scratch-mark

The Myth of Male Power

This is going to be looooong. But every now and then, I owe my readers who like that sort of in-depth thing. Feminazis: take cover.

The topic has only been on my radar from time to time…over a long time. As I’ve posted before, I grew up with naturally strong women around me at all times. The idea of any of them going to some uniformed, suited, or robed goon-jobholder, shielded in edifice, pomp, circumstance…for anything…is just laughable. They would have never lowered or so debased themselves (being righteously proud of the earned male adoration they commanded effortlessly), and so my memory of all of them isn’t tarnished in the least—the few problems now and then worked out amongst families. As such, I always pretty much laughed at the pathetic victimology that is feminism, in most all of its entitlement manifestations—laughing to this very day.

What’s funny, in retrospect, is that the feminism of the 60s & 70s is to my mind virtually Einsteinian in contrast to the contortions defying credulity now on display and in your face with attitude and entitlement. Is there a better display of something becoming its own ridiculous caricature, anywhere? My just-the-essentials, woman-on-the-street impression of 60s and 70s feminism: we can fuck whomever we want, whenever we want. New Millenium Feminism: we only fuck women, now; some just happen to have male-like genitalia; women-made.

…Anywhoos, the first one I recall actually bringing up the fact that men have generally been the women & children first, let’s go off to die in war, come back and build lottsa shit doormat of civilization for as long as anyone can remember, was Camille Paglia: in various writings, articles written about her, and interviews. Perhaps this was the first time I took notice, from 1991Big Girls Don’t Cry. A review of several feminist tomes, including hers: Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson

A quarter-century after the reemergence of feminism out of the cultural maelstrom of the 1960s, some of its most devoted adherents sense that something has gone woefully amiss. For these now middle-aged feminists—participants in the heady excitement of the movement’s early days of encounter sessions, female bonding, and male bashing—the thrill is gone, and they feel very much on the defensive. Young women seem indifferent to the buzzwords of “patriarchy,” “oppression,” and age in the ’60s. Graying revolutionaries of gender, comfortably ensconced in tenured slots at fashionable universities, they still think of themselves as crusaders, on the cutting edge. Yet their female students, they lament, view them quite differently: as vaguely comic relics, bra burners, responsible for the social disintegration of the family, divorce without alimony, rampant teenage pregnancy, and rapists behind every bush. Since no fate could be worse for the ideologically au courant than atavism, bookstores of late are bulging with exculpatory tomes, mostly blaming something other than feminism or other-than-my-kind-of-feminism for these hard times. […]

My how things have changed in 22 years, or: same utter stupidity, different many days?

Our final exhibit is Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson. In Camille Paglia radical feminism has spawned the enemy that it deserves. Paglia declares that her approach to aesthetic criticism is “sensationalistic,” and she delivers. This book is a 673-page tour of the “canon,” with a self-proclaimed accent on the “decadent.” Paglia disembowels Western culture. Her principal quibble with the “canon” is that it neglects the Marquis de Sade, whom she reveres. There is something in this book to disgust, titillate, and enrage even the most jaded reader.

Paglia’s opening bombardment is aimed squarely at the feminists; she blasts every one of their sacred assumptions. On equality of the sexes: “My theory is that whenever sexual freedom is sought or achieved, sadomasochism will not be far behind.” On nature as a benign force corrupted by men: “Men, bonding together, invented culture as a defense against female nature …. The very language and logic modern woman uses to assail patriarchal culture were the invention of men.”

On patriarchy: “Feminism has been simplistic in arguing that female archetypes were politically motivated falsehoods by men. The historical repugnance to woman has a rational basis; disgust is reason’s proper response to the grossness of procreative nature.” On the feminist argument that sex crimes are caused by pornography and the denigration of women: “Serial or sex murder, like fetishism, is a perversion of male intelligence …. It is the asocial equivalent of philosophy, mathematics, and music. There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper.” […]

One could perhaps write a book about this next paragraph…filled with metaphor: the phallic nature of ICBMs in geopolitics, as well as the ballistic physics of a male pee stream. Me? I just like the idea of having graves of certain people as new places to take a piss. I get the decidedly different nature of pee projection vs. squatting over a target. But in my world, both will do.

Men have always dominated art, science, and politics throughout history because of their physiology: “Men are anatomically destined to be projectors.” Men are the great conceptualizers throughout history because of male urination: “Male urination really is a kind of accomplishment, an arc of transcendence. A woman merely waters the ground she stands on. Male urination is a form of commentary… To piss on is to criticize.” Men are the supreme Apollonian conceptualizers, for male urination leads directly to male concentration and projection. [em-phas-is]

It’s a pretty interesting read, 22 years after I read it the first time.

The next I recall even more. It was Virginia Postrel’sInterview with the Vamp (1995). These quotations are selective. She’s so all over the map socially and politically (like all truly independent thinkers, such as myself) that I’m making the conscious decision to basically quote those things I most agree with or that support the theme of the post best. You have the link to read it all.

Hurricane Camille swept into American culture five years ago with the publication of Sexual Personae, a learned 800-page treatise on sex, art, and literature through the ages. After two decades of rejection and obscurity, Camille Paglia was famous. Her demanding master work wasn’t exactly accessible to the educated lay reader, but it became a bestseller–as have her subsequent reader-friendly essay collections Sex, Art, and American Culture and Vamps & Tramps.

The secret to her celebrity is Paglia’s own persona–a blend of comedienne, scholar, controversialist, self-promoter, and performance artist. Her speeches are events, designed as much to entertain as to provoke and inform. And, as she herself has remarked, the times have been friendly to comic-serious iconoclasts who capitalize on their egomania: Rush Limbaugh, Howard Stern, Ross Perot, Camille Paglia. The public is sick of pious discourse.

