I Have Seen the Feminist Future….

GERyouth4

I. Since nobody else is going to do it, I guess it’s up to me.  Dear feminists: You’re right.  Sex is about power.  Problem is, being feminists, y’all don’t understand sex, and you have no clue whatsoever about power, so the relationship between the two sails right over your rainbow-dyed heads.

Let’s start with Hillary Clinton’s favorite book, 1984:

Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

There you have it, ladies.  Stripped of all its niceties, undisguised with pretty language, this is a man’s view of the world.  One either has power, or one does not have power.  If that sounds like something Michel Foucault took 400 pages of queasy neologisms to say, well, good — I guess you were paying attention in one class, at least, since Wymyn’s Studies is all Foucault, all the time.  (If Foucault sounds like cut-rate Nietzsche to you, even better — you must’ve gone to a college where they still have a passing acquaintance with the Dead White Males).

Civilization — as we all instinctively understood until compulsory college enstupidated it out of us — is how we channel men’s will to power to beneficial ends.

Sex is a byproduct of power.  Nietzsche said happiness is “the feeling that power is growing, that resistance is being overcome.”  (The applicability of this to the current groping plague is, I trust, obvious).  Thus, sex is just one of many possible discharges of the feeling of power.    Men with enormous amounts of power can, and frequently do, bypass sex entirely — look at the Catholic Church.

Now before you start going on about “institutional control of female sexuality,” ladies, it’s time for another home truth: Only people who aren’t getting any indulge in elaborate conspiracy theories about sex.

II. Speaking of, here’s a group who brings all this stuff together: The “Game” guys.  We all instinctively know that “mastery of Game jargon” and “actual sexual conquests” are inversely proportional.  Indeed, “Game” writers have been complaining about the dorkification of their thing for years now.  Pay attention here, ladies, this is important: This is how men compete.

Just as guys who can’t do a single chin-up and faint at the sight of blood know all the technical specs of futuristic small arms and call themselves MurderDeathLord69 in Call of Duty, so guys who seriously, un-ironically use terms like “HB8” have never seen a vagina in real life.  BUT: Just as no online commando would ever dream of joining the Army to show off his mad sniping skillz, no “Game” dork will ever leave his Mom’s basement to go talk to an actual girl.  That’s not the point.

Mastering the jargon is the point.  The sex — if by some miracle any should occur — is incidental.  Nobody could see it, even if it happened, but everybody that matters in your world can witness your sweet pwnage of some n00b who etc.  Grasp this (as John Conyers undoubtedly said to a White House pool reporter), and you’ll understand one of the only two things you’ll ever need to know about male sexuality and its relationship to power.

The second thing you need to know is: What happens when the competition stops.  We should all be thanking every god humans have ever believed in that you can’t win the Internet, because if you could, the competition would be forced out into the real world… and pretty soon you couldn’t throw a rock without hitting some goober dressed like this going through his “DHVs” and “negs.”

section break!

section break… ladies.

This is, in effect, what has happened with Hollywood, the Media, and the Left half of Congress.  Weinstein, Conyers, Franken, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, Louis CK, Garrison Keillor… these guys are topped out.  They’ve won.  They’ve achieved everything it’s realistically possible for them to achieve, and they know it.

Hence the groping.  It’s not droit du seigneur, any more than Bill Clinton’s many sordid escapades were.  Think about it:  Any one of these guys could have all the weird, perverted sex they wanted, for free, any time they felt like it.  I keep quoting that Nina Burleigh bint, because she was saying what every single reporterette in Washington was thinking at the time.  They’d all have been happy to blow Bill Clinton; he knew it; but he screwed around with a fat intern anyway.

The sex was incidental.  He got off on the power, on the discharge (sorry) of power, because that was the only “conquest” left.  Guys on the way up don’t do this — they’re too busy fighting tooth and claw with other men.  It’s only the has-beens who turn into gropenfuhrers (and/or adulterers, it’s the same mechanism, see here if you want it from a medical professional).

III.  So what to do about all this?  Men being what they are, all the laws in the world aren’t going to change this.  So long as there is an arena where status-striving is possible — and we humans are endlessly inventive, see e.g. the “Game” dorks competing to come up with the most spergy jargon — you simply can’t guard against this…

…. if the arena has both sexes.  Logically, then, we need sex-segregated workplaces.  I say we give the feminists exactly what they want: All-female workplaces, where there’s no chance of interacting with a man, however much of a “male feminist” he proclaims himself.  That would, of course, entail all-male workplaces, and y’all are free to speculate on the relative stock prices of each enterprise, but these are the sacrifices we make for Progress.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *