The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
My Definition of "Feminism"
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Marginal Revolution:

The new Bryan Caplan book

by Tyler Cowen September 11, 2022 at 1:30 am in Books Philosophy

The title has attracted a lot of attention and controversy, it is Don’t be a Feminist: Essays on Genuine Justice, description here. Bryan writes a letter to his daughter, telling her not to be a feminist.

To counter Bryan, many people are trying to cite the “official” definition of feminism, which runs something like:

feminism, the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. …

Bryan’s preferred definition of feminism is:

feminism: the view that society generally treats men more fairly than women

My definition of “feminism:” A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.

 
Hide 197 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. For the third or fourth time here, Jennifer Roback Morse’s encapsulation of feminism: Men and women are exactly alike, but women are better.

    • Agree: Mr. Grey, Mr. Grey
    • Replies: @Old Prude
    @Reg Cæsar

    Thanks. A better functional definition than Sailer’s, not that his doesn’t contain an interesting insight.

    , @Nicholas Stix
    @Reg Cæsar

    Jennifer Roback Morse is very good.

    , @Poirot
    @Reg Cæsar

    "All dogs are equal, but bitches are best"?

    , @Kylie
    @Reg Cæsar

    "For the third or fourth time here, Jennifer Roback Morse’s encapsulation of feminism: Men and women are exactly alike, but women are better."

    Good as far as it goes. The complete version would read:

    Men and women are exactly alike, but women are better, which is why women should have more power and authority while men should shoulder more duty and responsibility.

    N.B. I have never known any woman who proclaims herself a feminist not to act in accordance with this credo.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @AnotherDad
    @Reg Cæsar


    For the third or fourth time here, Jennifer Roback Morse’s encapsulation of feminism: Men and women are exactly alike, but women are better.
     
    That's very good on the ideology/propaganda.

    My practical--rubber meets the road--definition:

    Men must keep giving women stuff. regardless of whether women do anything for men.

    I think that's the heart of it.

    In the old traditional order, civilization is based on marriage. A woman gives a man sex and companionship, bears and nurses his children and does the housework to makes a home for their family, in return the man must materially provide for her and her children, their family. Men and women complement each other biologically and productively--superior feminine nurturing and superior masculine material production.

    ~~

    Old early 20th century WASPy feminism vibe was everyone should have families like ... middle class WASPy families! Including men listening respectfully to their wives and controlled fertility. (Nix the Irish Catholic drunkenness and popping out 8 kids.)

    Modern Jewish feminism switched the vibe to "women are oppressed!" (by dishwashers and pop-up toasters.) I.e. women were yet another oppressed minority in the minoritarian coalition.

    Ergo women should not have to actually do anything for men to give them stuff--that's just like slavery!--but as a virtuous oppressed minority are entitled to the majority's (i.e. men's) stuff. The sacred minority right of access to the majority and their stuff--i.e. "right to loot".


    Turns out most men and women are actually much happier with male-female complementarity. And it works a heck of a lot better for maintaining civilization ... but who the hell cares about that!

    Replies: @Art Deco

    , @American Citizen
    @Reg Cæsar

    I'll take "The philosophy that destroyed Western Civilization for $1000, Alex".

    , @Prester John
    @Reg Cæsar

    Better at what?

    , @Richard B
    @Reg Cæsar

    Each wave of feminsim proves beyond doubt that if women want to truly be free they need to learn some manners.

    It also helps prove that James Joyce's wife was right when she stated the obvious:
    Most women don't like most women.

  2. Actual definition: Feminism is communist claptrap and manhating.

    Its why gammatard “Physicist” Dave loves it.

    Question: does anyone actually believe he’s a physicist?

    Another Q: Who needs to specifically claim in his name on anonymous postings that he’s a physicist?

    A: someone who’s not and claiming to be one.

    • Replies: @Polistra
    @R.G. Camara

    How much do you pay for this privilege?? I pay through the nose and I'm not even allowed to look sideways at J.D. or it gets whimmed.


    Not even permitted to denigrate Philadelphia!

    P.D. is right at least half the time so he's better than many here ;)

    Replies: @AndrewR

    , @Bard of Bumperstickers
    @R.G. Camara

    Well, alright - time to pull this out for the umpteenth time:

    "Feminism Was Never Not Rotten" by Karen Straughan (a.k.a. GirlWritesWhat)

    Years ago, when I embarked on my investigation into the feminist movement and what it has become, I subscribed to the understanding that there had once existed a magical age of feminism. Of course I did. It was common knowledge, even among anti-feminists, that early feminism was a noble and well-intentioned movement, and that somewhere along the way it was hijacked by lunatics and man-haters bent on female supremacy.

    I was curious as to exactly when, and by what means, this virtuous movement had been corrupted, so I went on something of an archaeological expedition, digging through piles of documents and old news articles and treatises from as far back as the late 1800s and earlier, transcripts of speeches given by well-known suffragettes like Susan B. Anthony.

    My unexpected findings were as follows: Feminism has never been a righteous movement seeking equality. The “noble” Suffragettes were soaked in sexism, classism, racism, eugenics enthusiasm and the mindless pursuit of female privilege. The Declaration of Sentiments, widely believed to be the official manifesto of the First Wave, was nothing more than a hate-filled screed, simultaneously indicting and convicting the male sex of the wholesale criminal enslavement and subjugation of all women, through all of history. READ REST:

    https://antifeministpraxis.wordpress.com/2017/03/31/feminism-was-never-not-rotten/

    Taken from https://antifeministpraxis.wordpress.com/

    , @Mr. Anon
    @R.G. Camara


    Question: does anyone actually believe he’s a physicist?
     
    Yes.
  3. How about this?
    Society should socialize away the status effects of my disadvantages, while allowing me to continue to reap all the status effects where I have the advantage.

    I think that honestly describes feminism and most other movements that wrap themselves in the cloak of ‘justice’, especially those who use ‘social’ as an adjective.

    • Agree: SFG, nokangaroos, AndrewR
    • Replies: @Polistra
    @Jehu

    https://i.ibb.co/2NN8V2K/f0bd34c632311d441b67fafece91a229e94dcf2d-14.jpg

    Maybe this is the correct thread for this.. To ensure her safety as a Black Woman, she flies first class while her police detail rides back in coach.

    At taxpayer expense, of course. But America's black-run cities are circling the drain because white supremacy.

    Replies: @Clark Kent, @AndrewR, @Jim Christian, @njguy73, @Forbes, @Rob McX, @AnotherDad, @Francis Miville

    , @anon
    @Jehu

    That dynamic is along two axes.

    On one axis it involves the desire of outsiders and minorities to access the trust, intimacy, and esteem of majority spaces. This self-serving principle is couched in the modest terms of "just wanting to be treated as one of the guys". The "guys" having no say in the matter of who gets to be one of them, and also being expected to say nothing when the outsiders have their own advocacy groups which campaign against majority cohesion and majority interests.

    On a more traditional axis it's the demand for both the male and female status granted by the patriarchy: "no shrinking violets"/"boys never hit girls". For this to be accepted at all invokes the traditional female privilege of having whims indulged by men.

    In Evelyn Waugh's novel Decline and Fall a man takes the rap for a woman because he felt it the principled thing to do, and then afterwards tries to figure out what exactly the principle was that he took a principled stand on...


    [his mind] was torn and distracted by two conflicting methods of thought. On one side was the dead weight of precept, inherited from generations of schoolmasters and divines. According to these, the problem was difficult but not insoluble. He had 'done the right thing' in shielding the woman: so much was clear, but Margot had not quite filled the place assigned to her, for in this case, she was grossly culpable, and he was shielding her, not from misfortune nor injustice, but from the consequence of her crimes; he felt a flush about his knees as Boy Scout honour whispered that Margot had got him into a row and ought jolly well to own up and face the music.

    ... he had wrestled with this argument without achieving any satisfactory result except a growing conviction that there was something radically inapplicable about this whole code of ready-made honour that is the still small voice, trained to command, of the Englishman all the world over.

    On the other hand was the undeniable cogency of Peter Beste-Chetwynde's 'You can't see Mamma in prison, can you?' The more Paul considered this, the more he perceived it to be the statement of a natural law. He appreciated the assumption of comprehension with which Peter had delivered it. As he studied Margot's photograph, dubiously transmitted as it was, he was strengthened in his belief that there was, in fact, and should be, one law for her and another for himself, and that the raw little exertions of nineteenth-century Radicals were essentially base and trivial and misdirected.
     
    , @Anonymous
    @Jehu


    "...especially those who use ‘social’ as an adjective."
     
    "Social" is an adjective, idiot.

    Replies: @Ralph L

  4. Someone needs to start a movement of Femininity-ism.

    [MORE]

    • Thanks: Paul Jolliffe
    • Replies: @Paul Jolliffe
    @Hypnotoad666

    As an 8th grader in the 1970’s, I was in my jr. high’s production of “Flower Drum Song”, an excellent show from Rodgers and Hammerstein.

    A pretty girl on whom I had a crush sang that song.

    Tempus fugit.

    I doubt any public school in America has performed that musical this century.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    , @Goddard
    @Hypnotoad666

    Nancy Kwan was an absolute goddess.

  5. My definition of “feminism:” A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.

    Could “feminism” be a strategy employed by outgroups against White people to crater the fertility of White women?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Anonymous

    It's employed by the in-group to crater the fertility of everyone else, especially other whites.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar

    , @Anon
    @Anonymous

    Seems unlikely. Feminism has popped up all over the world from Latin America to Asia and even South Asia and Africa.

    Tbe lowest fertility rates are not among Western whites, but among East Asians and marginal whites, like Balkans.

    Fertility seems to be closely correlated with income, education and general lesiure. I would argue that "poor" countries like Mexico and India have the lowest fertility rates in the world when you consider how much poorer and less eeucated they are than, say, the French. The fertility rates aren't that much higher in India or Mexico than they are in France or Iceland.

    Rarher than seeing everything as a conspiracy against whites, you should broaden your outlook and see how other groups are doing. If anything I would say feminism is more rampant in the East Asian and Latino communities in the USA. I see a lot of girl power in those communities.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Dmon

    , @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Anonymous



    My definition of “feminism:” A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.
     
    Could “feminism” be a strategy employed by outgroups against White people to crater the fertility of White women?
     
    My guess is that second wave feminism - the "women's liberation" movements of the 1960s - was intended as a means to goose U.S. economic production during the Cold War by nearly doubling the labor pool in short order.

    The decline in fertility came later, and as crazy as it sounds it may not have entirely been predicted or desired from the outset. After the declining fertility trend became apparent, the solution for capital interests was simple - unrestrained immigration (prior to 9/11, the Wall Street Journal would regularly and openly agitate for open borders). Capital interests funding the GOP made a tacit deal with Democrats - unlimited cheap labor in exchange for clients for an ever-expanding welfare state.

    I suppose you can decide whether all of this happened just because of a few homely but intelligent Jewish girls or whether the Deep State's hidden thumb on the scale was the necessary cause.

    Replies: @Anon

  6. I don’t like his open borders advocacy, but I have to admit, dude’s got balls.

    Must be independently wealthy or something.

    • Replies: @Poirot
    @SFG

    Or in the case of Martin Van Creveld, perhaps old enough not to care very much anymore?
    And thus, "As I Please".
    MVC has been writing interesting stuff on his blog concerning the issues of Women Vs. Men: "the Gender Dialogues": http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/tag/gender/

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    @SFG

    He lives in a 74% white/14% Asian DC suburb in a neighborhood with an $800,000 admission fee. From there, surrounded by academics, lobbyists and SES-level bureaucrats, immigration seems like a fantastic idea.

    Replies: @New Dealer

    , @kaganovitch
    @SFG

    Just autistic, I think.

    , @AnotherDad
    @SFG


    I don’t like his open borders advocacy, but I have to admit, dude’s got balls.
     
    He's a complete--and boring--crank. Just the aspie pseudo-libertarian version of "what's good for the Jews".

    His phony "libertarianism" comes to the usual crashing halt in the entirely typical place--the right of people to form community, with their own norms and values, as they wish with whom they wish. Caplan is in favor of all sorts of pseudo "freedom", but when it comes to white gentiles having their nations to live as they wish ... the super-state should up and slap that shit down!
  7. That’s a good one. Too bad (for them) they’ve been outflanked now by women so unfeminine they’re men.

    • LOL: Director95
  8. @Anonymous

    My definition of “feminism:” A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.
     
    Could “feminism” be a strategy employed by outgroups against White people to crater the fertility of White women?

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Anon, @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    It’s employed by the in-group to crater the fertility of everyone else, especially other whites.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Desiderius


    It’s employed by the in-group to crater the fertility of everyone else, especially other whites.
     
    Your statement doesn’t make sense logically. If the in-group were Whites, then “everyone else” wouldn’t include Whites.

    Check yourself.

    Replies: @Polistra, @Desiderius, @Skk he lddfgs

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Desiderius


    It’s employed by the in-group to crater the fertility of everyone else, especially other whites.
     
    Mary Wollstonecraft, Friedrich Engels, Susan B Anthony, Margaret Sanger, Simone de Beauvoir, Harry Blackmun...
  9. Feminism is an ideology which posits that all of the people in the world born with a uterus have more interests in common and owe a greater allegiance to every other person with a uterus than a person with a uterus has interests and owes allegiances to her own father, brothers, husband and sons.

    • Agree: Bardon Kaldian, TWS, Rob McX
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    We have a perfectly good English word for that part of a woman's body but instead you choose to use that hideous, trisyllabic Latin abomination not once, not twice but thrice.

  10. I’m going to order multiple copies to boost his sales numbers. I haven’t really forgiven him for the open borders thing, but whatever fights feminism, I am for.

  11. Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.

    — Dalrock’s Law of Feminism

  12. ‘…feminism, the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. …’

    This really begs the question. What is meant by that?

    Men and women are very different. Certainly any just society needs to take the well-being, aspirations, and needs of both genders into account, but beyond that? How would they be treated equally?

    One gets into trying to define what would treat both Joe the Plumber and Aesthete the Professor of Restoration Poetry equally. I think the attempt just leads to precisely the sort of absurdities we see today. Why are fewer women corporate presidents than men? Because fewer women are maniacally competitive and driven than men. It’s not a function of anyone being treated ‘fairly’ or ‘unfairly.’ It’s a function of men and women being different, and in fact, an awful lot of our traditional social arrangements are there in response to those differences.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon, Forbes, TWS
    • Disagree: Corvinus
    • Replies: @Old Prude
    @Colin Wright

    I agree, but that is much to complex and nuanced for the dumbed-down population to understand. Anything but single variable analysis is beyond their ken.

    Tangentially related, I went to the emergency room this week (wild mushroom poisoning - nutritional, not recreational). The entire medical staff, nurses, doctors, CNAs: All women...

    The paramedics were guys, though. Make of that what you will...

    , @Nicholas Stix
    @Colin Wright


    "Certainly any just society needs to take the well-being, aspirations, and needs of both genders into account, but beyond that?"
     
    What "genders"?
    , @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Colin Wright



    ‘…feminism, the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. …’
     
    This really begs the question. What is meant by that?

    Men and women are very different. Certainly any just society needs to take the well-being, aspirations, and needs of both genders into account, but beyond that? How would they be treated equally?
     
    Modern political feminism is a motte-and-bailey scam, and the "feminism is the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes" definition is the bailey that they retreat to when challenged. Attacking the bailey puts you into a rhetorical position in which you are against "equality," which is an American voodoo word which means a bunch of things but which marks you as a bad person if you question it.

    Today feminists like to compare the lives of women in the past to the lives of men today to demonstrate grossly unequal treatment, eliding the fact that life was much harder for those past women's male contemporaries in comparison with today as well.

    Insofar as when feminism in the current iteration with its focus upon absolute bodily autonomy and male achievement milestones infects your society its birthrates plummet and your society finds itself on a nosedive to extinction feminism could be defined as a memetic social virus that achieves levels of destruction that a conventional military adversary could not.

    Replies: @Rob McX, @Colin Wright

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Colin Wright

    To echo the comment of Nicholas Stix: Why do you use their term - gender?

    The proper term is sex. It is a biological category. There are two of them.

    The first step in winning an ideological battle is to not accept your enemies framing of it.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  13. It doesn’t explain why many feminists hate trans autogynephiliac. It can be fixed by adding the adjective « biological » to the first instance of the substantive name « women ».

    « Less feminine biological women » above « more feminine women »

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Bruno

    It seems some feminists think that trans women choose to LARP as women instead of "becoming who they really are," as most trannies would probably describe their transition.

    Without getting into the reproductive differences between cis women and trans women, which are well-known and uncontroversial, it's obvious that XY people who identify as women tend to be psychologically quite different from XX people who identify as women (and from XX people who identify as men). Specifically, the female-identified XY people who are attracted to women tend to have a lot of similarities to heterosexual XY people who identify as men.

    , @Mike Tre
    @Bruno

    "It doesn’t explain why many feminists hate trans autogynephiliac. "

    If you view feminism fundamentally as a blunt attempt to seize political and social power for women, then it explains their dislike of trannies (and homosexuals) quite clearly. It is because trannies and homosexuals are attempting to take a share of that power from women for themselves.

    JK Rowling's complaints are good example of this.

    , @Rob McX
    @Bruno

    They hate women in the way all identifiable groups hate someone who falsely claims to be one of them. Blacks wouldn't like it if a bunch of whites suddenly showed up claiming they were black just because they "identified" as such.

    The awkward part for anti-trans feminists is that many of them spent their careers claiming that the difference between the sexes was socially constructed. If they really believed what they had been saying, they should have no objection to anyone who claims to identify as female without having the biological credentials.

  14. @Desiderius
    @Anonymous

    It's employed by the in-group to crater the fertility of everyone else, especially other whites.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar

    It’s employed by the in-group to crater the fertility of everyone else, especially other whites.

    Your statement doesn’t make sense logically. If the in-group were Whites, then “everyone else” wouldn’t include Whites.

    Check yourself.

    • Replies: @Polistra
    @Anonymous


    Check yourself.
     
    Boy, do you have a lot to learn.
    , @Desiderius
    @Anonymous

    Lol, there's a middle you've failed to exclude.

    The group "whites" is one they work very hard to exclude themselves from. You may have noticed. They literally spare no expense to make sure everyone does. It's the virtue (vice in fact) they work so hard to signal. But it's more noise than signal.

    Deracinate yourselves to set yourselves up as the sole neutral arbiter, re-racinate everyone else whether they want to be or not. They even capitalize Black to drive the point home, and create phantom White Supremacy to disqualify as many other whites as they can. Now Asian pride is all the rage.

    That's the game, but it's just a game. They're still pretty white whether they want to get all Groucho Marxian about it or not. Which is why all the prominent putative anti-whites like the Squad can't seem to get enough of them.

    , @Skk he lddfgs
    @Anonymous

    There are groups within groups.

