Category Archives: Sex/Gender

Dianna Anderson: A Wolf in the Pen

This is the way of an adulteress:
she eats and wipes her mouth
and says, “I have done no wrong.”
(Proverbs 30:20 ESV)

Dalrock pointed out this piece by “Christian” Dianna Anderson where she called her fornication “a different kind of sacrament.” She then rages against the purity culture. Now, I’m no fan of the purity culture, having called it a sickness, among other epithets, but the proper reaction against the purity culture is not to embrace sinful hedonism, it is to embrace God-ordained marriage.

Looking over her Twitter and blog, she’s obviously your average young progressive with the typical progressive beliefs about social issues glossed over with a smear of vague “Christianity” over it. As with most progressive “Christians”, she loves the world and has simply smeared a Christian sheen over the doctrines of the world. Now to any orthodox Christian Dianna’s obviously a false teacher, and 2 Peter 2 says all that’s necessary about false teachers:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”

****

There’s nothing all that special about her beliefs and her article is chalk full of such obvious rationalizations for sin that commenting on all of them would be a waste of time but I think there’s a few things here worth pointing out.

I’d met him at a local book club, and we hit it off almost instantly. Our first date started at eight p.m. and ended shortly after one a.m. Though we’d planned a second official date for the following Tuesday, we ended up hanging out every evening for the next few days. I was smitten, he was smitten, and it wasn’t long before we were A Thing.

Two months later, I moved to Chicago and we broke up. But before all that happened, before this relationship went down in the flaming ball of pain that plagues so many long distance relationships, we had several wonderful evenings together.

I obviously can’t say for sure why she moved to Chicago but moving at age 25, moves are almost always either the pursuit of a job or the pursuit of a relationship, and given that she worked “as a radio producer in Chicago” it can reasonably be assumed obvious she left for the job.

The problem here is not the purity culture, the problem here is that she had what likely would have become a marriage, then dumped it so she could pursue other priorities in her life. While pursuing other priorities is fine, she can not then turn around and blame purity culture for her own choices. So, all her feeling “totally abandoned and misled by this God” was not God depriving her or the purity culture damaging her, but her depriving herself of marriage to a guy she cared about so she could pursue a career. Her entire “ministry” is little more than her rationalizing her mistake and blaming the natural consequences of her own decisions on others. “I have done no wrong” indeed.

****

She outlines six warnings of purity culture (which she obviously thinks are wrong):

Having sex outside of marriage will take away pleasure from sex within marriage.

Absolutely true. Most women’s best sex was with someone other than their husband and most women would rather do almost anything else before sex. Anecdotes of alpha widows are legion.

Having sex outside of marriage with make connection with your future spouse harder.

Absolutely, it does. Pre-marital sex is one of the strongest indicators of future divorce.

Having sex outside of marriage means disappointing God, disappointing family, and causing unnecessary pain and heartache for yourself.

Absolutely. Regret over sexual encounters is common among women. Deuteronomy 22 alone is enough to show exactly how much fornication disappoints God. As for family, that would depend on your family.

Having sex outside of marriage will essentially destroy you, ruining your witness, your faith, your relationships.

Given that the woman writing this is currently advocating sin as a form of sacrament, it would be hard to argue this is not true in many cases.

Having sex outside of marriage is the slippery slope to hedonistic atheism.

Not always atheism, sometimes its a slippery slope to a false, damnable “Christianity”.

Her ‘problems’ with purity all fall on the side of purity culture being right.

****

My doubt had taken a toll on me; I didn’t know how to process this new perspective of God that I was developing. I was beginning to see the cracks in the armor of the evangelical church, especially as my views on politics became more progressive and I began to be more concerned about loving LGBT people than condemning them to hell.

And yet, she insists on condemning them to hell. Why do progressive “Christians” not realize that by tolerating sin they are the ones condemning people to hell?

Also, take notice of the order of events. She did not have a theological revelation that turned her to progressive politics. She became progressive then decided to fit the superficialities of her old faith to fit her new religion.

She had a choice between the world and Jesus, she chose the world.

This also isn’t a conversion story of how losing my virginity made me realize how far away I’d fallen and now I’m chastened, back on the straight-and-narrow and celibate. I’m not celibate and I’m dating around. And I’m a Christian whose faith, at this point, is probably stronger than at any point in my younger years. And I know that this faith, this commitment, wouldn’t have been possible had I not actively made the decision to give up on purity.

