One of the fascinating claims I’ve heard lobbed around political debates on social media is this: “women never lie about rape/sexual assault.” This is sometimes qualified or modified to be “women rarely lie about rape/sexual assault.” That happens most often when someone brings up something like the Duke Lacrosse case, or something like this. If challenged, the Leftist (this is claim is most common among them) will attempt to back up the statement with statistics like this bit of research conducted by Stanford. The meat of the study is that only 2% of rape accusations are proven to be false.
At first glance, this would appear to support the Leftist assertion. But it really doesn’t. First off, while I cannot verify Stanford’s claims, let’s operate under the assumption that the stats are true. Here’s another statistic you may or may be aware of. According to RAINN, out of 310 reports made to the police (i.e. accusations), only 11 cases are referred to prosecutors, and only 7 result in felony convictions. This means that only about 2% of rape/sexual assault accusations are proven true.
What does this mean, if all these stats are true? It means that 96% of rape cases are indeterminate. We don’t know if the accuser is lying, or if the accused is guilty. Neither is proven true. Furthermore, given the fact that human memory is not infallible, and that human interpretation/perception can result in one participant believing it is a rape and the other believing it is not, there are permutations where both are speaking truthfully. There was some speculation to this effect with Kavanaugh, especially given that the alleged incident was both 36 years old, and involved copious amounts of alcohol.
In other words, the Leftists are either lying or are ignorant of the facts. Fact is, rape accusations are proven to be lies at roughly the same rate as they are proven to be true, but the vast majority are unproven either way.
That puts a different spin on the notion, doesn’t it? That means, if there is no supporting evidence, you may as well flip a coin as to whether or not the accusation is bullshit, and whether or not the accused is actually a rapist. A coin flip doesn’t support destroying a man’s reputation.
And that’s what all this is about. By claiming that rape accusations are rarely falsified, the Leftist is implying this is itself a form of evidence. The Leftist is saying, without having to actually back up the claim, that the accusation means there is now a 98% chance of the accused being a rapist. It is a tacit method of getting around the presumption of innocence.
The whole thing is flimsy rhetoric. It’s a bald-faced fallacy. The accusation doesn’t change the actual odds. Either the rape happened, or it did not. Consider also that, even if the Leftists were right about a 2% lie rate, it doesn’t take into account that humans cannot be governed by anything like the Kinetic Theory of Gasses. Asimov was wont to speculate on the possibility that such analysis was possible, that a psychohistory could be made to work. It cannot. Think about it very carefully. If you’re a woman who hates a particular man, for whatever reason, and you know that people will say only 2% of rape accusations are lies, you can intentionally and cynically use this to make the man look guilty. People are willful, and can defy the statistics whenever they choose to do so. Statistics do not govern individual actions. And even Asimov said in Foundation that psychohistory could only work if people were unaware of its application, and so could not willfully sabotage it (that happened anyway in Foundation & Empire).
Using statistics on the accuracy of accusations to determine probability of individual guilt is thus a category error to begin with. I’ve been very confused with people treating it as if this had any meaning whatsoever. Guilt or innocence is independent of accusation. People aren’t molecules in a cloud of gas. Probability and statistics has some utility with large human groups as a whole, but psychohistory does not exist, and the accuracy of the generalization does not apply to the individual in any case. These things are not hard to understand, and yet everywhere I look, people are thinking about this thing backwards.
Going through my old posts this morning, I was reminded of this one, from a year and a half ago: RedFems, Cenobites, and the Lament Configuration. It was probably the darkest post I’ve ever penned on The Declination. But it remains quite poignant.
Go on social media, and you will see SJWs telling us that Nazis are everywhere, that they are evil, and foul, and legion. They are in the White House, they are on Youtube, they are on Twitter, they are in Video Games. Nazis, everywhere. And so they march out into the streets, the Black Bloc, Antifascists engaging in what Tom Kratman calls a bit of political theater (not unlike Fascists once did).
But at the end of a long week of fighting the cisnormative heteropatriarchy, they come to be beaten by men dressed as Nazis, to the gritty beats of loud Industrial music in the depths of an Industrial park.