  15. @R.G. Camara
    Actual definition: Feminism is communist claptrap and manhating.

    Its why gammatard "Physicist" Dave loves it.

    Question: does anyone actually believe he's a physicist?

    Another Q: Who needs to specifically claim in his name on anonymous postings that he's a physicist?

    A: someone who's not and claiming to be one.

    Replies: @Polistra, @Bard of Bumperstickers, @Mr. Anon

    How much do you pay for this privilege?? I pay through the nose and I’m not even allowed to look sideways at J.D. or it gets whimmed.

    Not even permitted to denigrate Philadelphia!

    P.D. is right at least half the time so he’s better than many here 😉

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Polistra

    Steve really ought to be explicit about what kind of privileges one gets from donating to him. Presumably there is some sort of tier system in which more generous donors get more privileges. I'll leave it to less lazy and/or drunker and/or more creative commenters than I to brainstorm what these tiers might be and what the mysterious thresholds are.

    Then again, perhaps being explicit about such things would lead to a decrease in overall donations...

  16. @Jehu
    How about this?
    Society should socialize away the status effects of my disadvantages, while allowing me to continue to reap all the status effects where I have the advantage.

    I think that honestly describes feminism and most other movements that wrap themselves in the cloak of 'justice', especially those who use 'social' as an adjective.

    Replies: @Polistra, @anon, @Anonymous


    Maybe this is the correct thread for this.. To ensure her safety as a Black Woman, she flies first class while her police detail rides back in coach.

    At taxpayer expense, of course. But America’s black-run cities are circling the drain because white supremacy.

    • Replies: @Clark Kent
    @Polistra

    This sheboon was indicted for using a city issued credit card for personal expenses while a city council woman before running for mayor. Nothing came of it. And, her fellow negroes elected her mayor, anyway! It's almost like, in black culture, public theft is a thing to be admired.

    , @AndrewR
    @Polistra

    To expand on Dalrock's definition of feminism, black supremacism is the claim that whites are evil and cause all of black people's problems, followed by the demand that whites fix all of black people's problems.

    , @Jim Christian
    @Polistra

    All they have to do is take it out of her pay.

    , @njguy73
    @Polistra

    It's Louisiana. That doesn't even make the second quartile of corruption.

    , @Forbes
    @Polistra

    I'm curious for what "business" does a US city mayor fly to France and Switzerland?

    Replies: @kaganovitch, @HammerJack

    , @Rob McX
    @Polistra

    Might be worth the $30,000 if a) she went to Africa and b) she stayed there.

    , @AnotherDad
    @Polistra

    This isn't a woman thing. Lots of white women politicians are full of crap in the usual tedious white woman way, but quite capable of sticking to Anglo norms on not looting the public purse.

    This is a black thing. It's black "big man"ism--egoism. I'm on top--the King--so I get to live large on the loot.

    Blacks do not tend to punish politicians for this. They expect "big men" to be "big". And if any of it is getting over on whitey ... great!

    Replies: @anarchyst

    , @Francis Miville
    @Polistra

    Flying economy class is unsafe for black women because Black Nike stalkers love to take budget plane tickets even for not so long distances rather than busses. There are even a lot of adverts from delta aiming at this clientele.

  17. My definition of “feminism:” A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.

    I’ve long said that “feminism” is a misnomer. It should really be called “masculinism” since it promotes the masculinization of women.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Almost Missouri

    My mother made a similar observation about feminism when she was a mid-century modern undergrad: feminism wasn't even going to pretend to help her find a husband, have babies, or raise children; it was just going to increase competition for her husband's job. (And probably increase the temptation of workplace social life for him too, but she didn't say that part out loud.)

    In other words, even when feminism was the new fashion rage, this 20-year-old co-ed could see it was scam.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Prester John

    , @Corvinus
    @Almost Missouri

    According to Occam’s Razor, feminism is defined as what women personally aspire to be.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Colin Wright

  18. I think it is called Veracity Inhibited Press Enterprise Release

    That’s VIPER to all you acrimonously challenged persons.

    BLM – Black Lives Don’t Matter
    DIE – GIBS
    Feminism – Anything but feminine.
    Fact Check – Putin did it
    There is no such thing as race – Emmett Till innocent because he black.

    >

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @James Speaks

    That’s VIPER to all you acrimonously challenged persons.

    Judging from past comments, exceedingly few here are acrimoniously challenged. Some may be (myself included) acronymously challenged though.

    Replies: @James Speaks

  19. My definition of “feminism”: A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.

    https://twitter.com/EvilVizier/status/1565430794558242816

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Both.

    , @Clark Kent
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I'd F either one of them.

    , @Old Prude
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I think they are both swell...

    , @prosa123
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Ok boys~
    Easy question:
    Which face do you prefer?


    They both look the same upside down.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    , @Ian Smith
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Why can’t I have both?

    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    @Jenner Ickham Errican


    Which face do you prefer?
     
    They're both 8+. After that personal preference cuts in.
    , @Muggles
    @Jenner Ickham Errican


    Which face do you prefer?
     
    This tweet has an unfair comparison.

    One is smiling, the other is blank faced.

    As I have long said, "the sexiest thing a woman can wear is smile."

    True dat.

    I didn't make that up, undoubtedly, but I wish I had. Of course it would ruin the fashion industry if women actually believed that. A lot of homosexual men would then be unemployed. Retail depression, etc.
    , @Anonymous
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Not a fair comparison because only one is smiling.

  20. @Almost Missouri

    My definition of “feminism:” A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.
     
    I've long said that "feminism" is a misnomer. It should really be called "masculinism" since it promotes the masculinization of women.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Corvinus

    My mother made a similar observation about feminism when she was a mid-century modern undergrad: feminism wasn’t even going to pretend to help her find a husband, have babies, or raise children; it was just going to increase competition for her husband’s job. (And probably increase the temptation of workplace social life for him too, but she didn’t say that part out loud.)

    In other words, even when feminism was the new fashion rage, this 20-year-old co-ed could see it was scam.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Almost Missouri

    "feminism wasn’t even going to pretend to help her find a husband, have babies, or raise children"

    But our daughters have been so well "educated" aka indoctrinated by schools and mass media that that's the last thing a modern 20 year old girl thinks about.

    Getting the hot guy, yes. Not so much having and raising his babies, which might entail thoughts about how good a father, husband and provider he might be.

    , @Prester John
    @Almost Missouri

    It sure was, but this is only par for the course. Most so-called social movements in this country wind up being scams anyway. I give you the "civil rights movement" as Exhibit Number One.

    By the way, isn't feminism itself a "social construction?"

  21. • Agree: BB753
    • Thanks: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @anonymous

    Unwin's book is here

    https://archive.org/details/b20442580

    , @Corvinus
    @anonymous

    You’re not being transparent here. He stated that the most potent societal force was pre-nuptial chastity coupled with ‘absolute monogamy”. Only three of the 86 cultures studied attained that status. He also noted in his work that men’s sexual conquests and concubinage were influential factors in the destruction of civilized society.

    , @pirelli
    @anonymous

    This is a pretty misleading representation of Unwin’s work. His core thesis was that “absolute monogamy” was the only way for a society to maintain its “energy.” He supported legal equality of the sexes in theory but acknowledged that it had never been successfully paired with the kind of absolute monogamy he advocated.

  22. That first definition is in the Beyonce Song ‘Partition’

    Random comment (but now I hear Beyonce singing and can’t take anything seriously)

  23. There are as many feminisms as there are Christianities or Marxisms.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @Bardon Kaldian

    That is true, but they all mean you and I ill.

  24. What put feminism in the media to the extent one could not turn on the radio or tv or, read a newspaper or magazine without being bludgeoned with the word (or the concept of) feminism?

    Feminism is/was just another tool, a wedge, for the Democrats to use in their dividing-and-conquering of the electorate.

  25. @Anonymous
    @Desiderius


    It’s employed by the in-group to crater the fertility of everyone else, especially other whites.
     
    Your statement doesn’t make sense logically. If the in-group were Whites, then “everyone else” wouldn’t include Whites.

    Check yourself.

    Replies: @Polistra, @Desiderius, @Skk he lddfgs

    Check yourself.

    Boy, do you have a lot to learn.

  26. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    My definition of “feminism”: A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.
     
    https://twitter.com/EvilVizier/status/1565430794558242816

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Clark Kent, @Old Prude, @prosa123, @Ian Smith, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Muggles, @Anonymous

    Both.

  27. @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    Feminism is an ideology which posits that all of the people in the world born with a uterus have more interests in common and owe a greater allegiance to every other person with a uterus than a person with a uterus has interests and owes allegiances to her own father, brothers, husband and sons.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    We have a perfectly good English word for that part of a woman’s body but instead you choose to use that hideous, trisyllabic Latin abomination not once, not twice but thrice.

  28. Feminism: The belief that the Laws of Nature are wrong and can be overruled by Federal courts.

    • LOL: The Alarmist, Dmon
  29. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    My definition of “feminism”: A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.
     
    https://twitter.com/EvilVizier/status/1565430794558242816

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Clark Kent, @Old Prude, @prosa123, @Ian Smith, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Muggles, @Anonymous

    I’d F either one of them.

  30. @Polistra
    @Jehu

    https://i.ibb.co/2NN8V2K/f0bd34c632311d441b67fafece91a229e94dcf2d-14.jpg

    Maybe this is the correct thread for this.. To ensure her safety as a Black Woman, she flies first class while her police detail rides back in coach.

    At taxpayer expense, of course. But America's black-run cities are circling the drain because white supremacy.

    Replies: @Clark Kent, @AndrewR, @Jim Christian, @njguy73, @Forbes, @Rob McX, @AnotherDad, @Francis Miville

    This sheboon was indicted for using a city issued credit card for personal expenses while a city council woman before running for mayor. Nothing came of it. And, her fellow negroes elected her mayor, anyway! It’s almost like, in black culture, public theft is a thing to be admired.

    • Agree: HammerJack
  31. @Bruno
    It doesn’t explain why many feminists hate trans autogynephiliac. It can be fixed by adding the adjective « biological » to the first instance of the substantive name « women ».

    « Less feminine biological women » above « more feminine women »

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Mike Tre, @Rob McX

    It seems some feminists think that trans women choose to LARP as women instead of “becoming who they really are,” as most trannies would probably describe their transition.

    Without getting into the reproductive differences between cis women and trans women, which are well-known and uncontroversial, it’s obvious that XY people who identify as women tend to be psychologically quite different from XX people who identify as women (and from XX people who identify as men). Specifically, the female-identified XY people who are attracted to women tend to have a lot of similarities to heterosexual XY people who identify as men.

  32. @Polistra
    @R.G. Camara

    How much do you pay for this privilege?? I pay through the nose and I'm not even allowed to look sideways at J.D. or it gets whimmed.


    Not even permitted to denigrate Philadelphia!

    P.D. is right at least half the time so he's better than many here ;)

    Replies: @AndrewR

    Steve really ought to be explicit about what kind of privileges one gets from donating to him. Presumably there is some sort of tier system in which more generous donors get more privileges. I’ll leave it to less lazy and/or drunker and/or more creative commenters than I to brainstorm what these tiers might be and what the mysterious thresholds are.

    Then again, perhaps being explicit about such things would lead to a decrease in overall donations…

  33. The twisted and logically inconsistent use of the term “feminism”, and similar modern monstrosities like the use of the term “racism”, are covered thoughtfully in Christopher Caldwell’s book The Age of Entitlement. Steve Sailer should review that book; perhaps he already has and I missed his review. Recommended.

    • Replies: @Prester John
    @Peter Johnson

    Excellent book. In fact, I intend to re-read it.

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @Peter Johnson

    Peter, I'm sure Steve Sailer, and even more so, John Derbyshire, could write a nice literary review of that book. However, if you want to check in out, Peak Stupidity has a review of The Age of Entitlement right here.

    Since you mentioned feminism, I will have to disagree with any of your satisfaction with Mr. Caldwell's chapter on feminism*. Sure, he disagrees with the subversion of the US Constitution via the AA, set-asides, and general unfairness of modern feminism. However, he doesn't disagree with the idea of it in the slightest. As with race, Caldwell agrees with the sob stories of the poor put-upon housewives of the 1950s and all that crap.

    The Caldwell book cucks out heartily on race and sex. The rest of the book is pretty good. That's the gist of it.

    .

    * I say the very same about his chapter on race - criticisms of both are in my review.

    Replies: @Peter Johnson

  34. @Almost Missouri
    @Almost Missouri

    My mother made a similar observation about feminism when she was a mid-century modern undergrad: feminism wasn't even going to pretend to help her find a husband, have babies, or raise children; it was just going to increase competition for her husband's job. (And probably increase the temptation of workplace social life for him too, but she didn't say that part out loud.)

    In other words, even when feminism was the new fashion rage, this 20-year-old co-ed could see it was scam.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Prester John

    “feminism wasn’t even going to pretend to help her find a husband, have babies, or raise children”

    But our daughters have been so well “educated” aka indoctrinated by schools and mass media that that’s the last thing a modern 20 year old girl thinks about.

    Getting the hot guy, yes. Not so much having and raising his babies, which might entail thoughts about how good a father, husband and provider he might be.

  35. @anonymous
    https://i.postimg.cc/tJRDKQk4/J-D-Unwin-Sex-and-Culture.jpg

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Corvinus, @pirelli

    • Thanks: Random Anonymous
  36. Anon[100] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    My definition of “feminism:” A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.
     
    Could “feminism” be a strategy employed by outgroups against White people to crater the fertility of White women?

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Anon, @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    Seems unlikely. Feminism has popped up all over the world from Latin America to Asia and even South Asia and Africa.

    Tbe lowest fertility rates are not among Western whites, but among East Asians and marginal whites, like Balkans.

    Fertility seems to be closely correlated with income, education and general lesiure. I would argue that “poor” countries like Mexico and India have the lowest fertility rates in the world when you consider how much poorer and less eeucated they are than, say, the French. The fertility rates aren’t that much higher in India or Mexico than they are in France or Iceland.

    Rarher than seeing everything as a conspiracy against whites, you should broaden your outlook and see how other groups are doing. If anything I would say feminism is more rampant in the East Asian and Latino communities in the USA. I see a lot of girl power in those communities.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Anon


    Could “feminism” be a strategy employed by outgroups against White people to crater the fertility of White women?

    Seems unlikely. Feminism has popped up all over the world from Latin America to Asia and even South Asia and Africa.

    Tbe lowest fertility rates are not among Western whites, but among East Asians and marginal whites, like Balkans.
     
    Nonwhite countries either have large enough populations to sustain a decline (to the extent one actually exists), don’t allow immigration, or enjoy both those advantages.

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Dmon
    @Anon

    Doesn't seem that unlikely- the reach of the US media machine is all-encompassing. A coordinated propaganda campaign now has the ability to sway the entire world into senseless solidarity with US elite causes, no matter how remote or antithetical to local interests they may be.
    Here is the wikipedia article listing worldwide George Floyd protests in 2020, many of them in contravention of the prevailing isolation rules in effect at the time. With the power of the internet, the US Deep State/Tech/Media complex can trumpet the death of a small-time felon in a second tier city and literally the entire world, including Antarctica, Greenland and the Faroe Islands falls mindlessly into line. Feminism may be popping up all over the world for the same reason that DIEversity is popping up in every American business - that's all anyone ever hears, that's what the bosses want, and it's dangerous to disagree. You could read more at Chateau Heartiste blog. Oh, wait...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Floyd_protests_outside_the_United_States

  37. As is the case with various -isms, this one is about “I want my group to succeed”. But you have to know what your group profile is, in order to define “success”.

    If there was “Asianism”, it would mean that (east) Asians have their traditional identity rooted in historical Sinosphere’s world-view, but modified by adopting healthy doses-for them- of Western traits: individualism, democracy, rule of the law, rationalism etc.

    So, you want to preserve essential traits of your group and adopt others that would make them more functional.

    That’s why Islamism is a failure, because they don’t want to adopt anything modern, but insist on shariah social organization, which is unsustainable, especially in clash with modernity. It’s ossification.

    Feminism could be a success if women defined their interests as retaining their primary functions: eros, motherhood and family, but with more financial independence & chances for a richer and freer life for women.

    But- they need to dump marginal groups (lesbians); also, they need to understand that promiscuous sexuality is fundamentally damaging for them. It is also for most high functioning men, except in the area of the entertainment industry. Also, women need to understand they are more than 80% of a family’s stability, and that career-orientation is not for most women. Work yes, career obsession no.

    As it is now, feminism is not destroying only women, but, inevitably, the entire civilization.

    • Agree: Rob McX
  38. @Bardon Kaldian
    There are as many feminisms as there are Christianities or Marxisms.

    Replies: @SFG

    That is true, but they all mean you and I ill.

  39. As Rush Limbaugh occasionally said, “I like the feminist movement, particularly when I’m walking behind it.”

    Then again, before he shuffled of his mortal coil, he didn’t see much less of the likes of Admiral Levine.

  40. @Reg Cæsar
    For the third or fourth time here, Jennifer Roback Morse's encapsulation of feminism: Men and women are exactly alike, but women are better.

    Replies: @Old Prude, @Nicholas Stix, @Poirot, @Kylie, @AnotherDad, @American Citizen, @Prester John, @Richard B

    Thanks. A better functional definition than Sailer’s, not that his doesn’t contain an interesting insight.

  41. @Polistra
    @Jehu

    https://i.ibb.co/2NN8V2K/f0bd34c632311d441b67fafece91a229e94dcf2d-14.jpg

    Maybe this is the correct thread for this.. To ensure her safety as a Black Woman, she flies first class while her police detail rides back in coach.

    At taxpayer expense, of course. But America's black-run cities are circling the drain because white supremacy.

    Replies: @Clark Kent, @AndrewR, @Jim Christian, @njguy73, @Forbes, @Rob McX, @AnotherDad, @Francis Miville

    To expand on Dalrock’s definition of feminism, black supremacism is the claim that whites are evil and cause all of black people’s problems, followed by the demand that whites fix all of black people’s problems.

  42. A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.

    But that’s not really true either. The de-facto definition of feminism is something like “socially sanctified buzzword that specific women or sub-groups of women can opportunistically cite to gain advantages in various situations.” These advantages may conflict with one another and sometimes in arbitration one will lose out to the other, but no woman is disqualified. If it appears that “feminism” is in practice aligned more towards the interests of unattractive women, that’s mainly because attractive women don’t need to use it as much.

  43. @Colin Wright
    '...feminism, the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. …'

    This really begs the question. What is meant by that?

    Men and women are very different. Certainly any just society needs to take the well-being, aspirations, and needs of both genders into account, but beyond that? How would they be treated equally?

