Category Archives: Sociology

Men Can Get Pregnant and Have Babies Now (No Really I Am Serious)!

DTAvIVCWsAEp1VK

The old, boring, lame straight way versus the new, cool, groovy gay way. Be cool! Be groovy! Turn gay or bi or pan or sapio or whatever! Turn into the opposite sex or both sexes or neither sex or whatever! Who cares! Do whatever you want! We don’t care as long as you are having fun!

The old way versus the new way. The old way was lame and boring. They had these fake things called men and women and boys and girls and pretended that everyone got born that way! Stupid! Everyone knows a boy can turn into a girl or vice versa. A man can turn into a woman or vice versa. We can decide to be anything we want! Soon we will even decide whether we are humans or nonhuman animals! Isn’t that cool! I want to be a snake! Hell I’ve been one most of my life anyway, so why not?

In the photo above, that transman is actually pregnant. Transmen are men! They’re not woman pretending to be men or anything like that! They’re real men, as real as the dick in my pants, boys and girls! That person next to the transman is it’s husband I guess. I don’t know if that’s a man or a woman or another transman or what. Probably another transman! Now the kid can have two Daddies! One Daddy is no fun. Two are better! Better yet if both Daddies used to be Mommies. That’s even more fun, kids! Don’t all you kids with you had two Daddies who used to be Mommies too? Some kids have all the fun!

If transmen are really men and that transmen is really pregnant (and he is for sure pregnant, trust me), that means we men can get preggers now! Yeah! Morning sickness, weight gain, days of painful labor, the whole nine yards. Maybe even C-sections! Wouldn’t it be cool if guys could get one of those cool x-mark scars in their guts? What I’d love more than anything else though is stretch marks. It’s so sad that we men can’t get stretch marks and C-sections.

Men want babies! We want babies now! Give us babies, dammit!

1 Comment

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Ridiculousness, Scum, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Weirdos

Teach Your Children Well

DTBerxKXcAAYmH0

It is important for even very young children to be exposed to a wide range of sexual diversity. This young child is learning about the fascinating, normal, healthy, non-perverted lives of gay men. It is good to expose children to this as early as possible so they can decide to be gay like this gay Dogman, or bisexual, or pansexual, or God forbid, straight. Well, we hope they don’t choose the last one because that’s no fun! After they choose a sexual orientation (hopefully a really cool, non-straight one!), the child can decide to whether it is a boy, a girl, both, or neither! Maybe the child will decide to be a dog like this normal, healthy, sane, well-adjusted gay man in the photo! It’s a new world! You can be anything you want! Maybe you could decide to be an attack helicopter! Wouldn’t that be cool, kids?

6 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Homosexuality, Ridiculousness, Scum, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Weirdos

Support Fat Acceptance Now!

DSyC_qKXcAAbmXY

Fat rights now! Fat rights are human rights! Fat is beautiful!

 

2 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Feminism, Gender Studies, Ridiculousness, Scum, Sociology

Welcome to Sweden

DSytO7XW0AAtfnR

Welcome to “Sweden.” 

Diversity is our strength.

Something tells me that this radical experiment is not going to end well. Actually, it’s not even starting well, forget the end. Let’s deal with the beginning for starters.

42 Comments

Filed under Europe, Immigration, Race Relations, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Sweden

Welcome to Paris, Crown Jewel of the West

Here.

Well, not anymore I guess. Jesus Christ, what a mess. Spengler Reloaded, nearly a century too late.

10 Comments

Filed under Europe, France, Immigration, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Urban Decay, Urban Studies

Do Intelligent People Realize That They Are Smarter Than Anyone Else Surrounding Them?

Answered on Quora. Quora is neat because there is an IQ section and there are frequent questions about IQ, often directed at high or very high IQ people. A lot are on the lines of How do very high IQ people think/react/live/feel etc. about this or that? What is it like to have a very high IQ? Well, those are valid questions and they need answering, so lots of high and very high IQ people on there jump in and answer those questions. It’s completely socially acceptable to do that on there.

That’s neat because the whole rest of society is pretty much blocked out to discussions like that. You simply cannot talk about how smart you. You can talk about being superior in any other way (face it: high IQ people are superior at least on the one metric of intelligence), and most people will eat it up if you do it in the right way. Personally, I recommend false modesty. When discussing any accomplishments,  I often shrug my shoulders like I am talking about a glass of water or I even put my head down, lower my voice and act like I am embarassed or even ashamed of the accomplishment. Mostly I just discuss it matter of factly like it’s nothing. This usually goes over very well. But you can’t really talk about brains at all.

You certainly cannot discuss your IQ score most of the time. It’s a social taboo. I can’t even write about the subject on this blog, even though this is an IQ blog for Chrissakes, because writing about it on the blog falls under the same taboo as discussing it in public. You are “bragging” and you are violating the social taboo about as much as if you blurted it out in public.

