

TBN: That's not usually enough to get a good feel for whether you like the song or not. Wouldn't that actually reduce your potential earnings?

ES: Well, most of our customers have usually heard the songs they want elsewhere, like on the radio -

TBN: Or mininova or torrentspy or kazaa.

ES: Are those like Napster? The RIAA has actually shut those services down. Obviously you don't know very much about the internet. Anyway, there's a significant slice of the market who want permanent ownership of their tracks, but don't care about owning the CD or the insert and also don't plan to buy more than 70% of the tracks on an album. Assuming they stay below this threshold, they'll actually save around $5 off the $30RRP of a store-bought album. This is assuming they don't buy from JB, and avoid albums that are more than a year old. The tracks will still have DRM, of course, so you can't burn them onto CDs, but you'll certainly own them until you lose them to a crash.

TBN: Elran, thanks for your time. I'm looking forward to paying Sanity good money for this service.

Despite the spokeperson's customer-friendly tone, Sanity remains a business and must still maintain profitability. Analysts from their marketing and sales division revealed details of this business-plan in an insider memo, but The Big News has obtained advance copies.

For its profitability, the new model relies in part on customers who spend less than $60/month, every month on CDs, but who do so not for reasons of lack of money or desire, but simply because carrying the jewel cases home from the store is so hard. Sanity and Microsoft believe that their elimination of this minor and theoretical inconvenience will be a major draw to such customers who, focus groups indicate, make up well over 60% of Sanity's existing clientele.

The real source of profit, however, will be the internet user. Sanity and Microsoft expect that consumers who, until now, have had access to an unlimited supply of free music will, in response to increasingly harsh penalties for music piracy start to buy their music from online subscription services instead. The alternatives: that they stop downloading altogether, or get a torrent client that uses a proxy IP, are regarded as unlikely in the extreme. If Sanity expect to turn profits from this new partnership, they're certainly keeping quiet about it.

Sanity's competitors, such as HMV, emusic, iTunes MusicStore and JB Hi-Fi seemed delighted to see the deal go ahead, and if the buzz at the press conference was any indication, consumers are really looking forward to the savings they have a slim chance of making with this new service.

Windows Vista retails for:
$440 Vista Home
$480 Vista Home Premium

(c) 2007 Mr. Morgan

[BREAKING NEWS, Feb 3: Sanity's DRM has been cracked. According to reports at boingboing, copy protection can be circumvented by deleting the hidden file 'nocopy.pif' that accompanies every downloaded album. There has been no significant change in consumer interest.]

Feminist Scientists Commission Study to 'Prove Existence of Patriarchy'

2007-01-29T17:53:00.000+11:00

[Boston MA, January 30] In a response to ongoing criticisms that allusions to the existence of an amorphous 'patriarchy' are unscientific and relegate feminism to the status of ontological philosophy, feminist scientists in the United States have commissioned a longitudinal study to independently analyse the existence and development of patriarchal dominance.

Dr. Emily Lewellyn of Boston University described the planned methodology in a faculty conference earlier today. The planned study will involve a longitudinal comparison of the development of two societies over a period of fifteen-thousand years. The control group, consisting of 14,000,000 participants, will be shipped to a reclaimed island-continent in their infancy and raised in the style of pre-agrarian human civilisation. A group of 500,000 scientists, comprising families planted amongst the participants, will monitor the process and record data on the emergence of systemic dominance of women by men from its origins in what researchers hypothesise was a primitivism based on innate physical strength.

The experimental group, of equal size, will be moved to another island. The subgroup of scientists will, in this case, encourage the developing society to respect and love its females and to embrace common humanity while avoiding binary gendering of social roles at all costs. At the end of the fifteen-thousand year period, the two societies will be objectively compared on basis of various demographic, health, and crime statistics such as the quality of women's education and literacy, women's average wages, rape conviction rates, extra-judicial crime surveys and other common indicators of women's quality of life. The need to isolate the two groups on islands was defended as a necessary evil in protecting the participants from external influences which would tar the results with the untraceable mores of patriarchy as it exists in the real world.

