Archive for March, 2008

Why women should not be policemen or vote for the politicians who control police and soldiers.

March 30, 2008

I thought I was done being a male chauvinist for the day. Then I go back to my personal LJ, and a man posted about female genital mutilation, saying that it won’t stop until soldiers from Anglophone countries force people in Third World countries to stop cutting off their daughters’ clitorides and labia. Let me put in that this man actually leans to the left and is hardly a hawkish “let’s kill all them Mohammedan terrorists” sort.

Two women promptly started telling him that “violence never works” and that “education and gentle pressure” will always be more effective at stopping atrocities. And this is the ultimate crime against women, and here alleged feminists are saying, “Don’t use force to stop this!”

Not that I’m really surprised. Western feminists, who are so ready to file lawsuits and have hysterics when a professor mentions scientific data acknowledging biological differences between the sexes, are serenely indifferent to the horrible things being done to their sisters in non-Western-civilization countries.

I suppose that if these women were police officers, and they were dispatched in response to my 911 call if I were being raped, they would stand there watching some man rape me, telling him how much they empathize with his psychological challenges and gently remarking that rape isn’t really an enlightened way to behave.

That actually is entirely possible. When I was an inmate of the schools, that is pretty much what my teachers did when my male classmates beat up and groped me, which they did routinely. (Back then it wasn’t yet fashionable to drug little boys into meekness, so instead a teacher had to stand by and watch and giggle girlishly when any of the rampaging boys glanced her way, as female teachers literally do not have the balls to make undrugged boys behave.) They usually just ignored it, sitting or standing a few feet away, watching the whole thing. If I bothered to complain about having been punched repeatedly by three or four boys, I was punished for bothering the teacher about it. If the brainless sluts we employ as “teachers” had the mental capacity for planning ahead, I would speculate that they were encouraging this sort of behavior in order to ensure the next generation of feminists, because it’s difficult for a girl to emerge from co-education, presided over by women of bad character, without a great deal of hostility towards the male of the species.

This is a tangent, but I’ve been meaning to relate this incident: the last time I was assaulted by a boy in school, I was 14, he I believe a year younger. My (female) math teacher walked right by, saw what was going on, and kept on walking without saying a word. Three other boys, friends of his, pulled my attacker off me. He was then suspended for a few days, for an assault for which an adult would have received several months at the very least, even in our corrupt feminist era. My parents, of course, were not even slightly concerned at this assault which could easily have put me in the hospital if not for those three boys who rescued me. They forgot all about it within a month.

A couple of months later, the boy came to me and apologized. His friends, he related, had explained to him that “hitting girls” wasn’t the thing. I was thinking about this incident recently, and it occurred to me that this was the age at which, despite the efforts of feminists, boys are inevitably under more male authority. This is when sports become more serious, which means male coaches; it’s when part-time jobs draw near; it’s when they’re big enough and knowledgeable enough to start taking more part in men’s activities with grown men – for instance, messing with cars; and finally, they and their friends are themselves becoming men. They can think more for themselves instead of just listening to the babbling of the dizzy dame in front of the chalkboard. A few years earlier, girls were alien creatures who were easy to beat up, now they’re suddenly potential sexual partners, and hitting them isn’t always the best way to start. (There are exceptions.)

I can still remember the surprise in that boy’s voice as he told me what his friends had said to him. No doubt this was the very first time anyone had told him that using his natural physical superiority to batter the weak was wrong; his mother and teachers had no doubt giggled and told him how cute he was when he hit girls. Likely his father wasn’t even around; certainly there were few other men in his life to teach him civilized behavior. Mothers aren’t going to teach their sons to behave; mothers know, subconsciously, that their sons represent their best chance to pass on their genes, not to mention that when their husbands die of old age they’ll need their sons to look after them (cave people didn’t have Social Security or savings accounts), so they’re going to encourage their sons to have lots of fun and dominate others any way they can. Not to mention, affection towards some other female could be a threat to the mother-son relationship, so it’s best for his mother that he regards females his own age as objects to be used and slapped around. Female teachers aren’t going to either. For one thing, they are currently taken from the absolute dregs of society, women with no brains or morals. For another, they have millions of years of evolution urging them to “tend and befriend” any rampaging male. Allowing women to teach boys is the purest insanity.

Back to female genital mutilation: this is what feminists are. When civilized men do completely harmless things, like flirting or having sex with a consenting co-ed, this is designated as “violence” and they… demand that more civilized men lock them up. When genuinely dangerous men do genuinely violent things, feminists tend and befriend them, careful not to antagonize them. If Muslims begin to invade with machine guns, the feminists who today are shrieking about “date rape” will meekly spread their legs for the invaders as women have always done. This is why women cannot be allowed to wield power in any society that wishes to survive.

In the 80’s, there was a comic book miniseries called Sisterhood of Steel. It was about an all-female Amazon society. It had existed for several generations, but its origin was related: many years ago, they were invaded and all of the men killed. As has been the custom since the first mammal ancestor poked his head out of his hole and saw that there were no more dinosaurs, they spared the women for the two main purposes women serve: cooking and sex. These particular women, however, took advantage of the first of these two tasks. Ordered to cook a feast for their conquerors, they filled it with poison, which killed them all. Left with no men, they formed an Amazon society.

Well, the first part of that story, the men being killed and the invaders claiming the territory and the females, has happened unnumerable times in human history. There is not even one instance where they acted as the “Sisterhood of Steel” did. A few may have protested; they were quickly put to death and did not pass on their defiant genes. The majority of the women, and all the ones who became ancestresses, meekly brought supper and then got on their backs. The mother of Genghis Khan himself was stolen by Genghis’s father from her first husband; she wept for the duration of the horseback ride over her dead husband, and then put him completely out of her mind.

I wish it weren’t this way. I wish there were a way for us to circumvent our genes. I wish that we didn’t have to follow such strict rules just to keep civilization functioning well enough to have a steady food supply and works of art. The evidence, however, is overwhelming: the path to civilization, like the path to righteousness, is straight and narrow.


Sex and Culture

March 30, 2008

Thanks to this thread, I learned about the book Sex and Culture by J. D. Unwin. Copies are rare and expensive, the cheapest copy I located online costing over $700, so I got a copy through interlibrary loan. (I would PDF it except that the number of pages is only slightly smaller than the number of dollars.) It does belong in the male chauvinist bibliography, however, so I just wrote a review of it. The chap who started the thread about it is looking into getting it brought back into print. Good luck to him!

Feminism and the extension of childhood

March 30, 2008

Over the past century, childhood has been artificially lengthened, as has the artificial invention known as “adolescence”, to the great detriment of young people and society in general. When adults have been forced to pretend to be children, and denied any responsibility, until years after the age at which they should have been marrying, having children, and doing jobs, can they ever attain maturity? Certainly it will be arrested, and those who insist on maturing normally as our genes require, in their teens, are trapped in an intolerable situation.

Certainly those scoundrels who would like to create a single world dictatorship are happy to extend childhood. Children are a lot easier to control than adults; give them enough candy and cartoons, and most of them won’t even notice what you’re doing to them.

But this is also another example of how the natural feminine impulses of feminists are useful to aspiring dictators. The nature of reality is such that straight women are always dependent. Despite the propaganda in various movies and TV shows, the reality is that a woman cannot provide for herself while she has prepubscent children. In addition, women do need men to protect them; if not a father or husband, then policemen and soldiers. Women have only invaded the workplace as they have by whining for some men – judges and legislators – to force other men to put up with them. Most of the neurological differences between men and women exist because the survival of a cavewoman depended on getting some caveman to let her depend on him.

So in a sense, straight women are always children. Some of you may have noticed that after menopause, many of them grow up considerably; this is because, without babies or potential babies to provide for, they don’t have as strong a dependence on others. Many women, of course, are so accustomed to the childishness nature requires of them that they never give it up, even when their hormones would allow it.

Because of this, extending childhood seems normal to straight women. Dependence on someone else to provide? Why, that’s normal! What difference does it make whether it’s a husband or a father or the government? Dependence on someone else to come in and make everyone play fair? Why, that’s normal! What difference does it make whether it’s a parent or a teacher or a husband or the court system? Straight women seldom truly grow up, that’s why they see nothing wrong with the laws and social customs we now have that extend childhood well into adulthood.

Heroic 11-year-old boy

March 26, 2008

Heroic boy’s death sparks thin-ice warning

Toronto police are warning people to stay off ice after a young boy died trying to rescue his friend from a frozen pond.

“Parents should be telling their children to stay away from ice,” said Const. Gary Gibson is with the Toronto police marine unit. “The only safe ice is ice in a rink.”

The 11-year-old boy died in hospital Sunday night after he tried to pull his 15-year-old friend from a pond in north Scarborough. His friend was in critical condition Monday. Family members requested the boys’ names not be released.

They talk like this is a surprise.

March 26, 2008

Female chimpanzees ‘sell’ sex for fruit

Female chimpanzees are “selling” sex to the males that gather the most fruit, according to new research.

Behavioural psychologists found that female chimps mate with the males that give them the most fruit, while male chimps steal “desirable” fruits such as papaya from farms and orchards in a bid to woo potential mates.

Oranges, pineapples and maize are among the most sought after crops, with bananas proving far less popular.

The scientists also discovered that the chimp that gathered the most fruit in the “food-for-sex” trade received more grooming from females than the group’s alpha male….

Male chimps were also said to be most likely to give food to a female that took part in the most “consortships”, where an adult female and male move to the edge of the community where the male enjoys exclusive mating access.

Boy Scouts & Girl Scouts

March 24, 2008

On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are Worth Fighting For by Governor Rick Perry of Texas

This reminds me of that case a few years back where a girl sued to be allowed to stay in a Boy Scout troop. I do sympathize with the girl. I was in Girl Scouts for two years and it was terribly disappointing; I had envisioned camping trips and similar adventures like the manual described, but instead all we did was arts & crafts, because that’s all the mothers who ran my troop were interested in. Still, suing the Boy Scouts was the wrong approach. The proper approach would have been for her parents to start a Girl Scout den of their own; surely there must have been other girls who would have liked a better troop to belong to.

All right, I know that nowadays, while the Boy Scouts are still upholding traditional values, the Girl Scouts have become another incubator of Marxist-feminist values. I don’t really know how it works so I’m not sure if it would be possible for concerned parents to start a Girl Scout troop that went against the prevailing tide, but there’s similar organizations out there, like the Campfire Girls; surely one of them must be all right. (Or am I being too optimistic?)

Anyway, kudos to the Boy Scouts for keeping the faith.

Marxist-feminist Universities and the Decline of Character

March 24, 2008

Today I was thinking about one of the women who turned me into a misogynist. She was a platonic friend I was very close to. She was raised very strictly, with a close-knit family; her grandparents and several other relatives lived very nearby and she saw them often, and the whole family were churchgoers, and a very high standard of behavior was expected of her. I had a very high opinion of her moral character.

Then she went to college.

By the end of the first year, she had fallen in with a bad crowd. Actually, by today’s standards, they weren’t that bad; they weren’t running around shoplifting and using drugs and suchlike. Nonetheless, they were of highly dubious character. One of her friends had to flee to Brazil because she was accessory to a murder. Another drew erotic pictures which she claimed were of adults, but they looked like five-year-olds to those of us familiar with the normal development of the human species. And of course they were all Marxists of some sort. It was actually sort of entertaining to hear them bandy their political opinions around, as they invariably showed an utter lack of basic information, never mind sound judgment, but the entertainment value was offset by the knowledge that they all had the right to vote.

By the middle of her second year, she was engaging in all sorts of reprehensible behavior. And of course, she was steadily edging me out of her life, in a needlessly sadistic way. I restrained myself as best I could from criticizing her behavior, as I was her friend and not her mother, but she knew I disapproved anyway. Indeed, I believe that she disapproved herself. She knew that she was behaving badly and she felt guilty about it. But to have remained true to her values would have meant losing all of her college friends.

To give just one illustration of her conduct: when she was in her senior year of high school, she got a part-time job. Most of her co-workers used a lot of swearwords, and they all assured her that she would get into the habit too. Still living with her parents, she stuck to her guns, and after a couple of months the other employees had begun toning down their own language in deference to her. By her second year of college, her vocabulary was such that passing sailors routinely fainted from shock.

Although seeing her moral collapse and losing her friendship was deeply painful to me, I can’t entirely blame her. I do blame her for the cruel manner in which she drove me away, which was completely unnecessary, although now I do understand that it’s difficult for women to resist hurting people when they have the chance to. But I completely understand why she was willing to jettison all of her morals even though she clearly knew in her heart that she was behaving wrongly. It was the price she paid for companionship, which women desperately need. Her happiness and well-being no longer depended on the approval of her conservative Christian parents, or of me. It depended on the approval of those around her, her fellow students and her professors – and we all know what kind of people become professors.

She was demonstrating the female evolutionary strategy for survival. Where men have the “fight or flight” response, women have the “tend or befriend” response. Standing up for principles is masculine behavior. Virtually the only women who can do it are lesbians, like myself, and we are very different in personality from straight women. As I’ve said before, women really shouldn’t be condemned for this – though they also shouldn’t be allowed to wield power for which they are biologically unsuited. For most of human history, not to mention the history of our ape forebears, the survival of the species depended upon females pleasing those who had the local power. A female driven out of the tribe for not going with the flow would die very quickly, and certainly would not pass on her genes. There are millions of years of evolution inducing women to knuckle in to the people who have power over their lives. A few decades of feminist propaganda isn’t going to undo that. This is why women have never been allowed much power in any civilization – and why every civilization that violated this cardinal rule collapsed.

