Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Nerdanel

John C. Wright and gender relationships

401 posts in this topic

You may remember when the science fiction author John C. Wright caused some controversy with his anti-homosexual comments. Well, here he goes again, with a long and rambling essay showcasing his totally-not-misogyny misogyny and how the modern gender relations are wrong, wrong, wrong. It's not a very good essay, but I'll try to pick up some of the main points.

Girls are not taught to be feminine and modest; boys are not taught self-command and decency. When mixed, narcissistic cruelly selfish males will then simply exploit, as far as they can, the narcissistic but defenseless females.

Wright thinks men can relate to women in only two ways, neither of which actually involves respecting their intelligence:

The practical attitude is that women are dickless men, easy to beat up, fun to ravish, emotionally vulnerable and easy to manipulate. This is the attitude of the cads, including everyone from Bill Clinton to Hugh Hefner to Solomon the Wise, and every man who gave in to the werewolflike hunger.

The mystical attitude is that women, because they are weak, and precious, and fair, the mother of your children and the hearth and heart of your soul, must be served with the devotion of supine priests in ancient rites their pagan goddesses, or knights who pray and fast before an icon of the Virgin.

Wright has a massive virgin/whore dichotomy going on, you see, in addition to his cad/decent man like himself dichotomy. He also can't help injecting economic theory into the discussion.

If female promiscuity is the norm, however, natural marketplace forces (the desire of young men to gratify themselves with minimal cost for maximal gain) prevents the monopoly. A woman cannot demand a man come virgin to her marriage bower, and cannot demand a vow of eternal fidelity before she bestows upon him that most precious jewel in her possession.

Note the words "most precious jewel in her possession". That's what Wright sees virginity as, instead of inexperience.

The equalization of men and women in the sexual sphere leads to more male hatred for women.

The explanation behind the quote is that if a woman belongs to the "whore" category by being sexually active and then actually rejects someone, that's unfair.

Wright knows that women are weak, hapless victims vulnerable to male predation, common sense and SCIENCE says so:

Modern science had hinted that chemical changes in the brain addict a women to the man who seduces her.

We also get to learn what John C. Wright thinks of the pedophile protection scandal plaguing his Catholic Church. He doesn't think it's worthy of much mention, either in general or in his blog.

The police now do the work that a sense of decency used to do. Instead of the workable if hierarchic system of the old regime, we now have a Napoleon called Political Correctness—and we cannot even talk honestly any more about sex and chastity, decency, modesty, romance, and love. The only thing we talk about these days is how bad homosexual Catholic priest are, and how good homosexual everyone else is.

Priorities!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny: I'd thought that the "old regime" prevented and, indeed, was designed to prevent talking honestly about sex and chastity, decency, modesty, romance, and love...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I may be able to respond later, but right now I'm too busy vomiting. His commenters' thoughts are worse than (?) the essay itself.

Of course, I imagine that once people start posting to disagree with him, they'll be 1) deleted, 2) derailed, 3) dismissed, and/or 4) denigrated. I haven't really read that in-depth, because I find JCW's premises repulsive and unsupportable. (Women are defenseless, women's only worth is a mucus membrane, pedophilia and homosexuality are OF COURSE the same thing....)

I am modern enough -- barely -- to acknowledge that offering suffrage to women and allowing them to own property in their own name is demanded by simple justice, and carries with it only mildly intolerable drawbacks. It is this equality that all modern women should cherish, and should give grateful thanks to their forefathers for being beaten into yielding this same to their foremothers.

How this suffers the metamorphosis into a desire to teach all young girls about masturbation and condom use in the fourth grade, and to rob them of any socially acceptable excuse to deflect an unwanted suitor, is something I cannot explain, but perhaps a historian, a student of abnormal psychiatry, or a student of the diabolical could -- since I suspect a psychopathological if not hellish origin for the mental link between equality and harlotry.

EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW EW. Asshole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been lurking on John C. Wright's blog for some time and I've learned that he's VERY ban-happy. There was this one post (I think) months ago that I'm not going to bother digging up right now where he talked about what gets him to ban posters and delete their posts. One example was a poster who had corrected his use of "Democrat Party" instead of "Democratic Party" which was SO totally ban-worthy for trying to enforce political correctness, Wright's pet bugbear.

