A Response to ‘The Unexamined Brutality of the Male Libido’. Additionally, Stephen Marche, Will You Please Go The Hell Away?

You can’t see my face, but my palm is firmly attached to it right now. Stephen Marche, a Canadian writer and male feminist who can’t lower himself far enough in the dirt for the sake of feminism, has put out a new hatchet-piece in the New York Times. I strongly suspect this is causally linked to the recent investiture of Jessica Bennett as the ‘gender editor’ of the paper, but I can’t prove it. Nonetheless, Stephen Marche has, as he has done so many times before, written something lamentably stupid and I am going to point out why it is stupid.

After weeks of continuously unfolding abuse scandals, men have become, quite literally, unbelievable. What any given man might say about gender politics and how he treats women are separate and unrelated phenomena. Liberal or conservative, feminist or chauvinist, woke or benighted, young or old, found on Fox News or in The New Republic, a man’s stated opinions have next to no relationship to behavior.

Sort of like how the statement “feminism means equality” has no relationship to the behavior of feminists in trying to disqualify men from jobs through quotas or due process through Title IX hearings and ‘Listen and Believe’ blathering in rape cases.

Through sheer bulk, the string of revelations about men from Bill Cosby to Roger Ailes to Harvey Weinstein to Louis C.K. to Al Franken and, this week, to Charlie Rose and John Lasseter, have forced men to confront what they hate to think about most: the nature of men in general. This time the accusations aren’t against some freak geography teacher, some frat running amok in a Southern college town. They’re against men of all different varieties, in different industries, with different sensibilities, bound together, solely, by the grotesquerie of their sexuality.

Except it’s not a variety of men. The particular men being accused are a very narrow group: Men in the entertainment industry. Men who used their status as decision-makers and stars to get something vaguely resembling sex. Unfortunately, they ignore red pill truth number 1: You cannot negotiate attraction. You can negotiate sex and that’s fine.

Men arrive at this moment of reckoning woefully unprepared. Most are shocked by the reality of women’s lived experience. Almost all are uninterested or unwilling to grapple with the problem at the heart of all this: the often ugly and dangerous nature of the male libido.

Feminism means equality…but, MEN ARE EVIL!!!!

For most of history, we’ve taken for granted the implicit brutality of male sexuality. In 1976, the radical feminist and pornography opponent Andrea Dworkin said that the only sex between a man and a woman that could be undertaken without violence was sex with a flaccid penis: “I think that men will have to give up their precious erections,” she wrote. In the third century A.D., it is widely believed, the great Catholic theologian Origen, working on roughly the same principle, castrated himself.

Let’s hit the first and easiest deception in this paragraph: It is unknown whether or not Origen castrated himself or not. The story comes from Eusebius of Caesarea, who, while an admirer of Eusebius, like had the tale from Demetrius, the Bishop of Alexandria who was an enemy of Origen and ran him out of the city. Also, Origen interpreted the Gospels as allegory, so it is unlikely that he would suddenly hit Matthew 19:12, read the word “eunuch” and after interpreting the other three books as allegory, decide that this part is literal, and then cut his own dick off.

As for Andrea Dworkin, Marche left out the rest of the Dworkin quote, which I will reproduce here:

“I think that men will have to give up their precious erections and begin to make love together … men will have to phallocentric personalities, and the privileges and powers given to them at birth as a consequence of their anatomy, that they will have to excise everything in them that they now value as distinctively ‘male.'”

Unless Stephen produced those kids of his by artificial insemination and is letting wifey stuff a strap-on in his ass, it doesn’t seem like he has given up on his ‘precious erection’, his ‘phallocentric personality’ or his ‘privileges and powers.’

Fear of the male libido has been the subject of myth and of fairy tale from the beginning of literature: What else were the stories of Little Red Riding Hood or Bluebeard’s Castle about? A vampire is an ancient and powerful man with an insatiable hunger for young flesh. Werewolves are men who regularly lose control of their bestial nature. Get the point? There is a line, obviously, between desire and realization, and some cross it and some don’t. But a line is there for every man. And until we collectively confront this reality, the post-Weinstein public discussion — where men and women go from here — will begin from a place of silence and dishonesty.

Funny. And yet, feminists get aghast when men quote Andrea Dworkin’s own novel, Mercy, of her psychopathic misandry against heterosexual men.

“I’ve always wanted to see a man beaten to a shit bloody pulp with a high-heeled shoe stuffed up his mouth, sort of the pig with the apple; it would be good to put him on a serving plate but you’d need good silver.”

Stephen will never give females the credit of having a line between desire and realization. He has the same view of female nature that the jurors in the Lizzie Borden and Minnie Foster trials did. Females simply do not have the ‘bestial’ nature as men, or, put simply: Women are wonderful.

The masculine libido and its accompanying forces and pathologies drive so much of culture and politics and the economy, while remaining more or less unexamined, both in intellectual circles and in private life. I live in Toronto, a liberal city in a liberal country, with Justin Trudeau for prime minister, a half-female cabinet and an explicitly feminist foreign policy.

That’s right, the masculine libido has driven culture, politics, and the economy in Western civilization.

You’re welcome, women.

And no, you couldn’t have done it better.

The men I know don’t actively discuss changing sexual norms. We gossip and surmise: Who is a criminal and who isn’t? Which of the creeps whom we know are out there will fall this week? Beyond the gossip, there is a fog of the past that is better not to penetrate. Aside from the sorts of clear criminal acts that have always been wrong, changing social norms and the imprecision of memory are dark hallways to navigate. Be careful when you go down them; you might not like what you find.

So much easier to turn aside. Professionally, too, I have seen just how profoundly men don’t want to talk about their own gendered nature. In the spring, I published a male take on the fluctuations of gender and power in advanced economies; I was interviewed over 70 times by reporters from all over the world, but only three of them were men. Men just aren’t interested; they don’t know where to start. I’m working on a podcast on modern fatherhood, dealing with issues like pornography and sex after childbirth. Very often, when I interview men, it is the first time they have ever discussed intimate questions seriously with another man.