But not of ideas. Amid Paglia’s tirades and comic turns are serious thoughts about art, scholarship, politics, and civilization itself. Some are fully developed, others mostly attitude. But they are all interesting.

Despite the detractors who deride her as a conservative antifeminist, Paglia is clearly a woman of the left–How many conservatives use “white middle-class” as a term of derision?–and an unreconstructed advocate of women’s achievement and independence. She has, however, been tempered by time and experience, forced to recognize the constraints of nature and the limits of radical change.

[…]”I know this is going to be extremely controversial, but I feel that minority designations are short-sighted and they have outlived their usefulness. They should be dropped.”[…]

…But I regard affirmative action as pernicious–a system that had wonderful ideals when it started but was almost immediately abused for the benefit of white middle-class women. And the number one sign of it is in the universities. The elite schools were destroyed by affirmative action for women, not for blacks. I want to see more African Americans everywhere, but I do not want to see any kind of quota system. The way the Ivy League just absolutely, servilely pursued candidates because of the nature of their gonads, not the nature of their mental life or of their intellectual accomplishments: Every single humanities department faculty in the Ivy League was polluted and destroyed by affirmative action in the ’70s and ’80s, and we are paying the price for it now. […]

Leftism should be about the people. That’s how it began. Instead, what it has become in the last 20 years is a white upper-middle-class elitism which preaches to the people and says, “Oh, you don’t agree with us? You’re homophobic, you’re so uneducated. You’re in the darkness. You need us to bring light and truth to you.” I hate that paternalistic, condescending kind of stuff that’s coming out of this lawyer-heavy elite structure of the Democratic Party in Washington. […]

In the first chapter of Sexual Personae, I made a defense of capitalism. I feel that capitalism has a very bad press with the pseudo-leftists who clog our best college campuses and that in point of fact capitalism has produced modern individualism and feminism. Modern capitalism has allowed the birth of the independent woman who is no longer economically dependent on her husband. I despise the sneering that our liberal humanists do about capitalism even while they enjoy all of its pleasures and conveniences. I just despise it. […]

At the same time, I think that the way that the welfare state has developed is just atrocious. It’s part of the condescension and paternalism and the guilt of the affluent white upper-middle class to say: “Oh, they’ll be taken care of.” And so we have that huge culture of dependency which is suddenly, shockingly being broken, just like affirmative action. I never dreamed of the speed with which these issues which have been so long suppressed have come to the fore, and it seems like anything is possible now. […]

I despise bureaucrats. I despise administrators. That has been one of the most pernicious effects of the post-war years in academe. There has been an overgrowth of an arrogant master class of administrators on college campuses who are being paid twice the level of the salaries of the faculty and regard themselves as being in charge and everyone else as being their lackeys. What the Republicans are doing in Washington, looking at the federal government, I want people to be doing on the college campuses–to have a thoroughgoing review of this parasitic class of administrators. […]

Aside: that was in 1995, right when the Republicans had trounced the Dem establishment in the November ’94 elections, took large majorities in the Senate and House………and proceeded to stupidly talk about abortion and prayer in schools (yawn), and then went on to literally make a federal case out of a guy getting a BJ and then lying about it when confronted (duh)—the perpetual STUPID PARTY. I have never been mistaken enough to think otherwise, since. Fuck The Republican Party Forever. Fuckwits. Out with the old. Burn that bridge.

…But I think that many conservatives, like many priests, seem to like me. I don’t think it’s because they agree with my views but because they are just invigorated by my discourse. I’ve constantly said, about Rush Limbaugh, for example–even though he and I don’t agree politically, I have always respected him because I feel that he is a principled thinker–I think that any true intellectual finds it stimulating to listen to a principled thinker, a person who has a vigorous independent mind, a new way of approaching contemporary issues. It helps you to reexamine your assumptions and firm up your assumptions. And I think that’s what’s missing from our culture right now. […]

Ha! Zeus forbid anyone doesn’t tow the party catechism! Honesty in this next paragraph:

I love television. I love soap operas. I love The Young and the Restless. It’s my favorite show. I love everything about television. The ads. I love the glitzy part of TV. I love Hard Copy. I learn a lot of things from Hard Copy. You’d be surprised. Television to me is the culture. […]

I’m also very aware why very masculine men are not represented in academe. Very masculine men cannot sit still long enough. And so all the ideology of feminism is coming out of these women who are married to wordsmith men, who are not that combative or confrontational to begin with, because the really masculine men, the high-testosterone men, are so restless they can hardly sit still in class.

I’m very, very worried about this new kind of bourgeois imperialism which predicates the ultimate human type as someone who is good at sitting still at a desk.

Here’s the part of the interview I remembered the most, because it’s as obvious as the fact that an encountered pile of dogshit will stink. It also makes all modern ideological, scripture promoting feminists look as stupid as a similarly aromatic pile:

Reason: Schools have rewarded that for a century.

Paglia: Well, here’s the point. My father’s generation, the Italian immigrants–my father was born here but my mother was born in Italy–they were leaving school earlier. The boys who were really restless were leaving school at 14.

Reason: People who were leaving school at 14 were not becoming college professors.

Paglia: I know that. What I’m saying is that in terms of ideology, sexual politics, we’re getting a biased view.

People of the white upper-middle-class professional elite have very little direct contact with working-class men, even though the working-class men are everywhere around them and are keeping everything going. They are the ones who are the janitors, the construction workers, the plumbers, the police and firemen, and so on. It’s everywhere.

But the world that those men have created works so well, they maintain it so assiduously, that there has been a contempt on the part of these complacent, pampered, coddled upper-middle-class people who are spouting a lot of this rhetoric. There’s this arrogance that masculinity isn’t something that we need anymore–this is the Gloria Steinem line: Masculinity is something that is pernicious and is the cause of all wars and destruction and violence and battering against women, and slowly we’re going to be programming it out of our youth.

