The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 F. Roger Devlin Archive
The Criminalization of Masculinity
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
baskerville1-1030x579

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The New Politics of Sex:
The Sexual Revolution, Civil Liberties, and the Growth of Government Power (pdf download; Amazon)
By Stephen Baskerville
Kettering, OH: Angelico Press, 2017

For half a century, conservatives have been putting their readers to sleep with denunciations of the sexual revolution as a kind of anarchic free-for-all where men’s sexual impulses are gratified at the expense of women’s long-term well-being. But, as I have explained at length elsewhere, the current hook-up scene is no chaos of random coupling; it is a Darwinian competition between women for the attentions of a relatively small number of men. This mating system’s predictable output—possibly its intended output—is a large number of disappointed young women ripe for a message of resentment and revenge upon the opposite sex.

Power abhors a vacuum, and breakdowns of order prove no more than brief transitional phases leading to controls more oppressive than the restraints initially cast off. The sexual revolution did not usher in prolonged anarchy; it replaced a voluntary system of self-control according to principles equally applicable to all with the bureaucratically enforced “empowerment” of one sex at the expense of the other. Thanks to recent headlines, it is finally beginning to dawn on even the dimmest conservatives that the sexual revolution has not “liberated male sexuality,” but subjected men to an arbitrary and hostile regime from which none of them is safe.

There is nothing “ironic” about the cheek-by-jowl existence of a casual sex scene and a bureaucracy dedicated to punishing the men who participate in it: the former acts as a necessary feeder for the latter. The proof is that no feminist has ever encouraged young women behave in ways which would prevent their getting hurt in the first place. Feminists find the hook-up scene far too useful to shut down.

The failure of conservatives to understand the nature of the new sexual regime has, as Stephen Baskerville, professor of government at Patrick Henry College, demonstrates in the book under review, made them into its unwitting accomplices. Indeed, the new sexual-bureaucratic despotism could not have been constructed without their active participation. Back in the 1970s when the movement was getting started, feminists wrote tracts advocating the abolition of marriage—and, of course, they got nowhere. Eventually they realized they could quietly redefine fornication as rape and easily stampede naive conservatives into a campaign to punish the “rapists.”

Extremist ideologies break out of the margins to assume power when they create a new politics that existing elites fail to understand, or when they can deceive enough of the elites into believing that their agenda is compatible with existing values. This is usually accomplished not by the most extreme ideologues but by those who manage to co-opt, appropriate and distort the respectable values of the mainstream and use them to camouflage their innovations.

Feminism has been wildly successful because it learned how to exploit “the natural concern of every society to protect and provide for women and children.”

Stephen Baskerville
Stephen Baskerville

Like the sexual revolution itself, the feminist bureaucracy which now manages its fallout originated on America’s university campuses. Back in about 1970, piggybacking on the Black Studies movement, feminists began demanding and getting their own academic courses of study. Their success was due in part to a superficial resemblance between rising ideological movements and intellectual breakthroughs: in both cases, outsiders perceive an insurgent group which claims to represent a new way of looking at things struggling for recognition against an entrenched establishment. This also helps explain the success of the authoritarian ideological movements studied by Kevin MacDonald in The Culture of Critique. Only those with expertise in the relevant subject matter can reliably distinguish between well-promoted ideological fads and true intellectual revolutions. Hundreds of historians, scientists and literary scholars voted to institute women’s studies programs at their universities in the 1970s and -80s without any clear idea what they were doing.

The original, straightforward name “feminist studies” was soon cast aside in favor of the deceptively neutral-sounding “women’s studies” (and more recently by “gender studies”). From the start, however, such programs avoided the objective, scientific study of women or the sexes: women’s studies professors teach their students nothing about sexual genetics, fetal hormonalization, or empirically observable behavioral differences between men and women. Indeed, they advocate the suppression of such research. As two dissident feminist professors have phrased it, “Feminist research demands loyalty to an ideological agenda rather than empirical adequacy and logical consistency.”

Feminist “theory,” as it is grandly called, is a crude social determinism, and the reason feminists cling to it is obvious: insofar as sex differences are naturally determined, they cannot be changed to suit feminist preferences. But “theory” plays a distinctly supporting role in what is essentially a political movement driven, in Baskerville’s words, “by a hatred of restraint and authority, and a thirst for unrestricted freedom and revenge.”

Sexual radicalism adopts irreconcilably contradictory positions as needed: all gender differences are social constructions, but women have special “needs.” Women are oppressed by artificial gender roles, but those same roles make women more “caring” and “compassionate.” Men and women must be treated identically, except when men must be excluded from certain competitions so that women can win. Fathers should assume equal responsibility for rearing children, but custody (along with the power and money that accompany it) must go to mothers. Alison Jaggar proclaims unashamedly that feminists should insist on having it both ways: “…where women’s interests are being damaged by being treated either differently from or identically with men.”

Contradictions in the realm of logic are justified as furthering opportunism in the realm of politics. Miss Jaggar’s book, Living with Contradictions, is treated as a classic of “feminist philosophy.” Other feminists denounce rationality and science per se as patriarchal conspiracies to oppress women.

Despite the field’s scandalous intellectual inadequacies, as of 2014 there existed “more than 200 chairs for gender/queer studies, nearly all held by women, and around thirty interdisciplinary gender institutes,” all suggesting to the callow minds of students that feminism is a field of objective knowledge analogous to physics or French literature. It was from the midst of this resentment-driven ideological ghetto disguised as a scholarly discipline that the new rules governing sex originated, and it was in American universities that they were first applied.

Rape: Not What It Used to Be

For decades, feminists have assiduously promoted the lie that one woman in four (sometimes five) is raped while attending university. “Reputable scholars who investigate [such] claims,” writes Baskerville, “readily conclude that it is not simply exaggerated but a hoax.” At most, a lot of women, unprotected by traditional behavioral expectations, are learning the hard way that fornication is not the path to happiness.

When such cases were brought before ordinary courts of law, they quickly got thrown out. So universities began, under feminist pressure, to establish internal procedures to handle accusations of sexual misconduct. These do not have to abide by the principles that govern ordinary courts of law, notably the presumption of innocence. One attorney cited by Baskerville describes the result as

a disciplinary procedure where students nearly always lack lawyers, no legally trained judge oversees the process, testimony is not under oath, hearsay is freely considered, relevant evidence or even proper notice of the charges may not be given to both parties, students may be forced to incriminate themselves, and whatever “jury” is empaneled may not be of one’s peers.

Such travesties of judicial procedure are now legally mandated at all colleges which receive federal funding, i.e., at nearly all of them. During the Obama presidency, Assistant Secretary of Education for civil rights Russlynn Ali even issued a directive to university officials demanding that campus tribunals adopt a lower standard of proof for cases of sexual misconduct than required by ordinary courts of law. This directive, by the way, included no period for public notice, comment, and possible amendment, as legally required for federal regulations: “it was simply an arbitrary order issued from the pen of a functionary.”

Since rape (as traditionally understood) is such a serious crime, convictions have always required proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Now campus kangaroo courts are convicting men on the basis of a preponderance of evidence standard, the lowest standard recognized by law. As Baskerville points out, the only possible explanation for this change is that the authorities want not to punish more actual rapists, but to secure more guilty verdicts against men.

Why would an Assistant Secretary of Education for civil rights be pronouncing on how criminal cases are adjudged? Because American courts have ruled that rape and sexual assault are forms of discrimination. Such is the hold of liberal ideology over the legal minds of America that judges are apparently no longer able to imagine any other form of wrongdoing. So officially, rape is now wrong because it “discriminates against” women.

Some think the present system does not go far enough. Colorado Congressman Jared Polis advocates expelling all male students accused of sexual assault: “If there’s ten people who have been accused and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all ten people.”

Indeed, feminist law professor Catherine MacKinnon does not think consent is a meaningful concept, and “has repeatedly suggested that virtually all heterosexual intercourse amounts to rape.” She is not a fringe figure; for many years, she was the single most cited feminist “scholar” in the world, and has repeatedly been called upon to advise the governments of individual states and Canadian provinces.

Susan Brownmiller, author of the standard feminist text on rape, called rape “a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” On this view, whether a particular man is innocent or guilty of a particular act is not especially important; even the defendant who is innocent in a particular case is part of the same male conspiracy against women. As Baskerville notes, such assigning of collective guilt to categories of people is a typical mark of totalitarian regimes. It justifies us in considering feminism part of the larger phenomenon that has been called “Cultural Marxism.”

The new thinking is being written into law. California law now requires that to avoid a rape conviction, male university students must “demonstrate they obtained verbal ‘affirmative consent’ before engaging in sexual activity.” Not just obtain it, but demonstrate, in court, that they obtained it. Asked how innocent people are supposed to prove they received verbal consent, the California assemblywoman who authored the law replied, “Your guess is as good as mine.” The impossibility of acquittal seems to be the whole point of the law.

The madness has long since spread beyond university campuses. Washington state has formally shifted the burden of proof in all rape trials to the defendant. In North Carolina, naming the person accused along with the time and place is sufficient to secure a rape conviction. Baskerville found one case in Texas where police were ordered to hide exculpatory evidence.

Rape accusers remain anonymous, but the accused do not, even after the accusation is demonstrated to be false. The past sexual history of the accuser is not admissible as evidence, but that of the accused is. Accusers are exempt from polygraph tests, but not the accused. Even a history of false accusations is not admissible.

Might crime labs step in to defend the innocent men now abandoned by the legal system? Labs have been found guilty not just of mistakes but of deliberate falsification of evidence. The Washington Post, among others, has documented how feminist laboratory technicians doctor and fabricate evidence to frame men they know to be innocent.

The Innocence Project is a nonprofit legal organization which seeks to exonerate the innocent through DNA evidence. In twenty-six years of operation, they have freed 362 wrongly convicted men who had been made to serve sentences of up to 27 years. Many of these cases, perhaps most, appear to be rape convictions, but the directors refuse to reveal the numbers.

Police investigators typically estimate false accusations of rape as running between forty and fifty percent of the total. Deception is, after all, the natural weapon of the sex which cannot get its way by force. Motivations for false accusations include providing an alibi, seeking revenge, obtaining sympathy and attention, gaining custody of children, extorting money from celebrities and, in the gender-neutral military, avoiding deployment to war zones. Feminists vigorously oppose any prosecution of false accusers.

Confronted with proof of widespread malfeasance, public officials typically complain that the justice system is “overworked and underfunded.” This is clearly a self-serving argument; as Baskerville points out, “if they simply stop accusing innocent men, they would no longer be overworked and underfunded.” We may expect wrongful convictions to continue for as long as officials owe their jobs to ensuring that they do. Rape accusations are “a thriving bureaucratic enterprise that can create business for itself by encouraging hysteria.”

Harassment

Refraining from casual sex does not protect a man, who may still be accused of “sexual harassment.” This expression, which first appeared in print in 1978, originally referred to the misuse of positions of authority to extort sexual favors. Of course, as Baskerville notes, such behavior has always been contrary to codes of professional conduct, and women have long been defended in such situations by male relatives: “nothing indicates the hysteria over ‘harassment’ is a necessary but excessive response to a real problem; from the start it was another ideological power grab, using sexual dynamic and government power to emasculate and feminize.”

It should also be pointed out that, in the words of dissident feminist Camille Paglia, “for every male harasser there are ten female sycophants using their sexual attractions to get ahead.” Baskerville cites survey findings, for example, that “two-thirds of British women admit using their cleavage to advance their careers.” Sexual harassment rules do nothing to discourage such behavior.

Like other ideological terms, “sexual harassment” soon fell victim to reckless verbal inflation, until it could be used to describe any male behavior to which a woman might object. The meaning can even be extended ad hoc to fit new cases as they arise. Obviously, it is impossible to defend oneself against a charge whose meaning can be expanded at will, nor can there be any presumption of innocence in such cases: “Because the crime is offending someone, the accused is guilty by virtue of being accused.”

At universities, the concept of “harassment” is now employed to forbid and punish criticism of feminism. “Antifeminist intellectual harassment” is said to occur whenever “the appropriate application of feminist theories or methodologies to research, scholarship and teaching is devalued, discouraged, or thwarted.” A man found guilty must

spend time learning about, and even leading, activities related to women at the college. He also undertakes… to write a letter of apology to the student [who accused him], expressing his esteem for her abilities and detailing what he has learned from his [anti-harassment] training. The trainer suggests that this letter (to be submitted first to the trainer for “review”) also be approved by the department chair and the university’s Equal Employment Opportunity office.

Baskerville notes the similarity to communist party discipline.

Accusations of sexual harassment are not usually tried in court. Instead, organizations such as schools and corporations are held legally liable for failure to act on female complaints. This forces them to assume the role of feminist policemen. Incentives dictate acting to minimize their own liability, not handling accusations fairly. “Universities tend to prefer the least expensive path to resolution of sexual harassment cases,” writes one dissident feminist, “and this often means settling out of court, usually by paying off the complainant, regardless of the merits of the charge.” Private companies best protect themselves through termination of the person accused.

ORDER IT NOW

The theory behind the sexual harassment movement is that men’s natural attraction to women is in reality an exercise of power over them. On this view, the teenage boy screwing up his courage to speak to the girl he has his first crush on is “really” exerting power over her. Here as elsewhere, however, feminists are inconsistent when it suits them. Common sense suggests that women’s newfound ability to destroy men’s careers by filing false or frivolous complaints of “harassment” against them is a dangerous form of arbitrary power, but feminists never recognize it as such: for them, only men ever have power—just as, according to the same way of thinking, only Whites can be racist. Yet at the same time they insist that female bosses be able to accuse male subordinates of something called “contrapower harassment.”

Also, the concept of sexual harassment is not applied to lesbians. Many women’s studies professors, e.g., are notorious for trying to seduce their students. They insist there is nothing wrong with such behavior. One writes: “It is because of the sort of feminist I am that I do not respect the line between the intellectual and the sexual.”

Feminists are now pushing the concept of “sexual harassment” on children. In Minnesota during one recent school year alone, over 1000 children “were suspended or expelled on charges related to sexual harassment.” The authorities express frustration over the stubborn tendency of little girls to enjoy the flirtatious attention of boys; they try to convince girls as young as six to issue the scripted threat: “Stop it! That’s sexual harassment, and sexual harassment is against the law.”

Domestic Violence

It is well established that men and women commit violent acts in the home in roughly equal numbers, and that an intact family is the safest environment for both women and children. Such facts have not prevented feminists from whipping up public hysteria over “domestic violence,” for which men are presumed to be exclusively responsible. Indeed, terms like “violence against women” and “male violence” are beginning to appear even in government documents. Here again we see the quasi-Marxist assignment of criminal guilt to categories of people rather than the individuals who commit particular illegal acts.

