Wednesday, 17 September 2014

Personality and personhood - Part One

What exactly IS a person? What makes us people rather than animals or objects?

On my previous blog post about consent this issue was raised by a reader in his comments. He argued in effect that women are NOT people and that therefore human rights, or consent, can’t apply to them.

There’s an obvious difference between personality and ‘personhood.’ Certainly animals DO have distinct personalities even though they’re obviously NOT people at least in the ordinary sense of the word.

Then there’s the question of maturity. A child is obviously not as capable, experienced or as able to reason and make decisions as an adult. Are they less of a person than an adult? Or is it just that adulthood entitles them to greater rights (and of course also lays greater responsibilities on them)?

There’s no doubt that women, like animals, have personalities of their own. The question is whether or not they also have ‘personhood.’ In effect, I suppose the question is – are women human?

Recent scientific discoveries have shown that the biological differences between men and women are much greater than was previously believed. Here are some key examples:

1 Both animals and women have an oestrus cycle when the egg is ‘produced’ although in women this is also overlaid with a menstrual cycle when the egg is ‘destroyed.’

2 The DNA of women is MORE closely related to apes than male DNA. Women are genetically CLOSER to apes than men are.

3 A woman’s vagina is directly connected to her brain in a way and to a degree that is not true of men and their penis.

4 Rape is the NORMAL form of sex in the animal kingdom and even though that’s not true of women in the human world what IS true is that when a woman is raped her chances of becoming pregnant are DRAMATICALLY higher. Most women who are raped also orgasm which clearly shows that their body consented, wanted and preferred rape – the natural way of fucking – to ‘lovemaking.’

5 Evolutionary scientists have also demonstrated that rape is not only MORE natural than the ‘lovemaking’ that society approves of but that children born through rape tend to be stronger, healthier and less likely to have genetic defects than children born from ‘lovemaking.’ They believe that the sperm of rapists tends to be healthier and stronger and that, biologically speaking, the rapist is doing the girl as favour by giving her stronger and healthier offspring.
6 Women have smaller brains than men which also function in a completely different way. It’s no accident that women as a whole (there are always a few exceptions all of which turn out to have masculine characteristic and a higher share of male genes) are less intelligent and less capable than men.

So can we decide on the basis of this evidence whether or not women are people?

Genetically women are closer to apes than men and so must be at least LESS human than men.

Women DO have an oestrus cycle as well as a menstrual one so again they are MORE closely related to animals than men are (and therefore LESS human).

Our cunts are directly linked to our brains while a man’s cock is not so once again women are LESS human than men.

Rape shows again that women are animals because men don’t orgasm from being raped.

The inferior size and capabilities of the female brain also show that women are closer to animals than men are.

So can we assert that women are NOT human or simply that they’re LESS human than men?

This question is important for lots of reasons but perhaps most obviously because if women are NOT human then human rights can’t and shouldn’t apply to them.

There seem to be five basic ways of looking at the status of women.

1 The female supremacists believe that women are superior to men which is obvious nonsense

2 Feminists believe that women are equal to men which again is obvious nonsense

3 Women should be regarded as being on the same level as children

4 Women are animals and not human at all

5 Women are objects and not human at all

There’s a lot of good arguments in favour of the third, fourth and fifth views. A child can’t have the same roles, responsibilities or rights as an adult but they still have certain human rights.

Even if women are animals don’t we still have the idea that cruelty to animals is wrong?

So do we still have some rights even if we’re not human?

On the claim that women are objects although it’s sometimes fun as a fantasy I don’t believe it. Objects can’t think or feel or do anything by themselves while women can. So we’re not objects.

So are we animals like dogs cats, horses, pigs or whatever?

Women might have MORE ape DNA than men but men have it too.

Basically my researches and analysis led me to the conclusion that none of the five theories about women are true,

1 Women are NOT superior to men

2 Women are NOT equal to men

3 Women are NOT perpetual children because adult women can do loads of things that kids can’t

4 Women are NOT animals because they can do things animals can’t

5 Women are NOT objects because they can do lots of things and objects can’t do anything

So what’s the solution? When you think about it, it’s obvious, really.

We need a sixth theory to explain women, which is:

6 Women are an intermediate species; not fully human like men are but partly human and partly animal. They’re definitely a lower and less evolved species than men but their intermediate status means that they DO have some human characteristics.

In my follow-up post I’ll examine what legal, moral and practical consequences follow from the recognition of women as a separate semi-human (perhaps the words ‘subhuman,’ ‘hominid’ or ‘feminid’ would be better terms) but inferior species to men in every way.

What should be the legal status of the subhuman group the feminids?

How should their lives among humans (i.e., males) be organised?

I’ll look at these issues in my follow-up post.