The only way to disagree unbanned on that blog in the long term is to disagree from a right-wing perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, now I'm remembering where I've heard his name before. There was a lot of racism controversy during and after WorldCon involving his wife, and he weighed in as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case you wonder, John C. Wright IS racist too, although I'm sure he'd deny it. He's also a global warming denier, etc.

Judeo-Christian ethics and orthodoxy is the prime target of the specter, and Greco-Roman philosophy and Anglo-American law being revered by the Left only in those areas where they assist in the corruption of Judeo-Christian ethics. For example, a postmodernist who claims that all language is an act of oppression meant to cow the weak into accepting the societal myths of the strong, if he were logically consistent rather than politically consistent, would also condemn science as merely one more narrative myth of oppression. However political consistency trumps intellectual consistency. Respect for the expertise of science is trotted out where convenient, such as during a debate on man-made global warming; but the respect evaporates with remarkable suddenness if the debate turns to other scientific matters, such as the difference between I.Q. scores of whites and blacks, or the relatively low number of women excelling in math and science. When the scientists actually investigate false claims with rigorous scientific skepticism, such as during a debate on man-made global warming, the various political tactics used to quell dissent from the narrative myth of oppression are eagerly employed and justified by the self-same postmodernist. And, in a like fashion, those part of the Anglo-American notion of liberty the Liberals see as undermining Judeo-Christian morality, such as the liberty to commit prenatal infanticide, or the liberty to commit sodomy and demand public celebration, nay, to compel Churches to perform and recognize such perversions as matrimony, those are somehow found in the Constitution of the United States or the Magna Charter. The freedom to express unpopular political views, to practice one’s religion, or to keep and bear arms, these are regarded as peripheral to the Constitution.

Emphasis mine for the "scientific" racism bit, but that essay too really is a remarkable heap of stupidity in its entirety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read The Golden Age series and enjoyed it greatly. The libertarian aspects of it are kinda amusing but he got a great imagination.

Too bad he had a hearth attack and got bitten by Jesus while in Limbo.(Although I suspect he was never that much of nice person)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing like good ol' John C. Wright to sky rocket your blood pressure level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will never understand how the same man who wrote that could have written The Golden Age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll never understand why an extremely obscure, relatively new science fiction writer thinks that the best way of getting people to read his books is to slag off the majority of his readers. When you hit the bestseller lists you can start being an obnoxious twat, but doing it before then is ill-advised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll never understand why an extremely obscure, relatively new science fiction writer thinks that the best way of getting people to read his books is to slag off the majority of his readers. When you hit the bestseller lists you can start being an obnoxious twat, but doing it before then is ill-advised.

Jesus told him so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus told him so?

Ah, but if he'd waited until he was a bigger success, he could his enlightened (retch) message across to a bigger audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy smokes. What a loon, and what a readership full of loons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good story in Songs of the Dying Earth though. One of the middle-ranking ones, but still decent, and I'd have probably checked out his books if it wasn't for the fact that his rants seem to have alienated potential British publishers from printing him over here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, but if he'd waited until he was a bigger success, he could his enlightened (retch) message across to a bigger audience.

I think he lives in an extreme right-wing bubble. "Reality" is different there. His blog is actually a fun read if you like to play spot-the-fallacy and can contain the desire to rebut them since trying will only get you banned.

I'd so like to see a debate between him and R. Scott Bakker...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd so like to see a debate between him and R. Scott Bakker...

This needs to be arranged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I met him once, thought he was nice enough (though I'm a white male, so duh). But I stopped reading his blog ages ago because of stuff like this. And I certainly won't read/buy any of his books and I'll happily warn people off of them.

I'd really love it if he were completely off the radar screen and simply ignored, but posts like this are necessary to warn off people from his nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only thing we talk about these days is how bad homosexual Catholic priest are, and how good homosexual everyone else is.

The really outrageous thing is that he apparently thinks homosexual equals paedophile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, but if he'd waited until he was a bigger success, he could his enlightened (retch) message across to a bigger audience.

Yes, but that's the problem with success. It only serves to make people more fully who they already were. So, you see, there's absolutely no way he could hold off :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.