the battle for our children

An important recent post at The Knight and Drummer raises an issue that I’ve been concerned about for some time now. It is now obvious what the ultimate objective of the homosexual lobby is. It is unrestricted access to children for male homosexuals. This has always been the final objective, the only difference now is that they’re no longer making any secret of it.

In fact they have been pursuing this objective for decades. The sexualisation of children has been aggressively pushed in schools over a period of many years. Children have been exposed to sexual concepts at wildly inappropriate ages. And the sexual concepts to which they have been exposed have become steadily more sinister.

Over the past few years the gender identity nonsense has been used as a way to further advance this process. Extremely young children who have absolutely zero understanding of sex have been persuaded that they can change their gender. In many cases the parents have been pressured to go along with this. Most worrying is that many parents have been happy to do so – in our modern world a transgender child is a major status symbol.

A sexual interest in young boys has been a key part of the male homosexual sub-culture for at least two thousand years. We should not be surprised that they now intend to find ways to satisfy this interest without the inconvenience of being sent to prison. The homosexual lobby has taken an extraordinary interest in the education system and it’s no coincidence that they have done so.

Sceptics might object that they could not possibly get away with this. In fact they are getting away with it. And they have strategies which will help them to do so. The most successful is likely to be based on the idea that current age of consent laws are oppressive to children and repress childhood sexuality. It’s an evil strategy but that’s not going to stop them. We can also expect to hear sob stories (all of them phony) in the media about thousands of homosexual children committing suicide because their sexuality has been repressed.

It will be interesting to see which way women jump on this issue. Lesbians don’t share the obsessive sexual interest in children that male homosexuals display but they are always keen to make converts, and the best way to do so is to get them young. I imagine lesbians will mostly support male homosexuals on this issue.

But what about heterosexual feminists? Surely they won’t go along with any of this?

Much depends on whether heterosexual feminists are prepared to confront the homosexual lobby on this subject. These days very few people have the courage to stand against the homosexuals so I’m not hopeful. I do expect some major splits among feminists though, with many older feminists being appalled by the idea of children being turned into objects for the gratification of sexual lusts. Younger feminists will fully support the homosexuals. They’ve been thoroughly indoctrinated in homosexual and gender identity propaganda.

Christians as usual will wring their hands and start mumbling about fairness and equality and love and will do nothing of any consequence.

So far every single battle in the culture wars has been lost by Christians and social conservatives. We had better hope they don’t lose this one.

Advertisements

why our women have gone feral, part 2

As I hinted in my previous post on this topic western women have gone feral because they refuse to accept reality. They not only refuse to accept reality, they get angry when they encounter it. In that post I concentrated on the reasons young women turn feral. This time I’m looking at a couple of the reasons thirty-something and forty-something women go feral.

This also applies, bizarrely, to biological reality. The one great biological fact about women that cannot be evaded is the biological clock. Women have a very limited timeframe in which to have children. After 30 their chances of conceiving and carrying a child to term start to decline. After 35 those chances drop at a terrifying rate. By 40 the odds are not very favourable at all. Women do manage to have children in their mid-40s, and feminists and the media always like to point to such cases, but what they overlook is that those women were lucky. And they probably could afford some very expensive medical intervention as well. The brutal fact remains that after 40 the odds are stacked against the women wanting children.

Of course women have always accepted this biological fact. If they wanted to have children they understood that it was a very wise idea to aim to have the first child by the age of maybe 27 or 28, at the latest. Which meant that they needed to find a husband by around the age of 25 or so. Women have always accepted this biological fact, until feminism came along and assured them that they didn’t need to worry about facts any more. Facts were unfair and misogynistic. If reality was unpleasant then feminism would change reality!

As a result we now have large numbers of women who believe they can devote themselves to careers and sex until they’re 35 or so and then they can still have kids.

There’s another uncomfortable biological fact that women used to accept, even if they didn’t like it. Women reach their peak of attractiveness in their late teens and early 20s. After 30 their beauty starts to fade. A woman of 35 may still be beautiful, but she won’t be as beautiful as she was at 25. And a woman of 45 might still be quite attractive but she isn’t going to be anywhere near as pretty as she was at 25. Logically if a woman wants to maximise her chances of finding a good husband she should be on the lookout for one in her early 20s and should be aiming to have landed one by her mid-20s. Beauty isn’t everything and you don’t have to look like a supermodel to get a good husband but the reality is that if you’re a woman then beauty is a factor in attracting a mate and it’s sensible to use that asset while it’s still there.

