By accessing this blog, you agree to the following terms:

Nothing you see here is intended or offered as legal advice. The author is not an attorney. These posts have been written for educational and information purposes only. They are not legal advice or professional legal counsel. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between this blog, the author, or the publisher, and you or any other user. Subscribers and readers should not act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

This is not a safe space. I reserve the right to write things you may agree or disagree with, like or dislike, over which you may feel uncomfortable or angry, or which you may find offensive. I also don't speak for anyone but myself. These are my observations and opinions. Don't attribute them to any group or person whose name isn't listed as an author of a post on this blog.

Reading past this point is an acknowledgement and acceptance of the above terms.

Shedding some light on the subject

Discussing gender issues with feminists is like being in a complicated light bulb joke.

Of course it couldn't be an ordinary light bulb joke, because feminism can't produce anything that straightforward.

Instead, it would be a long meandering series that ends with a vague loop back to the beginning, probably something a lot like this:

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. Feminists don't do that.

No, it takes dozens of second wave feminists to bitch that incandescent is the wrong kind of bulb until men take action to update it to an LED light.

Later, they will insist feminism be credited for the change, and say that everything was dark for women until feminists came along and invented light bulbs.

Social Justice ideologues in entertainment and journalistic media will shade their narrative to promote the feminist version of light bulb history, and it will be threaded into school curriculum, exposing the next generation.

Third wave feminists will cast the canard into debate and consider any challenge to it, no matter how much factual information is provided, to be an assault on women's light.

The light debate will burn on for years with the same arguments being exchanged while establishment feminists successfully lobby for affirmative light and lamp shade laws. Feminists will not acknowledge the dimming nature of these laws and will blame the darkness caused by their enforcement on "patriarchy." They will then suggest embracing feminism as a solution to the light discrimination they'll claim is inherent in the patriarchal system.

New-age hippie feminists will contend that artificial lighting is an invention of the patriarchy, to be rejected by all women in favor of using candles. It will not occur to them to consider men's involvement in the invention of candles, the reduced illumination candles produce, or the possibility that human manufacture of candles makes them an artificial light source as well.

Establishment feminists will respond to the controversy by suggesting that equal light could be achieved if straight white men were required to live in the dark 23% of the time.

Radfems will criticize other feminists and social justice warriors for their soft stance on patriarchal light oppression and float a plan to kill or gouge out the eyes of 90% of the male population to mitigate the danger created by men living in women's light.

Establishment & radfem bloggers will write posts celebrating illuminated women and extolling the virtues of lighting tools for women. They will write other posts painting men's need for light as shady or harsh, peppered with terms like male glare and shadow masculinity.

"Nice" feminists will talk about how The Patriarchy has kept men in the dark, and offer feminism as a remedy. Reminders of the feminist light lobby will be treated as an attack on women's light, or responded to with "not all feminists are like that."

Christina Hoff Sommers will write an article patiently explaining the actual, documented history of light bulbs and make an easy to understand video explaining why the feminist light bulb narrative is bullshit.

Social justice warriors will criticize the video's format and graphics to avoid discussing the facts, and write whiny posts about Sommers in remote and dusky internet "safe spaces" where they don't actually have to engage in any debate. They will refuse to discuss the video anywhere else.

Men's light activists will fight among themselves over the best approach to the light bulb controversy and debunking radiance myths.

Some will strive to enlighten the public. Others will participate in heated debate. Still others will get fired up and engage legislators.

Left and right leaning activists will each blame each other's political parties while proclaiming the brilliance of their own. 

Traditionalists will call life easier when men bring home the light bulbs and women see to it that they're screwed in right & properly replaced when they burn out.

Men Glowing Their Own Way will argue that women can touch the light bulbs, but not take any of them home.

"Moderate" men's light advocates will promote adopting the false feminist narrative on light bulb history in an effort to befriend them and get them to join a coordinated effort at promoting equal light today.

Everyone in both movements will criticize "flick up artists" for discussing ways to turn on the light even when the switch is difficult to flip.

Feminists will use associating men's light activism with flick up artistry to distract men's light activists from the issue itself.

David Futrelle will spotlight the controversy in his blog, framing the post in the feminist narrative on light bulb history along with the presumption that light belongs to women and men are interlopers even when invited. That will lead into portraying men's light activism as an attempt to roll back women's light, wrongfully gain access to it, or both. The writing will include mischaracterized quotes, fabrication, hyperbole, childish name calling, and dishonest barbs directed at various men's light blogs, forums, and news sites.

Social justice leaning news blogs will reference Futrelle's blog in articles demonizing the men's light movement as a call for a return to the dark ages.

Fringe establishment media will widen the spotlight, referencing the news blogs. 

Corporate run establishment media will reference the fringe and then later each other, effectively eclipsing the origin of the narrative behind layers of consensus.

Feminists will reference the articles in debate as evidence that men's light activists are demons from hell bent on plunging the world into darkness, while failing to realize they're content to live in it themselves.

And the Sunny Badgers will highlight the entire debate on internet radio for deconstruction.


Unknown said...

.The mockumentary suggests you are sick of this shit. Hope you got it out of your system. A purge is good for you from time to time.

Anonymous said...

Nice light reading.

James said...

This post went from "brilliant" to "instant-classic" at "Men Glowing Their Own Way"

Smoke Tetsu said...

Great stuff and spot on for the most part! However, for "Men Glowing Their Own Way" I would have said something more along the lines of: "Men Glowing Their own way would suggest for men to come up with their own way to illuminate their houses because they believe the light bulb industry is primarily concerned with providing women light and it's too risky to participate in providing light to women because of it.. Because too often the woman will walk out and take the light fixtures with her".

With one click... help hungry and homeless veterans. The Veterans Site.

google-site-verification: googlefdd91f1288e37cb4.html