Category Archives: Politics

Feminism Does Not Represent Women’s Interests

We here in the manosphere often condemn feminism, and rightfully so, but usually our condemnation is based on how feminism works against the interests of men. This is important, but only half the story; feminism also works against the interest of the majority of women as well.

In essence, radical feminism* is a coterie of like-minded women who are trying to enforce their preferences on other women.

Feminists advocate that women have careers so they can be independent and they shame them for being a housewife, but the majority of women do not want a full-time career.

Feminists decry the restricting nature of the hausfraus and traditional family structures and advocate delaying marriage or forgoing it altogether, but the majority of women would prefer to be stay at home full-time with their children while their rich husband works (if money were not an issue) and the large majority want to be married by 25.

Demands for the “right” to unlimited access to abortion is the litmus test for feminism, but the majority of women favour restricting abortion more than it currently is. In fact, women are more inclined to stricter abortion laws than men.

Feminism argues that traditional religion is patriarchal (it is) and oppose traditional religion. In reality, the majority of women are religious and women are more religious than men.

They decry traditional male-led romance and are “sex-positive”, but the majority of women desire traditional chivalry and hate the hook-up culture “sex-positivism” has created.

On every issue important to feminists, radical feminists line up opposed to the desires of the majority of women.

Feminists dominate the media and academia in relation to “women’s issues”, so their views are often the only one heard. They are using this to pressure women into lives they do not want and have created a political, economic, and social environment against the interests of most women.

Is it any wonder that women’s happiness has been declining along with the growth of feminism.

Feminists do not represent women and they do not represent the interests of women. Radical feminists represent a minority population of women intent on forcing their lifestyles and unhappiness on other women.

Women, if your values and desires are not represented by feminism you need to start fighting against this, for your own good. Just because feminists claim to represent your interests, doesn’t mean they do.

But what do I know of women, I’m just a man.

*Note: I know not all feminists are exactly alike and that there are ideological permutations and disagreements among feminists. I also know I’m painting with a broad-brush; this is a blog post, not an academic essay. No NAFALT please.

Diamond Jubilee

God save our gracious Queen
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen:
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us:
God save the Queen.

O Lord, our God, arise,
Scatter thine enemies,
And make them fall:
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On thee our hopes we fix:
God save us all.

Thy choicest gifts in store,
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign:
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice
God save the Queen.

Since when was Covetousness a Christian value?

Here’s one Mr. Sirota at Salon discussing left-wing Christianity and spouting ignorance. (h/t Secular Right).

in England 1) “religious people are more active citizens (who) volunteer more, donate more to charity and are more likely to campaign on political issues,”

Same in North America. In fact, in North America conservative religious people donate and volunteer more than liberals. You see, conservative religious folks believe in these little things called charity, community, and loving your neighbour, rather than using the state as a device for sanctioned mass looting so individuals can feel free to ignore the poor.

First, they tell us that, contrary to evidence in the United States, the intersection of religion and politics doesn’t have to be fraught with hypocrisy.

Notice how Sirota thinks an ideology based upon freedom, tradition, and/or order is contrary to the Bible, but left-wing ideology based on greed and covetousness is somehow congruent with it.

Summing up the situation, scholar Gregory Paul wrote in the Washington Post that many religious Christians in America simply ignore the Word and “proudly proclaim that the creator of the universe favors free wheeling, deregulated union busting, minimal taxes, especially for wealthy investors, and plutocrat-boosting capitalism as the ideal earthly scheme for his human creations.”

The Creator of the Universe never spoke much about the political economy, except in relation to the tribal polity of Israel in the Old Testament. To assign God to any political ideology is simply silly.

In addition, plutocrat-boosting capitalism is primarily an ideology of liberalism (be it the neo-conservative, socialist, or progressivist kind). Actual right-wingers believe in a neutral free market of uncoerced exchange.

Of course, many Americans who cite Christianity to justify their economic conservatism may not have actually read the Bible.

And most liberals who cite Christianity to justify their economic theft don’t believe the Bible is truth.

No doubt, only a few generations ago, such a conflation of religion and right-wing economics would never fly in America.

That’s because a few generations ago, the left hadn’t begun waging all-out-war on Christianity.

Anyway, I dislike when anybody tries to say there’s a “Christian” political or economic system.

There’s a few political and economic systems that might be inherently unchristian, such as those based on gassing Jews, massacring priests, or purposely starving millions of people, but unless your system requires those kinds of atrocities, there is no “Christian” or “unchristian” system, because Jesus didn’t much talked about the political economy. He mentioned something about rendering unto Caeser his own, but that’s more or less it.

Jesus never said, “woe unto thee who opposeth the welfare state” or “truly, I say to unto thee goods should be exchanged freely in an open marketplace” or “blessed be those who raise taxes”.

Jesus’ message, the Christian message, is spiritual, not material and not political.

So, please Mr. Sirota, refrain from making yourself look silly.