I believe her here, her faith is probably stronger than it’s ever been, but the mistake she makes is that her faith is not Christianity, it is progressivism.

Rather than preying on the flock and destroying whatever remnants of morality still exist in the church, she should be honest with herself and God and either repent or go apostate.

For me, making the decision to have sex without shame, to own that part of myself and to make those decisions, has only improved my faith and my understanding of God’s love. Sex liberated me from my puritanical judgment and strict ideas about what’s right and wrong.

Peter was so very right, “They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.”

It taught me to meet people where they are – just as Jesus did – and in that way, it became a different kind of sacrament.

Just like Jesus did to the adulteress, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” Dianna is missing the ‘sin no more’ part. Also, I’m not sure she even understands what a sacrament is.

I judge people less now. I don’t wrap my faith up in whether or not I’m performing the rules in the right way. And I understand God’s love for God’s people on a deeper, more personal level than ever before… Sex, in this way, can be a sacrament, a movement toward understanding God, a form of holiness experienced in a deep, mystical way. Sex can be holy, whether or not you have a ring on your finger.

Peter once again speaks, “For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error.”

I’m almost surprised just how well she lines up with Peter’s words on false teachers.

In conclusion, Dianna Anderson has chosen the side of darkness and her own words pronounce her own judgment on herself. I hope she can see the errors of her ways and repents or at least stop trying to drag others to hell with her.

****

My son, be attentive to my wisdom;
incline your ear to my understanding,
that you may keep discretion,
and your lips may guard knowledge.
For the lips of a forbidden woman drip honey,
and her speech is smoother than oil,
but in the end she is bitter as wormwood,
sharp as a two-edged sword.
Her feet go down to death;
her steps follow the path to Sheol;
she does not ponder the path of life;
her ways wander, and she does not know it.

(Proverbs 5:1-6 ESV)

Mark Hill, #Gamersgate, and Punching Down

I’m going to add to the crapheap by wading into the #gamersgate controversy. I’m mostly going to focus on a particular article at Cracked* by one Mark Hill, because I think it brings up a lot of the hypocrisies of the issue.

First thing, ‘Quinngate’? I don’t know what Mark Hill is smoking, but he’s the first one I’ve read who’s even used the term Quinngate; everybody has been using gamersgate. He then uses this nearly non-existent term throughout the article, each time referencing how icky the term is. He is obviously purposely using this rarely-used term to smear gamers.

Now, his first point: “#4. We’re Incapable of Mature Conversations About Gender”.

He cherry-picks some immature comments, because of course in the millions of words spilled on this he’s going to find a few jerks.

Of course, he ignores that these discussions always start with his side, with the SJW’s lobbing accusations misogyny and racism at those basement-dwelling virgins (remember, Zoe Quinn controversy started when she started attacking Wizardchan). Why do the SJW’s expect a ‘mature’ conversation when every time the ‘conversation’ starts with ‘you are all a bunch of misogynist, racist, homophobes’? (who are virgins with small dicks). But, of course, he doesn’t point out the immaturity of the SJW’s, punching down is too much fun.

His second point: “#3. Male Gamers Think They Know What the Real Problem Is”.

Here he, of course, argues that white male gamers never have any problems and their opinions don’t matter.

The problem is that guys who have never faced discrimination because of their hobby or profession really do believe that this obscure ethical non-breach is the bigger issue.

I don’t know where Mark grew up as a gamer, but it must have been a nice place. So, how about I try to teach some empathy for all the SJW’s?

Many a young nerd (those evil, evil gamers) spent (spend) most of their lives bullied and socially rejected, partially because of their hobbies. They turn to places where they can escape: gaming, science fiction, comics, etc. Of course, these hobbies were ‘nerdy’ so they were only bullied and rejected more.

Now, when these hobbies are finally gaining some small social cachet, a whole new breed of bullies, your Sarkeesians, your Quinns, etc. are entering these nerds formerly safe spaces and are bullying them again. They barge in unwanted and start hurling insults and accusations. They use their much greater social power to demand the hobbies change and for those old icky nerds to be ostracized from their own hobbies.

Then somehow these social justice bullies are surprised that the nerds don’t take too kindly to this bullying. Somehow the bullied are the bullies for fighting back?

A minority of loud, male, and probably young gamers want to dictate what the rest of the gaming community talks about, because in their minds they know what’s important and best for everyone.