And what’s more, RadFems have come to resemble these very same Cenobites, covered in piercings, dyes, and tattoos, such that the difference between Hellraiser’s Pinhead and the average denizen of Slut Walk is minimal at best.
Radical Feminism is a death cult, both figuratively and literally. In their man-hating quest, they are, in effect, arguing for the voluntary extinction of humanity. Oh, it never starts out that way. It’ll start out in an argument about equality. It’s a traditional example of the Motte and Bailey Doctrine.
Motte: “Feminism is about equality, it is about women having the same rights as men, it is about better relations between the sexes!”
Okay, that doesn’t sound so bad.
Bailey: “Now DIE cis male scum! #KillAllMen #YesAllMen Lol @ Male Tears. Men so fragile.”
Hmmm. Maybe I don’t like this Feminism thing.
One of my favorite tech outlets, Hard[OCP], had a quick commentary on Riot Game, and some of their employees vigorously defending an event at PAX West that excluded “cis men.”
League of Legends developer Riot Games has fired at least one longtime employee for defending a PAX West event exclusive to women and “non-binary” people: systems designer Daniel Klein, who revealed he was terminated for “violating social policy,” had evidently upset his employer by calling complainants on r/leagueoflegends “manbabies” and comparing the subreddit to a “toxic landfill.” Communications associate Mattias Lehman is also out for having similar views.
It’s fascinating to note that a white man is, in essence, defending his own exclusion in the name of inclusion and diversity. I’ve said it before and I will say it again. Diversity has become an idol to these people. A golden calf before which all good sense is sacrificed. It is heresy to even question the belief. No, it is worse. It is heretical to even be insufficiently enthusiastic about it.
In any event, if somebody created a male-only event, the Feminist shrieking would probably be heard even in the vacuum of space. That some individuals (probably not all of them men, either) would even critique this is considered worthy of collectively referring to them as a “toxic landfill” and as “manbabies”.
The Motte and Bailey Doctrine is a perennial favorite of the Left. A frequent detractor of mine who used to comment here on immigration matters would often explain that he wasn’t an open borders supporter. But then he argued for no restrictions on immigration, no refugee screening unless it was purely a formality, no border wall, and no deportation of illegals. It was a de facto open borders policy without having to suffer the social and political penalty of being truthful about his aims.
Motte: “We just want to be humane, and make sure these poor people are helped, and show empathy to fellows of different races and creeds.”
Okay, that doesn’t sound so bad.
Bailey: “If you support a border wall you’re a racist, whiteness so fragile, #YesAllWhitePeople. Fuck Whiteness. The future of America is brown, and you better get used to it!”
Hmmm. On second thought, no thanks.
Radical Feminism is an example of the Motte and Bailey Doctrine writ large. They want to exclude men, they want to replace men, they want to hold down men, and at its most extreme adherents want to imprison or exterminate them. They want revenge for perceived injustices to women. But even most women would find this abhorrent, and so they fortify themselves in the Motte when stating their views publicly. The Bailey is for social media and friendly media. But still, it is not difficult to find.
Go back to my first piece, though. You will find something very interesting – an observation that has stuck with me over the years. Red pill sites often refer to a concept known as “shit-testing”. A woman may periodically test a potential (or existing) mate for fitness. She might cop an attitude or be bitchy, even if you don’t really deserve it. What she really wants is confirmation that you’re not a total wuss, can stand up for yourself, and thus are worthy company for her.
This is neither good or bad. It simply is. This exists outside of manosphere context, too, in the phrase ‘testy’. Regardless, it happens, and most women I know will admit that they do this from time-to-time. It’s about as normal as men being generally boorish and staring too long at a nice pair of boobs.
What happens, though, when you fail a shit test? No, when all of society fails thousands of shit tests? What happens when women don’t just suspect, but know that most men are wusses, worthless, and completely unable to stand up to them in any way whatsoever?
I’d suspect it would look something like what we see today. Feminists running roughshod over men who aren’t even sure if they are men any longer. Wil Wheaton is their role model, instead of Conan the Barbarian.
Women on the Right generally don’t act this way, but I suspect this is because men on the Right generally aren’t sniveling wusses who, like Daniel Klein, gleefully extol the virtues of their own exclusion and abject submission. In other words, Rightist men are probably more likely to pass a shit test.