Choice and Freedom

Slate had an article from last week I read today. For the most part it’s typical liberal feminist rhetoric: women are oppressed, men are treated better, Republican’s are waging “war on women” but the “mommy wars” don’t exist, etc, etc.

But, there’s an interesting question asked in the middle:

For starters, ask yourself why we talk about American men using the language of “freedom” and women in the language of “choice?”
…
Why is it that women are the sum of their “choices” and men get to just live their lives?

Having asked a rather interesting question, the authors then simply blame it on evil Republicans who hate women, a thoroughly unsatisfying answer to any who aren’t ideologically-blinded feminists.

So, why do we talk about freedom when referring to males, but choice when referring to females (or at least to feminists)?

The first, and most obvious, reason would be abortion. Feminism has irreversibly joined itself to pro-abortion policies and uses the language of choice when discussing the mass killing of the unborn.

But, even when not addressing abortion, or even feminism for that matter, the dichotomy of male freedom and female choice remains in political discussion. Why?

First, we have to look at what is meant by the two words:

Freedom is generally used to mean the ability to act without external constraint. Some have tried to pervert the word with the phrase “positive freedom” (ie. forcing someone else to help you to act), but the original conception, sometimes referred to as “negative freedom”, is the most commonly accepted: the ability to do as you wish with yourself and your resources without someone else using force to stop you.

Choice, on the other hand, refers to the act of selecting an option. Choice implies that options are available and one is selected.

So, how does that relate to politics and sex differences?

Nobody else can give you freedom, others can only take it away. Freedom also implies responsibility: if you are free to act, you are free to act stupidly and will have to live with the consequences of your actions. On the other hand, freedom does not imply that you have the ability to act; just because there are not external constraints, does not mean there are no internal constraints. I am free to fly, but not being Superman, I have to walk.

Choice can be given by others. Choice also implies that I have the ability to act. Because I am not Superman, I can not be said to have the choice to fly.On the other hand, if I lived in Metropolis, Superman could offer me a ride; if he did I would then have the choice of flight.

Knowing this, we can see why men have freedom and women, or at least feminists, have choice.

Men are encouraged to act and when they fail, they are rarely given help; they are expected to pull themselves up. Men who do not provide for themselves are shamed. In the political sphere, the more masculine ideologies (libertarianism and conservatism) are based on freedom.

When men (rarely) organize politically for the benefit of their sex, it is never to demand they be given special privileges or for others to provide for them, it is always to be left free: the fair enforcement of marriage contracts, to not be discriminated against when applying for jobs, to not be treated as de facto guilty when accused, etc.

They advocate for freedom. Men in politics are more inclined to work towards freedom and are not inclined to requiring other to provide for them.

On the other hand, females are encouraged to rely on the state. When they fail, the surrogate husband will take care of them. Women who are provided for are not shamed. In the political sphere, the more feminine ideologies (liberalism, feminism, and progressivism) are based on choice, on giving people choices, even if it requires the state help them, redistributing resources, or removing freedom. They also tend to advocate that the state prevent them from having to live with the consequences of their actions.

When modern females organize politically for the benefit of their sex (ie. post-second wave feminism), the demand for other to provide them with choice is always there: affirmative action, quotas for hiring women, state-funded daycare, state-funded abortions, mandatory contraception insurance, ending sexist jokes, sensitivity training for others, increased welfare, gender parity, increased alimony, etc. Feminists demand choices and demand that others provide these choices for them.

That is why we talk about men in the language of freedom and women in the language of choice.

If feminists do not like being consigned to the language of choice, they can accept freedom.

They would have to accept that freedom may limit choice. If a person can not afford daycare, they go without.

They would have to accept responsibility that comes along with it. If a person has children, they are responsible for raising them and paying for them.

They would have to accept that freedom means that others won’t be forced to provide you with choices. There would be no affirmative action or gender quotas, no state-funding to support choices, little to no welfare, etc.

But, until feminists embrace freedom, they will be consigned to the language of choice.

Would an Obama Win be Best for the Right?

I came across this today (h/t: Instapundit) and the excitement over a potential Romney win is palpable, but is a Romney what the right should be hoping for? I’m not so sure.

Romney seems like a decent enough politician. I  tend to think of him as similar to Canada’s Prime Minister. Both Romney and Harper are pragmatics on the centre-right. They can be counted on be competent managers and run a country smoothly. They might make some some minor adjustments to slowly move the country rightward, but you can’t really expect anything overly reactionary or radical changes  from them. They will keep the ship of state steady.

In Canada, steady as she goes works fine for Harper; the country is mostly in good health, the economy is functioning fairly well, taxes are fairly low and lowering, and debts and deficits are not great, but they’re in control and there is no permanent structural deficit. The country is on a decent enough course, and while Harper may not be everything the right hoped for, he throws us the occasional bone. He’s a competent prime minister.

The US is in a different situation though, the economy has stalled, a structural deficit has been built into federal finances, debt is out of control, taxes are high, and the country is imploding.