However, Quora provides a completely socially acceptable forum for high and very high IQ people to discuss IQ and their intelligence without necessarily being seen as bragging (granted some still come off as braggarts due to the way they talk about it not because they mention the fact). I suppose the social taboo police types still think it’s horrible that we talk about in forums designed for that specific fact on Quora, but honestly, they can go to Hell. There’s nothing wrong with talking about anything on a public forum set up to discuss specifically that very thing.

Anyway, here is my answer. Hope you enjoy it and I hope at least one person finds some good advice here because there’s also a life hack technique discussed here about being a social actor to play a fake role and get along better with others.

You must realize that at any given time, I actually am smarter than everyone or certainly almost everyone around me, assuming that intelligence = IQ, which I believe it does. According to my IQ score, if you have 1,000 people in a room, I am smarter than all of them. You have get 2,000 people in the room to have one person who is on my level or higher.

So in my small city, there should be 60 people as smart or smarter than I am. That assumes my city has an average (100) IQ, which is highly dubious. I would say instead that the IQ of this city is more like 93, if it is even that high. Now I cannot do the math anymore because I only know how to do it with IQ set at 100, but the number is now less than 60. Edit: I just did the math and at my city’s 93 IQ, there are exactly four people in this city who are as smart or smarter than I am. Wow, that’s a powerful thought!

That means that if you got 1/4 of the population of my city together, I would be smarter than all of them! You would have to get half the town in one place to get one person as smart as or smarter than I am.

However, even though that is an objective fact, I rarely make myself aware of it. I simply blot it out of my mind. I live in a tough minority-heavy working class or even poor neighborhood. This place is like the hood or the ghetto, except it’s Mexicans, so it’s a barrio, so it’s much more livable than a Black ghetto. But the general vibes are the same. All of the men are very tough and hard.

There are gangs around here. There’s a lot of drinking and there are some drugs too. You can get hit anytime here for any reason if you disrespect someone or act like an idiot, so you have to be cool all the time. Gay men and lesbians are certainly not welcome here at all. Even feminine men would have a real problem because here if you are a man, you have to be hard because if you’re not, you might get hit. It’s a low class, hypermasculine, heavily ethnic, working class neighborhood. This place is anti-intellectual and I doubt if most people around here read one book last year.

The point is that I have to fit in here so I adopt more or the hard street tough hustler type mindset of the neighborhood. This means that most of the time, I shut down my own knowledge of my intelligence level and pretend that I am about as smart as those around me. The main reason is that I do not want to feel superior to these tough working class uneducated people around me. If I start feeling that way, I think they will pick up on it and regard it as arrogance and not be friendly. I want to be as friendly as possible so I try to get down to the same level of the salt of the Earth types.

On the other hand, most people around here have figured out that I am pretty damn smart because of the things that I like to talk about. We have Arabs around here and I ask them about their countries, US foreign policy and foreign affairs. They are amazed that I know so much about their country. They always ask me if I am from there or if I have been there.

Even the Mexicans and Salvadorans cannot believe that I know so much about their countries. They all assume I must be from their country because to them, no one not from there knows this much stuff about their land. The Indians are the same. They insist I must be Indian or must have been to India, otherwise there’s no way I could know all of this.

I must say that a lot of the Indians and Arabs are smarter and I can let down my hair with them pretty quickly. They often pick up that I am smart very quickly, and a lot of the Indian men are quite smart fellows. A lot of Arab men are also very smart. When I find another smart ethnic person, I show a lot more of my intelligence. They see this right away and sometimes switch into “intellectual mode” (especially the Indian men).

I am probably smarter than most all of even these Indian and Arab men but I refuse to think about or even recognize that because I want to be on their level. Instead I marvel at how much relatively brighter and more educated they are than most folks around here.

At times, I have to deal with some very smart people in this city, though they never live here. I mean physicians, pharmacists, judges, etc. I seem to be about on the same level as most of these folks. Especially physicians. Physicians are taken aback by me quite quickly, probably because I am a lot smarter than the average patient. They very quickly figure out that I am very smart, and they are often very surprised by how smart I am. They usually comment something along those lines.

If you have been reading this far, you can see that the smarter someone is, the quicker they realize that they are dealing with a very smart person on the other hand. I would say that the speed at which they recognize this almost correlates with IQ.

It’s not uncommon when meeting a physician that very quickly, maybe within a couple of minutes, he jerks his head back and shakes his head and is shocked at how smart I am. They appreciate it, and I can usually have some really neat conversations with my physicians because smart people (like physicians) like other smart people.

If you are very smart, like say a doctor, another smart person is going to be a lot more fun to be around because they are more on your wavelength. Also smart people, like physicians, like to learn new things, and smart people are always telling you new things. They also like to be challenged mentally, and smart people tend to challenge your mind.

A lot of people find this intimidating, but smart people, like say doctors, seem to find it as a sort of delightful challenge because they seem to like to crunch their brains, maybe almost even for sheer kicks. Also understand that smart people, like say physicians, are often also very curious and smart people are an endless source of fascination for a curious person because you can learn so many fun and cool things from them.