    One gets into trying to define what would treat both Joe the Plumber and Aesthete the Professor of Restoration Poetry equally. I think the attempt just leads to precisely the sort of absurdities we see today. Why are fewer women corporate presidents than men? Because fewer women are maniacally competitive and driven than men. It's not a function of anyone being treated 'fairly' or 'unfairly.' It's a function of men and women being different, and in fact, an awful lot of our traditional social arrangements are there in response to those differences.

    Replies: @Old Prude, @Nicholas Stix, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Mr. Anon

    I agree, but that is much to complex and nuanced for the dumbed-down population to understand. Anything but single variable analysis is beyond their ken.

    Tangentially related, I went to the emergency room this week (wild mushroom poisoning – nutritional, not recreational). The entire medical staff, nurses, doctors, CNAs: All women…

    The paramedics were guys, though. Make of that what you will…

  44. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    My definition of “feminism”: A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.
     
    https://twitter.com/EvilVizier/status/1565430794558242816

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Clark Kent, @Old Prude, @prosa123, @Ian Smith, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Muggles, @Anonymous

    I think they are both swell…

  45. A left wing friend of mine said something I wish I could have thought of. “There are two types of women, beautiful women, and feminists”

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    @watson79

    The idea that feminists are somehow ugly is absurd. There are ugly feminists, just as there are ugly people in any group. It is just a way to try to defeat one’s opponents with stupid slurs, rather than reasoned arguments.


    I remember when I was young, one of the leaders of the feminists was a former Playboy bunny. Another was a former girlfriend of my father, and I once stumbled across a photo of her in her youth wearing a bikini. No slouch. And, another feminist leader was one of the hottest babes in Hollywood, who sometimes appeared less than fully clothed. Her father and brother were also well known actors at that time.

    What about the current year?

    Consider the organization mostly in Europe, but also in Asia, called Femen. These comely ladies often protest topless. Anyone who would find those ladies unattractive is blind.

    Sort of like how during the Cold War many Westerners claimed Russian and East European women were ugly. Uh, no. They aren’t.

  46. @anonymous
    https://i.postimg.cc/tJRDKQk4/J-D-Unwin-Sex-and-Culture.jpg

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Corvinus, @pirelli

    You’re not being transparent here. He stated that the most potent societal force was pre-nuptial chastity coupled with ‘absolute monogamy”. Only three of the 86 cultures studied attained that status. He also noted in his work that men’s sexual conquests and concubinage were influential factors in the destruction of civilized society.

  47. @Almost Missouri

    My definition of “feminism:” A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.
     
    I've long said that "feminism" is a misnomer. It should really be called "masculinism" since it promotes the masculinization of women.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Corvinus

    According to Occam’s Razor, feminism is defined as what women personally aspire to be.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Corvinus

    According to Corvinus's Razor, anything is defined as whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

    According to Occam, Corvinus's Razor is a Butterknife.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Colin Wright
    @Corvinus

    'According to Occam’s Razor, feminism is defined as what women personally aspire to be.'

    Another meaningless definition.

    If we applied that around here, it would turn out that feminism means to be a mommy with three lively little boys.

  48. @Polistra
    @Jehu

    https://i.ibb.co/2NN8V2K/f0bd34c632311d441b67fafece91a229e94dcf2d-14.jpg

    Maybe this is the correct thread for this.. To ensure her safety as a Black Woman, she flies first class while her police detail rides back in coach.

    At taxpayer expense, of course. But America's black-run cities are circling the drain because white supremacy.

    Replies: @Clark Kent, @AndrewR, @Jim Christian, @njguy73, @Forbes, @Rob McX, @AnotherDad, @Francis Miville

    All they have to do is take it out of her pay.

  49. @Anonymous
    @Desiderius


    It’s employed by the in-group to crater the fertility of everyone else, especially other whites.
     
    Your statement doesn’t make sense logically. If the in-group were Whites, then “everyone else” wouldn’t include Whites.

    Check yourself.

    Replies: @Polistra, @Desiderius, @Skk he lddfgs

    Lol, there’s a middle you’ve failed to exclude.

    The group “whites” is one they work very hard to exclude themselves from. You may have noticed. They literally spare no expense to make sure everyone does. It’s the virtue (vice in fact) they work so hard to signal. But it’s more noise than signal.

    Deracinate yourselves to set yourselves up as the sole neutral arbiter, re-racinate everyone else whether they want to be or not. They even capitalize Black to drive the point home, and create phantom White Supremacy to disqualify as many other whites as they can. Now Asian pride is all the rage.

    That’s the game, but it’s just a game. They’re still pretty white whether they want to get all Groucho Marxian about it or not. Which is why all the prominent putative anti-whites like the Squad can’t seem to get enough of them.

  50. @Corvinus
    @Almost Missouri

    According to Occam’s Razor, feminism is defined as what women personally aspire to be.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Colin Wright

    According to Corvinus’s Razor, anything is defined as whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

    According to Occam, Corvinus’s Razor is a Butterknife.

    • Thanks: Forbes, TWS
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Almost Missouri

    “According to Corvinus’s Razor, anything is defined as whatever the speaker wants it to mean.”

    No. It’s up to each woman to decide what is feminism. That is empowering, not fascist.

    Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter, @Rob Lee, @Colin Wright, @John Milton’s Ghost, @kaganovitch

  51. Feminism: I’m a woman, therefore you must give me jobs, money, and power that I don’t deserve.”

  52. @R.G. Camara
    Actual definition: Feminism is communist claptrap and manhating.

    Its why gammatard "Physicist" Dave loves it.

    Question: does anyone actually believe he's a physicist?

    Another Q: Who needs to specifically claim in his name on anonymous postings that he's a physicist?

    A: someone who's not and claiming to be one.

    Replies: @Polistra, @Bard of Bumperstickers, @Mr. Anon

    Well, alright – time to pull this out for the umpteenth time:

    “Feminism Was Never Not Rotten” by Karen Straughan (a.k.a. GirlWritesWhat)

    Years ago, when I embarked on my investigation into the feminist movement and what it has become, I subscribed to the understanding that there had once existed a magical age of feminism. Of course I did. It was common knowledge, even among anti-feminists, that early feminism was a noble and well-intentioned movement, and that somewhere along the way it was hijacked by lunatics and man-haters bent on female supremacy.

    I was curious as to exactly when, and by what means, this virtuous movement had been corrupted, so I went on something of an archaeological expedition, digging through piles of documents and old news articles and treatises from as far back as the late 1800s and earlier, transcripts of speeches given by well-known suffragettes like Susan B. Anthony.

    My unexpected findings were as follows: Feminism has never been a righteous movement seeking equality. The “noble” Suffragettes were soaked in sexism, classism, racism, eugenics enthusiasm and the mindless pursuit of female privilege. The Declaration of Sentiments, widely believed to be the official manifesto of the First Wave, was nothing more than a hate-filled screed, simultaneously indicting and convicting the male sex of the wholesale criminal enslavement and subjugation of all women, through all of history. READ REST:

    https://antifeministpraxis.wordpress.com/2017/03/31/feminism-was-never-not-rotten/

    Taken from https://antifeministpraxis.wordpress.com/

  53. My definition would be: one of several related ideologies that legitimize the oppression of men and women in the middle and working classes by men and women in the ruling class.

  54. @Almost Missouri
    @Corvinus

    According to Corvinus's Razor, anything is defined as whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

    According to Occam, Corvinus's Razor is a Butterknife.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “According to Corvinus’s Razor, anything is defined as whatever the speaker wants it to mean.”

    No. It’s up to each woman to decide what is feminism. That is empowering, not fascist.

    • LOL: Patrick in SC
    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
    @Corvinus

    Corvinus must be Marc Zuckerberg from Amren.

    , @Rob Lee
    @Corvinus

    Following that posit, masculinity is then up to each man to decide, however toxic that may seem, in these times.

    Therefore I'll decide what constitutes, rape, battery, harassment or indeed any violation of law which women find distasteful.

    It is empowering indeed. I like this game.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Colin Wright
    @Corvinus

    'No. It’s up to each woman to decide what is feminism. That is empowering, not fascist.'

    Not at all. It renders the word meaningless. Sally can decide 'feminism' means having eight children and letting her man control all interactions with the outside world; Suzy can decide 'feminism' means she shouldn't have a man or children at all, but rather, a career and a cat.

    The word now signifies nothing. It doesn't 'empower' anyone.

    You have a talent for parroting glib little platitudes that have no intellectual value at all.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @John Milton’s Ghost
    @Corvinus

    And it is up to each black to decide what is racism. So now every hate hoax is believed.

    And it’s up to each Jew to decide what is antiSemitism. (Fortunately that’s not as confusing since most Jews have gotten their story straight.)

    And it’s up to each CEO to decide what is a monopoly and what is a fair service and to decide how to proceed accordingly.

    And it’s up to each politician to decide what is ethical or not in following the rules that they impose on the proles.

    And it’s up to each leader to decide where their country’s boundary ends.

    Empowering for everyone!

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @kaganovitch
    @Corvinus

    No. It’s up to each woman to decide what is feminism. That is empowering, not fascist.

    “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

    ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

    Like so of much Leftist cant, this bromide is just another expression of ' Der wille zur macht.' Empowering indeed.

  55. anon[188] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jehu
    How about this?
    Society should socialize away the status effects of my disadvantages, while allowing me to continue to reap all the status effects where I have the advantage.

    I think that honestly describes feminism and most other movements that wrap themselves in the cloak of 'justice', especially those who use 'social' as an adjective.

    Replies: @Polistra, @anon, @Anonymous

    That dynamic is along two axes.

    On one axis it involves the desire of outsiders and minorities to access the trust, intimacy, and esteem of majority spaces. This self-serving principle is couched in the modest terms of “just wanting to be treated as one of the guys”. The “guys” having no say in the matter of who gets to be one of them, and also being expected to say nothing when the outsiders have their own advocacy groups which campaign against majority cohesion and majority interests.

    On a more traditional axis it’s the demand for both the male and female status granted by the patriarchy: “no shrinking violets”/”boys never hit girls”. For this to be accepted at all invokes the traditional female privilege of having whims indulged by men.

    In Evelyn Waugh’s novel Decline and Fall a man takes the rap for a woman because he felt it the principled thing to do, and then afterwards tries to figure out what exactly the principle was that he took a principled stand on…

    [MORE]

    [his mind] was torn and distracted by two conflicting methods of thought. On one side was the dead weight of precept, inherited from generations of schoolmasters and divines. According to these, the problem was difficult but not insoluble. He had ‘done the right thing’ in shielding the woman: so much was clear, but Margot had not quite filled the place assigned to her, for in this case, she was grossly culpable, and he was shielding her, not from misfortune nor injustice, but from the consequence of her crimes; he felt a flush about his knees as Boy Scout honour whispered that Margot had got him into a row and ought jolly well to own up and face the music.

    … he had wrestled with this argument without achieving any satisfactory result except a growing conviction that there was something radically inapplicable about this whole code of ready-made honour that is the still small voice, trained to command, of the Englishman all the world over.

    On the other hand was the undeniable cogency of Peter Beste-Chetwynde’s ‘You can’t see Mamma in prison, can you?’ The more Paul considered this, the more he perceived it to be the statement of a natural law. He appreciated the assumption of comprehension with which Peter had delivered it. As he studied Margot’s photograph, dubiously transmitted as it was, he was strengthened in his belief that there was, in fact, and should be, one law for her and another for himself, and that the raw little exertions of nineteenth-century Radicals were essentially base and trivial and misdirected.

  56. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    My definition of “feminism”: A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.
     
    https://twitter.com/EvilVizier/status/1565430794558242816

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Clark Kent, @Old Prude, @prosa123, @Ian Smith, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Muggles, @Anonymous

    Ok boys~
    Easy question:
    Which face do you prefer?

    They both look the same upside down.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @prosa123

    LOL. Especially when you wake up next to their feet.

  57. @Jehu
    How about this?
    Society should socialize away the status effects of my disadvantages, while allowing me to continue to reap all the status effects where I have the advantage.

    I think that honestly describes feminism and most other movements that wrap themselves in the cloak of 'justice', especially those who use 'social' as an adjective.

    Replies: @Polistra, @anon, @Anonymous

    “…especially those who use ‘social’ as an adjective.”

    “Social” is an adjective, idiot.

    • Replies: @Ralph L
    @Anonymous

    "Social" is a noun, too.

  58. The ironic thing about feminism is that feminists complain about being second-class citizens in society, but they have now ended up as second-class citizens within the left. They are lower than blacks, Muslims, and now trannies.

  59. @Colin Wright
    '...feminism, the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. …'

    This really begs the question. What is meant by that?

    Men and women are very different. Certainly any just society needs to take the well-being, aspirations, and needs of both genders into account, but beyond that? How would they be treated equally?

    One gets into trying to define what would treat both Joe the Plumber and Aesthete the Professor of Restoration Poetry equally. I think the attempt just leads to precisely the sort of absurdities we see today. Why are fewer women corporate presidents than men? Because fewer women are maniacally competitive and driven than men. It's not a function of anyone being treated 'fairly' or 'unfairly.' It's a function of men and women being different, and in fact, an awful lot of our traditional social arrangements are there in response to those differences.

    Replies: @Old Prude, @Nicholas Stix, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Mr. Anon

    “Certainly any just society needs to take the well-being, aspirations, and needs of both genders into account, but beyond that?”

    What “genders”?

    • Agree: AnotherDad, Mr. Anon
  60. Feminism, destroyer of wombs, really took off after Oppenheimer.

  61. @anonymous
    https://i.postimg.cc/tJRDKQk4/J-D-Unwin-Sex-and-Culture.jpg

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Corvinus, @pirelli

    This is a pretty misleading representation of Unwin’s work. His core thesis was that “absolute monogamy” was the only way for a society to maintain its “energy.” He supported legal equality of the sexes in theory but acknowledged that it had never been successfully paired with the kind of absolute monogamy he advocated.

  62. @Reg Cæsar
    For the third or fourth time here, Jennifer Roback Morse's encapsulation of feminism: Men and women are exactly alike, but women are better.

    Replies: @Old Prude, @Nicholas Stix, @Poirot, @Kylie, @AnotherDad, @American Citizen, @Prester John, @Richard B

    Jennifer Roback Morse is very good.

  63. Feminism makes women into just another hostile nationality (nominally favored by the ascendant faction of the ruling class).

    As for less feminine women, notice who are the least feminine “women” around.
    Steve certainly has noticed.

    Consider the right wing paranoid of the 1960s.
    Opposed public school sex education and wimminz lib, right?

    His greatest fears were realized years ago, yes. But furthermore if you somehow went back and described the current situation, he’d think you were making fun of him.

    I mean really. Public school teachers manipulating their pupil into accepting castration and calling it civil rights?

  64. How about, no woman should be made to feel bad about anything she’s done, ever? Except by other women.

    • Replies: @LP5
    @Ralph L

    Ralph L writes:


    How about, no woman should be made to feel bad about anything she’s done, ever? Except by other women.
     
    Their Fight Club is so secret that they never even think about it, but they do admit to feelings.
  65. “A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.”

    This is similar to Rush Limbaugh’s definition: “Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.”

  66. “My definition of ‘feminism:’ A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.

    Excellent, Steve, because you preserved feminism’s character in terms of some women waging war on other women. However, it also entails the war by some women on many men, an aspect you neglected.

  67. Feminism, like all forms of progressivism, is a war on reality — in this case, biological reality. These people don’t want to live in the real world, and want to impose their dream world on the rest of us. That makes them mortal enemies of those of us who would like to live our lives in peace.

  68. Limbaugh: “Feminism Was Established So As To Allow Unattractive Women Easier Access To The Mainstream Of Pop Culture”

  69. @Bruno
    It doesn’t explain why many feminists hate trans autogynephiliac. It can be fixed by adding the adjective « biological » to the first instance of the substantive name « women ».

    « Less feminine biological women » above « more feminine women »

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Mike Tre, @Rob McX

    “It doesn’t explain why many feminists hate trans autogynephiliac. ”

    If you view feminism fundamentally as a blunt attempt to seize political and social power for women, then it explains their dislike of trannies (and homosexuals) quite clearly. It is because trannies and homosexuals are attempting to take a share of that power from women for themselves.

    JK Rowling’s complaints are good example of this.

  70. Feminism asserts that women deserve the keys to structures and systems that men have labored for centuries to build

  71. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    My definition of “feminism”: A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.
     
    https://twitter.com/EvilVizier/status/1565430794558242816

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Clark Kent, @Old Prude, @prosa123, @Ian Smith, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Muggles, @Anonymous

    Why can’t I have both?

  72. @Polistra
    @Jehu

    https://i.ibb.co/2NN8V2K/f0bd34c632311d441b67fafece91a229e94dcf2d-14.jpg

    Maybe this is the correct thread for this.. To ensure her safety as a Black Woman, she flies first class while her police detail rides back in coach.

    At taxpayer expense, of course. But America's black-run cities are circling the drain because white supremacy.

    Replies: @Clark Kent, @AndrewR, @Jim Christian, @njguy73, @Forbes, @Rob McX, @AnotherDad, @Francis Miville

    It’s Louisiana. That doesn’t even make the second quartile of corruption.

    • LOL: HammerJack
  73. @Corvinus
    @Almost Missouri

    “According to Corvinus’s Razor, anything is defined as whatever the speaker wants it to mean.”

    No. It’s up to each woman to decide what is feminism. That is empowering, not fascist.

    Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter, @Rob Lee, @Colin Wright, @John Milton’s Ghost, @kaganovitch

    Corvinus must be Marc Zuckerberg from Amren.

    • Agree: fish
  74. @Colin Wright
    '...feminism, the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. …'

    This really begs the question. What is meant by that?

    Men and women are very different. Certainly any just society needs to take the well-being, aspirations, and needs of both genders into account, but beyond that? How would they be treated equally?

    One gets into trying to define what would treat both Joe the Plumber and Aesthete the Professor of Restoration Poetry equally. I think the attempt just leads to precisely the sort of absurdities we see today. Why are fewer women corporate presidents than men? Because fewer women are maniacally competitive and driven than men. It's not a function of anyone being treated 'fairly' or 'unfairly.' It's a function of men and women being different, and in fact, an awful lot of our traditional social arrangements are there in response to those differences.

    Replies: @Old Prude, @Nicholas Stix, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Mr. Anon

    ‘…feminism, the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. …’

    This really begs the question. What is meant by that?

    Men and women are very different. Certainly any just society needs to take the well-being, aspirations, and needs of both genders into account, but beyond that? How would they be treated equally?

    Modern political feminism is a motte-and-bailey scam, and the “feminism is the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes” definition is the bailey that they retreat to when challenged. Attacking the bailey puts you into a rhetorical position in which you are against “equality,” which is an American voodoo word which means a bunch of things but which marks you as a bad person if you question it.

    Today feminists like to compare the lives of women in the past to the lives of men today to demonstrate grossly unequal treatment, eliding the fact that life was much harder for those past women’s male contemporaries in comparison with today as well.

    Insofar as when feminism in the current iteration with its focus upon absolute bodily autonomy and male achievement milestones infects your society its birthrates plummet and your society finds itself on a nosedive to extinction feminism could be defined as a memetic social virus that achieves levels of destruction that a conventional military adversary could not.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)


    ...feminism could be defined as a memetic social virus that achieves levels of destruction that a conventional military adversary could not.
     
    The same can be said of many liberal beliefs, e.g. that mass immigration is good. They're slower in their effects, but they can eventually destroy civilisation in a way that only a full-scale military invasion could match.
    , @Colin Wright
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    '...feminism could be defined as a memetic social virus that achieves levels of destruction that a conventional military adversary could not.'

    Now look up who originated it in its current form.

    David Halberstam in The Fifties discusses how these Thirties graduates of women's colleges went back to their alma maters in the Fifties and were horrified to discover all their younger sisters wanted was a good husband, adorable children, and a nice house in the suburbs.

    He apparently doesn't realize it, but (as I recall) every single one of the women he mentions as cooking up the response were Jewish.

    Once you start noticing, it's impossible to stop.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)

  75. I don’t really agree with Steve’s definition. I don’t see how contemporary feminism disadvantages more feminine women vis a vis the less feminine. I think feminism broadly serves the short-term interests of women, especially young women of means, at the long-term expense of a functional and stable society.

    Highly feminine young women are by and large doing exceedingly well under the current dispensation (think of the hordes of successful fashion, food, and lifestyle bloggers as prototypical examples), and while their less feminine counterparts in big law, tech, and finance occasionally snipe at them or complain bitterly about men’s willingness to “date down” on the résumé ladder, I don’t really see organized hostility toward the girly girls coming from the HBS / HLS crowd. More of an uneasy alliance, and again, it’s not clear to me which group is actually being better served by the politics of the movement.

  76. @Hypnotoad666
    Someone needs to start a movement of Femininity-ism.



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtQBrShqgls

    Replies: @Paul Jolliffe, @Goddard

    As an 8th grader in the 1970’s, I was in my jr. high’s production of “Flower Drum Song”, an excellent show from Rodgers and Hammerstein.

    A pretty girl on whom I had a crush sang that song.

    Tempus fugit.

    I doubt any public school in America has performed that musical this century.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Paul Jolliffe

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOj7mjFTAGQ

  77. @Desiderius
    @Anonymous

    It's employed by the in-group to crater the fertility of everyone else, especially other whites.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Reg Cæsar

    It’s employed by the in-group to crater the fertility of everyone else, especially other whites.

    Mary Wollstonecraft, Friedrich Engels, Susan B Anthony, Margaret Sanger, Simone de Beauvoir, Harry Blackmun…

    • Agree: Desiderius
  78. @Corvinus
    @Almost Missouri

    “According to Corvinus’s Razor, anything is defined as whatever the speaker wants it to mean.”

    No. It’s up to each woman to decide what is feminism. That is empowering, not fascist.

    Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter, @Rob Lee, @Colin Wright, @John Milton’s Ghost, @kaganovitch

    Following that posit, masculinity is then up to each man to decide, however toxic that may seem, in these times.

    Therefore I’ll decide what constitutes, rape, battery, harassment or indeed any violation of law which women find distasteful.

    It is empowering indeed. I like this game.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Rob Lee

    “Following that posit, masculinity is then up to each man to decide, however toxic that may seem, in these times.“

    Absolutely. But you find yourself facing consequences. Similar to women who make certain choices.

    “I’ll decide what constitutes, rape, battery, harassment or indeed any violation of law which women find distasteful.“

    Go right ahead. See how far that gets you.

    Replies: @Rob Lee

  79. Steve, your definition is the polite version of Rush Limbaugh’s:

    “Feminism is just a way for ugly women to get into the mainstream of America.”

  80. @Polistra
    @Jehu

    https://i.ibb.co/2NN8V2K/f0bd34c632311d441b67fafece91a229e94dcf2d-14.jpg

    Maybe this is the correct thread for this.. To ensure her safety as a Black Woman, she flies first class while her police detail rides back in coach.

    At taxpayer expense, of course. But America's black-run cities are circling the drain because white supremacy.

    Replies: @Clark Kent, @AndrewR, @Jim Christian, @njguy73, @Forbes, @Rob McX, @AnotherDad, @Francis Miville

    I’m curious for what “business” does a US city mayor fly to France and Switzerland?

    • Agree: Rob McX
    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @Forbes

    I’m curious for what “business” does a US city mayor fly to France and Switzerland?

    She was trying to see if the Louisiana Purchase could perhaps be undone.

    , @HammerJack
    @Forbes

    I think she needed to get her hair did.

  81. @Reg Cæsar
    For the third or fourth time here, Jennifer Roback Morse's encapsulation of feminism: Men and women are exactly alike, but women are better.

    Replies: @Old Prude, @Nicholas Stix, @Poirot, @Kylie, @AnotherDad, @American Citizen, @Prester John, @Richard B

    “All dogs are equal, but bitches are best”?

  82. @SFG
    I don’t like his open borders advocacy, but I have to admit, dude’s got balls.


    Must be independently wealthy or something.

    Replies: @Poirot, @The Anti-Gnostic, @kaganovitch, @AnotherDad

    Or in the case of Martin Van Creveld, perhaps old enough not to care very much anymore?
    And thus, “As I Please”.
    MVC has been writing interesting stuff on his blog concerning the issues of Women Vs. Men: “the Gender Dialogues”: http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/tag/gender/

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Poirot


    In any known society the vast majority of public posts are occupied by men; the higher the position, the more true this is.
     
    Then the Conservative Party leadership must not be that high of a position. Three of the last six, and two of the last three, Tory PMs have been women. They've led the party more than a third of the time since 1976.

    Labour, in stark contrast, has had two female leaders, one with two stints, whose total time served is eleven months. None have ever been PM, or even run for that office in a general election, suggesting that when the opportunity to form a government is most plausible, women are pushed to the back of the party. In fact, "(acting)" appears next to these women's names.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Labour_Party_(UK)

    Obviously being in political control is much more important to Labourites than to Tories! It's the red men who fight for the brass ring. This is pure Steven Goldberg.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  83. @Anonymous

    My definition of “feminism:” A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.
     
    Could “feminism” be a strategy employed by outgroups against White people to crater the fertility of White women?

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Anon, @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    My definition of “feminism:” A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.

    Could “feminism” be a strategy employed by outgroups against White people to crater the fertility of White women?

    My guess is that second wave feminism – the “women’s liberation” movements of the 1960s – was intended as a means to goose U.S. economic production during the Cold War by nearly doubling the labor pool in short order.

    The decline in fertility came later, and as crazy as it sounds it may not have entirely been predicted or desired from the outset. After the declining fertility trend became apparent, the solution for capital interests was simple – unrestrained immigration (prior to 9/11, the Wall Street Journal would regularly and openly agitate for open borders). Capital interests funding the GOP made a tacit deal with Democrats – unlimited cheap labor in exchange for clients for an ever-expanding welfare state.

    I suppose you can decide whether all of this happened just because of a few homely but intelligent Jewish girls or whether the Deep State’s hidden thumb on the scale was the necessary cause.

    • Agree: Jim Christian
    • Replies: @Anon
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)


    The decline in fertility came later, and as crazy as it sounds it may not have entirely been predicted or desired from the outset.
     
    Wrong.


    US fertility fell off a cliff in tbe 1960s right at the onset of second wave feminism (a.k.a "bitch" feminism).

    https://www.prb.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/07282009-US-TFR.gif

    The US went below replacement in the early 1970s. Little GUPPY.

    Everybody saw it coming, it was written about in journals and magazines, problem is no one really appreciated the consequences until people started seeing them with their very eyes.

    Also, people back then were too occupied with frivolous pursuits like computer coding, Willie Nelson concerts, running radio shows sns other assorted degeneracies to care about their national demographic trajectory.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Anonymous

  84. Most “isms” are about the superiority of the subject versus the alternatives. Like any leftwing social cause that is supposedly about justice, the goal isn’t equalization and then stopping there, it’s structural dominance over unfavored groups.

    Unfortunately for women, most of practical feminism is insisting the ideal woman should be as much of a slave to her career as a man and acts like one in their sexual conquests as well. This goes against the wiring of the overwhelming majority of women and makes them deeply unhappy, which the political left then cannily leverages to make additional political demands/concessions of others to alleviate the self-inflicted sense of alienation and lack of personal fulfillment.

    • Replies: @Joe Magarac
    @Arclight


    Like any leftwing social cause that is supposedly about justice, the goal isn’t equalization and then stopping there, it’s structural dominance over unfavored groups.
     
    The rhetoric is similar, bit I think it's also a tactic to undermine the family structure. Because the family creates a system of loyalties not subordinate to the ruling class.
  85. The older I get the more I realize “feminism” is simply a rationalization for whatever suits a woman at any given time. Naturally this makes it incredibly contradictory and pointless but that itself is the point. The media IS the message. If a woman says it it’s feminist. Thus you can have being a literal prostitute being held up as a “empowered feminist sex worker” and at the same time also being “literal rape and oppression by the patriarchy.” Both statements are true according to “her” truth.

    • Agree: Art Deco
  86. Here is a modicum of Feminism with USMC flavor.

    “Get over it ! We are not all created equal”

    https://www.blackfive.net/main/2013/01/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal.html

    By Captain Katie Petronio,USMC

    Sad story of a picture-perfect, smart, athletic, female college grad. After one combat tour she turned into infertile physical wreck.

    “By the fifth month into the deployment, I had muscle atrophy in my thighs that was causing me to constantly trip and my legs to buckle with the slightest grade change.”

    And long litany of other woes…

    Originally this article was published in the Marine Corps Times where only dead link remains.

  87. @Reg Cæsar
    For the third or fourth time here, Jennifer Roback Morse's encapsulation of feminism: Men and women are exactly alike, but women are better.

    Replies: @Old Prude, @Nicholas Stix, @Poirot, @Kylie, @AnotherDad, @American Citizen, @Prester John, @Richard B

    “For the third or fourth time here, Jennifer Roback Morse’s encapsulation of feminism: Men and women are exactly alike, but women are better.”

    Good as far as it goes. The complete version would read:

    Men and women are exactly alike, but women are better, which is why women should have more power and authority while men should shoulder more duty and responsibility.

    N.B. I have never known any woman who proclaims herself a feminist not to act in accordance with this credo.

    • Agree: Bardon Kaldian
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Kylie


    ...while men should shoulder more duty and responsibility.
     
    This cuts to crux of modern-- heck, post-Renaissance-- society's disease: duty vs rights. Perhaps this started with the Magna Carta, but those were lords. It hit the other classes in 1689 with the Bill of Rights.

    This and its American child were benign at first. Men swam in an ocean of duties, and delineated rights were to be ports in a storm. It is also sensible that rights are spelled out on paper for the state, but not duties, which are the province of the society which gave birth to that state. But over the centuries the grip of that society, and the families that gave birth to it have loosened so much that modern man is a dog without a leash.

    The analyst this analysis most closely resembles would be Pitirim Sorokin and his 1200-year social cycle theory, idealistic to sensate and back. Sorokin was half-Permyak (or Komi), from the wasteland east of Karelia and west of Siberia, and was arrested numerous times in post-Tsarist Russia before getting out.

    Similarly and antipodeally, the 36th in line to the throne is half-Maori and was named after a tree.

    Also antipodeally, researching Sorokin and his rival Talcott Parsons led me to one contemporary sociologist, Raewyn Connell.

    Classic iSteve late-in-life autogynophilia. Anyone familiar with Raewyn?

    http://www.raewynconnell.net/p/about-raewyn_20.html

    Replies: @Francis Miville

  88. Feminism is the patriarchy for women: the most masculine women on top.

    Funnily enough, many foot-soldier feminists are airy-fairy hippy types. Incense and horoscopes. But they are never the leaders.

    • Agree: Rob McX
  89. @Arclight
    Most "isms" are about the superiority of the subject versus the alternatives. Like any leftwing social cause that is supposedly about justice, the goal isn't equalization and then stopping there, it's structural dominance over unfavored groups.

    Unfortunately for women, most of practical feminism is insisting the ideal woman should be as much of a slave to her career as a man and acts like one in their sexual conquests as well. This goes against the wiring of the overwhelming majority of women and makes them deeply unhappy, which the political left then cannily leverages to make additional political demands/concessions of others to alleviate the self-inflicted sense of alienation and lack of personal fulfillment.

    Replies: @Joe Magarac

    Like any leftwing social cause that is supposedly about justice, the goal isn’t equalization and then stopping there, it’s structural dominance over unfavored groups.

    The rhetoric is similar, bit I think it’s also a tactic to undermine the family structure. Because the family creates a system of loyalties not subordinate to the ruling class.

  90. @Corvinus
    @Almost Missouri

    “According to Corvinus’s Razor, anything is defined as whatever the speaker wants it to mean.”

    No. It’s up to each woman to decide what is feminism. That is empowering, not fascist.

    Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter, @Rob Lee, @Colin Wright, @John Milton’s Ghost, @kaganovitch

    ‘No. It’s up to each woman to decide what is feminism. That is empowering, not fascist.’

    Not at all. It renders the word meaningless. Sally can decide ‘feminism’ means having eight children and letting her man control all interactions with the outside world; Suzy can decide ‘feminism’ means she shouldn’t have a man or children at all, but rather, a career and a cat.

    The word now signifies nothing. It doesn’t ’empower’ anyone.

    You have a talent for parroting glib little platitudes that have no intellectual value at all.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Colin Wright

    “The word now signifies nothing. It doesn’t ’empower’ anyone.“

    Of course it does. If a woman wants to stay at home and have kids, that’s liberating. If a woman wants to have a career and sleep around—just like her male counterparts (or like Roissy)—that’s liberating. Again, there are social and personal consequences for choices, but that’s ultimately the decision for her to make.

    “You have a talent for parroting glib little platitudes that have no intellectual value at all“

    I’m just following Mr. Sailers lead to make a point—A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  91. My definition of “feminism:” A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.

    For feminine women the competition is to find a husband, and have multiple children, which comes more easily and naturally to them. Wasn’t outside the realm of marriage and family it only formerly true that masculine women had the advantage because then women were in competition with other women for jobs in a restricted number of fields. As Harvey Mansfield sees it “Despite its dislike of the word manliness, it is on the whole friendly to the quality, now under a new name, more neutral and prosaic, such as “leadership.” On the one hand, the world seems to have been feminized, yet on the other hand, it is still a man’s world, and in a strange way even more so, because both sexes are now engaged in employments that reward the manly qualities of aggression and assertiveness.”

  92. anon[106] • Disclaimer says:

    The Heartiste definition of feminism: “The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.”

    You could add precision to this maxim by refining it to “remove all social constraints on the sexuality of less feminine women while maximally restricting the sexuality of beta provider men”.

    Corollary: restrict the sexuality of beautiful women while allowing alpha men the run of the place.

    [MORE]

    ***
    Feminists, in other words, nurture a fantasy that by sheer force of blather they can remake the sexual market to suit their every whim and desire while curtailing to the maximum extent possible any romantic choice enjoyed by men.

    This theory neatly clarifies the motives of all sorts of poopytalk that dribbles from the cheetos-stained lips of feminists. To wit:

    Indignation over fat/slut shaming = Demands to be simultaneously as physically repulsive and depraved as one wishes while remaining attractive to any man one desires, regardless of men’s wishes to the contrary.

    Social conditioning of sexual preference = Religious belief that men’s sexual preferences can be changed to find fat, ugly or old women attractive, while at the same time any preference women enjoy is empowering and immediately satisfiable.

    Patriarchal oppression/privilege = Unfalsifiable rationale for the depressing consequences that unattractive women endure in the sexual market. Promotes idea that low SMV women can be happy once “male oppression” is defeated.

    Rape culture = Limitless choice to women to redefine their sexual experiences however they please, (and to benefit from the labeling as they see fit). Men, in contrast, are burdened with automatically impugned guilt for any sexual transaction they may enjoy. […]

    Low SMV women embrace feminism as a social mechanism to alternately decrease competition from more beautiful women and increase the sexual choice of, and the access to societal (read: male) resources for, uglier women.

    Elevating the status and the perceived value of the ugly and the monstrous, and simultaneously disparaging the normal and the healthy, is the true motivation of feminists. Their nefarious goal is the renormalization of society and the sexual market to a lower aesthetic; one that is more congenial to the fates of the unloved women.

    Feminism is not about a war on women; feminism is a war OF women. Womano-a-womano. All that bleating about equality and judgmentalism and slut shaming and the patriarchy is just the squid ink ugly broads expectorate to give them a fighting chance in the all-against-all, zero-sum competition for mates.

    Feminists will lose, of course. The sexual market cares nothing for sophistry. In the final analysis, only the boner and the tingle matter.

    Interestingly, a case can be made — hell, a case WILL be made — that the American obesity epidemic and quack-wave feminism have risen in lockstep out of necessity. As the population of reproductive-age women has increasingly become fatter and uglier, the number of women needing the equalist semantics of feminism to assure their place at the sexual market table has grown (heh) accordingly. More fatsos = more equalizing cant.

    So you see how obesity, feminism, and equalism intersect, interweave, reinforce, and gluttonously feed each other.

    https://heartiste.org/2014/02/05/study-finds-the-foul-source-of-feminism/

  93. Men and women are exactly alike, but women are better, which is why women should have more power and authority while men should shoulder more duty and responsibility.

    Aye. In short: Men and women are exactly alike, but women are better, which is why women should be the masters and men the slaves.

  94. Feminism is a subset of the sexual revolution. The goal of revolutionaries is the overthrow of an existing social order and attacking a normal, procreative sexual order has been part of revolutionary strategy since the 18th century. The anti-trans feminists have provoked outrage among their feminist comrades because the anti-trans movement is objectively counter-revolutionary. The trans lunacy is merely the logical progression of the whole sexual revolutionary process.

  95. Marxist auxiliary for the Lesser sex.

    But yours is perfect.

  96. My definition of feminism: a movement and ideology whose basic dogma is that men and women and boys and girls are exactly the same apart from the obvious and insuperable differences in anatomy, the undeniable and salient reality of maleness and femaleness, e.g., males have penises, females have vaginas, only women get pregnant, and general disparities in height and strength, athletic ability, violence and criminality, etc.

    But now, for who knows how many leftists and feminists, the differences in anatomy are no longer insuperable, at least in respect to the belief and assertion, apparently sincere for most, that “men can get pregnant.”

  97. Anon[366] • Disclaimer says:

    OT: I just learned that Barbara Ehrenreich died. Did Steve give her a RIP h/t blog post? I never knew she was in a Ph.D. program in theoretical physics and ended up getting a Ph.D. in cellular immunology. I read a couple of her books, the last being Bright-sided where she pooh-poohed positive thinking and which I didn’t find convincing.

