Category Archives: Society

Are Slate and Amanda Hess Arguing for Lynching?

Feminists complain about street harassment all the time. I’ve never actually seen someone harass a woman on the street, I’ve never done it, and none of my friends have done it.  So, I’ve always been a bit skeptical, because if something is so common, why haven’t I ever even seen it occur before. A few women have told me a story or two of a random crazy person on the bus doing something harassing (ie. one man on a bus just sat himself in the lap of a girl I dated), so I knew harassment did occur, but were usually isolated events done by crazy people. I never believed it happened as omnipresently as feminists claim.

Slate has tried to prove that harassment exists omnipresently by a woman filming herself walking for 10 hours. Here’s a two-minute highlight video of the harassment. Watch it.

First, that’s 2 minutes from 10 hours, so unless a lot of harassment was cut out, that’s not as much as feminists complain about. The video claims 100+ incidents, so that’s about one incident per every six minutes, that’s more, but still not much.

Second, if we assume the video included the worst of the harassment, a safe assumption give the point of the video, the “harassment” seem rather insignificant. this “harassment” included people doing nothing but saying “Have a nice evening”, “God bless”, and “how are you this morning?”. So in other words, to acknowledge a woman’s existence is harassment. What did the 80 incidences not bad enough to appear in the video include, people saying ‘hello’?

If this is the best evidence of harassment feminists can dredge up, I still do not buy the feminist argument. In fact, this video is a strike against it.

****

The more interesting part of this video though is race. I counted the incidences in the video, and by my count there were 21 harassers (two incidences had two perpetrators). Of those, 10 of the harassers looked black, 5 looked white, 2 looked Hispanic, and in 4 incidences I could not identify the race (although, two sounded stereotypically black to me).

So, of the incidences where the race was known, black committed 10 of the 17 of the cases of harassment, about 60%. Also, the the most egregious harassments (she was followed twice and some yelled passed a first comment) were by blacks.

From this, it seems the major problem is not harassment from men in general, but harassment from urban black men in particular. This would explain why I’ve never witnessed it; there are very few urban blacks where I live. That the harassers are largely black is reinforced by the stereotypical ebonics name of the campaign the video is in support of, “Hollaback!”.

Also of interest is that only a couple harassers looked even remotely middle-class, the rest looked either working-class or welfare-class.

The target audience of Slate is middle-class white liberals with humanities degrees. These are not the type of people harassing the woman in the video. There is no point lecturing Slate readers on stopping harassment because Slate readers are not the ones harassing.

So, there seems to be no point to this article. Slate readers aren’t the ones doing the harassing and it’s not likely lower-class blacks will care about the moral protestations of middle-class white feminists.

The only reason I can think of to write this is to encourage white males to forcibly stop black men from harassing them. something which reminds me of the days when looking wrongly at a white woman was a lynching offence. It seems to me that Amanda Hess and Slate just inadvertently argued for society to resume lynching uppity blacks, or at least segregation to keep them off the streets white women might use. I think everybody involved needs to check their privilege.

Anyway, if you wish to donate to a campaign to stop uppity blacks from talking to white women, you can donate to Hollaback here.

****

It looks like between writing this and posting it, the implications of this video have become clear and Slate is doing damage control.

Amanda Hess, College Rape, & Good2Go

Every media source of goodthink has been hammering on about the college rape crisis over the last while. California’s Yes Means Yes law was the feminist triumph of inserting the state into college bedrooms.

But one app, and the feminist response to it, shows that feminists do not actually care about consent or preventing rape in the least. All the rage over the last few years has been nothing but expanding the power of the feminist bureaucracies.

One naive woman, Lee Ann Allman,  actually thought the college rape crisis was a real problem that needed addressing, so she developed a real, practical solution to this problem. She created  an app called Good2Go. It was fairly simple: when hooking-up, the two partners both logged onto the app, stated whether they were consenting to sex, and noted their level of intoxication. It gave each partner a moment to think about if they really wanted to have sex, initiated a conversation about consent, clearly defined consent, tracked and ensured the identity of each individual involved in the hook-up, ensured the age of the participants, and then kept a log of whether consent was established or not. The mass adoption of said app for college hook-ups would virtually eliminate date rape.

So, with a practical solution to the problem of campus rape at hand, feminists, of course, rejoiced lifting their hands in praise and showering Allman with praises. Right? Because feminists really do want a solution to the campus rape epidemic, don’t they?

Nope, instead they protested so hard that the Apple store actually removed the app for being objectionable. ‘How dare anyone try to actually solve the campus rape crisis!

Amanda Hess at Slate, one of the leaders in the attack on Good2Go, demonstrates fully the depths of depravity of the feminists on this issue. In her first attack she (self-contradictorily) argues it’s both inconvenient and doesn’t define exactly define every sex act being consented to in explicit detail and logging consent for each individual act. Also, the evil company logs the information so that it can be found by law enforcement if an accusation of rape is made. (How dare those assholes help law enforcement ascertain the truth of an accusation!)

To put the cherry on the top of her attack she writes this:

That record may help the falsely accused, but it’s unlikely to aid a real victim.