Such violence need not be violent: criticizing, name calling and denying money are now officially listed as forms of domestic violence. The only possible purpose of such verbal inflation, as Baskerville points out, is to target men who have not committed any violent assault. This is one reason statistics on domestic violence cannot be trusted. There is another: they are based not on convictions or even formal charges, but on “reports.” Because domestic violence is now a multi-billion dollar a year industry, interest groups and government agencies have strong incentives to manufacture false accusations and exaggerate incidents.

In practice, accusations of domestic violence are usually made to secure advantages in divorce and custody disputes. Feminist literature complains not that violent husbands are avoiding conviction, but that accused fathers sometimes retain access to their children. After all, when husbands are convicted of criminally assaulting their wives, they get locked up and no question of custody arises. It becomes an issue in divorce cases only because accusations do not have to be proven.

Bar associations and even courts themselves sponsor public seminars on how to fabricate abuse accusations. “With child abuse and spouse abuse you don’t have to prove anything,” the leader of one seminar quoted in the Chicago Tribune tells divorcing women. “You just have to accuse.” Another astonished witness reports:

A number of women attending the seminars smugly—indeed boastfully—announced that they had already sworn out false or grossly exaggerated domestic violence complaints against their hapless husbands, and that the device worked! The lawyer-lecturers invariably congratulated the self-confessed miscreants.

“Women lie every day,” writes one female Canadian judge. “Every day women in court say, ‘I made it up. It didn’t happen’—and they’re not charged.”

Divorcing wives can also get restraining orders issued against their husbands simply by claiming to be afraid. The order will usually give her the home, the children, child support and maintenance.

Another possibility is to go to a battered women’s shelter. These institutions are not what their name suggests. There are said to be over 2000 such shelters in the United States, and there simply aren’t enough battered women to keep all of them in business. Rather, they are “one-stop divorce shops” that exist mostly to separate children from their fathers.

Extended investigations [of shelters] by Canada’s National Post and others revealed a violently anti-male agenda, corruption, drug and alcohol use, child abuse, and even, ironically, violence against women. American journalist Cary Roberts found “prison-camp like working conditions, misappropriated shelter assets, falsified documents, illicit drug activities, horrific child abuse, illegal cover-ups, complacent oversight agencies, and more.”

Popular hysteria about “violence against women” has also resulted in legal reforms meant to maximize convictions:

With most crimes, police generally do not arrest suspects without a warrant unless they personally witness it. Yet the mob justice surrounding domestic violence has brought the innovation of mandatory arrest, even when it is not clear that any deed has been committed at all. “No drop” prosecution is another innovation requiring prosecutors to prosecute cases they would otherwise abandon for lack of evidence or because they judge that no crime has occurred at all.

Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the British Labour Party, has proposed allowing women to kill their “intimate partners” with impunity as long as they “claim past, or fear of future, abuse.”

Other New Crimes

Sexual harassment, a redefined rape, and domestic violence that need not be violent are the principal ideological weapons in the feminist arsenal, but there are several others as well.

Stalking is a crime invented in California in 1990. Within three years, every state in the union had passed anti-stalking laws. Many other countries have now joined in: a case of legislation by bandwagon. The original idea was that criminals often “stalk” their victims before assaulting them, so outlawing “stalking” would help prevent actual assaults. As one former Associate Attorney General has written: “We should not have to wait until an overt act of violence occurs to take action.”

But as with harassment, no one is able to define precisely what is meant by stalking. In effect, the new laws mean that people can be prosecuted not for acts they have actually committed, but for acts they may possibly intend to commit in the future. As Baskerville notes, this “directly violates the fundamental common law principle that a man can only be punished for a crime that he has actually committed.” Indeed, since anyone might commit a crime at some future time, “we could just arrest the entire population.”

In practice, the chief application of this juridical abortion has been in divorce cases: involuntarily divorced fathers trying to see their own children are accused of “stalking” them. Letter writing and phone calls are some of the acts which can be prosecuted by means of anti-stalking laws.

Laws against child abuse and neglect have also been made into feminist weapons in the struggle against fathers and families. Baskerville provides some historical background:

The professionalization of social work in the early twentieth century—at the instigation of feminists like Jane Addams—created a plainclothes gendarmerie with a vested interest in other people’s children. As governments wrested charitable work from churches and other private foundations, social workers became government officials with “extraordinary police powers,” though without the restraints we normally impose on police to protect the rights of the accused.

The Mondale Act, passed by Congress in 1974, mandated the establishment of Child Protective Services agencies by the states and created financial incentives for finding (or inventing) child abuse. Similar legislation quickly followed in other countries. By the 1980s, government agencies were whipping up sensational accusations of child abuse.

Eventually, the truth came out: social workers had badgered very young children to come up with lurid stories of abuse, disregarding their denials. All such stories turned out to be fabrications, but the episode left a trail of “torn-apart families, hideous injustices, psychologically damaged children, incarcerated parents, and ruined lives.” Thanks to governmental immunity laws, no one can be held liable for such outrages, even if they can be proven to have fabricated accusations maliciously. “Child protection officials,” reports Baskerville, “are recruited largely from the ranks of divorced women and from graduates of social work and ‘women’s studies’ programs, where they are trained in feminist ideology that is hostile to parents and especially to fathers.” Seized children may be deliberately taught to hate their fathers, or persuaded he has abused them.

To this day, according to one expert:

False charges can happen to any parent merely by a stranger picking up the telephone and anonymously calling a well-publicized hotline number to say, without any evidence, that a parent maltreated his or her child. This involves a massive number of children and families each year. It is almost impossible to fully insulate one’s family from the threat of a system that on very little pretense can simply reach into the home and take away one’s offspring.

As with the other new ideological crimes, there is no presumption of innocence and no clear definition of the crime: it is up to social workers to determine what counts as abuse. Baskerville comments dryly: “Free societies do not normally permit civil servants to adjudicate crime ad hoc.”

The irony, as the author points out, is that the best way to increase the chances of a child being abused is to separate it from its father. Sexual abuse in particular is extremely rare on the part of biological fathers. (This is hidden in the official statistics by counting stepfathers and boyfriends as “fathers.”) In the name of protecting children, feminists are removing their natural protectors.

A fairly recent trend is the federal campaign against bullying, enthusiastically promoted by the Obama administration. Something everyone previously thought was childish misbehavior is now officially a federal civil rights violation. Like the other quasi-crimes we have been discussing, it has no exact definition, but is said to include “teasing, name-calling, spreading rumors, threatening, and excluding someone from a group on purpose.” A number of anti-bullying intervention programs have been established, but researchers have found none that are effective. In fact, “the average teacher actually reported more bullying after intervention than before.”

At first glance, the anti-bullying crusade may appear unrelated to feminism. But, as Baskerville points out, it has traditionally been fathers who intervened against bullies, taught their children how to protect themselves, and disciplined them if they bullied others. Not coincidentally, single mothers are the most enthusiastic proponents of anti-bullying legislation: “With the systematic banishment of fathers by feminist-controlled divorce courts, single mothers can only cope by criminalizing one another’s children.”

I shall conclude this list of newly invented crimes against the matriarchy with a small but telling recent example.

Realization of the value of breastfeeding, along with more women in the workplace, has led to attempts to develop more tolerant attitudes toward public nursing. [But] the new measures do not merely “permit” it (something that could be effected simply by removing prohibitions); they inflict penalties on anyone who objects. In some jurisdictions it is now a crime to “interfere” (whatever that means) with a woman breastfeeding.

This new legislation is a symptom of “something unhealthy about our political culture: an inability to distinguish between permitting a practice” and forbidding its disapproval. Yet moral disapproval is the only alternative to legal punishment; without it, there is “no middle ground left between criminalizing one side or the other.” The penal apparatus then becomes a political prize that must be used against our opponents if only to keep it from being used against us. Obviously, this dangerous mindset contributes to America’s present extreme political polarization.

Feminists have begun agitating against male behavioral tendencies they call manslamming, mansplaining, and manspreading—with more, no doubt, to come. As the author says, “once the principle has been established that only men can be guilty of certain crimes, few limits remain against criminalizing the peculiarities specific to them.”

Conclusion

The reader may be familiar with the old feminist chestnut “rape is about power, not sex,” which goes back to the 1970s. In truth, for feminists, even sex itself is “about power, not sex.” Catherine MacKinnon, e.g., defines sex—not construes or interprets it, but defines it—as a construct of male power. On this view, the shy teenage boy screwing up his courage to speak to the girl he has his first crush on is in reality imposing a kind of force on her, virtually attempting to rape her.

How could anyone be drawn to such a perverse way of looking at human relationships? Baskerville finds a clue in the attraction of women to powerful men. This is one reason, after all, why men seek power and why the domain of power is traditionally understood as masculine: “Civilized society channels this power differential into social harmony, economic prosperity, and political stability through marriage.”

The author also makes the important point that traditional male authority within the household exists separately from the state and serves as a limitation upon it; feminist power is always allied with the state and serves to augment its power. Triumphant feminism is re-creating the “combination of political corruption, economic stagnation, swollen prison populations, and politicized criminal justice” familiar to us from Soviet communism.

By redefining men’s attraction to women as an exercise of power over them, feminists are most likely projecting their own preoccupation with power upon their enemies, heterosexual men. In Baskerville’s words, the newly ideological offenses serve to

criminalize those whose positions and power [feminists] crave for themselves and to whom they appear to be imputing their own sexual-political fantasies. Romantic and family intimacy are not merely collateral damage but the targeted enemy.

By undermining male authority, feminism is deliberately sabotaging heterosexual attraction—and, of course, sabotaging the continuation of our race.

For the new rules invented by feminism are likely to prove ineffective against those whose reproductive behavior is most governed by natural instinct. The new ideological regime is mainly altering the behavior of those most accustomed to self-control and rule-following. For this reason, I believe feminism constitutes a threat to Western civilization equal in importance to the ethnic competition more usually discussed on this site. In the end, we will be forced to choose between continuing to indulge feminism and securing our own survival.

Prof. Baskerville’s website; contains links to podcasts, reviews and his other work.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Academia, Feminism, Political Correctness 
Hide 149 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Biff says:

    Saying “Men Aren’t Women” on Twitter Now Classified as ‘Hateful Conduct’

    https://thefreethoughtproject.com/saying-men-arent-women-on-twitter-now-classified-as-hateful-conduct/

    • Replies: @osborne
    , @El Dato
  2. Laugh — with no small sarcasm.

    crazy white chicks.

    This is a very serious issue with tangled tentacles in so many others.

    appreciated this article.

  3. i hope crazy white chicks isn’t a violation.

  4. osborne says:

    “In the end, we will be forced to choose between continuing to indulge feminism and securing our own survival”.

    I think men are their own worse enemy.

    What constitutes a “feminist”. My guess is it’s a blanket term, kind of how Some people (not all) use the term “Nazi” as a blanket term to include anyone on the right they can’t stand.

    Where’s your blueprint for exactly how your society will look, what the government will be like and who gets to vote?

    I’ve noticed that some of these kinds of articles, will end with a subtle threat.

    In the end, the Alpha Males will prevail…once again. Because the little betas are too bitchy and whiny and wearing their Victim-Complex on their sleeves. It’s very unattractive and unpleasant to see men degrading themselves to such a degree.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  5. osborne says:
    @Biff

    Who cares Biff? Just say it anyways. Why act like a snowflake about it?

    I just posted posted it on my account. I’ll let you know what happens.

  6. Tyrion 2 says:

    For the new rules invented by feminism are likely to prove ineffective against those whose reproductive behavior is most governed by natural instinct.

    #MeToo for the Outer Party, Rotherham for the proles.

    • Replies: @SMK
  7. Reading this article my idea is ‘w’re living in a weird world’.
    Now it may be that I’m too old to see things like this around me, Netherlands, but I wonder if this is the explanation.
    I’ve got three grown up daughters, never got the impression that they see men as described in the article.
    So is this a USA problem ?

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
  8. The feminist movement started with sick Jewish Marxist C.U.N.T.s (Can’t Understand Normal Thinking) like Bela Abzug, Gloria “I need Conditioner for My Hair” Steinem (part Jew and CIA informer), and Betty Freidan (real name Goldstein). They preached the “Superwoman” theory that women were being held back from being anything they wanted. Of course, this Marxist doctrine was quickly “sucked up” by the Marxists at the University level and vomited out to their students as Women’s studies and other esoteric brain maleficence.

    When the “Superwoman” fails then it’s some man’s fault because of his masculinity and control of society. This strategy or game plan has now been adopted by the Blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, Martians, Ground Hogs and other assorted mutants of nature. They use fake surveys, fake statistics, and sociology studies which are the antithesis of science that are quickly spread like herpes and gonorrhea at a Hollywood Party by women’s magazines, websites and of course the the Grand C.U.N.Ts of them all–The Huff Post.

    It’s easy to do this because most men in America are nothing but Cucks and afraid to talk back to these media whores who spout this stuff because they don’t want to be called sexist, racists, women haters, misogynist or anti-semitic (because this works for everything ). Examples of such Hollywood C.U.N.Ts would be Chelsea Handler. This Jewess Cokehead is constantly in the news and on the web ranting like a rabid dog. And she gets away with it. Amongst the sickness of the Women’s Movement, BLM, Jewish Groups (hundreds of them), Muslims, Mexicans, Hispanics, Midgets, and Wildebeests they form a never ending chorus of hatred for white men and Western Civilization. They have one goal to destroy white men and all Western Thought and History and they will probably succeed and collapse civilization as we know it.

    • Replies: @Andre Citroen
    , @Art
  9. The tragedy is one need only look at the outcome the ‘welcoming with open arms’ western women so freely offered refugees in Sweden to see the future. The terrifying part is this may all be by design rather than circumstance.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  10. Franz says:

    The failure of conservatives to understand the nature of the new sexual regime has… made them into its unwitting accomplices.

    As an academic he must qualify his phrasing but conservatives have been aiding this particular opponent from Day One.

    Who saw feminism as a threat from the start? Liberal Norman Mailer who jousted some of them personally, Playboy Press when it published titles like The Myth of the Monstrous Male, and any number more, all had solid Left credentials.

    Are conservatives “dumb” accomplices or accomplices, period?

    Say accomplice and leave it at that. Before the 70s were done the numbers were in: Whenever women entered a formerly all-male profession in relevant numbers, the aggregate wage the work paid dropped.