The key, then, is to recognize the Motte & Bailey when it occurs, and to tear down the Bailey, and pay very close attention to the Motte, in case it spawns another Bailey in its place or retakes its previous position. It also means being unafraid to challenge the protestations of women, or other various “oppressed” groups, even if you pay a social penalty for the same.
Leftist politics in general is all about the Motte and Bailey, these days. Using oppressed/minority status as a way to deflect criticism away from the Bailey and toward the stronger Motte is a tactic that has paid dividends for them, despite its fundamentally dishonest nature. It’s also a shit test, and if the West doesn’t pass the shit test… more barbaric societies will.
Put another way, deprived of positive masculinity, women will seek out the negative, barbaric variety over sniveling wusses and ‘my gender is an Oscar Mayer hot dog’ folks. And we can’t blame them for this. After all, what would men do if the only options were ugly hags who hated men, and hot – but dangerous – uncivilized barbarian women? The result would be much the same, I think. It should be noted that Feminism may eventually accomplish that, too. It certainly has multiplied the number of man-hating ugly hags, in any event.
We don’t live in a patriarchy. Once, we did, at least in a de jure sense. Women have long possessed a measure of de facto power through their husbands and sons. However, in my own lifetime we have lived in something else. I won’t call it a matriarchy, because it isn’t quite that. Rather, today we live in a society dedicated to fulfilling all the fanciful wishes of women. Interestingly enough, women do not like living under a matriarchy despite all the feminist calls for such, and so we have system that outwardly resembles a patriarchy, with superficial trimmings of male enfranchisement. Yet this only exists insofar as it serves the interests of women.
Consider the male artists, actors, and otherwise for whom women swoon. Consider the political leaders, corporate executives – the very people feminists claim to loathe the most – for whom women maintain affection and attraction. Next to this we have the so-called ‘body positivity’ movement, which seeks to render all women equally beautiful. This is, of course, a farce – something all women know but rarely admit. To prove their points about fat beauty, they will pull a model like Ashley Graham out of their proverbial hats. And, true, Ashley Graham is a very attractive woman – especially given her weight. But the fallacy is assuming she represents the norm for her BMI. It would be like saying all skinny women are the equivalent of Uma Thurman in her prime.
For every Ashley Graham, there are dozens of Lena Dunhams: overweight, slovenly, disgusting trollish women whose man-hate, stupidity, and vacuousness renders them unfit for any kind of meaningful companionship. We are supposed to accept them as equal to beautiful, intelligent, and kind-hearted women. Consider body positivity as the participation trophy system for female beauty. And just as everybody knows the participation trophies are bullshit – but ardently pretend otherwise – we all (including the women) know that equality of beauty is a myth.
So why does it exist? It makes some women happy to pretend they are beauty queens, I suppose. It makes them think they deserve a Brad Pitt millionaire with a Lamborghini just for existing. It gives them a target to rage against, too. All the men who aren’t interested in them aren’t bypassing their affections because they are overweight, or mean-spirited, or possessing of various personality flaws. Instead, the fault is with men who are fatist, or something to that general effect. And naturally, should a man of roughly their same level of attractiveness try to get with them… well, how dare he! All men are shallow pigs, naturally.
But the phenomenon of catering to female delusions is far greater than merely enabling that particular movement. We are supposed to see the raised pink fists, the pussy hats, the women dressing up as giant vaginas as somehow changing the world by their mere presence. All the millions of marching Starbucks drinkers; all the hopey-changey bologna spouted by the feminists achieves nothing, but we are supposed to believe otherwise. As if a woman chanting “I am fierce” somehow makes it true. Various vaguely female trolls say “this pussy grabs back” as if Donald Trump has some kind of interest in having sex with them (itself a delusion). None of this means anything in the great political struggles of our age, but the media ardently pretends otherwise.
A more accurate headline might be “a million cat ladies descend on Washington to complain about something they can’t do shit about.”