Do I know I’m smarter than most everyone around? I suppose I do, because it is a scientific fact. However, I often blind myself to this idea and a lot of the time, I even lie to myself, say it’s not true, tell myself I am an idiot, that I know nothing, exaggerate the intelligence of those around me, etc. This is a sort of acting or role-playing that I do so I can get along better with people around me.

Going around all the time consciously thinking you are smarter than most everyone around, even if it’s a fact, doesn’t seem to work very well. I seem to come off a bit uppity, superior or arrogant. I don’t want to come off that way because I want smooth relations with other humans. So a lot of the time I shut that fact out of my mind or even pretend it’s not true.

1 Comment

Filed under Arabs, Culture, East Indians, Hispanics, Intelligence, Mexicans, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Salvadorans, Sociology

An Excellent Explanation of Class and Politics in the US White Working Class

Here.

Absolutely  immaculate. I have been observing these things all of my life. It also shows why the White working class or WWC (which really overlaps with the White middle class) hates the poor so much. Why they hate the professional classes so much. Why they love the rich so much. Why they are so frustrated with the bullshit issues of the Cultural Left so much. Why they hate the White Democratic Party elites so much – exemplified by Hillary Clinton. I don’t want to call the Democratic Party elites (DNC) liberals because that’s not what they are – there’s nothing liberal about them.

About how Democratic projects to help the poor with social programs always fail for the WWC and why the WWC resent them so much. About the almost crazy levels of work ethic and workaholism in the WWC. About the extreme level of self-sacrifice and value of decent, moral and thrifty behavior that this class has long exemplified. About the lack of proletarian consciousness in the WWC, their love of the rich, and the desire of so many of them to own their own business (to become bourgeois). About how they don’t just want a job – they want a good job. About why so many of them dislike unions. About why they hate the professional classes – doctors are quacks, lawyers are shysters, professors are idiots and teachers are despised and suspect. All of these are mostly hated as know it all’s who look down on the WWC.

About how white liberal elites sneering at WWC people for being racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and xenophobic arouses such hatred among these people. I mean Hell, I have been Cultural Left my whole life, and in the last 10-20 years, the Cultural Left has gone so bonkers that I of all people am now an evil reactionary Nazi fascist sexist, racist, bigoted, homophobic, misogynistic, transphobic, xenophobic freak. And I am still Cultural Left. I am just Cultural Left from a ways back, just not Cultural Left Full Insanity 2017. If they have this much hatred for a decent liberal like me, consider how much the Cultural Left must hate the real rednecks of the WWC!

About why the WWC hates the poor as shiftless, profligate bums sucking off the public teat while the WWC must work their tail off, gets no benefits, and has to eat beans out of a can.

About how WWC contempt for the shiftless and immoral poor overlaps with racism. Hint: it’s rooted in behavioral differences between the WWC and the non-White underclass. About how pride in America and patriotardism are very deeply rooted in the WWC and about how much they hate liberal upper middle class college students and college educated “traitors to America.” About how much they love cops and hate these same college educated elites for being cop-haters.

About how Donald Trump was the first politician in a long time who actually spoke to these people. About why they love Trump for being a rich man who is contemptuous of professionals and liberal elites. About how much they love Trump’s “straight talk.” About how straight talk is tied into WWC men’s sense of masculinity and their dislike of elite liberal “wussy” men who beat around the bush and don’t give you a straight answer about anything. About how much both male and female WWC people value good, hard masculinity in men and why they see Trump as a real man and elite liberal men as a bunch of wusses. About how they do not want to join the elite upper middle classes that they dislike so much but instead wish to live their same WWC lifestyles but with somewhat more money.

About how the immiseration of this class has humiliated a class that values pride of manhood, family, town, culture and nation so much and takes hits to their pride so hard.  About how this devastating loss of pride and sense of humiliation led not only to the election of Trump but to the current declines in life expectancy among the WWC, and the concurrent epidemics of alcoholism, domestic abuse of various kinds, suicide and opioid use

I will confess straight up. I never liked WWC values, although we inherited some of this as a White middle class family that also always lived in the edge and was constantly in debt. I grew up to never-ending tales of financial woes while living in a very nice White middle class neighborhood that would be considered a wealthy neighborhood full of mansions in most of the world. The White middle class of professionals I grew up with shared many values with the WWC.

My father was a man of endless sacrifice who nearly felt that fun was a sin. But he sure gave a lot of his money to us, though he moaned while he did. There’s a sense of deep generosity in my father that ran concurrently with the nearly masochistic workaholism, priggishness, suspicion of leisure and fun, and value of decent living, thrift, and deeply moral behavior. My father’s values were not that different from the rock-ribbed WWC family’s next door.

I am afraid that commenters and like Trash and Jason Y just do not understand the WWC or even WMC (the overlap) very well. I know these people like the back of my hand, though I do not share their values and honestly I despise a lot of their values as sanctimonious, silly, naive, masochistic, and ultimately reactionary. I never saw why they had to see life as such a hardass, miserable game. I always hated their contempt for the poor, the educated and the professional classes. Their love of the rich is disgusting and repellent. Their lack of proletarian consciousness and adopted bourgeois mindset (if only in fantasy) is infuriating. The contempt for the shiftless, the profligate, the irresponsible, and the hedonists seems vicious and senseless. I do not hate any of these people. Their embrace of the politics of resentment is sickening. Their racism makes me shake my head.

