Tear Up The Contract

The entertainer John Mayer, ironically a well-known serial womanizer, responded to the Kavanaugh hearings and #MeToo by saying we should tear up the social contract between men and women and replace it with a new one in which men were expected to behave better. I agree with him as far as he goes, but not out of male guilt. We need to tear up the contract and renegotiate a whole slew of things between men and women. After recently learning of the female supremacist views of powerful Democratic women like Senator Mazie Hirono, I think everything up to the Nineteenth Amendment needs to be on the table.

What is at stake for society is whether we achieve the purported feminist goal of equality or whether the third-wave backlash wins and women are stuck in (and men stuck with) limbo—where women are legally equal adults to men, but “special needs children” in most other respects. Feminist women of the 1970s were tougher, more equality-minded and probably closer to the overall equality goal. Today’s third-wave feminist victims think they can have their cake and eat it too, as if “equality” could be made into a safe “equitable” space where all disparities that favor men are eliminated but those that favor women persist. That is impossible, and their continued delusion is untenable for our society.

Because the one-sidedness of feminism (literally “pro-woman”) is at odds with the stated goal of equality, there has never been a real negotiation of what equality is. There has only been demand on one side and acquiescence on the other. This has actually resulted in many double standards being enforced and great harm to society. But real equality is equality, not just whatever women decide they want.

Feminists have portrayed history falsely. Women were not legally treated as property pre-feminism, they were treated as children. Continue reading “Tear Up The Contract”

Recovering Feminist

I got hooked in the usual way. I truly like women as people and see them as equal, and as a college student I was deluded into thinking there was some value in feminism because of its institutional power in academia. I was open-minded enough to accept their “critique” of men and society as a valid viewpoint, although I disagreed with some. And I was fine with losing “privilege” and power for the cause. Neither was really a loss since I had never felt I had any rights or privileges over women.

Being open-minded, however, it took me a long time to realize that there is nothing wrong with feeling disgust when you are confronted by certain kinds of criticism. If people say they oppose group hatred and prejudice but are libeling and shaming you for being the person you were born as, or if people are holding you to impossible standards of behavior but accept no standards for their own, you should feel disgusted. These people are delusional or hypocrites at best.  They are pure evil, akin to some of the worst actors in history, at worst.


You should be disgusted by the people who reflexively hate you because of their own baggage, and you should avoid the trap of searching through their criticism for validity. There is no validity in “the patriarchy” or “manspreading” or “rape culture.” These are hateful distortions authored by shitty people who don’t understand society, history or human interaction.

Continue reading “Recovering Feminist”

Grievance “Scholarship”

“The law of gravity is nonsense. No such law exists. If I think I float, and you think I float, then it happens.”

—O’Brien, talking to Winston Smith in 1984

Grievance scholarship is ideologically focused scholarship, not legitimate inquiry into topics like race or gender. In that sense, grievance studies are no different than university study under a totalitarian regime like Naziism or Stalinism. Or Big Brother. The point of inquiry is not increased knowledge, it is to advance the ideology. It is propaganda to advance the Big Lie. Grievance studies professors are not so much liberal arts scholars but missionaries: they do not exist to investigate the world but to change it.

The Big Lies around which all grievance studies are organized is the theory of intersectional group oppression and its solution—“equity.” They are just-so stories appropriated from Marxist theory that contain a kernel of truth, but also massive, fatal flaws. The theory’s essential purpose is to justify the ressentiment (in the Nietzschean sense) of the theorizers. You can tell this by simple reasoning: “Hate” in itself is not a societal problem for grievance theory. Only the supposed hate of men for women or whites for blacks is a problem for society. The very real hatred of (some) women for men and (some) blacks for whites is never an issue. Continue reading “Grievance “Scholarship””

Weekend Wrap-Up 10/13/18

In case you missed it this week…

  • Apparently not as many people support the “progressive” PC culture as we have been led to believe.
  • Amazon reportedly killed an AI recruitment tool because it couldn’t stop it from discriminating against women. Apparently the biases were “in the data.”
  • If you make more than $32,400 per year, you are in the top 1% of the highest incomes in the world.

Hate of the Week

  • The Cult has officially pronounced Kanye West a heretic.  After Kanye’s pro-Trump Saturday Night Live outburst, host Don Lemon laughed while a panel of black CNN analysts called him “a token,” “unintelligent,” mentally ill and “what happens when Negroes don’t read.” Personal attacks are a cult symptom, people.
    After West met with Trump on Thursday, Lemon doubled down calling it a “Minstrel Show.” Ugly.

LOLZ of the Week

  • “Hosing human waste off pavement reminds one leftist of hoses used against civil-right activists. A councilman in Seattle is reportedly opposed to hosing sidewalks that reek of excrement near a local courthouse because he fears that it might be racially insensitive. No, this is not a joke.”
Have a great weekend!

Who Are The Real Fascists?

fascism 
noun
fas·cism | \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Definition of fascism 
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

The people who think Donald Trump is a fascist generally do not know what they are talking about, because they cannot define fascism.  They tend to accuse Trump of racism and then conflate racism and fascism. Alternatively, they call Trump a dictator and then conflate that with fascism. There is slim evidence he is either racist or dictatorial, and in any case, there is more to fascism than those two factors.

On the other hand, no one suspects the Regressive Left of being fascist because fascism has historically been considered a right-wing phenomenon, a perception reinforced by leftist rhetoric. Is this a false perspective? Are there possibly stealth fascists lurking on the Left?

Continue reading “Who Are The Real Fascists?”

The Empress Has No Clothes

The Brett Kavanaugh hearings were devastating in terms of exposing the Cult of Intersectional Oppression (CIO), especially its feminist faction, the Our Lady of Perpetual Martyrdom Cadre, and their meltdown is epic. This is a moment in history when Democrats, especially their “progressives,” have shown us who they really are.

Do any Democrats really think their handling of this episode was good for the Party? Feminism? Women?

For Democrats the key objectives seem to have been to derail the nomination and whip up their base for the midterms. Clearly the first objective was not met. As for the second we have to wait and see, but there are some early signs.

The Democrats now have a new issue for November—investigation and impeachment of Kavanaugh—but they also handed their opponents several issues. Continue reading “The Empress Has No Clothes”