I said it in the Playboy interview: All it takes is one natural disaster for that entire artificial world to come crumbling down, and suddenly everyone will be screaming and yelling for the plumbers and the construction workers. Only masculine men of the working class will hold the civilization together. [em-phasius, meng]

A final bite. It’s a very long interview, worth every second of your precious Internet time, and it’s why 18 years later I sometimes refer to it because it’s always on my mind.

…Next, one of my major criticisms of Naomi is that she has drifted from any kind of ethnic affiliation. I have constantly said this about her, Susan Faludi, or Gloria Steinem: that these women are not identifiably anything. Feminism has become their entire metaphysical, religious, and cultural world view. But feminism is not sufficiently developed as a system yet–at least it wasn’t before me! What I’m trying to do is add aesthetics and psychology to the very narrow kind of ideology that these women are fanatically promulgating.

We’re still waiting. Too many fuckwits and dumbasses—especially some of the younger set—who act and write as though they invented the thing, when people like me already had a bead on it long before they were wetting diapers.

I saw Camille’s writings referred to as “misogynist” as far back as 1991. Can you guess how, 22 years later, that term makes me belly laugh—to the point of embracing it—as I’m a sucker for good company? If Camille was “misogynist,” it was only to be of help to the totally lost. Frankly, I just characterize it as simple righteous embarrassment. Justly so. It is, after all, torture to be associated with moron too stupid and steeped in regurgitated ideology to recognize it.

For her, that turns on feminism. For me, it turns on religion.

I’ll finish off with an edited comment from a reader a few posts back. While I don’t necessarily buy off on everything she says, and have not verified all of the assertions, I know some of them to be true based on previous verification over some years. Most importantly, I like how it signals the proliferation of independent thinking…the self-determined view and independent ideology formation that now abounds in the free flow of information.

…Or, you could perhaps speculate that because women actually did not invent mineral mining, electricity, electronics, integrated circuits, manufacturing, technology in general, computers, networks, the Internet or just about anything to do with any of it—they’re “developers”—fuckwit feminists didn’t see any of this non-academic, non-cloistered, non-approved-for-dissemination speech coming. They counted on all the beta males they installed and promoted, too stupid to realize that beta males will always let everyone down (ask any man). As usual, they look like they always do (which is predictable because they literally have nothing else): the privileged, entitled, control freak, crybaby, high maintenance, net drags to everyone that they all are. Did I say pathetic?

So, a commenter:

…It’s men’s human rights stuff that is seen as fringe….and you’re a man that isn’t scared of strange fringe things.

If you want to buy an excellent book about all of this, buy Warren Ferrell’s The Myth of Male Power .

Summary:

That GirlWritesWhat youtube link talks about the spheres of influence men & women have and had—how women weren’t just constantly oppressed before they got the vote. Or, at least if they were, their husbands were too, just as badly. It also makes an argument that feminists can’t really refute the charge that, if the patriarchy really did exist, how’d it take so damn long to overthrow it?

80% of suicides are male. Did your readers know that? I bet if 80% of suicides were female, people would hear about it. [Ed: hell, just compare the hysteria over the world’s absolutely number one threat, BREAST CANCER!!!! vs. lowly prostate cancer that effects roughly similar numbers, almost always of opposite gender—except male breast cancer, of course, because they probably deserve it.]

(Yeah, a counter-argument to all this men’s right activist stuff is Not All Feminists Are Like That… GirlWritesWhat and others have addressed this issue.)

In western countries feminist activists have made it such that in a lot of places, if you get married, the kids technically belong to the wife. She can use no-fault divorce and she gets the kids even if she’s a bad mother. You pay child support, and the family courts get a cut of the money. If you don’t pay, you go to what is essentially debtor’s prison. To add insult to injury, lawyers are encouraging wives to make false abuse allegations so they can more easily get full custody (joint custody means the kids grow up with a father and are less likely to be a drain to society… but it also means the family courts get less money).

One guy set himself on fire in a New England somewhere because he was ordered to pay more monthly than he made [Ed: In my line of financial work over 20 years, I have seen this sort of thing over and over: dad bings home $3,000 per month, all but $200 is garnished from his wages in child and spousal support]. Result: social conservatives and feminists complaining about how men aren’t “manning up” to start a family, choosing to stay single & play computer games or whatever.

Also, in Canada, the guy that had the only men’s domestic violence/rape shelter. Committed suicide as he spent years trying to get gov’t funding, but got none. About half of domestic abuse victims are males; many times physically abusive people will pair up with other physically abusive people.

Ever heard of hypergamy? Briffault’s Law? Remember that OKCupid post you did where they found that most women think men are ugly? It seems women tend to naturally try to aim higher than is attainable; aim out of their league. This, along with no-fault divorce that allows a very hypergamous woman to ditch her husband easily is probably why 70% of divorces are initiated by women.

Also, 2/3rds of college students are female. A side effect of hypergamy is that you rarely ever see stay-at-home dads—because many women find it hard to respect men that make less than them.

…Because of the weird notion that boys and girls are just a blank slate, boys and girls are being taught to act like girls…

False rape allegations aren’t treated seriously, and in some places they effectively place the burden of proof on the accused. Women making false rape accusations aren’t really punished. Neither are women who beat their boyfriends or husbands dissuaded; but often encouraged (in some cases, the male victim gets arrested when the batterer lies, and her word is taken over his automatically). And how about criminal sentences: when a women gets convicted of violent crime, they almost always get lower sentences than males for the same crime.

