the feminist wars on women and reality

Steve Sailer had an interesting iSteve piece a couple of days ago, Guardian: If Only White Women Didn’t Have Any Male Loved Ones, Then Hillary Would be President. Feminists are still agonising over Hillary’s defeat but now they think they’ve found two explanations. Married women voted for Trump because their evil white patriarchal husbands forced them to do so. And married women apparently care more about their families than about solidarity with the feminist sisterhood.

“The key distinction, according to Kretschmer’s research, is that single women tend to cast votes with the fate of all women in mind, while women married to men vote on behalf of their husbands and families …”

It’s incredibly amusing on so many levels. It seems that women are so strong and empowered that they automatically vote the way their husbands tell them to. And women care what happens to their own husbands and their own children. Outrageous!

“A college-educated woman identifying as a liberal Democrat confided to Kretschmer – not wanting to be identified, as a Trump voter – that she had voted for him over Clinton because her husband’s job depends on the coal industry; she saw Trump as the candidate that would protect it, and by extension her family’s economic interests. Kretschmer called her story ‘the clearest, most heartbreaking validation of our article that I had ever heard’.”

Most of all though it perfectly encapsulates the two most outstanding features of feminism. Firstly there’s the all-consuming white-hot hatred that feminists feel for normal heterosexual women. Secondly there’s the equally burning feminist hatred for reality.

Feminists know that the only way women can be fulfilled and happy is to be exactly like men. They should think like men and behave like men, they should pursue male career paths doing male jobs, they should forget about having families, they should pursue casual sex just like men do. Ideally they should become angry bitter lesbians but the next best thing is for women to become sluts. They should use men for sex and then discard them.

Women should repress every single female instinct. Because everything about being female is stupid and trivial and aids the patriarchy. Everything about being male is cool and exciting. Women should become men with vaginas (to a feminist the only good thing about being female is having a vagina which is of course awesome). Married women are therefore the most dangerous and evil enemy of all. Married women are so sick and perverted that they actually want to love men and be loved by them. They want to have children. Having one child in your late 30s is OK as long as you pay someone else to do all the childcare and as long as the child is raised to hate men (in the case of girls) or hate themselves (in the case of boys). But some married women are so twisted up inside that they want to raise their own children. No wonder the feminist Utopia has not yet come to pass!

Feminists know that feminist theory is correct. Reality does not correspond in any way with feminist theory. Therefore reality is hateful and evil. Reality must be wrong.

The worst thing is that married women often actually accept reality. Some are so far gone that they think that if their husbands behave as if they’re kind and generous and loving then maybe they really are kind and generous and loving. Which of course cannot be true, because feminist theory says it isn’t true.

This is why it is necessary for feminists to wage war on married women. Getting married is not OK. Putting the interests of your own family ahead of the interests of total strangers who just happen to have vaginas is not OK. Caring about your children is not OK. Being happy and content is not OK. If married women cannot be made to realise these things then steps will have to be taken.

Advertisements

the myth of moderate feminism

Some interesting feminism-related stuff on the web at the moment. Much of it concerns Jeanette Kupferman, a radical feminist in the 1960s and now a woman in her 70s. She’s now a grandmother and wondering if the world feminism has created is really going to be good for her granddaughter. 
Her doubts on this subject prompted these questions at The Knight and Drummer – Can a feminist be redeemed? Can a feminist  eventually turn out to be a good woman after all?
Reading what Kupferman has to say, I think we can answer those questions in the negative. 
The story has also been noted at Oz Conservative where it’s been pointed out that Kupferman still clings tenaciously to her core liberal and feminist beliefs. 
A feminist cannot be redeemed unless she is prepared to abandon feminism in its entirety. The truth is that there is no such thing as a moderate feminist, or a reasonable moderate feminist. Feminism is based on a fundamentally mistaken view of human nature. It’s wrong right from the get-go. There’s no way to do what Kupferman would like to do, to salvage the good bits of feminism. What she sees as the good bits are actually the very things that make it an unworkable and catastrophic ideology.
Also of interest in this context is this piece by Roosh V, Why The Female “Anti-Feminist” Is A Feminist In Disguise, in which he warns that women who claim to be anti-feminist should not be taken at face value.
I also read Dalrock’s blog fairly regularly. The comments are interesting as they provide a window into what really goes on inside mainstream American Protestant churches. The extent of the surrender to feminism is terrifying. The churches have made the classic mistake – they have assumed that with feminists they’re dealing with reasonable people. They have deluded themselves into thinking that there can be such a thing as a Christian feminist. It’s nonsense. You cannot be a Christian and a feminist. It simply isn’t possible. Women who claim to be Christian feminists are certainly feminists but they aren’t Christians.