That’s because this is our community, our hobby, it always has been. Males make up 80% of the core gaming community with an average age in the mid-20s. Women are a small minority trying to break into our hobby and, in the case of SJW’s, destroy it. The ‘rest of the gaming community’ is a small minority out to silence the majority and force their minority viewpoints on the rest of us who only want to enjoy gaming.

So they recognize that gamers have a problem with gender — they just can’t understand how they’re contributing to it or why anyone wants to talk about it instead of their problems.

I’d turn this around on Mark: why doesn’t he, and all the other SJW’s, realize that the majority doesn’t want to talk about their problems and just want to have some fun gaming. Why does the minority get to dominate the conversation with their moral crusades? Why aren’t the majority allowed to talk about the things that effect the majority without a bunch of whiners whining?

Luckily, there’s this thing called “empathy” that can overcome that.

Funny Mark talks of empathy while supporting the people who attack depressed, near-suicidal, male virgins and take joy in destroying careers and bullying others. How about it Mark, where’s the Empathy from the SJW’s? From you for that matter?

Point 3: “#2. Gamers Don’t Really Care About the Industry (Until Women Are Involved)”

Here Mark is both lying and mistaking cause and effect. (I’ll note I don’t pay attention to the gaming press and haven’t since my PC Gamer subscription ran out a decade ago). He’s lying in that corruption in gaming journalism has been a long standing topic, not just something that appeared because of Zoe Quinn. This article from 2013 points out that these kind of scandals have been going on since 2007 (at least).

It’s not outrage over the gaming scandal that’s unique here, what’s unique is the press’ reaction. We’ll ignore the press cover-up for now, and instead focus on how the press only takes these scandals seriously when “harassment” occurs.

It’s not that gamers only complain when it’s women, it’s that the press only cares to listen when they can use accusations of corruption to start beating the accusers with accusations of misogyny.

Also, I’d like to turn this around on Mark. How come harassment only matters when it happens to women? I remember Matt Forney and the RoK gang undergoing all kinds of harassment: death threats, doxxing, castration threats, etc., and absolutely nobody outside the manosphere even noticed or cared. Yet every time someone makes a single negative comment on a woman in a forum somewhere, it becomes a major issue.

Or a bunch of sexually frustrated…

Here we see the hypocrisy of Mark and leftists in general. He spends his whole piece prattling about empathy and maturity. then he starts insulting his opponents for being sexually frustrated. Perhaps Mark could show some of his much-vaunted empathy and maturity?

Point 4: “#1. We Will Never Learn From Past Mistakes”

It’s not a fringe issue, though, at least according to this study that claims 63 percent of female gamers have been sexually harassed at some point.

Threats, etc. are a fringe issue. Those people making death threats and the like are a tiny minority.

Everybody gets ‘harassed’ online, that’s how online gaming goes. I usually only play single-player games, but for a while I was playing Starcraft online. I was regularly ‘harassed’ with a variety of epithets. If Mark was more of a man, he’d realize it’s because that’s how men act. Men are a competitive lot, when engaging in competition we trash-talk. If women want to join our spaces and play men’s games with men, they should grow thicker skins and take trash-talk for what it is. They should stop being thin-skinned whiners and start trash-talking back.

For ideological purposes though, Mark and his SJW ilk love to lump trash-talk, rational criticism, and death threats all under the label of ‘harassment’, so they can better smear critics and further their ideological agenda.

Remember the old saws, don’t play the game if you can’t take the pain and stay out of the kitchen if you can’t take the heat.

****

What Mark Hill and the other SJW’s miss in their victimization narrative is that they are the bullies, they are the harassers. Gamers and other assorted nerds escaped the trauma of public schooling, bullying, and social ostracism by retreating to nerdy hobbies and now just want to be left alone to enjoy their hobbies in peace.

But instead of leaving them in peace, the SJW’s are invading their hobbies and attacking them. It the SJW’s who have invaded gaming, not gamers who have invaded SJW space.

They should also realize it’s not the gamers who are punching down, it’s the SJW’s. The SJW’s have most of the gaming press writing insulting articles about ‘gamers’, they have Reddit and gaming sites banning #gamergaters posts and comments, and they even have the mainstream press jumping on gamers. Meanwhile, the #gamersgate have no platform beyond their personal blogs and the occasional forum and are threatened with firings and never being able to work in gaming again if they dare express their opinions. Even Cracked itself has written two anti-gamer pieces on #gamersgate and not a single piece from the other side (not to mention all the SJW in games stuff they’ve written previously).

