Mark S. Tucker’s Testicular Reasoning - by Mark E. Smith


From time to time I’ve published an occasional issue of Mark S. Tucker’s newsletter, Veritas Vampirus, here on Fubar. While V.V. is primarily dedicated to exposing Rob Kall for the buffoon he is, Tucker also uses it to express his opinion on various other topics.

Tucker is the author of an unpublished book which I suspect will, when published, shake the English-speaking world due to it’s exposure of the nonsense that currently constitutes English grammar, and his replacement of absurdities with things that make sense. Tucker is also thoughtful and knowledgeable about other subjects, but he is sexist and cannot see it or admit it.

In V.V. #(1)984, July 18, 2014, Tucker wrote:

"Such lines of fact and reason swiftly get me a lot of nowhere neither nohow with conversation partners, so the next "logic" I hear in “proof” or refutation usually defaults to pointing out that men do indeed run everything, and, I am told, that's why the world's fucked up. Agreed, I say, men do run everything, and the world’s VERY fucked up, but in what logical fashion does that imply that women would do better? I cite Margaret Thatcher, Jane Harman, Hilary Clinton, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Dianne Feinstein, Oprah Winfrey, Michelle Bachman, Manne Coulter, Andrea Dworkin, Ayn Rand, etc., and then usually have to be tied down and gagged before I go on for days and years encanting the whole encyclopedia.”

I’m sure that somebody must have said that women would do better, but certainly not Dworkin. She was persecuted by many right-wing women. Dworkin certainly did not believe that men ruled the world, but that patriarchal men and women ruled the world. The system (patriarchy) is corrupt, so the sex of those in power within that system makes no difference whatsoever. Therefore I emailed Tucker:

“What sort of misogyny would compel someone to place Dworkin's name among a list of female war criminals?
 
What war did she ever advocate?
 
Either you never read Dworkin, or you read her dismissively, thinking, ‘female,’ ‘feminist,’ nothing to see here because I already know she's full of shit.
 
Well, she wasn't. Derrick Jensen plagiarized her stuff but never credited her because he was afraid of the blowback if he did.
 
When he said it, it was genius, but when she said it first, it wasn't?
 
Dworkin wasn't anti-porn. She was anti-exploitation. When erotica didn't exploit anyone, she had no problem with it.
 
Dworkin wasn't anti-men. She was anti-patriarchy, and of course it is patriarchy that makes people, both patriarchal males and patriarchal females, perpetuate exploitive and limiting gender roles, not men.”

Now since Dworkin was neither right-wing, nor a capitalist spokespuppet, nor a war criminal, Tucker couldn’t answer, so he replied that he was busy and couldn’t waste his time with my "squalling,” “passive aggressions,” “arrogance,” “mania,” and “nonsense.”

Somehow he managed to find time for those personal attacks, which is what people do when they lack rational arguments.

In fact, in this and in my previous correspondence with Tucker, I learned that he cannot or will not distinguish between sex and gender (sex is physical while gender is social), matriarchy and patriarchy (matriarchy glorifies life while patriarchy glorifies death), or porn and erotica (porn is degrading while erotica is not).

This shouldn’t be surprising, as few males could, among them the late Juan Santos and the great Stan Goff, both warriors who started out as sexist as Tucker but were able to learn better later in life. But just because a rare few can learn, doesn't mean that everyone can. When it comes to these particular topics, Tucker appears to be a bit like his some-time idol, Noam Chomsky, who believes that he knew all that there was to know about voting when he was seven years old and therefore wasn’t open to learning anything new. If you already know it all, what can anyone teach you?

I could, if I wished, devote some space on Fubar to exposing Tucker for the sexist buffoon he is, but I have better things to do.

Andrea Dworkin had twice Tucker's intellect, was a much better writer, and had something that Tucker distinctly lacks: boundless empathy and compassion for others--for all who are oppressed and suffer.

So, I am unsubscribing from Veritas Vampirus and you won’t see any more of Tucker’s work here. If you wish to subscribe to his newsletter, just write to him at progdawg@hotmail.com








 

ROFL

There are three basic types of Andrea Dworkin critics:

1. Sexists who deliberately distort what she wrote.

2. Sexists who can't understand what she wrote.

3. Sexists who didn't bother to read what she wrote and rely on what the first 2 types say.

Rational people with valid arguments have no need to distort what others say or resort to character assassination or personal attacks. Personal attacks are best ignored, so that they cannot push any buttons or provoke a response. Responding to irrational people is a waste of time and energy.

Dworkin never said that all sex is rape, she said that sex to establish superiority or assert power over another person is rape. Those who cannot conceive of sex between male and female equals, because patriarchy has taught them that males and females cannot be equals, and who cannot conceive of sex for mutual enjoyment because they only have sex to establish dominance or satisfy their personal needs, have no option but to misinterpret what Dworkin wrote. If sex between unequals is rape, and males and females can never be equals, then all sex appears to be rape.

Dworkin, before she died, was old, fat, and physically unattractive. She was raped, not because the rapists were attracted to her or desired her sexually, they wanted revenge on the feminist they had falsely been told had written that all sex is rape. So they proved that the only sex they know is rape, by having sex with an unconscious, unattractive women they had drugged, as a way to demonstrate their power.

But Andrea Dworkin was also a genius. She was no better understood in her time by the masses than Socrates or Einstein were in their times. That is often the fate of genius. Only history bears them out--but it always does.

 

 

 

Mark S. (stands for sexist) Fucker (pardon my typo)

The diarrhea diatribes have evidently had their final run. The last shitty word has been shat.  Time to flush.

 

More spam from Tucker.

Although I unsubscribed to his newsletter and haven't thought about him since I wrote the above essay, a friend who was cleaning out their spam bin noticed that he is apparently still desecrating the memory of the great Andrea Dworkin, and apparently also writing derogatory things about me. My friend didn't bother to read what he wrote and I certainly won't.

What is interesting is that MT thought this website was "radically sane," and he respected me and my writing until he learned that I'm not sexist. As far as I know, nothing about me changed--the only thing that changed was his perception of me. I stopped thinking about him when I realized that he is incurably sexist. I think of sexists the same way that he thinks of racists--that they're just stupid and ignorant. But he can't make the jump. He can see past skin color, but not past body shape. Too bad, but his problem, not mine.

Seeing the world and judging people through the eyes of racism or sexism is nothing but bigotry and the real losers are those whose minds are closed to the intellectual contributions of those with the "wrong" skin color or body shape. I don't need to read what he has written or be exposed to his intolerance to know that history will condemn him through his own words. That's enough for me.

I've said many times that there is only one kind of person, the human kind, or humankind, and that if we cannot be kind, we might not be fully human. Those who are not fully human and therefore cannot embrace others as fully human without regard to sex, race, or other irrelevant factors, may differ in their prejudices but not in their intellectual, emotional, and social deficiencies. Many animals have so much empathy that they can and will nurture the young of or befriend animals of species thought to be their instinctual enemies. I believe that humans are born with that same empathic potential, but it rarely is allowed to develop. As long as they're not violent, cases of stunted development should have our sympathy, but not necessarily our friendship or respect--and they definitely don't deserve our readership.

 

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Discussion Forum