A woman can say any idiotic, delusional thing, and a dozen white knight, thirsty soy boys will pop out of the woodwork to confirm her idiocy. This, in turn, enables such women to increasingly distance themselves from reality, as they are insulated from its effects by hordes of pathetic liberal man-children hoping for a taste of radical feminism’s hairy table scraps. Left wing men are busy ruining women, and patting themselves on the back for how enlightened they are, sucking up to the bizarre, increasingly disconnected demands of hairy, overweight radfems.
It goes beyond the radfems too, however. Every TV commercial is catered to women, pretty much. Watch how the commercials shit on men. Clearly all men are idiots who can’t drive, can’t ask for directions, and need a Strong Empowered Woman to tell them everything. And oh, by the way, here’s an overpriced product shipped from China that proves how Strong and Empowered you really are. For a bunch of Lefty Commies, they are certainly Capitalist enough when it suits them. Some women are agitating from government-funded tampons, because clearly women need taxpayers to fund their hygiene products. You didn’t see a drive for government-funded jock straps for men, last time I looked. But as usual, a horde of thirsty Lefty virgin soy boys will descend and tell the rest of us that not funding tampons for every woman is sexist. And probably transphobic – after all, even transwomen who don’t need them should be provided them at my expense.
When female college enrollment exceeds that of males by a wide margin, college is nonetheless sexist because not enough women are enrolling in STEM programs, despite every male STEM guy slobbering over the opportunity to bang a female engineer. Go figure that one. Mattress girl carts around a mattress, then shoots porn on the damned thing, and demands national recognition for it. Some idiot Lefty men pop out of the woodwork to tell us that college rape rates are worse than Somalia. Yeah, whatever. Delusion after delusion. But still we cater to them, right? Because what women want takes priority over everything – including reality.
Put another way, society is treating women like spoiled brats – and it continues to spoil them – and people wonder why we have screeching hags and weirdos in vagina costumes running around spouting off bullshit about how they identify as a genderqueer catkin, and the Donald Trump is the reincarnation of Hitler and Genghis Khan rolled into one.
Before my female readers go off into a rage – the usual disclaimer: not all X are like that, etc, etc… But even you have to know how many men are essentially slobbering soy slaves to pretty much anybody with a vagina (and some who don’t even have one of those). We have wussified men who just can’t say “no” to a woman. And on the rare occasion a man grows enough testicular fortitude to say no, women who are unaccustomed to hearing it will fly into a rage. Sexism! Misogyny!
And the thing is, this behavior doesn’t lead to an actual matriarchy. It leads right back to a patriarchy. Think about it. Idiot soy boys aren’t reproducing – and, indeed, are clamoring for the importation of their replacements. I.e. they are arguing for the importation of actual patriarchs from various shitholes (thanks, Donald Trump) around the world. Let’s take more from Somalia and Pakistan, right? Bring back honor killings, because nothing says “I’m for women’s rights” like importing people who like murdering their own female relatives over trivial matters.
Peace, love, hopey-changey-change. And let’s take the world back to the seventh century, while we’re at it. All because some men are too pussified to say “no” to a woman once in a while, on the off chance that one of them might eventually pity him enough to give him a second sexless date. Women, of course, are free to say “no” to men whenever they wish – and indeed are busy recodifying law to make affirmative consent forms every 5 minutes a thing, on the off chance one of them actually gets caught in a situation where she might be drunk enough to be in a soy boy’s bedroom.
It’s all delusion. Guns feel bad. Ban them! But then we have some idiot who silently stands in front of a podium someplace becoming some kind of idiotic trend, and women delude themselves into thinking it’s some kind of existential philosophical healing experience. Whatever. It’s like that scene in Office Space where the couple goes to the ‘occupational hypnotherapist’ for relationship advice, and the girlfriend later admits the whole thing was bullshit and she was just cheating on her man. She knew the whole time that it was all bullshit, but played along anyway – presumably because she had to be seen as trying to make the relationship work, or at least it had to be his fault that it failed. She, after all, did everything she could, right?
All of society is geared toward catering to women. From the ads on TV, to the stupid happy music and bright colors of Youtube commercials. If men still make more money than women (after you control for hours worked, educational attainment, etc…), they certainly don’t get to actually spend it.