Estimates from participant Harvard University's faculty of Economics and Commerce place costs at approximately US$4e10^40, prior to adjustment for inflation. Professor Frederick Wilkinson, in defence of these high costs, reminded funding bodies that losses will be somewhat ameliorated when the economies of the two created civilisations are made to collapse at the end of the study's fifteen-thousand year duration.

The study will enable feminist theorists to trace the development of human civilisation and thus better understand the exact processes of the patriarchal system, providing a scientific basis for what was previously only a postmodern meta-criticism. As Dr Felicity Adams said following the conference, "at last, we will no longer have to rely only on mountains of legal, literary, cultural, criminal and psychological evidence for the existence of patriarchy - finally, we will have proof" (emphasis added).

The four women in charge of the research were pleased at the government's response. "The easiest part was obtaining funding", said Dr. Lewellyn. "Our government is of course sympathetic to the feminist cause, so naturally it's no surprise that their criticisms of the movement turned out to be mere Devil's advocacy. When the time came for them to support us in strengthening our arguments, they were only too willing..."

Successful completion of the study is expected to give feminism much needed ammunition in countering its most ardent critics: wikipedia contributors and men in their early 20s who have never studied feminism. Dr. Adams was jubilant; "as we have seen with the debate on climate change, no amount of social primacy can protect against scientific proof. The successful completion of this study will allow feminists to seriously challenge male dominance in our society".

In order to foot the $4e10^40 bill, funding bodies have elected to lay off 80,000 of their clerical, reception, and cleaning staff, with severe wage reductions for those who remain at work. The predominantly female employees occupying these positions have pledged to unionise and stage public rallies over the coming weeks.

(c) 2007 Mr. Morgan

Women to be Granted Increased Control of Bodies under New Government Initiative

2007-01-27T21:00:00.000+11:00

[Melbourne, 27 January] In a new policy initiative released this week, the Federal Government has revealed plans for joint-ownership of women's bodies, to be administered through the newly formed National Womb and Viewed Bodies Council, the NWVBC. Where previously the state had exercised complete control over women's bodies through legislation on matters ranging from contraception to funding of cancer research, growing pressure from feminist elements in the community has forced a new policy approach granting women a collectivised managerial role in deciding how their bodies are to be used.

Prior to the new initiative, women were only minimally free to exercise decisions that would affect their ability to reproduce or be attractive to male members of society. Emily Richardson of the IWC, a long time critic of states' attempts to control the reproductive and dietary decisions of women, said in a prepared statement that "a government's desire to control women's bodies is borne of a fear of our power to exercise choice in a system that relies on us to produce new humans. Women have essentially been treated as vassals or commodities in an arrangement that could only benefit the state, and was often to the detriment of women everywhere". Women, placed under considerable pressure to reproduce, would often find themselves having to raise unwanted children, resulting in unhappy and unproductive offspring.

The federal minister for women, Mr. Dale Pedder, said yesterday that he was aware of Richardson's criticisms and that the government had taken them on board in drafting its new policy initiative. "This new initiative, along with the formation of the NWVBC, is a response to long-standing criticisms of the government's methods in securing the nation's reproductive future. We realise that together we can find a better way to meet both our needs. For too long the state has cast itself in opposition to women, but when we accept both the desires of women and the needs of the nation, everybody benefits".

In the corporate world, ownership does not necessarily denote control. Under the new scheme, women would essentially take on a collective role as CEOs in charge of the NWVBC. Although the government would still technically retain ownership of their bodies, women would be granted a greatly increased ability to effect important decisions on reproduction and dress choice. Through bi-weekly meetings with a local representative, women within each electoral division would deliberate on parameters for reproduction, diet, clothing and other personal matters with broader implications for the running of the nation. The representative would then take their decisions to a biannual meeting with an NWVBC subcommittee, along with around 130 other representatives. A chief representative would then sit on the board of the NWVBC alongside the Minister for Women and select other cabinet members such as the Health and Labour Ministers.

In this way, a demand by local women that they, for example, be given non-prescription access to emergency contraception could be brought to government and, subject to approval, become policy within less than a year. Despite the risks inherent to the plan, the Minister stressed that the state would retain overarching control. "Although women will have greatly increased decision-making power, the state still retains ownership and thus controls the philosophy and mission of the NWVBC. Broadly speaking, this still dictates that the role of women be reproduction and the provision of sexual arousal for men. Women possess immense power in determining the existence of a future workforce for the state, and our nation will have no hope of competing in an international market when decisions of that magnitude are kept from responsible government bureaucracy and left in the hands of individuals".

