Via Nate Winchester, a great resource against feminist nonsense.
so says some feminist professor (so says Stacy McCain). I have a question:
No, wait, make that
That is literally the funniest thing I’ve ever heard a feminist say.
Ok, ok, if I’m being honest, it’s only the second-funniest. The funniest thing was way back in grad school, when the chicks in our department — who were the clear majority of our department — started bitching that women didn’t have enough leadership positions. So, as always, the PTB convened a blue-ribbon commission, staffed by these chicks themselves…
….which found out that not only did women hold the majority of leadership positions in the department, they held every single blessed one of them. The report stated this….
….and in the very next sentence started bitching about how the disproportionate burden of occupying all these leadership roles was keeping them from pursuing their training, thus holding them back from completing their degrees.
You really can’t make this stuff up. You really can’t.
Fool that I was, I supported the Iraq War. For this, I was called every nasty iteration of “warmonger” my liberal colleagues could think of.
And then — suddenly, miraculously, for no reason whatsoever — all those people shut up about the horrors of neo-colonial wars waged only to benefit Wall Street. It was Tuesday, January 20, 2009. I guess we just stopped fighting or something.
But hey, at least Obama inherited his
neo-colonial wars waged only to benefit Wall Street happy fun fests of emphatic diversity. But these same people, who hated Bush and still believe Obama is the Chosen One, are simultaneously:
–ranting that Trump will of course start World War III, because Evil; and
–cheerleading Hillary’s attempts to start World War III by constantly saber-rattling the Russians.
I’ve got a great new business opportunity for anyone with the know-how. I call it “Realistic Bumper Stickers.” Here’s my first design:
War is not the answer!*
*Except when a Democrat is president.
A whille back, I half-facetiously created a category called QUILTS: QUestions I’d Like To See asked. It’s an acronym in the great tradition of the greatest secret club in the world, G.R.O.S.S.:
That’s the facetious part. The half part is, I really would like to hear someone address these questions to the buffoons who control public discourse these days. Anyway, in the spirit of jokes, truth, and shameless blog-whoring, I address QUILTS #3 to HuffPo columnette Jen Bosse, via Stacy McCain.
Every day that I go out into the world, I am forced to worry about my safety. Every day, I am ogled or honked at or loudly talked about by men from all socioeconomic and racial backgrounds. I have walked through a parking lot with my children and had men three times my age undress me with their eyes. Some of you may say, “What does that even mean? That’s completely subjective.” To you, I say, “If it’s never happened to you, you’ll never know exactly what that feels like.” But I can tell you that every woman I’ve ever met has.
I have been followed. I have been harassed. I have been grabbed at and “accidentally” brushed against and was even almost abducted once. I was 10 when the harassment began. 11 when the grabbing began. 18 at the time of the attempted abduction. Followed at 23. I could go on.
McCain takes xyr more seriously than xyr deserves (by, for example, asking if it’s true she gets ogled by men from ALL socioeconomic and racial backgrounds. Surely some ogle more than others?) But I’ve got an even more basic question for her:
No, really – that’s my question. Bullshit. Bull-shiggedy. Bullshit of the purest ray serene. Bullshite, if you wanna get cockney about it. Bullsheeeeeeeit, as the Hon. Clay Davis might say. I don’t believe for one second that you get ogled “every day.” I don’t doubt it has happened — are we not men? — but every day? This I doubt. I doubt it here, I doubt it there, I doubt it loudly from my derriere. I think what we have here is a blatant case of Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism:
The most heartfelt articles by female journalists tend to be demands that social values be overturned in order that, Come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter-looking.
All this “I was ogled!” feminist humblebragging is just whistling past the twin graveyards of The Wall and menopause. “Oh noes! I’m still hot enough to get eye-banged by pervs! Woe is me!”
But I have a real question for the fellas out there: Have y’all ever seen this? I mean, ever seen it? I don’t spend a whole lot of time hanging around construction sites and NBA shootarounds, but I have never in my life heard a woman wolf-whistled. Have I leered at a few in my day? Of course, and it’s one of life’s little moments of everyday humor when you catch the eye of another dude across the room who’s been been blatantly checking out the same girl…. good times (are we not men?). But I’ve been at frat parties galore, and came up in a traditionally misogynistic industry where one of the unspoken but obvious bennies of being a supervisor was first crack at the new crop of interns… and I’ve never seen, or heard about, anything close to what this woman describes. N.b. that the interns in our neck of the woods all wanted to be in marketing, so they were all ex-sorority sisters, average hotness 7.9 on the Prichter scale. And yet the Jennifer Bosses and Jessica Valentis and Loryn Brantzes of the world are constantly getting fondled on the job?
