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

should men go their own way?

I haven’t really talked much about the so-called manosphere or about one of its more interesting manifestations, Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). I have some sympathy for this movement although I certainly don’t consider myself to be a part of it. Of course that might be because I’m just not that much of a joiner.

The most potent argument against MGTOW is that it’s a kind of surrender and that surrender is what got us into this mess in the first place. There’s the argument that the one positive step that anyone who dislikes the current state of society can take is to marry and have lots of kids. These children will be shock troops, or at least loyal foot soldiers, in both the Culture War and the Demographic War. The further argument is that since liberals have few children we can easily win  The War of the Cradle. These are arguments that I myself was making just a year ago.

The trouble is that these arguments rest on two assumptions that are looking increasingly dubious. The first is that the Culture War and the Demographic War are winnable. The Culture War is clearly already lost. The Demographic War is looking very grim indeed. If these wars are unwinnable then that changes everything.

Of course there’s always the possibility that eventually our society will implode and then perhaps we can reconstruct a sane society from the ashes. It has to be said that an actual collapse seems (to me at least) rather unlikely in either the short or medium term. It’s more likely that present trends will continue and life will become more and more unpleasant but that the elites will maintain their control.

The second dubious assumption is that governments in the West are going to let us raise our children the way we think they should be raised. It’s blindingly obvious that our governments intend to put more and more pressure on us to raise our children the way they think children should be raised – as alienated but compliant economic units totally committed to the state religions of globalism and social justice. It’s also blindingly obvious that our governments will have absolutely no hesitation taking children away from patents who refuse to conform.

And liberals don’t need to breed. They don’t need their own children because they know they’re getting to get possession of the hearts and minds of our kids once those kids are exposed to the indoctrination program which is what our education system now is.

Marriage is clearly a very bad option for men for a host of reasons. If having children is now likely to be mostly futile then really it’s difficult to see any arguments at all for marriage from a male point of view.

We may be headed, rather rapidly, for a situation in which Men Going Their Own Way is not just an option, but the only viable option.

I think it’s all very tragic. Before feminism raised its ugly head men and women got along remarkably well. Then feminism taught women not only to hate men but to hate themselves for being women. Now an increasing number of men are so angry at women that they want nothing to do with them. The trouble is that living without the opposite sex is a hard road to choose.

The latest post at The Knight and Drummer addresses this issue and the closely related issue of withdrawing from society altogether. Maybe living a neolithic lifestyle in a hut in the wilderness appeals to some people but it’s not my idea of fun. I don’t like nature. I never have done. In my experience nature is damp, cold, smelly, uncomfortable and downright dangerous. Wildernesses might be nice to look at on TV (although even on TV they seem pretty boring to me) but the idea of living in an actual wilderness horrifies me. I’m not sure I’m keen on such absolute levels of solitude either.

I’m also not terribly attracted to the monkish thing. It’s a bit too much of a rejection of the sensual world. I’m not sure I can bring myself to regard the pleasures of the flesh as evil.

But then I seem to be a person entirely lacking in the taste for spiritual introspection so I’m not cut out for monkdom anyway.

I try to compromise as best as I can. I might live in society but I don’t feel part of it. Not any more. But I do rather like things like indoor plumbing and electricity, and at least some limited human contact. I shun all contact with contemporary popular culture, I avoid any unnecessary interactions with the state and I limit my human contacts fairly severely. Compromising is difficult but it seems to me to be unavoidable. I suppose that in practice I have to some extent been a man going his own way for quite some time now but I’m still sceptical about embracing it as an ideology. The idea does however become more attractive with each passing day.

a woman’s world

A recent post at Oz Conservative, Why can’t male sacrifice be acknowledged? included a quote from a post, Appreciation, at The Rational Male.


Even the most enlightened, appreciative woman you know still operates in a feminine-centric reality. 

For me this opens up an interesting line of thought. The observation is obviously correct. In fact it has always been true that women operate in a feminine-centric reality. Why wasn’t this a problem in the past and why is it a problem now? The answer is that the problem has been caused by the collapse of traditional sex roles.

