Theoretical Links

First, here’s two blog posts. This is a “race realist” blog, which means I disagree with a large portion of what he says, but these posts are too useful not to link.

Feminism and the Destruction of the West

Most of my readers would agree that the West’s modern political correctness regarding race and gender is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has given any thought to human nature and its evolutionary source. So the triumph of the PC ideology needs an explanation. With regards to feminism, Steve Moxon thinks he has an answer. In The Woman Racket, he looks to evolutionary psychology to shed light on our prejudices and documents how they lead to misperceptions about the sexes and how that in turn leads to failed policy.

Feminism and the Destruction of the West Part II

Heh, it seems this blogger is also a Roissy fan, and even admits Roissy is a little hardcore for him. The post discusses one of Roissy’s posts about the habit women have of falling in love with murderers, like Scott Peterson. (I wonder if Michael Schiavo got love letters from women who read about him? I didn’t hear anything about it, but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit.) I once read in some history book that in the days of public hangings, it was well known that nothing was more attractive to a woman than a “hempen cravat”.

When a tv movie was made about Ted Bundy, starring handsome actor Mark Harmon in the lead role, crime writer Ann Rule was shocked by the piles of letters she got from women who saw the movie and decided they were in love with Ted Bundy. (He also got a woman to marry him while he was on Death Row.) She finally wrote to every one of them, telling them, “You are not in love with Ted Bundy. You are in love with Mark Harmon.” To her relief, some of them wrote back saying they realized that she was right. But others, even years later, were writing her, saying, “I know Ted wouldn’t have hurt me, I could have saved him!”

Here’s a nice long essay: Modern feminism: an evaluation

I have always believed in equal rights for women, and still do. When I started university in the mid 90s I signed up for two gender studies modules and expected to learn a lot about how men and women are similar or have different strengths etc…
… but I found I was being taught instead about how women had been oppressed by men throughout history by the church, the state, doctors, husbands… and a shadowy system known as The Patriarchy. I was shocked to discover that almost every woman I met will have suffered abuse of one kind or another at the hands of men, and to be frank I started to feel very ashamed of being a man and very sorry for women. But it was only when I began to write essays and went to the library to research these issues that I began to realize that there was something strange going on with my education; I started to notice that the original sources did not support the ‘facts’ that I was being taught. The more I looked beneath the surface the clearer it became there is a very wide gulf between what feminism is supposed to be about and what it has become.

A commenter suggested I write about Kohlberg’s stages of moral reasoning, which I will, but I think this is enough for today.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: