Archive for January, 2008

Die Männlichkeit

January 22, 2008

Today’s email delivered two troubling articles to me:

In Search of the Real Man: Who is really on top in Germany?


Changing Attitudes Ring Death Knell for the German Macho

So on the one hand, German men are becoming steadily emasculated. On the other hand, Germany currently harbors more terrorist cells than any other European country. You don’t suppose there could be a connection, do you? Maybe German men with a moral sense are too pussywhipped to face terrorists, and German men who still have their Nüsse have no place they can go to act like men except terrorist cells. This is something that doesn’t seem to have occurred to feminists of either sex: when you rob men of all moral, constructive ways of being men, a lot of them will resort to immoral, destructive ways rather than live like eunuchs.

The first article discusses a book which sounds like I’d very much like to read it, but unfortunately, I don’t speak German: “Entitled ‘Echte Männer – Ein Leben im verborgenen’ (Real Men – A Secret Life), the book highlights the sad lot of the free-thinking German man, driven into darkness and despair at the hands of independently-minded women. While it doesn’t pretend to be profound, the book does raise some issues about the male German psyche. Do men, for example, really harbor a desire to be captain of the domestic ship on which their first mate wives and girlfriends are to follow orders with a sweet salute?” Perish the thought!

There’s some of the usual bullshit – or perhaps it would be more appropriate to call it “oxshit” – about how men who want to be the leaders in their families are secretly horribly insecure behind their “macho facades”. Where does this theory come from? There is no supporting evidence except in fiction written by feminists and manginas. The article also claims that men who have abdicated the responsibilities of manhood are the happiest. “Rather than a crisis-inducer, both he and Lohsa see gender equality as a great opportunity for modern men to shrug off some of the responsibilities they have been carting around with them since their dawning day — the pressures of being the sole breadwinner, for example.” They actually spelled it out here – a chance to escape from responsibility is a “great opportunity”.

In spite of themselves we must protect the ladies!"

January 17, 2008

“Nothing can be done, or if it can I don’t know what it is. No man respects and admires women more than I do, but some women have faults and the fault most commonly found is a seemingly insatiable desire to interfere in matters they do not understand. War they understand least and from it they instinctively recoil. There is danger in this situation. Women now have the vote and outnumber the men. There must be some action by the men which will bring women to realize that it is for their comfort and protection that all wars are fought. It is to the interest of women that they permit men to obtain the necessary armament. Only in this way can they be assured of the comfort and protection they need. In spite of themselves we must protect the ladies!”
~Admiral Bradley A. Fiske, 1925

Women test limits

January 17, 2008

“Women want their men to be cops, to be their fathers… to tell them what the limits are …. When they push, what they’re waiting for you to say is, ‘This is Checkpoint Charlie, don’t go any further’ …. Men in America have fallen apart. The country is gasping for breath …. And the women are angry because there are no real men anymore.”
~Mort Sahl

Why women weren’t allowed to be stockbrokers

January 17, 2008

“One can easily imagine the effect produced by several hundred women interested in stocks, being present at a panic and giving way with feminine impulsiveness to the feelings of the hour…. A bevy of dames dissolved in tears, with hair disheveled, and giving way to hysterics.”
~William Worthington Fowler, Twenty Years of Inside Life in Wall Street; or, Revelations of the Personal Experiences of a Speculator, 1880

What the heck, let’s just let everybody vote.

January 16, 2008

Lately I’ve seen a few articles about measures in various places – the U.K. and different U.S. states – advocating lowering the voting age to 16 or even 14. I understand that a few years ago, one state proposal was raised which would have allowed 12-year-olds to vote.

I am completely in favor of this. It isn’t so much that I have a high opinion of the maturity of teenagers as that I have a jaundiced opinion of that of adults. I spent most of my childhood contending with adults who were throwing temper tantrums during which they screamed, threw things, and of course physically attacked me; somehow I did not acquire a respect for the maturity and self-control of adults from these experiences. Letting teenagers vote is not going to make things any worse.

Another reason, however, is that most people consider lowering the voting age below the magic age of 18 to be utter insanity. (Remember that only a few decades ago 21 was the magic age at which people were supposed to become wise enough to cast a ballot.) In the coming decades, the world is going to see disasters by the bushel. If we lower the voting age, many people will attribute the disasters partly to this and will insist on raising it. It is to be hoped that the mania for giving the vote to any biped will eventually cause a reaction in which women as well as teenagers are relieved of this political power. Other than the horrific dhimmitude towards which we seem headed, this is our best hope of abolishing the blight of women’s suffrage.

The Top Ten Reasons to Lower the Voting Age did not offer any reason for teen suffrage I found convincing, and we can see the fallacies in these reasons by applying them to women’s suffrage:

Youth suffer under a double standard of having adult responsibilities but not rights and Youth pay taxes, live under our laws, they should have the vote.

These arguments sound good on the face of it. I mean, it’s only fair, right? But the same could have been said of women a century ago, and we have seen the result of allowing women to vote. (If you are not familiar with the results, follow the links in my “Women’s Suffrage” category.)

Politicians will represent their interests if youth can vote

Ever since women have been able to vote, politicians have represented their interests. The results: expanding government, welfare, and entitlement programs. Not to mention the weakening of our defense and an ineffectual approach to dealing with crime.

Youth have a unique perspective, they’ll never have those experiences again

Women have a unique perspective which men never have. It has led them to elect leaders who have implemented welfare programs and alimony laws which mean that women can have both children and enough money to live on without having to be loyal to any one particular male who provides these things.

Lowering the Voting Age will increase voter turnout

Is voter turnout inherently a good thing? There are many, many people currently eligible to vote who don’t bother. Some of them don’t care. Some of them haven’t bothered to become well informed about issues. Do we want them voting? Once on the news a woman was interviewed after she emerged from a voting precinct and was asked how she had voted on a referendum. She said, “I didn’t know what that was, but I voted for it!” Do we really want to encourage people to vote?

If we let stupid adults vote, why not let smart youth vote?

This argument was applied to women’s suffrage. The problem is that it is not female stupidity that makes women’s suffrage an unwise idea; indeed there are many women who are highly intelligent. It is the inescapable perspective on issues that women have to have. Women understand, at an unconscious level, that invaders will probably let them live because they will want us to cook and spread our legs for them, and this is a large part of the reason women are more likely to oppose war, even to defend civilization itself. Women understand, whether we admit it or not, that we cannot face combat ourselves, so we prefer to appease invaders or criminals rather than fight. Women know that if we are pregnant or raising small children, we will need someone else to provide for us, so the safety net of welfare looks awfully tempting. And so on. If you think that spreading your legs is a good way to respond to terrorism or military threats, if you think that stealing money from those suckers who work to provide for those who don’t is morally acceptable – that is to say, if you are a Democrat – then women’s suffrage will seem to be a good thing. If you accept the hard reality that these things destroy civilization and make life miserable for most individuals, women’s suffrage is a disaster.

Last of the Few: Sorry girls…voting is a man thing!!

January 15, 2008

Last of the Few: Sorry girls…voting is a man thing!!

If A Woman Were President

January 15, 2008

.hov:hover { margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: blue; }

If A Woman Were President

Watch Video Here

If A Woman Were President

January 15, 2008

.hov:hover { margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: blue; }

If A Woman Were President

Watch Video Here

Biology is Destiny: Why Female Teachers Can’t Cope With School Violence

January 11, 2008

Liberals are tremendously attached to the idea that we are apes, but are unwilling to face the fact that we humans still retain an awful lot of our ape programming. This is what led to the Christian concept of Original Sin and the Jewish concept that we are all born with both the urge to good and the urge to evil. And this programming is not identical for men and women, because behavior that enables a male chimp to pass his genes on might get a female chimp a new home in a saber-toothed tiger’s stomach.

Sometimes when I read about the manifestations of this ape programming I’m pretty disgusted. Here’s one, and this one reflects badly on both sexes: stepfathers (or “mother’s boyfriend”) are significantly more likely to abuse and even kill children than anyone else. This behavior is seen in plenty of other mammals as well: when new males come in and take over a territory, they kill or drive off the adult males, kill all the children, and mate with the females. The females seldom attempt to protect their young; instead they start producing new young with the new males. This behavior is seen in lions, monkeys, and humans. Appalling, yes, but if our ancestors hadn’t had this programming, they wouldn’t be our ancestors. A female who objected to this arrangement, unless she was a human female living in the very recent past, would have been killed or driven out of the tribe to fend for herself. A male who refrained from this behavior would not have reproduced. This was a matter of survival for our ancestors, both human and primate, so we really shouldn’t condemn them for it. Condemning modern humans for it, of course, is entirely appropriate.

