Thursday, May 08, 2014

The War on Women is a Cat Fight

Time only for a short but I'd like to think important post.

I suppose to even suggest that females have a nature is to declare war on them.

Well, we are at war. But only against the women who deny their own nature -- and Nature in general (the one entails the other).

Democrats know this: they know that one of their most reliable clients is this large and growing pool of humanoid misfits. They are the polar opposite of whatever it is Pajama Boy represents.

Normally there is a sexual polarity that results from the complementarity of male and female. But who or what is the complement of Pajama Boy? A domineering mother, I suppose.

Likewise, what could be the complement to those pathetic "Julias" of the liberal imagination? The only thing I can think of is the State, so this is one of those rare occasions that I agree with liberals.

If marriage were still the norm, we'd have a permanent conservative majority. Consider: in 2012, married people favored Romney by a margin of 14 percentage points. Single women, however, supported Obama by a whopping 68 to 30 (cited in Tucker).

Who are those 30%, anyway? Right. The attractive ones. Or at least the ones who aren't repellant.

No woman is an island, which is why the State simply displaces the role of husband. As they say, a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. However, she needs the government like a woman needs a man.

And the feeling is mutual, since the state needs single mothers like a man needs a wife. It's just patriarchy by another name.

In the past I have written of how the premature, neurologically incomplete, and helpless baby is the hinge of evolution. After all, if the babies don't survive and thrive, then the game is over.

However, in reality, like their Creator, humans are irreducibly intersubjective and tri-complementary. Therefore, you can't change one member of the subcelestial trinity without changing all the rest.

Thus, for example, when women no longer need men, we end up with Pajama Boy on the one hand and Hoodie Boy (e.g., Trayvon Martin) on the other: with wimps and barbarians.

So it is fair to say that each of the three is a hinge of evolution and of civilization: Man, Woman, and Baby. Each has certain responsibilities and certain entitlements.

But not just in terms of their biological categories. That means nothing. Here again, we're not talking about nature, but about NATURE, and a merely natural man sinks beneath himself into infrahuman Rousseauian hell.

Because we need to placate the angry and/or hysterical sub-female mob -- the ovary tower -- we are not permitted to talk about female responsibilities, only female "rights," such as the right to a dead baby and free birth control from Daddy.

Not so with boys, who are made aware of their responsibilities from the get-go, mainly to curb their aggression, impulsivity, competitiveness, enthusiasm, spirit, and life force. In short, they are to imitate female nature, even though there's no such thing.

And what is the primary cosmic responsibility of females? Interestingly, it is to help civilize male nature, but not in the way of the tenured or with the heavy hand of the state, as in the paragraph above.

Rather, Tucker discusses the centrality of female virtue, which is as critical to civilizational advance as are infantile helplessness and male strength and aggressiveness. You don't even need to look at it from a moralistic angle. Rather, just consider the results.

Tucker traces the roots of monogamy back to the spirited virtuous woman who refuses the seductions of powerful high-status males in favor of genuine passionate love.

This is a pattern we see "time and again in Western history -- high status aristocrats trying to make concubines and morganatic wives out of lower-status women, and the women, often peasant girls, standing up to them and refusing to comply. If there is one individual who is the lynchpin of a monogamous society, it is the Virtuous Woman." (Monica Lewinskys of the world, take note.)

Just consider the cascade of consequences that occurs when the woman fails in her duty to consecrate the booty. Ultimately we're talking about the failure of monogamy, and when that happens, all hell breaks loose for everybody, men, women, and children:

"[N]ormative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses.... By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity...." (Tucker).

So yeah, there is a war on woman. Primarily by other women. Cat fight!

21 Comments:

Blogger julie said...

Just consider the cascade of consequences that occurs when the woman fails in her duty to consecrate the booty.

Heh - indeed. When women get it into their heads to "act like men" (which reflects manliness about as well as the average transvestite reflects femininity), not only do they fail to man up (which is to say, gain masculine power), they lose much of the genuine power that women already possess.

Now that I have one of each to raise, it's interesting to see the different ways their male and female natures develop. And notably, they both need to be... not curbed, generally, but rather, directed. For instance, we try to direct the boy's aggressive impulses toward being protective. With the girl, on the other hand, the challenge is to help her direct her dramatic tendencies, which unchecked have the potential to be at least as destructive as anything a male could blow up.

5/08/2014 11:27:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Tucker traces the roots of monogamy back to the spirited virtuous woman who refuses the seductions of powerful high-status males in favor of genuine passionate love."

When I first read that paragraph I thought you wrote "genius passionate love," which probably deserves it's own post.

Is anyone else now thinking of Wile E. Coyote?

5/08/2014 12:43:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Who are those 30%, anyway? Right. The attractive ones. Or at least the ones who aren't repellant."

Aye! Conservative ladies have an inner beauty that ain't marred by bitterness n' envy.

5/08/2014 12:52:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

Who are those 30%, anyway? Right. The attractive ones. Or at least the ones who aren't repellant.

