I struggle to express exactly how enraged I am with this post. I’d had my doubts about feminism previously but Penny Red’s blog previously gave me a pleasing impression of this “Fourth Wave” stuff. But now, well, fuck it.

I don’t even know where to start. The suggestion that children are property, perhaps? Or else the total abandonment of any pursuit of equality in favour for the typical “maternal” idiocy that dictates pain, inconvenience and mild risk as being of such great significance that the 50% of genetic code she references counts for nothing. All informed, of course, by the absurd cultural view the Patriarchy places upon motherhood. How else could this lop-sided approach be given emotional heft?

What we’re left with is a problem being identified (lack of respect given to housekeepers and child-raisers) but then not followed through, instead with her taking a grand detour to outline why offspring should be deemed female possessions. Meanwhile not a word is said in empathy towards males except for a less than earnest “Sorry” followed by a reference to testicles and the immortal phrase “Too bad”. So, in other words, an appeal for greater power to women rather than for equality. No doubt she will spring some biological determinist clap-trap in defence of this when challenged, like any good reactionary.

(Which would be far less infuriating if I didn’t find her work largely superb.)

So apparently things have to be “Negotiated” (with this usage of the word reminiscent of Mugabe’s talks with Tsvangirai) rather than it simply being assumed that someone who has contributed half of the child’s material gets half a say in how they shall be raised. For, since the state can support mothers, the man shall be obliged to prove himself worthy of contact with a being he brought into existence (for which he will need to be a “fantastic person”, rather than the slightly more modest requirements for a woman, which apparently consist of a will and a womb) and if he is deemed unworthy to the woman he’ll not have to support the child. Well great, I’m certain that that would suit at least the cash fetishists. Until they worked out, of course, that “the state” only has money due to being fed taxes. In other words, men still pay.

Or, to put it in terms more destructive to this utopian slab of irksome anti-equality irritant, women still get supported by men. Since if you are going to base any idea around state cash (which, I should add, any sane person not intoxicated by anarchism would; at least a couple of times) you can not disregard the taxpayer. In this instance half of these would now be expected to fund the children of any woman who required help, while having no rights to access and raise even those that would never have existed but for their contribution.

All because of some worn out paradigms of child ownership and maternal supremacy, which a socialist feminist truly has no excuse for not seeing through. Through suffering, we earn. Through earning we own. Through owning we hold power.

And disregard any unbalance that this causes, of course, for this is feminism and here the ascendancy of female power must come above the obtainment of equality. Where women’s “rights” can be claimed they must be, with a disregard to the repercussions upon the other half of humanity. Forlorn fathers must be disregarded, for we are “Sorry about your balls” and that will suffice as recompense.

You bloody traitor to egalitarianism, Penny Red.