But, you rightly protest, we’re not mere apes. Can’t we expect better from civilized humans? Of course we can, and should. The point is that the programming is still there. When I see something shiny I might have the same impulse as a gorilla to bop the guy who has it on the head and snatch it away, but unlike that gorilla, I will restrain myself. It isn’t my sterling moral character alone that makes it possible for me to let my neighbor keep his shiny things, though. Nor is the threat of going to prison the chief deterrent. The real deterrents are my conviction that taking someone else’s shiny things by force is wrong, the belief that God wouldn’t approve, and the knowledge that everyone who knows me would give me dirty looks. That is to say, philosophy, religion, and manners.

The whole point of civilization – of philosophy, religion, and manners – is to bolster us against our instinctive behavior. I’m sure I don’t have to explain how giving in to our instincts to grab, hurt others, be lazy, etc. will destroy all the benefits of civilization.

Notice that liberals are the avowed enemies of all three of these bulwarks against instinct. According to liberals, philosophy is just a conceited attempt for us humans to convince ourselves that we’re special, religion is a device for oppressing the masses, and manners are hypocrisy to keep the lower classes down. Liberals work hard to liberate themselves from everything that helps humans behave better than apes, and consequently they have no defense from their own instincts. I have joked that they are so enamoured of the theory of evolution that they are determined to demonstrate by their behavior that they are nothing more than apes.

This is why, for example, schoolteachers, almost all of whom are female and liberal, make no effort to discourage violence in the classroom. Ever since our distant ancestors grew fur, female survival has depended upon placating and currying favor with rampaging males, and that programming is still with us. A conservative woman understands in some way that seeing a violent male triggers that impulse in her, even if the violent male is six years old and can’t really hurt her; for most of human and primate history, violent males have travelled in packs, so the fact that one in particular isn’t a real threat doesn’t prevent them from triggering this instinct. Because the conservative woman understands this impulse, though she might describe it differently from the way I have, and because she has the support of philosophy, religion and manners to act against this impulse, she can stand up to that dangerous creature, a male intent on violence, and tell him to go stand in the corner until he can behave.

Almost all teachers have renounced the supports that would have made this possible, so they are left with the instinctive response of a female chimpanzee to a bunch of male chimpanzees who are running around throwing things, hooting loudly, and assaulting other chimps: to yield to them and curry favor with them. Even the companion behavior, also nearly universal in schoolteachers, of punishing girls or smaller boys foolish enough to protest to being battered by the little alpha males, also makes sense in an evolutionary context: when new men came into the village and killed all the men of the tribe, if some females objected to providing food and sex to the men who had murdered their fathers and brothers, the wrath of the conquering males could well mean several dead females. These teachers are punishing the girls who complain about being bullied by boys while letting the boys wreak havoc unchecked in an effort to defend the tribe from annihilation.

There are other examples as well. Female jurors are significantly more likely to acquit violent criminals. Only a few decades ago, most states sensibly did not permit women to serve on murder juries. Since this has changed, the degree of violent crime in America and Europe has gone from “almost none” to “off the charts”.

Dr. Louise Brizendine, in her book The Female Brain, explains that the well-known “fight or flight” response is actually primarily a male response; the female equivalent is “tend or befriend”. The fact is that women are natural appeasers: “Women are natural appeasers. When two bull moose are battling over a harem, the females simply wait until a winner emerges and them go with him. Contemporary human females seem to retain some of this generic passivity. They cannot fathom the life-or-death stakes these conflicts present to men. Deep in their hearts they know that — like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed — the victor will ultimately spare their lives. Women — and the male politicians who appeal to them — honestly believe that hostile outsiders bent on destroying our civilization can be appeased.”

There are dozens of books and hundreds of articles speculating on why Japanese schools are so much better and less dangerous than ours, but all of them carefully avoid mentioning the true reason: 80% of Japanese schoolteachers are men. As long as we leave education in the control of women, schools will remain hotbeds of violence where little if any learning takes place.

What makes humans different from apes is that we are capable of rising above our instincts. What makes civilization different from barbarism is the systems that help us to do so in large numbers. But the instincts will never go away. Communism was based on the premise that humans don’t have instincts and that all those impulses can be programmed away. It doesn’t work. The instincts have to be channelled. My desire for a shiny bauble like my neighbor’s can’t be wiped out, but it can be channelled into me working hard enough to make enough money to have a bauble of my own.

Pretty much all males have an urge to bonk each other over the head and steal each other’s women and shiny things, but I presume most of you has never clobbered another guy for an iPod, though you might have thought about it. The urges aren’t going to go away. But if you’re not a liberal, you don’t have to act on them.