But hey look. They are not changing anytime soon. They are what they are. This is the way they are. This is their culture. It’s not going away, and in fact, it’s getting worse. We must deal with reality as it is, not as we wish it should be as females, SJW’s and other dreamer types are wont to do.

We must deal with the reality of these people and their culture, quit showering abuse on them, and figure out a way to get them to vote for us. We are not going to change their culture. Only they can do that, and I don’t think they want to change. If anything, they want to act even worse.

The first step to dealing with a problem is to define it and understand it in the first place. We must understand these people as they really are, not as our lies and fantasies make them out to be. You can’t get the right answer if you keep asking the wrong questions. We on the Left are not doing any of these things. We are failing to even remotely understand these people in the first place, which means we keep asking the wrong questions. The wrong questions just keep giving you the wrong answers, which is what we keep getting.

I would urge Democrats and liberals to read this article and attempt to deal with these people as they are, not as we wish and dream them to be, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. The response of the Democrats to the anti-SJW backlash has been to double down on the insanity and make everything worse. Like I said, they refuse to even ask the right questions.

And about the true dangers of what might happen when the WWC figures out that voting for Trump didn’t work and instead made things even worse. That’s right – they will go even further rightwing than they already area.

24 Comments

Filed under American, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Democrats, Higher Education, Labor, Left, Liberalism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Republicans, Social Problems, Sociology, US Politics, USA, White Racism, Whites

The Female Sex Drive as Sociologically and Societally Mediated Mechanism

A previous post talked about people who like their sex a bit on the rough side. An incredible number of women like their sex like that. And don’t ask me how I know that. They seem like these pretty, fussy, dainty little angelic virgins when you see them in public, but there’s a whole other side to the Feminine Character.

It’s not that it doesn’t exist, it’s more that it doesn’t get turned on all that much. It’s like there’s a lightswitch on their back and you have to flip that thing into the On position to bring out the latent nympho. And I am convinced by a lifetime of experience that the majority or even the vast majority of women are latent nymphos – they just need the right man to bring it out of them. If he never shows up, the nympho simply never comes out to play, and you end up with a rather puritanical, anti-sex woman with a low sex drive. There are whole societies like this. That is because those societies take that light switch and turn it to the Off position, and it’s hard for women in those societies to turn on the switch.

So you end up with generations like my mother’s. I used to hear the women of her generation sit around and talk, and of course they talked about sex. The general impression was that they were not into it that much, that it was a chore their husbands imposed on them, that men were way too horny, etc. The old male cliche about female sexuality – that women don’t like sex too much. They often said that if they could give up sex for the rest of their lives and just be cuddled and held in bed instead, they would do it. Indeed, older surveys showed up to 2/3 of women checking yes on that statement.

There’s no way that these modern women would settle for that. Most single women that I meet masturbate to orgasm all the time if they don’t have a partner. They range in age from 18-59. Every day or even 3-4 times a day is not unusual. Once they figure out how to get that orgasm, they’re basically addicts. Further, we now live in a society that has taken that switch on females’ backs and turned it to a permanent On position. This is how a society of females acts when you turn that switch on and leave it on. In some ways, they’re almost as horny as men.

The female sex drive has no essential nature. It exists, but only as a switch to be turned On or Off. And who gets to decide if that switch is On or Off? Society. In any given society, the female sex drives of its members is mostly determined by the extent to which society allows it to express.

Turn it Off and you get a society of Puritanical women don’t like sex too much – the old cliche about female sexuality.

Turn that damn thing to On, especially at a very early age – say teens or even early teens, and watch out.

It’s like letting wild animals out of the zoo to roam around the streets. Females are capable of a lot more than you think. It’s just that it doesn’t naturally come out. It needs to brought out of them or simply “allowed”.

1 Comment

Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Psychology, Sex, Sociology, Solitaire, Women

Opinion: The Alt Left Should Be Neither Feminist Nor for Men’s Rights. It Should Be for Good Relationships between the Sexes

Great piece by Ryan England. Personally, I feel things are far, far, far too gone for this and this sort of pacifism is just not going to work. England is calling for unilateral disarmament on the part of the men and then sending us unarmed men in to negotiate with savage, ISIS-like terrorists (the feminists). That’s not going to work. It’s like bringing a knife to a gunfight. It would be great if this would be enough but I am afraid that things are far too gone for that now and the only thing left is the more extreme measures. Hey, the feminists started it. They started shooting at us men. You want a war, baby? Bring it on!

Beyond Feminist vs. MRA

OPINION: THE ALT-LEFT SHOULD BE NEITHER FEMINIST NOR FOR MEN’S RIGHTS. IT SHOULD BE FOR GOOD RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE SEXES.