Andrea Watkins of the Liberal Women's Foundation has welcomed the changes. "This new initiative will give women complete control of their biological and reproductive selves", said Watkins at a press-conference earlier this week, quickly adding "within reason, of course". Despite her initial enthusiasm, Watkins nevertheless expressed doubts that the policy alone would prove an effective means of maintaining reproductive output. "I'm happy that now there's a chance only those women who actually want children will have them, but there's a danger this might result in a sharp drop in birthrate". For an initiative of this nature to succeed, non-governmental controls must also be in place. Government funded organisations such as the Catholic Church-administered National Birth Counselling Centre, which will now serve as counterbalance to the political clout of the NWVBC.

Similar programs have been trialled in the Netherlands and across Northern Europe with varying levels of success. However it remains to be seen whether the new policy will strike the right balance between the happiness and freedom of women and Australia's ongoing need for a new generation of consumers. The initiative certainly does seem to indicate an understanding on the part of government that the national interest can in fact benefit from a more liberal approach to administering women's decisions.

(c) 2007 Mr. Morgan

Editorial: Clarifying on 'Hatred'

2007-01-26T13:13:00.000+11:00

The male readers of The Big News, who come for its frank exploration of political issues, have recently taken issue with what they claim is a 'satirical streak' in many of the articles here, particularly those on feminism and women's liberation. Evidently, it has caused certain articles to mutate into little more than pro-feminist tracts, unfairly supplanting economic liberal and men's rights perspectives. I hope soon to redress this balance and turn The Big News into a publication in which no opinion is more or less valid than any other.

To this end, I present you now with the first in a series of editorials clarifying the position of men on woman's liberation and indeed all emancipation and liberation-based social movements. To bring the uninitiated reader up to speed I will first clarify the debate and explain exactly what is at stake.

The term 'White Male', it seems, has taken on a use something similar to a racial epithet. It is no longer a neutral description of skin-colour and sex, but has been appropriated by feminists to conveniently simplify and concisely describe the almost comically overcomplicated and self-contradictory milieu that is liberal-democratic polity. Writing as if from a literally 'radical' perspective, the view imparts a superiority in the act of stepping back from society and seeing its opinions within a 'broader context', often of 'oppression'. To reduce what I, with gay abandon, call complexity of opinion to little more than a label smacks very much of the 'oppression' these women claim to oppose.

Incidentally, I wonder why 'White' is capitalised - usually it's done to distinguish a term from a broader descriptive, but if 'White' means white people, then what would the scope of 'white' cover? Albinos? The Klan? I wouldn't be so agitated if feminists could admit their obvious confusion. Assuming, for simplicity's sake, that there is no real need for strict definitions, I shall simply assume White Male refers literally to all men. Interpretation is nine-tenths of the language, as they say, and in the absence of sufficient clarity I consider it my right to simply assume a term means whatever will justify a vindictive response. Thus, I will present a defence of all men against these feminist accusations of 'hate', dispelling the feminist myth (as I interpret their writings) that privilege will necessarily lead all men to cruel and proactive hatred.

It is often said, particularly by Dworkin, Greer, Jeffreys, McKinnon and various other theorists that men 'hate' women. Whether you call it corroborating evidence or mass hysteria, this is one of the most insidious part-truths of the feminist movement, and I must cast off non-participant civility and challenge their assertion in the most emphatic terms imaginable: no, we don't. The reality is far more complicated than that - so complex, in fact, that in my opinion there is no hope of ever fully describing it. If this valiant attempt can be treated as a comprehensive analysis to the point of actively marginalising opposing views, though, then all the better for men everywhere.

