Nobody panics when progressive jokers blather on about something they call "toxic masculinity." But one little mention of toxic femininity -- AKA feminism -- and everyone loses their minds.
Which isn't quite true, because their minds are already lost by virtue of believing in feminism to begin with.
Bob are you suggesting that feminism is intrinsically pathological? Yes, precisely -- certainly in its contemporary manifestations. There was a time -- perhaps fifty or more years ago -- when a healthy man could be excused for falling for the rhetoric, if only to get these shrews to shut-up for five minutes.
But today there is no excuse: feminism is a sickness (or a symptom of one; stay tuned to discover witch!). It isn't healthy, least of all for women and girls.
Moreover, since femininity can only be artificially detached from masculinity, it is the cause and consequence of sick men as well. It is why we can never trust a "male feminist." Think it: a male feminist doesn't know. He can never be a member of the Club, nor is he aware of the Code. And yet he's proud of it, like it's some sort of virtue!
But ignorance and stupidity are never virtues.
Does Bob sound angry this morning? Well, first of all, Bob is never angry, so you're just projecting again.
Wait -- are you suggesting Bob is some kind of saint or something?
Definitely not. He is not "above" anger, just way beyond it, into something resembling... how to put it... how about cold nausea? As usual, Dávila speaks -- and retches -- for me:
Our spontaneous revulsions are often more lucid than our reasoned convictions.
One who does not share our repugnance does not understand our ideas.
And an old standby that is always worth regurgitating:
Moral indignation is not truly sincere unless it literally ends in vomiting.First of all, if you think this problem is correctable -- let alone by politics -- you don't understand the nature of the problem, much less its magnitude. Conversely, if you do understand the magnitude of the problem, it ironically confers a kind of peace, if only the peace of resignation.
We all know people who have grown up and transitioned from illiberal leftism to liberal conservatism. How do we know when we can truly say to the convert:
GABBA GABBA WE ACCEPT YOU ONE OF US!
Easy: when they are literally sickened at the thought of their old self.
Anyway, after completing yesterday's post, I plucked an old book from the shelf called Feminism & Freedom, and it's full of grade-A insultainment. I think we might have discussed it a number of years ago, but I don't remember. Therefore, my bad memory is your good fortune.
(https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0887381251?ie=UTF8&tag=onecos-20&camp=1789&linkCode=xm2&creativeASIN=0887381251)
Examples:
Surely no body of ideas is wrong about everything, as I imply feminism is.
How can a theory be wrong about everything? Easy: just begin with a first principle that is impossible, and everything follows as a matter of logic:
Any theory whose basic assumption about human nature is completely erroneous -- as I argue is the case with feminism -- is indeed bound to be wrong about everything else.
Okay then, why is it wrong? What's the big error? Why, it's so simple, a child can understand it -- unless the luckless child has sick parents who prevent her from seeing it:
Feminism is a program for making different beings -- men and women -- turn out alike....
More precisely, feminism is the thesis that males and females are already innately alike, with the current order of things -- in which males and females appear to differ and occupy quite different social roles -- being a harmful distortion of this fundamental similarity.
In short: reality, i.e., the order of things, is a harmful distortion. Which means feminists are hallucinating. For gender differences are obviously real.
So, how does one transform reality into something it isn't? The "patriarchy," as powerful as it is, is not powerful enough to eliminate reality. Rather, we need something more powerful than man (let alone woman). I know! The State! It can do anything. Supposing males are always trying to dominate this or that hierarchy,
The only agency that can prevent males in a human group from dominating it is a more powerful human group.
True, but doesn't this just mean we'll ultimately be bossed around by male feminists -- whom we already know we can never trust? Un-men such as Clinton, Obama, Biden -- or Bezos, Dorsey, & Zuckerman?
Sure. You got a problem with that? Ultimately,
one group's intervention in the affairs of another to strip its males of power does not transfer power to the females of the subject group; the real power goes to the dominant members of the dominant group -- who will be males if males are more interested in dominance than females.
Call it betocracy: rule by weak but sneaky beta males instead of a strong and transparent alpha.
To be continued...
20 comments:
So proud of Elliott Page for transitioning and becoming a beacon of hope... That said, now that Page is a straight man he is officially an oppressor...
The best bosses I ever had were women. But then, so was the very worst, a likely psychopath.
While working for one of the best, she stood up to a large white male chauvinistic bully peer boss who’d been pleasuring himself by abusing his female assistant. I’d witnessed it. She asked: “So what should I do next?” And he replied: “You can get down on your knees and suck my dick.” This in an engineering office environment.
Maybe in evangelical conservative MAGA world this is considered humor, especially if it’s done repeatedly. And then the heroic John Wayne manly man steps in to defend her honor.
Maybe it should’ve been me. But he was built like a pro defensive tackle, while I was more like a running back (my position in high school). Plus he was inside with the big bosses and I was a newbie. So there was that. And she was more like a newbie cheerleader.