Not that men do not also need the approval of their peers. But unlike women, a large percentage of them are able to get along without it for a time, because this could be a successful survival strategy for our ancestors; a man (or male hominid or he-ape) who insisted on going his own way could end up starting his own tribe, or inventing something like a spear that gave him a survival edge, and getting plenty of poontang, hence plenty of descendants. We are all descended from women who gave in and men who did not. It is the way of nature.

But there is another aspect to this, and that is part of the difference between male dominance (which is universal among humans) and patriarchy (which is not). I derive my definition of the term “patriarchy” from the brilliant Daniel Amneus, whose works can be found in my sidebar. In patriarchy, not only do men hold most of the positions of real power, which is always going to be the case no matter what, but children are considered to be the father’s and wives are bound to their husbands. In a patriarchy, men in a sense “own” their wives and children – not the way one owns a horse, but the sense of ownership is what compels men to protect their wives and children and steward their morals. Contrast this with today, when children are considered to be the mother’s, husbands are bound to the wives (in the sense of alimony), and the idea that men own their wives and children is considered horribly backward. The result of that last is that men allow their children to behave immorally – indeed, they have little power to stop them – and they also do not or cannot protect them, which is why schools have become so dangerous.

Patriarchy, and hence civilization, is largely fueled by men’s desire to pass on a legacy. This includes their culture and their sense of values. Even a poor man can know in his old age that he taught his children the difference between right and wrong. This is the chief reason that the world’s great religions command obedience and reverence to one’s parents. They would not have become the world’s great religions otherwise, because they would not have the mechanism of perpetuating themselves.

Many men today have become so corrupted by Marxism that they do not want to pass on the culture and code of their fathers to their children. Those who do want to, have an entire society working against them. The popular media, the divorce laws favoring women, and finally the pond scum who will be polluting young minds in college all strive to undercut every father’s effort to teach their children good behavior, ranging from not using drugs to not listening to “music” that sounds like an infinite number of monkeys banging on an infinite number of instruments.

Indeed, the concept that it is “normal” for adolescents to “rebel”, that indeed this behavior is necessary for healthy development, has become generally accepted, even though there is little evidence of it before the 20th century.

The fact is that civilization is one long fight against our ape instincts. It is natural for the young to cleave unto their peers, who will be their mates and hunting partners. It is unnatural to spend years listening to our elders droning on about the wisdom of dead white men and tempering our youthful energy to their expectations, to refrain from sex before marriage even though our hormones are clamoring for it, to restrain our violent impulses when we long to thrash our fellows to prove our dominance, to learn and study and work when we would like to be running around with the pack. These unnatural behaviors are what make civilization possible, and they depend upon patriarchy, upon parental power.

As the West has become increasingly matriarchal, we have increasingly yielded to nature, with the result that young people are becoming more irresponsible and delinquent with each year, not to mention more promiscuous and more violent. These are the behaviors that come of wanting status and approval from one’s peer group rather than from one’s elders. A young woman in college can win her father’s approval by remaining chaste, but she can win the approval of many young men her own age by sleeping with them. (As a bonus, she can then win the approval of her feminist professors, which is most of her professors, by later deciding that she was “date raped” and filing charges.) That the behavior which will win the father’s approval is also that which will lead to the most reliable, longest-lasting happiness is hard for an inexperienced girl full of the passion of youth to understand, especially when there are legions assuring her otherwise.

Character, like every other human achievement, depends upon patriarchy.

Note: There is a book about this phenomenon which parents may find of interest: Hold on to Your Kids: Why Parents Need to Matter More than Peers. I mentioned this book on a forum a few months ago and predictably, several Democrats attacked it fiercely. A Democrat is basically someone who has embraced cultural Marxism, while a Republican is someone who is still resisting, though usually without fully understanding the fight.

Sexism or not? Vote!

March 23, 2008

The April issue of Conde Nast Portfolio has a whining article about sexism in the workplace. Why oh why hasn’t it been eradicated yet? Of course, nowhere is the real reason even suggested: namely, that women are inherently inferior to men.

There’s a poll where you can vote about whether or not various incidents were sexist or not. The poll, by the way, includes more bald-faced lies about Lawrence Summers.

A couple of humor links to make up for yesterday’s depressing links.

March 21, 2008

Feminism: Destroying the Planet

In a flash of insight, it hit me: this must be feminism’s fault, somehow. Those pushy women have tipped the balance of the universal order, and thrown Nature’s intricate equilibrium out of whack.