The SJW’s should realize they are the ones with the power who are punching down. They’re the ones doing the harassing. They are the bullies.

The gamers are a mostly powerless group using what little they have to keep their hobby safe for them.

So, Mark and other SJW’s, please have some basic empathy for the nerds. Leave them in peace, stop punching down, and let them enjoy their hobbies without constant harassment.

****

Here’s my final point, gamers do not have a ‘woman problem’, women, or rather a particular type of woman, are the problem. We do not need women in gaming. If they want to game, fine.  My sisters regularly gamed with me (and on their own), and they still do, that’s great. Having women game is fine, what’s not fine is (a particular type of) women trying to change (ie. destroy) the hobby for their own ideological ends.

While we can take or leave women in gaming, we do not want SJW’s in gaming. I’ve been board-gaming (and winning at Monopoly) since I was 3 and video-gaming since I was 5, and we do not need lying Janey-come-latelies and fake geek girls intruding into our hobbies and whining about how Mario games are sexist. We do not need them whining about sexism because one game featured killing hookers, when almost every game features the mass-slaughter of men. We do not need them whining about racism when one game has people shooting Africans, when every second game is about shooting Germans.

This is our hobby and the SJW’s should leave well-enough alone. We want to game to have fun, to enjoy ourselves. We neither need nor want their idiotic moral crusades.

If women/SJW’s want to make their own SJW games, fine they can enjoy their Depression Quests, but they need to stay out of our games. Why do the SJW’s refuse to live and let live?

****

* If you want to know why I focus disproportionately on Cracked on this blog, it’s because it used to be my favourite site. I’ve been reading it daily since 2007, the majority of my adult life. I hate that its been declining over the last couple of years with increasingly mediocre columnists and humourless SJW nonsense, almost to the point where I’ve considered removing it from regular reading. I want it to go back to the good ol’ days of hilarious no-holds barred humour.

Unrealistic Expectations

Donal pointed out this comment by Elspeth:

Most people (men and women) have unrealistic expectations, about themselves, about what they are worth, about what they should be able to have. And those who know they can’t have what they want will go without. Especially men. I’ve heard a couple of young men actually say that.

He then defended those with reasonable, but possibly unrealistic requirements. (Read his post for definitions).

I’m going to go farther: as a man you should have unrealistic requirements for marriage. I’ve created my list for marriage and it’s reasonable, but possibly not realistic.

Based on previous analyses only about 40% of women are even worth considering for marriage looks-wise (ie. are not fat or actively ugly) and only about 30% of women would be in the 0-2 sexual partners category (although, that’s a bit higher if you go younger) and less than half have not had a one-night stand. Throw on top of that that you should almost never* marry a woman over 30 and be wary of those over 25, and your pickings are getting slim. That’s not even considering the much more important (for marriage) aspects of personality and inner beauty.

we can estimate that only about a fifth of eligible women would be even worth considering marrying. If we then look towards such things as religion, shared values, mutual compatibility, personality, and the like, the percentage of women that would make a decent wife for any particular man is shockingly low. (The only reprieve is a man only needs one reciprocating girl to meet those requirements).

If only 20% of women are worthy wives, then that means that 80% of men are not going to be able to find a worthy wife. Now, it should be noted that most men won’t meet the requirements a worthy wife should have and many men will choose unworthy wives, but still, if even a quarter of men are waiting for worthy wives that means that 20% of those men are simply going to have to do without.

****

It is better to live in a corner of the housetop
than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife. (Proverbs 25:24 ESV)

While a good marriage can be a great blessing, the consequences of choosing an unworthy wife are huge.

I remember reading somewhere (I can’t find the link) that 70% of marriages either end in divorce or perpetual unhappiness, which means that only 30% of marriages end up being happy and healthy. (That’s pretty close to my estimation that only 20% of women who are worthy wives, is it not?)

There is a 40% chance the marriage will end in divorce, the odds of which are strongly effected by how worthy the wife is. The cost of an average divorce to a man is about $150,000, the price of a smaller house. (This does not include child support, which will run an average man a pretty penny as well). The emotional costs of divorce are also huge: it is better to be single than divorced.

But even if the family stays together, there’s a chance the marriage will be miserable. Number I’ve read range all over the place. This study shows that 97% of marriages are ‘very’ or ‘pretty’ happy with their marriage, while this one shows 80% are satisfied with their relationship. I’ve seen lots of other numbers bandied around of anywhere from 20-60%, but most of these did not seem supported by anything. 80% satisfaction sounds right, which means 20% of marriages not ending in divorce are unhappy.