    As conservatives perfectly well knew they would. The big rightwing line has always been and evermore will be the Bottom Line.

  11. Feminism is the rape.culture. The death of cultural Marxism is underway. We must all do our part to destroy this toxic ideology.

    OT: No Social Transformation without Representation.

  12. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    There are many quotations and paraphrases in this article. Why not include hyperlinks or footnoted citations?

  13. Anonymous[369] • Disclaimer says:

    I was once falsely accused of domestic violence. Arrested at 1am by sympathetic local cops in my small town, they treated me fantastic. Never was I handcuffed. I sat around and talked shit with the guys until I was bailed out.

    I went to court prepared. I brought along 5 outstanding people who could attest to my good character. One by one the judge called them up. Each gave a glowing description of who I am.

    My accuser and I were called before the judge at the end of my witness questioning. The judge turned to me and asked what had happened. I told her exactly what had occurred. I was straightforward, made eye contact and was direct.

    When finished with me, the African American judge swung here head towards my accuser. The judge was not pleased with her. In the pithiest way, the judge asked her what occurred. Overwhelmed and clearly at a loss of words, my accuser started rambling and making no sense whatsoever. She was trying to lie and failed miserably.

    I remember her face when she saw how many people I brought to court with me. She didn’t want to enter the courtroom. She was stunned and realized she messed with the wrong person.

    Anyway, the judge did grant her a restraining order. But while granting it, the judge looked at me in such a way as to let me know this was in no way a reflection of my character and was being put in place because it was not in my best interest not to contact her. The judge had zero respect for my accuser and it showed.

    The judge was right in granting the order. It was a tool, really, to protect me against my accuser. The restraining order guaranteed I could move on with my life. She knew, as well, that if in the event my accuser contacted me while the order was in place, I would simply ignore her and document the illegal contact as future evidence.

    I moved on from the experience, unaffected and bit wiser.

  14. Anonymous[164] • Disclaimer says:

    Advice to the Modern Young Man:

    Never leave the basement, never leave the basement, never leave the basement…

    Western white society is doomed to extinction from plummeting reproduction rates in nearly every country, with or without your participation. Don’t try to buck the trend by making yourself a martyr to foolish and outdated romantic notions when internet porn is so readily available. The fecund left side of the bell curve shall inherit the earth no matter what you do, kid.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Corvinus
  15. Very interesting how introspection became the law of the land. Women are very much into everything that they accuse men of: violence, disrespect, threatening and bullying, stalking…

  16. Men go to Frat parties to drink and get laid. Why do women go?

    • Replies: @Wally
    , @Truth
  17. @Franz

    Great point! The post-Industrial economy requires a bureaucracy with a feminist hive mind and rigorous respect for arbitrary corporate and state authority. Feminist theory has done more for profit margins than Ayn Rand ever did.

    Feminism is a magic ideology in that it has convinced educated white women to endure long commutes, eschew traditional marriage and nuclear family while laboring in obscure cubicles so that minority women can reproduce at will and avoid work. It’s the modern version of the purged Tom Sawyer’s ploy to convince his friends to pay him to let them whitewash a fence for him.

    • Agree: Liza
  18. Miro23 says:

    OK, when men appraise the risks, it’s back to separate sex education, chaperoned meetings of single people, no sex outside marriage and separate work areas for male and female employees.

    With women living in their own world run by feminist Mother Superiors, traditional marriage should start to look quite attractive.

    • Replies: @Wally
  19. “Overwhelmed and clearly at a loss of words, my accuser started rambling and making no sense whatsoever. She was trying to lie and failed miserably.”

    Millions of women are better liars.

    — a restraining order was granted —-

    Therein lies the problem, suppose in addition she brought along others who would lie or even had a sympathetic ear. That the threshold is so low is the other problem. While your scenario sounds jim dandy — those environments are simply not the norm. The give away that it is not, is not your friendly chit chat session with your local government, it’s that you didn’t get handcuffed, upon arrest. That is just abnormal for most communities, care not how benevolent you behave.

  20. Durruti says:
    @Franz

    “Who saw feminism as a threat from the start? Liberal Norman Mailer who jousted some of them personally, Playboy Press when it published titles like The Myth of the Monstrous Male, and any number more, all had solid Left credentials.”

    Nice:

    Great fan of Mailer & his friend, Jimmy Breslin (wrote research paper on Breslin).

    All your points are accurate.

    It’s not one wing that counts; You need both to fly.

  21. @jilles dykstra

    It’s a problem of a society that has lost any common core, where everyone needs to be famous for 15 minutes. The Netherlands is still Dutch, even if you do speak better English than we do in Nieuw Amsterdam. It seems that money and power are the only things that keep up together as a society.

  22. @Franz

    Yeah, that’s become more and more my understanding.

  23. Why this preoccupation with calling everything rape? A couple of reasons:

    1) If you fuck her, she owns you.
    2) Women aren’t responsible in any way for their own sexuality.

    On top of this, the modern male is often expected to verbally agree to this crap deal before the fun begins. So when it all goes horribly wrong, the only person to blame will be the one shaving himself in the mirror.

    For self-protection, a man really has only two options:

    1) Go gay.
    2) Be a dick.

    A third option, find a good woman, is a pleasant daydream that’s not in the cards for a lot of men.

  24. @Wally Streeter

    Avoid the world of academia if that is possible.

    Laugh.

  25. @Wally Streeter

    I should like to add, globalization isn’t just an economic transformation. It’s also the transmission of American liberal progressivism around the globe.
    Feminism is taking hold and growing in many non-western countries.
    The end result will be the same as what has happened in America.
    So, there isn’t really a viable alternative like expating as a long term solution to this.
    Some places will hold out longer than others.
    I can’t being to imagine the wreck this country will probably be in a decade.
    Cheers.

    • Replies: @Liza
  26. Last week, I read a report about a twenty-two year old man who was charged with assault with a box cutter that left an X-shaped scratch (no more than that) above one of her breasts. He was charged with deadly assault by a mad dog prosecutor and faced ninety years in prison and apparently was going to be convicted. Only the discovery of a photo, with date and time, on the social media that put the accuser in a bar at the time she claimed the assault occurred made the man’s guilt impossible and the lucky man walked free. I have not read that the woman has been charged with perjury. Good article above until he got into the “cultural Marxism” crappola.

    • Replies: @Avery
  27. AaronB says:

    A society that values only masculine qualities will eventually make women want to be men and produce a masculinity movement for females – which is what feminism is.

    Western society since ancient times has been overly masculine – as early as the Greeks the West has been contrasting itself to a ‘feminine’ Asia, with feminine qualities bring associated with a degenerate non-Western other who was fundamentally alien. This sort of rhetoric was heavily used again during the 18th and 19th centuries. And a man who read poetry or cared about clothes was mocked and ridiculed for much of American history.

    We are surprised, that after centuries of this, women see no value in adopting a caring and nurturing role and are ashamed of being perceived as soft and yielding.

    Yet these qualities are of equal value with masculine qualities in having a successful civilization, as we are discovering.

    The ‘hardness’ of the West has killed it, as so many aspects of our dysfunction are the result of overvaluing masculinity. Rigidity is death, as the corpse is rigid, and softness is life, as the Taoists knew.

    The answer to feminism is not to return to the old dysfunctional culture of too much masculinity, as the unintelligent alt right naturally wishes (being a movement by and for stupid people), but to develop in the West a genuine appreciation for so called feminine qualities like softness and grace and caring and nurturing, while at the same retaining genuine masculine qualities like strength, hardness, and vigor.

    And both genders should manifest a bit of both sets of qualities. The ideal male should be strong and fierce but gentle and sensitive to emotion, and the ideal female graceful and nurturing but vigorous and willing to take up a weapon to defend hearth and home if need be.

    In other words, a truly integrated and whole culture, not a tragically deficient and one sided one. Good role models for this can be found in some old European literature, Chinese culture, and especially Japanese literature – which seems to effortlessly produce extremely feminine but fierce and strong women and men who are supremely masculine while being emotionally sensitive.

  28. Avery says:
    @Tony Vodvarka

    {…. I read a report….}

    Here is the article.

    [His ex accused him of an attack that could have meant life in prison. A selfie saved him.]

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/his-ex-accused-him-of-an-attack-that-could-have-meant-life-in-prison-a-selfie-saved-him/ar-BBPLmo5?ocid=spartandhp

    So if there was no selfie, they would throw this guy in jail for life, based on her accusation alone?
    No other evidence needed?
    Pretty scary.

  29. The disease of feminism has really only infected white women, other than the odd (usually ugly and bitter) outlier, most non white women are cool with men being men and women being women.

    The best advice I would give to any young man (regardless of race) is to give white women a wide berth (you often have no choice thanks to the body positivity movement). Nothing good can come from romantic or sexual involvement with them.

    Of course it goes without saying that Jewish women are absolutely toxic and should be avoided at all cost.

  30. “Universities tend to prefer the least expensive path to resolution of sexual harassment cases,” writes one dissident feminist

    And by “least expensive” they don’t usually mean avoidance of the direct costs of having a case tried in a real criminal court.

    The real unstated institutional purpose of the campus police (and by extension, the administration) is to maximize parking ticket revenue and minimize real police/court blotter press activity associated with the university. (by any means necessary)

  31. One wonders what percentage of prisoners in our vast gulag are equally innocent but were sent down the skids by a mad dog prosecutor who cares only about a conviction rate and nothing for justice. The corruption of our national life is near total.

    • Replies: @Avery
  32. @AaronB

    as the unintelligent alt right naturally wishes (being a movement by and for stupid people)

    That’s the plain truth, as this website demonstrates in increasing clarity every day. The poverty and absurdity of Alt-Right ideas can no longer be excused as the excesses of a nascent but legitimate movement struggling for light and air. It is the core itself that is rotten, worthless, ridiculous. It has to stop.

    • Agree: AaronB
    • Replies: @follyofwar
    , @attilathehen
  33. anon[291] • Disclaimer says:

    part of being masculine is speaking your mind without fear of what others think of you

    this is what those in control want to stomp out – free thinking, free speaking, courageous men who talk back to (((those who really have the power)))

    • Replies: @Wally Streeter
  34. anon[291] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    The fecund left side of the bell curve shall inherit the earth no matter what you do, kid.

    the answer is to stop funding the 70 IQ fecund, selfish retards – no welfare, no nothing

  35. Renoman says:

    You can be a man without being a jerk, same with being a Woman, start by goin easy on the booze and staying clear of people who aren’t. If I were a Woman I’d carry a gun or pepper spray at the very least and don’t just give it a squirt, empty the whole can or magazine.

  36. Avery says:
    @Tony Vodvarka

    {One wonders…..mad dog prosecutor…..}

    Yeah, one has to wonder.

    Three innocent young men would be in the vast American gulag today, if they were not the sons of well to do parents who could afford competent legal teams to save them from just such a mad dog, corrupt prosecutor who did everything illegal that he could to send 3 innocent young men to the gulag. That mad dog Durham DA Mike Nifong was fired and disbarred, but _only_ because the parents of those innocent young men had the means. There must be 10s of 1,000s of innocent men like Seligmann, Evans and Finnerty, rotting in jail, grabbed and ground down by the vast anti-male “justice” machine.

    The only reason Nifond was exposed is because these young men had the means to expose him.
    How many 1,000s and 1,000 of criminals like DA Nifong are in office today, unexposed, terrorizing innocent, falsely accused men?

    • Replies: @Tony Vodvarka
  37. Wally says:
    @WorkingClass

    They go to get drunk, laid, and then call it rape.

  38. Wally says:
    @Miro23

    “With women living in their own world run by feminist Mother Superiors, traditional marriage should start to look quite attractive.”

    Hence the move towards Asian women.

  39. SMK says: • Website
    @Tyrion 2

    This “soft-totalitarian” feminist-”misandrist” reign of terror and “war against men,” this “criminalization of masculinity with it’s epidemic of false accusations of rape and sexual-harassment, is waged almost exclusively against middle- and upper-middle-class white males e.g. college students, workers at corporations, etc.), not blacks, mestizos/Amerindians, and Muslims.

    The decades of abuse and terror in Rotherham, Telford, Oxford, etc.; the epidemic of rapes in Sweden by Muslims and blacks who are rarely punished, and never severely; the sexual assaults and rapes of over a 1000 women and girls in Cologne and other German cities by Muslim savages and predators in their teens and 20′s, with few if any punished; the myriads of rapes committed each year in U.S. cities by blacks and “Hispanics” with little chance of being arrested, much less prosecuted, much less convicted, much less imprisoned. Each year in Detroit alone, nameless and faceless and raceless low-IQ brutes and savaged who should be in prison commit hundred and rapes and murders -in a state in which Abigail Simon was sentenced to 8-25 year in prison and a lifetime of draconian/Orwellian persecution.

    Inexplicably strange behavior for societies that, according to Baskerville (who is black, actually a mulatto like Barack Obama) and Devlin and MRAs generally, are “matriarchies, “gynocracies” and “gynarchies”, ruled by feminists and defined by “misandry,” i.e., hatred of men of all races.

  40. Despite the field’s scandalous intellectual inadequacies…

    Allow me to insert here Daniel Amneus’s salvo that almost all feminist “scholarship” wouldn’t pass muster at the “most backward Bible college in Texas”.

  41. Liza says:
    @Jimbeamplease

    globalization isn’t just an economic transformation. It’s also the transmission of American liberal progressivism around the globe.

    If I’m not mistaken, there is a different word for that: globalism. “Globalization” is, I think, just an economic term.

  42. @anon

    That’s why a lot of liberal leaning websites have done away with their comments sections after the 2016 election.

  43. Should the harridans of feminism succeed at eradicating real men, there will be a fortune to be made in kitty litter and organic cat food.

  44. @Avery

    Of course, we all remember the adolescent who mostly beat a rape charge because of affluenza. One of the great shames on our nation is that considerable wealth is necessary to defend oneself in court effectively. The other is our mercenary health system. We are the only western nation where a citizen can be driven into bankruptcy because of medical or pharmaceutical bills. These evils are the two sides of the same coin.

    • Replies: @EliteComminc.
  45. @osborne

    Yes, Alpha Males will always prevail in the end. But what about Beta and Delta males? It’s been reported by many that 80% of women are pursuing 20% of males, thus causing the majority of both sexes to live lives of Thoreau’s “quiet desperation.” In better times, average guys married average girls, had children, and fewer were left out. Call it 1950′s stability. Now, single middle aged women, who held out for her non-existent White Night, are left with apartments full of cats, or, if they have enough money, IVF treatments. Average men and below, OTOH, can choose between MGTOW, joining the Incel movement, or becoming Homos. Everywhere you look society is rapidly unravelling.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    , @osborne
  46. Jason Liu says:

    Egalitarian societies are always threatened by ambitious young men, that’s the key to unraveling their dystopia.