I am having a house built, and I was amused by the emphasis put on countertops, cabinet door styles, and water faucet designs. Meanwhile, I asked about the actual materials used in the construction of the cabinets, and the local design center workers looked at me like I was insane. People would routinely spend $10,000 on trendy cabinet doors, never once caring that the boxes and end panels were cheap particle board. I asked for plywood end panels, and according to them, I was the first they had ever met there to request this. It took them two weeks just to find pricing on it (it wasn’t bad). But that just shows you that even when you build a house, the target demographic is female. Everything is about style, trendiness, etc… A man comes in, and asks structural questions, and everybody has to look up the answers because who gives a damn if the cabinet boxes fall apart when they get wet – but everybody needs a name brand quartz countertop with some fancy cabinet door made of imported wood from… wherever.
Even something like the traditionally male space of fast cars ultimately caters more to women. Most people don’t buy Ferraris because they are Italian automobile enthusiasts, they buy them to signal wealth to cater to the desires of women. Pleasing women is at the core of our society, it’s embedded in everything. You don’t see a campaign to buy your man beer, to give him plenty of his favorite sexual favors, or any of that. And if he asks, it’s probably sexist or woman-hating. Maybe it’s even rape.
A woman can berate her man in public, and nobody bats an eyelash. In one experiment, it was even noted that a woman physically attacking her man was applauded. The reverse, of course, was seen as woman-hate and was immediately decried.
The amazing thing isn’t that all this is happening, per se. Anybody who has a clue about sexual dynamics can see how something like this could come about. Women are the limiting factor in reproduction. One man and a thousand women could repopulate the species. The reverse means extinction. They have a lock on the right of refusal, save in various uncivilized shitholes. The fascinating thing isn’t that we cater to women as a society – it’s that so many people are deluded into thinking it isn’t happening, that it’s really men who are being catered to; that we live in a patriarchy. That is beyond delusional. It is insane.
But, sadly enough, this insane behavior will eventually make it true. The feel-good hopey-change will ensure that we import plenty of actual patriarchs more than willing to reestablish that kind of society on their own terms. Somehow, I doubt the soy boys will be able to resist them. If, indeed, they even try at all.
Folks, I’m tired. I’m cranky. I’m operating off very little sleep and I’ve overbooked myself on work yet again. You’d think I’d learn. Or take a break. Sigh…
But a thread on Twitter caught my attention yesterday, and I couldn’t let it pass without some commentary. And that, in turn, opened up a whole new level of offensive wrongthink. Underneath it is, in this blogger’s opinion, one of the most important issues of our time.
prog: Elon Musk shouldn’t invest $10,000 starting paypal; he could help 1 person instead
prog: Elon Musk shouldn’t invest $10M from paypal into Tesla; he could help 1,000 people instead
A progressive woman laments how Elon Musk is, in her view, wasting his money launching automobiles into space. Instead, she tells us, he should spend his billions on Flint, a Democrat-run shithole (thanks, Mr. President, I’m using that term a lot more from now on) that can’t even deliver clean water to its residents.
As tired as my newborn has made me in recent days, this is worse. Progressive arguments like this are legion. Instead of using your money for anything else, you should dedicate it all to notions of wealth distribution. Forget your personal desires, your dreams, your aspirations for the very future of mankind itself… instead give everything to politicians.
Dear readers, enough is enough. I’m usually at least somewhat polite on this blog, so take it to heart when I say this. Grasp my full meaning: fuck them all. Toss them out of helicopters, or into woodchippers, or just air drop them into Somalia. I don’t even care anymore. But this is the last straw, folks.
Their short-sighted, Dunning-Kruger infused, elementary school worldview is beyond evil and into a realm of nonsensical mental masturbation. It’s a Lovecraftian horror, except it is inverted. Instead of greater beings beyond our comprehension filling us with horror because of our relative smallness, we have lesser beings whose sheer stupidity and ignorance of all sense is such that to even try to empathize with them causes headaches of massive proportions. To even comprehend such idiocy is horror-inducing.
Not that any of this is new. Back during the days of the Apollo Program, there were plenty of people lamenting that the money that sent a man to the moon would be better spent putting an end to poverty. The more things change, the more they stay the same, I guess.