Ever heard of a White Knight—i.e. a man that will throw other men under the bus to protect a woman, or women, no matter how bad they act? Related to the concept of the disposable male…

Ever seen an action movie where the woman was portrayed as a coward for abandoning or hiding when the bad guys started fighting the male hero? Until society begins depicting women as somewhat cowardly and morally tainted for failing to protect themselves the way men are, men will always be seen as somewhat more disposable.

Titanic: women and children first.

…Also, the utility to others thing is a reference on how people will work themselves to the bone and then death. Women workaholics do this, too, but for the longest time, being a good husband meant you sort of had no choice but to do this unless you had already made lots of money.

When I say boys are taught to act like girls, here’s an anecdtoe from a podcast that talked about this: a classroom of kids went camping and were given notebooks to write their feelings about nature, etc. (something girls tend to be better at, since their verbal skills develop faster). All the girls obeyed, but the boys were bored, so they piled up their notebooks and made a bonfire.

Reaction by the teachers? “Boys will be boys”? Nah…they basically freaked out enough for it to make the news and were convinced that the boys were gonna grow up to be psychopaths.

Thankfully, this will end up only one way or everyone will rightfully die of the consequences, because it’s the nature and the natural animal order of things. The commies were stupid enough to think you could ideologically, socially engineer a bunch of ants & bees out of men & women.

Female feminists are far dumber. Largely because for the most part in reality—because male productivity marches on and on—they’re largely being humored; it’s as though if they didn’t exist, you’d have to invent them…they’re just sooo cuuute!

“Women & children first?” It used to be that the innocent primary latter part drove that ideal, from which sprung a natural corollary where the important role of the former in the life of the latter made it not only obvious, but something nearly all men just naturally embraced almost automatically and reflexively.

Nowadays? Just save the kids. Raise them yourselves. Nice work, ladies.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

36 Comments

  1. John Rambo on June 6, 2013 at 23:09

    Gentlemen,
    this is John Rambo, Anti-Feminist Soldier. I am posting this on behalf of Peter-Andrew: Nolan© also now known as Joschua-Brandon: Boehm©. I am doing this because, as a young men who knows Peter well, I know he has our best interests at heart.

    Gentlemen,
    It is well known that five years ago, April 2008, I spent a month suicidal as I went through the process of disowning my former children. When I came out of that rather unpleasant experience I contacted other men who had been similarly affected. I realized that many men were killing themselves because of the criminal abuse of the family law courts all across the western English speaking world.

    As a direct result of this experience, and my compassion for my fellow men, I made a vow in June 2008 to re-introduce the rule of law into Australia and Ireland. Naturally, at the time I made the vow I had no idea how that might be done. We call it “throw your hat over the wall”. You make the vow and “figure it out later”.

    Along the way I have talked to many tens of thousands of men, perhaps as many as 100,000 men have seen at least one comment by me one way or another. What I heard from men in 2008 was that they were DESPERATE for a remedy for the crimes being committed against them in the family courts. They were DESPERATE to find a way to end the criminal effects of feminism on their lives. Because so many men told me the same thing I mistook this to mean they actually WANTED to solve the problems of the family courts and feminism. As I said. My mistake.

    Through very extensive research and labour, and collaborating with the best and brightest, the remedy for both the family courts and feminism was proven on 2009-11-26. A mere 18 months after I was suicidal. The court meeting that I did on 2009-11-26 I regard as one of the finest achievements of my life. Regardless? The very men I risked my life to create a remedy for have ignored that remedy, preferring to whine, bitch, moan and complain because that is far more rewarding to them than actually solving their problems. If they solved their problems they would have nothing to whine, bitch, moan and complain about.

    The remedy has now been available 2.5 times as long as it took to develop and has proved uniquely unpopular. I am hated for even talking about it. The blood of every man who kills himself due to criminal abuse in the family courts is on the hands of those perhaps 100,000+ men who have heard from me and done nothing. I did all I could. They did not. It is actually very simple.

    The mechanism for men to free themselves now is the Mens Business Association. The MBA provides individual based services to get men out of the control grid. Such services may well save the mans life from suicide. Going forward? It is necessary to create second economy outside the control of any government entity. Why criminals in governments can dominate and control men via the economy they will continue to do so. There is no reason for them to stop. The MBA is the proposal of a second economy outside the control of the government. This is a NECESSARY ingredient for men to live in freedom.

    Only a small percentage of men will want to live in freedom. Those men who want to live in freedom? You are invited to watch a short update on how we are going in our efforts to get the second economy going. Naturally? The second economy will grow just as quickly or slowly as men join in and contribute to it. Those who want to “stick with the government run economies”? You are welcome to do so. I wish you luck with that because you are going to need it.

    best regards

    your brother peter

  2. Contemplationist on June 6, 2013 at 16:08

    Bam! Nice one.
    BTW this line

    There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper.

    is close to what I was talking about in my IQ comments. The male is a nature’s throw of dice. A barbell strategy of low and high. Think Taleb. Antifragility. A female is necessarily a safe option of nature – to carry the species forward. It makes perfect sense.

  3. Ned Kock on June 7, 2013 at 17:42

    Richard, here is an interesting reality, with many implications, and it is purely due to a difference in statistical distributions – there are more geniuses among men than among women, and more idiots too:

  4. Nigel Kinbrum on June 7, 2013 at 05:46

    That bluddy “why?” chromosome!

  5. SeanII on June 7, 2013 at 06:19

    NK,
    It’s cheaper than a “ex” chromosome!

  6. LeonRover on June 7, 2013 at 08:04

    SeanII,

    I guess any guy who has been divorced twice becomes possessed of “ex ex” chromosome, or so “ex”hausted, he loses his one and only . . .