  47. @ImagiNation

    It IS all by design and was surreptitiously put into action a century ago. Just Google the “Cloudhoven Kalergi Plan.”

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  48. Truth says:
    @WorkingClass

    To drink and have the option of getting laid.

  49. eah says:

    Patient inaction may work just as well.

  50. @Intelligent Dasein

    “It has to stop.” Chilling words, indeed. How do you propose to stop the Alt-Right and similar groups? You can attempt to shut down all their Internet sites, but that won’t stop their ideas. Censorship by Google and Facebook, growing by the day, only strengthens them, as it demonstrates their legitimate grievances. They would have to be put down with massive force and all that that entails. Many on the Left want this. Do you?

    Like you, I used to think that white nationalists were low-life scum. That was before I took the Red Pill and read intelligent far-sighted writers like Vox Day, Greg Johnson, and Gregory Hood. The article ends by saying “In the end, we will be forced to choose between continuing to indulge feminism and securing our own survival.” Those on the Nationalist Right, (a better term than alt-right), are smart enough to recognize this. Those who call them “rotten, worthless, ridiculous” don’t.

  51. @Tony Vodvarka

    This is unfamiliar to my experience.

  52. Bill H says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    They key here is that, “[m]y accuser and I were called before the judge.” Increasingly today the accused is not presented with the constitutional right to face his accuser, nor to defend himself in front of a judge. The accusation is conviction.

  53. AaronB says:
    @follyofwar

    I don’t think he intends to stop you, he just means the alt right isn’t the cure for our problems.

    The alt right is itself an expression of the modern disease and grows out of modern assumptions, so will disappear when modernity is overcome. It is inconceivable in a sane culture.

    As a desire to return to a previous era of one-sided extremism, out of which the current leftist extremism itself grew in reaction, the alt right is unintelligent and merely reactive, but also understandable and worthy of sympathy, but ultimately just part of the same underlying problem – the unsustainable swing between one-sided extremes that has characterized the West for some time now.

    When that culture of extremes is transcended by a culture of wholeness and integration, the alt right will vanish like a puff of smoke.

    However, intelligent dasein can answer for himself I’m sure.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    , @Sanders
  54. Tyrion 2 says:
    @follyofwar

    A million monkeys on a million typewriters…

  55. So if there was no selfie, they would throw this guy in jail for life, based on her accusation alone?
    No other evidence needed?
    Pretty scary.

    His defense attorney was one Rick Flores. Which of those two names inspires less confidence?

    Here’s expert advice on hiring lawyers:

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  56. @Wally

    Hence the move towards Asian women.

    Really! Meet Sarah Jeong. Look her up. Asians are the nastiest, angriest of all the feminists once they’re here. Think of the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, except with vaginas. White feminists think they’re adding diversity when they mix in a little yellow. Then the yellow teaches THEM a few things about nasty and hateful and deceitful.

    • Replies: @Nawyr
  57. Colorado Congressman Jared Polis advocates expelling all male students accused of sexual assault: “If there’s ten people who have been accused and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all ten people.”

    Evidently presidents of his own party don’t count as people.

    Hooray for Baskerville. Keep hounding these bitches!

  58. One of the most effective ways to defeat your enemy is to deprive them of their stocks and sources of sustenance (supply lines).

    In the heterosexual dynamic sex is powerful ammunition and due to how we were made healthy men have a 24/7 desire for this materiel and women can dispense it honestly when ‘in the mood’ or store it to be used for emotional or material gain. C’est la guerre.

    However technology has added an element that I think can disrupt the insane path that women have unwittingly taken, the sex robot!

    Apparently there are already models produced that look, feel and talk not just like real women but like a woman of your most absolute and irrational dreams! (supposedly there are already brothels with these items so they must already be viable in their first generation).

    For sport I visited some hard core feminist and ‘you go girl’ type sites discussing this phenomenon and the vajajays were livid! The (sex) ammunition dump got dun blowed up! The best that they could come up with was that this was proof that men only want dominance over women.

    Now this sex robot thing makes me queasy a bit but with younger generations of men coming into play that never really had a good shagging rite of passage and modern women having little to no upside and a potentially ruinous downside, once the keys to the honeypot cease to be an exclusive factor might women begin to abate in the attack on masculinity and the legal abnormalities that ensue?

    Cheers-

    • Replies: @anon
  59. hrk says:

    Its articles like this that make rethink the supposed futility of a peasant uprising. If one is doomed to servitude either way, the option becomes more attractive by the day. If domestic opponents cannot (and will not) budge then it only seems natural.

  60. Greetings Mr. Devlin!

    Am considering starting a sex-robot / prostitution business. Do you think such would be legal in all 50 states? If so, I would welcome you as partner given your upfront start up money.
    Thanks!

  61. Nawyr says:
    @Jim Christian

    Statistically speaking, you are wrong.

    And my own personal experience with Asian feminists is that they are very pro-white male, probably including Jeong behind the fake tweets she made.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
  62. ”Mesculinity” = ALL human wars…

  63. Agent76 says:

    Jan 14, 2012 Feminism Was Created To Destabilize Society, Tax Women and set up the NWO – Aaron Russo

    Hollywood producer, filmmaker, activist and truth seeker Aaron Russo reveals some of the REAL reasons for feminism which was funded and pushed by the Rockefellers and the CIA for very nefarious reasons, which includes being part of their central banking worldwide takeover to help set up the New World Order.

    February 1, 2007 How the Rockefeller’s Re-Engineered Women

    Feminism is an excellent example of how the Rockefeller mega cartel uses the awesome power of the mass media (i.e. propaganda.) to control society. In 40 short years, many women have lost touch with their natural loving instincts. Consequently, the family is in disarray, sexual depravity is rampant and birth rates have plummeted.

    https://www.henrymakow.com/001904.html

    • Replies: @anon
  64. Tyrion 2 says:
    @AaronB

    Will you be the next McVeigh, Rael or “Caitlyn” Jenner?

  65. El Dato says:
    @Biff

    Twitter is a den of globalist blue checkmarkers, social justice warriors, NPC computer nerds and possibly other mental perversions.

    Flattening the outfit using JDAM-dropping B-52 should be done via presidential orders forthwith.

  66. When your only tool is your vagina, all problems look like penises.

  67. @Nawyr

    And my own personal experience with Asian feminists is that they are very pro-white male, probably including Jeong behind the fake tweets she made.

    I agree they lie, obfuscate and dodge. But on the issue of hating White men, I choose to take them at their word. When their meme became “Yellow Fever” twenty years back, I knew the Asian-Sweetie thing was OVER. They’re more toxic than ricin.

  68. El Dato says:

    But, as I have explained at length elsewhere, the current hook-up scene is no chaos of random coupling; it is a Darwinian competition between women for the attentions of a relatively small number of men.

    I don’t understand. Pretty gorgeous black people can be had and there is a real font of them somewhere.

  69. @Intelligent Dasein

    What are your ideas for saving the West? If I recall correctly, you are a Roman Catholic. If yes, do you accept black/Asian priests-popes? How do you define the West? I define it as not being black/Asian/Jewish/Muslim, so these groups will have to be repatriated or segregated.

    The alt-Right makes some interesting points, but until it comes up with programs and policies to solve our problems, they are useless. The insane anti-Semitism of many of its followers, and that many are cucks involved with Asian females are issues that will have to be resolved first.

    The first question that needs to be asked for solving our problems is: Where do we put the Jews? When I start getting answers regarding this question, then I can start to believe we are on our way to saving the West.

  70. anon[221] • Disclaimer says:
    @Timur The Lame

    In the heterosexual dynamic sex is powerful ammunition and due to how we were made healthy men have a 24/7 desire for this materiel and women can dispense it honestly when ‘in the mood’ or store it to be used for emotional or material gain. C’est la guerre.

    weak men give in to blackmail like this

  71. anon[221] • Disclaimer says:
    @Agent76

    Feminism is an excellent example of how the Rockefeller mega cartel uses the awesome power of the mass media (i.e. propaganda.) to control society.

    its more likely the Frankfurt School and one other (((organization))) i cant currently remember the name of, but what happens when you turn off jew media?

  72. I don’t understand. Pretty gorgeous black people can be had and there is a real font of them somewhere.

    Right! I’m even seeing commercials with nerdy White boys hooked up with Black women. It gives them permission. But White boys are headed for a beating if they turn up in a majority Black situation with their Black girlfriends. Only Black men can cross over, not White men. Black women HATE seeing Black men with White women and Black men aren’t tolerant of White men with Black women.

    Black women are a bigger pain in the ass than anyone other than American-educated Asian women. If there’s an angrier group, I can’t imagine who.

  73. Corvinus says:

    Wow, just wow. a TRAIL of misinformation by the author heree.

    “But, as I have explained at length elsewhere, the current hook-up scene is no chaos of random coupling; it is a Darwinian competition between women for the attentions of a relatively small number of men. This mating system’s predictable output—possibly its intended output—is a large number of disappointed young women ripe for a message of resentment and revenge upon the opposite sex.”

    Actually, current hook-up culture involves competition by both genders to procure a one-night stand or a weekend of debauchery, which takes a physical and mental toll on men and women who perpetually engage in this behavior.

    “The sexual revolution did not usher in prolonged anarchy; it replaced a voluntary system of self-control according to principles equally applicable to all with the bureaucratically enforced “empowerment” of one sex at the expense of the other. ”

    Actually, prior to the sexual revolution, there was no such “voluntary system of self-control”. Rather, it was a system by which men controlled the institution of dating and marriage until the early 1900′s, where standards gradually relaxed.

    “The proof is that no feminist has ever encouraged young women behave in ways which would prevent their getting hurt in the first place. Feminists find the hook-up scene far too useful to shut down.”

    Actually, you are offering an assertion here, not proof. The reality is that those men and women who are involved in the hook-u p culture equally do not want access to “easy sex” to be restricted.

    “Back in the 1970s when the movement was getting started, feminists wrote tracts advocating the abolition of marriage—and, of course, they got nowhere.”

    You mean RADICAL feminists.

    “As two dissident feminist professors have phrased it, “Feminist research demands loyalty to an ideological agenda rather than empirical adequacy and logical consistency.”

    Who? Regardless, they represent outlier thinking. Most men and women would not take their pronouncement seriously.

    “Feminist “theory,” as it is grandly called, is a crude social determinism, and the reason feminists cling to it is obvious: insofar as sex differences are naturally determined, they cannot be changed to suit feminist preferences.”

    You are trying to build an entire narrative on a false foundation.

    “For decades, feminists have assiduously promoted the lie that one woman in four (sometimes five) is raped while attending university.”

    Indeed, there have been sketchy numbers. But rape on college campus is an issue. Serious enough that there needs to be discourse about it and courses of action taken.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/06/07/these-colleges-have-the-most-reports-of-rape/?utm_term=.1a2e061f4dbc

    “When such cases were brought before ordinary courts of law, they quickly got thrown out…Now campus kangaroo courts are convicting men on the basis of a preponderance of evidence standard, the lowest standard recognized by law.”

    You’re going to have to do better than merely offer this statement as fact. Examples and citations
    are required.

    “Indeed, feminist law professor Catherine MacKinnon…”

    RADICAL feminist. In March 2015, after Northwestern University professor Peter Ludlow had been accused of sexual harassment, fellow colleague Laura Kipnis (a feminist) wrote an essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education in which she decried “sexual paranoia” on campuses and discussed professor-student sexual relationships and trigger warnings. Her 2017 book, Unwanted Advances: Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus discusses the Ludlow case and argues that sexual harassment policies do not empower women and impede the fight for gender equality. The fact is that there are feminists who disagree with one another over ideology and policy. You fail miserably to make this distinction.

    “California law now requires that to avoid a rape conviction, male university students must “demonstrate they obtained verbal ‘affirmative consent’ before engaging in sexual activity.” Not just obtain it, but demonstrate, in court, that they obtained it.”

    Indeed, the law is problematic. But it is clear in that “affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time.” That means anytime someone says “No” and the request is not honored, then he/she is in apparent violation of the law. Pro tip –> If you are a man or a woman, don’t date crazy.

    “Like other ideological terms, “sexual harassment” soon fell victim to reckless verbal inflation…”

    Finally, some truth here on your part.

    “until it could be used to describe any male behavior to which a woman might object.”

    That would be Fake News.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  74. Corvinus says:
    @follyofwar

    “Yes, Alpha Males will always prevail in the end.”

    The reality is that the alpha males are married men with children. They are the builders of civilization.

    “It’s been reported by many that 80% of women are pursuing 20% of males…”

    That is a commonly cited statistic, one that is other than accurate.

    “Now, single middle aged women, who held out for her non-existent White Night, are left with apartments full of cats, or, if they have enough money, IVF treatments. Average men and below, OTOH, can choose between MGTOW, joining the Incel movement, or becoming Homos.”

    Do you enjoy making wild generalizations?

    • Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy
  75. Corvinus says:
    @Anonymous

    You offered HORRIBLE advice.

    For the Modern Young Man, the world is your oyster. Use the sound advice given to you by your father and friends. American society will need you to be strong, secure, and confident. There are plenty of women out there to date, mate, and procreate, whether they be white or non-white. The Alt Right and the Manosphere are haters to your cause. Live well and prosper.

  76. RADICAL feminist

    Redundancies are tiresome enough. You don’t have to shout them.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  77. Anon[406] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    It’s been a long time since I’ve read such a putrid and ugly and intellectually faggy comment at Unz, so…congrats?

    • Replies: @anonymous
  78. @Wally Streeter

    Found me a good woman in the Philippines.

  79. wayfarer says:

    Either feminist or masculinist, who gives a rat’s ass?

    Like trying to fit half of America into an “alt-right box” and half into an “alt-left box”, or trying to fit the other half of a gender into hijabs.

    It’s not pragmatic, on a cosmic scale.

    Each human soul is as unique as a snowflake, and eternally powered by divine free-will.

    Eventually one-by-one, destined to liberate themselves.

  80. @AaronB

    In a way, I agree with your assessment. I remember some of the commentary around the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2014 Sochi Olympics. Some TV talking heads were going on about how bad the Russians were for lacking gay rights while at the same time calling the ceremonies “the gayest ever”. I thought it said more about their own culture than it did about Russia’s. American culture devalues femininity in both art and sport, and it doesn’t respect it in other cultures either.