Another cretinous fool on Twitter explained that Carl Sagan told us not to perform such crazy marketing stunts in space. This esteemed idiot supplied the following quotation:
So, what? Only Communists should go to space? Earth is for everybody, but space is for Communists! No Capitalists allowed. I know a lot of folks revere Carl Sagan, but this certainly ranks high on dumb quotes by this guy.
I started noticing a pattern. Most of the detractors of Elon Musk’s little stunt were women. Most of those singing his praises were men. That reinforces an old, but correct notion that women trend more Progressive than men. Look, I know a lot of smart women (Sarah Hoyt comes to mind right away), but at the same time there is something very, very wrong here.
Why are so many women fixated on first-order problems, without any conception of second-order effects? I mean, imagine if the folks at early Intel who pioneered CPU design, had instead donated all of their money to some politically-correct victim class and bowed out? What would benefit poor people more, a few thousand dollars worth of bread, or technological progress that eventually put the entire sum of human knowledge at their fingertips within seconds?
Our intrepid Progressive women cannot imagine the future benefits to everyone, the poor included, of opening up space to mankind. The entire future of our species, the whole universe there waiting for us, and this chick is fixated on Flint’s water supply? It’s maddening! It gives me a headache. It’s exhausting even trying to understand how a human brain could possibly operate that way.
But I see a lot of modern women who have this kind of thought process. Take a look at this feminist whopper:
Her complete inability to understand anything past her own immediate worldview is simply staggering to contemplate. This is extreme solipsism. Does she not understand what men say to each other on a regular basis? My daily conversations with my male friends would send your average feminist woman into conniption fits. They might give her seizures. She claims to want to be treated just like a man, but no woman actually wants this.
So hey, Thales, how is this related to Elon Musk launching a car into space? I’m getting to that.
I started thinking this morning that perhaps we aren’t dealing with an inability to see beyond first-order effects so much as an inability to virtue-signal them rhetorically. It’s rhetorically easy to point to a crazy publicity stunt and call it stupid. It’s rhetorically difficult to demonstrate the larger utility of the affair, the technological milestones SpaceX achieved in the process. It’s rhetorically easy to give a man a fish and say “look at me, I’m a good person for giving this man a fish!” It’s rhetorically difficult to demonstrate how your long-term plan to teach the man to fish will benefit mankind.
Virtue-signalling is subject to the rule of laziness. If there are two ways you can virtue-signal your moral superiority, Progressives will invariably pick the easiest one. Here’s your fish, come back tomorrow for another. Of what possible use is a microchip to a poor person? No cars in space. And why land a man on the moon? What a waste, am I right?
In other words, it’s easy to drop a first-order effect into a rhetorical conversation and ignore all other effects of that decision, as if everything was in isolation. Nothing in the universe works that way.
And for some reason, women appear more vulnerable to this tactic than men. The irony of the no billboards in space comment? It’s usually women who are more consumerist than men. Marketing? Commercials? All targeted toward women. That’s why almost every man is a dofus in TV commercials, and every woman is a wise, sage-like being of feminine supremacy. Who spends all the money? The answer to that is obvious enough. And yet, women trend anti-Capitalist? It makes no sense, until you start looking at everything from a first-order effect perspective. She wants X, and so she buys X without any thought to the greater ramifications… unless, of course, political correctness rears its ugly head, hijacks her mind, and pushes its claptrap. Then it’s save the whales, don’t buy fur, and no automobiles in space. Those, too, are considered without thought for greater ramifications.
Don’t ask me if this is innate to female biology, or just a product of a century or so of Radical Feminist thinking and conditioning, or some combination thereof. I don’t know, and my headache is too great to speculate at the moment. But whatever the cause, I’m tired of it. When I was a kid, I can remember a little optimism left in the world. Not much, for Progressivism was already on the march even then, and had been for a long time. But still, it was worth looking up and thinking “someday, I’m going to achieve something great.”
Not anymore, I guess. You can launch your car into space, and some idiotic denizen of Twitter will stand up and say “laaaaaame, you should have given your money to some Democrats instead. What are you, some kind of racist?”