So, there’s a 50-70% chance that a marriage will be unhappy or end in divorce. If a man chooses a wife wrong, he will end up miserable.

****

Men should have unrealistic (but no unreasonable) requirements for marriage. IF only a fifth of women display the qualities that make a good wife, not all men will be able to find a good wife. Going without is much superior to entering a marriage that will end in divorce or misery.

So hold those requirements high and be unrealistic if necessary to so.

****

Before the accusations of misogyny start flying, know that I also advocate women demanding more from their relationships. Women should also hold high requirements for marriage and relationships.

****

* I have talked with one girl approaching 30 whom, had circumstances been different, I may have considered, but she had been engaged in her mid-20s then the guy calling it off because she wouldn’t have sex with him until marriage. There are not many women out there with that level of virtue, but every rule has an exception.

Digging Deeper on Power

We come to a third edition of the topic of women and power. Both Donal and Chad have responded with criticisms, so I’ll respond.

Donal’s response is, as he admits, somewhat unordered and incoherent, but essentially he denies that men act as a class and states that modern weaponry has lowered the power differentials between men and women.

Chad’s response is wrapped in parable. I’ve never been too good with allegory and as of my writing this I don’t think he’s done yet, but from my understanding he’s likening men to land and women to water. The land shapes the environment and guides and controls the water, but the water flows where it flows within the framework the land has shaped and has the power to either destroy the land or make it bountiful.

From these, I don’t think we disagree as much as my critics think we do.

****

First, on the nature of power:

The female, and indirect method, is to make the world desire to change and help it do so.

I think many of my critics are missing or misunderstanding a critical piece:

any power [women] may display is simply proxy power given them by men.

They can not, as a class, have power in the public sphere that is not given them by men.

So maybe I should restate a little: women as a class do not have any inherent public/political power.

Women do have political/public power but only that given them or supported by men. Indirect power, the power the make the world desire to change and to help change is only effective when men give them men’s power to effect that change.

****

Second, we will go more into the nature of the public and private realms:

Oh, and another thing: the personal is the political, at least in the sense that political power is heavily influence by personal and private spheres of power. As anyone who has worked in the political field knows, politics is largely about managing personal connections and networks of like-minded people.

Donal seems to be misunderstanding what I meant, which is understandable as I didn’t explicitly state or link to some background assumptions:

In the public realm, where personal relationships are superseded by hierarchical and organizational ones, physical violence is power and power is physical violence,

The Way of Men has more on this, but men exist in a world of function-based, hierarchical organizations, ie. public organizations, while women exist in a world of one-on-one personal relationships. The former does not eliminate personal connections or friendships, but rather changes the nature of them: the personal relationships and networks exist in a framework where function, shared virtue, and ability towards a shared goal are the measures of judgment rather than emotional closeness, non-judgmentalism, and acceptance.

To explain what I mean, think of the playground. Boys generally self-organize into large group activities, such as soccer, where most other boys are allowed to join as they will (except maybe the occasional incompetent or nerd). Girls generally break up into pairs. This doesn’t mean the boys playing soccer don’t have personal relationships, but that the relationships exist in a public, hierarchical, function-based environment, the soccer team, and are superseded by a higher value, winning the game. Politics is playground soccer on a grand scale. The management of personal relationships and networks in such a public system is different than that in a private system, such as the family.

****

Finally, on women and men as a class.

Speaking of unified displays of male strength, I think that it should be noted that men rarely act together as a “class.” It isn’t how we are wired. There isn’t really a Team Man counterpart to Team Woman. So any argument founded on a notion that men can overcome women “as a class” fails as a foundational matter.

This misses the entire point of my argument. There is no ‘overcoming women’. There is no war between men and women, to think there is a class war based on sex is to fully adopt the neo-marxist foundations of feminism. To think there is a power conflict between men and women is to lose the ideological war entirely before it even begins. If we accept a sexual class struggle exists, we might as well give up now and enjoy the decline because we’ve already accepted the enemy’s frame and joined him.

****

Here we get to the main point I’m trying to make:

Men and women are not enemies and are not in competition, they are naturally made to complement each other. Women are naturally creatures of the private sphere, men are naturally creatures of the public sphere and the social arrangement of men and women, often referred to as patriarchy, of each tending to own their sphere works fantastically well for both men and women. Women have no inherent public political power because their inherent power rests in the private sphere, the sphere in which they are comfortable.