This is another facet of reality that women don’t want to accept any more. They want to believe they can wait until they’re in their mid-30s (or even older) and for some reason they will have terrific high-status men queueing up to marry them.

This is the Sex and the City syndrome. Women think they can devote all their energies to a career, shopping and promiscuous sex and then in their late 30s a wonderful rich good-looking man will come along and beg them to marry him. It happened for Carrie Bradshaw so it can happen for any woman! The only trouble is, Sex and the City was pure fantasy. In reality why on earth would a  rich attractive man like Mr Big want to marry Carrie Bradshaw? He’s not exactly the sort of guy who’d be likely to be in the market for a used car but if he was he’d be looking for a late model low-mileage car with one careful previous owner. He wouldn’t be looking for a broken-down and rather battered-looking old clunker liker Carrie that had been driven by half the men in Manhattan. He would also not be interested in a woman who was clearly at an age when the chances of having even one child would be very slim. As for sex, Carrie will open her legs for him any time he asks anyway so why marry her in order to get access to something she’s giving away for free? In the real world Carrie would be resigning herself to an empty lonely purposeless life and would be thinking about buying a cat.

It’s probably no coincidence that Sex and the City was a fantasy foisted on women by homosexual men. The extent to which the modern worship of the homosexual male lifestyle has been indirectly responsible for making women crazy has never been properly explored. It’s a destructive lifestyle for men. For women it’s completely disastrous.

censorship, popular culture and pornography

In the past fifty years we have been the victims of many ill-advised social experiments. One such experiment was the relaxation of censorship.

It began in a major way in the early 60s and at first it didn’t seem like it was going to be a major problem. But of course it didn’t stop with just a relaxation of censorship. The relaxation continued until it reached the point where censorship became almost non-existent. There are many on the right who consider this experiment have been a disastrous failure. On the whole I agree with them although my views on the subject are a bit more complicated and I have no doubt that many in the social conservative and traditionalist camps are not going to approve of some of those views.

I should probably make the point here that I’m speaking of censorship in a broad sense. In the days of the Production Code Hollywood movies weren’t subject to government censorship. The censorship was done by the industry itself. The end result is however the same. It is important to emphasise that whether censorship is imposed by government or by corporations it is still censorship.

In my view there are two separate issues at stake when it comes to sexual material and censorship. There is sexual material that is imbedded in popular culture (and these days it is very deeply and thoroughly embedded) and then there is actual pornography. To my way of thinking it’s the sexual material that so thoroughly permeates our popular culture that is the biggest problem.

The reason I see this as the main problem is that sexual material in popular culture is inescapable, it is all-pervasive, it often takes the form of outright propaganda and it is extremely difficult to protect children from it.

It’s worth mentioning as an aside here that the Hollywood Production Code was introduced as the result of pressure by groups like the Legion of Decency and their main concern was not so much the explicit content (which was pretty tame even in the pre-code era) as the attitudes towards sex that were being encouraged. There was some nudity in pre-code Hollywood movies (such as the notorious scene of Jane skinny-dipping in Tarzan and His Mate) but the bigger concern was the number of movies that not only dealt with subjects like adultery sympathetically, they glamourised and celebrated that kind of immorality. Such attitudes were seen, quite correctly, as being extremely dangerous. Even more dangerous in that the immorality was sometimes presented in a less obvious way. Hollywood was always good at propaganda and while the propaganda was sometimes blatant it was often done in a more subtle and more pernicious way. The Production Code laid down very strict guidelines governing not just overt sexual content but also the messages that films were delivering.

And that’s the problem today with popular culture. It’s not just that there’s a good deal of inappropriate overt content. There’s also a relentless message encouraging and celebrating sexual depravity. The overt content is often graphic enough to be a huge problem in itself but the insidious messages are worse. A pop song glorifying anal sex probably does more harm than a fairly graphic sex scene in a movie. No matter how hard you try it’s just about impossible not to encounter such material and there really is no way you’re going to prevent children from being exposed to it.

Pornography is a different matter. My views on this subject might not be popular but to me it’s a matter of context. If you’re watching music videos or you’re watching a TV drama series or a thriller and suddenly you’re presented with graphic sexual content or messages then to me that’s a case a wildly inappropriate context for such material. You’re not prepared for it and you’re being exposed to it even if you don’t wish to be. And your kids are being exposed to it.