What say you, gentlemen?
At Vox Day’s “Game” site, we see this:
Chris Lawrence: What they’re gonna do now, is… looking at better ways to train women to do these push-ups [sic]. There is a feeling that from the time they are girls, girls don’t do push-ups, even women who workout religiously and are very physically fit are not working those kind of muscles and trying to build up that bigger upper body by doing pull-ups. So, what they want to do is go in and really teach women better ways to train to do this particular exercise.
Ahhh, academia. Speaking of “Game,” I remember one night in grad school, on a… can’t really call it a “blind date,” since nobody does that anymore. But whatever. She was annoying, I was drinking in a vain effort to make her less annoying, and at some point I just said “screw it” and gave her both barrels…
She’d said something about how athletic performance is a social construction. I said something to the effect of, “Bullshit. I may not be the strongest guy in grad school, but I promise you I’m the strongest girl. I’m the fastest girl, too, even though I’ve got lousy knees and haven’t jogged a step in about a decade. Look around — this is a grad student bar. I’ll take any chick here in a foot race or a bench press contest, right now, for $100 cash. You in?”
Two things to note here: First, the Game Prime Directive is “don’t be like every other chump.” The idea that men are stronger and faster than women is so obvious it doesn’t merit mentioning out in the real world, even in this, the year of Our Lord 2016. But people who live in the ivory tower have spent decades training not to know it, and if their folks are academics, too — you know it’s largely a guild profession, right? — it’s possible they’ve never known it. This may have been the first time she’d heard it expressed. That part of “Game” works just fine.
Second: This was ten, twelve years ago. As I remarked to Nate Winchester the other day in an offline, bizarre ivory tower dogmas of such breathtaking stupidity that you’d weep in your whiskey to hear them are tomorrow’s rotten chestnuts. This whole “strength is a social construction” thing was well advanced among the tenured ten years ago, and now some nobody on NPR or whatever is trying to apply it to the Marines.
And the pace is accelerating.
do we keep losing to these people?
And yet, they run entire industries, and thanks to Nanny Government, have veto power over what you may wear, do, say, and think.
When future historians are writing the downfall of our generation, however it comes, they can’t but conclude that we richly deserved it.
Leszek Kolakowski wrote a fascinating essay called “Communism as a Cultural Force,” which attempts to explain the appeal of Bolshevism* to so many good artists and thinkers. It’s worth reading for its intended purpose. But it’s also worth reading as a historical artifact — specifically, his comments on the artistic appeals of Communism and Fascism.
Kolakowski was born in 1927. For his parents’ generation, all the so-called “glories” of Western Civilization led inexorably to the Western Front. Lenin was right — Imperialism is the highest stage of Capitalism, and World War I was the inevitable result of Imperialism having no more worlds to conquer. Germany was the apex of both science and culture in the 19th century, and the sum total of all that was that ridiculous strutting fool Kaiser Wilhelm II, with his crippling insecurity and fantasies of Empire and truly awful taste:
Here’s George Orwell (born 1903) on the last decades of the pre-war world:
When [H.G.] Wells was young, the antithesis between science and reaction was not false. Society was ruled by narrow-minded, profoundly incurious people, predatory business men, dull squires, bishops, politicians who could quote Horace but had never heard of algebra. Science was faintly disreputable and religious belief obligatory. Traditionalism, stupidity, snobbishness, patriotism, superstition and love of war seemed to be all on the same side; there was need of someone who could state the opposite point of view. Back in the nineteen-hundreds it was a wonderful experience for a boy to discover H. G. Wells. There you were, in a world of pedants, clergymen and golfers, with your future employers exhorting you to ‘get on or get out,’ your parents systematically warping your sexual life, and your dull-witted schoolmasters sniggering over their Latin tags; and here was this wonderful man who could tell you about the inhabitants of the planets and the bottom of the sea, and who knew that the future was not going to be what respectable people imagined.
For these people — Kolakowski’s parents — history was just a catalog of errors made by fat, self-satisfied bankers who blithely sent other men’s sons off to die in their millions for King, Country, and the Old School Tie. Pedants, clergymen, and golfers kept sending battalions over the top to be wiped out to the last man, in exchange for a few feet of muddy trench that would be surrendered in the next counterattack. Is there any wonder artists of the 20s and 30s wanted to throw the whole thing away?
