Vox Popoli

Mike doesn’t connect the dots:

I was arguing that restriction of gender roles is sneaking towards totalitarianism; VD said the opposite. He said that the loosening of gender roles contributed to the rise of totalitarian governments. I pointed out that totalitarian governments love strict gender roles.

These two statements are not opposites, they simply describe different parts of the same process. For example, the Italian Fascists were loud proponents of the women’s right to vote and hold office; it is the very first point in Mussolini’s Fascist Manifesto. The National Socialists campaigned hard for the women’s vote and enjoyed great support from women; if you watch the old clips, you can see that Hitler was received with the sort of ecstatic rapture that was later seen in reaction to Elvis and the Beatles.

Once they’ve made use of women to obtain power, these totalitarian demagogues have little further use for them except as breeding stock. They then use the power of the central state to forcibly return women to those strict gender roles. I don’t believe women were essential to the Soviet Communists attaining power, as that was done through revolution, not the ballot box or negotiation, but the Soviets, too, enforced the same strict gender roles that we would consider conservative.

This apparent dichotomy makes sense, because totalitarians need women to attain power, but once there, they need to produce as many soldiers as possible to support their typically aggressive foreign policies.

The Chinese Communists, on the other hand, appear to have embraced looser gender roles in the hopes of reducing their birth rate. But since there are over a billion Chinese and they vastly outnumber their neighbors, the same logic would not apply.

Pretty Lady must be Japanese:

Sweetie, what makes you think women over 30 would like to be married? So tiresome, having to live with their socks and NFL and things. We much prefer the scruffy little creatures to quietly pay our bills and live somewhere else, taking us out to dinner now and then, when they can be persuaded to dress presentably.

What makes me think that? The vast publishing industry dedicated to:

1. Telling women how to find a husband
2. Telling women how to keep a husband
3. Complaining how many women can’t find a husband
4. Explaining why a woman’s failure to find a husband isn’t her fault
5. Explaining why a woman’s failure to keep a husband isn’t her fault

Of course, the vast majority of these books and magazines are written by women, not infrequently by women who have shown no ability to either find or keep a man, so they’re as useless as a sociology major. And then, of course, there’s the fact that you can’t date a girl for six months without her bringing up marriage, wondering aloud where this relationship is going, asking you what you’d name your children and so forth.

Now, it’s true that some women do prefer to have a man pay her bills, live somewhere else and take her out to dinner now and then. There’s even a word for such a woman. It’s called “mistress”.

A publisher sends an email:

Thought you might like to see this: “Male Pride and Female Prejudice“. And you were onto this trend three years ago . . .

New York Times columnist John Tierney has an interesting op/’ed today on the looming crises of too many edumacated uppity wimmin chasing after a dwindling supply of eligible (edumacated and white collar) males. The “crisis” stems from the fact that nearly 3 women graduate from college for every 2 men who do. Tierney points out that under 35 year old men say in polls that they have no big problem marrying women who make more money than they do. However, women who have gone to the trouble of getting a college degree do not want to marry a guy whose pint-sized paycheck would occasion malicious gossip among her friends.

What the gentleman is referring to is a book proposal entitled “Screwing Themselves: Why no one wants to marry 30-something women” that I sent to him at his request following a rather notorious column I’d written. The review board was quite positive about it, but the Marketing VP – an unmarried 40-something woman – felt very strongly that no one would be interested in reading it. I submitted two more book proposals and actually got paid for one before realizing that there was no way they were actually going to publish my non-fiction.

Which is fine. I can’t complain about getting paid not to write and I prefer writing fiction anyhow. If I was serious about it, I’d start my own publishing company. That or whine about how I’m being oppressed, there seems to be quite a cottage industry going.

In what feels like a very strange moment indeed, I find myself in complete agreement with the epitome of the left-wing blogosophere, Kos:

When our nation was founded, we had men of real character and courage fighting for their nascent America, one in which liberty and freedom trumped the authorative tendencies of the monarchy. Patrick Henry gave words to those efforts:

“Give me liberty or give me death!”

My, how far we have fallen, with an administration that parlays the incessant fear of its supporters into increased authoritativeness to the point where he now resembles the very despot we fought in our war of independence.

And his supporters bellow, as they cower under their beds:

Here’s our liberties, just spare us from death!

These blowhards pretend they are macho even as they piddle on themselves in abject terror from every “boo!” that comes out of Osama Bin Laden’s mouth. They like to speak about how tough they are, even though they send others to fight their battles and couldn’t last a day in places like Iraq, or Sudan, or the El Salvador of my youth, or any other war-torn nation.

This sounds rather like what I wrote in a column two weeks ago:

“America was founded on the principle that it is right to sacrifice blood for liberty. It is telling that the Bush defenders make precisely the opposite argument, that it is right to sacrifice liberty in order to avoid the shedding of American blood. In this they are, like the Dear Leader, avowedly anti-American.”

This cowardly conservatism is quite strange, especially given that twenty nuclear-blasted cities couldn’t destroy America, any more than a pair of them could destroy Japan. The only thing that can destroy America is if Americans permit their government to eliminate the concepts of individual freedom, the rule of law and limited government that are the essence of the nation.

As the Apostle Paul writes, we are not given a spirit of fear. Decisions predicated on fear are seldom good or right, nor do they often bring about the safety desired.

UPDATE: The good ones are going. Fred rings in the New Year from Mexico with a shot or three of tequila: Being in Mexico adds perspective, at least if you watch the great booby hatch to the north. I especially like the Warn Terr, the preferred toy of the latest Bush. Down here we read all about how the feddle gummint is keeping terrace out of the US so everyone will be safer than probably lots of them want to be. (I’d rather be in danger. Just leave me alone.)

That is the essence of the America That Was. “I’d rather be in danger. Just leave me alone.” No doubt it was safer back in 18th century England too.

One of the many Mikes wonders about the topic:

It’s amazing, an entire blog dedicated to smashing the red herring of feminism. And hundreds of comments per posts. Is there a single person here capable of discussing gender issues without once using the words “feminist,” “bitch” or “lesbian?”

There’s a few mistaken assumptions there:

1. Although “gender issues” is one of the regular themes of this blog, it’s not the only one nor even the primary one. Had you visited last August and September, you would have similarly assumed that the War in the Pacific was the sole interest. Another name for this blog could easily be “Beating Dead Horses”.

2. “Gender issues” are of great interest to a lot of people. I happen to have a few thoughts on them, although I actually spend more time thinking about the NFL and Elliott Wave patterns as they apply to certain markets. Right now, I’m particularly into the Pelopponesian War, radiosity in 3D Studio Max and the question of multiple light channels, but I doubt that these are things of interest to anyone else.

3. To dismiss what we are informed is “the most successful revolution of the 20th century” as “a red herring” is interesting. How do you justify doing that?

4. I am certainly capable of discussing the aforementioned issues sans inflammatory rhetoric and have done so in the past, but I do wonder why Mike would include the self-professed title of the most relevant movement with other nouns he presumably considers to be pejorative. Would he likewise hope to discuss economic issues without mentioning Marxists, Keynesians, monetarists or Austrians? How very peculiar!

Pretty Lady has a good start with the felines:

My dear cat Barnacle finds this whole dialogue simply enchanting. He is obviously more intelligent than I, because I cannot follow it at all. It looks to me as though the male personae simply do not like the women; can this be true? Why ever not?

The evidence does suggest the possibility that dear Barnacle might have a paw up in the grammatical department. It’s quite true, however, that there are a few male regulars here who don’t have much use for women; in addition to the embittered and clamorous few who inevitably sound off on these subjects there are the Queer Party Friends who find women to be entirely extraneous.

I’m not opposed to women as such, merely those who provide the fuel for the equalitarian and socialist fires. Unfortunately, this happens to be a majority in latter-day America, which is why women’s suffrage is the most damaging aspect of the disaster that is universal suffrage. I don’t fear a matriarchy, for that will never happen, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that an Amazonian Guard of national figureheads is being assembled in order to provide a biddable cadre of globalist lieutenants. Women are more suitable than men in this role, since the only men capable of being controlled as easily are not sufficiently intelligent to be particularly useful. This is why I expect Hillary Clinton to be the next president, although Condoleeza Rice would probably be just as suitable.

Kim, meanwhile, needs to brush up both her definitions and history:

So somehow all femininsts want the same thing, think the same way and are the root of the downfall of western civilization (even though men let them…but that just means men are NICE and not weak or anything) and even when it’s the mens fault, it really isn’t. And she totally misses where having the ability to speak out, write books and raise her children how she wants not only makes her a feminist, she got where she is because of feminists

If one ignores the useless definitions of feminism – “a feminist is someone who believes women are human beings” is about as broad and as relevant as defining a feminist as “oxygen-breathing” – then yes, feminists do want the same thing, (security, socialism and no personal responsibility for women), they all think the same way (sans logic, a basic understanding of history and an awareness of probable consequences), and while they are not the root, they are the fertilizer of the downfall of western civilization.

Seriously, if you accept the concept that the West is in decline – and you can certainly argue against that, but that’s another discussion – then what candidates besides feminism would you suggest? That’s not a rhetorical question, I invite Kim, Kathleen, Pretty Lady or anyone else to suggest their candidates.

As it is apparent to all that women were demonstrably speaking, writing books and raising children long before the first feminists realized that they were unappealing to men, I shall spare Kim the embarrassment of exploring the depths of silliness inadvertantly revealed by her last statement.

Mike harbors prurient interest:

1) Was that one hot?
2) Did you help dispell the false notion folks were getting of her?

1) Not even a little bit.
2) Not even a little bit.

I wasn’t trying to be mysterious and most of them were pretty obvious, but since a few of them apparently escaped people, I suppose I might as well explain them here. The wording is Nostradamus’s, I merely switched a few words around to suit my meanings.

Where the litters are overturned by the whirlwind
and fingers are stained in porphyry
the olde republic will be troubled by its people.
At this time the elephant will rule wrongly.

Post-electoral Iraq. There will be no problems that the Bush administration can’t make worse. Opposition to the Afghani-Iraqi occupations and the entire Middle East adventure will crescendo when the notion of hitting Iran is openly bruited about, until the next event turns things around.

Soldiers drawn away for a far distant fight.
The borderlands will be most grievously troubled.
South and west will know a greater struggle.
The men of the moment will have their hearts tried.

The open southern border of the US will lead to trouble, most likely in California.

The jaws of the Lion will be forsaken,
when the waters no more suffice
Charlemagne’s sons will have made a constitution
in Nice and Maastricht, a revenant time cannot kill

France and Germany continue to lead the U.K. by the nose into an ever-closer and increasingly fatal embrace by the European Union. The twice-rejected EU constitution will be put in place, voters be damned.

Arrived too late, the act has been done.
The wind was against them, letters intercepted on their way.
The conspirators were nine of a party.
By Caesar the Younger shall these enterprises be undertaken.

Echelon and the Bush administration’s spying on Americans will be defended by the Supreme Court, should it ever get that far. Most likely, they’ll do so by refusing to hear a challenge against it.

Through anger and internal hatreds, the greedy
will hatch a great plot against the empty throne.
Secretly they will place enemies as a threat,
and will find sedition against his old adherents

Loyalty to the old, kingless republic – the Constitution – will be seen as treason by those who support Georgicus Rex because, after all, We Are At War.

From the enslaved populace, songs, chants and demands,
while Hawks and Eagles are alike captive in prisons.
These will in the future by headless idiots
be received as divine prayers.

Jailed jihadists (desert hawks) will eventually be joined in prison by patriots loyal to the aforementioned empty throne. The sheep will bleat and the stinking shepherds who sit where they should not will think themselves well-loved gods. Nothing new under the sun….

Because of French discord and negligence
an opening shall be given to the Mohammedans.
The land of proud De Gaulle will be soaked in blood,
and the faces of the fair covered with shame and veils.

And so ends the French experiment with equalitarianism, no better than the French experiment with egalitarianism.

In the third month, at sunrise,
the Boar and the Leopard meet on the battlefield.
The fatigued Leopard looks up to heaven
and sees an Eagle flying too high near the sun.

The next UN-ordered war will be Iran. Boar = bore = UN. Leopard = Iran. This will only add to the increasingly risky American imperial overstretch.

The great Orso which I sense approaching
will often turn (in various areas) then become worldwide.
It will grow so vast and terrible that it will tear
roots from the trees and children from the breast.

Not a good year for stocks.

The nearest son of the sterling will attain
A return to glory in the realm of the privileged:
Everyone will fear his fierce glory,
But he will burn out like a star breathing its last.

The dollar bounce continues this year, peaks and heads south again.

Pebble Chaser learns a valuable lesson:

We were engaging in a heated discussion of sorts. I was heated, he was irritated that he couldn’t just continue with his work. At the vital climactic moment of the argument, I shrilly rebuked him for not listening and for saying he didn’t respect my opinions or my perspective. Two fairly significant hot buttons with me. I continued to rant and rave, building my case in typical female fashion. I pulled out the mental filing cabinet and rehashed all the evidence necessary to support my cause. When I finally looked up at him, with tears in my eyes no less, I was amazed to see a complete look of incredulity on his face…..

I gasped. Stopped for a second. Started laughing. “You mean I made that up?”

“Um, yeah. You did.”

Talk about embarrassing. Exposed as a typical female!

Hey, it happens. Everyone has times when emotional momentum overrides one’s reason, what tends to be difficult for men to understand – and deal with – is how some women’s emotions can turn into a vicious feedback loop. If the system came with some sort of circuit break, I suspect everyone would be a lot happier.

I found it very amusing that a recent study indicated that distracting yourself and otherwise repressing your emotions may not only make you feel better, but might be healthier for you than talking about it. Most people talk about themselves and their feelings too much anyhow, so I’ve never understood how encouraging narcissism is supposed to benefit anyone but the psychiatrist and his bank account.

An interview with Kate O’Beirne on NRO:

Lopez: What’s the worst thing that women who make the world worse do?

O’Beirne: They put us at war with the men in our lives, the fathers, husbands, and sons who love and support us. Because men don’t like arguing with women and naively assumed that if they gave feminists what they wanted they would be left alone, the allegedly fierce patriarchy collapsed in the face of the feminist assault. The moral intimidation feminists inflict on men means that other women have to take on the modern, destructive women’s movement. In the pages of my book you will meet some of the smart, admirable women who take on the feminists. The feminist message is crippling to our daughters, but we mothers of sons in particular have to defend our offspring. We are not raising unindicted co-conspirators in the gender wars!

Feminists are right in one regard. It is men’s fault that women have been allowed to cripple the West, murder millions of children and reduce the wage rate. The answer to feminists and feminism is not to be a polite little pussy and hope they’ll leave you alone, it’s to smack down every fem-bitch that is foolish enough to confront you, however passive-aggressively. Especially the passive-aggressive ones.

Feminists are weak and they know it. I have seen them literally shake and heard their voices quiver – some practically wet themselves – when forced to deal with an alpha male who isn’t fazed by female verbal facility. The only way they can win is through manipulation or by appealing to the situational daddy, so any man who finds himself oppressed absolutely deserves what he gets. If you’re in a corporation that has been taken over by the left-lunatic women in HR, then leave. Abandon those IT jobs and middle-management dead-ends to the affirmative-action women to run as best they can. Be a man and start your own company, or at least find a job where you can speak and breathe freely.

And whatever you do, stop covering for them. If a woman tries to manipulate you into doing her job for her, smile nicely, make the appropriate apologies and let her twist in the wind. Competent women never pull that sort of nonsense, so look at it as an opportunity to help the company rid itself of a useless appendage. A nice guy is nothing but a tool to women; they don’t respect doormats who will do whatever they want and one of the great ironies is how women only want men who they cannot boss around. Don’t fall for the oldest trick in the book.

The nice thing about confronting feminists in this manner is that it almost invariably inspires them to expose their inherent totalitarianism to everyone present, including themselves. So, really, you’re doing them a favor by helping them learn more about their sociopathic heads, themselves. It’s a win-win.

Vikings fire Tice
Owner announces decision just after win over Bears

Huzzah. A year late is better than never. And by the way, I can’t even tell you how much I love Flutie’s drop kick. That is the ultimate in old skool cool.