    That said, your average American male can’t wait for the world to turn while he’s hunting for a mate or just trying to get laid. Young men are dealt a disservice when they aren’t warned of how bad women can be and how to defend themselves against some of their tricks. So my advice to be a dick on occasion stands.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  81. @Wally

    Asian women have their own brand of strength and know how to wield it over men. They are less likely to reach for a lawyer and more likely to reach for a knife. They have been known to stab or even eunuch an errant partner.

    (My own experiences in Japan have been rocky at times, but never involved bloodshed. Unlike this poor soul. )

    https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/japanese-woman-arrested-in-stabbing-death-of-yokota-based-airman-1.556041

  82. @Corvinus

    “That means anytime someone says “No” and the request is not honored, then he/she is in apparent violation of the law. Pro tip –> If you are a man or a woman, don’t date crazy.”

    Laughing . . .

    You do realize that in most cases “crazy” never appears until it is too late.

    I would add your being a tad loose here. The issue of assault/rape has been a juggernaut for feminists and women in general as well as the “harrassment” policies. On the case of rape and assault, those exaggerated numbers matter. Unless one knows that the numbers are closer to less than 1%, then one can be intimidated into believing not only the magnitude, but the rhetoric that comes with it.

    no doubts that rapes actually occur – it’s the magnitude that is at issue.

    I don’t buy the contend about who controlled the dating/marriage schema. That is more complex. point of fact, men pursue women (generally) — women have to consent. Even the arranged marriage scenario is overblown.

    The pressure to marry and the expectation was no less a societal expectation on men — found this little tidbit. But it suggests this expectation was by men and women.

    https://paperbacksnpostcards.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/the-18th-century-when-marriage-was-a-sexy-prospect/

    17th and 18th century — entire manuals on marriage – note the references to women making proper choices in selecting their mates — hardly sounds like a one sided

    “Me man . . . come” — Bonk on the head environment

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  83. @Anonymous

    Thank you for sharing your experience. I will share mine here.

    Last year I was falsely accused of sexual harassment by the lone female in my office. She lied to our boss and spread the lies around the whole workplace. My supervisor merely suggested that she moved desks away from me.

    I was honestly scared I would get fired. Fortunately, she is such a liar and a bad one that the whole office began to realize who she really is. She made up lies about me because she wanted a better desk in the shared office.

    This year, the whole office spoke to our boss about her selfish and disruptive behavior. She is being transferred out to another office. Not fired.

    She still views herself as a victim. Zero self-awareness.

  84. AaronB says:
    @Wally Streeter

    Of course, young men need to be aware women can be bad. But I don’t think that means there is a reason to be a dick. That will just make you unhappy. It’s also just meeting extremes with extremes, which is sort of our national problem. We find ourselves in some extreme situation, and deal with it by going to another extreme.

    I have found a good policy is to approach women with a positive attitude, but notice signs of a negative personality. Then simply leave and avoid.

    It may surprise many young men, but I have found acting more “feminine” around women and dropping the macho pretense to be very well received. I was never mocked or viewed with contempt by women for being friendly, smiling a lot, warmly engaging, giving compliments.

  85. I think ignoring the several million years of socialization between men and women in which roles and expectations of each were formed is folly. The feminists or not anyone who ignores that is operating in folly.

    I think John Stuart Mill is a fine philosopher, but his contention that women in marriage were slaves is probably hyperbole of the highest order.

    sacrifice — let me know when modern women are going strap up for combat.

  86. AaronB says:

    sacrifice — let me know when modern women are going strap up for combat

    .

    And then we wonder why women are now clamoring to be Navy Seals.

  87. Anon[396] • Disclaimer says:

    This mating system’s predictable output—possibly its intended output—

    Too bad only a few grasp that point.

    the sexual revolution has not “liberated male sexuality,” but subjected men to an arbitrary and hostile regime from which none of them is safe.

    Fairness would mandate — if fairness ever were in the condition to mandate anything — to say that this is happening because men love to team with women against other men, and hate to team with other men (unless they team with other men against another group of men. It just can never be that they do something in defense of other men).

  88. llloyd says: • Website

    Islamic cultures that have the sanctity of sharia behind it are best able to hold out against feminism. It is sharia law that is sane.

  89. Corvinus says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    “You do realize that in most cases “crazy” never appears until it is too late.”

    Laughing…

    There are tell tale signs. But people unfortunately ignore them or gloss over them.

    “I would add your being a tad loose here. The issue of assault/rape has been a juggernaut for feminists and women in general as well as the “harrassment” policies.”

    This juggernaut is actually a legitimate problem men and women seek to address.

    “On the case of rape and assault, those exaggerated numbers matter…no doubts that rapes actually occur – it’s the magnitude that is at issue.”

    You mean there are enough cases where the facts indicate a man or woman has committed that crime. And the numbers are significant.

    https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1082.html

    “Unless one knows that the numbers are closer to less than 1%…’

    Source?

    “then one can be intimidated into believing not only the magnitude, but the rhetoric that comes with it.”

    The intimidation comes from those people who downplay its severity. There will be men who deny they did anything wrong–when they did–and there will be women who will insist something happened–when nothing did.. Regardless, rape and sexual assault remain an issue regardless of the posturing.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  90. Corvinus says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    “Redundancies are tiresome enough. You don’t have to shout them.”

    Considering your tone deaf, you think you would appreciate the volume being turned up a tad.

  91. Liza says:

    In some jurisdictions it is now a crime to “interfere” (whatever that means) with a woman breastfeeding.

    Should it be a crime to interfere with a woman bottlefeeding her child? Inquiring minds want to know.

    Would you want your boss, or anyone, anywhere, to interfere with your going to the bathroom to take a leak? But a small child or baby is just supposed to control its hunger?

    People who get angry or somehow upset at the sight of a woman nursing her child probably have some sort of “issues” surrounding sexuality. They see the female breasts as nothing more than sex toys. Indeed, it is because of that attitude that some men will not permit their wife to breastfeed (nurse) their baby. Utterly astonishing, but I hear about this fairly often.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  92. @Liza

    “Would you want your boss, or anyone, anywhere, to interfere with your going to the bathroom to take a leak? But a small child or baby is just supposed to control its hunger? ”

    I don’t have a problem with breast feeding in public, discretion and good judgement implied (because yeah, some buzz cut lesbian whipping her fat floppy tatted-up tits out at a playground is nothing more than saying “Fuck you, civility”), but this comparison is invalid. You cannot compare public breastfeeding to private urination.

    “Indeed, it is because of that attitude that some men will not permit their wife to breastfeed (nurse) their baby. Utterly astonishing, but I hear about this fairly often.”

    Straw man – These days, the choice to not breast feed is made more often by the women based on convenience and or vanity. But the thought was fun to turn on its head:

    Women who get angry or somehow upset at the sight of a man relieving himself probably have some sort of “issues” surrounding sexuality. They see the male penis as nothing more than a sex toy. Indeed, it is because of that attitude that some women will (try to) not permit their husbands to masturbate regularly. Utterly astonishing, but I hear about this fairly often.

  93. Liza says:

    These days, the choice to not breast feed is made more often by the women based on convenience and or vanity.

    Let’s start fighting, okay?

    Your above statement is correct. However, it is also true that some men are dead set against their wife feeding the child with her breasts. I don’t know the percentages of each “reason”. I only know that I am not making this up, that I hear about it all too often. (I am so very, very grateful that my husband approved of my nursing my children, anytime, anywhere! I didn’t have to talk him into it.)

    I don’t have a problem with breast feeding in public, discretion and good judgement implied (because yeah, some buzz cut lesbian whipping her fat floppy tatted-up tits out at a playground is nothing more than saying “Fuck you, civility”), but this comparison is invalid. You cannot compare public breastfeeding to private urination.

    The comparison between public breastfeeding and private (or any) urination is valid in that they are both urgent needs. Adults (male or female) needing to urinate can’t be expected to wait a long time and neither should babies be expected to wait a long time to consume their primary food, milk. That is the way Nature built them. Cities have public toilets and women have tits. How neat is that!

    Why is this an issue of private VS public? Even in western societies, in much earlier (though civilized) times, it was common for a woman to pull out her breast to feed her child and no one thought anything of it. But today, folks of both sexes get mighty upset to see a woman nursing in public even when all that can be seen is the back of the baby’s head. There has to be a reason for this. Any ideas? I say resentment – that they themselves, when tiny, wanted the comfort of a warm breast and instead got a bad tasting plastic nipple shoved into their mouth. So much more is imparted through nursing; it’s not just the physical food.

    About that ugly lesbian with the floppy, tatted tits – so what? Why continue to look at her? Yes, she might have attitude, as those kinds of folks tend to have – but nursing a child in public is the least of their intrusions.

    You want to talk about men urinating? OK, I don’t care. I have more than once run across a man doing just that, in public, along the sidewalk or road. Guess what – I look the other way and keep on walking. I don’t huff and puff and dial the police. I never even mention it to anyone. “O MY GOD, A MAN WAS PISSING ON THE STREET!” It simply does not bother me that I might accidentally see a tiny portion of someone’s sex/urinary organ with piss coming out – I’se all growed up.

    No hard feelings, Mike. Honest.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  94. @follyofwar

    That was before I took the Red Pill…

    You gentlemen always use that line. Along with Dawkinsian neo-Darwinism (i.e. tub-thumping anti-religious scoffery) and PUA boilerplate (Twilight for lonely bros), the Red Pill confessio is one of your favorite literary tropes. Maybe if you tried unpacking that analogy a little more it might result in some well merited humility.

    For you, reality is a pill you must take, a foreign substance that by violence turns you ever so fragmentarily and temporarily away from your natural condition. But for me it is in the blood. I was born unto it; I take no pills, I needed no pills. I was here before any of this existed. And now all you late arriving retinue of Plato’s cave dwellers, having caught the faintest rumor of tri-dimensionality, proceed to retort upon me with your insights—me, who has spent his entire life in the light.

    Ornithology to the birds, my friend.

  95. Art says:
    @niteranger

    The feminist movement started with sick Jewish Marxist C.U.N.T.s (Can’t Understand Normal Thinking) like Bela Abzug, Gloria “I need Conditioner for My Hair” Steinem (part Jew and CIA informer), and Betty Freidan (real name Goldstein).

    Hear Hear!

    Another extension of the sick Jew culture infecting all of America.

    Loveless Jew feminists and their media have encouraged the one parent family. Because of these angry women, millions of American children grow up and matriculate without a biological father. Unfortunately, that is just the start of their uncommitted loveless lives.

    No category of people brings more real unhappiness to America then Jew women.

    Peace — Do No Harm — Art

    p.s. Just think about it, every school in America faces this regime of division and hate.

    • Replies: @Art
  96. @Corvinus

    Do the math. Use the numbers on the fbi site — be generous, use the justice department numbers. even with the new definitions of rape, then include the supposed, unreported.

    I have been calculating those numbers out for years.

    Have fun untangling the number of pregnancies from “rape” assaults. Now that I haven’t done in a while.

    Unravel the black on white female rape stats and the rationale that whites men and female use to advocate blacks rape white women more than whites men rape b lack women. It’s darn right bizarre and as shallow as any thing white women have used to advance the “scarey black man” — to “threatening environment” to which black males are subject to. Asians and latinos have made this very useful in their polity. I find it strange that someone as acute on these issues has not previous driven into the stats on rape — especially given its history to blacks in this country.

    And further when the predictable shift to globalize that mystique of social artifact fictions, as has been referenced on those article to get an accurate picture of what is really the case in Europe. More men experience rape than women.

    And how all of the social narrative based on inaccurate stats has been used to justify crime legislation. Given your advocacy, I am surprised, that any of this would be news to you. Interesting. The nexus between feminist theory and white male unity is that white women are just as complicit in the “supposed wrongs” of “old white men” to marginalize blacks, especially the black male. How those foundations were used to undermine the single program ever created to undermine the very institutional color barrier systems you would contend exist. The primary purpose of which and this is old news — minimize any redress that both white males and females have caused to black access to citizenship and a slice of the american pie.

    Goodness me ohh my.

    wonders never cease.

    Rape is a serious issue. An offense, so egregious against another’s person-hood, that feminsists or anyone’s abuse of the numbers actually damages dealing the matter effectively. it has become merely a social construction for political advocacy. When its primary target was blacks, it was fine. B ut now that white men are getting a taste of the monster they helped create — it’s a wake up call.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  97. “There are tell tale signs. But people unfortunately ignore them or gloss over them.”

    I am not inclined to place personality assessments on relationships, in said manner. The dynamics, the very nature of male female intrapersonal and interpersonal relations is neither science as you suggest nor valid — choices of the human mind, emotions, intent, background, experience — I would becareful to make any cookie cutter template — maybe if I new the people, but aside from that – caution is the better angel. Who should know the workings of the human being in said manner – the desire for the companionship of another human being has demonstrated any number of inexplicable relationships. A telltale sign to me, might the very quality another person embraces to love and appreciate. Unless the matter is extreme overtime, even then — caution.

    This,

    “The intimidation comes from those people who downplay its severity.”

    is complete nonsense.

    “There will be men who deny they did anything wrong–when they did–and there will be women who will insist something happened–when nothing did.. Regardless, rape and sexual assault remain an issue regardless of the posturing.”

    Well, that is why the numbers matter and women advocates know that. That is why they exacerbate the numbers, have complained about the definition and have successfully had it redefined to include greater and greater numbers. That enables the advocacy. There’s a reason why feminists want to explode the numbers, it’s to the attention for policy. It elicits intense emotional response. It takes the matter out of the “unique” dynamic among two people that it generally is and seeks enablement by advocacy for policies such as “consent” in writing, not merely verbal. Which your quaint “don’t date crazy” is simply inadequate to describe the very real empty spaces of unknowns in male female communication. There are some clear guidelines. But once a relationship commences, that dynamic becomes increasing more fluid.

    And there is this reality, most male female communication is nonverbal — and in that most consent and ‘nonconsent’ is nonverbal. That is why no one should be drinking or engaged in drug use during any part of the early stages of courtship. I am fine with no drinking – ever – but ave been informed that alcohol lowers inhibitions . . .

    well, duh.

  98. Corvinus says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    “Use the numbers on the fbi site — be generous, use the justice department numbers. even with the new definitions of rape, then include the supposed, unreported.”