  98. @Reg Cæsar
    For the third or fourth time here, Jennifer Roback Morse's encapsulation of feminism: Men and women are exactly alike, but women are better.

    Replies: @Old Prude, @Nicholas Stix, @Poirot, @Kylie, @AnotherDad, @American Citizen, @Prester John, @Richard B

    For the third or fourth time here, Jennifer Roback Morse’s encapsulation of feminism: Men and women are exactly alike, but women are better.

    That’s very good on the ideology/propaganda.

    My practical–rubber meets the road–definition:

    Men must keep giving women stuff. regardless of whether women do anything for men.

    I think that’s the heart of it.

    In the old traditional order, civilization is based on marriage. A woman gives a man sex and companionship, bears and nurses his children and does the housework to makes a home for their family, in return the man must materially provide for her and her children, their family. Men and women complement each other biologically and productively–superior feminine nurturing and superior masculine material production.

    ~~

    Old early 20th century WASPy feminism vibe was everyone should have families like … middle class WASPy families! Including men listening respectfully to their wives and controlled fertility. (Nix the Irish Catholic drunkenness and popping out 8 kids.)

    Modern Jewish feminism switched the vibe to “women are oppressed!” (by dishwashers and pop-up toasters.) I.e. women were yet another oppressed minority in the minoritarian coalition.

    Ergo women should not have to actually do anything for men to give them stuff–that’s just like slavery!–but as a virtuous oppressed minority are entitled to the majority’s (i.e. men’s) stuff. The sacred minority right of access to the majority and their stuff–i.e. “right to loot”.

    Turns out most men and women are actually much happier with male-female complementarity. And it works a heck of a lot better for maintaining civilization … but who the hell cares about that!

    • Thanks: Joe Magarac
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @AnotherDad

    Turns out most men and women are actually much happier with male-female complementarity.

    Disagree. As often as not, women are subjectively dissatisfied with their domestic situation no matter what it is. Some of them navigate their dissatisfactions in a more salutary way than do others.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @anarchyst, @AnotherDad

  99. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    My definition of “feminism”: A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.
     
    https://twitter.com/EvilVizier/status/1565430794558242816

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Clark Kent, @Old Prude, @prosa123, @Ian Smith, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Muggles, @Anonymous

    Which face do you prefer?

    They’re both 8+. After that personal preference cuts in.

  100. @R.G. Camara
    Actual definition: Feminism is communist claptrap and manhating.

    Its why gammatard "Physicist" Dave loves it.

    Question: does anyone actually believe he's a physicist?

    Another Q: Who needs to specifically claim in his name on anonymous postings that he's a physicist?

    A: someone who's not and claiming to be one.

    Replies: @Polistra, @Bard of Bumperstickers, @Mr. Anon

    Question: does anyone actually believe he’s a physicist?

    Yes.

    • LOL: Polistra
  101. The definition favored by Dr. Helen Smith (Mrs. Glenn Reynolds): the habit of looking at human relations with the assumption that “women have options; men have obligations.”

    Like Murphy’s Law, or the Peter Principle, you can elaborate on it, e.g:

    1. The feminine is the norm, the masculine deviant.

    2. Women may not be critiqued and evaluated by men, individually or in aggregate.

    3. Men have no comparative advantage in any endevour except when they’ve rigged the competition.

    4. Fathers have no prerogatives in dealing with their children.

    5. Men may not enter into formal associations without the permission of women

    6. Men’s activity around the home is of no value unless the wife elects to recognize its value.

    7. A position advanced by a woman is justified by the recitation of the words “I want”.

  102. @Colin Wright
    '...feminism, the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. …'

    This really begs the question. What is meant by that?

    Men and women are very different. Certainly any just society needs to take the well-being, aspirations, and needs of both genders into account, but beyond that? How would they be treated equally?

    One gets into trying to define what would treat both Joe the Plumber and Aesthete the Professor of Restoration Poetry equally. I think the attempt just leads to precisely the sort of absurdities we see today. Why are fewer women corporate presidents than men? Because fewer women are maniacally competitive and driven than men. It's not a function of anyone being treated 'fairly' or 'unfairly.' It's a function of men and women being different, and in fact, an awful lot of our traditional social arrangements are there in response to those differences.

    Replies: @Old Prude, @Nicholas Stix, @Alec Leamas (working from home), @Mr. Anon

    To echo the comment of Nicholas Stix: Why do you use their term – gender?

    The proper term is sex. It is a biological category. There are two of them.

    The first step in winning an ideological battle is to not accept your enemies framing of it.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Mr. Anon

    'To echo the comment of Nicholas Stix: Why do you use their term – gender?
    The proper term is sex. It is a biological category. There are two of them.
    The first step in winning an ideological battle is to not accept your enemies framing of it.'

    I considered it. However, 'sex' can also refer to the act. Polemical significance aside, 'gender' is somewhat more precise.

    ...but, if it'll make you happy, I'll say 'sex.' It's really not very important. I'm reminded when I refer to countries with gendered sexual pronouns. I get flak for referring to Israel as 'her' in posts as well.

  103. @AnotherDad
    @Reg Cæsar


    For the third or fourth time here, Jennifer Roback Morse’s encapsulation of feminism: Men and women are exactly alike, but women are better.
     
    That's very good on the ideology/propaganda.

    My practical--rubber meets the road--definition:

    Men must keep giving women stuff. regardless of whether women do anything for men.

    I think that's the heart of it.

    In the old traditional order, civilization is based on marriage. A woman gives a man sex and companionship, bears and nurses his children and does the housework to makes a home for their family, in return the man must materially provide for her and her children, their family. Men and women complement each other biologically and productively--superior feminine nurturing and superior masculine material production.

    ~~

    Old early 20th century WASPy feminism vibe was everyone should have families like ... middle class WASPy families! Including men listening respectfully to their wives and controlled fertility. (Nix the Irish Catholic drunkenness and popping out 8 kids.)

    Modern Jewish feminism switched the vibe to "women are oppressed!" (by dishwashers and pop-up toasters.) I.e. women were yet another oppressed minority in the minoritarian coalition.

    Ergo women should not have to actually do anything for men to give them stuff--that's just like slavery!--but as a virtuous oppressed minority are entitled to the majority's (i.e. men's) stuff. The sacred minority right of access to the majority and their stuff--i.e. "right to loot".


    Turns out most men and women are actually much happier with male-female complementarity. And it works a heck of a lot better for maintaining civilization ... but who the hell cares about that!

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Turns out most men and women are actually much happier with male-female complementarity.

    Disagree. As often as not, women are subjectively dissatisfied with their domestic situation no matter what it is. Some of them navigate their dissatisfactions in a more salutary way than do others.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @Art Deco

    I disagree with your point. Some women are happy with their domestic situations, and they are glad that their husbands have the means to set up and maintain those situations. Modern home life is a luxury, and there are women smart enough to know this. I'll just say, very briefly now, that the best ones are those women who grew up without what we have and who therefore appreciate it.

    , @anarchyst
    @Art Deco

    Women have an altruistic streak which can prove deadly when externalized.
    Internalized altruism is necessary for creating and sustaining a family, but when altruism is externalized it can become a problem.
    Black men are especially good at instilling "guilt trips" on white women, a favorite being:
    "You won't date me because I'm black"...Any white woman with self-respect and common sense would respond with:
    "That's right, I don't date outside my race".
    Instead, the gullible, guilt-ridden white woman goes along with the black man and ends up being beaten, raped, murdered and blessed with "pickaninnies" to care for while the "baby daddy" takes the welfare check, uses it for himself while the now soiled and defiled white woman is left to take care of his black spawn. More than likely, the black man has a number of "baby mommas" in his "harem" and only comes around to collect the welfare check, threatening violence if the money is not forthcoming. The african concept of "it takes a village" certainly applies here.
    Quite often, white women are detrimental to their own race.
    Any white woman who consorts with blacks must be considered "damaged goods" and ostracized. "Burn the coal, pay the toll".
    Redemption is possible if there are no sub-human half-breed "pickaninnies" involved and if the woman truly recognizes the "error of her ways".
    The same also applies to white male "oil drillers" as well.

    , @AnotherDad
    @Art Deco


    Disagree. As often as not, women are subjectively dissatisfied with their domestic situation no matter what it is. Some of them navigate their dissatisfactions in a more salutary way than do others.
     
    Dissatisfaction is part of the human condition. I'm sort of a half-empty guy myself. Are women more prone it? Probably.

    I just asked AnotherMom whether she was happy? She looked at me with the "what the heck is this guy up to now?" look. But pressed said "Yeah, I'm happy. More or less". But then she has three great kids--and I think children have a lot to do with women's (and men's) deep life happiness.

    YMMV.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

  104. @prosa123
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Ok boys~
    Easy question:
    Which face do you prefer?


    They both look the same upside down.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    LOL. Especially when you wake up next to their feet.

  105. @Art Deco
    @AnotherDad

    Turns out most men and women are actually much happier with male-female complementarity.

    Disagree. As often as not, women are subjectively dissatisfied with their domestic situation no matter what it is. Some of them navigate their dissatisfactions in a more salutary way than do others.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @anarchyst, @AnotherDad

    I disagree with your point. Some women are happy with their domestic situations, and they are glad that their husbands have the means to set up and maintain those situations. Modern home life is a luxury, and there are women smart enough to know this. I’ll just say, very briefly now, that the best ones are those women who grew up without what we have and who therefore appreciate it.

  106. @Corvinus
    @Almost Missouri

    “According to Corvinus’s Razor, anything is defined as whatever the speaker wants it to mean.”

    No. It’s up to each woman to decide what is feminism. That is empowering, not fascist.

    Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter, @Rob Lee, @Colin Wright, @John Milton’s Ghost, @kaganovitch

    And it is up to each black to decide what is racism. So now every hate hoax is believed.

    And it’s up to each Jew to decide what is antiSemitism. (Fortunately that’s not as confusing since most Jews have gotten their story straight.)

    And it’s up to each CEO to decide what is a monopoly and what is a fair service and to decide how to proceed accordingly.

    And it’s up to each politician to decide what is ethical or not in following the rules that they impose on the proles.

    And it’s up to each leader to decide where their country’s boundary ends.

    Empowering for everyone!

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @John Milton’s Ghost

    And now it’s up to each Alt Right type to believe everyone who opposes race realism is anti-white, who stands by Ukraine is an acolyte of the Deep State, and who supports political causes that run counter to their own are evil.

    You’re right, this is fun.

  107. Women who claim that they can “do anything a man can do” are finally getting their comeuppance with the recent mentally ill male “swimmer” placing “first” in competition with “real” women.
    Wait till more women start getting pushed out of deserved positions by being forced to compete with mentally ill biological males that claim that they are women.
    If women are smart, they will refuse to compete in such situations. The power of the boycott is effective, especially in collegiate and professional sports. When “real” women refuse to compete with biological males, things will change, no matter how the mainstream media tries to “spin” it.
    Women need to understand that being feminine is not in any way inferior but is complementary to males. Men and women ARE different. There is no getting around biology.
    Women are far more focused on “security”. They are hard wired to be so for the protection of children. Since they are now in control, men are required to be so as well. What women are NOT hardwired for, and in fact are generally deficient in, is reason and logic. They are much more prone to react illogically to their emotions.
    The resulting problem is that without reason and logic, evaluation of real threats is impossible.
    Women have an altruistic streak which can prove deadly when externalized.
    Internalized altruism is necessary for creating and sustaining a family, but when altruism is externalized it is a problem.

    • Troll: Corvinus
  108. Feminism is an ideology that, under many guises, seeks nothing but to maximize the sexual freedom of women and alpha males in order to minimize the sexual opportunities of all other males. It’s purpose is to destabilize our society so that out overlords can then have a pretext to impose freedom-constricting solutions. (Societies with large numbers of sexually impoverished men are dangerously unstable.)

    Even leftist publications like The Atlantic admit the dangers of polygamy, though they refuse to recognize that it’s already de facto here, caused by feminism, and getting worse.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2006/04/one-man-many-wives-big-problems/304829/

  109. The feminist definition of equality – whatever benefits women.

  110. Feminism means never saying “you’re terrific!” or “tell me a tale” or “huh! interesting! explain some more.” Why is the feminist bride smiling at her wedding? Because she knows she’ll never have to say those things again.

  111. @SFG
    I don’t like his open borders advocacy, but I have to admit, dude’s got balls.


    Must be independently wealthy or something.

    Replies: @Poirot, @The Anti-Gnostic, @kaganovitch, @AnotherDad

    He lives in a 74% white/14% Asian DC suburb in a neighborhood with an \$800,000 admission fee. From there, surrounded by academics, lobbyists and SES-level bureaucrats, immigration seems like a fantastic idea.

    • Replies: @New Dealer
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    No, it's because he's neurodivergent and developed his lunatic approach in nasty conflicts with his Archie Bunker type dad who opposed free trade and open borders.

    I know this for sure.


    Caplan would probably refute The Anti-Gnostic with the argument that anyone is free to move in or out of Bryan's neighborhood

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

  112. Odd that there is not a robust childrenism aiming to defend children.

    • Agree: Rob McX
  113. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @SFG

    He lives in a 74% white/14% Asian DC suburb in a neighborhood with an $800,000 admission fee. From there, surrounded by academics, lobbyists and SES-level bureaucrats, immigration seems like a fantastic idea.

    Replies: @New Dealer

    No, it’s because he’s neurodivergent and developed his lunatic approach in nasty conflicts with his Archie Bunker type dad who opposed free trade and open borders.

    I know this for sure.

    Caplan would probably refute The Anti-Gnostic with the argument that anyone is free to move in or out of Bryan’s neighborhood

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @New Dealer

    Anyone is not free to move into Bryan's neighborhood. There's an $800,000 admission fee. And you had better believe his wife is not letting them move out.

    Honestly, when the GMU economists get to the chapter in their textbooks titled, "Housing," they ought to turn the class over to their wives.

    For the rest of us, we can have guys named McMichael patrol the borders of our more humble neighborhoods armed with shotguns to keep the riffraff out. But I bet Bryan would be the first to argue there is no such right.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  114. @Reg Cæsar
    For the third or fourth time here, Jennifer Roback Morse's encapsulation of feminism: Men and women are exactly alike, but women are better.

    Replies: @Old Prude, @Nicholas Stix, @Poirot, @Kylie, @AnotherDad, @American Citizen, @Prester John, @Richard B

    I’ll take “The philosophy that destroyed Western Civilization for \$1000, Alex”.

  115. @Reg Cæsar
    For the third or fourth time here, Jennifer Roback Morse's encapsulation of feminism: Men and women are exactly alike, but women are better.

    Replies: @Old Prude, @Nicholas Stix, @Poirot, @Kylie, @AnotherDad, @American Citizen, @Prester John, @Richard B

    Better at what?

  116. @Peter Johnson
    The twisted and logically inconsistent use of the term "feminism", and similar modern monstrosities like the use of the term "racism", are covered thoughtfully in Christopher Caldwell's book The Age of Entitlement. Steve Sailer should review that book; perhaps he already has and I missed his review. Recommended.

    Replies: @Prester John, @Achmed E. Newman

    Excellent book. In fact, I intend to re-read it.

  117. @Anonymous
    @Jehu


    "...especially those who use ‘social’ as an adjective."
     
    "Social" is an adjective, idiot.

    Replies: @Ralph L

    “Social” is a noun, too.

  118. @Almost Missouri
    @Almost Missouri

    My mother made a similar observation about feminism when she was a mid-century modern undergrad: feminism wasn't even going to pretend to help her find a husband, have babies, or raise children; it was just going to increase competition for her husband's job. (And probably increase the temptation of workplace social life for him too, but she didn't say that part out loud.)

    In other words, even when feminism was the new fashion rage, this 20-year-old co-ed could see it was scam.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @Prester John

    It sure was, but this is only par for the course. Most so-called social movements in this country wind up being scams anyway. I give you the “civil rights movement” as Exhibit Number One.

    By the way, isn’t feminism itself a “social construction?”

  119. @New Dealer
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    No, it's because he's neurodivergent and developed his lunatic approach in nasty conflicts with his Archie Bunker type dad who opposed free trade and open borders.

    I know this for sure.


    Caplan would probably refute The Anti-Gnostic with the argument that anyone is free to move in or out of Bryan's neighborhood

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    Anyone is not free to move into Bryan’s neighborhood. There’s an \$800,000 admission fee. And you had better believe his wife is not letting them move out.

    Honestly, when the GMU economists get to the chapter in their textbooks titled, “Housing,” they ought to turn the class over to their wives.

    For the rest of us, we can have guys named McMichael patrol the borders of our more humble neighborhoods armed with shotguns to keep the riffraff out. But I bet Bryan would be the first to argue there is no such right.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Fun facts. Caplan is an employee of a corporate subsidiary of the state of Virginia. His wife (a Roumanian immigrant) is a lawyer for FreddieMac.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

  120. @Paul Jolliffe
    @Hypnotoad666

    As an 8th grader in the 1970’s, I was in my jr. high’s production of “Flower Drum Song”, an excellent show from Rodgers and Hammerstein.

    A pretty girl on whom I had a crush sang that song.

    Tempus fugit.

    I doubt any public school in America has performed that musical this century.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  121. @SFG
    I don’t like his open borders advocacy, but I have to admit, dude’s got balls.


    Must be independently wealthy or something.

    Replies: @Poirot, @The Anti-Gnostic, @kaganovitch, @AnotherDad

    Just autistic, I think.

  122. @James Speaks
    I think it is called Veracity Inhibited Press Enterprise Release

    That's VIPER to all you acrimonously challenged persons.

    BLM - Black Lives Don't Matter
    DIE - GIBS
    Feminism - Anything but feminine.
    Fact Check - Putin did it
    There is no such thing as race - Emmett Till innocent because he black.

    >

    Replies: @kaganovitch

    That’s VIPER to all you acrimonously challenged persons.

    Judging from past comments, exceedingly few here are acrimoniously challenged. Some may be (myself included) acronymously challenged though.

    • Replies: @James Speaks
    @kaganovitch

    James Speaks wishes two things to be known. That
    1. Some errors may be intentional, though not necessarily this one, and
    2. James Speaks sometimes refers to hisself in the 3rd person when perturbed, though not necessarily this time.
    3. He thanks you for that clarification.

  123. @watson79
    A left wing friend of mine said something I wish I could have thought of. "There are two types of women, beautiful women, and feminists"

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

    The idea that feminists are somehow ugly is absurd. There are ugly feminists, just as there are ugly people in any group. It is just a way to try to defeat one’s opponents with stupid slurs, rather than reasoned arguments.

    I remember when I was young, one of the leaders of the feminists was a former Playboy bunny. Another was a former girlfriend of my father, and I once stumbled across a photo of her in her youth wearing a bikini. No slouch. And, another feminist leader was one of the hottest babes in Hollywood, who sometimes appeared less than fully clothed. Her father and brother were also well known actors at that time.