But there was another “throw it all away” movement afoot in the 20s and 30s: Fascism. Kolakowski doesn’t say so, because it would’ve been obvious to his generation: Fascism looked to the past, not the future. While Commies wanted to scrap the past entirely, Fascists wanted to live there. Lenin defined Bolshevism as “Soviet power plus electrification.” Goebbels didn’t say anything that pithy, but a decent working description of the Nazi ideal would be “feudalism plus autobahns.” Kolakowski says that Fascism was purely destructive of culture. That’s wrong. It’s purely destructive of modern culture. Picasso was the wave of the future at the turn of the 20th century. Picasso was a lifelong member of the Communist Party. The Nazis, of course, considered him a degenerate.
Communism looks like the future when you consider the past to be one long chronicle of evil (read Orwell’s description again. Doesn’t that sound like something you’d hear on a college campus even now?). This was understandable in the 20s and 30s. In those circumstances, Fascism’s weird techo-feudalism had limited appeal. Do pedants, clergymen, and golfers prefer this
In Kolakowski’s day, the answer was obvious. But now? Ask yourself: Can Trigglypuff define the word “pedant”? Does she know any clergymen, or golfers? Would she even recognize a Picasso?
Under these conditions — here in The Current Year — the past doesn’t look like one long chronicle of self-satisfied stupidity. To most people out there, the past looks pretty damn good. And even the Trigglypuffs know it. That’s why their gripes always sound like foul-mouthed versions of that Orwell quote. Listen to the Bernouts and trustafarians on any college campus — take out the profanity and the weird Gender Studies jargon, and you could easily mistake them for Eugene V. Debs after a few drinks, ranting about Haymarket Square. To hear them tell it, American history goes: Pocahontas; the Democrats winning the Civil War; the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior; Barack Obama. They can’t name a single American writer or artist (the ones over thirty might be able to say “Maya Angelou”). They can’t even make jokes about vacuous tv shows like Leave it to Beaver, because they’ve never heard of it, let alone seen it….
…. but the rest of us have. We can’t believe in the glorious socialist future they keep promising us, because we’ve seen it fail everywhere it’s been tried, with an enormous body count, for a hundred years. But we can believe in the past, because it’s right there on YouTube. Leave it to Beaver? Oh please God yes — any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. The first Sports Illustrated swimsuit model was Babette March, in 1964:
It seems to me that those pedants, clergymen, and golfers were on to something. Yes, Fascism absolutely is destructive of culture — modern culture. In the 1930s, you could look back on the culture of 50 years ago and say yes, this world of pedants, clergymen, and golfers was just a cover for Imperialism, and led inexorably to the trenches. In the 2010s, though, we turn the clock back 50 years and see….
Which would you prefer, the possibility of that oh-so-stifling world of pedants, clergymen, and golfers, or the certainty of rule by these people:
*It doesn’t matter for our purposes here, but it’s worth noting that, strictly speaking, it’s Bolshevism we’re discussing. Kolakowski points out that Communism, the social and political doctrine, was a fringe preoccupation until World War I, and even then only came to prominence through the victory of Lenin’s faction in the infighting of the Russian Revolution.
I’ve been out of the mating market a long time, and I’ve repeatedly said I wouldn’t wish the modern dating scene on my worst enemy. So I’ve never used Tinder, but of course I’ve heard of it… How does it still exist?
From Vox Day’s “Game” blog:
When Ben Ellman, 26, moved to NYC in 2015 and fired up his Tinder and OkCupid profiles, he was expecting to meet a bevy of compatible women. Instead, the 5-foot-9 journalist was swiped left by matches because of his height — or lack thereof.
“It seems like all the women online were going for guys 6-foot-1 and above,” Ellman, who lives in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, tells The Post. He estimates that for every 50 women he expressed interest in, only one would swipe right on him. “People can feel worse when using Tinder because it’s such a meritocracy for hot people … People swipe left or right based on your profile picture, and that can make you feel bad about yourself.”
He’s not the only one who faced a drop in confidence after using Tinder. A new survey at the University of North Texas found that singles who used Tinder are more likely to have lower self-esteem and feel unhappy about their looks than non-dating-app users. When it came to gender, male Tinder users reported lower self-esteem than females.
That’s like wow just wow…OMG I can’t even….
How can it be that in this, the Current Year, an app still exists that is so obviously detrimental to self-esteem? High self esteem is a fundamental human right! It’s like, the 32nd Amendment to the Constitution.
