A month ago, I mentioned here a modest proposal by Lawrence Auster, the “traditionalist conservative” blogger. He would like us to reconsider whether women should be allowed to vote. Seriously. Because women voting can only lead a society to socialistic ruin.
Remarkably, even Auster’s female groupies cheered him on with this. In fact, one of them urged Larry not to be so tentative (as when he wrote: “I do not have an agenda to take away women’s political rights, as my views on the subject are not completely formed”).
Laura W. commented: “You seem afraid of women and their reaction to this idea. Why not drop it until you are more confident in the proposal?”
Bitch. How dare she suggest that Mr. Auster might be, in any shape or form, afraid of women? “If I were afraid,” he replied, “would I say the things I’ve said?”
Indeed. For someone without an “agenda” to disfranchise women, Larry Auster displays a firm awareness of the damage wrought by voters who menstruate. “The influence of women on national politics is to feminize them,” he wrote, “which means to feminize the men.”
He continued: “[W]e all know that women on average base their voting decisions on emotion more than men do. That's just a fact.... [I]s it good for society that half the electorate bases their votes on emotion so much more than the other half?”
Well, a conservative female writer – Mary Jackson of New English Review – has now challenged Auster’s manhood on a deeper level.
She poked fun at him.
Last Saturday, Mary Jackson briefly defended Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a feminist critic of Islam) against a slighting comment by Auster. She wrote: “Perhaps Hirsi Ali is a bit too uppity for Auster. She probably believes women should have the vote.”
And how did Lawrence Auster respond to that cheeky barb?
With the chivalrous tone one might expect from a man who invokes the glories of Victorian England to explain why Western civilization would be better off with women politically powerless?
Uhhh... not quite.
“I'm amazed to see this type of ignorant and stupid commentary at New English Review,” is how Auster began his reply in the comment thread.
Mary Jackson commented back: “Lawrence Auster thinks women should not have the vote. His ideas are therefore not worthy of serious consideration. He also has no sense of humour whatsoever.”
And that, my good friends, really pissed Auster off.
Tonight, he unloaded on Mary Jackson on his blog, accusing her of a “stunning display of incomprehension, undiluted liberalism, political correctness, and cheap ad hominem attack,” and also of executing “a cheap, mindless smear against me.”
(Keep in mind, Mr. Auster suggests women shouldn’t be allowed to vote because they’re too emotional. Oh, sweet irony!)
In the Narcissus’ pond of Larry Auster’s mind, an attack upon any of his nutty political ideas is a DEFCON-1 threat to his ego, and he thrusts himself into verbal warfare with enormous expenditures of time and energy.
So much fun to watch! In this instance, the fun is in Auster’s complete lack of self-awareness.
On one hand, he is grievously offended by Mary Jackson’s attempt to “marginalize” him (by saying his ideas are “not worthy of serious consideration”). One the other hand... I mean, goodness gracious, he’s the one who publicly broached the notion of DENYING WOMEN THEIR VOTING RIGHTS, which is probably the most self-marginalizing act I’ve ever witnessed by a political blogger who wants to be taken seriously.
As ironies fold into themselves Escher-like, Lawrence Auster proclaims he has been victimized by a “crack of the whip of women's tyranny”... as he seeks to legitimize a discussion of reducing women to second-class citizenship.
I’m willing to bet five dollars that Mary Jackson will consider it a waste of her time to respond to Larry’s Scud-missile barrage. Let’s call it “womanly intuition,” but she probably understands that Auster craves the twisted satisfaction that can only come from publicly attacking his fellow conservatives as liberals-in-disguise.
Why reward his attention-seeking behavior?