That’s right, men are not interested in self-flagellation or living in constant repentence for having a penis. And despite all of the decades feminist whining and haranguing and required training, men in general are sick of it. Men are not going to smack this feminist nonsense down for two reasons: First, the average man does not have the power to do so. This dives into the second reason: Feminism benefits the powerful. Feminists have helped make Americans less-free as they always have since their inception (the first-wave feminist movement died on the hill of alcohol prohibition).

A useful feature of our ‘toxic’ masculine nature is that we have the capacity to work around people and things we don’t like.

A healthy sexual existence requires a continuing education, and men have the opposite. There is sex education for boys, but once you leave school the traditional demands on masculinity return: show no vulnerability, solve your own problems. Men deal with their nature alone, and apart. Ignorance and misprision are the norms.

Male nature must be “dealt with” sort of like how cancer has to be dealt with.

But, feminism means equality, not man-hating.

Which is how we wind up where we are today: having a public conversation about male sexual misbehavior, while barely touching on the nature of men and sex. The (very few) prominent men who are speaking up now basically just insist that men need to be better feminists — as if the past few weeks have not amply demonstrated that the ideologies of men are irrelevant.

No, feminist ideology is irrelevant for the same reason that all ideologies rooted in socialism are irrelevant: Socialists cannot distinguish between coercion and persuasion. They jabber mightily about ‘mass movements’ but ultimately, they would rather seize the mechanisms of legal force and threaten your compliance than to win you to their cause.

Liberalism has tended to confront gender problems from a technocratic point of view: improved systems, improved laws, better health. That approach has resulted in plenty of triumphs. But there remains no cure for human desire. (“It isn’t actually about sex, it’s about power,” I read in The Guardian the other day. How naïve must you be not to understand that sex itself is about power every bit as much as it’s about pleasure?)

I wasn’t aware that human desire was something that required a “cure” Comrade O’Brien:

“The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party.”

Acknowledging the brutality of male libido is not, of course, some kind of excuse. Sigmund Freud recognized the id, and knew it as “a chaos, a caldron full of seething excitations.” But the point of Freud was not that boys will be boys. Rather the opposite: The idea of the Oedipus complex contained an implicit case for the requirements of strenuous repression: If you let boys be boys, they will murder their fathers and sleep with their mothers.

I’ll see your Oedipus Complex voodoo psychoanalysis with a Westermarck Effect. Also, Freud’s theories have be unverifiable by contemporary psychology.

Freud also understood that repression, any repression, is inherently fluid and complicated and requires humility and self-searching to navigate. Women are calling for their pain to be recognized. Many men are quite willing to offer this recognition; it means they don’t have to talk about who they are, which means they don’t have to think about what they are. Much easier to retreat, into ever more shocked and prurient silence, or into the sort of reflection that seems less intended as honesty, and more aimed to please.

Yes. Silence is the ultimate response to feminists like Stephen Marche and females in the West screeching about how oppressed their are on the IPad 6s from the comfort of the local Starbucks. More men are realizing attempting to please females is not a solution; it only invites more screeching and more demands.

Sex is an impediment to any idealism, which is why the post-Weinstein era will be an era of gender pessimism. What if there is no possible reconciliation between the bright clean ideals of gender equality and the mechanisms of human desire? Meanwhile, sexual morality, so long resisted by liberals, has returned with a vengeance, albeit under progressive terms. The sensation of righteousness, which social media doles out in ever-diminishing dopamine hits, drives the discussion, but also limits it. Unable to find justice, or even to imagine it, we are returning to shame as our primary social form of sexual control.

Shame for men. Only men.

The crisis we are approaching is fundamental: How can healthy sexuality ever occur in conditions in which men and women are not equal? How are we supposed to create an equal world when male mechanisms of desire are inherently brutal? We cannot answer these questions unless we face them.

‘Healthy sexuality’ in Marche’s opinion appears to men acting like lesbians with penises, or rather, lesbians without tits and large, flaccid clitorises.

I’m not asking for male consciousness-raising groups; let’s start with a basic understanding that masculinity is a subject worth thinking about. That alone would be an immense step forward. If you want to be a civilized man, you have to consider what you are. Pretending to be something else, some fiction you would prefer to be, cannot help. It is not morality but culture — accepting our monstrosity, reckoning with it — that can save us. If anything can.

And Stephen Marche ends with the typical, boring call to action that all of these advocacy puff-pieces ends on: Men, you are bad and evil and you should be ashamed to have a penis. Reflect on your evilness, then tie your white good-boy cape and pledge eternal servitude to WYMYNKIND. The man conflates ‘masculinity’ with ‘monstrosity’ and imagines that men are supposed to take his bullshit seriously.

Now, if Stephen wants to confess to monstrosity, that he needs to start taking the strap-on and wants to fuck his mother, that’s his business. But this is how he gets to write for the New York Times: He is the successfully re-educated class enemy of feminism, who loudly and publicly denounces others to prove his loyalty to Stalin and the Party and to buy mercy for himself. He spouts meaningless, mindless doctrine, using his hated class as a male as authority to speak on the subject of men while denouncing all things masculine as monstrous.

Source

Advertisements

The Billy Graham Rule and Self-Preservation

This puff-piece appeared on the Harvard Business Review website by Drs. W. Brad Johnson and David G. Smith, professors of psychology (mind-fucking) and sociology (Socialism) respectively. The article’s primary purpose to shill their new book, “Athena Rising: How and Why Men Should Mentor Women” (HA!), by excoriating who have enough wisdom to avoid putting themselves in compromising positions.