Romney may slow the implosion, he will run the US much better than Obama, and he may stall America’s impending doom, but everybody knows he doesn’t have the ideological strength to do the harsh cuts necessary to bail out the state. At best, we can expect him to put off the inevitable sinking of America by a few years or a decade.

The alternative, though, is Obama, who has shown he can not right the economy, who’s running on a counter-productive eat-the-rich platform, who has overspent and who will continue to spend the state into bankruptcy.

So Romney’s obviously better then, no?

Maybe not. Communists have this idea of heightening the contradictions. This basics of this idea is that to hasten the advent of communism, communists must make the capitalist state as brutal as possible to the proletariat so as to grow the seeds of class consciousness to hasten the communist revolution that follows. Working from this idea they oppose soft-left/liberal ideas such as the welfare state, public health care, etc. which make the lot of the proletariat more comfortable. A comfortable proletariat may not notice the chains of the capitalist system and would have less incentive to cast off them off, forestalling the inevitable rise of communism.

So, how does this idea apply to the US and Romney?

Simple, the election of Romney will slow, but not halt, the economic implosion of the US. The right, having beaten that socialist Obama and installed the conservative Romney in power, will congratulate themselves on a job well done, and the momentum of the Tea Party movement will peter out, mistaking victory in battle, for victory in war. America’s decline will continue, but slower. The collapse would be postponed, but will still be inevitable.

On the other hand, if Obama wins, he will pillage the producer class, he will continue to make drunken sailors look like paragons of fiscal responsibility, the beast will be gorged, and his class war rhetoric will drone on. The economy will stay stuck in neutral, high unemployment will continue, firms will continue to leave for greener pastures, and the dollar will continue to decline. There will be no recovery; America will suffer, America will bleed. Producers will know they are being mugged, centrists will realize they are suffering, the left’s disillusionment will rise, the Tea Party’s momentum will continue to grow, and the young will begin to realize they are being chained in perpetual debt slavery.

Then in 2016, American’s will be forced to accept they need change. Thanks to four years of Obama, Ron Paul did fairly well in the primaries; he brought libertarianism into the mainstream and established the ideological groundwork for its continued expansion but he suffered from his supposed extremism. But what of a more moderate libertarian Rand Paul after 8 years of economic hemorrhaging and overwhelming encroachment of the federal state under Obama?

Cain surged, but ultimately fell due to the perceived unseriousness of his campaign and a couple of scandals. But what of a serious Paul Ryan pointing to his long-ago proposed plan for fiscal sanity after 8 years of  Obama’s economic insanity?

Would not Rand Paul or Paul Ryan have the ideological fortitude to do what is necessary necessary to bail the state out and keep her afloat? After 8 years of Obama would not the American public be begging to be rescued. Would they not look to anybody who was not a borderline-socialist Democrat for rescue? After 8 years of Obama and the loss of two establishment Republicans in a row would not the Tea Party and the grassroots have the strength to sideline the GOP establishment and run a hardline conservative?

If Romney wins, the US continues to slowly implode.

If Romney loses, Obama will heighten the contradictions of the welfare state. He will sink the Republic. Then, the right would simply have to grab hold of the opportunity to save her and set her on course once more.

Maybe the right should hope Obama wins.

Germany Eats Their Young

I promised more commentary and less self-indulgent reflection, so here we begin.

If you’ve been around the alt-right blogosphere/manosphere for a while, you’ve probably already somewhat familiar with the way the boomers have screwed over their own children in almost every way possible and how they have chained them to perpetual debt slavery.

Yes, that link to Mark Steyn did say the US owes 911% of GDP. In other words, Americans owe 9 full years of productive activity and the growth in debt shows no sign of slowing, which means the boomer’s children and grandchildren will likely spend a significant portion of their lives paying for the boomers’ excesses.

Thankfully, I live in Canada and despite Trudeau’s best efforts we have managed to avoid the worst excesses the US has subjected itself to, even thought the situation is not optimal. (I “only” owe about $17,000 in federal debt, while our pension system is actually somewhat funded, more or less).

Anyway, it seems Germany (which, as far as I know is in a fairly similar situation to Canada) will be having a problem funding its welfare state and benefits for the old (surprising, I know).

So, what are they doing to fix this?

Reducing the welfare state?

Decreasing regulation to create prosperity?

Putting back the retirement age as Canada is doing?

Of course not, that would be silly. They’re taxing the young, of course. Who could possibly want to leave their children and grandchildren better off than they are?

So, it seems Germany has explicitly decided to eat their young.

Germany’s boomers forgot to have children (where did life go?), now they realized that without children no one is there to pay for their health care when they become aged invalids (who could possibly have guessed?), so, why not take it out ofon what few children they did have.

Also, notice how their solution to a lack of a young workers to make up a tax base, is to work towards trying to drive away that same tax base. That’s sure to work.

Anyway, for those young Germans out there out there who want to work hard, keep their earnings, and be somewhat free, come to Canada; for now, we’re a bastion of near-sanity.

Expect more in future.