Yes, Biology is Oppressive

Stacy McCain has been rambling through feminism's drawers again and found this:

Oppressive Biology

Feminist Tumblr attracts strange people with strange ideas, which they feel compelled to share with the world. Megan is 20 years old and her Tumblr profile begins by telling your her Myers Briggs personality type: INTP — introversion, intuition, thinking, perceiving.

Why do so many Tumblr feminists list their Myers Briggs type? I don’t know. It’s a thing.

Here’s another thing: You have to specify exactly what kind of feminist you are, describe your quirky traits and/or mental disorders, and also your sexuality. So we learn that Megan is an “Anti-porn and Anti-Capitalist Feminist . . . oblivious nerd girl, compulsive procrastinator, straight asexual.” Excuse me, straight asexual?
. . .
Anyway, what drew my attention to Megan’s blog was this:

“Hey, body, I have no interest in producing a childnow or ever, so it’s pretty sadistic of you to put me through this every month. Thanks.”

Alas, the curse of having a reproductive system when you’re an asexual nerd girl feminist with “no interest” in reproduction!

Darwinian theorists must pause to wonder how it is that evolution could produce so many human beings who lack normal instincts, so that it is all but guaranteed that they will leave behind no descendants.

As thinking beings, biology is innately oppressive. I want to fly like an eagle, run like a cheetah, swim like a dolphin, and fight like a grizzly bear. But here I am stuck in this this silly primate body that doesn't do much excellently, but does a lot of things well enough to get by, and with a brain big enough to figure out how to make machines that can make apes fly.

It's no skin off my nose whether Megan decides to reproduce or not, but she may come around at some point, and want to put those lady parts to their appropriate function.