On the other hand if you buy a girlie magazine or visit a website that specialises in pictures of nude women then you’re expecting pictures of nude women. If you watch a porn movie you’re expecting to see people having sex and it’s hardly going to come as a shock. It’s an appropriate context. If you don’t wish to see pictures of naked women then you don’t have to visit that website or buy that magazine. If you don’t wish to see people having sex don’t watch a porn movie. It’s avoidable. It’s compartmentalised. You have to seek it out and it’s your choice. It’s not suddenly thrown at you when actually you’re expecting to see a straightforward thriller.

As long as you have to make a conscious decision to view the material it doesn’t worry me all that much. Of course there should be limits and restrictions and depending on the graphicness of the material there should be some hoops to jump through before you can access it, in order to make sure that people don’t stumble upon it by accident and to ensure that minors can’t access it. I do realise that these restrictions don’t work as well as they should in the internet age but to me that’s a technical problem rather than a moral problem.

My attitude towards this subject also varies depending on the exact nature of the material. There’s an extremely wide range of pornography, but broadly speaking to my mind you’re dealing with three categories. There’s softcore, which is basically naked women and simulated sex scenes. There’s hardcore, basically explicit images of real sex. And there’s the extreme end which covers some very disturbing and frankly disgusting stuff. The extreme stuff worries me and I’d be happier if people didn’t want such material and it is possible to make a fairly sound argument for banning a good deal of it outright.

Hardcore material worries me a good deal less as long as it is confined to the depiction of normal heterosexual activities (and perhaps I should mention in passing that I most certainly do not consider sodomy to be a normal heterosexual sexual act). If it stays within such limits I don’t think it’s a huge problem although of course it should be made impossible (or as near to impossible as can be managed) for minors to access it.

As for softcore porn, I have to be honest and say I don’t really have any problems with it at all. I can’t really imagine anyone being psychologically scarred by seeing pictures of naked women.

My principal concern is that pornography should be kept separate from mainstream popular culture, and that pornographic material should not be permitted to be infiltrated into mainstream popular culture. In my view this is where the real harm has been done. Sex is part of life but when popular culture becomes pornographic it encourages the idea that sex is all that matters in life.

why have women gone feral? part 1

Why have western women gone feral? Why do they deface their own bodies with tattoos? Why do so many embrace sluttiness as an exciting lifestyle choice?  Why do they buy into gender identity nonsense, given that the whole gender identity/transexual thing is profoundly misogynistic? Why do teenage girls want to mutilate their own bodies?

Why don’t women, especially young women, just enjoy being women?

The answer seems to be that they are driven by anger and bitterness, but why? Partly of course it’s because the schools and the media actively teach them to be angry and bitter. I think there’s a bit more to it than that though.

Immense social changes have taken place in the past fifty years or so (in reality the social changes were already starting to get underway as early as the 1920s). Women were told that they would benefit enormously from these social changes. In practice women are much worse off today than they were half a century ago. They were promised lives of excitement, fulfilment, adventure and endless sexual pleasure. It all went wrong. Women are however reluctant to admit this. It would mean admitting that feminism was wrong from the start. Even women who claim to be sceptical of feminism, or even openly hostile to it, accept most of the feminist agenda.

Women think that being a slut is the path to happiness but of course they want to be treated like Disney princesses as well. Then they discover that if they behave like sluts the desirable men, the high-status males, won’t treat them like Disney princesses. Why bother treating a girl like a princess if she’s going to open her legs for you anyway? Princess treatment is reserved for the girls with high Sexual Market Value. The girls that high-status males might actually consider marrying.

For women at the top of the heap it doesn’t matter. Women with beauty and money will still get those high-status men. For the majority of women it’s a disaster. Not only do they still lose in the competition for the most desirable males, they even have problems snaring the ordinary average men who would probably have made great husbands (possibly better husbands than the alpha males). Traditionally the way to get those decent ordinary men was to use sex as a bargaining counter. If you want to have sex with me that’s fine, but you’ll have to put a ring on my finger first. That strategy worked fine for perfectly ordinary women, women who had average looks but reasonably pleasant personalities. Ordinary men were happy to marry them. Most men have never expected to marry supermodels (or Disney princesses). They’re happy to marry a woman who is reasonably attractive and pleasant to be with.

Now that most women have been persuaded that being sexually liberated means jumping into bed with every man they encounter that strategy no longer works. Why marry a woman in order to sleep with her if there are plenty of other women giving it away for free? That bargaining counter is no longer worth anything. High-status men don’t need to commit to a relationship to get sex. An added complication is that marriage has been made into a very unattractive proposition for men. Women who aren’t lucky enough to be stunningly beautiful (or who don’t have other compensating advantages like wealth and family connections) find that the men who are likely to marry them, or even date them, are not going to be the men of their dreams. And in any case those dreams have become increasingly unrealistic. A princess gets to marry Prince Charming. Non-princesses need to set their sights a bit lower. These days they may need to set their sights a lot lower.