    Indeed, there is much to consider here. But the fact remains that under reporting occurs. How do include or exclude such events remains a bone of contention. Regardless, the fact remains that rape is a serious issue.

    https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/FBI-Report-Shows-Almost-20-Percent-Increase-in-Rape-Reports-495065881.html

    “I have been calculating those numbers out for years.”

    OK, show your work.

    “And how all of the social narrative based on inaccurate stats has been used to justify crime legislation.”

    Let’s cut to the chase and avoid the noise. The narrative is that rape is a serious issue. One group will say it has “become merely a social construction for political advocacy” while another group will say “the white patriarchy is getting their just deserts for our past marginalization”. But there is a third group, one that realizes that despite their politicization of this problem, the combined efforts of law enforcement and public advocacy groups are working to educate men and women and bring the culprits to justice–those who commit rape and those who falsely report rape. They navigate through the BS.

    Again, the narrative is that rape is a serious issue.

    “I am not inclined to place personality assessments on relationships, in said manner.”

    “The dynamics, the very nature of male female intrapersonal and interpersonal relations is neither science as you suggest nor valid”

    Actually, there are numerous studies that explore such relations, with their results offering insight into how and why men and women act. Regardless, there are telltale signs by which men and women show “craziness”, whether it be a blowup by a man who thinks his girlfriend is cheating on him merely for talking to another guy (without even finding out the context of the conversation) to a woman who gets upset everytime her boyfriend wants to go out with his friends (without understanding that guys just need to be guys). I was fortunate to have avoided such pitfalls based on my conversations with male adult role models and my friends.

    “Well, that is why the numbers matter and women advocates know that. That is why they exacerbate the numbers, have complained about the definition and have successfully had it redefined to include greater and greater numbers.”

    You mean some men and women advocates overplay the numbers, while their detractors downplay the numbers. It is essentially a shell game. But set aside the noise and focus on the narrative–rape is a serious issue.

    That enables the advocacy. There’s a reason why feminists want to explode the numbers, it’s to the attention for policy. It elicits intense emotional response. It takes the matter out of the “unique” dynamic among two people that it generally is and seeks enablement by advocacy for policies such as “consent” in writing, not merely verbal.

    Which your quaint “don’t date crazy” is simply inadequate to describe the very real empty spaces of unknowns in male female communication.”

    Actually, it is sound advice.

    “But once a relationship commences, that dynamic becomes increasing more fluid.”

    Yet, a person is still able to figure out along the way whether or not their significant other exhibits bitterness, jealousy, or anger in various social situations to the point that this question must be answered one way or the other–Is it worth my time, energy, and effort to date him/her given the drama that results?

    “And there is this reality, most male female communication is nonverbal — and in that most consent and ‘nonconsent’ is nonverbal.”

    We don’t really know for certain if “most consent and nonconsent is nonverbal”. We can assume it is, but how do you measure it to be able to make a definitive statement on the matter? Anecdotally, there were a number of occasions where it was a wink and a nod, and there were a variety of instances where a definitive answer (yes or no) had to be obtained.

    That is why no one should be drinking or engaged in drug use during any part of the early stages of courtship.”

    Exactly. The trouble starts when the man, the woman, or both have booze in their system.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    , @Bill P
  99. @Liza

    None taken.

    “The comparison between public breastfeeding and private (or any) urination is valid in that they are both urgent needs.”

    “If” both are urgent needs then both can wait until privacy is acquired. Or, conversely, because of the urgency, both are acceptable to perform in public. See how the comparison doesn’t work, based on urgency?

    However, returning to the issue of public decency, breast feeding in public is not indecent IF simple consideration is applied. But that is the real issue: breast feeding has become a political statement, and the self entitled women who see it that way discard all compromise, judgement, and sense of proportion. This is not the behavior of rational people.

    That you seemingly defend the practice under any and every possible (exploited) application speaks to your own bias. As a man I seek compromise, as a woman you seek absolutism.

    • Replies: @Liza
  100. Anonymous[119] • Disclaimer says:

    Great article. I only disagree with this:

    For this reason, I believe feminism constitutes a threat to Western civilization equal in importance to the ethnic competition more usually discussed on this site.

    First: modern Western feminism is a product of certain (((ethnic))) competition machinations.

    Second: its reach and strength comes from the (((MSM))), (((education))) and (((courts))). In percentage terms, among the goyim, it’s actually not a very popular ideology. Bottom line is that we’ll recover quickly and suffer no lasting damage after it fades into obscurity. Recovering from ethnic replacement – on the other hand – will be much more difficult and very ugly.

  101. @Corvinus

    Here’s my short response.

    I stand exactly where I came in.

    No we do know that most human communication is nonverbal. And that is accurate for for male female relational dynamics as well.

    No. I mean, exactly what I send – no amendments or editing regarding “some” is required.

    No kidding, that violating another’s person in any manner is a serious issue and that applies to rape. no one has suggested otherwise. I am going to skip your male white patriarchy comeuppance assail. I am not going to engage in heads up about whether the dominant population has leveraged “relational dynamic between white women and black male narrative” to justify marginalizing black males. Here’s a hint, “Policing the Black Man” among a myriad of tests, articles and history itself of the staple to “rape and black men.”
    Laughing your the choir that knows the notes who simply doesn’t want to sing. I don’t pander do the work on the numbers – they are not secrets.

    Laughing good grief.

    Given the nature of male female relational dynamics throughout history and how many people one might consider “crazy” are in successful relationships (anecdotal), in my view, whether or not said admonition is sound is a coin toss. Human intimacy is just not that static.

  102. @Wally Streeter

    I going to reject your suggestions 1 and 2.

  103. An overlooked factor in causing the current feminist outrage is DNA testing. Basically, women can no longer hide the identity of a child’s father. This is problematic in a society that expects fathers, real or otherwise, to provide for their children until they are grown. In theory, women could accept responsibility for their own bad behavior, but this would come at the cost of their child’s welfare. So, women need some strong arm tactics in addition to their feminine wiles to make men behave as they want them to. By strong arm tactics, I mean terrorizing the male populace with casual allegations of rape that could lead to long prison terms. The message from the ladies is “submit or be destroyed”. It’s a pure power play on their part.

  104. Corvinus says:

    “No we do know that most human communication is nonverbal. And that is accurate for for male female relational dynamics as well.”

    Human communication is verbal and nonverbal. Depending upon the person and the circumstance, it may be that particular situation that verbal is more important than nonverbal, or that nonverbal is more critical than verbal. The point is that in male-female relationship dynamics, each encounter, each tete-a-tete, each romantic interlude, requires the participants to learn how to understand one another.

    No. I mean, exactly what I send – no amendments or editing regarding “some” is required.

    “I am going to skip your male white patriarchy comeuppance assail.”

    Strawman much?

    “I don’t pander do the work on the numbers – they are not secrets.”

    No, no, no. You made the claim that “[you[ have been calculating those numbers out for years.” So a request has been made for you to show it. Go ahead.

    “Given the nature of male female relational dynamics throughout history and how many people one might consider “crazy” are in successful relationships (anecdotal), in my view, whether or not said admonition is sound is a coin toss.”

    No, it is decidedly clear to people what is normal and abnormal behavior, as I outlined.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  105. Liza says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    Thank you, Mike.

    “If” both are urgent needs then both can wait until privacy is acquired. Or, conversely, because of the urgency, both are acceptable to perform in public. See how the comparison doesn’t work, based on urgency?

    Why would privacy be required to feed a child? If women (of any and all cultural-political persuasions) were to haul out a bottle of milk and stick it in the kid’s mouth, would you still make this an issue of privacy? If you answer no, that you would not make an issue of bottle feeding a baby in public, please tell me why privacy is required to feed a child from the breast but not a bottle. Be specific. That the mother has bad attitude is irrelevant: that hungry baby doesn’t care that its mother is a left liberal lesbian. He/she is hungry, and should not be made to scream himself hoarse (unpleasant sound for bystanders) because Ma, such as she is, is required to run around looking for privacy.

    Honestly, Mike, I don’t think you know the basic physical, biochemical, biological facts on nursing. But here is Most Important Fact #1: You cannot make a baby take the breast if it does not want to. You can place the nipple against the baby’s mouth and it will just turn its head away. If a baby eagerly takes to the breast, it is because it has a legitimate need. That baby will suck for only as long as it needs, then stop.

    Let’s deal with reality here, shall we? Most men simply do not want to urinate in public. If large numbers decided they’d like to, and started doing it anywhere, everywhere, anytime, then there is the issue of contamination of places where the public walks. A bit of piss from one or two males doesn’t matter. Hundreds doing the same thing is a public health issue. (Look at some places in India – and they shit, too. GAH.) Nursing a baby from the breast, even with a large crowd of cheek-by-jowl women doing so, doesn’t create a public health nuisance or threat.

    I don’t see any “absolutism” in my outlook, I really don’t.

  106. Anonymous[119] • Disclaimer says:
    @Liza

    Why would privacy be required to feed a child? If women (of any and all cultural-political persuasions) were to haul out a bottle of milk and stick it in the kid’s mouth, would you still make this an issue of privacy? If you answer no, that you would not make an issue of bottle feeding a baby in public, please tell me why privacy is required to feed a child from the breast but not a bottle. Be specific.

    Specifically, you can squeeze your milk into a bottle and solve the problem without demanding special treatment. At the end of the day, men’s penises and women’s breasts are seen as “sexual organs” in the West so there’s no valid reason for you to demand a different set of “rights”.

    And you’re still ignoring this part of the article:

    [But] the new measures do not merely “permit” it (something that could be effected simply by removing prohibitions); they inflict penalties on anyone who objects. In some jurisdictions it is now a crime to “interfere” (whatever that means) with a woman breastfeeding.

    • Replies: @Liza
  107. @Corvinus

    “No, it is decidedly clear to people what is normal and abnormal behavior, as I outlined.”

    No, you don’t know what is normal, if you did you would reference the clinical assessments, which themselves debated among psychiatric professionals. Attempting meld your generic, colloquial evaluations has no corner on determining the quality of personality in this discussion. And i am not going to allow myself to misled into that discussion. Your outline is to generics. My previous response is sufficient for the day. And in the generic arena, the variations, are unlimited.

    And I have – do the work. Or maybe I should contact one of my twenty year old students to help you. The available data is there. I have made my position clear.

    A strawman is an argument that is not on the table — you attribute the argument to the opposing side and proceed to argue against it. I further provided a reference. Read, if you seriously are unfamiliar with the narrative. Though, I suspect there is more gamesmanship here than honest response. Black men as dangerous rapists is an old rhetorical trope.

    http://www.calcasa.org/2009/11/history-of-the-rape-crisis-movement/

    Typical misuse of crime stats, including rape

    https://www.infowars.com/black-crime-facts-that-the-white-liberal-media-darent-talk-about/

    note the narrative as opposed to the comments, this article in NYT is not only misleading it’s false. But there it is in black and white, according to articles author. Since it is a common rhetorical device, I didn’t even bother looking for that article in the times.

    https://abagond.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/black-rape-statistics/

    If you are really stuck on the math, feel free to check the archives here or at TAC, In previous discussions have gone through the numbers in detail.

    I have to say it’s a tad strange schooling my opponent on what my side and their side engage in regarding the issue of relational assault. Almost funny, if not for the consequence.

    I am not the least bit troubled that more b;lack men are accused of rape of white women than white men are accused of raping black women. If you can explain why that is no consequence to color politics, I would be curious to gear. This is an issue that is discussed in detail in my lectures. For effect, I use Miss Ann Coulter, Miss Laura Ingraham, and feminists all in the same boat since they have supported the rationale as misleading and false as it is. I think you need to do the work because you need to be informed about how people of color are used by rhetorical devices such as statistics. It’s important. I encourage you — do the work.

    Rape is a rare crime. That does not make it any less egregious. But it does change how it ought to be addressed. Casting men as villains is misleading, and destructive. Though a feminist might contend — deconstruction to new ways of thinking is the point.

    Eye roll.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  108. Wade says:

    As two dissident feminist professors have phrased it, “Feminist research demands loyalty to an ideological agenda rather than empirical adequacy and logical consistency.”

    Marxism evolved!

  109. “The Color of Law”

    “Crime and It’s Modification”

  110. In response to Feminist Critical Theory and Practice”

    PC, M.D. Dr. Satel

    Dr. Williams – I have not purchased her books. however, since her introduction at TAC I appreciate her responses, articles

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/fourth-wave-feminismwhy-no-one-escapes/

  111. Wade says:

    Baskerville notes the similarity to communist party discipline.

    Quiz: Who was responsible for the communist system? Just kidding I know everyone here knows the answer. Also everyone is probably good and familiar with MO of the feminists as conveyed in the article.

    The real interesting question, assuming that feminism is just another imposition upon the Christian world by those who perpetrated Communism, is what are the antecedents to communism? Feminism isn’t really communism but it shares with it the same methods of control. Is this how Rabbis once exercised control over Jewish ghettos in the centuries leading up to communism? Was communism merely the expression of Jewish energies after centuries of oppression within their own communities as if someone said within their inner circles “Now’s the time to take our ways to the masses! If only we had a secular doctrine that could serve as a vehicle for our Machiavellian techniques of control. [Enter Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto].”

    And so communism was born! Next Zionism is born and palmed off on the masses as an “alternative” to Jewish World conquest through Communism. Eventually Communism burns itself out after 100 years or so but then 3rd wave feminism is born, and psychedelic hippie culture too! And next up to bat, Cultural Marxism and PC culture. But we still have Zionists assuring gentile males in the US that the Jews are on our side [Good Cop - Bad Cop] and so all the masculine energies of gentile males is poured into support of Wars for Israel rather than taking our civilization back from the perpetrators of all of this. And on it goes…

    The only silver lining is that like the HIV virus it’s having to evolve quicker and quicker to maintain its novelty and remain viable. This stuff is getting to be increasing transparent to everyone (Micro-aggressions!!!) and the perpetrators are becoming increasingly visible as we reason amongst ourselves about the motivations and origins of all these movements.

    I believe all of this crap probably has antecedents in pre-Marxist days. I just don’t know much about it.

    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
  112. Art says:
    @Art

    No category of people brings more real unhappiness to America then Jew feminist women.

    Not even Jew economics and not even Jew politics have destroyed as much as Jew feminism has.

    Jew women are mistreated by Jew men.

    There are many approaches to finding appropriate remedies to equality for women in different cultures. But the Jew approach is particularly hateful and destructive of culture.

    Jew feminism is angry war between the sexes, for us it means families without fathers, and it is trouble making regulations, being forced on everyone from birth to death.

    America and its culture has been greatly diminished because of the defective nature of Jew culture.