Remember, if you are falsely accused of rape you are not a real victim. You can suffer slander, have your reputation ruined, be booted out of university, have your life-plan destroyed, and  even go to jail, but that doesn’t make you a real victim. Aren’t feminists lovely?

In her article announcing the shutdown of Good2Go Hess concisely summarizes why the app is so horrible:

When Good2Go launched last month, I tested it out and concluded that it was impractical (who wants to fill out a four-minute horniness/sobriety quiz before having sex?) and insecure (the app kept a database with sexual consent records that could be accessible by law enforcement)… one college student interviewed on Today said it was “a buzzkill.”

So, according to Amanda Hess, rape is bad, but inconveniencing a horny woman is even worse. The horrors of rape can not compare to the horrors of a small quiz and being “a buzzkill”.

Also, according to Amanda Hess, law enforcement should not be allowed to investigate accusations of rape. In fact, she states that law enforcement doing so is an invasion of privacy.

It’s obvious that Amanda Hess doesn’t think college rape or accusations thereof are in any way serious.

It is possible that the app may not be the platonic ideal of a perfect consent mechanism which exists solely in the imaginary world of feminist forms but it was a serious, practical attempt to tackle the problem. But feminists rather than accepting this attempted solution and trying to help improve it so it came closer to their ideals of consent, instead jumped on it and quashed it.

What the Good2Go episode clearly demonstrates is that no one, not even feminists (other than maybe Allman), actually believes there is a campus rape epidemic occurring and that it is a serious matter that requires a real, practical solution.

Anybody paying attention can tell from this incident that the college rape epidemic is not an issue anyone thinks actually exists, nor is it an issue that actually needs to be solved. Rather it is just another talking point for feminists so they can expand feminist bureaucracy further into the university system.

In fact, feminists will attempt to destroy any real solution (and saying ‘please don’t rape’ is not a real solution) solving the issue of campus consent because that would eliminate the supposed ‘need’ for kangaroo courts, rape crisis centres, safe spaces, and other feminist bureaucracies on campus leaving otherwise unemployable feminists unemployed. Solving the issue would also rob feminists of a talking point. This is why feminists must destroy any real attempt at a practical solution and why Good2Go had to go.

Teenagers Don’t Exist

Recently the topic of teenagers, and how awful they are, came up in a Twitter conversation I involved myself in. While I’ve mentioned the topic in the past, I thought I’d write a bit more on them here.

Adolescence is a modern invention/perversion. Until about the 1800s or so, a person of about the age 13 was considered an adult. Since about that time, better nutrition has led to puberty occurring earlier (in the 1800s it occurred at about 15-16, it now occurs at about 12-13), but at the same time independence has also decreased. A teenager is a biological adult. (Mentally, a person continues maturing until sometime in their mid-20s).

The problem of rebellious or destructive teenagers is not a fault of the teenagers, but rather a fault of society. A teenager is an adult being treated as a child. A 14-year-old should be learning independence and self-sufficiency by going out into the world on his own (on an apprenticeship, to college, to his own shack on the family farm, etc.) and should be looking for a wife shortly therefore after. Instead, in our modern world teenagers live under the dominion of their parents as a child.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24 ESV)

Of course teenagers rebel, any adult treated as child will rebel against being infantilized. They lash out because they know at some level that their parents having dominion over them is wrong, because an adult still under their parents is against the natural order. It is not teenagers that are the problem, it is the parents and the society.

Now of course, teenagers are not always going to make the best decisions because they are new at being adults and are learning the basics of adulthood, but in our current order, instead of learning about adulthood at age 15 so they are responsible adults by their 20s, people are now making the same failings in their early-20s and sometimes even their late-20s/early-30s, so your average person is not a responsible adult until their 30s.

Despite this, most modern teenagers would probably break is left on their own. This is, again, not the fault of the teenagers, but most children nowadays are so thoroughly over-protected and over-controlled by their parents and infantilized by the school system that they have never been learning the kinds of independence a healthy adult needs.

Children nowadays are being raised to learn a horrible combination of lack of freedom and lack of discipline. A child learning both will be the most self-actualized and most successful. A child with freedom but no discipline will generally pick up some level of discipline through trial and error, and a child of of discipline but no freedom will usually be able to survive although possibly not thrive, but one with neither will drown.

Ideally, we should start training our children to become adults when they should do so, in their mid-teens.

****

This is not going to happen on a society wide scale because infantalized adults are useful for the long march.

Adolescence gives the public school system an extra 4-6 years (8-12 extra if he goes to university) to condition a person to the docility and obedience necessary to get a man to be willing to work in a cubicle or factory for 3-4 decades of his life. It conditions a man to accept schooling and academics as being the primary measures of worth, so that he is willing to feed his mind, time, and money into the progressive college system. It prevents early family formation and helps keep the squeeze on the family so the state can continue to interject itself. It conditions dependence and a slave mentality in a man so he is more likely to see dependence on the state as normal. Adolescence is just another case of how its all related; the long march continues.

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.

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.