Men and women are profoundly different. And to a large extent women should live in a feminine-centric reality. That’s the way they’re wired. They don’t view the world the way men do, they don’t want the same things out of life that men want, they don’t think or feel the same way men do, they don’t approach sex the way men do. They should not have to do any of these things. They are being forced into living their lives as if they were men. It doesn’t work.

The fact that women operate differently compared to men is not a flaw but an asset. Women operate psychologically, emotionally and sexually in a way that is ideally suited for their intended roles as wives and mothers. In a sane society based on traditional sex roles women would be allowed to live their lives in a manner to which they are biologically suited, and living their lives in that way would bring them happiness and fulfilment.

Women encounter problems because they cannot change the way they are wired but they insist on (or in many cases are pressured into) living as pretend men. They try to have high-powered careers and they end up being stressed and unfulfilled. They then try to combine their unfulfilling careers with marriage and motherhood and of course their marriages fail and their kids turn out badly because the woman is wasting her energies on her career. They then end up being bitter, angry and miserable.

They generally only succeed in their high-powered careers because they get favoured treatment. They are not equipped to be politicians or CEOs. They don’t have the cool analytical intelligence, they don’t have the mental toughness. They’re not supposed to have those qualities. Women make decisions based on emotion. That’s what they are supposed to do. It makes them good wives and mothers.

The idea of strong empowered women is a myth. Women are strong and empowered only to the extent that they have the apparatus of the state to back them up, with force if necessary. Which means that their strength and empowerment is in fact provided by men. When their feelings get hurt they stamp their feet and cry and expect a policeman to come along and arrest the bad man who made them cry. In actual fact women are supposed to get upset when their feelings are hurt. They’re supposed to be emotionally sensitive. There’s nothing wrong with a woman crying if her feelings are hurt. In a sane with traditional sex roles women are protected from situations that are likely to upset them. The problem today is that women put themselves in situations where it’s practically guaranteed that their feelings will get hurt.

Women are natural control freaks. This is a good thing. If you’re going to be a mother being a control freak will keep your kids from harm. In business or politics it’s a disaster. Women try to run corporations, and run the country, they way they’d run the nursery. Theresa May being a fine example.

The post at The Rational Male also states

I think what most men uniquely deceive themselves of is that they will ultimately be appreciated by women for their sacrifices. Learn this now, you won’t. 

This is true, but again it comes down to the abandonment of traditional sex roles. There are things that women should expect men to do without making a song and dance of it. There are certainly things a wife should expect her husband to do automatically. He should protect her, not just from physical harm but from emotional harm. He should support her financially. She should expect him to be faithful and she should not expect him to abandon her when she’s no longer young and hot. The reason for the problems today is that women have been taught that they have no reciprocal obligations whatsoever. In the saner world of the past women understand that there were certain things that a husband was entitled to expect from a wife. She should provide emotional support, she should provide sex, she should not denigrate him publicly and she should keep house for him. Neither sex considered these things to be unreasonable. Perhaps they were sacrifices in some cases but since they were reciprocal both parties ended up winning. Both parties derived a great deal of emotional satisfaction from the arrangement.

Women not only did not expect men to do housework, they would have been horrified by the idea. It meant you were a failure as a wife, and a man who agreed to do so was considered (quite rightly) to be an emasculated weakling.

As long as men and women stuck to their traditional roles there was mutual respect as well as love and affection. The mutual respect is gone. The result can only be disaster.

sheltered from the real world

I’ve come to the conclusion that there are two types of people in society, those who live in the real world and those who live entirely sheltered from the real world. The big divide is not between liberals and conservatives or between Christians and atheists. The big divide is in people’s experience of the real world.

Living in the real world generally means having a real job. A job in which you actually do something useful and productive. That immediately excludes everyone in politics and the bureaucracy, and everyone in the media and academia.