    Think Peace — Do No Harm — Art

    p.s. Jew claim superiority – but are in fact inferior morally.

  113. @Liza

    “Why would privacy be required to feed a child?”

    Why would privacy be required to urinate? I certainly don’t need privacy to do so. It’s your comparison, I am merely arguing within the boundaries of it.

    “Honestly, Mike, I don’t think you know the basic physical, biochemical, biological facts on nursing. ”

    LOL – And here we have the predictable, inevitable descending into la la land, complete with resorting to straw men, false premises, and the “You haven’t walked in my shoes” bullshit. Last call before the estrogen bar closes. What’ll it be?

    “Let’s deal with reality here, shall we? ”

    Coming right up. The reality is, you are arguing for special privileges for women, specifically to be able to fully expose sexually related organs whenever and where ever they feel like it, under the thin veneer of “feedin’ muh baybeh,” when all that would be required is to throw a swaddling blanket over the process and maintain a bit of civility. But I guess that would be rape, or something.

    Bar’s closed. You’ve had enough anyway.

  114. The most effective way to murder a civilization is to invade the bedroom. Whereas our historical enemies maintain strict patriarchal societies unopened to the slightest of questions and with a stranglehold on gender roles – they have convinced Western Civilization that their women are oppressed, that good would-be husbands and fathers are “rapist” harassers.

    Ah it there were any real men – woe to be such a fomenter for they have rightfully earned retributions unimaginable. They defiled the most sacred of our institutions, poisoned our wells of goodness and brought our entire society to the brink of collapse. Woe to be those fomenter if there were indeed any real men left.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  115. Corvinus says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    “No, you don’t know what is normal, if you did you would reference the clinical assessments, which themselves debated among psychiatric professionals.”

    Indeed, we know what is normal and abnormal in a relationship. I outlined two specific behaviors–jealousy and control. When perpetual and pervasive in nature, each phenomenon has a devastating impact on a relationship. Early warning signs may be detected to indicate that one’s partner is “crazy”. Psychologists and psychiatrists have studied these patterns of conduct.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5380380/

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5069702/

    “Attempting meld your generic, colloquial evaluations has no corner on determining the quality of personality in this discussion. And i am not going to allow myself to misled into that discussion. Your outline is to generics.”

    My outline is to particulars. Not generic, not colloquial. Acting overbearing and possessive can change a loving relationship into one filled with envy, terror and control. Possessiveness comes from feelings of insecurity in a relationship. These behaviors are observable.

    “And I have – do the work. Or maybe I should contact one of my twenty year old students to help you. The available data is there. I have made my position clear.”

    No, you will be pressed on this matter. Remember, YOU said you have the data. From what sources and how you have organized it remains to be seen. You are now backtracking. YOU made the claim. I called you on that claim. Now offer up the statistics from YOUR own computations, with citations, or retract the claim.

    “I have to say it’s a tad strange schooling my opponent on what my side and their side engage in regarding the issue of relational assault. Almost funny, if not for the consequence.”

    There is no schooling of anyone here. If you must claim some sort of hollow victory, that says more about your character, or lack thereof.

    “I am not the least bit troubled that more b;lack men are accused of rape of white women than white men are accused of raping black women. If you can explain why that is no consequence to color politics, I would be curious to gear.”

    Regardless of the rabbit hole you want to go down, the fact remains that rape is a serious issue. It is other than rare. The men/women who commit it are villains and the men/women who lie about it are villainesses.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  116. Corvinus says:
    @Sic Semper

    “Whereas our historical enemies maintain strict patriarchal societies unopened to the slightest of questions and with a stranglehold on gender roles…”

    It is not as strict as you believe, nor is it as desirable as you think. Regardless, our society has the liberty to decide how we, as citizens, ought to live. Elements of patriarchy remain.

    “they have convinced Western Civilization that their women are oppressed”

    In some areas, indeed, women were oppressed.

    “that good would-be husbands and fathers are “rapist” harassers.”

    That would be a wild generalization on your part.

    “Ah it there were any real men…”

    OK, define “real men”. What are the metrics involved? Are you a “real man”? How so?

  117. @Corvinus

    Laughing. Why am I not surprised you that you would come back with some gobbledegook.

    Very few people make a clinical assessment of the people they get involved with. When you and I say “crazy” we express it to some norm of the environment we are in as we understand it. So as I noted earlier– I am cautious about making any conclusions about whether person A should have known Q&M about person B. Relationships just do not operate in that manner. Never have and most likely never will. So I remain where I came despite your repetitive treatise about normalcy. What you are referencing are extremes — again — that is clinical. Hence your jump to the APA Diagnostic references — which again — even psychiatrists take with some measure of subjectivity — because they know, if honest, human psychiatry is far from exact. However, I have no opinion about people who take their dates to see psychiatrists to help be successful — But in this conversation, your reference to “crazy” pertained to the intimacies between men and women and the parameters are just not that fluid when it comes to what constitutes “crazy”. I am sure most of would like to think we are smart enough, intuitive enough, socially adept enough to do so — but the record is clear, people often discover untoward characteristics late in relationships about their choice. That is neither unusual or unique. And whether or not said relationships continue despite what you or I consider “crazy” is their business ultimately.

    Simple case comparison:

    what is overbearing to you – is motherly love for someone else
    what is possessive to you – is someone else’s devotion

    What you observe and how you interpret it may be quite different from someone else. None of this is news to anyone.

    “I have no idea how so and so deals with that woman. She is flat out “crazy”.

    One aspect of human relations for most of us is that we are really good at hiding our “crazy”. Best foot forward. Best self — referred to among social sciences researchers and educators as “the presenting self” The self I want others to see. Humans are pretty good at maintaining that “presentation” until we have or think we have what we want. As for the skills of figuring out what is what, some people are better than others and there are a myriad of variables to experience, education and circumstance that preclude any sure fire way of detecting “crazy”. Most humans have their “crazy making’ deliberative aspects.

    Laughing. I zipped over to the Justice system website and toyed very briefly with some numbers related to crime. Rape is a very small percentage of them and among the population statistically rare. I made clear from the start, I would not walk you through the numbers. i provided some guidance — do the work. You are more than welcome to demonstrate my less than 1% to the population in question – do the work.

    I think that we both agree that the crime of rape is serious. No kidding. And to my knowledge neither I nor anyone else on the sight has indicated that it is not. as with all crimes, it should be addressed. But that address need to be in proportion and context of the actual magnitude, not the overblown hyperbolic scare and other emotional baits as noted in the article and that includes ” MeeToo assails.

    While popular in the mind, it is statistically rare in occurrence.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  118. The decriminalization of masculinity is just to soften up and base.

  119. @Corvinus

    I read this reply to the original post without seeing who the replier was but by the fourth sentence I correctly guessed who it was. For some reason, Unz.com’s favorite Deep State mole has always had a bee in his bonnet over any argument that is anti-feminist or pro-men’s rights.

  120. Liza says:
    @Anonymous

    And you’re still ignoring this part of the article:

    [But] the new measures do not merely “permit” it (something that could be effected simply by removing prohibitions); they inflict penalties on anyone who objects. In some jurisdictions it is now a crime to “interfere” (whatever that means) with a woman breastfeeding.

    I didn’t intend to ignore that part of the article, I meant to address this, so it’s good you reminded me.

    When it comes to privately owned businesses, they should in any free society be allowed to ban any acts or behavior that they wish on their property whether such prohibition is rational or not. I do support such freedom. Persons offended by the business owner’s actions can take their money elsewhere. You know, like get someone else to bake a homo wedding cake instead of persecuting bakers who simply don’t want to. Or tuck that tit back into the nursing bra. But it is just so damn sad that a nursing couple would be so badly treated.

    The basis of disagreement on nursing in public appears to come down to this: that some men are apparently so highly charged that the mere sight of a woman doing this normal and healthful thing causes them serious distress and induces a barely controllable urge to…I don’t know what – attack the woman? Or just cause extremely uncomfortable feelings that have nothing to do with sexual arousal? (I suspect it’s the latter.) Historically, such attitudes didn’t occur in white (European) societies until relatively recently.

    This smells of sharia, except the standards are stricter in islam – with the sight of a woman’s hair or arms, wrists, elbows and feet apparently capable of sending moslem men into uncontrollable frenzy. This appears to be somewhat true, given the events in Cologne a couple of years ago where women were swarmed and fondled (and sometimes worse) by muslim men. You are probably familiar with this.

    Breasts can be considered “sex organs” if you wish. But they have another purpose – feeding a baby at a certain time in a woman’s life. Thinking persons of normal intelligence can easily make this distinction and relax. People, both men and women, with no breast-related issues will just look away. It is not the duty of a nursing mother to pump her breasts and lug bottles around, making sure the temperature is correct, etc. when she has a built-in system.

    Just as a point of interest, how do you handle things when you are at the beach or swimming pool and you see women in skimpy swim suits? Much more is revealed than just a bit of breast – buttocks, crack, outline of pudenda, etc.

    Thanks for the discussion. You can have the last word. :)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Nicholas Stix
  121. Anonymous[119] • Disclaimer says:
    @Liza

    Are you dyslexic? Please read this slowly:

    Squeeze the milk into a bottle before going out.

    The end.

    • Replies: @Liza
    , @anon
  122. osborne says:
    @follyofwar

    Nothing wrong with “average” guy, as long as he’s not bitchy and whining and ALWAYS blaming someone else for his failures (which can always be changed – a failure can become a success if he really wants to) and can rise above the b.s. that is permeating the internet, which so many guys seem to be attached to these days (using excuse of evil feminists as reason they cannot get it up, instead of realizing that it might be porn affecting reality). In the 50′s you are referring to,most these average guys never dared to bitch and whine and blame women.

    What is wrong with simply treating all people like you want to be treated? Ahhh, we are too far gone for this. USA does not have long. I give it about 5 years….maybe 10.

  123. Corvinus says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    “Laughing. Why am I not surprised you that you would come back with some gobbledegook.”

    My statement was lucid, so get over yourself being intellectually challenged.

    “Very few people make a clinical assessment of the people they get involved with.”

    My focus was not on this “clinical assessment”, that is your rabbit hole. Rather, men and women through their daily interactions and in their relationships are able to make judgements about another person’s thoughts and actions. If a man or woman becomes repeatedly jealous, that is a warning sign. If a man or a woman becomes perpetually controlling, that is a warning sign. You would be pleasantly surprised how we as human beings are able to interpret behavior, in some cases very effectively and in some cases rather ineffectively. Regardless, men and women have broken off relationships due to those clear dangers.

    “I am cautious about making any conclusions about whether person A should have known Q&M about person B.”

    That is YOUR caution.

    “Relationships just do not operate in that manner. Never have and most likely never will.”

    They assuredly do.

    “What you are referencing are extremes — again — that is clinical.”

    A man or a woman need not have a doctorate’s degree in psychology to understand how the mind operates and how behavior manifests itself.

    “However, I have no opinion about people who take their dates to see psychiatrists to help be successful”

    I never took this position directly or indirectly. That is your strawman.

    “Your reference to “crazy” pertained to the intimacies between men and women and the parameters are just not that fluid when it comes to what constitutes “crazy”.

    “I am sure most of would like to think we are smart enough, intuitive enough, socially adept enough to do so — but the record is clear, people often discover untoward characteristics late in relationships about their choice. ”

    What is that “record”? Data? Statistics? Psychological research. Once again, you are making a bold claim here. Now it is time to pony up. Offer evidence to support your contention “the record is clear, people often discover untoward characteristics late in relationships about their choice”.

    “what is overbearing to you – is motherly love for someone else…what is possessive to you – is someone else’s devotion”

    And therein lies the rub. If I believe my significant other is possessive, and I inform her of my attitudes and feelings about the matter, and the behavior continues or even worsens despite my repeated conversational efforts, that is abnormal, i.e. “crazy”.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/friendship-20/201506/20-signs-your-partner-is-controlling

    “One aspect of human relations for most of us is that we are really good at hiding our “crazy”.”

    If you are going to say “most of us”, how do you definitively know? Data? Statistics? Clinical research? Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but you act as if this statement is unequivocally the truth. You have to lend evidence for your assertion.

    “As for the skills of figuring out what is what, some people are better than others and there are a myriad of variables to experience, education and circumstance that preclude any sure fire way of detecting “crazy”.”

    Thank you for admitting that people have the capability to detect “crazy”. YOU were the one characterizing it as “sure fire”. I was merely pointing out that men and women have this ability based on their “experience, education, and circumstances”.

    “Laughing. I zipped over to the Justice system website and toyed very briefly with some numbers related to crime.”

    “I made clear from the start, I would not walk you through the numbers.”

    Yes, you made it clear that YOU had the numbers. Offer up the statistics from YOUR own computations, with citations, or retract the claim.

    “But that address need to be in proportion and context of the actual magnitude…”

    The actual magnitude is that it is a serious matter, not “hyperbolic scare” or serving as “emotional bait”.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  124. Entertain for a moment that radical feminists actually have a valid point or two about the awfulness of the patriarchy. From their point of view, men have been making a mess of the world since time immemorial. So, what to do about it? Less radical feminists have been demanding equality for the past 100 years or so. They wanted the vote, equal pay and access to jobs previously reserved for men. In that, they’ve been successful.

    Radical feminists, however, aren’t satisfied with reform, they want revolution. Out with the patriarchy, in with the matriarchy! To achieve that goal, men have to be put in their place and dominated by women. The obvious way to do this is to exploit their desire for sex, something basic that will never change, into an opportunity to make them submit. If a man doesn’t do exactly as told by their female sex partner, he’s subject to a baseless charge of rape that he can’t defend himself against.

    Radical feminists dream of a world where women call all of the shots. It will be like Mad Men in reverse. They’ll have the top jobs and run the world on their terms. Women will be free to screw like rabbits and men will just have to accept it. The biggest obstacles to this dream are war and technology, because men are needed for those things and they might act uppity because of it. War can be eliminated by creating a world government where disagreements between nations get sorted out by lawyers instead of armies. Technology is more problematic, but can be addressed by having less of it, and by trading sex for it. (Being an auto mechanic will be a sought after job in this world.)

    Will the radical feminists ever reach their utopia? I doubt it. I think they’ll take their shot, create many victims, and ultimately fail. Sort of like Communism, but on a shorter time scale. Their belief system contains too many contradictions and most men won’t willingly support it. Then again, I may be wrong. My male, cis-gendered point of view probably renders me incapable of imagining or participating in a better world. I guess we’ll soon see.