It’s a familiar story for anyone who’s been online for any length of time. A discussion starts over a gender or feminism-related topic.  There’ve been plenty of these lately since the Harvey Weinstein sexual harassment scandal broke in Hollywood and the metoo hashtag campaign, so there’s no shortage of examples to choose from. There’s nothing unique about these conversations, however. They’ve been taking place on social media since Facebook and Twitter first launched and were commonplace on bulletin boards long before anyone knew what a comments section was. The basic conversation hasn’t changed much in the decades since Al Gore invented the internet. A typical conversation will go something like this.

Feminist: Men rape and harass women. That’s why men suck and women should reject them.

MRA: But not all men. But not me. That should give me an advantage in the mating game with women, should it not?

Feminist: But only men. Plus patriarchy, power, privilege, rape culture, etc. Not so fast, buster!  You’re part of the segment of the population that does the most rape and who benefits from rape and are therefore not so innocent as you’d like to believe. And therefore suck no less and are no less deserving of rejection.

MRA: But what about false accusations? What about women who sexually assault men? This nullifies the advantage you claimed in your previous statement. Therefore, women should more readily accept and sleep with us. I mean me!

It’s never long before a conversation like this breaks down, and school yard level copypasta insults break out. “Boo hoo! Eh poor menz!” “Enjoy your cats!” So on and so on. It’ll inevitably come down to one or both sides being ugly, living in their parent’s basements, and being unable to get laid. This is due to the fact that the surface conversation is never nearly as important as the subtext that continually underlies conflicts over gender theory and its real world implications.

The unstated but nonetheless omnipresent axioms that are revealed when any kind of deconstructive analysis is applied to such discussions are that male power is expressed through sexual conquest of the female, and that female power is expressed through sexual rejection of the male. All else is ancillary. Which is largely why pro and anti feminists talk past one another and at one another far, far more than with one another. The legitimate issues raised by either side fall by the wayside because they’re obviously being weaponized to one or the other of those two ultimate effects.

The real purpose for bringing up rape, harassment, divorce, child support, or any other issue, at least in online discussion, is to lower the value of one gender relative to the other for the ultimate purpose of making sex either easier (in favor of men) or harder (in favor of women) to attain.

There’s just one problem with this paradigm, however. It doesn’t work. It’s not making anyone happy. It’s based in a glaringly flawed assessment of human nature and is much more rooted in ego than in reason or human empathy. Men were not rejected into sympathizing with women’s concerns. They go their own way instead, doubtlessly with the intent of bringing those pesky, uppity women to heel. No dice: women are angrier now than ever. Who’d have guessed? The result is that heterosexual activity has been driven into a kind of moral black market wherein most people actually do it at some point or another but also have to conceal it, rationalize it, or engage in it under some kind of false pretenses much of the time to avoid social censure. No wonder bad behavior abounds.

It’s time to smarten up, people. Get out of the grade school mentality. Let’s at least try and hit puberty, okay internet? Human nature is not especially complicated. We tend to simmer down when we feel that our concerns are being heard and taken somewhat seriously, even if disagreed with in some ways. The natural response of people when faced with a lecturing, condescending tone is to get defensive, not to open one’s heart or mind. This is true however legitimate the surface grievance actually is or is not. Which isn’t to say you accept bullshit uncontested. Rather, let your assessment of what’s bullshit and what isn’t depend on honest appraisal, which you can’t get without listening and understanding.

Whatever your claim to victimhood past or present, however poorly you were treated as a child or in your past relationships, other people, even the opposite sex, will not accept your shitty and abusive behavior. Not indefinitely at any rate. However much you feel entitled to it. Two wrongs don’t make a right. This is something we feel instinctively if not intellectually. It stops mattering who started it or who inflicted or suffered the greater suffering after a point. Neither women nor men will accept the other’s claim to morally superior status based on previous victimhood and grievance even if real.

It is easy to say that we should set our fragile egos aside and listen seriously to the other side when they lay out their grievances and issues. This is true. But when the other side does not expect this of themselves, even the most legitimate gripe becomes tainted by the ultimately self-serving purpose to which it is put. The kinds of behavior displayed by feminists and MRAs alike in most internet discussions between the two would be emotionally abusive were they done in real life, and increasingly these kinds of relationship dynamics are spilling out of cyberspace and into the real world. It is no wonder that growing numbers of people, especially the young, are eschewing relationships with the opposite sex all together and claiming to be happier doing so.

And that’s fine for some individuals. If you’re happier going it alone, and I think some people are naturally disposed this way, have at it.

But that’ll be a disaster for society as a whole. Fewer lasting successful marriages and long term relationships (LTR’s) are poised to cause all kinds of problems down the road. Demographic and economic dependency ratios are bound to get worse, and socially destabilizing levels of mass immigration will need to be employed to compensate for falling birth rates. Frustrated romantic and sexual drives will find expression in other usually more antisocial ways from mounting political or religious extremism to mental health problems and increased cynicism.

