1)
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.