We do not have a competition between male power and female power, because the nature of their power is different. Rather we have a competition between one group of civilization-hating men and other groups of men, particularly white conservative males, in which women are but one group being used as weapons. Women are involved because the former group, using their control of cultural institutions, have managed to take the concerns of a small group of hurting, betrayed, broken, self-destructive, and/or high-testosterone women and elevate them to a class struggle in which most of the class does not share the small groups concerns and does not want to fight and most of those that do want to are primarily doing so because they have been lied to and the struggle is just the accepted environment in which they live.

The war is against that group of civilization-hating men. Feminists are the symptom of entropy not the disease. If we want to start winning we have to avoid mistaking the leaves for the roots.

Private and Public Spheres

Some have disagreed with my previous post, both in the comments and on their blogs. The jist of common objections are:

Women have the power of supplying willing, enthusiastic sex.

Only a Godly woman, submitted to a man with Godly masculinity, will be able to resist. His masculinity will appeal to her flesh, he will be put in authority by God, and hr will derive his direct power from God in the same way she will derive her indirect power from the same source. She will magnify everything in that household to be more as her husband and more as God, and the same in the community.

It overlooks the realm of indirect/private/influence power.

Now these are not wrong, a woman does have power in her private sphere: she has power to influence her husband, power to inculcate values in her children, and power to otherwise influence her local community and personal relationships.* I even briefly mentioned this in my original post: “Women do have a specific power: women are wonderful.” But this power is irrelevant to the discussion as women’s power lies in the realm of individual private relationships.

On the other hand, men’s power lies in the realm of hierarchical public organizations, although, they can bring their power to bear in the private sphere as well.

That is why I specified that women as a class are powerless. A class can only exist in the public realm and women’s power does not transfer into the public realm unless men allow it to and support it. (This does not mean that women’s power if meaningless or non-existent, only that it does not exist in the public realm).

In the private realm, emotions and personal relationships rule. Where harmonious relationships are paramount power can come in many forms as emotional and spiritual violence, the kinds of violence women excel at, are just as effective against individuals as physical violence and the use of physical violence is often destructive to harmonious personal relationships.

In the public realm, where personal relationships are superseded by hierarchical and organizational ones, physical violence is power and power is physical violence, however well-hidden the violence may be. Spiritual and emotional violence are useless as as they can only truly work against isolated individuals or family units, not tribes or thedes. In the public realm, even when public power may come from authority, legitimacy, expertise, tradition, at heart it still flows from physical violence or the implication thereof. Democracy is bloodless war, public policy is coercive confiscation, redistribution, and regulation, authority derives from implied violence, and legitimacy derives from being a part of a hierarchy backed by violence. In our modern society, violence is mostly implied and hidden behind many layers of bureaucracy, but the system still rests on it.**

And women, as a class, are not capable of violence. They can not, as a class, have power in the public sphere that is not given them by men.

In the public realm there is know balance of power between the patriarchy and the matriarchy, there is only a power balance between civilized men and uncivilized men, and the women belonging to either group.

****

Why do you think feminists try to make the personal political?

If feminists could succeed at extending the personal realm into the public realm, to have it annex the public realm, women would be able to exert far more power over the public realm through their power in the private realm.

Of course, the personal can not be made political, you can not have individual private relationships with more than about 150 people, let alone millions. It is impossible for the private realm to conquer the public realm, but the public realm can conquer the private realm, so when trying to mix the two the public realm always comes out on top. This is why feminism always ends in bureaucracy. This is why leftism, however pro-anarchy it may be, always ends in bureaucracy.

****

This separation of public and private power makes a case for extreme subsidiarity. If most political decision making is devolved to the Dunbar level, the private realm could conquer the public realm, and we could have a political structure that does not fundamentally rest on violence. This is called tribalism.

****

As for sex explicitly, there is nothing women could do if men decided to take it forcefully. Thankfully, due to the Christian civilization feminists are intent on destroying, most men have been inculcated with values that are in opposition to rape. While women’s love might be a strong private force, I’m fairly sure that if civilized Christian values stopped being indoctrinated into children from a young age, most men would not be as adverse to rape as a few of the commenters think they are.

****

As for female serial killers: as I said, “There is a .01% of women capable of physically matching the average man. This is not significant.” Some women are outside the norm, that doesn’t mean anything to women as a class.