  7. Einherjar on June 7, 2013 at 10:03

    I definitely recommend The Myth of Male Power if you haven’t read it yet, but I think it’s worth taking with a serious grain of salt. Farrell’s stance is essentially that
    A) Both men AND women have (oppressive?) social expectations.
    B) These expectations are different between men and women
    C) These expectations are mostly (completely?) because of the way we are socialized (i.e. due to nurture).
    D) Women are (naturally? due to the way we are socialized?) more sympathetic figures than men, so we tend to only care about the burdens and troubles that THEY suffer.

    I agree with both the accuracy and the unfairness/inequality of the things that he points out (we don’t care much about men’s problems, we don’t value men as much as women, we punish men more severely than women and hold them to higher behavioral standards, etc.), and the book is worth reading for that aspect of things, but I’m unconvinced that these issues are particularly tractable.

    Feminism has decreased women’s burdens (expectation of delicacy and politeness, dependence on men for protection and resources, restraint of ability to mate with “alpha” bad boys instead of “beta” providers, etc.) only by insisting that men take up a greater share — frequently at the point of government guns. The issue, in my opinion, isn’t so much that these burdens exist, but that the only way to escape them is to pass the costs on to someone else.

    The issues stem primarily from natural, blameless differences between the sexes. Civilization flourishes only when both men and women have their preferences constrained:
    1) Women are encouraged to be loyal and submissive (scandal!) and discouraged from constantly seeking to “trade up” to a more dominant male or pursue a dual mating strategy (sometimes pithily termed “alpha fux and beta bux”) so that men are assured paternity and stability.
    2) Men are encouraged to be loyal and produce more than they personally need to consume in order to support the loyal wife and children who are very likely to actually be theirs instead of either slacking off or accumulating a harem (de facto or de jure)

    Without this situation, in which the bulk of males who are not dominant or wealthy or powerful can be harnessed to produce and innovate, civilization requires increasing amounts of violence to maintain.

    In short, I think it’s likely that we can have “fairness” or we can have civilization, but not both.

  8. Richard Nikoley on June 7, 2013 at 10:54

    “The issues stem primarily from natural, blameless differences between the sexes. ”

    Money quote.

    Yep, an age-old natural antagonism ripe for exploitation by keying in on natural laziness and desire for security.

    It will all be exposed for what it is and has always been, eventually.

  9. Jack on June 7, 2013 at 11:32

    congrats to your wife for being teacher of the month! I taught for 20 years before retiring. If you hate aminstrators, nothing is worse than educational bullshit!

  10. Namu on June 7, 2013 at 12:40

    “Coup de grâce”, par pitié 🙁

  11. MC on June 7, 2013 at 19:08

    Yeah, I have noticed women in their late 30s and 40s who are afraid of labels like “feminine,” “girly,” or “submissive.” Being a girl to them is supposed to be viewed as being weak and unfulfilling. So act more like men. But men are evil, so not really.

  12. BabyGirl on June 7, 2013 at 21:15

    Hi Richard, haven’t checked in in quite a while so I thought I’d drop by and say hi. Hope life is treating you well.

    Have you been keeping up with what’s going on in IFB land

  13. SeanII on June 8, 2013 at 00:01

    LR,
    We should follow the advice of GreatBooksForMen; read GBFM, get some wisdom. A masculinised woman is trouble. Look what happened to Samson! He was with YYY Delilah.

  14. Carole AKA CarbsaneR on June 8, 2013 at 04:57

    I bet every high-achieving male has to ask his wife how old he is!

  15. Richard Nikoley on June 8, 2013 at 08:01

    Namu

    I do that on purpose. Fat hit. 🙂

    Ned

    Yep, men seem to have more at the extremes.

    Baby girl:

    IFB?

  16. Phil Parsons on June 8, 2013 at 11:44

    “being righteously proud of the earned male adoration they commanded effortlessly”

    That, right there. One phrase speaks volumes.

  17. MC on June 9, 2013 at 09:32

    “I bet every high-achieving male has to ask his wife how old he is!”

    What?

  18. MC on June 10, 2013 at 01:03

    I actually think this sums up feminism better then the book “The Myth of Male Power”:

    And it’s much shorter.

  19. marie on June 10, 2013 at 21:38

    Great selections of quotes and arguments Richard, a real tour de force on everything wrong with modern feminism.

    Until the last paragraph and sentence, which struck a wildly dissonant note with me because, well, they save the women and children first on islamic shipwrecked boats too – so it doesn’t necessarily mean the respect you seem to imply (tradition’s been around for at least a millennium, seems more about practicality, playing the odds that is > more Overall survive that way since women weren’t taught to swim and children are weak, but men have a fighting chance in the water).

    Given that even that abusive-to-women society offers some protection, it at least calls to question whether that protection is worth Any trade-off? As in, I’ll get saved First in any public danger…..if I’m alive after being stoned in the public square, while wearing a gag, for ‘nagging’ my husband (in Bavaria up to the 1700’s, in Afghanistan today without the gag – an improvement!), or legally beaten for disobeying a husband or for dressing in boys’ clothes to go to school, or….

    Which reminds me : women weren’t likely to lead or invent or discover a great deal since they were forcibly forbidden from schools and universities and stopped from following ‘male’ pursuits in the rare cases they tried to on their own – well, except for radiation and enabling nuclear medicine maybe (Marie Curie), or leading armies and maybe world conquests and uprisings (Boadicea, Elizabeth I, Joan d’Arc), or some writing here and there (Jane Austen, Emily Dickinson…oh o.k., Sappho).

    I wonder, statistics being what they are, if such a few managed to burst through the universal constraints in spectacular fashion, how many would be in history now had masses been permitted out of their ‘revered’ home turf?