    • Replies: @Eustace666
  125. Liza says:
    @Anonymous

    @Liza

    Are you dyslexic? Please read this slowly:

    Squeeze the milk into a bottle before going out.

    The end.

    I am sorry, but I honestly did want to let you have the last word, but I had to point out that the bottles we shouldn’t have to lug around are those filled with our own milk. I wasn’t referring to bottles of formula.

    C’mon, you know what this is all about. Tits bother you for some reason when you see a baby feeding on them, but on the beach in a teeny bikini – no problem. I’ll bet you don’t even object to topless or nude beaches. But if one of those nude, semi-nude women or barely-clad women on the beach brought her baby along to feed there on the beach – again your claws would come out.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  126. anon[104] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Are you dyslexic? Please read this slowly:

    Squeeze the milk into a bottle before going out.

    The end.

    why should she?

    a small blanket for modesty is better than lugging around bottles that might need to refrigerated anyway

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  127. Judge: Can you estimate how many times you had sexual relations with the defendant?

    Plaintiff: Oh gosh! Like a thousand times.

    Judge: And out of those thousand times, how many times did he rape you?

    Plaintiff: Just once. The last time.

    Judge: Was he violent or abusive while he was raping you?

    Plaintiff: No. More like disinterested. Like he was bored or something.

    Judge: Have you considered couple’s counseling?

    Plaintiff: With a rapist? No way.

    Judge: Do you realize that a rape conviction will send your ex to jail for a very long time and prevent him from finding stable employment in the future?

    Plaintiff: That’s not my responsibility. He should have thought of the consequences before he raped me.

    Judge: Have you ever raped him?

    Plaintiff: Wow, where did that come from? Everybody knows a woman can’t rape a man.

  128. Anonymous[240] • Disclaimer says:
    @Liza

    the bottles we shouldn’t have to lug around are those filled with our own milk

    Oh, the humanity! Why bother with such an easy and equitable approach when we can punish “the patriarchy” instead.

    Just go away…

  129. Anonymous[240] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon

    why should she?

    Because it’s easy and it doesn’t require special treatment and criminalisation of dissenters.

    a small blanket for modesty

    Fine. I have no problem with that. Unfortunately, we’ve already witnessed many Soros’ “Femen” crossing the line where a white guy doing the same would have been arrested, convicted and put on a sex-offender list.

    better than lugging around bottles that might need to *[be]* refrigerated anyway

    “Lugging around”? “Refrigerated”?

    Seriously?

    It’s a tiny creature. You’re not managing a dairy farm, bud.

    • Replies: @anon
  130. @Corvinus

    ohh my more.

    If in fact, you are not referring to a clinical assessment, you are using the term “crazy” colloquially That means it is subjective and what refer to as “crazy” may not be “crazy” at all in the eyes of someone else. Furthermore, not only may they have a different definition of “crazy” they may have tolerances to different personality traits that you don’t .

    Again, that is your gig, not my own. But “crazy” as you have explained is not definitive nor immediately detectable. Which brings us to one of the many attempts to change the nature of the discussion. That is your press, that I deny that “crazy” personalty traits are not detectable. That would be incorrect and nowhere in this discussion have a I made any such claim. The issue pertained to when such “crazy” extreme or otherwise would reach the awareness of either dating partner. What you are claiming, that I deny that “crazy” is not discernible is entirely false. In fact, I note:

    1. clinical assessment
    2. colloquial — far more subjective.

    Hence the presenting self that people strive for others to see which hinders what one might consider “crazy”. And therefore may not be discernible until one is in good and deep. And based on any number of factors may not be discernible at all. (note: may – is not a definitive qualifier)

    By the way your attempt mischaracterize my comments as you have more than once in this manner — that us referred to as a strawman contend.

    I am old man, have been celibate for longer than you have been alive most likely and even I know the complexities of intimacy is not as simple as “consent agreements” written or otherwise. Male female communication via relational dynamics when considering that most communication is nonverbal with a lot of messages intents, that cannot even be explained verbally — has mixed vale. Though I grant that if applied it at least forces people to think about what they are engaged. But I suspect this stop gap, has no force given the power of human emotions and desires.

    The “rub” as you refer is not static. Therefore it is subjective. Which is the point. People often discover the “rub” when there are in good and deep. Despite consent agreements, admonitions about “crazy”

    Another falsehood in this discussion. I made no such contentions that people could or do detect “crazy” in any manner of certainty. In fact all of my comments on the matter of “crazy” (as colloquially referenced) are completely entirely the opposite based on the variables I note. And you are accurate in noting my minor explication of social skills in male female dynamics are to experience, knowledge and circumstance as well any number other variables – including biology itself.

    Hmmmmm . . . no. Won’t help you anymore than I have on the question of less than 1%. That’s where I came in and that is where I remain. I encourage you to the work. So when people start slinging around stats, you can avoid being intimidated or overwhelmed. It’s much simpler than you think.

    I think we agree that this manner of assault is a serious matter. Nothing about my comments diminishes the personal and potential social tragic consequences. However, the magnitude of this crime is less 1% to the population and is higher among males by several deviations than women. And nothing in comments indicate the matter should not be addressed seriously.

    I was going to close with a few comments about your questionable strategic tactics. Instead, I will only say this. Integrity in discussion matters.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  131. anon[386] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    Fine. I have no problem with that. Unfortunately, we’ve already witnessed many Soros’ “Femen” crossing the line where a white guy doing the same would have been arrested, convicted and put on a sex-offender list.

    i don’t think she’s the feminazi that you seem to think she is

    “Lugging around”? “Refrigerated”?

    Seriously?

    It’s a tiny creature. You’re not managing a dairy farm, bud.

    i’m not an expert on breast milk but iirc harmful bacteria start growing at room temperature so….

    also, you were imo rude to her and now somewhat rude to me with the “bud” comment – it demonstrates that you’re not particularly reasonable. perhaps you have some anger on this topic for some reason

    • Troll: MikeatMikedotMike
  132. Corvinus says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    “If in fact, you are not referring to a clinical assessment, you are using the term “crazy” colloquially That means it is subjective and what refer to as “crazy” may not be “crazy” at all in the eyes of someone else. Furthermore, not only may they have a different definition of “crazy” they may have tolerances to different personality traits that you don’t.”

    Yet, people in their own set of circumstances are able to make that judgement. They have the ability, as evident by the three sources I provided, to figure out whether or not their partner is jealous or controlling to the point that this individual is “crazy”. The result? The likelihood of the termination of the relationship.

    “Which brings us to one of the many attempts to change the nature of the discussion. That is your press, that I deny that “crazy” personalty traits are not detectable.”

    No, that is yet another one of your strawman. I never stated directly that you made this claim. Men and women have the awareness to draw the conclusion that their partner’s actions constitute a level of abnormality.

    “Hence the presenting self that people strive for others to see which hinders what one might consider “crazy”.”

    MAY hinder.

    “And therefore may not be discernible until one is in good and deep. And based on any number of factors may not be discernible at all. (note: may – is not a definitive qualifier).”

    Yet, there are situations by which a person is able within the couple months of a relationship to see warning signs that inform them their partner is actual or potential trouble.

    Stop stalling. Now it is time to pony up. Offer evidence to support your contention “the record is clear, people often discover untoward characteristics late in relationships about their choice”.

    “By the way your attempt mischaracterize my comments as you have more than once in this manner”

    That would be your projection.

    “I am old man, have been celibate for longer than you have been alive most likely and even I know the complexities of intimacy is not as simple as “consent agreements” written or otherwise.”

    Another strawman, as I have not made that contention.

    “Male female communication via relational dynamics when considering that most communication is nonverbal with a lot of messages intents, that cannot even be explained verbally — has mixed vale.”

    For some men and women, they cannot adequately explain verbally nonverbal communication. For other men and women, they are skilled in this application.

    “People often discover the “rub” when there are in good and deep.”

    You mean some people discover early on or some people discover until much later hat the person they are dating have issues, hangups, or personality flaws.

    “Integrity in discussion matters.”

    Look in the mirror.

    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
  133. @Corvinus

    Unless you have something new to add . . .

    Stalling is when you say you intend to something and then prolong the doing thereof.

    I have made it quite clear I would not do the percentages for you. That’s not stalling. That is maintaining my position. No.

  134. Safenow says:

    Updike’s Rabbit laments that men put up with all of it mainly so that, when they are in the hospital dying, when that day comes, they are surrounded by their own DNA. True enough. But I would add this. Along the way, women can give men what they really do need. Sensitivity, empathy, fairmindedness, support. Rabbit again: Telling us we’re the greatest, even though we suspect it’s probably not true. Ian Fleming says: Good with sauces. I would add fastidiousness. That list…Where? How? I don’t know, young men, but I know this much: If you detect significant feminist combativeness, run.

    • Replies: @Nicholas Stix
  135. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Wade

    I just don’t know much about it.

    Truth.

  136. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    You seem threatened by and illustrative of AaronB’s point. Or perhaps there’s some history between you.

    What has he said here that you care to refute?

  137. I printed and read the entire long article instead of just skimming, as most have probably done. The more I read, the more alarmed I became. The situation is even more dire than I thought. Trump has failed his MAGA supporters in so many ways. Does he understand how close to the precipice we are? In the just concluded midterms, many Trump voters just stayed home instead of showering, getting dressed, and going to the polls. Why bother when nothing of real importance ever changes?

    Yet, is Trump the last man standing, willing to subject himself to such daily torture from know-nothing intellectual midgets like Jim Acosta? Trump is the dinosaur in the tar pit, braying loudly as he sinks deeper and deeper into the muck. To half the nation or more, he has become a laughing stock and an embarrassment to the country. He is the symbol of the end of the white man. The failure to have children in married two parent homes feeds upon itself.

    Heed Roger Devlin’s last words: “…feminism constitutes a threat to Western Civilization…In the end, we will be forced to choose between continuing to indulge feminism and securing our own survival.” After Trump, who (or what)?

  138. Bill P says:
    @Corvinus

    But there is a third group, one that realizes that despite their politicization of this problem, the combined efforts of law enforcement and public advocacy groups are working to educate men and women and bring the culprits to justice–those who commit rape and those who falsely report rape. They navigate through the BS.

    There is no such group. Those who falsely report rape are, as a rule, not prosecuted. I’d even be surprised if even Julie Swetnick, the group sex aficionado who made demonstrably false claims about Brett Kavanaugh, faced any legal consequences for lying to congress.

    Falsely accusing someone of a violent felony is a very serious crime, yet when the accusation is rape, spousal abuse, child abuse or any other crime that a woman could use to her advantage against a man, it is not prosecuted.

    Read the stories of men vindicated through the Innocence Project. Most were falsely convicted of rape. Some through false identification, but many through outright false accusations. The women who put these men in prison – often for decades – have never faced any consequences.

    When you think about the fact that this could happen to any ordinary guy it’s really disturbing, but feminists are not bothered by it.

  139. @Liza

    Your comment required the feminist rhetorical strategy of blaming any opposition to the feminist degradation of public life on “sexist” men, as if there wouldn’t be millions of women who agreed.

    A woman pulling out her breast in public to nurse her child is indecent. It’s that simple. And that’s why you support it. To be a feminist is to wage war on decency.

    “Just as a point of interest, how do you handle things when you are at the beach or swimming pool and you see women in skimpy swim suits?”

    Talk about a failed analogy! A correct analogy would be to a woman attending a non-nudist beach suddenly taking off all of her clothes.

    If Christians and their supporters fail to stop you and your comrades, you will end up bringing about the very sharia you claim to loathe. And if that happens, you will submit gladly, and immediately go looking for “infidels” to terrorize.

  140. @Safenow

    I wanted to merely “agree,” but apparently I didn’t have enough credits in my account, so that instead I had to hit “reply,” in order to say I agree.

  141. Sanders says:
    @AaronB

    @AaronB

    I Wonder (((who))) is behind this post.

    You’re completely clueless as to what the Alt-Right is as thirst is to a fish.

    • Replies: @anon
  142. anon[101] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sanders

    I don’t think he intends to stop you, he just means the alt right isn’t the cure for our problems.

    this didn’t fool you?

    lol

  143. Dannyboy says:

    The “patriarchy” can bring women back into line easily, minus Jew money and influence. Jews are the enemy within, They need to be completely purged.

  144. Dannyboy says:

    All things obey money.

    Jews instigate rebellion against the established order with their mastery of finance.

    Attractive women will always whore themselves for money.

  145. Hibernian says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    As I remember, Mike steers Archie towards “Rabinowitz, Rabinowitz, and Rabinowitz,” and a preppie WASP lawyer comes to the Bunker house and tells Archie that he (the lawyer) is the “House Goy.”

  146. @Wally Streeter

    “Women will be free to screw like rabbits ”

    I’m not sure if that’s what radical feminists want. In my experience, radical feminists hate sexualization, pornography, prostitution etc. They’re often lesbians to boot, though I’m not sure what their exact views are on the nature of that. They often think femininity itself is a patriarchal construct, and see transsexuals as identifying as women on the basis of a social construct/fetishism and invading female spaces (or using it as a cover to prey upon women) and extending patriarchy.

    What really unites them and underlies their beliefs is a deep-seated hatred of men. Most radical feminists absolutely hate men. They blame them for everything bad that happens to women and that includes much of what we believe is typical female identity. They seem to see men as alien beings who are all potential rapists and sex predators. Look far enough and you’ll find the kinds of psychotic lesbians who think men are genetic mutants who need to be culled or wiped out completely. A text some of them uphold is the century old SF novel “Herland” which explores parthenogenesis, which they believe is something to strive for and some even think women are capable of it without modern technology.

    I don’t know what radical feminists truly want, but I know they are absolutely fucking insane, crazier than run of the mill feminists and other progressives. It’s simply amazing how many on the right can see any solidarity with them- yes, they’re open to criticizing trannies, porn, prostitution, non-Western cultures etc., but they deny biology just as much as feminists do, only in different ways. And they likewise hate men just as much as regular feminists do, they’re just more open about it (and also hate them in different ways.) I have seen radfems express solidarity with conservatives, but I don’t see this as meaning much given how so many of them are cripplingly mentally ill.

    Radical feminists are a diverse bunch, but that’s been largely my experience with them, and again, I have no doubt most of them simply, truly hate men.

  147. @Anonymous

    I had virtually the same outcome as you. However, the Restraining Order remains on your police and public record and can (and will) affect job opportunities. It’s a stain that never goes away, no matter how innocent the male is.

  148. Note that the “pdf” offered is a data mining scam for which you get 12 pages of text.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
The sources of America’s immigration problems—and a possible solution
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.