****

* I should mention that even here, those powers exist only because the stronger men in her life allow them to women. Men could easily take them away, making those powers dependent on men.

** This is not necessarily a moral judgment; morally legitimate violence is necessary for any polity. Also, for those wanting to get metaphysical on my use of morality here, God is good because God is powerful.

Women Have No Power

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” – Chairman Mao

Donal wrote a post on patriarchy where he mentioned my previous post. He included graphs on the healthy balance of power between the sexes.

The graph is nonsense though, as it is based on a mistaken presupposition. Donal, and almost everybody, get the same thing wrong:

Women have no power. None.

Women as a class have are powerless. Any ‘power’ they have is simply proxy power given them by a group of men. This is nature, this is reality.

All power is, at base, violence. The iron fist may be wrapped in any number of velvet gloves, but at base the iron fist rules. Violence is power, power is violence.

Men, as a class, are the apex predator, the greatest enactors of violence our planet has ever seen. Women, as a class, are incapable of effective violence,* as women simply do not have the strength capabilities to enact effective violence, and therefore are at the mercy of men. This is reality; any system that doesn’t take into account women’s powerlessness is a denial of such.

Because women are incapable of effective violence, they have no power in their own right**, any power they may display is simply proxy power given them by men.

****

This is important to know, because feminists are not the real enemy. Feminists are not the disease, they’re a symptom that would not have changed society at all if men did not change it for them.

It’s not the female judge or female bureaucrat booting you from your home and kidnapping your children, it’s the male cop (as for female cops, would a 5’4″ really be able to remove you from your home if she didn’t have men to call on?). It wasn’t women who decided Roe vs. Wade or gave women the vote. It wasn’t women who passed the Title IX, the Equal Pay Act, or the VAWA. It’s not feminists who own Jezebel, Gawker, Slate, or Salon. These things only happen because men do them.

We can and should fight against feminists, but feminism is only one aspect of the modern leftist project and subservient to them. (See how readily they are being pushed aside for transexual activists). Feminists are pawns that have been given power by men to serve the long march and destroy the traditional family.

Women only have the power that is given to them by one class of men who are using modern, feminist women as weapons against the rest of society. If they were not being used as tools, feminists would be powerless. If it were not for the men trying to destroy our society by female ‘empowerment’, the modern women would be powerless.

There is no power balance between men and women. There is only a power balance between men who desire civilization and men who hate civilization (or at least love the pleasures of the flesh and harems more), the women follow the lead of whichever group of men they choose to follow. Sadly, the men who hate civilization offer temporarily pleasing but ultimately self-destructive gibmedats, while civilization can only offer a life of duty and future for civilization.

****

* If you don’t believe me, try a test: if you are a man, the next time you shake a woman’s hand don’t hold back, if you are a woman, ask a man you know to shake your hand as he would shake a man’s hand (this won’t work with a limp-wristed mangina). There is a .01% of women capable of physically matching the average man. This is not significant.

** Women do have a specific power: women are wonderful. Men like women and will got to great lengths to protect, provide for, and please women they see as being in their care.

Motte & Bailey Example

To simplify, the Motte & Bailey (M&B) strategy consists of a group using a term or concept in an insane or despicable way among themselves (the bailey), but then, when attacked for their insanity retreating a position where the term or concept means something sane or reasonable (the motte). By this they hope to force aceptance of the term and thereby eventual acceptance of the insanity.

I’ve already shown how feminists use the motte-and-bailey strategy, although, without using the term, but we can see this in action right now, so another helpful little reminder can’t hurt.

Some women have taken taken to react against the excesses of modern feminism by creating the Women Against Feminism (WAF) movement. As with many modern female-controlled internet movements, it consists of taking selfies. Not that I’m complaining, as these selfies are much easier on the eyes than previous selfie campaigns.

Despite the positive aesthetics of the WAF and the generally positive tone of the messages, the WAF does have a problem, it was already entirely pwned before it even began, as this pretty young gal and this older wife well demonstrate:

The WAF are rejecting modern feminism while fully accepting the equality nonsense of first-wave feminism and the women-in-the-workforce concepts as givens, then thinking these are not a part of feminism. Sadly (and to their own detriment), the women are only rejecting contemporary feminism while accepting all of feminism’s original values and goals. If modern feminists weren’t so utterly stupid and evil they’d rejoice and call it a day, they won so very hard that even anti-feminists uphold feminist goals and values.