Women Now Empowered By Everything A Woman Does

According to a study released Monday, women—once empowered primarily via the assertion of reproductive rights or workplace equality with men—are now empowered by virtually everything the typical woman does.

Mothers and stepfathers kill their children

March 20, 2008

I’m going through some links I’ve accumulated over the last couple of years. Ever since reading the works of Daniel Amneus (see sidebar), I’ve been noticing that all the news items about are about the mothers, stepfathers, or “Mommy’s boyfriend” killing or assaulting the children. I know there are exceptions – I read about one when I was nine – but there is only one kind of father who kills his children: a Muslim one.

A friend of mine is the daughter of a doctor who often has to testify about the X-rays of abused children. He observed this pattern of who’s responsible so much that as soon as he sees a suspicious injury on an X-ray, he immediately says, “Where’s the boyfriend?” And most of the time, it is, in fact, the mother’s boyfriend.

I’m going to share some of these news items with you. This is a link dump and the links are very unpleasant. Be warned.

Note: A couple of the links have expired, but the excerpts I pasted should give you an idea of their content.

NY mom held in deaths of 3 children

GARDEN CITY, N.Y. (AP) — Three young children found dead in their apartment appeared to have been drowned or poisoned, and one had her throat cut, police said Monday….

The mother, Leatrice Brewer, 27, called 911, telling an operator “she killed her babies. She even spelled her name to the 911 operator,” Fleming said….

Two men who identified themselves as the children’s fathers said they had fought in vain to have them removed from Brewer’s custody.

2 mothers plead no contest in fatal fire

PITTSBURGH (AP) — Two mothers pleaded no contest Monday to involuntary manslaughter in the deaths of five of their children in a house fire that began while the women were out at a bar.

Shakita Mangham and Furaha Love, both 26, entered the pleas in return for the dropping of lesser charges. Mangham also pleaded no contest to making false reports to police.

Love and Mangham left the children in the care of two 8-year-olds in June, police said. Authorities say the early morning fire was started by children playing with matches.

Not guilty plea in NY child death case

MINEOLA, N.Y. (AP) — A New York woman suspected of drowning her three children in a bathtub has pleaded not guilty to murder charges.

Cops: Wisconsin Parents Poured Water on Pantsless, Duct-Taped Children Outside

A criminal complaint filed in Chippewa County Circuit Court said the case began Oct. 18 when a sheriff’s investigator and social worker spoke with a 6-year-old boy at Cadott Elementary School who had bruising around one hip, across his back and on the left jaw and ear area.

Investigators said they learned the boy’s mother slapped him on the face and his stepfather punished him with a belt. They said they also learned of an incident in which the boy was hit with a belt and then had to stand duct-taped to his 7-year-old stepbrother as they were standing outside with no pants on and water was poured on them.

Abuse risk seen worse as families change

Six-year-old Oscar Jimenez Jr. was beaten to death in California, then buried under fertilizer and cement. Two-year-old Devon Shackleford was drowned in an Arizona swimming pool. Jayden Cangro, also 2, died after being thrown across a room in Utah.

In each case, as in many others every year, the alleged or convicted perpetrator had been the boyfriend of the child’s mother — men thrust into father-like roles which they tragically failed to embrace.

CORSICANA, Texas — The live-in boyfriend of the mother of a 6-year-old found hanged and sexually assaulted has been arrested in connection with the child’s death in Texas, KDFW-TV reported Thursday.

HOUSTON — A man condemned for killing and beheading his common-law wife’s three children had his conviction overturned Wednesday by a divided Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.


EDMONTON -A judge has handed a “draconian” conditional sentence to a young mother who physically assaulted her four-old-daughter and did nothing to protect the child from the sexual assaults perpetrated by her boyfriend. The 22-year-old Edmonton woman was sentenced to two years of strict 24-hour house arrest followed by one year of probation. She must work or attend school, or she will be in breach of the conditions and sent to jail. She will be required to perform 180 hours of community service and attend any therapy her supervisor requires. The court will control whom she lives with, and she cannot be alone with anyone under 16. “I have never made such a draconian conditional sentence, but this is a serious case,” Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Darlene Acton said yesterday. The court has heard that the young mother has lived a sad life plagued by physical, emotional and sexual abuse. She suffers from borderline personality disorder and major depressive disorder, along with a host of other troubles. Both of her own parents were drugaddicts. Her former boyfriend, Darcy Don Bannert, 25, has been found guilty on nine charges and will be sentenced July 31.