'Hate' is a loaded term that tars an entire spectrum of opinions with the harms of their eventual outcomes. The truth is that most men probably wouldn't consider women at all when they were voting, framing government or corporate policy, or mulling over whether their drunk girlfriend had consented or not. Of course, a strict adherence to individual gain and hedonism does not necessarily deem a person's acts worthy of the label 'hateful'. Even the more charitable 'negligently destructive' or 'borne of a callous disregard for humanity' lack the whitewashing power of 'Men's Rights Advocacy', a more neutral term for the ideas feminists call 'hateful'. These men, rightly or wrongly, see themselves as victims at the hands of a system that, in their view, overwhelmingly favours women. They would, particularly if the accusation came from a woman, shudder with barely contained rage at the suggestion that they 'hate' any or all women.

Bruce McKinley, the visibly intoxicated head of Husband's Rights International, said in a limited release statement earlier this week that "if those [women] would just [realise how much it hurts to lose a child] then those [women] might start to treat us like we deserve to be treated! [those blamed women!]". The comments, edited here due to profanity laws, were met with thunderous applause. McKinley then spent three hours on the telephone telling his estranged wife that he was 'so, so sorry', before violating an injunction to leave a bunch of flowers and a cheap teddy-bear outside the bedroom window of her friend's home, where she was staying. Are these the actions of a man who 'hates' women? In a pluralistic society, answers would range from 'yes' to 'no', leaving the debate open to different perceptions depending on one's standpoint. There is no strict truth - only perception.

Another common target of feminists are the policy-makers of government. While it's certainly possible to paint Men's Rights Advocates as unfortunate victims, freeing them from the brunt of societal critique, this is not so easy for the well paid family men of Government. Their motivations might be less confused, but politicians are no less certain of their own morals, and their adherence to them despite overwhelming evidence of harm is worthy of nothing less than awe. When a politician speaks of banning abortion, or even when the political climate is judged too hostile and he merely dog-whistles a personal opposition to women's freedoms to his more conservative constituents, he is not doing so out of a hatred for women - he speaks out of a love for his own ethics so powerful as to trump the needs of half of humankind. Hardly what any balanced man would call 'hatred'.

Indeed, even this relatively neutral editorial could be interpreted as woman-hating. It is important to read it through a post-structuralist lens, however. My views, and the views of The Big News are not realised through a literal reading of the articles here, but should be taken in current context. This measured response against accusations of hatred would appear to be grossly disproportionate in a social situation where women were the victims. That feminist critiques can be so grossly disproportionate in their attacks on men shows a rather blinkered awareness of reality, and a recalcitrant adherence to their own political views.

In the view of the mainstream, hatred is a term better reserved for fervent and righteous anger, not the regrettable side-effects of honourable and chivalrous self-belief. Assuming these accusations are the best feminists can manage, theirs is surely a theory in peril.

(c) 2007 Mr. Morgan

Libertarians Against Racism

2007-01-15T21:01:00.000+11:00

[Washington, D.C. - January 13, 14]: this weekend, young Libertarians from across the North American continent converged on the capital for their yearly conference, a 48-hour-long debating session in which the promising young leaders of the future put their capable heads together and attempt to work out potential solutions to the problems facing the nation - and the world. This year, the task they had chosen to undertake was the problem of racism.

These young defenders of liberty, hailing from backgrounds ranging from middle class to upper-middle class, were brought together by a common cause, said event coordinator Francis Hilden. "Basically, we see ourselves as a helpful middle ground in politics. We have the privilege to speak for any number of groups, and we intend to use it carefully". In the current climate, Libertarians are at the political centre, and see themselves as a sensible middle ground between the 'extremist' GOP and 'extremist' Democrats. "We bring sensible, moderate and centrist beliefs to politics. We are driven by no agenda".

Hilden was not presumptuous in stating this, as following two days of vigorous debate, the convention debate reached its final conclusion. As attendee Jill Albrecht remarked, "boy, racism really is bad". Despite having reached such a completely unequivocal conclusion, the group had certainly not grown stagnant. Significant disagreement remained on how exactly to combat racism.

"[White people] are generally the wealthiest in our society", said Hilden, hastily pointing out that it was an unfortunate fact of life and not a racist sleight. He went on to explain that given their comparative wealth and power, it was white people who were best suited to influencing government in order to overcome racism through policy.