When U.S. Vice President Mike Pence said that he would never have a meal alone with a woman who was not his wife, he was invoking the well-worn “Billy Graham rule”; the evangelical leader has famously urged male leaders to “avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion.” Translation: Men should avoid spending time alone with women to whom they are not married. Graham has been known to avoid not only meals but also car and even elevator rides alone with a woman. The reason? To avoid tarnishing his reputation by either falling prey to sexual temptation or inviting gossip about impropriety.

Billy Graham also avoided handling the money of his ministry for the same reason. And guess what?

IT WORKED.

Have you heard of any scandals involving Billy Graham? Have you heard of Billy Graham doing meth or banging hookers? Have you heard of Billy Graham appropriating any unseemly amounts money from the ministry a la Creflo Dollar?

No, you have not because Billy Graham’s rule is successful.

Think Pence’s quarantine of women is unique? Consider a recent survey by National Journal in which multiple women employed as congressional staffers reported (and male colleagues confirmed) the existence of an implicit policy that only male staffers could spend time one-on-one or at after-hours events with their (male) congressmen. Cut out of key conversations, networking opportunities, professional exposure, and face time with career influencers, female staffers naturally are underrepresented in leadership positions and — not surprisingly — earn about $6,000 less annually than their male peers.

The Billy Graham — and now Mike Pence — rule is wrong on nearly every level. Lauded by some as an act of male chivalry, it is merely a 20th-century American iteration of sex segregation. When women are, in effect, quarantined, banned from solitary meetings with male leaders, including prospective sponsors and career champions, their options for advancement, let alone professional flourishing, shrink. The more that men quarantine women, excluding them from key meetings, after-hours networking events, and one-on-one coaching and mentoring, the more that men alone will be the ones securing C-suite jobs. The preservation of men and the exclusion of women from leadership roles will be perpetuated everywhere that the Billy Graham rule is practiced. Score another one for the old boys’ club.

Chivalry is not the issue. The issue is self-preservation, for your career and your mission. Billy Graham and his associates imposed the rule on themselves to protect the ministry they were building because they understood that they could not build a Christian ministry without the confidence of their parishoners that they were morally upright. And why? Because once a woman puts the mouth on a man, “He touched me/spoke to me/looked at me/paid me/etc.” that shadow hangs over him forever. See Casey Affleck, who can win an Oscar, but the rumor mill still churns up an eight-year old unproven accusation against him.

Let me put it even more plainly: If men do not choose to associate with women professionally, it is because women have become a professional hazard to men.

Whether codified or informal, sex quarantines are rooted in fear. At the heart of it, policies curbing contact between men and women at work serve to perpetuate the notions that women are toxic temptresses, who want to either seduce powerful men or falsely accuse them of sexual harassment. This framing allows men to justify their anxiety about feeling attracted to women at work, and, sometimes, their own sexual boundary violations. It also undermines the perceived validity of claims by women who have been harassed or assaulted. Although thoughtful professional boundaries create the bedrock for trust, collegiality, and the kind of nonsexual intimacy that undergirds the best mentoring relationships, fear-based boundaries are different. By reducing or even eliminating cross-sex social contact, sex segregation prevents the very exposure that reduces anxiety and builds trust.

A claim is not valid that is not supported by evidence or reason. But one has to love how the authors snuck that little attempt at creating an unjustifiable obligation. “A woman you don’t know what done wrong by a man who isn’t you; therefore you are obligated to give women you don’t know access to what you have, despite it being against your interests to do so.”

To build closer, anxiety-free working relationships with members of the opposite sex, thoughtful men will be well-served by having more, not less, interaction with women at work. In a classic series of studies, psychologist Robert Zajonc discovered that repeated exposure to a stimulus (such as a gender group) that previously elicited discomfort and anxiety helped reduce anxiety, and actually increased the probability of fondness and positive interaction. Termed the mere exposure effect in social psychology, the principle has been particularly useful in changing negative attitudes about previously stigmatized groups. Excellent leaders initiate positive developmental and collegial interactions with as many types of people as they can — deliberately, frequently, and transparently.

Can the “mere exposure effect” be applied to “rape” porn or even porn in general? Seems to being working in Japan.

Perhaps the most disingenuous and deceptive quality of the Billy Graham rule and other forms of sex segregation at work may be their superficially honorable and chivalrous nature. This “benevolent sexism” includes evaluations of women that appear subjectively positive but are quite damaging to gender equity. In their pioneering research on the topic, psychologists Peter Glick and Susan Fiske discovered that women often endorse many benevolent forms of sexism (e.g., that women are delicate and require protection, or that sex quarantines at work help preserve women’s reputations), despite the fact that the sexism inhibits real gender equality. This may explain why many women applauded Pence’s stance as evidence of his character and commitment to his marriage. But sexism always diminishes and disadvantages women at work; even benevolent sexist policies, which lack transparent hostility and appear “nice” on the surface, lead to lower rates of pay and promotion, regardless of how many women support them.

As pointed out above, the Billy Graham rule has little to do with “chivalry” and more to do with “CYA” (Cover Your Ass).

Here is something most men fail to consider when invoking sex quarantines at work: What does their unwillingness to be seen alone with a woman say about them and males more generally? When a man refuses to be alone with a female colleague on a car trip or in a restaurant, owing to fear of something untoward happening, we must ask: Dude, do you, or do you not, have a functioning frontal lobe? Sex quarantines reinforce notions that men are barely evolved sex maniacs, scarcely capable of muting, let alone controlling, their evolved neurological radar for fertile mates of the opposite sex. Sex quarantines paint men as impulsive, sexually preoccupied, and unable to refrain from consummating romantic interest or sexual feelings if they occur in cross-sex relationships. The “sex-crazed” male stereotype is often reinforced in the process of male socialization, and there are plenty of men who, at least on some level, fear breaking rank and violating these expectations of male behavior. This is where moral courage comes in. The fact is, many men choose not to fulfill this stereotype; many men have close, mutual, collegial relationships with women and never once violate a relational boundary.