Anyways, the good boss stood up to him in public, risking her status within that good ole boy network. It seemed to work, at least while I was there. I was just a gigger and left for another good ole boy dominated workplace closer to home. She did leave too year later, maybe because of that situation maybe not. I wasn’t inside in that place.
I think most feminists just want to quit being bullied. Now the ones who want so much power and control that it upsets the balance of marriages and have it mandated that a certain percentage of women must play defensive tackle in college/pro football, well sure, that’s messed up and needs to be pushed back against. But I don’t know any feminists like that. Do you?
With someone who is ignorant of certain books, there is no discussion possible.
Surely no body of ideas is wrong about everything, as I imply feminism is.
Funniest thing I've read all day.
To be fair, some of them do get certain things right; for instance the TERFs: a man in a dress is still a male, no matter how much he bitches and moans.
Wow GDB you've managed to exceed your usual level of grumpiness. No easy thing to do.
Anonymous 11:49, fascinating comment. It supports a suggestion men and women are pretty equal in the business environment. I think anyone in business would agree.
Now in the home environment there is a lot of abuse. Sadly women are abusing their men mentally and financially, withholding sexual favors, and hitting, stabbing, or killing them.
These days a boss who suggests a women suck it would be lucky to have his member still intact subsequently.
I suspect GDB is feeling some heat. He's probably had a run in and now he's upset.
Now back in ancient times women got respect and their wasn't this kind of ugliness. We need to get back to how things were in the time of Hatshepsut.
-Resting Bitch Face
"Aren't we past that yet, this idea that men & women are different?"
Some are. Thankfully, they are usually also past the idea of marrying, staying married, and raising healthy families.
Yeah, I had someone try to tell that the concept of male and female is only a recent idea in history. Our ancestors knew better.
Rob Henderson is an interesting fellow. I recommend his newsletter. His most recent one reviews a study asking college students to distribute 100 points between:
-Academic rigor
-Academic freedom
-Social justice
-Emotional well-being of students
-Advancing knowledge
My distribution would be 50/50 between rigor and freedom, and zero to the others, but only because negative numbers apparently aren't allowed. I assign zero to "advancing knowledge," because freedom + rigor takes care of that automatically.
The results:
--women valued the emotional well-being of students and social justice significantly more than men.
--political conservatism was positively correlated with how much value participants placed on academic rigor & advancing knowledge
--political conservatism was negatively correlated with how much value participants placed on social justice & emotional well-being of students
--This suggests that academics who are more politically conservative place more value on academic rigor and advancing knowledge. And they place less value on social justice and the emotional well-being of students.
File under No S*hit. No wonder the author couldn't get it published in an academic journal.
"Large-scale harm is not committed by the frothing bully; it is done by well-mannered, affable, intellectual, and comparatively feminized coalition builders like, say, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and other such well-spoken technocratic tyrants."
Conclusion: we obviously don't need a study proving the obvious to prove that an academic journal won't publish it.
After analysis and talking to many people, the cause of Trump's election loss was failure to lead the nation through the pandemic in good order. That and oddly enough, small hands.
Now this has nothing to do with reality, logic, or all of that stuff that conservatives apparently hold as most important. That means you GDB. Listen up.
As Trump had demonstrated, a leader must also have a sensitivity to the human heart and its emotional propensities if the leader wants to succeed. Trump was cold-hearted and pitiless in the places where he should not have been so. And if you have small hands or some other physical anomaly, you should photoshop images so flaws don't show. And for God's sake if you use make-up apply it properly.
Lessons learned.
Now the question is why does Mrs Godwin allow you to spend time writing these posts instead of doing chores for her? The modern woman needs to manage the household and that includes keeping the menfolk on task.
The Bible states clearly that women must submit themselves to men just as they do the Lord. Faithful women shall be compensated in salvation for any iniquity done by men, and those iniquities done by men forgiven to all who ask for it. If this was my blog I wouldn’t allow any woman to comment over any man, including liberals, socialists, communists, gays, blacks, trans-whatevers, pretty much all democrats. This is a white Christian mans nation.
The adolescent’s insolence is nothing more than the bucking of an ass getting used to the stable.
HA!
The latest archaeological evidence indicates Adam took the first bite of the apple, not Eve. This could be a game changer.
There is a case to be made the Bible transposed the gender dominance order and the proper configuration is woman up, and man down.
These kinds of transcription/translation errors are by no means uncommon throughout history.
With that in mind we had better take a fresh look at gender hierarchy.
-Professor of Antiquities Roger Tweed, Cambridge
There is an illiteracy of the soul that no diploma cures.
Call it betocracy: rule by weak but sneaky beta males instead of a strong and transparent alpha.
If they are ruling, they aren't beta.
All this complaining about how the weak are oppressing the strong is somewhere between pathetic and fascistic. It's very Hitlerian -- he was always on about how the weak, cowardly, sneaky Jews were oppressing the strong manly Aryans.
Real strength wins, it doesn't complain about how the contest is unfair.
"Call it betocracy: rule by weak but sneaky beta males..."
Yep. Scary.
Post a Comment