America was built on a belief in God, and there’s just no way to deny that fact – Matt Walsh Ironically, I’ve never agreed more with this sentiment, but only after reading “How Dawkins Got Pwnt” – Mencius Moldbug
Feminism is not about a war on women; feminism is a war OF women. Womano-a-womano. All that bleating about equality and judgmentalism and slut shaming and the patriarchy is just the squid ink ugly broads expectorate to give them a fighting chance in the all-against-all, zero-sum competition for mates.
Feminists will lose, of course. The sexual market cares nothing for sophistry. In the final analysis, only the boner and the tingle matter.
Time: Chinese Woman Says Calling Amy Chua Racist is Racist – Steve Sailor: Political Correctness is becoming the Mobius Strip it was destined to become; once the “privileged” start fighting back, no one will be allowed to have any opinions whatsoever
“Sexual attraction may be innate, but it’s not universal. See asexual, people who identify as.”
Do you really think the occasional fluke has a whole lot to say about mass armies? If so, why?
How people act on sexual attraction is learned behaviour.
Only in minor details. The love, lust, favoritism, demoralization, and de facto prostitution are fairly universal within any armed force that sees integrated sexes or integrated sexually compatible people unless extraordinary structural provisions are made. Those structural provision include segregation. Here’s an interesting quote from very liberal, very politically correct Canada’s PPCLI battle school: “Male/female attraction will not go away because we tell it to; and soldiers will court considerable risk to pursue the obvious.” – Tom Kratman
Tom’s response is brilliant because it highlights the essential inhumanity of Pink SF. If great fiction speaks to the human condition, the great flaw of Pink SF is that it specifically and overtly rejects the human elements of the human condition. – Vox
Irate Wellesley Feminists vs Annoying Po-Mo Plop Artist – Steve Sailor A much more thorough version of my Juxtaposition: Public Sexual Imagery
Feminism is not an idea or a collection of ideas but a collection of appetites wriggling queasily together like a bag of snakes. Feminism has nothing to do with the proposition that women should be considered whole and complete members of the body politic, though it has enjoyed great success marketing itself that way. (Virginia I. Postrel recently denounced me as a “creep” for suggesting that the substance of feminism, if indeed there is any, differs rather radically from its advertising campaigns.) A useful definition is this: “Feminism is the words ‘I Want!’ in the mouths of three or more women, provided they’re the right kind of women.” Feminism must therefore accommodate wildly incompatible propositions — e.g., (1) Women unquestionably belong alongside men in Marine units fighting pitched battles in Tora Bora but (2) really should not be expected to be able to perform three chin-ups. Or: (1) Women at Columbia are empowered by pornography but (2) women at Wellesley are victimized by a statue of a man sleepwalking in his Shenanigans. And then there is Fluke’s Law: (1) Women are responsible moral agents with full sexual and economic autonomy who (2) must be given an allowance, like children, when it comes to contraceptives.
Feminism began as a simple grievance, mutated into a kind of conspiracy theory (with “patriarchy” filling in for the Jews/Freemasons/Illuminati/Bohemian Grove/reptilian shape-shifters/the fiendish plot of Dr. Fu Manchu/etc.), spent the 1980s in grad school congealing into a ridiculous jargon, and with the booming economy of the 1990s was once again reinvented, this time as a career path.
Kevin Williamson notes contradictions like a champ, and his “collection of appetites,” is pretty much what I was getting at with “a politic of avarice.”
Transgender Candidate to Challenge Gay Senator in Maryland – CBS Washington Fortunately no matter who wins and who loses, there can’t be any discrimination lawsuits. I think.