Moderate feminists, like moderate liberals, are extremely dangerous because they can easily fool naïve conservatives into believing that feminists are capable of being reasoned with.
So can a feminist be redeemed? Yes, if she is prepared to admit that feminism is thoroughly and completely wrong from start to finish and if she is prepared to reject feminism totally and completely. Very very few feminists will do this. 
Can a feminist  eventually turn out to be a good woman after all? No, not so long as she clings to any part of the feminist ideology.

am I a conservative? part two

In my previous post I talked about some of my issues with mainstream conservatism. Now I’m going to address my biggest concern of all – the issue of social conservatism.

I do very much consider myself to be a social conservative. And this is where I really come to a parting of the ways with mainstream conservatism as it exists today. Not only have mainstream conservatives surrendered on every single issue that concerns social conservatives – they actually seem to regard actual social conservatives with a mixture of embarrassment and contempt. While mainstream conservatives are prepared to go to the barricades over the issues that matter to them – tax cuts for the rich, free trade and open borders – it is obvious that they would prefer to avoid taking a stand on every single issue that matters to social conservatives.
For me social issues trump economic issues. Economic prosperity is a fine thing but if society collapses into despair, nihilism and chaos it’s not much consolation to be told that at least we have economic growth.
And our society is collapsing into despair, nihilism and chaos. 
We have reached the stage where the most precious of freedom of all is, apparently, the freedom to slaughter our unborn children. We are slaughtering them by the millions. Quite apart from the obvious moral dimension there is a social cost to this as well. To believe it’s OK to kill an unborn baby because that child might be a nuisance to its parents’ busy social life or might disrupt a woman’s career has terrifying implications that should surely be obvious to all. But mainstream conservatives have no intention of making any kind of stand on this issue.
Mainstream conservatives not only do not want to contest the issue of homosexual marriage – more often than not they actively support it. This issue has nothing to do with tolerance. Homosexuals achieved that decades ago. They don’t want their tragically unhealthy lifestyle to be tolerated – they want it to be celebrated and embraced. They want to be free to promote that lifestyle to children. Homosexual marriage is part of that agenda. But mainstream conservatives have no problem with it.
Feminism has been not only the most pernicious and dangerously deluded ideology ever dreamt up, it has also been a spectacular failure. Women have never been more unhappy, lonely and embittered than they are today. But try to find one mainstream conservative who will point out the folly and evil of feminism.
Pornography has been flooding our society for decades now. Try to find one mainstream conservative who will confront that issue.
Promiscuity is now considered to be the new normal. Long experience has demonstrated the corrosive effects of promiscuity on both the individual and society. But no mainstream conservative wants to be accused of slut-shaming. So that issue gets ignored as well.
So cowardly and treacherous are mainstream conservatives on social issues that even though I am most definitely a social conservative the very word conservative has become so devalued in my eyes that I’d prefer to be called something else. I’d rather call myself a social reactionary.