    What about the current year?

    Consider the organization mostly in Europe, but also in Asia, called Femen. These comely ladies often protest topless. Anyone who would find those ladies unattractive is blind.

    Sort of like how during the Cold War many Westerners claimed Russian and East European women were ugly. Uh, no. They aren’t.

    • Agree: SaneClownPosse
  124. @Corvinus
    @Almost Missouri

    “According to Corvinus’s Razor, anything is defined as whatever the speaker wants it to mean.”

    No. It’s up to each woman to decide what is feminism. That is empowering, not fascist.

    Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter, @Rob Lee, @Colin Wright, @John Milton’s Ghost, @kaganovitch

    No. It’s up to each woman to decide what is feminism. That is empowering, not fascist.

    “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

    ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

    ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

    Like so of much Leftist cant, this bromide is just another expression of ‘ Der wille zur macht.’ Empowering indeed.

  125. @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Colin Wright



    ‘…feminism, the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. …’
     
    This really begs the question. What is meant by that?

    Men and women are very different. Certainly any just society needs to take the well-being, aspirations, and needs of both genders into account, but beyond that? How would they be treated equally?
     
    Modern political feminism is a motte-and-bailey scam, and the "feminism is the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes" definition is the bailey that they retreat to when challenged. Attacking the bailey puts you into a rhetorical position in which you are against "equality," which is an American voodoo word which means a bunch of things but which marks you as a bad person if you question it.

    Today feminists like to compare the lives of women in the past to the lives of men today to demonstrate grossly unequal treatment, eliding the fact that life was much harder for those past women's male contemporaries in comparison with today as well.

    Insofar as when feminism in the current iteration with its focus upon absolute bodily autonomy and male achievement milestones infects your society its birthrates plummet and your society finds itself on a nosedive to extinction feminism could be defined as a memetic social virus that achieves levels of destruction that a conventional military adversary could not.

    Replies: @Rob McX, @Colin Wright

    …feminism could be defined as a memetic social virus that achieves levels of destruction that a conventional military adversary could not.

    The same can be said of many liberal beliefs, e.g. that mass immigration is good. They’re slower in their effects, but they can eventually destroy civilisation in a way that only a full-scale military invasion could match.

  126. @Bruno
    It doesn’t explain why many feminists hate trans autogynephiliac. It can be fixed by adding the adjective « biological » to the first instance of the substantive name « women ».

    « Less feminine biological women » above « more feminine women »

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Mike Tre, @Rob McX

    They hate women in the way all identifiable groups hate someone who falsely claims to be one of them. Blacks wouldn’t like it if a bunch of whites suddenly showed up claiming they were black just because they “identified” as such.

    The awkward part for anti-trans feminists is that many of them spent their careers claiming that the difference between the sexes was socially constructed. If they really believed what they had been saying, they should have no objection to anyone who claims to identify as female without having the biological credentials.

  127. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @New Dealer

    Anyone is not free to move into Bryan's neighborhood. There's an $800,000 admission fee. And you had better believe his wife is not letting them move out.

    Honestly, when the GMU economists get to the chapter in their textbooks titled, "Housing," they ought to turn the class over to their wives.

    For the rest of us, we can have guys named McMichael patrol the borders of our more humble neighborhoods armed with shotguns to keep the riffraff out. But I bet Bryan would be the first to argue there is no such right.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Fun facts. Caplan is an employee of a corporate subsidiary of the state of Virginia. His wife (a Roumanian immigrant) is a lawyer for FreddieMac.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Art Deco

    Revealed preferences.

  128. @Art Deco
    @AnotherDad

    Turns out most men and women are actually much happier with male-female complementarity.

    Disagree. As often as not, women are subjectively dissatisfied with their domestic situation no matter what it is. Some of them navigate their dissatisfactions in a more salutary way than do others.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @anarchyst, @AnotherDad

    Women have an altruistic streak which can prove deadly when externalized.
    Internalized altruism is necessary for creating and sustaining a family, but when altruism is externalized it can become a problem.
    Black men are especially good at instilling “guilt trips” on white women, a favorite being:
    “You won’t date me because I’m black”…Any white woman with self-respect and common sense would respond with:
    “That’s right, I don’t date outside my race”.
    Instead, the gullible, guilt-ridden white woman goes along with the black man and ends up being beaten, raped, murdered and blessed with “pickaninnies” to care for while the “baby daddy” takes the welfare check, uses it for himself while the now soiled and defiled white woman is left to take care of his black spawn. More than likely, the black man has a number of “baby mommas” in his “harem” and only comes around to collect the welfare check, threatening violence if the money is not forthcoming. The african concept of “it takes a village” certainly applies here.
    Quite often, white women are detrimental to their own race.
    Any white woman who consorts with blacks must be considered “damaged goods” and ostracized. “Burn the coal, pay the toll”.
    Redemption is possible if there are no sub-human half-breed “pickaninnies” involved and if the woman truly recognizes the “error of her ways”.
    The same also applies to white male “oil drillers” as well.

  129. There is more to “yellow fever” than is presently being discussed.
    Quite often, white women are their own worst enemy when they stop acting like women. Their embrace of rabid feminism does absolutely nothing to make them attractive to white males, but quite the opposite. They are man-hating harridans who expect white men to be “wimps”.
    Most Asian women KNOW how to treat a man. They know when to be deferential and when to push to achieve their own interests.
    Of course, there are those who want only one thing–the coveted “green card” establishing permanent residency in the good ol’ USA, but Asian women do have an advantage by not embracing rabid man-hating feminism.
    White women would do well to “step back” and take a good look at themselves.
    This whole “women can do it all” mantra is demonstrably false and should be abandoned.
    All one has to do is look at the evil of abortion. Murdering your own offspring for “convenience” is just downright evil.
    Just maybe the biblical story in Genesis with the female temptress encouraging the male to partake of the “forbidden fruit” has merit.

  130. @Polistra
    @Jehu

    https://i.ibb.co/2NN8V2K/f0bd34c632311d441b67fafece91a229e94dcf2d-14.jpg

    Maybe this is the correct thread for this.. To ensure her safety as a Black Woman, she flies first class while her police detail rides back in coach.

    At taxpayer expense, of course. But America's black-run cities are circling the drain because white supremacy.

    Replies: @Clark Kent, @AndrewR, @Jim Christian, @njguy73, @Forbes, @Rob McX, @AnotherDad, @Francis Miville

    Might be worth the \$30,000 if a) she went to Africa and b) she stayed there.

    • Agree: Bardon Kaldian
  131. @SFG
    I don’t like his open borders advocacy, but I have to admit, dude’s got balls.


    Must be independently wealthy or something.

    Replies: @Poirot, @The Anti-Gnostic, @kaganovitch, @AnotherDad

    I don’t like his open borders advocacy, but I have to admit, dude’s got balls.

    He’s a complete–and boring–crank. Just the aspie pseudo-libertarian version of “what’s good for the Jews”.

    His phony “libertarianism” comes to the usual crashing halt in the entirely typical place–the right of people to form community, with their own norms and values, as they wish with whom they wish. Caplan is in favor of all sorts of pseudo “freedom”, but when it comes to white gentiles having their nations to live as they wish … the super-state should up and slap that shit down!

  132. @Polistra
    @Jehu

    https://i.ibb.co/2NN8V2K/f0bd34c632311d441b67fafece91a229e94dcf2d-14.jpg

    Maybe this is the correct thread for this.. To ensure her safety as a Black Woman, she flies first class while her police detail rides back in coach.

    At taxpayer expense, of course. But America's black-run cities are circling the drain because white supremacy.

    Replies: @Clark Kent, @AndrewR, @Jim Christian, @njguy73, @Forbes, @Rob McX, @AnotherDad, @Francis Miville

    This isn’t a woman thing. Lots of white women politicians are full of crap in the usual tedious white woman way, but quite capable of sticking to Anglo norms on not looting the public purse.

    This is a black thing. It’s black “big man”ism–egoism. I’m on top–the King–so I get to live large on the loot.

    Blacks do not tend to punish politicians for this. They expect “big men” to be “big”. And if any of it is getting over on whitey … great!

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    @AnotherDad

    The only form of "government" that blacks thrive under is the "strongman" dictatorial form of "government".
    The higher the status of the individual "citizen", the closer he is allowed to sit to the "chief".
    Attempting to impose a constitutional representative republican type of government on blacks is a recipe for abject failure.
    Blacks are "wired" differently than other races, and cannot grasp or comprehend the advantages of having a representative form of government.
    The "strongman" type of government is the only way blacks can have a somewhat functional society...as any digression from their societal "norms" is punished almost immediately, quite often by a sole decision from the chief, without resorting to courts or any "legal system".

  133. @Forbes
    @Polistra

    I'm curious for what "business" does a US city mayor fly to France and Switzerland?

    Replies: @kaganovitch, @HammerJack

    I’m curious for what “business” does a US city mayor fly to France and Switzerland?

    She was trying to see if the Louisiana Purchase could perhaps be undone.

  134. @Corvinus
    @Almost Missouri

    According to Occam’s Razor, feminism is defined as what women personally aspire to be.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @Colin Wright

    ‘According to Occam’s Razor, feminism is defined as what women personally aspire to be.’

    Another meaningless definition.

    If we applied that around here, it would turn out that feminism means to be a mommy with three lively little boys.

    • Troll: Corvinus
  135. @kaganovitch
    @James Speaks

    That’s VIPER to all you acrimonously challenged persons.

    Judging from past comments, exceedingly few here are acrimoniously challenged. Some may be (myself included) acronymously challenged though.

    Replies: @James Speaks

    James Speaks wishes two things to be known. That
    1. Some errors may be intentional, though not necessarily this one, and
    2. James Speaks sometimes refers to hisself in the 3rd person when perturbed, though not necessarily this time.
    3. He thanks you for that clarification.

    • LOL: kaganovitch
  136. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    My definition of “feminism”: A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.
     
    https://twitter.com/EvilVizier/status/1565430794558242816

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Clark Kent, @Old Prude, @prosa123, @Ian Smith, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Muggles, @Anonymous

    Which face do you prefer?

    This tweet has an unfair comparison.

    One is smiling, the other is blank faced.

    As I have long said, “the sexiest thing a woman can wear is smile.”

    True dat.

    I didn’t make that up, undoubtedly, but I wish I had. Of course it would ruin the fashion industry if women actually believed that. A lot of homosexual men would then be unemployed. Retail depression, etc.

  137. @Mr. Anon
    @Colin Wright

    To echo the comment of Nicholas Stix: Why do you use their term - gender?

    The proper term is sex. It is a biological category. There are two of them.

    The first step in winning an ideological battle is to not accept your enemies framing of it.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘To echo the comment of Nicholas Stix: Why do you use their term – gender?
    The proper term is sex. It is a biological category. There are two of them.
    The first step in winning an ideological battle is to not accept your enemies framing of it.’

    I considered it. However, ‘sex’ can also refer to the act. Polemical significance aside, ‘gender’ is somewhat more precise.

    …but, if it’ll make you happy, I’ll say ‘sex.’ It’s really not very important. I’m reminded when I refer to countries with gendered sexual pronouns. I get flak for referring to Israel as ‘her’ in posts as well.

  138. I admittedly haven’t read all the comments, but I think Steve’s definition of feminism bears much similarity to Rush Limbaugh’s “Undeniable Truth of Life, #24:”

    “Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of American life.”

  139. So far as I can tell from this comment thread (above so far), Alden hasn’t yet posted.

    Until she does, I’m not making any definitions, etc.

    Since all the comments about that subject seem to be from men (hard to say but appears so) I think the females should be the ones we listen to about this.

    The commentators here are overwhelming male so opinions are constrained by issues of self interest and trying to understand “the other.”

    Well, it doesn’t stop us here from commenting about everything else we mostly know little about firsthand, but I thought I might wait for some balance in the views.

    Maybe that’s just my lingering sense of male dominance masquerading as politeness…

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Muggles

    '...Maybe that’s just my lingering sense of male dominance masquerading as politeness…'

    It is. Your sexism is pretty blatant.

    Anyway, the irony is that men tend to be rather peripheral to the whole controversy. While feminists like to pretend their opponents are men, they're more usually other women. I remember when all this was novel back in the Seventies -- Phyllis Schlafly and Anita Bryant and all that. It was a fight between women. Men were kind of watching with this bemused look. 'I always figured you LIKED cooking dinner, but if you'd really rather be a fireman, well....'

    Obviously, we're affected by the outcome of the dispute, but we're really more spectators than participants in it. It's like the mysteries of women's fashion. Once you realize the purpose isn't to attract men, but to impress other women, it all makes much more sense.

    It's between the girls.

    Replies: @Kylie, @Reg Cæsar, @Alec Leamas (working from home)

  140. @Anonymous
    @Desiderius


    It’s employed by the in-group to crater the fertility of everyone else, especially other whites.
     
    Your statement doesn’t make sense logically. If the in-group were Whites, then “everyone else” wouldn’t include Whites.

    Check yourself.

    Replies: @Polistra, @Desiderius, @Skk he lddfgs

    There are groups within groups.

  141. @AnotherDad
    @Polistra

    This isn't a woman thing. Lots of white women politicians are full of crap in the usual tedious white woman way, but quite capable of sticking to Anglo norms on not looting the public purse.

    This is a black thing. It's black "big man"ism--egoism. I'm on top--the King--so I get to live large on the loot.

    Blacks do not tend to punish politicians for this. They expect "big men" to be "big". And if any of it is getting over on whitey ... great!

    Replies: @anarchyst

    The only form of “government” that blacks thrive under is the “strongman” dictatorial form of “government”.
    The higher the status of the individual “citizen”, the closer he is allowed to sit to the “chief”.
    Attempting to impose a constitutional representative republican type of government on blacks is a recipe for abject failure.
    Blacks are “wired” differently than other races, and cannot grasp or comprehend the advantages of having a representative form of government.
    The “strongman” type of government is the only way blacks can have a somewhat functional society…as any digression from their societal “norms” is punished almost immediately, quite often by a sole decision from the chief, without resorting to courts or any “legal system”.

    • Agree: Kylie
  142. @Art Deco
    @AnotherDad

    Turns out most men and women are actually much happier with male-female complementarity.

    Disagree. As often as not, women are subjectively dissatisfied with their domestic situation no matter what it is. Some of them navigate their dissatisfactions in a more salutary way than do others.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @anarchyst, @AnotherDad

    Disagree. As often as not, women are subjectively dissatisfied with their domestic situation no matter what it is. Some of them navigate their dissatisfactions in a more salutary way than do others.

    Dissatisfaction is part of the human condition. I’m sort of a half-empty guy myself. Are women more prone it? Probably.

    I just asked AnotherMom whether she was happy? She looked at me with the “what the heck is this guy up to now?” look. But pressed said “Yeah, I’m happy. More or less”. But then she has three great kids–and I think children have a lot to do with women’s (and men’s) deep life happiness.

    YMMV.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @AnotherDad

    Define happiness. It's a very complex phenomenon, as was, according to Stalin- "cosmopolitanism".

  143. @Peter Johnson
    The twisted and logically inconsistent use of the term "feminism", and similar modern monstrosities like the use of the term "racism", are covered thoughtfully in Christopher Caldwell's book The Age of Entitlement. Steve Sailer should review that book; perhaps he already has and I missed his review. Recommended.

    Replies: @Prester John, @Achmed E. Newman

    Peter, I’m sure Steve Sailer, and even more so, John Derbyshire, could write a nice literary review of that book. However, if you want to check in out, Peak Stupidity has a review of The Age of Entitlement right here.

    Since you mentioned feminism, I will have to disagree with any of your satisfaction with Mr. Caldwell’s chapter on feminism*. Sure, he disagrees with the subversion of the US Constitution via the AA, set-asides, and general unfairness of modern feminism. However, he doesn’t disagree with the idea of it in the slightest. As with race, Caldwell agrees with the sob stories of the poor put-upon housewives of the 1950s and all that crap.

    The Caldwell book cucks out heartily on race and sex. The rest of the book is pretty good. That’s the gist of it.

    .

    * I say the very same about his chapter on race – criticisms of both are in my review.

    • Replies: @Peter Johnson
    @Achmed E. Newman

    The POV in the Peak Stupidity review of The Age of Entitlement is much further to the right than Caldwell's perspective. Caldwell is just an old-fashioned liberal.

    The Peak Stupidity review acknowledges Caldwell's main point, which is that the 1960's civil rights movement altered fundamentally the de facto nature of the US constitutional system, and the damage to the system is worsening.

    The damage took a long time to accumulate but is now quite serious; we have dogs, cats and pet birds pooping on crowded airplanes and noone can object because each passenger is entitled to whatever "emotional support" they demand. Horney, deranged 40-year old men can demand that they share public toilets with unaware 12 year old girls because they are entitled to choose their sex. Those are just extreme examples, but the accumulated damage to the constitutional system is serious.

  144. @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Colin Wright



    ‘…feminism, the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. …’
     
    This really begs the question. What is meant by that?

    Men and women are very different. Certainly any just society needs to take the well-being, aspirations, and needs of both genders into account, but beyond that? How would they be treated equally?
     
    Modern political feminism is a motte-and-bailey scam, and the "feminism is the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes" definition is the bailey that they retreat to when challenged. Attacking the bailey puts you into a rhetorical position in which you are against "equality," which is an American voodoo word which means a bunch of things but which marks you as a bad person if you question it.

    Today feminists like to compare the lives of women in the past to the lives of men today to demonstrate grossly unequal treatment, eliding the fact that life was much harder for those past women's male contemporaries in comparison with today as well.

    Insofar as when feminism in the current iteration with its focus upon absolute bodily autonomy and male achievement milestones infects your society its birthrates plummet and your society finds itself on a nosedive to extinction feminism could be defined as a memetic social virus that achieves levels of destruction that a conventional military adversary could not.

    Replies: @Rob McX, @Colin Wright

    ‘…feminism could be defined as a memetic social virus that achieves levels of destruction that a conventional military adversary could not.’

    Now look up who originated it in its current form.

    David Halberstam in The Fifties discusses how these Thirties graduates of women’s colleges went back to their alma maters in the Fifties and were horrified to discover all their younger sisters wanted was a good husband, adorable children, and a nice house in the suburbs.

    He apparently doesn’t realize it, but (as I recall) every single one of the women he mentions as cooking up the response were Jewish.

    Once you start noticing, it’s impossible to stop.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Colin Wright


    David Halberstam in The Fifties discusses how these Thirties graduates of women’s colleges went back to their alma maters in the Fifties and were horrified to discover all their younger sisters wanted was a good husband, adorable children, and a nice house in the suburbs.

    He apparently doesn’t realize it, but (as I recall) every single one of the women he mentions as cooking up the response were Jewish.

    Once you start noticing, it’s impossible to stop.
     