Even many, though not all, of those who claim to be happier being single are not so much once you scratch the surface. A certain regret often though not always presents itself. And why not? Humans were not hardwired to live alone and not pass on their genes to future generations. A society losing its capacity for love and empathy is not one we should aspire to be a part of.

So here’s a proposal. The Alt-Left should be neither feminist nor MRA. Not exclusively. We should be instead for healthy and good relationship dynamics, be they platonic, romantic, or erotic. We should listen to the concerns of both sides and sort the valid and legitimate grievances from the entitled whining and vapid boasting. It should not be a concern of the Alt-Left which of the two has the more legitimate grievances and is therefore more deserving. Ten years and God knows how many flame wars into the social media age later, we should know by now that ideological partisanship and competitive victimhood isn’t actually helping anybody. It’s driving a spiral of mutual frustration that is causing increased polarization and extremism.

Even if one gender really does have it worse than the other by a wide margin, our approach should be one of mutual listening and empathy, not one of grievance and vengeance. This is not to say that we can’t prioritize some issues over others or that wrongdoers can’t be called out and exposed to such sanction and censure as their actions warrant. But it should never be an ego stroking exercise. Even if you’ve had it worse or your sex or gender has been on the receiving end of injustice, the world doesn’t owe you anything, whatever you may think. Success, be it alone or in partnership, derives from responsibility, not entitlement.

So if you’re single or attached, male or female, here are some things you can do vis-a-vis the opposite sex to improve the situation. And in case you are wondering, this is over twenty years of relationship success (I’ve been with my present wife since 1995) and a decade of every mistake imaginable leading up to it, talking. There’s much I learned the hard way:

  • Listen. Nothing is more effective at defusing anger.
  • Do not stereotype the opposite sex unironically or for non-comedic purposes.
  • Stop with the vain, stupid games. Crushing some young man or woman’s confidence in him/herself won’t bring down the patriarchy or gynocentrism, and it doesn’t make you strong or independent. It makes you an asshole, be you male or female.
  • Do not participate in discussions that tend to descend into pissing contests of competitive victimhood, and clearly state this. Ask instead, “What do you want?”  That’s a powerful question that can very effectively shut down entitled whiners with weaponized grievances.
  • You are owed nothing. Approach all relationships with the opposite sex or with anyone with that in mind. This is not to say that you should tolerate shit and abuse. Don’t. But don’t expect to be put on a pedestal either.
  • Do not have as an expectation for an ideal partner a trait you do not have or can not match. Half of our problems stem from 6’s thinking they’re actually good matches for 10’s, so to speak. Do not expect a prince if you’re not a princess or vice versa. And assess yourself honestly to save a lot of trouble.
  • Live a good life outside of a relationship context. This signifies that you will not be dead weight but instead a net asset in other people’s lives. No one wants a needy dependent.
  • Trust must come before any kind of relationship intimacy, be it physical or emotional. Always. Take it upon yourself to earn rather than demand trust. Decide at what point your efforts are in vain and when to move on.
  • Do not expect from a relationship partner anything that you can do for yourself.  Relationship success thrives best when free of contrived obligations and expectations. Otherwise resentments creep in and do damage.
  • Do not be afraid to point out the elements and their underlying axioms (see above for examples) in gendered discussions but do so only if the person you’re discussing things with becomes obstinate, obtuse, or clearly hostile. The underlying pettiness and stupidity become readily apparent when brought to light.
  • Likewise, if need be, remind people that two wrongs don’t make a right. Plus, no man was ever rejected, nagged, scolded or castrated into liking and respecting women. No woman was ever convinced by rational argument or else likewise rejected, scolded or shamed into liking men. People don’t work that way. Don’t hesitate to point this out.
  • Make your disdain for passive-aggressiveness clear, if need be.
  • If people insist on dominating conversations with socially destabilizing displays of rudeness, sarcasm or hostility, do not be afraid to call them out on it and exclude them from further social activities. If you moderate or administer an online or social media space, you have a special responsibility here. Trolls thrive on the emotionally destabilizing effect that their refusal to be decent and reasonable people has. Do not tolerate it, and ban them at once.
  • Admit that the opposite sex doesn’t always have it easy.  Try to replace resentment with walking in the other man or woman’s shoes, as the case may be. This isn’t to say it’s equally bad on both sides, all the time. Occasionally people will need to be told to stop whining.
  • Do not attribute to malice what can be attributed to clumsiness or ignorance without evidence. This is especially true with flirtation, flattery, or the like.

And above all …

  • Get the f**k off the Internet every once and awhile. Yeah, I know. It’s hard. But there are numerous dynamics that contribute to the Internet being a relatively uncivil place where your faith in humanity can easily go to die. Meet people in the real world from time to time. They’re usually (though not always) not what they appear to be when seen as just a social media profile.

So that in mind, get out there and see the world, dear reader!

2 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Left, Man World, Masculinism, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

Alt Left: “Why I am Not an MRA”

I continue to say that Ryan England is one of our finest Alt Left thinkers. I say that in part because I agree with him so much. I would put him up there with Brandon Adamson, who I also agree with a lot. And both Brandon and Ryan are two of the finest writers, as in prose stylists, in our movement.

I have reputation for being so radical and nuts that I am almost persona non grata in this movement. I know that posts linking to me have been removed from the Alternative Left that Ryan started. Apparently I am “raciss” or something. It takes almost nothing to get called that anymore. Just be a bit honest, and you’re done. I also have a reputation, via Lord Keynes, for being an extremist on the Cultural Left.

It is said that I have some extreme positions on the SJW Left. He is also rather astonished at how socially conservative I am. But I am not a social conservative at all. My views are Democratic Party’s Official Platform 1995. That these views are now seen as just as socially conservative as Roy Moore is quite astonishing, but it shows just how fast the runaway clown car train called the Cultural Left Freakshow has gone in just ~20 years. And indeed I am not just a conservative. I am also a reactionary. I want to roll back the clock – to Democratic Party 1995. That this is considered Troglodytism is one again a symptom of the disease.

Part of the controversy was that I supported Antifa. That makes you almost persona non grata on the Alt Left. It was said that I had moved to the extreme Left. That’s hardly possible as I have always been there. I was on the mailing list for the Weathermen for Chrissakes. After that, I was buying guns for the Marxist rebels in El Salvador. And I haven’t budged since.

The funny thing is that despite my supposed extremism, I find myself agreeing with Ryan England (who is actually himself quite a radical Left type on the Alt Left) a very good part of the time. This post could have been written by me, but I am not eloquent or disciplined enough to have done so, so Ryan had to do it. If you want to know where I stand on the issue of feminism, etc. (I am supposedly an MRA radical) just read this post. I am as MRA as Ryan is. That our mild views are now MRA shows just again just how insane the “normal” has gotten now. Yep, you read that right. Crazy is the new normal. Sane is new bigotry and reaction.

Not going to say much more about this except that I hope it spurs some comments. Like Ryan, I am also a feminist. I came out of the feminist movement back when it meant something. Once again the crazy train left me stranded at the station holding flowers and jilted once again. I still support liberal feminism, sex positive feminism (though if Jezebel is the definition, I have my worries) and equity feminism. I think Ryan might want to identify as a masculinist or Men’s Liberationist. These are the left wings of the MRA movement to the extent that they exist at all. One can be both a masculinist and a feminist and the demands of basic equality nearly mandate it.

I have scarcely seen an article that lays out the poison of modern feminism so eloquently and accurately. Once again, his words are mine. My principal beef with feminism is outlined here by my alter ego, Ryan.

Read and enjoy.

Why I am not an MRA

By Ryan England

Feminism 101

Doesn’t it want to make you swoon?

 

I know I’m going to catch flak for this, but I don’t care much for the men’s rights movement. I do think they make good points – I’ve read Warren Farrell for example and found his work quite profound. In fact, it really takes a wrecking ball to this idea that men have conspired to make the world a wonderful place at the expense of women. You can’t reasonably believe that after reading Farrell’s works.

Why I don’t really relate to the MRM is rooted in my overarching distrust of identity politics. I do think that there’s all kinds of room to criticize the excesses of feminism, and some points made by the MRM are valuable in that regard.  Decades of ideological protectionism has produced a very real feminist echo chamber with next to no external checks on its claims.  The MRM can by helpful in remedying that.  The MRM also brings our attention to real issues that men are confronted with.  Glaring disadvantage (to varying degrees depending on jurisdiction) in divorce settlements and child custody arrangements being the most obvious example.

The feminist demonization of male heterosexuality; this presumption underlying much of feminist theory that male sexual attraction towards women is somehow demeaning and objectifying of women is something else that needs to be challenged and the present taboo against disagreeing with feminism desperately needs to be broken here.  The MRM can help in that regard.  The equation of compliments and polite civil greetings on part of men towards women with harassment, objectification or even oppression, commonly seen on social media, is a manifestation of this.  If taken at all seriously, especially in any kind of public policy context, this kind of thinking could effectively close the door on prospects for male-female encounters of all but the most institutional kind.

The ever expanding definition of rape, and the ever narrowing definitions of consent, and the increasingly onerous requirements for obtaining legal consent – an express verbal “yes” given for every touch, kiss or caress, and even that be nullified if there’s any alcohol or mental illness or any factor that could in the slightest call into question the strict legal capacity to give consent, constitute another manifestation of this.  The end game here, I suspect, is to make legal intercourse, for all intents and purposes, impossible for men.

Although most feminists profess to disagree in principle with the notion that all things “boy meets girl” are inherently sexist or oppressive – and may even trot out their own relationship as proof of this, the restrictions imposed on gender dynamics by these kinds of very popular demands made by very widely circulated and credible media outlets that represent the mainstream of liberal opinion on gender issues, would make establishing even platonic, let along erotic relationships extremely difficult.