    It’s pure speculation of course – it should be clearer in 100 years or so of universal education. Little things can add up – I reached a milestone this last year, won my 20th US patent – all of them in electronic materials and devices, a technological, electronic field, I think 😉

    Of course, no matter the inventions or achievements, obituaries for women still seem to start with their mean beef stroganoff and motherly dedication, as it did for recently deceased canadian-born rocket scientist Yvonne Brill who, oh btw, was barred as a woman from entry into engineering 70 years ago but graduated first in chemistry and math and approached satellite rocket propulsion systems from there.
    Then again, chemistry is just cooking you know…and Einstein’s mathematician wife fleshed-out his first visionary theories 🙂

  20. marie on June 10, 2013 at 21:48

    LeonRover, xxx
    – because if you’re into excessive exes, do it right chéri!

  21. SeanII on June 11, 2013 at 07:03

    CACR,
    You nailed it.

    A high-achieving male will most likely have a female that is reliable and on top her game. Might be hard to come by and therefore counts as a high achievement.

    Let Snoop say it:
    I had to tell my girl to pack her shit
    cause she slipped and dipped inside
    I need a girl that’s ready to ride
    to keep the heater right by her side

    marie,
    Will you allow Yvonne to class her beef stroganoff and motherly dedication as her greatest pride?

    My mother brought me up on this – http://www.tcj.com/johnny-hart-to-appear-b-c/

  22. pzo on June 11, 2013 at 10:46

    Wow, two books I found in the library years ago and bought them to have on my shelf. Truly eye opening, throwing all the CW on its collective arses. I still love to work into a conversation Paglia’s comment that prostitutes “Sooak up the excess semen of the world.” Jaws drop.

    Fourteen years ago I was a staff member at the Boy Scout camp near Denver. What an incredible cultural change from staffing in 1963! No desire to tough things out, go for the cheat, cry cuz they miss Mommy. Unlimited phone access home. Mothers calling the camp to see if Little Wimpy is OK cuz they saw that there were thunderstorms on TV out there. One troop had a mother as the scoutmaster; what a disaster. They ran roughshod over her. Many mothers DO understand firm boundaries for boys, but far more don’t.

    And the kids lined up for meds! How did that happen (He asks, rhetorically.)

    Sexual politics can never remove evolution and DNA.

  23. pzo on June 11, 2013 at 10:49

    @marie: Women and children first has nothing to do with religion or strength. It’s about survival of the group, whether a small one or the species. Children are the future of the group, women carry and nurse them, and it only takes one man to inseminate a whole lot of women.

    Another males are expendable, evolutionary fact.

  24. Richard Nikoley on June 11, 2013 at 11:42

    @Marie:

    2 things.

    First, basically what @pzo said (took the words right out of my mouth). I’d add that my ending volley was intended as a rebuke, not a call to action. In modern society, we’re talking about emergency situations and the ethics in emergencies are not—and should not be—the ethics of everyday life.

    In a “Paleo” context, “women & children first” has a survival imperative (that @pzo lays out). In modern times it’s an “ethic” or “tradition” voluntarily adopted for a number of reasons—probably paramount is that as the physically strongest on average, round it out with a sacrificial psychology in the exact right emergency circumstances.

    But my point is, emergencies don’t equal real life anymore for the vast most, and so “W&CF” is merely a tradition, not a moral imperative for survival of the tribe (and of course, I dismiss all handed down “morals”). So, in my context: nice work, laddies.

    Get it? I’m happy to keep that tradition running, but not explicitly without the recognition it deserves. Let’s crunch statistics on how many men have been sacrificed over centuries because of some “Call to Duty” vs. women.

    2nd point is that I’ve been writing at various times since 1991 that it’s a shame humanity basically squandered half the brain power available these 2,000 years since our Savior was born of a virgin. 🙂 But that’s kinda non-sequitur in the context of the argument because no matter the cause, the vast majority of stuff has been invented by men. So, the point is to simply recognize that, not try to pound men into the ground.

    This is pretty on point, in my view:

    http://judgybitch.com/2013/06/06/awwww-facebook-doesnt-wike-us-boo-hoo-go-fuck-yourself-facebook-what-a-pack-of-raging-hypocrites/

  25. Baby Girl on June 11, 2013 at 16:03

    @Richard – IFB – Independent Fundamentalist Baptist. 🙂

    • Richard Nikoley on June 11, 2013 at 17:26

      Hilarious. Having no idea what you meant I Googled IFB controversy or something like that. Guess what, there actuall is a current controversy involving Independent Fashion Bloggers. So I thought, OK, perhaps Babby Girl is into fashion and since I’m an blogger…

      So what’s up with the fundies?



  26. MC on June 11, 2013 at 18:57

    “Which reminds me : women weren’t likely to lead or invent or discover a great deal since they were forcibly forbidden from schools and universities”

    The majority of inventions were never from those that attended universities, and even when they did, school usually had nothing to do with what was invented. The majority of men were no better off as far as school was concerned. It was basically, get to work not too long after you learn to walk.

    The idea of putting your kids in a school for 18+ years of their life is a new one.

  27. marie on June 12, 2013 at 20:19

    MC,
    oh, o.k., I’ll explicitly state tutors and libraries and clerkships and trades and business ownership and…along with ‘schools and universities’ – though you’d think that’s covered by the rest of the quote you truncated where it goes on about “male pursuits”, all of which were forbidden to women.
    Though, what makes you think that the majority of industrial, scientific and technological inventions and discoveries were not by educated men (degreed or not)? That was the immediate context.

    Either way, stopping the quote at ‘schools and universities’ is fairly useless.
    The point is that half the intellectual capital of humanity was severely constricted for a long time, limited to home and hearth.