Women respond by being angry and resentful. Many girls choose the option of deliberately making themselves look ugly. They get piercings and tattoos, they get fat, they turn themselves into blue-haired harridans or sexually ambiguous freaks. Then they no longer have to feel bad because men aren’t interested in them. They can claim that men won’t look at them because men are unreasonable enough to have a prejudice against women who make themselves look ugly. But it doesn’t work. These young women are now even less likely to attract male attention. Of course you could argue that their best option would be to try to make themselves more attractive by paying some attention to the way they dress, their makeup, etc. Maybe even try to behave more pleasantly. But feminism tells girls that nothing is their fault and nothing is their responsibility and if they’re unhappy then men must be to blame.

Hence we get feral women.

Part two of this post can be found here.

Christianity and sexual morality

Pretty much all of us on the dissident side of politics who tend towards social conservatism or traditionalism are probably agreed that modern society has a problem with sexual morality. The problem being that we don’t have a sexual morality any more.

Whether there is any chance of changing this, any chance of returning to a society in which sexual morality is taken seriously, is another question. At the moment the chances seem pretty slim. On the other hand the one lesson we can learn from history is that dramatic social and political changes can happen and they can happen very quickly.

So assuming that however unlikely it seems right now such a change might be possible at some point, what kind of sexual morality would be desirable? Do we want to turn back the clock to the 1980s, the 1950s, the Victorian era or the fifteenth century?

That’s a big question and will probably require several posts to address fully. At the moment I want to consider just one aspect of the question. Do we want to return to a Christian sexual morality? Many traditionalists on the right would like to do so, but is such a thing even possible? Christians are a small minority. Is it a practical proposition  to base morality on the beliefs of a rather small proportion of the population? Is it reasonable to want to do so? Is there even the tiniest chance it could be achieved?

There’s also another point to consider. The Cultural Left has been very successful in shutting down dissent because of their very effective tactic of painting anyone who disagrees with them as being motivated by Christian zealotry and/or bigotry. Since most people are not Christians this works extremely well. Planning for a return to a specifically Christian morality is in some ways making things easy for the Cultural Left. Of course if you’re a committed genuine Christian then naturally a Christian-based morality is going to sound very attractive. It’s as well to remember that such a thing doesn’t necessarily sound so appealing to the non-Christian majority.

Perhaps we need to try harder to convince people that you don’t need to be a Christian to be concerned about the devastating impact of sexual immorality. It is possible to be vehemently opposed to social liberalism on purely pragmatic social utilitarian grounds. Sexual immorality undermines the family which in turn has catastrophic consequences for children. It undermines society as a whole by disrupting normal social relations. It leads to unhealthy lifestyles that cause human misery. You don’t have to be religious in order to see this clearly.

I have to come clean about my own position. I’m sympathetic to Christianity but I am not a Christian. I don’t necessarily think a Christian morality would be a bad thing (in fact it might be a good thing) but I do think it would be a very hard sell.

And to be honest I’m not entirely sure I’d personally want a Christian-based morality. Certainly not a full-on biblical sexual morality. I would be in agreement with hardline Christian traditionalists on some sexual issues, but perhaps not on others.

Of course much depends on exactly how a more strict sexual morality would be enforced. Does anybody actually believe that governments could be trusted with legal powers to do so? Surely no-one could believe that a democratic government could be trusted with such powers, democratic governments having systematically abused every single power they have ever been able to get their hands on. I would be frankly horrified by the prospect of a Christian sexual morality enforced by the apparatus of the state. Such a morality enforced by social persuasion and social disapproval  might be more palatable. Of course it goes without saying that there are certain very serious sexual offences (rape and anything involving children) that involve severe actual harm and they must be subject to legal sanctions, even though that means giving governments powers that they can and will abuse and in fact already do abuse. Sometimes unpleasant compromises cannot be avoided. And perhaps one day we will have a society in which the police and the courts can actually be trusted.

The real issues though are whether a sexual morality based on the teachings of Christianity can or should be imposed on non-Christians, and whether aiming for a Christian morality would alienate so many people as to make the chances of some kind of moral improvement of our society even more remote than they already are.

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.

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.