Discussion covered such vexed issues as whether targeted or broadly scoped policy was most appropriate. This reporter has the utmost respect for these young people who, had they not taken it upon themselves to consider such things, could instead have been out having fun with their friends. One argument, on the prevalence of reverse racism and the pitfalls of affirmative action policy, dragged on well into the small hours. "At first, I thought we were just all going to nod along as Francis [Hilden] talked about how black people are more likely to be harassed by police or how they don't get paid as much as [white people]", said Rebecca Simmons. Rebecca was soon relieved to find that homogeneity was not a strong suit of the libertarian, as many counterpoints about the prevalence of anti-white racism, such as the emergence of the term 'cracker', along with the fact one attendee's brother was once assaulted by a black man, were brought to light.

The underlying realities of racism were also examined in depth. "I remember reading a newspaper report about how a young black man was beaten up by a gang in my neighbourhood - I felt awful for him", said Albrecht. "Then, I discovered it was because he'd been robbing a house, so I really don't know - there are obviously complexities that we don't all immediately appreciate".

The idea that racism could somehow by maintained by sociocultural systems was laughed off by Hilden. "People of colour don't have any systemic privilege, right? And we know for a fact that they can be just as racist as white people". This reporter can't help but agree with his reasoning. Social power is only accepted as a dimension of racism in radical theories - it is hardly what anybody would call the 'academic mainstream'. Albrecht too told me that "racism is kind of a pet topic - every academic field and political standpoint has an opinion". It's rather like climate change - there are environmentalists and there are other scientists. Until you've heard everybody's opinion, there's no way to form a complete understanding.

Their ages ranging from late teens to early 20s, attendees expressed relief when the conference was over. "It's hard, you know", said Simmons. "Having to think about racism like that was really difficult. It feels great to go home and just plonk down in front of the TV, knowing you've at least done a little good". Attendees in general expressed their regret at not being able to do more. "We have all this power, but no matter how it's used it seems to just maintain racism", one youngster regretfully told me. Surely the helplessness he felt is without parallel.

In a political world increasingly polarised between social conservatives and economic radicals, it's a relief to find a group of young, vibrant Americans who are willing to treat all citizens - from the individual to the multinational corporation - as equals. "We're all going to have to work together to find a way of using the economy to overcome economic disadvantage", Simmons told me as she left the conference centre. "We know that ethnic workers are generally underpaid - we need to find a way, maybe with an NGO or charity, to take that money out of corporate profits and put it back in their communities ... maybe by repairing a damaged school or putting young unemployed men into work programs". From the glint in her eye, I could tell she had a lot more thinking to do on this matter. "If we can encourage our corporations to be more philanthropic, it benefits us all equally".

Fighting racism is a constant battle - everybody has stress in their lives, and the natural human temptation to blame a certain segment of society can infect us all. In their brave attempt to find a solution that not only combats a major social problem, but also leaves society's economic and cultural systems completely unchanged, these bright-eyed youngsters have had their first taste of American politics, but were unflinching.

Next year's convention topic has already been planned. 'The Problem of Homosexuality' promises to be just as fascinating as 'Combating Racism', with debate slated to cover questions such as whether being gay is actually a choice or not, and whether the term 'homophobic' is descriptive or pejorative. Whether any homosexuals will actually attend is not known, but the organising committee assured me that they had put in place no barriers to their attendance. One thing is for certain: the event promises to be every bit as productive as this year's.

(c) 2007 Mr. Morgan

Abysmal Internet Humour

2007-01-13T18:59:00.000+11:00

I was busy stumbling upon websites and what have you when I faced yet another example of that appalling internet staple - the ad for old computer hardware. It certainly puts our technological advancement in perspective - rather like how archaeologists must have felt exhuming King Tut. 'Get a load of this guy, he died when he was like 30! Their medical science must have sucked shit!' etc.

Well, I was so enraged I made this:

I hope everybody loves it. I know this is a pitiful first post back after the break - I have plenty of ideas but none of them have come to the kind of fruition I demand and my two readers deserve.