This whole paragraph is a stunning piece of academic shaming language, the trust of which is “we will call you names (sex maniacs, sex-crazed) if you do not give us what we want. But if you show ‘moral courage’ (give us what we want), we will not carry out the threat that we claim you should fear.” This is emotional blackmailing with excess verbiage.

The frontal lobe, as my “dudes” referred to it, is where problem solving takes place. Women accusing men of bad acts is a hazard. The most cost-effective solution to a hazard is to go around it. Some men have chosen to bypass the hazard of a false accusation by bypassing the typical false accuser (a woman).

Simple, logical, and practical.

Of course, the Billy Graham rule and other efforts at quarantining women suffer from a number of logical inconsistencies. For instance, there is the efficacy problem: Rigid efforts to eliminate cross-sex interaction in the workplace have not proven effective. Even in the most conservative religious denominations, nearly one-third of pastors have crossed sexual boundaries with parishioners. Then there is the uncomfortable truth that the Billy Graham rule denies the reality of LGBT people and that sexual and romantic feelings are not limited to cross-sex relationships. The logic of sex quarantine thinking would dictate that a bisexual leader could never meet alone with anyone! Finally, the truth is that sex-excluding policies are rooted in deeply erroneous dichotomous thinking: Either I engage with women at work and risk egregious, career-threatening boundary violations or I avoid all unchaperoned interaction with women.

Sirs, did these pastors accept the Billy Graham rule? Did they practice it? If the answer to one or both of those questions is “no” then they cannot be held as examples of its inefficacy.

Thanks.

So what’s an evolved male leader to do? In the simplest terms, become what we call a thoughtful caveman. Healthy, mature, self-aware men understand and accept their distinctly male neural architecture. If they happen to be heterosexual, this means they own the real potential for cross-sex attraction without catastrophizing this possibility or acting out feelings of attraction, to the detriment of female colleagues. Thoughtful cavemen employ their frontal cortex to ensure prudence and wise judgment in relationships with women and men.

Is “thoughtful caveman” the latest colloquiallism for New Soviet Man New Feminist Man?

Translation: Give females things, don’t ask females for things you want (sex), and don’t worry about females accusing you of things because…why would a woman ever lie about sex?

Here is a final reason why even devoutly Christian men like Mike Pence and Billy Graham should be dubious about isolating and excluding women at work: Jesus himself was known to meet alone with women (e.g., the Samaritan woman at the well). It seems that showing kind hospitality and elevating the dignity of women was more important than any threat of gossip.

That’s funny.

The Samaritan woman attempted to trickle-truth Jesus (lie by omission). It is only after Jesus calls her out on her bullshit (You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.) that she SUBMITS to his authority as a Rabbi and as the Messiah.

Source

Archived Source

Mike Pence and the Truth That Dare Not Speak Its Name: Male Disposability

Hopefully I can get this done without political tribalism rearing its ugly head.

For those unfamiliar with the situation, here’s the rundown:

Current Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence, gave an interview to the Hill in 2002 in which he stated that he does not dine alone with any woman other than his wife and he doesn’t attend parties where alcohol is served without his wife present. The interview was resurrected last week when the Washington Post did a profile of his wife, Karen Pence. His reasoning was:

It’s about building a zone around your marriage.

“I don’t think it’s a predatory town (Washington D.C.), but I think you can inadvertently send the wrong message by being in [certain] situations.

”I’ve seen friends lose their families. I’d rather lose an election.”

What outdated, Patriarchal thinking, respecting one’s spouse and protecting one’s own reputation from the poisoned tongues of gossips and scandalmongers. What a jerk this guy is.

And my God, the deafening sound of cracking as Feminists collectively shit a brick into the toilet across America.

Olga Khazan:

But, especially in boozy, late-working Washington, the eating thing rankled. Sure, during the day, you can grab coffee instead of a sandwich. But no dinner? Doesn’t that cut an entire gender off from a very powerful person at roughly 8 p.m? To career-obsessed Washingtonians, that’s practically happy hour—which, apparently, is off-limits too.

And that’s too bad, because according to the Harvard study and some others, women prefer male sponsors, perceiving them to be better-connected and more powerful. And they’re right: According to some analyses, men hold more than 85 percent of top management positions in big companies.

Ashley Csanady:

At its core, Pence’s self-imposed ban is rape culture.

Nor is that a label I assign lightly. “Rape culture” is a phrase so overused it’s become almost meaningless, like calling someone a Nazi on the internet. But it has a very clear meaning: the notion, whether conscious or unconscious, that men can’t control themselves around women because “boys will be boys.”

The explicit reasons for Pence’s restriction are religion and family, but the implicit reason is that he must avoid alone-time with women lest his stringent religious moral code fall apart in the presence of a little lipstick and décolletage.

That is rape culture.

Paul Waldman:

I’m sure Pence would say that he’s just being careful. But I wonder if he realizes the discriminatory consequences of his rule. Over his career, he has had many colleagues and employees. With the men, he can have complex relationships that traverse work and social contexts, build trust, and eventually help their careers. A woman who hoped Pence would be a mentor to her, on the other hand, wouldn’t be able to avail herself of those opportunities, since he can’t even have lunch with her.

Casey Quinlan:

When co-workers meet with each other alone in any professional context, whether they are eating a meal or not, they have a chance to forge a professional bond that could stay with them for their rest of their careers. It is particularly important that people have the opportunity to meet with their supervisors and foster a relationship of open communication and mutual respect. Some industries have cultures where dining out during or after work with colleagues is very common. Women are at a disadvantage if they are shut out from that culture, whether they aren’t invited to one-on-one dinners as their male colleagues are, or aren’t welcome at group events because men think a woman’s presence would dampen the festivities.