the things left unsaid

It’s often the things that are not said that are more revealing than the things that are said. This is especially true when applied to liberals.
One interesting example is environmentalists and overpopulation. Remember when greenies were obsessed with the population explosion? It was going to be worst thing ever  and it was going to kill the planet and we were all going to die. Environmentalists don’t talk very much about that subject these days. The reason in this case is obvious. To talk about overpopulation would be racist!
They’re particularly keen to avoid discussing immigration. If they did discuss it they would have to face up to one very embarrassing hatefact – if millions of people move from the Third World to the First World those people are going to have a much bigger impact on the environment. They’re going to consume a lot more electricity. They’re going to want to buy cars. A lot more fossil fuels are going to be burnt. If there was any truth to global warming then these immigrants would logically accelerate the process. 
There are two conclusions one can draw from this. Either environmentalists don’t really believe in global warming, or they’re quite happy to see the planet die as long as they are not seen to be racist.
The other interesting example of things left unsaid involves feminists and pornography. I’ve been reminded of this by a recent post at Upon Hope. Feminists have always been divided on this issue but until fairly recently there was a very significant segment of the feminist movement (in fact the dominant segment) that was bitterly opposed to pornography. They argued that pornography objectified women, encouraged violence against women, oppressed women, was an insult to women, etc etc.
These days feminists have gone strangely quiet on this issue. Which is odd. At the time when they were enthusiastically crusading against it pornography was not all that big a problem. Today it’s a very big problem indeed. It’s all-pervasive, the evidence that it causes harm is much stronger and it’s almost impossible (indeed it’s probably quite impossible) to keep such material out of the hands of children. So why has the feminist sisterhood gone strangely quiet on this topic? Have they changed their minds? Do younger feminists simply not care? Are they so driven by hatred for our civilisation that they welcome anything that will undermine that civilisation, even if it harms women in the process?
There is another possible reason. They may have backed down in the face of opposition from the LGBTQWERTY lobby (with which feminism has an uneasy relationship to say the least). Any crackdown on pornography could not in practice be confined to a crackdown on heterosexual pornography. It would have to include material involving various forms of sexual deviance. But that would be homophobic, transphobic, queerphobic and all sorts of other phobics.
And the unpleasant truth for feminists is that LGBTQWERTY “rights” trump women’s rights. Feminists are at the absolute bottom of the victim hierarchy. So the explanation might have more to do with cowardice than hypocrisy.
It’s always worth taking note of the things liberals do not say. They tend to be very revealing. They also suggest that there are major fault lines within the left-liberal establishment, fault lines that might well widen considerably at some future time.

the future of marriage equality

Roxxxy demands marriage equality now!
There’s an interesting minor kerfuffle happening in the UK on the subject of sex robots. Interesting, because it says a very great deal about the society we have become. It also says quite a bit about the liberal mindset.
A company has recently announced a new and highly advanced sex robot, Roxxxy. And a feminist academic, Dr Kathleen Richardson, wants the government to ban the robot. Now whether or not you find the whole idea of sex robots to be disturbing or even disgusting isn’t really the point. I’m not saying there might not be an argument that such robots are a bad idea, but that’s a separate issue. The issue I’m addressing is this – on what basis can liberals argue for banning them?
They can’t argue for banning them on the grounds that they’re physically dangerous. They’re not dangerous at all. They can’t argue they should be banned on the grounds that sex with robots is unnatural. Homosexuality is unnatural but liberals think we should celebrate homosexuality. They can’t argue that the robots are being exploited – you can’t exploit a machine. They could argue that such robots encourage the “objectification” of women but in that case they’d have to argue for banning pornography and prostitution, subjects on which liberals and feminists tend to hold contradictory views. They’d also have to argue for banning sex toys for women, which surely objectify men to an even more serious degree – reducing men to nothing more than a sex organ. I don’t see much likelihood of any liberal or feminist doing that.
The feminist academic has chosen to oppose the sexbots because they “reinforce traditional and damaging stereotypes of women.” But do they? And what does that even mean? She is also concerned that the sex robot “perpetuates the view that a relationship does not need to be more than simply physical.” On that basis I assume that Dr Richardson also believes the government should outlaw vibrators and casual sex?

