Today, an excerpt of Chapter 13 from Everything You Believe Is Wrong. As before, this is a brief excerpt from a long chapter which investigates the feminine.
You may also download a PDF of the entire first chapter (with Table of Contents).
The Feminine Form
Women do not have the right to do what they would with their own bodies. Men don’t either. To say that women have a “right” to do what they want their bodies is the Women’s Bodies Fallacy. To say that only women have a right to decide matters pertaining to women because they are women is the same fallacy, but one usually married to the Voting Fallacy.
If only women can decide laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to women, because they are women, then it would seem to follow that bodily characteristic dictates who gets to decide what. Men only should decide laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to men, because they are men. Women have to shut up in these cases, as men have to keep quiet when women are deciding things about themselves.
Why restrict these kinds of legal apartheid by only sex? There is no rational reason to stop at sex—and, in some actual cases, we don’t. Restricting decision making in certain instances by biological or other characteristics can make eminent sense.
We only allow citizens to vote in federal elections, for example. (Some dispute that, of course.) Birthright, or a complicated legal “adoption” procedure, separates who has the right to vote and who hasn’t. We don’t open the vote for where to go to lunch to the outside world, and only allow members belonging to the office to have a say. We might weight the opinions of seniors greater than teenagers when deciding on reduced fairs for the subway. Many other examples will come to mind.
So why is it that restricting rule-making by sex seems odd? Again, why only sex? Why not sexual “orientation”? Pedophiles get to decide on the rules pertinent to them because they are pedophiles? Why not left-handed Asian stamp collectors? Left-handed Asian stamp collectors get to decide on the rules pertinent to them because they are left-handed Asian stamp collectors? We start down that road until we eventually arrive at individuals.
Only each individuals gets to to decide the laws and rules that pertain to him because only the individual knows what’s best for him alone. The result is complete and genuine anarchy. This is the system where there are no rules, no rights, no laws, no rewards and no punishments. Chaos. It is, in fact, satanic. This isn’t hyperbole. The satanic dictum is Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. There is no seeming way to arrest this slippery slope if we allow general rule-making by characteristic. So let’s try something else.
We cannot have each individual decide what is best for her alone, yet at least for argument’s sake, we want to allow women to make rules that pertain only to them and men to men. Yet making this cut only at sex is limiting and arbitrary. We can’t go all the way down to individuals, and we recall we do allow in certain cases characteristic to decide on the line. Aren’t there other lines we can draw?
A Race Not Run
Why not try race? Jews in Israel alone get to decide on the rules pertaining to them because they are Jews. Whites alone get to decide on the rules pertaining to them because they are white. Try either sentence again subbing in black and see how it sounds. If you’re a typical American it has a better ring to it. Doesn’t it? The reason it does is the same reason why it doesn’t sound totally absurd to say women alone should rule over women.
There is a feeling (and often it is no more than an ill-informed feeling) that women and other groups have historically had a hard time of it and suffered through no end of calamities all caused or exacerbated by that well known bogey man, the white Christian man.
He has made enough decisions, the argument goes, and now it’s somebody else’s turn, preferably somebody with a uterus. Well, that’s too obvious a fallacy to be worth refuting, even though that argument does often carry the day. Let’s go after something deeper.
It must be that female persons do not have the right to do anything they want with their bodies. For example, what if a woman, using her own body, decides to slit the throat of her neighbor? Most would frown on that sort of thing. What if a woman takes her body and flings it from a high place onto your automobile? Most would say this is not her right. What if she causes, using her body, the forest to catch on fire? Or to use her body such that the jewelry leaves the store before being paid for?
We’re on the wrong track. It can’t be that people really mean what they say when they say “Women have a right to what they want with their bodies.” That leads very quickly to asinine conclusions. Maybe instead what they mean is “Women have a right to do what they want to their bodies.” Let’s see where that leads.
We’ll see that we immediately have to restrict or ban the slippery slope, else where are back to the Do What Thou Wilt.
Buy my new book and own your enemies: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal click here