    The central complaints of modern feminism vis a vis career achievement and power in non-domestic spheres is really only cognizable for a certain class of woman - it's generally women who, had they been men, would perhaps have become doctors or lawyers or employed in other high status, interesting and well-compensated professions. Steve's explanation is perhaps correct - lots of smart Jewish girls upset that their less talented brothers were getting the parental investment to pursue selective University admissions and professions, when the expectation of those Jewish girls was to marry and live near her parents to aid in taking care of them in their dotage. Although not Jewish I think a similar situation lies at the heart of Hillary Clinton's madness - her father's less innately talented namesake Hughie got the attention and praise that Hillary deserved due to her scholastic achievements. She's been punishing us for Hugh Sr.'s transgressions ever since. It might also explain the rationalization of lesbianism in "second wave" feminism - it's a sort of rebellion against the biological fate imposed upon women at birth. "No, I will never make you a Bubbie, Mom; now meet Jane who I met at softball practice."

    For the great bulk of women - women who, had they been men, would have been garbage men or factory floor workers - feminism means a dual toiling at work and at home, and the deprivation of a real domestic and family life as a homemaker.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  145. @Muggles
    So far as I can tell from this comment thread (above so far), Alden hasn't yet posted.

    Until she does, I'm not making any definitions, etc.

    Since all the comments about that subject seem to be from men (hard to say but appears so) I think the females should be the ones we listen to about this.

    The commentators here are overwhelming male so opinions are constrained by issues of self interest and trying to understand "the other."

    Well, it doesn't stop us here from commenting about everything else we mostly know little about firsthand, but I thought I might wait for some balance in the views.

    Maybe that's just my lingering sense of male dominance masquerading as politeness...

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘…Maybe that’s just my lingering sense of male dominance masquerading as politeness…’

    It is. Your sexism is pretty blatant.

    Anyway, the irony is that men tend to be rather peripheral to the whole controversy. While feminists like to pretend their opponents are men, they’re more usually other women. I remember when all this was novel back in the Seventies — Phyllis Schlafly and Anita Bryant and all that. It was a fight between women. Men were kind of watching with this bemused look. ‘I always figured you LIKED cooking dinner, but if you’d really rather be a fireman, well….’

    Obviously, we’re affected by the outcome of the dispute, but we’re really more spectators than participants in it. It’s like the mysteries of women’s fashion. Once you realize the purpose isn’t to attract men, but to impress other women, it all makes much more sense.

    It’s between the girls.

    • Replies: @Kylie
    @Colin Wright

    "Obviously, we’re affected by the outcome of the dispute, but we’re really more spectators than participants in it. It’s like the mysteries of women’s fashion. Once you realize the purpose isn’t to attract men, but to impress other women, it all makes much more sense.

    It’s between the girls."

    It's between the girls because you men make it possible. If modern life were not so convenient and comfortable, thanks to the labor-saving devices men invented, modern women would be too busy (and too tired) to do so much infighting.

    And of course, in prior centuries, the lack of technology meant women and men had to fight natural hardship just to survive.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Colin Wright


    It’s like the mysteries of women’s fashion. Once you realize the purpose isn’t to attract men, but to impress other women...
     
    https://i.etsystatic.com/25163951/r/il/3d17c0/3467031149/il_fullxfull.3467031149_sr46.jpg

    Woman Says Fiancé Learned to Paint Nails to Save Her Money in Adorable Clip

    "My boyfriend said that having nails couldn't be that hard," TikToker Caitlin Barlow, @Saucedrippaaaaa, said in the on-screen caption: "So I gave him a trashy full set he had to keep on for 24 hours."

    What followed were multiple videos documenting her boyfriend attempting to complete daily tasks like buttoning his shirt and pumping gas.
     
    , @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Colin Wright


    Obviously, we’re affected by the outcome of the dispute, but we’re really more spectators than participants in it. It’s like the mysteries of women’s fashion. Once you realize the purpose isn’t to attract men, but to impress other women, it all makes much more sense.
     
    Intra-female status competition is more or less inscrutable to men. It likely comes from evolved anxiety about being pushed to the periphery of the social circle, where a woman would receive fewer resources and live a precarious life and possibly suffer abandonment by the tribe or group. It's likely why an established social group of women (i.e., in a workplace) will suffer upheaval when a younger and hotter woman is imposed upon it - all manner of ridiculous problems arise.
  146. Anon[287] • Disclaimer says:

    “My definition of “feminism:” A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.”

    Nah. It’s a movement that seeks to benefit women at the expense of men. We’re never going to make any progress against it if all we’re willing to say is that it harms women, true as that statement is.

  147. @Ralph L
    How about, no woman should be made to feel bad about anything she's done, ever? Except by other women.

    Replies: @LP5

    Ralph L writes:

    How about, no woman should be made to feel bad about anything she’s done, ever? Except by other women.

    Their Fight Club is so secret that they never even think about it, but they do admit to feelings.

  148. @Art Deco
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Fun facts. Caplan is an employee of a corporate subsidiary of the state of Virginia. His wife (a Roumanian immigrant) is a lawyer for FreddieMac.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    Revealed preferences.

  149. @Colin Wright
    @Muggles

    '...Maybe that’s just my lingering sense of male dominance masquerading as politeness…'

    It is. Your sexism is pretty blatant.

    Anyway, the irony is that men tend to be rather peripheral to the whole controversy. While feminists like to pretend their opponents are men, they're more usually other women. I remember when all this was novel back in the Seventies -- Phyllis Schlafly and Anita Bryant and all that. It was a fight between women. Men were kind of watching with this bemused look. 'I always figured you LIKED cooking dinner, but if you'd really rather be a fireman, well....'

    Obviously, we're affected by the outcome of the dispute, but we're really more spectators than participants in it. It's like the mysteries of women's fashion. Once you realize the purpose isn't to attract men, but to impress other women, it all makes much more sense.

    It's between the girls.

    Replies: @Kylie, @Reg Cæsar, @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    “Obviously, we’re affected by the outcome of the dispute, but we’re really more spectators than participants in it. It’s like the mysteries of women’s fashion. Once you realize the purpose isn’t to attract men, but to impress other women, it all makes much more sense.

    It’s between the girls.”

    It’s between the girls because you men make it possible. If modern life were not so convenient and comfortable, thanks to the labor-saving devices men invented, modern women would be too busy (and too tired) to do so much infighting.

    And of course, in prior centuries, the lack of technology meant women and men had to fight natural hardship just to survive.

    • Agree: jsm, AnotherDad
  150. @Kylie
    @Reg Cæsar

    "For the third or fourth time here, Jennifer Roback Morse’s encapsulation of feminism: Men and women are exactly alike, but women are better."

    Good as far as it goes. The complete version would read:

    Men and women are exactly alike, but women are better, which is why women should have more power and authority while men should shoulder more duty and responsibility.

    N.B. I have never known any woman who proclaims herself a feminist not to act in accordance with this credo.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    …while men should shoulder more duty and responsibility.

    This cuts to crux of modern– heck, post-Renaissance– society’s disease: duty vs rights. Perhaps this started with the Magna Carta, but those were lords. It hit the other classes in 1689 with the Bill of Rights.

    This and its American child were benign at first. Men swam in an ocean of duties, and delineated rights were to be ports in a storm. It is also sensible that rights are spelled out on paper for the state, but not duties, which are the province of the society which gave birth to that state. But over the centuries the grip of that society, and the families that gave birth to it have loosened so much that modern man is a dog without a leash.

    The analyst this analysis most closely resembles would be Pitirim Sorokin and his 1200-year social cycle theory, idealistic to sensate and back. Sorokin was half-Permyak (or Komi), from the wasteland east of Karelia and west of Siberia, and was arrested numerous times in post-Tsarist Russia before getting out.

    Similarly and antipodeally, the 36th in line to the throne is half-Maori and was named after a tree.

    Also antipodeally, researching Sorokin and his rival Talcott Parsons led me to one contemporary sociologist, Raewyn Connell.

    Classic iSteve late-in-life autogynophilia. Anyone familiar with Raewyn?

    http://www.raewynconnell.net/p/about-raewyn_20.html

    • Thanks: Thea, Kylie
    • Replies: @Francis Miville
    @Reg Cæsar

    Societies that enshrine rights actually set up a positive list of permissions outside of which everything is by default forbidden or at least not guaranteed as easily allowable by the authorities. It is actually very Jewish of origin : in Jewish ghetto cultures of the past, if we are to trust Israel Shahaq in "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" there used to be not a list of censored books (rather limited : essentially propaganda for the twenty most dangerous acknowledged heresies known to be influent) as used to be the custom in Christian polities but a (limited) list of "kosher" books out of which any book was forbidden and to be confiscated.

    The Magna Carta was of that inspiration : it rather implied that the state, most contrary to the French custom of then where noblemen used to be allowed practically everything unless they were issued orders from the King addressed to them personally (which anyway was an honour however hard the order), was not amicable and treated with these aristocrats as with a foreign occupied entity (which it was since William the Conqueror) to be negotiated with diplomatically. The American charter of rights set up an elaborate list of personal rights but what was not mentioned was the domain of throngs of ridiculous local by-laws that made life in the US particularly constraining. You could not for instance dress up above your official level of fortune, or show scholarly culture beyond your social class or your actual university diplomas, because there was no explicit constitutional guarantee against that form of oppression.

    Replies: @Anonymous

  151. @Colin Wright
    @Muggles

    '...Maybe that’s just my lingering sense of male dominance masquerading as politeness…'

    It is. Your sexism is pretty blatant.

    Anyway, the irony is that men tend to be rather peripheral to the whole controversy. While feminists like to pretend their opponents are men, they're more usually other women. I remember when all this was novel back in the Seventies -- Phyllis Schlafly and Anita Bryant and all that. It was a fight between women. Men were kind of watching with this bemused look. 'I always figured you LIKED cooking dinner, but if you'd really rather be a fireman, well....'

    Obviously, we're affected by the outcome of the dispute, but we're really more spectators than participants in it. It's like the mysteries of women's fashion. Once you realize the purpose isn't to attract men, but to impress other women, it all makes much more sense.

    It's between the girls.

    Replies: @Kylie, @Reg Cæsar, @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    It’s like the mysteries of women’s fashion. Once you realize the purpose isn’t to attract men, but to impress other women…

    Woman Says Fiancé Learned to Paint Nails to Save Her Money in Adorable Clip

    “My boyfriend said that having nails couldn’t be that hard,” TikToker Caitlin Barlow, @Saucedrippaaaaa, said in the on-screen caption: “So I gave him a trashy full set he had to keep on for 24 hours.”

    What followed were multiple videos documenting her boyfriend attempting to complete daily tasks like buttoning his shirt and pumping gas.

  152. @Colin Wright
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    '...feminism could be defined as a memetic social virus that achieves levels of destruction that a conventional military adversary could not.'

    Now look up who originated it in its current form.

    David Halberstam in The Fifties discusses how these Thirties graduates of women's colleges went back to their alma maters in the Fifties and were horrified to discover all their younger sisters wanted was a good husband, adorable children, and a nice house in the suburbs.

    He apparently doesn't realize it, but (as I recall) every single one of the women he mentions as cooking up the response were Jewish.

    Once you start noticing, it's impossible to stop.

    Replies: @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    David Halberstam in The Fifties discusses how these Thirties graduates of women’s colleges went back to their alma maters in the Fifties and were horrified to discover all their younger sisters wanted was a good husband, adorable children, and a nice house in the suburbs.

    He apparently doesn’t realize it, but (as I recall) every single one of the women he mentions as cooking up the response were Jewish.

    Once you start noticing, it’s impossible to stop.

    The central complaints of modern feminism vis a vis career achievement and power in non-domestic spheres is really only cognizable for a certain class of woman – it’s generally women who, had they been men, would perhaps have become doctors or lawyers or employed in other high status, interesting and well-compensated professions. Steve’s explanation is perhaps correct – lots of smart Jewish girls upset that their less talented brothers were getting the parental investment to pursue selective University admissions and professions, when the expectation of those Jewish girls was to marry and live near her parents to aid in taking care of them in their dotage. Although not Jewish I think a similar situation lies at the heart of Hillary Clinton’s madness – her father’s less innately talented namesake Hughie got the attention and praise that Hillary deserved due to her scholastic achievements. She’s been punishing us for Hugh Sr.’s transgressions ever since. It might also explain the rationalization of lesbianism in “second wave” feminism – it’s a sort of rebellion against the biological fate imposed upon women at birth. “No, I will never make you a Bubbie, Mom; now meet Jane who I met at softball practice.”

    For the great bulk of women – women who, had they been men, would have been garbage men or factory floor workers – feminism means a dual toiling at work and at home, and the deprivation of a real domestic and family life as a homemaker.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    '...For the great bulk of women – women who, had they been men, would have been garbage men or factory floor workers – feminism means a dual toiling at work and at home, and the deprivation of a real domestic and family life as a homemaker.'

    Not where I would go with this, but it's a point. I'll also note that something very similar can be said about our various uplift programs over the past sixty years and the bulk of the black population.

  153. @Poirot
    @SFG

    Or in the case of Martin Van Creveld, perhaps old enough not to care very much anymore?
    And thus, "As I Please".
    MVC has been writing interesting stuff on his blog concerning the issues of Women Vs. Men: "the Gender Dialogues": http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/tag/gender/

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    In any known society the vast majority of public posts are occupied by men; the higher the position, the more true this is.

    Then the Conservative Party leadership must not be that high of a position. Three of the last six, and two of the last three, Tory PMs have been women. They’ve led the party more than a third of the time since 1976.

    Labour, in stark contrast, has had two female leaders, one with two stints, whose total time served is eleven months. None have ever been PM, or even run for that office in a general election, suggesting that when the opportunity to form a government is most plausible, women are pushed to the back of the party. In fact, “(acting)” appears next to these women’s names.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Labour_Party_(UK)

    Obviously being in political control is much more important to Labourites than to Tories! It’s the red men who fight for the brass ring. This is pure Steven Goldberg.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Reg Cæsar

    'Then the Conservative Party leadership must not be that high of a position. Three of the last six, and two of the last three, Tory PMs have been women. They’ve led the party more than a third of the time since 1976...'

    I would have assumed the reference was to stable societies with some prospect of enduring over a few generations anyway.

    Pointing to anything current in the West is like citing what the man who'd jumped from the twentieth floor was heard to say as he passed the second story:

    'Well, everything's okay so far.'

  154. @Colin Wright
    @Muggles

    '...Maybe that’s just my lingering sense of male dominance masquerading as politeness…'

    It is. Your sexism is pretty blatant.

    Anyway, the irony is that men tend to be rather peripheral to the whole controversy. While feminists like to pretend their opponents are men, they're more usually other women. I remember when all this was novel back in the Seventies -- Phyllis Schlafly and Anita Bryant and all that. It was a fight between women. Men were kind of watching with this bemused look. 'I always figured you LIKED cooking dinner, but if you'd really rather be a fireman, well....'

    Obviously, we're affected by the outcome of the dispute, but we're really more spectators than participants in it. It's like the mysteries of women's fashion. Once you realize the purpose isn't to attract men, but to impress other women, it all makes much more sense.

    It's between the girls.

    Replies: @Kylie, @Reg Cæsar, @Alec Leamas (working from home)

    Obviously, we’re affected by the outcome of the dispute, but we’re really more spectators than participants in it. It’s like the mysteries of women’s fashion. Once you realize the purpose isn’t to attract men, but to impress other women, it all makes much more sense.

    Intra-female status competition is more or less inscrutable to men. It likely comes from evolved anxiety about being pushed to the periphery of the social circle, where a woman would receive fewer resources and live a precarious life and possibly suffer abandonment by the tribe or group. It’s likely why an established social group of women (i.e., in a workplace) will suffer upheaval when a younger and hotter woman is imposed upon it – all manner of ridiculous problems arise.

  155. @Rob Lee
    @Corvinus

    Following that posit, masculinity is then up to each man to decide, however toxic that may seem, in these times.

    Therefore I'll decide what constitutes, rape, battery, harassment or indeed any violation of law which women find distasteful.

    It is empowering indeed. I like this game.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Following that posit, masculinity is then up to each man to decide, however toxic that may seem, in these times.“

    Absolutely. But you find yourself facing consequences. Similar to women who make certain choices.

    “I’ll decide what constitutes, rape, battery, harassment or indeed any violation of law which women find distasteful.“

    Go right ahead. See how far that gets you.

    • Replies: @Rob Lee
    @Corvinus

    Typical hypocrisy from Corvinus.

    So a woman can define feminism however she feels at the moment - up to and including declaring rape after a night of initially consensual (then not) regret-sex - but the definition of masculinity is out of the hands of men and up to the authoritarians... how very woke of you.

    And I treat women they way they need to be treated, not how they want to be treated. You'd be quite surprised as to what that entails. And yes, it's gotten me very much ahead with the fairer sex thus far.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  156. @Colin Wright
    @Corvinus

    'No. It’s up to each woman to decide what is feminism. That is empowering, not fascist.'

    Not at all. It renders the word meaningless. Sally can decide 'feminism' means having eight children and letting her man control all interactions with the outside world; Suzy can decide 'feminism' means she shouldn't have a man or children at all, but rather, a career and a cat.

    The word now signifies nothing. It doesn't 'empower' anyone.

    You have a talent for parroting glib little platitudes that have no intellectual value at all.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “The word now signifies nothing. It doesn’t ’empower’ anyone.“

    Of course it does. If a woman wants to stay at home and have kids, that’s liberating. If a woman wants to have a career and sleep around—just like her male counterparts (or like Roissy)—that’s liberating. Again, there are social and personal consequences for choices, but that’s ultimately the decision for her to make.

    “You have a talent for parroting glib little platitudes that have no intellectual value at all“

    I’m just following Mr. Sailers lead to make a point—A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Corvinus

    'Of course it does. If a woman wants to stay at home and have kids, that’s liberating. If a woman wants to have a career and sleep around—just like her male counterparts (or like Roissy)—that’s liberating. Again, there are social and personal consequences for choices, but that’s ultimately the decision for her to make.'

    So whatever a woman does becomes feminism? As I said, you've simply redefined the word so that it's virtually meaningless.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  157. @John Milton’s Ghost
    @Corvinus

    And it is up to each black to decide what is racism. So now every hate hoax is believed.

    And it’s up to each Jew to decide what is antiSemitism. (Fortunately that’s not as confusing since most Jews have gotten their story straight.)

    And it’s up to each CEO to decide what is a monopoly and what is a fair service and to decide how to proceed accordingly.

    And it’s up to each politician to decide what is ethical or not in following the rules that they impose on the proles.

    And it’s up to each leader to decide where their country’s boundary ends.

    Empowering for everyone!

    Replies: @Corvinus

    And now it’s up to each Alt Right type to believe everyone who opposes race realism is anti-white, who stands by Ukraine is an acolyte of the Deep State, and who supports political causes that run counter to their own are evil.

