Sunday, September 26, 2010

What's the point of Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

Looking for pictures of Earthrise over the moon, I ran across this comment by a refreshingly non-brainwashed person:

> So I know that Buffy has always been known as a show that has a lot of depth, and responds well to analysis, but I just wasn’t able to see it in the episode we watched in class.

> I have several friends who are die-hard Buffy fans, and I’ve always heard of it in relation to its exploration of gender issues. However, when I saw the episode in class (my first), I didn’t really get it. I mean sure, it has a badass female protagonist who can stand up for herself, but so do plenty of other things. Maybe its just because the show is 13 years old, but I don’t see what it did that was so special.

Here's my answer to that question.

The point about Buffy is that a girl can be a brainless ditz and even an abusive bitch yet still be lauded as a great leader. The more she moans, complains and whines, the more heroic she is. The great "gender reversal" of the show is that women can assault and rape their significant others and get away with it scot free, because it shows they're "strong". Just as strong as men!

[Of course, the REAL point about Buffy is that Joss Whedon's got a peculiar sexual fetish for young strong bitchy girls who show naked feet which he's managed to broadcast all over television. But I doubt you want to think about that so let's pretend it's purely political. And speaking of politics,]

In a word, it's misandry. Something that's become disgustingly common in the last few decades when women suddenly decided they wanted an equal share of modern technological society despite not having contributed a single iota to the advance of science, technology, or industry in the entire 100,000 years the human species has been alive. For instance, obstetrics didn't start progressing until men got involved in it - not a coincidence.

In fact, women don't have the slightest clue what they're good for besides pumping out babies so now that we don't really care (or want) to pump babies anymore, they've suddenly (it's a coincidence!) decided they've been the victims of oppression by males in every single society on Earth for the last 10,000+ years. As proof consider that a minority of murder victims are women - in a just world only men would ever die or drop out of school or suffer in any way. Since men acceding to women's desires to not accomplish anything in public life obviously makes women victims, their victim status entitles them to victimize in turn. An eye for an eye, that's fair right?

The reason women don't know what they're good for isn't because they're good for nothing, it's because they're stupid so they can't figure it out themselves. I'm going to give away the secret here though: women are responsible for all the psychological advances which permit and encourage the existence of modern civilization. There's quite a bit of difference between the medieval societies of Pakistan or India which have nukes and the 19th century French who didn't. The French were vastly more socially and psychologically advanced, that's what. A mere century ago, India still practiced infanticide - think about that.

Of course, the feminazis don't like to dwell on that because all that psychological advance is tied to having babies and raising children. Something they don't want. And it's no coincidence at all that they're ugly (google Andrea Dworkin if you want nightmares) or lesbians. I mean, it's not like more than 99% of 19th and early 20th century feminists were lesbians. I'm sure it was no greater than 90%. And I'm sure the percentage of lesbians has gone way down now they've accepted ugly fat man-hating bitches into their ranks.

Yes, I have a bit of a problem with anyone buying into the notion of "let's undermine the progressive half of the population out of spite, bitterness and sour grapes". Sue me.

I have an even bigger problem with the fact that according to statistics there is one third as many women who are my intellectual equals as men. How the fuck are you supposed to find a significant other who's your match in those circumstances? Yes I'm bitter, but I don't want to wreck the world because of it.


Anonymous said...

Infanticide stops being a cultural norm not because women decide to be better mothers but because of the influence of, basically, Judaism through Christianity and Islam. The Brits ended infanticide in India because it offended their Christian sensibilities.

Richard Kulisz said...

And so in your view it would be a total coincidence that Jews had better mothers. Presumably, it would also be a total coincidence that German Jews were sexually liberated, carefree and wealthy when their non-Jewish compatriots were pretty uniformly psychotic due to being tortured as children. And it would be a total coincidence that Germans resented Jews and chose to torture them in humiliating and infantilizing manners.

But do you know what you've said that's really dumb? The ridiculous claim, said in a casual manner no less, that there is such a thing as "Christian sensibilities". As if the Christians of 500 CE had sensibilities even remotely comparable to those of 1900 CE. As if the Christians of Ireland were fundamentally similar to the Christians of Northern Europe. And so on and so forth.

You know what else the Brits tried to end because they were offended by it? Officially-sanctioned pedophilia. Except even after India made it illegal, Indian parents widely *defended pedophilia*. Where does that fact enter into your moronic "bad cultural norms don't reflect the mothers are horrible" worldview? You moronic fucking relativist.

Richard Kulisz said...

And while I'm at it, Christianity started up as a psycho-social movement to adopt abandoned infants instead of leaving them to die. Christianity in other words was nothing more than a choice to be better parents. All the supernatural crap overlaid on top of it had absolutely nothing to do with anything. Especially since it conflicted from one early Christian community to another, and the only unifying element was ending infanticide. And this habit that defined Christians was also why Christianity spread so rapidly and why they were deemed a political threat. Not just in numbers but also to the whole Roman Way Of Life. About as much of a threat as cooperatives and socialists are to the American Way Of Life.

Misophile said...

No matter what feminism demands, it is always putting women in a bad light. Either women are to be made into into men, or else treated through the lens of an all-forgiving, ever-acquiescing infantilization -- Her Majesty's capricious little angels. They should not (and cannot) be men. Nor should they be children (in whose presence we'd never be so blunt). They should be mature. Ditto for men's rights activism. Come to think of it, maturity is what all social movements should ask for from members of society, but that is asking too much from members of social movements.


Richard Kulisz said...

Activists are chaotic good submissives, so you've got that right. I can only speculate the idiocy comes from their thorough infiltration with chaotic neutrals.

Though, narcissists and psychopaths find it easy to infiltrate any kind of institution that's in rapid flux so you'll find ideologues and other vermin.

But yeah, trusting to activists is broken from the get go since they don't have the Presence to make functioning movements.