    As for other kinds of inventions or discoveries going back millennia, from spindles and the ancient loom to medieval medicinal herbs, women did quite a bit of those…when they didn’t get burned as witches for their magical healing powers 😉

  28. BabyGirl on June 12, 2013 at 20:29

    The poop is hitting the proverbial fan from all directions. Jack Schaap, son in law of the late Jack Hyles, who was famed in fundyland for just about everything, is in prison for diddling a 16 year old. Schaap was the preacher and president of Hyles/Anderson when he got caught. He is married to jack Hyles daughter.
    And there is more, a big fall out at Bju, one of his sons might be gay and they were recently forced to ask a man to resign from the board after people found out that a girl who was raped and became pregnant was forced to apologize in frOnt of church. Rapist was allowed to stay in church (older married man) and she was forcd to go out of state to have baby.

    One of Billy Graham’s grandsons is investigating Bju right now for sex crimes cover ups. Bunch of other stuff in various camps, scandals here and there blowing up.

    Chickens coming home to roost I reckon.

  29. marie on June 12, 2013 at 21:17

    Richard,
    about emergencies, I think we agree that W&CF is not necessarily motivated by tribal reproductive survival – which is especially unlikely when often the only link among some threatened group is that they are all human.
    It’s always been more of a practical ethics of ‘survival for the greatest number’ (whether that ethics is wrong or not).
    So the usual, and usually inapplicable, noble male sacrifice interpretation is exactly why I singled that bit out.

    That said, of course all war/societal structures are set-up such that men bare the physical dangers (and likely where ‘4wives/man’ originates) and there are other situations where men before women would indeed consciously sacrifice for the survival of their extended families/tribes or later for their cultures and nations. Though don’t tell that to the ‘Amazons’, or just a couple of hundred years ago to the Souliotisses – exceptions, I know, but all the more amazing 🙂

    Here’s where I don’t understand you, re. inventions/achievements :
    “…the vast majority of stuff has been invented by men. So, the point is to simply recognize that, not try to pound men into the ground”.
    Does pounding men into the ground imply that Individual achievements aren’t recognized? I don’t think that’s what you mean. But most famous achievements Are individual and everyone already celebrates those guys by name, Archimedes, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Michelangelo…Remington.
    So then, do you mean that we need to recognize that the achievements were by the male of the species? (c’est-à-dire, ‘men qua men’)
    If so, why is that fact important? Unless it’s specifically in order to Remember that “humanity basically squandered half the brain power these 2,000years” ….see my problem with the ‘recognition’ reasoning? 😀

  30. Richard Nikoley on June 13, 2013 at 07:18

    Yep, well aware of Hyles. Saw him “preach” in Sacto in the mid-70s and there were the endless cassette tapes. Formulaic for the hellfire & brimstone types.

    Did you ever hear of Fundamental Seduction? A book by David Gibbs, I think. Mom sent it to me when I was in France. It exposes Hyles for all sorts of extra-marital sexcapades, and his son too, I think.

    It’s all just as predictable as with the catholic priests. Repressing normal human sexuality has consequences.

  31. MC on June 13, 2013 at 18:18

    @marie

    “oh, o.k., I’ll explicitly state tutors and libraries and clerkships and trades and business ownership and…along with ‘schools and universities’ – though you’d think that’s covered by the rest of the quote you truncated where it goes on about “male pursuits”, all of which were forbidden to women.”

    Well you seem to think women were forbidden from business ownership, so I’m going to assume, further then I already did, you were mislead to believe something, and you didn’t bother to ask the critical question “is this actually true?”

    From entrepreneur.com:

    “1739 Eliza Lucas Pinckney

    She attended a finishing school in London, where she developed a love for botany. At the age of 16, Pinckney took over the plantations near Charles Town, in the Province of South Carolina, after her mother died and her father, a British military officer, returned to the West Indies. Pinckney began making a high-quality blue indigo dye in 1739. Her creation was a success: Indigo soon ranked second to rice as a South Carolina export crop. She went on to produce flax, hemp, silk and figs.”

    “1766 Mary Katherine Goddard

    She became the first woman publisher in America in 1766. In 1775, Goddard became the first American woman postmaster in Baltimore, Maryland. But she is most famous for printing the first copy of the Declaration of Independence that included the names of all the signers. Goddard remained postmaster until she was replaced in 1789, then continued to work as a printer and bookseller.”

    “1875 Lydia Pinkham

    Converted her herbal home remedies into a big business by skillfully marketing her products toward women and educating them about health issues. Pinkham’s Vegetable Compound became one of the best-known patent medicines of the 19th century.”

    “1905 Madam C.J. Walker

    Madam C.J. Walker built her empire out of nothing. Her parents were former slaves, and she was orphaned at the age of 7. In 1905, she created Madam Walker’s Wonderful Hair Grower, a scalp conditioning and healing formula.”

    “1909 Elizabeth Arden

    Moved to New York at the age of 30 to pursue her dream of building a cosmetics corporation. There she began working with a chemist to create a beauty cream, something new for the cosmetics industry at that time. Arden became the first person to introduce the concept of eye makeup to American women and offered the first makeovers in her 5th Avenue salon.”

    Women could attend school. Women could work outside the home. Women could own a business. Women could own property.

    They also had men that would want to protect them and take care of them. Men never had the option not to work, for the most part. Were there times when a woman was turned down for a job? Yes, of course. If you only had so many positions available, a man could have been preferred for several reasons:

    -the job is more physically demanding.
    -the man is more qualified.
    -the woman might not stick around as long because she might have children.
    -the man would not have the luxury of someone working for him, he would need the job to support his family.

    When you use language like “forbidden” it does nothing, but fuel a never ending gender war by making one group feel less well off, even if the opposite is true.

    If you want to thank anyone for women working, thank technologies, and those who invented them.

  32. marie on June 13, 2013 at 20:16

    MC, I thank you, actually, for adding more examples to the cursory famous ones that I already gave of women who did not obey the strictures of their times, who broke through and often spectacularly.