(c) 2007 Mr. Morgan

The Trouble with Radical Feminism

2006-09-14T16:41:00.000+10:00

(real warning: potentially triggering content on attitudes to rape in paragraph three)

In my guises as either a left-wing or feminist man, I often face discrimination. In point of fact, I am doubly discriminated against, both by feminist women and non-feminist men. From this experience, it is clear that the discrimination is not due to my gender - otherwise I would have been more accepted by my male peers - but due to the ideology itself. This is not, however, to assume that all feminists face equal discrimination. The fact is, and it might surprise you to learn this, that within the ideology there are numerous separate strains, if you will, each of which with its own beliefs, and each claiming to be the one 'true' feminism - and each of these strains attracts a particular level of abuse from real society. You would of course assume that the mantle of 'true feminism' would go to the approach that emancipates women from their oppression, and empowers them in both their public and private lives. Nothing, but nothing, could be further from the truth!

While women might embrace a theoretical radical feminist understanding, the fact is that sooner or later they will have to deal with reality - with men - and in these cases, a more feminine approach is required. I'm sure you've experienced it on many occasions - you're discussing a legitimate feminist issue such as women's suffrage or the right to equal pay, and suddenly somebody comes out with a crazy idea about how pornography oppresses women - even the women who freely choose to work in the field! While there is certainly room for debate on these issues, the proper venue is not a discussion about feminism, but a university philosophy class. Allowing such matters to intrude into feminist debate merely serves to disparage the choices of those no doubt numerous women who love working in sex industry jobs that radical feminists deign to call 'oppressive', 'terrifying' or 'incredibly dangerous'. Though I concede there may be incidental, isolated harms, these are no more fundamental to sex work than killing was to colonial settlement, and the fact is that these industries provide women with an income, and thus the ability to live independently within what radical feminists are pleased to call an 'oppressive' society. It is unfortunate, but realise, ladies, that when you demand your rights, attempting also to dictate terms might be damaging to the cause.

The issue here is practicality. For a woman to demand equality in law is one thing, but to expect it in reality is quite another. Given that high levels of misogyny are inevitable in a human society, it is ludicrous to expect men to simply bow down and say 'I hereby pledge to treat you as equals and to respect you without regard for your gender', and we certainly won't do it when you make us all feel like rapists. I don't think a woman could imagine this, but being accused of rape is quite the most awful feeling in the world. Hardly the way to keep a man receptive to your ideas, is it? Although it is not my place to advise women, there is no question that if they just made more reasonable requests, then their movement would be taken a whole lot more seriously.

Incidentally, as I am now speaking on women's rights in general, I believe that it would be politically advantegeous for radical feminists to acknowledge the steps that have been taken to their benefit. Can they, for example, imagine having the freedom to spout their ideas were it not for the freedoms they enjoy - each carefully enshrined in our laws? To use this freedom simply to complain is an insult to the work of their forefathers. Furthermore, to imply that enshrinement of rights in law is somehow not a complete picture, or that there are ways for rights to be infringed outside the realm of legislation is an unprecedented theoretical jibe at what is in its essence a practical ideology. Men, whose rights have long been enshrined in law, have also long enjoyed these rights in their day to day lives without the need for additional provisions. To think that women are somehow 'special' in that they might be oppressed in ways unique to their sex is as inane a claim as to demand access to abortion be protected in law. Speaking more specifically: to codify a special set of rights that in practice only applies to half the population is a crude malappropriation of a system that, while not perfect, strives constantly for equality. These fine institutions were not built to indulge radical feminists in their twisted vision of an 'equality' that can only be got at the detriment of men.

At the end of the day, however, the greatest damage radical feminism does to the cause is not done by the demands themselves, but through the lack of tact and understanding with which they are made. As a white male, I am aware of all the limitations my experience of life places on my ability to understand feminism, but I must say that never have my sensibilities been more offended than on the occasions I have had to listen to radical feminists put words in the mouths of sex workers that, up to now, I had been able to speak for. Poststructuralism was not created to deny men a voice, it was created to legitimise the experiences of the most downtrodden. When privileged feminists think they have the right to speak for the voiceless, it doesn't make them look smart - it makes them look uppity.

Not to me, but to other men I'm sure - and they're the ones feminists have to convince. So take my advice, ladies, and I'm sure you'll go far.

(c) 2006 Mr. Morgan
special thanks to Liah

Two Essays Due Thursday

2006-09-08T20:27:00.001+10:00

My most humble apologies to you, my avid readers. I've been doing the sort of half-arsed yet time consuming work that only I can do. This will all end next Thursday when the requisite 4000 words have been written, and I'll be back at work writing for truth, justice, and the other whosits - the American thingy. Curds, that's the one.