Jessica Valenti:

While Republicans swoon over Pence’s supposed old-school propriety, the rest of us were simply reminded that you don’t need to brag about “grabbing pussies” to be a misogynist.

Never mind what it means for the (very few) women who work in the White House, who apparently can’t count on business dinners or mentorship over a meal. The underlying message of a rule like Pence’s is the same one that’s taught to teens in abstinence-only education classes: men can’t control themselves when alone with women.

It’s an insulting view of men, a limiting role for women—we’re there to either entice or domesticate—and an archaic take on gender roles more generally.

The universal objection that cuts across all of these complaints is that a man (Mike Pence) has a resource (power/status/connections) that he is not freely making available to women in general. Accordingly, he has no right to give or withhold his time from women; he has no right to associate or dissociate from anyone he chooses. He is not acting as a resource for women, he is not putting himself or his career at hazard for women, so to Feminists, he must be shamed and scolded into compliance.
The same people criticizing Pence vigorously handwave concerns about false accusations, declaring the number to be so small as to be unworthy of concern (in the absence of evidence). They ignore that for any number to exist, someone, some man, has to have been the victim of a false accusation. Like the game of Russian Roulette, eventually, someone has to be that 16 2/3%. For the loser, there is no comfort that he lost, no matter how statistically insignificant the odds.

A sexual harassment claim leaves the falsely accused with a host of collateral damage and few legal remedies.

And for those men who actually do dip their pens in the company ink, for those who actually do engage in impropriety, never expect a woman to hold water. This goes to the related question of why these powerful, connected, high-status men, are reluctant to take these power-hungry, career-minded women into their confidences: No matter how personally or professionally close a man is with a woman, she will, under the right circumstances, betray a man’s secrets. Bill Clinton was torpedoed by gossiping by Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp. Anthony Weiner had his business put out by Sydney Leathers. John Edwards political career was ended by Rielle Hunter. Eliot Spitzer was brought down by Ashley Dupre.

And all of these women, once the scandal train started, feverishly shoveled coal into the engine’s fire. Interviews were given. Tell-all books written. Once their 15 minutes of fame were upon them, they embraced it as eagerly as the men whose ruin they facilitated.

Notice that Mike Pence has not refused to “mentor” women. He has not refused to associate women. He has not refused to promote women. He has done what any reasonable man ought to do: he made sure that his interests were protected first before he advanced anyone else’s. To his Feminist critics, a man protecting his principles, the sanctity of his marriage, and his professional reputation before advancing the cause of WOMEN IN THE BOARDROOM is not only unacceptable…IT’S RAPE CULTURE.

Stephen Marche, I’m getting Really Tired of Your Nonsense

So he’s back. My buddy, my friend, my favorite Canadian male feminist, Stephen Marche. That’s right, the Snowboard Instructor-in-Chief is no longer number 1 on my list of Canucks. I’ve had to shit on this guy twice now (see 1 and 2). But love Canada and Canadians so much, I’ve got to go for the hat trick (bask in that cheesy hockey reference).

Having proven to be unfit for the purpose for which he was designed (to infect the male population with the virus of feminism), he returns to appeal to women to do what they do best and nag men into giving Feminists what they want.

Dear American women,

Dear Stephen,

This beta male feminist missionary to heathen males schtick is wearing thin.

I’m embarrassed to be writing to you today. I’m doubly embarrassed because I’m not really talking to you. I’ve tried, honestly, to reach men. But because this article is about gender, no man will read it. Recently, I wrote a book called “The Unmade Bed: The Messy Truth About Men and Women in the 21st Century.” I’ve been interviewed about it maybe 20 or 30 times, and always — always — by women.

That’s great, Stephen. It really is. Remember, you’re not supposed to talk to women. You’re supposed to LISTEN and BELIEVE.

And shill that book, too.

Men’s ignorance is a problem because the reality of gender is changing, viscerally, dramatically, and there are some things men need to know about. And they don’t know and they aren’t listening.

Yeah, men aren’t listening to you in the same way that men aren’t in the market for mirror-sheen quality polished turds.

My hope is that the women reading this piece understand the ignorance of men and are willing to put it in front of some they care about. Younger men, preferably: sons or nephews or brothers or boyfriends or husbands or the local football team or whatever. What they need to know is not particularly complicated, though it will probably surprise most of them. The key points, the life-saving points, boil down to just three things:

Why is it always the football team with these weak betas? What is the goddamn fixation with football players? Are you really that traumatized and pissy that you couldn’t even sneak on the third-string and impress some airhead with a letter jacket? Are you that fucking mad about?

Let it go.

1. Don’t take your friendships for granted. This may seem like a small point, but it isn’t. Growing up, for men, means growing out of their friendships. As boys mature into men, they shed their intimate relationships with each other. Girls don’t. And the suicide rate for men spikes exactly as they lose their friendships. Between the ages of 10 and 14, boys are twice as likely to commit suicide as girls. Between 15 and 19, it rises to four times. By 20 to 24, it’s five times.

Men are social animals, even though all male ideals tell them they should be alone. Traditional masculine ideals are lonely figures — cowboys, astronauts. But loneliness kills men. Divorced men are 10 times more likely to be depressed than married men. Divorced men have a mortality rate 250 percent higher than married men. Men have to make a conscious effort to be social. Otherwise, they die.

Male ideas, my ass. First, men are more likely to lose friends due to a nagging wife/girlfriend than they are to “grow out of their friendships.” Cupcake doesn’t like your friends you used to go hounding for pussy with, or you just have too much fun with them. So she will try to sabotage your friendships, either by inserting herself into your time with them, or shaming you into not going out with them.

Let’s refer to the Basic Bitch Bible, Cosmopolitan.