An interesting (interesting in the sense of being utterly insane) piece came from regular reader Triple Sphinctered Wombat (what a name, right?): 10 Things Every Intersectional Feminist Should Ask On a First Date. Reading this vitriolic wishlist reminds me of something I once read at The Rational Male. Back in the day, Rollo Tomassi did a little bit of investigative journalism, I suppose you’d call it. He went on a dating site and wrote profiles that were mirror inversions of typical female profiles.
Many female profiles had wish lists that were, as he put it, vastly out of proportion with what they had to offer. Women of middling looks, intelligence, and income would write long screeds about how their ideal man should be tall, have an impressive penis, be smart, funny, make more money than her, not be too clingy, but be the perfect romantic. He should be the best of the best, you see, to date a perfectly average woman. When Rollo wrote a profile explaining how he wanted smart, rich, hot supermodels, women variously complained about him being a misogynist or merely a bad joke writer.
In this day of Social Justice insanity, we must add to the unreasonable demands of the typical woman to these 10 insane political demands from an intersectional feminist. If you don’t go to the local Black Lives Matter protests, you can’t have any of whatever she’s offering. I can’t know for sure, of course, but I suspect this woman has even less to offer in terms of dating prospects than the middling women of Rollo’s date site experiments. Take a look at this demand:
5. Are you a supporter of the BDS movement?
BDS stands for “Boycott, Divest, Sanctions” — an effort to end international support for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians. I grew up with Jewish (Israeli and non-Israeli) friends and Palestinian friends. Before even understanding how power and oppression worked together, we understood the trivial hatred that colonized and put in constant danger the lives of Palestinians every single day.
Well, I guess this woman is probably an anti-Semite then, by the racism standards of SJWs. She refuses to date anybody who doesn’t prioritize Palestinians over Israelis. Which, naturally, would mean most Israelis. I mean who asks about the Israel/Palestine conflict on a first date, anyway?
Lastly, I’m sure my readers expect an opinion piece on Roy Moore’s loss. I have to sort some rather longish thoughts about that whole mess before I commit to writing that out. Suffice it to say, Moore was never exactly my kind of Republican, but the smear campaign against him was ridiculous in the extreme. I haven’t seen the Democrats go all in on someone like that since Trump’s election. Roy Moore was not up to the challenge the same way Trump was. Republicans should understand that this is the new normal. Every Republican is likely going to have to weather a storm like this one, unless they are properly pliable Flakes and McCains, and even that is no guarantee of safety.
Every time I sat down to write this post, something else came up, and so it’s been on a delay for a while. However, it’s a very important topic, so today I sat down and forced myself to finish it.
It all began when I was reading a post from Sarah Hoyt, called About that Matriarchy. The thing of it is, she’s entirely correct. We don’t live in a Patriarchy, we live in a Matriarchy that disguises itself with the skin of a Patriarchy, just like any other Marxist-controlled institution, really. Sure, men are nominally at the top of the power pyramid still, though that edge is slowly falling away. College education greatly favors women now, the last I checked at a rate of about 60/40. HR departments are overwhelmingly female. And middle management is heading that way, too. Eventually that will crossover to upper management and political representation. Remember, this is on something of a generational delay timer.
But in the meantime you might ask how I could make such a claim. Sarah, having grown up in an actual Patriarchy (which she describes in her post) explains for us:
I knew the US was a matriarchy from the moment in the airport when I was waiting for my plane to come over and get married and watched a very overweight, inappropriately dressed middle aged woman boss her husband and sons around. (It occurred to me the other day that I probably now resemble her. Eh.)
Only in a matriarchy are all men shown as idiots in every commercial; is every boss on tv a woman; are women treated like they have special and holy insight.
ONLY in a matriarchy can a bunch of women suddenly deciding that events thirty years ago still apply today (77 is not now, and now any guy saying sleep with me or else will be taken to court. Unless he’s in Hollywood, publishing, the news or politics, and, oh, yeah, leftist) have men scurrying to come up with #Ihave. When they OBVIOUSLY and painfully not only haven’t but couldn’t being to.