Seriously, it's a post about terrorism. Look forward to it.

It's fairly clear that NatalieDee is an inspiration of mine. I have a whole pile of these shonky drawings ensconced in a secret directory on my PC - saved for when I haven't time to write anything substantial. I hope it brightens your collective days.

(c) 2006 Mr. Morgan

Abortion and the Human Rights of Women

2006-08-25T12:51:00.000+10:00

As somebody who has long opposed what feminists are pleased to call a woman's 'right to choose', I have considered it my privileged position to focus my attention in this debate on philosophical arguments about the nature and tangibility of consciousness, rather than so-called 'practical' notions of social power and gender inequality. Before any decision can be made on abortion law, we must define the terms of the debate and bring it to a conclusion. It seems to me that until we can answer fundamentally unanswerable questions about sentience, the fact that women who seek abortion are abused and shunned will remain largely irrelevant, especially in male-dominated societies.

However, even those of us whose bodies free us from having a vested interest in the outcome of this debate have, despite our thus guaranteed rationality, tended to miss one of its most vital dimensions. Too long tied up in ontological arguments about the humanity or potential humanity of the embryo, and thus its right to life under the UN charter, we have lost sight of a more pressing question. That question is as follows: at what stages should women reliably be called human? The right to life need not be limited semantically to an entitlement to have one's infant heart continue beating - it must also extend to the ability to live life, to experience its many colours. From a purely functional standpoint, to grant this right to a pregnant woman would have all kinds of consequent implications for the human rights of the foetus in her womb.

Do not mistake my intentions - it is not my hope to arbitrarily deny women their freedom. Insofar as the denial of abortion rights is a foregone conclusion, though, women have done as much to themselves in becoming pregnant - quite ironically, given they have long said: 'their body, their choice'. My goal is to conclude reasonably whether the practical needs of the society weigh so heavily on a woman's right to an abortion that we must deny those rights by denying her her humanity in law - temporarily, of course. Though my argument might well have practical implications, I can assure you it is purely out of a desire for truth that I conduct it. That abortion is, in most parts of the world, already illegal even with this argument still unfinished is testament to this claim.

As far as the UN charter is concerned, women (included technically under the heading 'human') are guaranteed a right to life. When this right infringes the same right in her foetus, questions of the woman's humanity must necessarily, and perhaps regrettably, arise. In reality, there are practical limits to this freedom. Regardless of whether the foetus or embryo technically constitutes a human life, the fact remains that an abortion ends a human life and is thus in breach of the charter. Since the humanity of the foetus is a foregone and unarguable conclusion, its mother may not deny its right to life - and yet some would say that being unable to opt out of pregnancy denies the mother this very same right.

This would appear to be a logical impasse, but it is at this point that the paths of social reality and philosophical argument diverge. Imply though it does that a woman's ability to gestate a new life far outstrips any other work she might do over a minimum of nine months, the fact is that a woman's ability to produce new life remains her most important biological function. To give her the freedom to flout this obligation would be to embrace a doctrine of human rights that values the experiences and choices of a living being over the outcome of an abstract argument.

Suicide was once illegal, as it was considered the theft of a soul from God. In a similar vein, I think it stands to reason that an abortion is a theft of a new life from the state. It is only for this, and no other sinister reason, that a woman must temporarily be denied control of her body while pregnant. The most cogent legal road to this is simply to deny her humanity. Consider what's at stake here: if the UN charter cannot protect an unborn human's freedom to engage in primitive neuroreflexive movement, what hope has it got of protecting the many needs of a pregnant woman? It is perhaps true that forcing a woman to carry her child to term, then raise him, would cause her significant physical or financial harm, but it would stand to reason that any government that sought to deny her right to choose would - with the best possible intent - move to ensure these other peripheral needs were met. Otherwise such a law would undoubtedly appear discriminatory, and the harm to any incumbent's reputation would be irreparable. Living in a world where those in charge clearly care so much about her welfare, would not any woman be proud to temporarily give up her rights to honour those who granted them in the first place?

(c) 2006 Mr. Morgan