    That some determined women found a variety of ways around legal restrictions, or surmounted social ones, doesn’t mean those restrictions weren’t there of course at the time, nor that they never were there, nor that the majority of women in general “could” do anything that men could historically.

    It certainly doesn’t mean that even the groundbreakers could do exactly that type of groundbreaking before the progressive legal reformations that spread erratically and slowly across the west in the last 300 years or so.
    That’s ludicrous.
    Any reading of history lists those restrictions, even during the last about 600 years of scientific, technological and industrial progress : from the legal status of women as the property of their husbands until just a couple of hundred years ago in Britain to the closed universities even here in the States in the last century and hundreds of other laws, local rules and customs.

    So you are being disingenuous, in order to make a jump to points about today’s situation.
    Just as disingenuous as when your truncated a phrase of mine in your first comment.
    Now you’ve added the bizarre assertions that “Women could” apparently do everything that men could do based on the fact that some women in some places and times managed to do so, implying that it doesn’t matter if they were allowed, or encouraged or trained to do these things…….
    Hmm, for the last how many hundreds of years would that be ? – you can go back further you know, to the examples of a celebrated 12th century Italian female physician, Trotula of Solerno, or the first woman in the world to be officially awarded a university degree, from Padua university in 1678, the mathematician Elena Piscopia.
    Ah well, if we keep up with these examples, maybe we’ll find that all the progress in western civilization, science and technology included, was not only due to the men….even outside the home and beyond the traditional women’s contributions.

    The legal and social situation today is entirely different in the west, yes, absolutely and unequivocally.
    The pendulum has also swung way too far the other way in some situations.
    That doesn’t mean you need to rewrite history, because an otherwise wise man said, it does nothing but fuel a never ending gender war 😉

  33. MC on June 14, 2013 at 02:47

    @marie

    “women who did not obey the strictures of their times”

    Nobody tried to stop them, nor did “the times.” From the examples I gave anyway.

    “nor that the majority of women in general “could” do anything that men could historically.”

    The majority didn’t want to do what the majority of men had to do.

    “It certainly doesn’t mean that even the groundbreakers could do exactly that type of groundbreaking before the progressive legal reformations that spread erratically and slowly across the west in the last 300 years or so.”

    Yeah, men had to literally fight and die for any reformations of consequence.

    “even during the last about 600 years of scientific, technological and industrial progress : from the legal status of women as the property of their husbands until just a couple of hundred years ago in Britain ”

    Have you actually stopped to ask yourself what that meant? It sounds so non-human, that word, property. What it actually translated to in reality was no different than a parent’s relationship to their child. To look after, take care of, hold responsibility for. The word is being used for shock value, without actually thinking of the what and why.

    “hundreds of other laws, local rules and customs.”

    Yeah, and I’m re-writing history……

    “assertions that “Women could” apparently do everything that men could do based on the fact that some women in some places and times managed to do so, implying that it doesn’t matter if they were allowed, or encouraged or trained to do these things…….”

    How did they manage to pull that off, without being allowed? I’d like to hear your answer.

    Men weren’t encouraged to raise children and make a home, nor were they trained to either. Biology had something to do with it. But all that pregnancy, breast feeding, child rearing is worthless, useless, unfulfilling work, so good thing they were “forbidden” from such pursuits.

    We needed men and women to do what they did cause that’s what made sense. Men had a responsibility that women didn’t and vice-versa.

    “go back further you know, to the examples of a celebrated 12th century Italian female physician, Trotula of Solerno, or the first woman in the world to be officially awarded a university degree, from Padua university in 1678, the mathematician Elena Piscopia.
    Ah well, if we keep up with these examples, maybe we’ll find that all the progress in western civilization, science and technology included, was not only due to the men”

    It sounds to me your main concern is for the few cozy, nice jobs that existed. The ones that mostly the wealthy with plenty of leisure time could pursue. A small minority ever had the opportunity for such pursuits. The majority worked hard labour. The women of that leisure class had far more opportunity then the majority that worked labour.

    “The pendulum has also swung way too far the other way in some situations.
    That doesn’t mean you need to rewrite history, because an otherwise wise man said, it does nothing but fuel a never ending gender war”

    The pursuit of “equality” does that just fine on it’s own.

    It’s not re-writing history, just pointing out inconvenient truths history must have forgotten to teach us in our government run schools.

    If men actually decided not to provide for women, and competed with them for labour, it would have been a far worse life for most women, and I’m sure they’d be viewed as oppressors then too. It’s a lose-lose regardless. There’s no appreciation for any of it.

  34. Richard Nikoley on June 14, 2013 at 07:41

    @marie:

    I think our communication is breaking down surrounding the idea that men were oppressors and women were persecuted, by them, in some sort of systematic way.

    Both have been oppressed and persecuted by power-elites over the centuries, just in different ways—women to marry who or when they didn’t want, have kids they may not have wanted at the time, held back from intellectual pursuits they may have desired. Men worked fields and factories to early deaths and were sent off to die in countless wars.

    Ha, I just recalled one of the phases mis-used by those “advanced feminist” types: “oppression olympics.” They use it to mean that feminists ought not compete over which females have been oppressed more. Kind of an egalitarianism for oppression. Strangely though, it does seem to have some validity in the context of the power-elite oppression of both genders throughout history.

    So, to revamp a bit what I said earlier, we not only squandered much of female creative potential in sciences, technology, entrepreneurism but of men as well had they been better able to pursue those things. Admittedly, those options were certainly more open to most of them, but one hell of a lot of well-educated, bright young men got snuffed out early as well, as officers in the myriad wars over the centuries.

  35. Joanne on October 1, 2013 at 18:59

    I love it when the comments end up being just as informative as the article itself! There was bound to be some controversy on this topic though for sure!

Leave a Comment





YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780