The real jobs category also excludes most female jobs which are generally hobby jobs rather than actual jobs. It does not exclude motherhood. Motherhood is most definitely a real job.

Those who have to confront the real world on a regular basis tend to view life very differently from those who are sheltered from reality. Their opinions on social issues are usually very different. Most of the beliefs that we think of as coming under the umbrella of cultural marxism, social justice or social liberalism cannot survive contact with the real world.

Those who live sheltered from the real world live are usually financially privileged. They don’t see the problems with things like immigration because they don’t have to face those problems. They almost certainly live in nice safe comfortable overwhelmingly white neighbourhoods where they are not directly affected. Money is a formidable cushion against unpleasant realities.

If you have first-hand contact with reality you know that immigration is a bad thing. You’ve seen the social devastation it causes and you’ve seen what overcrowding and the overloading of infrastructure does. Anyone who has had any contact with reality knows that feminism does not work and never can work.

The real world/sheltered world divide explains why so many people believe so many crazy things. It explains why women in particular believe crazy things. Most women these days are to some extent sheltered from unpleasant unrealities. If they engage in sexual promiscuity society will rescue them (which means ultimately that men will pay the bills for them). If they engage in foolish risk-taking activities society will rescue them (in other words men will rescue them).

The real world/sheltered world divide also explains that otherwise inexplicable phenomenon, the male feminist (that most contemptible of all human creatures). If you meet a male feminist you can be pretty much guaranteed he won’t be a truck driver or a farmer or an engineer or a plumber. He’ll inhabit one of those sheltered privileged little enclaves in which reality never intrudes. He’ll “work” for the government or he’ll be a lecturer in media studies or something equally useless.

The best antidote to crazy social beliefs is a good dose of reality but we live in a society in which a large proportion of the population will never have the slightest contact with the real world.

why feminism is fundamentally wrong

In the light of the discussion that my previous post, the myth of moderate feminism, kicked off I feel I should clarify my views on feminism.
Feminism is not like political ideologies such as communism or fascism or even liberalism, all of which are based on ideas that have some merit. Those ideologies do not work in practice but they are not inherently unreasonable. It is possible to engage with such ideologies on rational grounds. Feminism is not like that.
Feminism is based on ideas that are entirely false, mistaken and inherently unworkable and unreasonable. Thinking that it’s possible to engage with feminism in a rational manner is like thinking that it’s possible to engage in a rational manner with Flat Earthers.
Feminism is based on a belief that the differences between men and women are so insignificant that they can, and should, be made to disappear. This is entirely false. The differences between men and women are fundamental and profound. Men and women do not see the world the same way. Male intelligence and female intelligence are different. The emotional differences between the sexes are profound. Women are ruled by their emotions to a much greater degree than men. These are not weaknesses. If men and women stick to their traditional sex roles these differences are assets, not liabilities. 
Men and women differ in their experience of sex and their approach to sex. Men can to a large degree separate sex from emotion. Women in general cannot. For a man a one night stand is about sex. For a woman it is not purely about sex. 
The demands that feminists originally made sounded reasonable, but they were not reasonable because they were based on a complete misunderstanding of both men and women. The demand for equal pay was absurd. Women do not do the same work as men. This is partly because there are jobs that are suitable for men and other jobs that are suitable for women, and women have no desire to do many of the highly paid jobs that men do. Many of these jobs are highly paid because they are dangerous and unpleasant. Women do not want to do jobs that are dangerous and unpleasant.
Women should not receive the same pay as men because it is the duty of men to provide for their wives and children. A man needs to be paid enough to enable him to support a family. This is not the role of women.
Feminist wanted women to have equal access to higher education. Higher education is very expensive and it is not efficient to spend a fortune educating a woman for a profession that she will most probably practise on a part-time basis and with lengthy gaps for child-rearing. Women in general do not require expensive higher education.
A woman’s role is mainly to be a wife and mother. Feminists have managed to devalue these roles, which has been tragic for women.
The feminist demand for an end to the sexual “double standard” was equally wrong-headed. The double standard was there to protect women. Women face more serious consequences from living a promiscuous lifestyle. The idea that those consequences cannot be evaded by means of contraception and abortion is false – the contraceptive pill has severe health consequences and abortion has serious emotional consequences. Promiscuity is harmful for both men and women, but it is more harmful to women. The sexual double standard was simply a recognition of reality.
Feminism is also based on a deep hostility to femaleness. Feminists worship masculinity. They believe that women are worthless unless they turn themselves into pretend men.
Traditional sex roles existed because everyone used to understand that men and women were different. The things that make men happy are not the things that make women happy.
Feminism is an ideology that is based entirely on false premises. There is nothing reasonable about it. It’s wrong all the way through. It’s wrong for women. It has made women angry, dissatisfied and miserable. It needs to be rejected in its entirety.

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.

women, Christianity, superstition and heresy

The latest post at Oz Conservative, Male dominion, magical women, is extremely interesting and there have been a couple of interesting comments as well. It’s one of those posts that makes you think about an issue in an entirely new way.
There’s firstly the issue of whether women who conform to the traditional Christian virtues deserve to be considered to be “the crowning achievement of divine creation,” something that Mark quite rightly has some doubts about. He also mentions the extraordinary female attachment to bizarre beliefs in things like the Tarot and various forms of fortune telling. These are things that 99 percent of men would regard as laughable and nonsensical superstitions but a frightening number of women believe in such superstitions. What is really worrying is that extremely intelligent women are still quite capable of believing in stuff like astrology.
It’s another example of the profound difference between male intelligence and female intelligence. Men have the ability, to a large degree, to separate belief from emotion. Men tend to believe in objective truth, and they believe in weighing up evidence. Women believe in emotional truth. If it feels true then it is true. Of course this is a generalisation. But generalisations can be very useful things as long as you remember that they are generalisations and I think that this particular generalisation is both useful and mostly accurate. Certainly my own experience of women suggests that women do not perceive truth the way men do. 
I’m not suggesting that women are dishonest in this regard. It’s just the way they’re wired. They find it exceptionally difficult to make non-emotional judgments. Of course if society was still organised on the basis of traditional sex roles this would not matter, since in their proper domestic sphere emotional intelligence is a major asset. It becomes a problem when women take on roles for which they are unsuited, such as political leadership, where their emotional intelligence is almost certainly going to lead to disaster.
A commenter named Bruce added something that had never occurred to me before but which may well be very very important. He said that 

“…Christian women, at least the ones I know, are far more likely to claim that their decisions are based on direct conversations they have with God. They tell me that they literally speak to God and he speaks back – either in the form of “whispers” or direct conversation that they literally hear. I almost never hear Christian men claim this sort of thing.”

I think that this may explain a great deal about the current disastrous state of Christianity in the West. It seems quite possible that the female experience of religion is entirely and radically different from the male experience. For women religion may well be purely an emotional thing. That could be why women seem to be unworried by the widespread acceptance of heresy by Christian churches – women simply don’t care about theology or doctrine at all. Men will often choose a religion, or reject one, because there is a key point of doctrine that they simply cannot accept. It seems likely that for women what matters is whether a particular religion or a particular denomination seems to them to be emotionally true. Which means that as long as they get the emotional buzz they’ll accept any heresy.
This is certainly a very powerful reason to oppose the ordination of women and to oppose vigorously the appointment of women to any position of authority within the Church. Women are unlikely to oppose heresies or abominations like homosexual marriage because it simply doesn’t matter to them if such things are explicitly forbidden by scripture or by the historical teachings of the church. What matters are feelings.
A church dominated by women is inevitably going to drift towards heresy and doctrinal incoherence but it’s also going to drift towards New Age-y wallowing in superstitious wishful thinking or equally dangerous fatalism. Christianity cannot survive in any meaningful form unless men take back their proper leadership role. With women in charge Christianity is likely to do much more harm than good.