But of course, feminists are utterly corrupt and the ratchet never ends, so instead the feminists’ answer is, “how dare these ungrateful whores?

You think I’m exaggerating, don’t you? (h/t: VD)

Its tumblr is constructed of selfies of young women, dressed and posed like ads for DIY escort services, holding up bits of notebook paper on which they’ve scrawled screeds against feminism.

Everything about Women Against Feminism suggests it’s a sock puppet for the aggrieved misogynists and pedophiles of the anti-feminist men’s rights crowd. The main clue is that almost all the women on the site are nubile and posed in ways that fulfill dirty old men’s wildest dreams about pliant young things.

Remember, slut-shaming is only evil if it is men or non-feminists shaming actual sluts. It’s awesome when feminists are slut-shaming non-sluts.

I’ll note here that I didn’t see a single picture on on the WAF that would have been out of place walking our modern streets on a sunny afternoon and there was only one picture there that showed more cleavage than Nina Bureligh’s (the author) bio pic.

Of course, from her picture it’s fairly easy to see why Nina Burleigh is expressing hatred towards this pretty young woman:

I guess she never learned that jealousy just isn’t that attractive. But, maybe she can be forgiven, as getting old sucks, especially considering that even when she was younger Bill Clinton still chose this over her. Her calling other women sluts is especially funny given how this adulteress married a guy, then divorced him almost immediately to marry another guy. I guess projection is real.

But now I’m getting mean and off-topic. I still haven’t even started on my original point.

Feminists won, they won a while back and they won hard, but in their victory they’ve only won the original goal of ‘equality’, they have not yet gained what they truly desire: the complete destruction of any civilized restraints on women and the complete takeover of civil society by the state.

So, now they are in the difficult position of having achieved all their even remotely reasonable goals. You can hardly claim misogyny with a straight face when the state pays for your birth control and abortificants, when most employers give you special hiring privileges (affirmative action), when you consistently win in family court (and criminal court for that matter), when your partner can be removed from your home without cause or recourse at a single word from you, and you outnumber men in college by about 3:2, not that feminists don’t still try.

All they have left are their most unreasonable goals, like making it so that men can get jailed with no recourse and no trial simply because a women says rape or forcing men to sit down to pee by law or having all women treat all men like rapists by default.

Feminism itself has become bailey, as many women are beginning to realize contemporary feminism doesn’t actually benefit them.

Whenever anyone posts about how modern feminists, as represented by Jezebel, Feministing, Slate, Salon, Lindy West, Amanda Marcotte, etc., are generally bitter, anti-male, entitled, and looking for special privileges for women, they retreat to the motte.

“Feminism is about equality.”
“Feminism is simply acknowledging that women are people.”

Obviously, Nina above opted for slut-shaming and name-calling rather than the M&B approach, but some feminists aren’t quite so gracelessly, viciously stupid. This one highly linked article put M&B into play quite an entertaining manner.

Basically the article argues that sure, you young woman in North America have a great life free from misogyny and discrimination, but why don’t you think of the Muslim, Indian, and African women who are brutalized?* (Of course, actual feminists almost never talk about the brutalization of foreign women. In fact, they often support the Islamics wishing to bring that brutal behaviour to the West).

But she goes right from gang rapes and forced marriages in third world countries to “women still only fill 24% of senior management jobs”, “comedy panel shows usually only have one female panellist compared to 4-5 male ones”, and “almost every dieting product on the market is solely aimed at women”. (I’m being serious here, read the article if you don’t believe modern feminists are that narcissistically self-absorbed).

Here, she tries to get us to accept the motte of feminism is against horrific evils like mass rape, so we must accept the baileys of the wage gap (which anybody who is not ignorant or ideologically-blinded already knows is a myth) and government enforcement of quotas in comedy panels.

She doesn’t even do so gracefully: a straight jump from gang rape to comedy club panels.

The entire feminist response to WAF is the M&B in action. Pretend modern feminism is about ‘equality’ and ‘women are people too’ to try to convince the average, decent gal to be feminist, while taking a hardline vicious anti-male, anti-child, anti-freedom, anti-civilization elsewhere.

This is the M&B in action, don’t fall for it.

****

* Also, of course, she ignores that the proscriptions against gang rape and forced marriage predated feminism by quite a bit and were actually products of Christian chivalry. I doubt she is going to be happy when she gets her goal and civilized, patriarchical Christian norms are replaced by more primitive and destructive norms.