Seriously, though: How have the SJWs not taken to the streets about this yet? As I understand it, Tinder is ruthlessly Darwinian — you see their picture and profile, and they see yours; you rate bang/would not bang; you meet up only if you both rate “bang;” otherwise, you’re permanently discarded. How can Trigglypuff go on, knowing there’s something like this in the world? A few possibilities:
— The nose-ringers are all up in arms about it and I just don’t know it, because by the grace of God I’m out of the dating game and wouldn’t wish modern “romance” on my worst enemy. This is the most likely explanation.
— The nose-ringers get a lot of benefit out of Tinder, and since they’re nothing if not hypocrites, some secret tofu subroutine of the app matches up each SJW user with those most compatible with xry, and xy’re getting lots of nasty patchouli action…. (I’ll give you a few moments to clean the barf off your keyboards). I’d rate this one least likely, thank God.
— Whatever company makes Tinder has figured out some way to defuse, deflect, or otherwise insulate themselves from the nose-ringers, despite being such an obvious tool of Teh Patriarchy!! (I know, I know, it’s the chicks who rule Tinder with Machiavellian ruthlessness, but since it’s hot chicks who rule it, it’s still Teh Patriarchy!! at fault. Hot chicks are like the shock troops of Teh Patriarchy!! Have you noticed?). If this is true, we need to study what they’re doing in great detail, as this can help us save Western civilization.
There are no Ace of Spades types among the Four Regular Readers — we’re Not His Class, Dear — but if there were, I’d love to ask them: How, exactly, is Hillary going to beat Trump?
I don’t mean bromides like “because Trump is a jerk and a poopyhead!” I mean procedurally. Walk me through the mechanism. What’s she going to run on? What are her signature issues? What’s she going to bring up in the debates? IS she going to debate?
Ace’s theory seems to be “She’ll lay low and let Trump immolate himself, which he’s sure to do, because the media is in such a tizzy that their anti-Trump 24/7 attack mode is going to make what they did to George W. Bush look like the happy ending to an Oriental massage.”
Do y’all seriously think that’s going to work?
Yes, Trump is an egomaniac and yes, he never misses an opportunity to not shut up and yes, he says all kinds of controversial stuff all the time. But Trump isn’t stupid, no matter how hard you try to convince yourselves otherwise, and he’s been dealing with this stuff since last summer, and all his self-immolatory style brought him was the Presidential nomination. I know y’all think of yourselves as the Alt-Media, Ace et al, but you’re not — you only share their basic assumptions, one of which is that you are Shapers of the Narrative. In fact, in this particular election the Narrative shapes you, and the Narrative is:
Look how much the American public hates the fucking Media.
Seriously. I’m no Nostradamus, but I can read the news and work a google machine, and it’s pretty obvious what Trump’s response to all this is going to be: “When are you going to be asking Hillary these questions?” And then the Media will get all outraged — how dare you question our objectivity?!? — and then Trump’s poll numbers will rise 10 more points like they do every time he tells the Media to go fuck themselves.
Eventually Trump is going to get around to making his trademark self-destructive statements about Hillary’s record. And, in the course of getting all outraged!!!1!eleventy! about it, the Media will have to report what the man actually said. At which point, he accomplishes two objectives simultaneously: He points out how incompetent and corrupt Hillary is, and he highlights, in the starkest possible way, how incompetent and corrupt the Media are in their pro-Hillary cheerleading.
I mean, he’s only been doing this for a year now. Am I the only one who sees this? How can you, Ace, who thinks of himself as a smarter version of a Fox news bobblehead, not see this? Isn’t it your job to see this?
Giuliani, Gingrich, Priebus Plot ‘Intervention” To Keep Trump From Constantly Setting Himself on Fire Just Because He’s Bored
Hmmm. Gingrich…. Gingrich… wasn’t he the guy who led the Republican “revolution” back in 1994, that started out rubber-stamping everything Bill Clinton did and ended in trumped-up impeachment charges that set the party back a few decades? Priebus… wasn’t he the guy who sold us Mitt “True Conservative” Romney as the best chance to beat Obama? Didn’t Guiliani flame out spectacularly on the national stage in 2008, when people confused him with the Family Guy parody of Lois answering “9/11” to every question?
Despite what the SEC says on mutual fund prospectuses, I think past performance is indicative of future results, and all I see is three losers sharing the dubious benefit of their accumulated wisdom and experience — at losing — with a proven winner. If the subject is “how to talk out of both sides of your mouth to more efficiently shaft your base while scooping up wads of donor cash” then yes, by all means, listen to those turds. If you’re actually interested in winning elections, though….
Am I the only guy who remembers stuff that happened just a few short years ago and / or can use google?