When she talks about TV commercials, she may be channeling an earlier post here at The Declination: Pop Culture, Commercials, and White Guys. Or perhaps she merely came to the same conclusion independently. Either way, a Matriarchy is not as obvious or blunt as a Patriarchy. Given the general personality characteristics of women, and how they often differ from men, we should not expect it to manifest in the same way.
Christina Hoff Summers explains for us in this video:
Masculinity is variously regarded as toxic, sexist, and at the very least in need of close monitoring and modification. The gold standard for personal behavior is the feminine, not the masculine. In essence, our society is asking why men aren’t more like women. And the needs and views of women are prioritized over men. This is often expressed as something like “happy wife, happy life” or “I put her needs first.” This isn’t even seen as particularly good behavior, rather it is the bare minimum. If you don’t think this way, you’re obviously a bad man.
Notice in the following poster how the woman is assumed to be the victim, even though the poster tells us both individuals were drunk:
A woman who is intoxicated cannot consent, but apparently a man who is intoxicated can and is automatically assumed to have done so. This entire campaign is centered around a distinctly female perspective. It’s not hard to find examples of this kind of thinking everywhere. Even the value system the West adheres to these days – at least publicly – is distinctly feminine. It’s a sort of ‘everybody just get along, and let’s all share’ passive-aggressive demand for conformity. It is the kind of thing you would see in a daycare run primarily by, you guessed it, women.
Sarah explains better than I can:
Women, being smaller and slighter and weaker than men have no built in brakes. If we go to war, we go to war till the enemy is pieces.
The feminists who convinced American women that men were the enemy, at least as far back as I’ve been in the country, unleashed a monster that most of them didn’t anticipate or understand.
Ain’t momma happy ain’t nobody happy. And momma knows that she can’t hold her men by force, so she must berate them and berate them and berate them, until they confess to things they wouldn’t dream of doing.
The constant accusations of racism, sexism, whatever… that are heaped upon men, especially straight white men (but other male demographics still get some of it), is off the scale. White men can do nothing that will satisfy anyone, anymore. If a white guy invented a cure for cancer, tomorrow we’d hear that he was a secret sexist because he said something hasty on Twitter once.
Meanwhile, if a woman does something a thousand men have done before her, we’ll be hearing about it for months. One of my favorite examples is this headline:
This is another case of people forgetting men even matter at all. Avery Brooks (a black man) played the lead character, Benjamin Sisko, in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine over 20 years before this woman was cast in Star Trek:Discovery. But it doesn’t matter, because Sonequa is a woman. Sometimes you don’t even have to be a white male to get shafted this way, you just have to be a man. The female perspective is the only one that really matters in pop culture.
A hundred men could, for example, fly to Mars, and yes it would make headlines for a while. And people would praise the scientific achievement (even though it’s more of an engineering achievement, but that’s a separate post). But when the first woman goes, it won’t just be a mere scientific achievement, it will be an historic moment for all women, and for social justice, equality, fairness, and a thousand other Marxist buzzwords that don’t really mean what they say. Women matter more than science or engineering. Women matter more than anything.
Here’s a little social experiment to close:
The woman is always the victim. Even when, paradoxically, she’s doing the hitting. If a woman hits a man, it’s all smiles, laughter, and the occasional “you go girl” messages of encouragement. The reverse, of course, is anathema. Now, some of my readers may wonder about the difference, after all the Patriarchal way of doing things (at least in the more recent past) was generally to not hit women either. The difference is, in those days, it was understood that this was predicated on women not hitting men. If a woman started hitting a man in public in, say, the Victorian age, there would be no messages of encouragement or laughter. It would have been view with horror and embarrassment. People would think she was mental. Today, she’s a hero fighting the evil sexists, or at least entitled to hit her man as much as she wants.
Radical feminism has embraced the penultimate line of the strange 70s movie Zardoz: “The Penis is Evil.” Of course, the first line is one they’d view with horror: “The Gun is Good.” But that’s because, in the minds of feminists, the gun is nothing more than an extended penis anyway. Certainly, comparing gun ownership with penis size is common enough among them.
Either way, Sarah Hoyt is right. I can’t speak for her native Portugal, but I can say with some degree of certainty, as she does, that America is a Matriarchy. And in other Western nations I’ve visited, I’ve seen little to convince me otherwise.