Rockets, space and men: Moonbat Central strikes (out) again

Logic, rational thought and reasoning ability are conspicuous by their absence in this screed.

Frittering away your life savings on a red sports car is so last century. Instead, today’s man who is grappling with the limitations of his mortality spends $90 million on a rocket to launch a $100,000 electric car, helmed by a robot by the name of “Starman,” into space.

. . .

These men … are not only heavily invested in who can get their rocket into space first, but in colonizing Mars. The desire to colonize — to have unquestioned, unchallenged and automatic access to something, to any type of body, and to use it at will — is a patriarchal one. Indeed, there is no ethical consideration among these billionaires about whether this should be done; rather, the conversation is when it will be done. Because, in the eyes of these intrepid explorers, this is the only way to save humanity.

It is the same instinctual and cultural force that teaches men that everything — and everyone — in their line of vision is theirs for the taking. You know, just like walking up to a woman and grabbing her by the pussy.

It’s there, so just grab it because you can.

The desire to colonize — to have unquestioned, unchallenged and automatic access to something — is a patriarchal one.

. . .

… the impulse to colonize — to colonize lands, to colonize peoples, and, now that we may soon be technologically capable of doing so, colonizing space — has its origins in gendered power structures. Entitlement to power, control, domination and ownership. The presumed right to use and abuse something and then walk away to conquer and colonize something new.

. . .

The raping and pillaging of the Earth, and the environmental chaos that doing so has unleashed, are integral to the process of colonization. And the connection of the treatment of Mother Earth to women is more than symbolic: Study after study has shown that climate change globally affects women more than men … While men compete over whose rocket is the biggest, women are fighting to stay alive against assaults on their personhood — and their planet.

There’s more at the link.

I’m sure it will come as no surprise to learn that the author is “the Editorial and Communications Manager of the Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford University”.  Where else would one find inspiration for such drivel?

  • “Colonization as patriarchy” – WTF???  From its earliest days, colonization was all about obtaining resources for the colonial power, not about patriarchy.  It was (and probably will always be) commercial, rather than societal or cultural, in nature.
  • “No ethical consideration” – well, in commercial terms, generally, yes.  In other ways, no.  Don’t forget, a primary impulse to the age of colonization was to spread the Christian gospel to the “heathen”.  (They may not have wanted it to be spread to them, of course, but nobody asked their opinion.)
  • The origin of colonization was in “gendered power structures”?  Only because society happened to be set up that way at the time – and remember, women in powerful positions (Elizabeth I of England, and before her Isabella I of Castile – sponsor of Christopher Columbus – and others) supported colonization just as strongly.  I doubt whether the gender of those in power had much to do with colonization for economic and/or religious purposes.
  • Equating colonization with sexual assault?  That’s pushing it way beyond any rational connection that I can see.  Same goes for climate change and colonization.  This author is making connections between entirely unrelated concepts, and offering no solid, factual, verifiable evidence for doing so.  It’s argument from emotion rather than reality.

One wishes that authors such as this would take a couple of courses in Logic.  It’s extremely helpful when formulating arguments for or against anything, because it forces one to be rational in one’s approach – something that’s sadly lacking in the above diatribe.  The author really needs a better understanding of logical fallacies before setting out to argue her case.  Her lack of it shows.



  1. Marcie's screed is the textbook illustration of how A) the left creates no value whatsoever and B) is implacably hostile towards value creation in general. Marcie's screed makes clear that leftism is a nullity of value.

  2. The author of this drivel needed to produce her quota of drivel. She also needed to commit her prescribed percentage of attention whoring for the fiscal quarter.

    Also, virtue signaling, just because she can…

  3. "This author is making connections between entirely unrelated concepts, and offering no solid, factual, verifiable evidence for doing so." This…is intersectionality. I think. Seems like it.

    Steven, surely you jest.

  4. Steven, were it only so! We haven't even begun to reach Peak Silly.

    Intersectionally Gendered Postmodernism will seem almost sane all too soon.

    Note: almost.

    Hrmm.. it rather does make a good point in favor of further space travel with considerable rapidity – escape the Nonsense Planet.

  5. Where was it that I read about a universe where all the smarter and more motivated people left for colonies and Earth was perpetually behind due to brain drain…LOL

  6. Giving the author of this screed a course in logic would be a waste of time, money and effort. You'd be more successful trying to educate my 100# lab mastiff mix than this moonbat. The left is immune to logic, facts or reason. They emote their way through life letting their feelings drive everything they do. Attempting to engage in any type of discourse with them is pointless. Instead of wasting resources trying to reach the unreachable we need to work at finding ways to isolate and quarantine their insanity so it ceases to cause untold harm to civilization.

  7. #martianlivesmatter Stop the Mars colonizers!

    -Marvin the Martian (Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an Earth shattering kaboom.)

  8. But logic is a tool of the patriarchy, continuing the marginalization and oppression of womyn, and has no place in current enlightened discourse. The only valid argumentation comes from the sensitive intuition of 'woke' individuals.

    And while Isabella and Elizabeth did contribute to the furthering of colonization, they were still working within the paradigm of patriarchal institutions. Had they been free to act as their feminine natures dictate they surely would have been more caring of the indigenous peoples with whom their explorers interacted.


  9. "Entitlement to power, control, domination and ownership. The presumed right to use and abuse something and then walk away to conquer and colonize something new.", summarized as "Heil Hillary!"

    Was that courses of logic, or courses of colonic? The second sounds more useful to this … female. Perhaps the emotion is related to other blockage.

  10. Don't forget Queen Victoria on your list of colonization supporting women rulers.

    Heck, it was on her watch that England did most of the colonizing of the part of the world you're from.

  11. They say if it was not for women, men would still live in caves. Men's needs are simple as we are simple creatures.

    Based on that, all the horribleness of civilization is to be laid at women's feet. Without their need for more, men would have never built civilization and we would not have….

    Modern Agriculture, Running and Clean Water, Electricity, Medicine, Society, much less Western Civilization, etc.

    The same civilization that made it so safe and secure that we strived to give everyone equality. So we could have silly Gender Studies degrees and equally absurd conversations about how evil we are for doing all these horrible things.

    OK….. LMAO

  12. This blue-haired land whale (q conjecture, but likely true) instinctively recognizes that her subspecies (and all the rest she considers valuable) are going to be left behind during space colonization.

    She correctly deduces that the "patriarchy" – all the competent people – are not taking any useless baggage along. Her mistake is to think she has anything to say about it. It will not be governments that colonize other worlds, it will be private enterprises.

    There will be s very strict selection process. There will be females on Mars, but that will look like Dejah Thoris, not Hillary Clinton.

    The meek shall inherit the Earth . . . the rest of us are going to the stars

  13. Agree with James. Eggs are expensive. Sperm is cheap.
    A great deal of male striving, as soldiers of fortune, traders seeking riches, and explorers looking for the next Big Thing, has been from second or third sons trying to earn the resources to make him attractive to a female. In Christendom conquest was to attract a wife – in other cultures it was as often as not to TAKE them. But wealth enough (however defined by local culture) to support a family has always been the minimum bar for women to agree to marriage (yes, yes, there are exceptions, of course – spare me). We strive to be seen as leaders, for status, in order to attract a mate.

    I'm sure that this patriarchy-hating harpy would NEVER accept any man's ill-gotten booty, right?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *