Tag: women

Oh, relax and enjoy it, Kate

One of the things I find remarkable is the readiness of outspoken feminist women to crucify themselves with their own words. It’s as if they have absolutely no conception of the logical consequences of their ideas, and despite their confrontational tone, they appear to have no expectation that their position can or will be criticized.

Consider the following excerpts from the linked cartoon, which features a retarded form of Socratic dialogue between a cartoon figure and an even more cartoonish version of anti-feminist arguments.

It’s not fair that I have to be terrified when I go jogging after 6 PM or when I’m on the bus or going to get milk.

Then don’t go out alone at night. That’s common sense.

That’s rape culture! When you tell me it’s my responsibility not to get hurt, you take away the responsibility of a human being not to rape!

Why are we even talking about this? I’m not a rapist.

Because it gets really fucking exhausting trying to believe in a future where I’m not treated like a crazy person for believing in equality!

First of all, Kate being terrified of rape when she goes to get milk is her problem. Some women are terrified of bats, others are afraid of heights, and those fears are no more your problem or my problem than Kate’s terror of rape on the milk run. It is very, very easy for Kate to significantly reduce her chances of being raped, as getting a concealed carry permit and avoiding the company of black and Hispanic men will virtually eliminate the possibility that she will be forcibly raped. Even without taking any such defensive measures, the national rate of forcible rape is only 24.7 per 100,000 population, one-third lower than it was in 1990. This means that in a population of 308 million, Kate’s chances of being raped in any given year are less than one in 12,000 and declining. This cannot be reasonably described as a “rape culture”.

If Kate genuinely lives in constant terror of a one in 12,000 risk, she is delusional and may be clinically paranoid. And this doesn’t even begin to take into account that unless a woman is raped at home by someone breaking into her residence, it is very difficult for a woman to get raped without her not only contributing to the situation, but contributing significantly to it. And yes, in such situations, that does make the victim at least partially culpable from a legal perspective. If you don’t understand that, try looking at it this way. If insurance companies sold rape insurance, are there any behaviors that would conceivably increase or decrease the premium?

Furthermore, Kate is quite obviously crazy. If she had said “it gets really fucking exhausting trying to believe in a future where I’m not treated like a crazy person for believing in rainbow-tailed unicorns”, everyone would quite correctly conclude that she is a lunatic. But there is no more evidence for equality than there is for rainbow-tailed unicorns. Human equality simply doesn’t exist and it has never existed. As I have pointed out before, both logic and genetic science demonstrate that human beings are not even all equally human. Her lunacy is further evidenced by her bizarre attempt to justify her broaching the topic with the non-rapist by an appeal to her own exhaustion. That does not follow. Moreover, it is apparent that Kate, by her own admission, doesn’t actually believe in equality anyway. Consider her final rant:

So fuck ANYONE who thinks they have the right to tell me not to care! FUCK THEM! I do care. I will always care.

Here Kate is expressly denying that others have the right to free speech, which is not only encoded into various legal systems but also happens to observably exist in a material manner, while simultaneously asserting the legitimacy of her attempt to believe in a future that is not only nonexistent, but improbable to the point of near impossibility. From which we are forced to conclude that she’s not only crazy, she’s outrageously stupid to boot.

The fundamentally nonsensical thing about her position is that she wants others to do what she will not. If she can’t be bothered to put any effort into defending herself against rape, why should anyone else? If it’s not her responsibility to act on something about which she professes to care so deeply, how could it possibly be mine, or anyone else’s, when we do not care in the slightest about her feelings or her fate.

Kate declares her opinion that angry posturing on behalf of nonexistent female rights is “hot as hell”. Which is fine, I suppose, so long as she is hoping to attract angry, rancid feminist women. But it certainly isn’t going to be attractive to men who have access to better options, such as Internet porn or voluntary chastity.

For further amusement, I highly recommend the emotional posturing in which various Pharyngulans are engaging as they attempt to demonstrate which one of them is the anti-rapiest of all. Apparently the winner will be awarded a tiara carved from the horn of a pink unicorn by PZ Myers himself. This was one of the finer examples of the intellectual fireworks on display:

I can’t think of one, even one, precaution that a woman (or man) can take that actually has a good chance of preventing rape that would also be considered “reasonable” by any rational or honest individual…. And if you want to talk about “reasonable” precautions, I think, the first burden on you is to describe your proposed precaution and demonstrate that it actually works to prevent rape.

This total inability of humanity to prevent any rape no doubt explains why rape rates never change over time and do not vary from one nation to another. It is a very strange belief system indeed where human action can modify the global climate, but rape is random, inevitable, and completely immune to human action. Of course, it would be deplorably raciss to notice that a 31 percent increase in the number of incarcerated black men, mostly for harmless drug charges, has corresponded with the 33 percent decline in forcible rapes per 100,000, from 41.2 in 1990 to 27.5 in 2010.

Feminism is failure

Female careers are a fallback plan:

Forget ambition, financial security and that first-class degree. A controversial study has concluded that the real reason women pursue careers is because they fear they are too unattractive to get married. The research team, made up of three women and two men, said that when men are thin on the ground, ‘women are more likely to choose briefcase over baby’.

And the plainer a woman is, they claim, the more she is driven to succeed in the workplace.

It’s long been observed that the uglier a woman is, the more likely she is to be a feminist. And it was always logical, too, that women who couldn’t compete with other women in the traditional manner would seek to change the rules of the game. But now there is some scientific evidence supporting both the logic and the observation, and it could be very useful in helping counteract the feminist propaganda that inundates young women from the time they are girls, encouraging them to waste their youth and fertility in chasing careers rather than families.

The message is a simple and straighforward one: feminism is for female losers in the game of Life.

“Never worked a day in her life”

James Taranto correctly excoriates the feminist philosophy that served as the foundation for Hilary Rosen’s epically stupid attack on Ann Romney:

In truth, anti-momism was the very heart of “The Feminine Mystique.” Friedan’s argument was that motherhood and homemaking were soul-deadening occupations and that pursuing a professional career was the way for a woman to “become complete.” She agreed with the midcentury misogynists that a stay-at-home mother was, in Friedan’s words, “castrative to her husband and sons.” But she emphasized that women were “fellow victims.”

The book might as well have been titled “Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man?” Today, of course, she can, and because feminism has entailed a diminution of male responsibility, she often has no choice. As we’ve noted, an increasing number of women are choosing domestic life, finding it a liberating alternative to working for a boss. But to do so requires a husband with considerable means.

Fifty years ago, Ann Romney’s life would have made her just a regular woman. Today, she is a countercultural figure–someone who lives in a way that the dominant culture regards with a hostile disdain. And she has chosen to live that way, which is why Hilary Rosen, as an intellectual heiress to Betty Friedan, regards her as a villain rather than a victim.

Taranto also points out something that I consider vital. He effectively draws the distinction between Romney’s accomplishments and Rosen’s: “Raising children is a lot of work, and we’d venture to say it’s more valuable work than, say, lobbying for the music industry or helping BP with its crisis communications, to name two of the highlights of Rosen’s career.”

I’ll go even farther. Bearing and raising children is far more important than anything any working woman has ever done in her professional career in the entire history of Mankind. The silly, short-sighted, white trash teen mothers on MTV are contributing more to the human race than the most intelligent, highly educated, and accomplished women have ever done for it.

If a woman wants to devote sixteen or more years of her life to “education”, then follow it up by sitting in a cubicle and transferring information from point A to point B, that’s her legal right. But it’s not doing anything for the human race, and indeed, considering the economically negative effects of the government agencies and human resources departments where women are inordinately employed, economic irrelevance is probably the best case scenario.

Linda Hirschman once claimed: ““The tasks of housekeeping and child-rearing are not worthy of the full time and talents of intelligent and educated human beings.”

But she had it wrong. She had it completely backwards, because there is absolutely nothing a woman, however educated and intelligent, can do that is more important or more vital than raising children. And while home-making not the physical equivalent of working in a coal mine, it is at least as laborious as most white collar employment. I have no affection for Captain Underoos and if he wins in November I think he will probably be even worse than Obama has been. But it is as evil as it is stupid to attack his wife for doing the one thing that the human race absolutely requires for its survival.

Mailvox: a near-first

Oregon Mouse complains:

My husband used to live in Colorado. He took his family out for a small hike and a rock tumbled down out of nowhere and hit his 9 year old on the head. It knocked her out cold but perhaps feminism is the real culprit? How dare a 9 year old girl walk around outside!!

What a remarkable near-accomplishment! And at an even younger age than the famous Grand Canyon hiker! Do send us the link to the international newspaper accounts of her deed!

Hultgreen-Curie claims another victim

The lethality of Hultgreen-Curie Syndrome is demonstrated once again:

She was just 80 miles short of becoming the youngest person in history to hike the Grand Canyon from end to end when tragedy struck, a loose rock some believe, tumbling her 300 feet below. Beautiful, smart, active and young as a newlywed at 24 years old, friends of Ioana Hociota say she was an experienced hiker, one of the best, but died last month because of one possible misstep.

‘It’s tempting for people to think that a pretty, beautiful young woman of 24 might have been out there, you know, out of her element and out of her head,’ her husband Andrew Holycross told ABC, ‘and she absolutely was not.’

Sure she wasn’t. She actually managed to get herself killed while walking outside, but we’re supposed to believe she was totally in control of the situation throughout. The grieving widower sounds rather like a PR guy for the Navy explaining why one of their heroic and pioneering pilots landed her jet in the ocean rather than on the carrier.

WND column

Slutgate and Society

Peggy Noonan complains about the coarsening of societal discourse, and in particular, the publicly demeaning and diminishing of women based on the fact that they are women, in her article titled “America’s Real War on Women.” As one would expect of yet another article about the difficulty of women’s lives written by a woman, it is long on emotion and short on logic. But it is also more than a little amusing. Noonan’s theory, you see, is that the Internet is to blame. Curse those inanimate objects and their iniquitous ways!

By the way, I should note that in addition to modifying the name of the column and changing the link to Roissy’s site, WND also edited the last sentence of the column. I have no objection to them doing so; their site, their call. That being said, here is the real final sentence:

What Peggy Noonan does not realize is that whereas men once assumed that a woman was a lady until proven otherwise, increasing numbers of them now quite reasonably assume that women are shallow and superficial sluts until they are provided with credible evidence to the contrary.

She sounds lovely!

Roissy posted this, complete with some excellent commentary, and as the guy who sent it to him suggested, it really merits going viral. It should be subtitled “I’m throwing in the towel“.

So this is it–I’m not looking, I honestly don’t care if I meet anyone on here anymore–and this is what I’ve learned about the men that I have had interactions on here with a little parting advice.

If you are over 40 and you do not take care of yourself, unless you truly don’t care that a woman is dating you for your money, then maybe a better site for you is sugarbaby.com

Those of us that are of a certain age and reasonably successful on here are on here, want to meet someone reasonable–intelligent, successful, happy, that we’re attracted to physically and emotionally, not because we’re desperate, but usually because we’re too busy to date, or we do not wish to date through our work. We have businesses to run, we travel frequently, or we be on here because our friends and family are bugging us about being single and this is way to get them off our backs. What that means is–
1. We are not desperate–we do not need you to have a fulfilling life.
2. We are busy people–just like you–and we mean what we say, and say what we mean because we don’t have time to play silly word games or have drama like 20 somethings.
3. The silly little texting games are the fastest way to blow it. If we give you permission to call–then call–don’t text to see if its ok to call–we have a life–random texts from people we don’t know don’t cut it if we haven’t met you.
4. If we ask you not to contact us further–then don’t–unless you want to appear as a crazy person.
5. If we call you on the above..we’re not crazy, or scary..we just don’t have time to waste on people who don’t get it. We deal enough with that in our work.
6. Life gets shorter for us every day–we have no time or desire for drama, games or people who do not have their act together.
7. If we reject you after you have done any of the above, put your big boy pants on and move on.
8. We are not angry–we know what we want–we know what we’re willing to put up with. With age, the list of what we want gets a little longer, while the list of what we’re willing to put up with gets infinitely smaller because we have learned from our youth.

I don’t think this woman understands that any man with half a brain not only prefers younger, hotter women to the likes of her, but she is such a nasty piece of work, rotting from the inside out from all of her bitterness and barren professional ambition, that only the most masochistic of gamma males would ever want anything to do with her.

Some women are astonished by the fact that I repeatedly assert that men actively dislike intelligent, successful, educated women. What, I ask them, sounds even REMOTELY attractive about this woman and her poisonous attitude. I wouldn’t want to spend five minutes with her, let alone an entire evening.

And here is a little nota bene for women. “Busy” doesn’t impress men. I don’t quite understand what women think they’re conveying by resorting to the term as they do – I suspect it’s supposed to be a display of high value – but when a woman says “busy”, men hear “bitch”.

The subtle sexism of white knights

Dr. Helen has some advice for men concerning the equalitarian’s new discovery of “benevolent sexism”:

I hear women constantly complaining that men aren’t gentlemanly or don’t want much to do with them anymore. But with the stakes so high, who can blame them?

Guys, my advice? At work, avoid any woman who looks your way. If you must engage, use few words and whatever you do, don’t try to help or compliment her. Men are already wary to work with women or be around women for fear of being called a pervert, charged with sexual discrimination, or worse. Now, subtle sexism is here. Who has the time to figure it out? It’s no wonder many men prefer porn.

The solution is pretty simple. If it’s not your job, it’s not your concern. And when you’re approached by a female co-worker who flashes that sweetly helpless smile before making an appeal to your strong manly competence, don’t fall for it. Just return the smile and say “I’m sorry, I can’t help you with that.” And repeat it, with a smile, until she stops wheedling and trying to get you to do her work for her.

No one who claims he can swim has any call to complain when you fold your arms and watch him sink. The same holds true for women.

The cure for Curie-Hultgreen Syndrome

It’s a little tempting to point and laugh, but really, Miss Stewart should be commended for her good sense:

Britain’s first female Red Arrows pilot is to move to a ground role after two of her flying colleagues were killed in separate tragedies. Flight Lieutenant Kirsty Stewart, 33, is to be reassigned after the ‘tragic events’ of 2011 had an ‘adverse effect’ on her, a defence source said….

A defence source said: ‘Not many people outside of the Red Arrows will understand the pressure and busy schedule that the team endure through a normal season. These factors have been exacerbated by the tragic events of 2011. This has had an adverse effect on Kirsty and has resulted in the Royal Air Force deciding that it would be more appropriate for the individual and the service if Kirsty is reassigned.’

Her superiors should be commended too, for reassigning the young woman before she crashes, burns, and ends up another pointless human sacrifice on the altar of female equality.

Mailvox: convinced by the consequences

No doubt many readers will be amused by the eventual outcome of YM’s experience in attempting to discuss a basic political principle with his mother:

My father arrived home from a business trip last night. Upon hearing what happened, he ungrounded me, and suggested to my mother that punishing a child for thought crime would only drive him further into misogyny. Then he took me aside and said “While you may be right about Santa Claus being not being real, you have to accept that a 6-year old will throw a tantrum at you when you tell him that.”

The funny thing is, I never actually told her women shouldn’t vote, only that it was an interesting idea, yet she still reacted like a child. Given my mother’s irrational response, I am now firmly on your side. I had seen this sort of behavior before, but mostly from younger, feminist women. I never thought in a million years that my evangelical, allegedly traditionalist mother would act the same way. You are right about learning a valuable lesson on women.

Ironic, and yet hardly surprising. YM is not only fortunate in having a strong male father in his life, but he is aware of it. Notice too that he didn’t react with outrage to his unfair and absurd grounding, but simply waited calmly for his father to rectify the situation. This is the way things are supposed to be.

As I have pointed out many times before, those who are capable of intellectually defending their position will do so calmly. Those who can’t always try to shut down the conversation one way or another. While the pro-suffrage side did have some effective hypothetical arguments in the early part of the 20th century, the subsequent 90 years of negative consequences have sufficed to destroy them utterly.

It’s interesting to note how female solipsism can trump a mother’s instinct to defend her son, which nevertheless is capable of detaching a woman from Team Woman at times.