That many feminists choose to make exceptions to their own rules for themselves and the men they get the D from should not be taken as proof of feminism’s flexibility and open mindedness.  It should be taken as proof of moral hypocrisy on part of the feminists so doing, and a tacit admission on their part that their system of sexual morality and conduct is no more reasonable and in alignment with human nature than that of the religious conservatives they so smugly see themselves as superior to.

Compound that with inundation of  feminist perspectives casting heterosexual relationships in so consistently negative a light; as being about nothing other than unequal distribution of domestic labor, unequal pay, riven with male insecurity and unreasonable male behaviors contrasted to the relief women are expected to seek and experience in all-female spaces, as characterized by universally poor male sexual performance and an expectation of female preference for marital celibacy, dildos, lesbianism, asexuality, promiscuity, anything other than relational intimacy – all hermetically sealed by a propensity to yell “fragile male ego” at any dissention from any of the above on part of men – as if this kind of petty weaponized rejection is something we should just sit back and relish, and feminist gender dynamics become a mortal threat to healthy heterosexual relationships, even if it turns out to be death by a thousand cuts rather than a swift beheading.

A strong MRM could be a countervailing force for reason and love in gender relations.  On the other hand, groups like MGTOW could just up the ante and make things worse rather than better.  Don’t get me wrong: you, dear reader, be you male or female, have every right as far as I’m concerned to live your life as you see fit, and if that involves not having a significant other of the opposite sex, good luck to you.  I once wanted an unattached life myself.  May you succeed where I failed.

But to advocate widespread rejection of the opposite sex, as feminism often implicitly and, in the case of separatist feminism, explicitly does, and MGTOW likewise does, is to advocate for the infliction of protracted neurosis and frustration culminating in a demographic holocaust upon whichever population is to embrace this as a form of gender based political activism.  It would inflict incalculable and irreparable damage on the psychological fabric of such a society.

But even a less strident form of male activism than MGTOW could end up becoming a gender flipped version of the worst aspects of feminism.  I’ve noticed that in every debate I’ve ever read between feminists and MRAs – though flame war is a better description in just about ever case, since debate implies a reasoned exchange of views and that’s most definitely not what happens – the exchange always boils down to each side saying to the other, “you’re just ugly and can’t get laid” – with cats and mother’s basements figuring in there somehow. Inevitably, one side resigns in frustration over the strident unreasonableness of the other, and both remain more convinced than ever that the opposite sex is hopelessly screwed up.  There’s not much of a future in this.

Taken to their logical conclusions, demands upon heterosexual relationships would end up more closely resembling shari’a law than they would anything previous generations of liberal feminists struggled and fought for.

Wait a minute …

Of course,  feminism – in its more reasonable forms, is still needed to protect and safeguard the rights of women. Life is certainly not all wine and roses for all women at all times, and men are not blameless. This is especially true in communities where, for religious reasons, women still very much are second class citizens.

This is what I find both astounding and disturbing about What looks like an alliance of feminists and Islamists, particularly in opposition to the Trump presidency.  While I don’t condone the more boorish things Trump has said about women, you can’t compare the danger posed to women by macho locker room bluster with the danger posed to women by shari’a law.  Given the dour attitudes that both feminists and Islamists appear to have towards free and fun expression of happiness and attraction between the sexes, however, I can see the kinship the two might have with one another, though from where I sit, it promises to be a stormy relationship.

What I worry about regarding the MRM, though, is its own potential to become a kind of rank gender partisanship. That “Male good female bad” thinking could, and does, easily arise from it.

Because that, in its own way, is exactly what happened to feminism. What began as being “just about equality” or just about “the same treatment of women as for men” has become a blinding and fanatical form of gender partisanship. Motivated by dogmatic adherence to feminism, whole cohorts of young women (and their male sympathizers) have circled the wagons and harnessed collective groupthink to hermetically seal themselves away from any kind of criticism or dissent.

Driven by a sense of universal and historical mission, these women regard themselves as quite entitled to ceaselessly make unilateral demands of men with no countervailing concessions, tar all men with collective responsibility and guilt by association for the very real crimes and misdeeds of some men, and to effectively kill any prospect for intimacy and trust between the sexes by making militant confrontation the permanent and universal norm for gender relations. Backed by unilateral academic and media support and an arsenal of canned responses and copy pasta with which to respond to naysayers, the impact that this has had on gender dynamics is nothing short of devastating.

As an antidote to this, we need to step back from identity politics. We don’t need a male version of the same thing. Given what we should now know about ideological and identitarian polarization, feminism and the MRM will most likely feed off one another and each further radicalize in response to the other. This is certainly what I’ve seen in every single exchange between MRMs and feminists that I’ve ever seen. If that process becomes normalized, it could well mean the death of heterosexual love in its entirety. The prospect of this worries me greatly. I really hope people of both (yes, both) genders can learn to take a step back from their attachments to gender ideology and start reasoning honestly about these kinds of issues.

13 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Democrats, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Islam, Law, Left, Liberalism, Man World, Masculinism, Political Science, Politics, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Radical Islam, Religion, Republicans, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, US Politics