6 ways to deal with hating your boyfriend’s friends

The six ways can be boiled down to: Nag him, Infiltrate his network, Surveill him at all times.

Divorced men are more likely to be depressed than married men and more likely to die sooner? Well no shit. The increase of depression and mortality has less to do with the forcible removal of The Parasite Formerly Known As Wifey, and more to do with the state-sponsored reaming a divorced man takes in the form of alimony, parental alienation, and the sacrifice of the aforementioned network of friends on the altar of matrimonial détente.

2. Misogyny makes you way less healthy. The evidence on mental health is unequivocal. In a recent study by the American Psychological Association involving 19,453 participants, researchers tested 11 traits associated with traditional masculinity. Almost all of them are bad for you. “Being a playboy” and holding “power over women” are the norms most closely associated with sexist attitudes, and the report is very clear about what happens to men who most value these concepts, stating that: “Conformity to masculine norms was significantly and unfavorably associated with mental health and psychological help seeking.” When you see some guy treating women like garbage, he’s not strong. He’s weak.

Actually, it’s pretty damn equivocal. Since Stephen Marche is a propagandist and not an advocate, he presents this meta-analysis as if Moses descended from the mountain with them scrawled on stone tablets.

The study is limited because it did not consider the physical activity of the individuals (see p.89)…AT ALL. Additionally, the sample was limited to a small number of American men (id.) In doing research about people’s physical health, it is usually helpful to know what sort of physical activities they engage in before you ask “Do you like winning?”

No, seriously, winning is listed as one of the “11 distinct dimensions of masculine norms.” I guess one of the feminine norms is “losing.”

If you want to read the article in its entirety, click HERE. (Meta-Analyses of the Relationship Between Conformity to Masculine Norms and Mental Health-Related Outcomes)

3. Take women’s jobs. You don’t really have a choice on this one. It’s very simple: Traditionally male jobs in industry are disappearing. Traditionally female jobs in the service-sector are growing. Women take men’s jobs more and more. Men are not taking women’s jobs. The United States lost 5 million manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2014. Thirteen of the 20 fastest-growing industries in America are in health care. Do the math.

Two weeks after Trump was elected, a self-driving truck service delivered a shipment of Budweiser in Colorado. If you are a truck driver, start training to be a nurse now. If you are young, expand beyond the jobs you may have once considered. The definition of a man for generations has been a family provider. You won’t be able to provide if you don’t take women’s work.

Why should a man provide for anyone but himself? Why would “provider game” work on a woman if she can provide for herself? That “math” Stephen is talking about doesn’t add up, though I do appreciate Stephen’s thinly-veiled appeal to the traditional role of male provisioning to the family. Feminists have no problem with retaining THAT particular traditional gender role.

As to the other part, that has some red meat that deserves its own treatment. Stephen is singing the praises of the “service-sector” and telling men to be nurses. Let’s dig into that. The cost of a bacherlor’s degree in Nursing can range from $40,000 to $100,000, depending on the university. You won’t be paying for that yourself, so you’re going to take out loans to pay for that. Once you do that, assuming you get a job, you might start out at $30,000-$60,000. Sounds good, but that assumes you can actually find a job. So you’ve made through and found a job and are working hard. How long are you going to work in the nursing industry? Attrition in nursing is real.

And this is why I call Stephen Marche a propagandist: He’s here to sell a line that debt-slavery and willing submission to life in the Servant Economy is something that men should embrace.

We can’t all get in on the low-stress propaganda hustle like Stephen.

That’s it. It’s just those three points: Don’t abandon your friends. Don’t treat women like garbage. Don’t limit yourself to jobs that men used to do.

The first point I agree with. Don’t abandon your friends, no matter how much cupcake might bitch and moan about them. Pussy comes and goes; Good friends are for life.

The second point is sophistry. Treat women as their behavior merits, just like anyone else.

The third point is just finger-wagging. Men, get a hustle, get good at it, and get to the point where you don’t have punch somebody else’s time-clock to make your money. I’m not there myself, but I aspire to it.

But getting men to think about their new reality for two minutes seems a nearly inhuman feat. Men are not used to thinking of themselves as belonging to a gender; women are. Because men will not face the new gender realities, they are suffering, and their suffering has consequences for everyone. Middle-aged white men are dying at unprecedented rates — from opioids, from booze, from suicide. According to the Case-Deaton report, the mortality rate of American men in the middle of their lives has risen 20 percent since 1999.

Let me sum up for you what they are really dying from: not facing reality.

Aww, look at Stephen, pretending to care, even as he not so subtly asks:

“Have you tried being more like a woman?”

And simultaneously admonishes:

“Stop punching yourselves, stupid men!”

The only true statement in this paragraph is that men are suffering. But it’s missing something. Men are not only suffering; they are also adapting. And they are adapting along lines that are not profitable to Feminists or the State in general. Some men are suffering in silence. Some are anesthetizing themselves with booze and porn and video games. Some of us are figuring out how to get what we want to make our own lives comfortable without giving wealth or time to women.

Stephen Marche and company should not worry too much about men who are dying; they should be more worried about men who are surviving, the ones who are adapting the “new reality.”

The end result of the adaptation will not be New Feminist Man; It will be MGTOW Man.

Archived Source

Dissecting the Feminist Hamster: The Christian Feminist, or “Not All Feminists Are Like That”

I crowd-sourced from my feminist friends, and came up with a list of things we wish you knew about us.

Sound of cracking knuckles

Well. Let’s get this party started. I could use a little rhetorical exercise.

1. First of all: there are many feminisms. What you learn about what feminist, or one feminist tradition, does not necessarily extend to cover all feminists or feminisms. So proceed with caution.

The author starts nicely with a pleading of plausible deniability. It’s the Hamas/Fatah model (or the motte-and-bailey, or the bait-and-switch): One feminist says or does something outrageous, destructive, or disruptive (men are evil! We must have gender quotas! We must have programs! And grants! And subsidies! The Patriarchy! Rape apologists!)

