(no subject)

[geekchick]

elorie points to a wonderful post by matociquala ("Post-feminist? I gotchyer post-feminist right here."), inspired by one Vox Day, aka Theodore Beale. Mr. Beale is earning himself top honors in the "All-Around Asshat" competition with gems like this:

The mental pollution of feminism extends well beyond the question of great thinkers. Women do not write hard science fiction today because so few can hack the physics, so they either write romance novels in space about strong, beautiful, independent and intelligent but lonely women who finally fall in love with rugged men who love them just as they are, or stick to fantasy where they can make things up without getting hammered by critics holding triple Ph.D.s in molecular engineering, astrophysics and Chaucer.

   -Vox Day

Just the sort of thing you love to hear coming from somebody on the 2004 Nebula Awards Novel jury, no? And interesting to hear coming from someone who himself writes Christian fantasy novels.

Another choice excerpt from another column:

An unconscionably stupid ideology, feminism's only redeeming characteristic is that it will likely eliminate itself before it eliminates society. Forget the Bible, even from a secular scientific perspective, it is an obvious evolutionary cul-de-sac, as delaying reproduction, embracing homosexuality and a harboring a prediliction for murdering one's young are not exactly the traits of a Darwinian survivor.

Comments

[crouchback.livejournal.com]

It was until after one of the other jurors said that he hadn't been a problem. Then it degenerated into him and John Scalzi flinging verbal manure on one another. You could use that discussion thread as example to people on how not to make good arguments. I mean, really, does "this guy appeared in a silly photo" refute anything he's saying? And he's making ar argument that is starting to get creeping respectability in large part, IMHO, because people are just refusing to make the case against it, preferring to snort and say it's obviously wrong. Meanwhile, he and people like him do make arguments, and when people don't make a counter-argument, they go back and say "see! I told you they were utterly illogical!"

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I didn't keep reading to that point.

I think I saw two arguments being made.

The first, that women can't write "x" because they are genetically unfit, is balderdash. Aboslute rot, not as useful as a dish of tripe (which I personally don't care for, so at most it's a lot of work to make something for dogs to eat).

The second is that this person's possession of this ridiculous belief must, ipso facto, make him unfit for dealing with the product he says women can't, as a class, produce.

Since I will wager he holds the view, some women can, he is not a terrible judge. He can probably do what everyone who sits on a jury claims to to, and divorce himself from some of his predjudice for purposes of the work.

Had he said women shouldn't write such and such, and then was named to a jury of such and such, in that case I'd say he was, prima facie, unqualified.

TK