The really big problem here is that liberals always tell us they believe in choice and autonomy. Apparently they only believe in choice and autonomy when it suits them. What could possibly be more autonomous than choosing to buy a sex robot? It’s the absolute ultimate in autonomy. 

There are other issues to consider. This sex robot is not in fact intended to be merely a sex toy. The company hopes that she “will eventually be able to learn on her own, and begin to pick-up on her owner’s likes and dislikes.” In other words she’s intended to be a companion. A combination of pet and sex toy. The ultimate aim (as outlined in David Levy’s intriguing book Love and Sex with Robots) is to create a robot with whom one can have an emotional relationship. Which of course raises the issue – will we see a campaign to legalise marriage with robots? I mean, do we believe in marriage equality or don’t we? It will be fascinating to see how liberals react to that idea. Surely only a bigot could oppose the right to marry robots. We should be free to love whomever we choose!
Please understand that I am not suggesting that any of these things are good ideas. They will however provide us with an amusing opportunity to see liberal hypocrisy in action as liberals confront the logical end point of their ideology.

the forever (culture) war

The culture war has ended in complete victory. The handful of surviving evil white cis-gendered heteronormative patriarchal males are cowering in cellars and are unlikely ever again to threaten the glorious cause of social justice. You might think that this means there will be peace at last, even if it’s the peace of conquest. You couldn’t be more wrong. The culture war will never end. The culture war must never end. In fact it’s about to be intensified.
This time the enemy will not be evil white cis-gendered heteronormative patriarchal males since as I’ve already explained they’re becoming almost impossible to find. The enemies will be far more dangerous. The cultural marxists are now turning their attentions to the Enemy Within.
Anyone familiar with the history of revolutions should not be surprised. The great purges in  the Soviet Union were not directed against czarist agents or capitalists because there weren’t any left. The purges were directed against deviationists – communists who were not sufficiently ideologically pure or who expressed any doubts as to the correctness of the party line. In Communist China the targets were both left and right deviationists and wicked capitalist roaders. The French Revolution ended in a bloodbath of revolutionaries who were unwise enough to belong to the wrong revolutionary faction. 
So given the shortage of evil white cis-gendered heteronormative patriarchal males who will be the victims of The Terror this time?
In the US it’s already clear that black Christians will be a principal target. The very existence of black Christians is a threat to The Narrative. If Christianity is evil and racist how can it be that there are blacks who want to be Christians? Those blacks are traitors – they’re no better than evil white cis-gendered heteronormative patriarchal males. They must be rooted out. They must be purged.
Heterosexual women will also be a prime target. They’re at the very bottom of the victim totem pole, which is something they’re only just starting to realise. The problem for any group being at the bottom of the victim totem pole is that when there are no other wicked oppressors available that group will be pressed into service as the new oppressor class. White middle-class heterosexual university-educated women see themselves as victims but in the eyes of groups with higher victim status they are simply outrageous examples of white privilege. 
If white feminists think that non-white women are their natural allies they need to think again. Non-white women are not interested in sexism – it’s racism that obsesses them. They will ally with non-white men against white feminists. When white middle-class heterosexual university-educated women are purged they will find themselves with no allies at all, and with pitifully few victim points to play. 
Of course the group that will be in the biggest trouble comprises those heterosexual men who convinced themselves that by proclaiming their anti-racist anti-homophobe anti-sexist pro-feminist credentials they would be safe. These self-emasculated male feminists thought they could gain honorary victim points by identifying with victim groups. They will soon discover how wrong they were. Even the tiniest deviation from political correctness will land them in deep trouble. And they will discover what the victims of the French Revolutionary Terror and the Stalinist show trials discovered – that political correctness is not just a minefield but that the mines never stay in the same place for very long. A position that seemed quite safe last week is now wicked and wrong and counter-revolutionary and grounds for being purged.
I have some sympathy for the black Christians who are often very good people. I have zero sympathy for the feminists and less than zero sympathy for the white heterosexual men who have served the cause of political correctness and are now about to find themselves in the firing line. They deserve everything they are about to get.