When called on their bullshit, Feminists retreat to “look in dictionary! Feminism means Equality! You’re not against equality, are you? You hate your mother, don’t you? I’m not like THOSE feminists!”

One feminist does the damage; the rest reap the rewards while pleading absolute ignorance to the harm done.

2. We don’t hate men. Hating men is nowhere written into any existing feminist tradition or text. Some of us like men quite a lot, to be honest – even if we loathe the patriarchy. Now, it is true that a particular feminist might be angry at men. If she is, it’s quite possibly because she has been a victim of abuse or rape. Her anger is personal – maybe even a self-defense mechanism – not a feminist statement. And we hope that instead of just saying “hey, I’m not like that!” – you’ll prove that you’re not like that, by listening to her when she speaks up about injustice.

“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” — Robin Morgan

“Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” — Susan Brownmiller

“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” –- Catherine Comins

“I have a great deal of difficulty with the idea of the ideal man. As far as I’m concerned, men are the product of a damaged gene.” — Germaine Greer

“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” — Valerie Solanas

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin

Misandry is written into quite a bit of feminist text and tradition. But as the prophet Jeremiah wrote (this is a “Christian” feminist after all):

“Hear this, you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear…”

Jer 5:21

Your “personal anger” means nothing to me. I have “personal anger.” Your cross is not bigger than mine, or heavier, or have more splinters. I would rather bear yours than you would bear mine.

But I don’t have the right to visit my “personal anger” on those who are not the cause of it, just as I don’t have the right to beat those who did not beat me, or rob those who did not rob me. A personal grievance is just that: personal. It is was caused by a person, and is held by another person. I will not stand still and be accused of things I did not do and I will not be an emotional punching bag for some feminist with a bug up her ass.

All have not sinned and fallen short of the glory of Woman.

3. We don’t particularly want to be like men – or at any rate, wanting to be like men is nowhere central to a feminist creed. Sure, some of us prefer a more androgynous or masculine aesthetic. I personally avoid wearing dresses and skirts, on the principle that you never know when you’ll have to climb out a window or jump on a horse and gallop away, but this is not due to any submerged penis-envy. Yes, we may do logic and manage money; we may fix cars or cut down trees or go hunting. None of these make us “like men.” They just make us women who are good at logic, or cutting down trees. In fact, many feminists specifically prefer to emphasize NOT being like men, with the idea that acting like men is harmful to the culture.

So…you don’t hate men…but “acting like men” is harmful to the culture…which is a Feminist position.

“Men” = “Harmful to the culture.”

Conversely…

“Women” = “Beneficial to the culture.”

Got it. Makes perfect sense.

4. We don’t love abortion. There are pro-life feminists. There are pro-life feminists. There are pro-life feminists (repetition, because I want it to sink in). Nearly all my feminist friends are prolife, as I am. But it’s also the case that pro-choice feminists do not think abortion is awesome, either. Even “shout your abortion” (a slogan that makes many of us deeply uncomfortable) is not intended to say “abortion is so awesome” – but, rather, to remove the stigma from talking about it.

I’ll just let the Jezzies take care of this:

There Is No Such Thing as a ‘Pro-Life Feminist’

And then we had the vanguard of feminism (Women’s March) unceremoniously exclude the “Pro-Life Feminists” from their hen party.

5. We don’t think women are superior to men. This is in fact, the opposite of the usual feminist view. There are certainly feminisms that argue for the superiority of a female worldview, but feminism tends to emphasize equality.

Are you back to pleading plausible deniability again?

“We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men.” — Elizabeth Cady Stanton

“It must be admitted that the lives of women are more useful to the race than the lives of men. — Op-ed, New York Times, April 19, 1912

“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.”– Congressman Barbara Jordan

6. You can be a feminist and be Christian. And being a Christian feminist, or a feminist theologian, doesn’t mean you’re some kind of dangerous heretic.

Since this is a “Christian” feminist argument, see Matthew 6:24: No man can serve two masters (maybe a woman can since she is of two-faces and two-minds) for either he will hate the one, and love the other.

Christian Feminist. Muslim Feminist. Jewish Feminist. Buddhist Feminist. Hindu Feminist. Who is the master they will hate? Who is the master they will love? I say it is Feminism and if two are ever in conflict, they will disregard the master they hate (religion) to serve the master they love (Feminism).

7. We don’t hate motherhood and marriage. Most of us are interested in the flourishing of families, in healthy marriages, and the well-being of children. Some feminists love being domestic, even. And while others may be happier not getting married and starting a family, this is simply because they are being true to themselves. And while yes, there are branches of feminism that are critical of the institution of marriage, when you look at the history of the institution of marriage, you can hardly blame them.

“The nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” — Linda Gordon

“It is clear that the women’s movement must concentrate on attacking this marriage. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of that institution.” — Sheila Cronin

“Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.” — Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois

“All sexual intercourse even consensual between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” — Catherine MacKinnon

The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men…. All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. (from “The Declaration of Feminism,” November, 1971).

It appears that some rather important feminists do hate motherhood and marriage and domesticity and are of the opinion that it should not be an option available to women. Imagine that, feminists trying to deprive people of the right to choose. I thought they were all on this “Pro-choice” trip.

But marriage is indeed a terrible thing. The institution wherein a man is legally obligated to subsidize a woman and her brood (law states that a man is responsible for children produced during the duration of a marriage, even if they are demonstrably not his offspring) and even if the marriage ends, his status as servant does not end as evidenced by his liabilities in the form of alimony and child support. This makes the marriage contract more akin to peonage or indentured servitude.

8. We’re not necessarily aligned with any political ideology or group. Feminists come in many political, as well as religious, flavors. And being feminist doesn’t, or shouldn’t mean neglecting other political or social issues. That’s what being “intersectional” means.

“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.” – Catharine A. MacKinnon

Feminism was born from Socialism. The man who coined the term and originally devised the ideology (Charles Fourier) was a Socialist of the Communalist stripe. Feminism, from its inception, is aligned with a political ideology. Unlike the “Armed Doctrine” that emerged from the Paris Commune, Feminism could be described as the “Cancerous Doctrine” for the reasons the author states: It is a thing that can append itself to any other group, ideology, religion, or society, and convert it from its normal form and processes to abnormal form and processes that it cannot sustain. Feminism operates in much the same way, infiltrating, attacking, and converting healthy, non-feminist social organs and ideologies until they become feminist and ultimately die.

“Intersectionality” is merely a vector by which the disease of Feminism attacks the host.

9. Just because we’re angry about injustice, this doesn’t mean we aren’t happy and grateful for the good things in our lives.

“Injustice”, whatever your definition of that word might be, is not a license to act in whatever way you want without consequence.

10. Yes, men can be feminists. Okay, this one is up for some dispute, for various reasons: some feminists prefer to think of sympathetic men as allies. Some allies are wary about identifying as feminists, NOT because it will make them “less masculine” (massive eye-roll) – but because they have seen too many men claim to be feminist in order to try to take advantage. This strikes me as a pretty feminist perspective, actually, and I appreciate it. Personally, though, I believe men can be feminists – and should be feminists. This is not only because male support is valuable, but because entering into discourse with male feminists can add a lot to our understanding about how humans best relate and understand one another, what societal structures are harmful, and how best we can dismantle them in a way that is wholesome, not destructive.

“Male feminists” or “male allies” can be dumped into two categories: Quislings and Puppeteers. Some call quislings by other titles: White Knights, Eunuchs, Beta Males. In this instance, Quislings most closely captures the substance of the pathetic creature in question. In the quisling category are men who will gladly throw over another man for female approval. Some quislings hope that female approval will buy him access to vagina. That hope is as childish and short-sighted as the kid who spends 20 dollars buying tokens at Chuck E. Cheese to play games, and win enough tickets for a prize that retails at 2 dollars. Sex is cheaper to buy outright than win through games of chance or skill. The other quislings are men who put women on a pedestal as their goddess-victim. Woman, to this quisling, is at once more wise, and pure, and moral than men. At the same time she is ever in danger of being torn down from her lofty pedestal and ravaged by these inferior beings. Woman, to these quislings, is an idol made of glass: a god of his own imagination who cannot help him and cannot save herself.

On the other side, we have the puppeteers. The puppeteers are smart enough to use Feminism to their own ends while claiming the mantle of “feminist” or “ally.” The author, at the start of her article has a picture of First-wave feminist Doris Stevens, a member of the National Women’s Party. The National Women’s Party, for all of its proto-“GRRL POWER!” posturing and protesting, did not accomplish its goal of obtaining suffrage. That “honor” goes to Carrie Chapman Catt and the National American Woman Suffrage Association. Catt set aside her pacifist principles (proving they were not principles at all, but preferences) and threw the weight of her 2 million woman organization behind Woodrow Wilson’s war in Europe. Similarly in England, the Order of the White Feather, founded by Charles Fitzgerald and eagerly supported by the Pankhursts clan, shamed and cajoled men, many of whom could not vote themselves, to sign away their lives to the British Army. Once 100,000 American men and millions of other men were sacrificed on the altar to European stupidity, and a breach had been created that International Socialism and National Socialism, the Feminists of Britain and the United States were rewarded with the vote for their collaboration in sending thousands of men and boys to their deaths.

Get enough men killed, and you too can obtain the vote.

Back to Doris Stevens and the National Women’s Party. The NWP was headed by Alice Paul, a militant feminist and great admirer of the Pankhursts and their campaign of feminist terrorism in Britain (for example, see the attempted assassination of Prime Minister Harold Asquith). Alice Paul was a close friend and ally of Howard W. Smith, Democrat Representative for the state of Virginia. Smith was segregationist, but he was also a supporter of feminism. The reason? Alice Paul, like many feminists of the time, eagerly offered up “women’s rights” as a bulwark against blacks obtaining political power. The statements and speeches and quotes are numerous. I have reproduced them elsewhere and will not do so here. For 20 years, Smith annually sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment, the pet legislation of the NWP. In 1964, he sponsored an amendment to add “sex” to the list of protected classes in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the basis that “white women” would suffer greater discrimination than black men if not included.

The argument won the day.

These are just two examples of puppeteers using the unprincipled and amoral grasping for power of Feminists to further their own ends, whether it be for increased power for a totalitarian state or to advance white supremacy. It also demonstrates that the political power of feminists is wholly dependent on their relationship to powerful men and not any courage or virtue of their own. Put another way, Feminists in the hands of a puppeteer show that they would rather be the master’s most favored slave on a plantation than embrace freedom from being ruled and if they must sacrifice the lives and freedom of men, they will gladly do so.

And the causes of women are a seemingly bottomless chasm into which tax dollars may be poured, bureaucrats hired and deployed to study and write papers, a photo-op for disreputable politicians, and a talking point for propagandists and moral scolds to argue over whose heart has been broken into more pieces by the sight of female suffering.

Any man who espouses feminism, or the grievances of women as a class, is either an idiot or a manipulator.

Postscript: we really, really wish you would take a little time to educate yourself on the history of feminism, and on different feminist traditions, before making any magisterial statements about them – or us.

This whole thing was one long paean to NAWALT. What cupcake does not notice or care to address is that the exception, even if it exists, does not disprove the rule. And it smacks completely of insincerity given the history and practices of Feminism.

I understand Feminism all too well. That’s why I stand in opposition to it. I will not bow to a female supremacist movement.

Source