"Sevens and above vote Republican." It would make a nice bumpersticker.

But it is partly Seven of Nine's fault that we have this twit in the first place.

5/08/2014 02:07:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

... Hoodie Boy (e.g., Trayvon Martin) on the other: with wimps and barbarians.

I don't know. I think Trayvon was just as much a punk as Pajama Boy (albeit probably dumber) or any of the other people who could be Barry's sons.

Neither of these wussies would make a light snack for a real barbarian. Try and imagine PJB or the Hoodie as a Viking.

5/08/2014 02:18:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

So, ladies, be a true child of Sarah.

5/08/2014 02:23:00 PM  
Blogger mushroom said...

OK, one more. Did the holocaust really happen? Eighth graders get to voice their opinions.

On Friday, the Los Angeles-based Anti-Defamation League was critical of the April argumentative writing research project and expressed its concerns to Rialto Unified’s interim superintendent, Mohammad Z. Islam.

Parody has become impossible.

5/08/2014 02:31:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Yeah - My eyebrows certainly shot up when I saw that the other day. I also noticed that in all the stories I've seen so far on that one, the authors are very careful to find nothing whatsoever noteworthy about the name of the superintendent. Even at Ace's. Which is probably fair - maybe he didn't have anything to do with it, besides being the guy people contact when something weird happens in a classroom. But the fact that apparently none of the teachers who presumably gave this assignment had a problem with it is extremely troubling, and I wonder just how many other Mohammeds or just garden variety Holocaust deniers are working in the Rialto school district. And what else they are teaching that some might find "objectionable."

5/08/2014 03:34:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

Not to get all Greek comedy on ya, but this post recalls Lysistrata.

5/08/2014 04:08:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

Father Stephen knocks another one out of the park (7 May post). Good comments there too.

5/08/2014 04:50:00 PM  
Blogger Leslie said...

I have 2 of each- boy, girl boy, girl. My two eldest are grown, and I spent the most of my mothering teaching my daughter to battle her nature, and not so much my son, as our culture batters boys badly enough. They are both very conservative, and a pleasure to be around. I think they are both 9s, but I may be biased. : )

5/08/2014 04:56:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

I'm liking this David Warren feller:

The ribbing

I say we let 'em in.
'coons?

I'm not sayin I'll send him an invite or nuthin. But if he's 'coon, he'll sense it.

5/08/2014 05:48:00 PM  
Blogger Paul Griffin said...

Rick, the difference is that the Greeks knew the Lysistrata was a comedy. Our betters seem to think it's some sort of handbook for gender relations. Maybe we're living in a negative instantiation of "foolishness to the Greeks?" So many of us seem to think that any old foolishness will fit the bill...

5/08/2014 06:00:00 PM  
Blogger Rick said...

All I remember were the naughty parts and how the teacher she MADE us read it.

5/08/2014 06:21:00 PM  
Blogger Van Harvey said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5/08/2014 08:56:00 PM  
Blogger Van Harvey said...

"Democrats know this: they know that one of their most reliable clients is this large and growing pool of humanoid misfits. They are the polar opposite of whatever it is Pajama Boy represents...

...Just consider the cascade of consequences that occurs when the woman fails in her duty to consecrate the booty. Ultimately we're talking about the failure of monogamy, and when that happens, all hell breaks loose for everybody, men, women, and children...."

The surprising thing about how America's youth have been diverted from becoming Men & Women and transformed into misfits, is that very little of it had to do with what was actually taught in the classroom, but instead with what was not taught in the classroom. And soon after not taught in the churches... or the theaters... or the homes.

Only after a century of carefully not teaching certain lessons, have the misfits become perfect fits for the wranglers of Rialto.

Ignorance breeds humanoid misfits, only timeless truths worth knowing, rears Men & Women... and if they aren't taught, they won't be learned.

5/08/2014 08:58:00 PM  
Blogger Magister said...

the state needs single mothers like a man needs a wife. It's just patriarchy by another name

BANG

What does the coonosphere think of the hypothesis that western societies are increasingly estrogen dominant?

5/09/2014 08:27:00 AM  
Blogger Van Harvey said...

Magister said "What does the coonosphere think of the hypothesis that western societies are increasingly estrogen dominant?"

Maybe more like Testosterone deprived? ...or impaired? ...or embarrassed?

5/09/2014 08:38:00 AM  
Blogger Christina M said...

Definitely estrogen dominant. I saw it was already that way in Germany. Even in the shooting club I belonged to, there were no German men who looked or behaved anything like a man's man. A John Wayne-type. Even the best shooters were soft and feminine. I missed American men.

There are lots of places to place the blame in how we raise and treat boys and men. But I place some of the blame on our estrogen laden soy foods and birth-control-tainted water too.

5/09/2014 08:53:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Apropos, Lileks on monogamy at National Review.

5/09/2014 09:04:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

What an epic fisking. You should put the link in today's comments as well.

5/09/2014 09:37:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home