    You’re right, this is fun.

  158. anon[176] • Disclaimer says:

    #124

    “I remember when I was young, one of the leaders of the feminists was a former Playboy bunny.”

    She was a leader of nobody. Gloria Steinem was a CIA asset who admitted that her magazine, “Ms.” was partially funded by the CIA.

    “And, another feminist leader was one of the hottest babes in Hollywood, who sometimes appeared less than fully clothed. Her father and brother were also well known actors at that time. ”

    You’re speaking of Jane (“Hanoi Jane”) Fonda, who again led nothing. Well, she renounced “Barbarella,” where one of her future husbands directed her scantily-clad ass, but she later had an epiphany and declared that the toxic male culture had objectified and exploited her body. Apparently she had no role in the exploitation, innocent dove that she was, but she did get a movie career out of it. If you ask me she looked mostly like a younger version of her father, Henry, in drag. And she was an insufferable self-righteous brat, much like her brother Peter.

    I forget – which of those two radical revolutionaries ended up settling down with media mogul Ted Turner?

  159. @Reg Cæsar
    @Poirot


    In any known society the vast majority of public posts are occupied by men; the higher the position, the more true this is.
     
    Then the Conservative Party leadership must not be that high of a position. Three of the last six, and two of the last three, Tory PMs have been women. They've led the party more than a third of the time since 1976.

    Labour, in stark contrast, has had two female leaders, one with two stints, whose total time served is eleven months. None have ever been PM, or even run for that office in a general election, suggesting that when the opportunity to form a government is most plausible, women are pushed to the back of the party. In fact, "(acting)" appears next to these women's names.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Labour_Party_(UK)

    Obviously being in political control is much more important to Labourites than to Tories! It's the red men who fight for the brass ring. This is pure Steven Goldberg.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘Then the Conservative Party leadership must not be that high of a position. Three of the last six, and two of the last three, Tory PMs have been women. They’ve led the party more than a third of the time since 1976…’

    I would have assumed the reference was to stable societies with some prospect of enduring over a few generations anyway.

    Pointing to anything current in the West is like citing what the man who’d jumped from the twentieth floor was heard to say as he passed the second story:

    ‘Well, everything’s okay so far.’

    • Agree: HammerJack
  160. feminism, the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. …

    Just look at feminist web sites, magazine, professors, etc. Hardly any of it argues for equality of the sexes. Most of it tries to advance women’s rights in some way, but not to equalize them with men.

  161. @Hypnotoad666
    Someone needs to start a movement of Femininity-ism.



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtQBrShqgls

    Replies: @Paul Jolliffe, @Goddard

    Nancy Kwan was an absolute goddess.

  162. Heartiste blog:

    The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Roger

    You quoted a single man now in his early 50s who never married or sired offspring, all while promoting the notion of guys to game single women into having premarital intercourse with them.

    Try again.

  163. @Forbes
    @Polistra

    I'm curious for what "business" does a US city mayor fly to France and Switzerland?

    Replies: @kaganovitch, @HammerJack

    I think she needed to get her hair did.

  164. @Corvinus
    @Colin Wright

    “The word now signifies nothing. It doesn’t ’empower’ anyone.“

    Of course it does. If a woman wants to stay at home and have kids, that’s liberating. If a woman wants to have a career and sleep around—just like her male counterparts (or like Roissy)—that’s liberating. Again, there are social and personal consequences for choices, but that’s ultimately the decision for her to make.

    “You have a talent for parroting glib little platitudes that have no intellectual value at all“

    I’m just following Mr. Sailers lead to make a point—A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘Of course it does. If a woman wants to stay at home and have kids, that’s liberating. If a woman wants to have a career and sleep around—just like her male counterparts (or like Roissy)—that’s liberating. Again, there are social and personal consequences for choices, but that’s ultimately the decision for her to make.’

    So whatever a woman does becomes feminism? As I said, you’ve simply redefined the word so that it’s virtually meaningless.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Colin Wright

    However a woman chooses to lead her life is feminism. There are positive and negative outcomes. Why would care if Tammy from Tacoma sluts it up and ends up a single cat lady or Betty from Brooklyn gets hitched, has four rug rats, and is docile? How does it personally impact your life?

    And since when is feminism all about less feminine ladies making it worse for more feminine ladies? That’s the gist of Mr. Sailer’s definition. How does he characterize “more” or “less” feminine in the first place?

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  165. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Peter Johnson

    Peter, I'm sure Steve Sailer, and even more so, John Derbyshire, could write a nice literary review of that book. However, if you want to check in out, Peak Stupidity has a review of The Age of Entitlement right here.

    Since you mentioned feminism, I will have to disagree with any of your satisfaction with Mr. Caldwell's chapter on feminism*. Sure, he disagrees with the subversion of the US Constitution via the AA, set-asides, and general unfairness of modern feminism. However, he doesn't disagree with the idea of it in the slightest. As with race, Caldwell agrees with the sob stories of the poor put-upon housewives of the 1950s and all that crap.

    The Caldwell book cucks out heartily on race and sex. The rest of the book is pretty good. That's the gist of it.

    .

    * I say the very same about his chapter on race - criticisms of both are in my review.

    Replies: @Peter Johnson

    The POV in the Peak Stupidity review of The Age of Entitlement is much further to the right than Caldwell’s perspective. Caldwell is just an old-fashioned liberal.

    The Peak Stupidity review acknowledges Caldwell’s main point, which is that the 1960’s civil rights movement altered fundamentally the de facto nature of the US constitutional system, and the damage to the system is worsening.

    The damage took a long time to accumulate but is now quite serious; we have dogs, cats and pet birds pooping on crowded airplanes and noone can object because each passenger is entitled to whatever “emotional support” they demand. Horney, deranged 40-year old men can demand that they share public toilets with unaware 12 year old girls because they are entitled to choose their sex. Those are just extreme examples, but the accumulated damage to the constitutional system is serious.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  166. @Colin Wright
    @Corvinus

    'Of course it does. If a woman wants to stay at home and have kids, that’s liberating. If a woman wants to have a career and sleep around—just like her male counterparts (or like Roissy)—that’s liberating. Again, there are social and personal consequences for choices, but that’s ultimately the decision for her to make.'

    So whatever a woman does becomes feminism? As I said, you've simply redefined the word so that it's virtually meaningless.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    However a woman chooses to lead her life is feminism. There are positive and negative outcomes. Why would care if Tammy from Tacoma sluts it up and ends up a single cat lady or Betty from Brooklyn gets hitched, has four rug rats, and is docile? How does it personally impact your life?

    And since when is feminism all about less feminine ladies making it worse for more feminine ladies? That’s the gist of Mr. Sailer’s definition. How does he characterize “more” or “less” feminine in the first place?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Corvinus

    'However a woman chooses to lead her life is feminism...'

    Yes. As I said, you've arrived at a definition of feminism that is meaningless.

    I just expressed my masculinity: I canned some peaches. I think I'll take up quilting next. Since I'm a man, if I choose to lead my life that way, it's masculinity. By your yardstick, what would not be masculinity or feminism?

  167. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    My definition of “feminism”: A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.
     
    https://twitter.com/EvilVizier/status/1565430794558242816

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Clark Kent, @Old Prude, @prosa123, @Ian Smith, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Muggles, @Anonymous

    Not a fair comparison because only one is smiling.

  168. My definition of “feminism:” A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.

    That certainly seems to describe feminists, but is that statistically true? A true definition? Maybe you’re just being facetious, that a certain crowd is, figuratively speaking, rather like a bunch of sour-grapes trying to get even.

    I see it more as absurdities “downstream” of false assumptions of liberalism regarding equality (cf. Carl Benjamin’s recent essay, “Five False Assumptions of Liberalism,” two of which revolve around liberal mistakes about the concept of equality, one of which addressing equality directly) + the magical thinking of certain naïve liberals: that by saying something enough they will override objective reality and make it come true; that it’s all a matter of language + Twitter mob mentality that if their mob of like-minded is big and loud enough, feminists can destroy enough reputations to ram through their view of the world as true and will prevail. A power game, another perversion (“redefinition”) of words so that their side wins.

    “It’s all a matter of language” also means battles in the culture war can be won with words, if we can get a solid grasp on exactly what they’re doing.

  169. . Why would care if Tammy from Tacoma sluts it up and ends up a single cat lady or Betty from Brooklyn gets hitched, has four rug rats, and is docile? How does it personally impact your life?

    If Single Cat Lady Tammy ends up with some urchins from all her slutting around that she wants me and my husband, as taxpayers, to fund, that impacts me. If Docile Hitched Mother-of-four Betty divorces her rugrats’ sire and docilely starts panting after MY fella, that impacts me.

  170. Anonymous[352] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    @Anonymous

    Seems unlikely. Feminism has popped up all over the world from Latin America to Asia and even South Asia and Africa.

    Tbe lowest fertility rates are not among Western whites, but among East Asians and marginal whites, like Balkans.

    Fertility seems to be closely correlated with income, education and general lesiure. I would argue that "poor" countries like Mexico and India have the lowest fertility rates in the world when you consider how much poorer and less eeucated they are than, say, the French. The fertility rates aren't that much higher in India or Mexico than they are in France or Iceland.

    Rarher than seeing everything as a conspiracy against whites, you should broaden your outlook and see how other groups are doing. If anything I would say feminism is more rampant in the East Asian and Latino communities in the USA. I see a lot of girl power in those communities.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Dmon

    Could “feminism” be a strategy employed by outgroups against White people to crater the fertility of White women?

    Seems unlikely. Feminism has popped up all over the world from Latin America to Asia and even South Asia and Africa.

    Tbe lowest fertility rates are not among Western whites, but among East Asians and marginal whites, like Balkans.

    Nonwhite countries either have large enough populations to sustain a decline (to the extent one actually exists), don’t allow immigration, or enjoy both those advantages.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Anonymous

    Population size has nothing to do with fertility collapse survivability. In countries like China, where you have a huge aging populace dependent on government pensions and nationalized healthcare coverage, its a huge disadvantage. Low immigration is a disadvantage.

  171. @Reg Cæsar
    For the third or fourth time here, Jennifer Roback Morse's encapsulation of feminism: Men and women are exactly alike, but women are better.

    Replies: @Old Prude, @Nicholas Stix, @Poirot, @Kylie, @AnotherDad, @American Citizen, @Prester John, @Richard B

    Each wave of feminsim proves beyond doubt that if women want to truly be free they need to learn some manners.

    It also helps prove that James Joyce’s wife was right when she stated the obvious:
    Most women don’t like most women.

  172. @Anon
    @Anonymous

    Seems unlikely. Feminism has popped up all over the world from Latin America to Asia and even South Asia and Africa.

    Tbe lowest fertility rates are not among Western whites, but among East Asians and marginal whites, like Balkans.

    Fertility seems to be closely correlated with income, education and general lesiure. I would argue that "poor" countries like Mexico and India have the lowest fertility rates in the world when you consider how much poorer and less eeucated they are than, say, the French. The fertility rates aren't that much higher in India or Mexico than they are in France or Iceland.

    Rarher than seeing everything as a conspiracy against whites, you should broaden your outlook and see how other groups are doing. If anything I would say feminism is more rampant in the East Asian and Latino communities in the USA. I see a lot of girl power in those communities.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Dmon

    Doesn’t seem that unlikely- the reach of the US media machine is all-encompassing. A coordinated propaganda campaign now has the ability to sway the entire world into senseless solidarity with US elite causes, no matter how remote or antithetical to local interests they may be.
    Here is the wikipedia article listing worldwide George Floyd protests in 2020, many of them in contravention of the prevailing isolation rules in effect at the time. With the power of the internet, the US Deep State/Tech/Media complex can trumpet the death of a small-time felon in a second tier city and literally the entire world, including Antarctica, Greenland and the Faroe Islands falls mindlessly into line. Feminism may be popping up all over the world for the same reason that DIEversity is popping up in every American business – that’s all anyone ever hears, that’s what the bosses want, and it’s dangerous to disagree. You could read more at Chateau Heartiste blog. Oh, wait…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Floyd_protests_outside_the_United_States

  173. My definition of “feminism:” A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.

    One aspect of the thing. A definition? Nah. This is more like a shock jock monologue, c. 1999.

    Better is “a movement to make women less feminine”. The appeal of this to manly girls is obvious, but incidental.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Dennis Dale

    If they were actually manly, they'd be less interested. It's hard to think of a feminist luminary who was actually butch. Ill-mannered and aggressive women, yes. Forensic gamesmen, yes. Unattractive, now and again.

  174. @Corvinus
    @Colin Wright

    However a woman chooses to lead her life is feminism. There are positive and negative outcomes. Why would care if Tammy from Tacoma sluts it up and ends up a single cat lady or Betty from Brooklyn gets hitched, has four rug rats, and is docile? How does it personally impact your life?

    And since when is feminism all about less feminine ladies making it worse for more feminine ladies? That’s the gist of Mr. Sailer’s definition. How does he characterize “more” or “less” feminine in the first place?

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘However a woman chooses to lead her life is feminism…’

    Yes. As I said, you’ve arrived at a definition of feminism that is meaningless.

    I just expressed my masculinity: I canned some peaches. I think I’ll take up quilting next. Since I’m a man, if I choose to lead my life that way, it’s masculinity. By your yardstick, what would not be masculinity or feminism?

  175. @Corvinus
    @Rob Lee

    “Following that posit, masculinity is then up to each man to decide, however toxic that may seem, in these times.“

    Absolutely. But you find yourself facing consequences. Similar to women who make certain choices.

    “I’ll decide what constitutes, rape, battery, harassment or indeed any violation of law which women find distasteful.“

    Go right ahead. See how far that gets you.

    Replies: @Rob Lee

    Typical hypocrisy from Corvinus.

    So a woman can define feminism however she feels at the moment – up to and including declaring rape after a night of initially consensual (then not) regret-sex – but the definition of masculinity is out of the hands of men and up to the authoritarians… how very woke of you.

    And I treat women they way they need to be treated, not how they want to be treated. You’d be quite surprised as to what that entails. And yes, it’s gotten me very much ahead with the fairer sex thus far.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Rob Lee

    “but the definition of masculinity is out of the hands of men and up to the authoritarians… how very woke of you.”

    Never said that. Although I’m curious as to what YOU think is “masculinity”.

    “And I treat women they way they need to be treated, not how they want to be treated. You’d be quite surprised as to what that entails. And yes, it’s gotten me very much ahead with the fairer sex.”

    Pictures or it never happened—Steve Sailer
    It’s not a lie, unless you believe it—George Castanza

  176. @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Colin Wright


    David Halberstam in The Fifties discusses how these Thirties graduates of women’s colleges went back to their alma maters in the Fifties and were horrified to discover all their younger sisters wanted was a good husband, adorable children, and a nice house in the suburbs.

    He apparently doesn’t realize it, but (as I recall) every single one of the women he mentions as cooking up the response were Jewish.

    Once you start noticing, it’s impossible to stop.
     
    The central complaints of modern feminism vis a vis career achievement and power in non-domestic spheres is really only cognizable for a certain class of woman - it's generally women who, had they been men, would perhaps have become doctors or lawyers or employed in other high status, interesting and well-compensated professions. Steve's explanation is perhaps correct - lots of smart Jewish girls upset that their less talented brothers were getting the parental investment to pursue selective University admissions and professions, when the expectation of those Jewish girls was to marry and live near her parents to aid in taking care of them in their dotage. Although not Jewish I think a similar situation lies at the heart of Hillary Clinton's madness - her father's less innately talented namesake Hughie got the attention and praise that Hillary deserved due to her scholastic achievements. She's been punishing us for Hugh Sr.'s transgressions ever since. It might also explain the rationalization of lesbianism in "second wave" feminism - it's a sort of rebellion against the biological fate imposed upon women at birth. "No, I will never make you a Bubbie, Mom; now meet Jane who I met at softball practice."

    For the great bulk of women - women who, had they been men, would have been garbage men or factory floor workers - feminism means a dual toiling at work and at home, and the deprivation of a real domestic and family life as a homemaker.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘…For the great bulk of women – women who, had they been men, would have been garbage men or factory floor workers – feminism means a dual toiling at work and at home, and the deprivation of a real domestic and family life as a homemaker.’

    Not where I would go with this, but it’s a point. I’ll also note that something very similar can be said about our various uplift programs over the past sixty years and the bulk of the black population.

  177. @Dennis Dale

    My definition of “feminism:” A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.
     
    One aspect of the thing. A definition? Nah. This is more like a shock jock monologue, c. 1999.

    Better is "a movement to make women less feminine". The appeal of this to manly girls is obvious, but incidental.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    If they were actually manly, they’d be less interested. It’s hard to think of a feminist luminary who was actually butch. Ill-mannered and aggressive women, yes. Forensic gamesmen, yes. Unattractive, now and again.

  178. You’re right. I should have said “less feminine”. Butches have always been given short shrift in the movement. Maybe that helps explain the rise in transgenderism. The world was not in fact made better for unattractive women, but worse.

    But one could point out the complaint of young incels now can be just as easily dismissed — unattractive men trying to change society to improve their chances.

    Making fun of ugly women because of feminism is like blaming conscripts for a war.

  179. Questions of definition are, invariably, philosophical traps – rabbit holes leading nowhere.

    There is no Platonic Form of Feminism. It’s just a word used by all sorts of people in all sorts of ways for all sorts of (generally self-interested) reasons.

    Better stick to purely empirical claims.

    Bryan Caplan thinks that present day “feminists” believe that society generally treats men more fairly than women.

    Steve Sailer thinks that present day “feminists” tend to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.

    I think that both of these claims are pretty obviously true, and see no conflict between them.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @vinteuil

    Define “less feminine” and “more feminine”. What metrics are involved here?

  180. @AnotherDad
    @Art Deco


    Disagree. As often as not, women are subjectively dissatisfied with their domestic situation no matter what it is. Some of them navigate their dissatisfactions in a more salutary way than do others.
     
    Dissatisfaction is part of the human condition. I'm sort of a half-empty guy myself. Are women more prone it? Probably.

    I just asked AnotherMom whether she was happy? She looked at me with the "what the heck is this guy up to now?" look. But pressed said "Yeah, I'm happy. More or less". But then she has three great kids--and I think children have a lot to do with women's (and men's) deep life happiness.

    YMMV.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    Define happiness. It’s a very complex phenomenon, as was, according to Stalin- “cosmopolitanism”.

  181. @Roger
    Heartiste blog:

    The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.
     

    Replies: @Corvinus

    You quoted a single man now in his early 50s who never married or sired offspring, all while promoting the notion of guys to game single women into having premarital intercourse with them.

    Try again.

  182. @vinteuil
    Questions of definition are, invariably, philosophical traps - rabbit holes leading nowhere.

    There is no Platonic Form of Feminism. It's just a word used by all sorts of people in all sorts of ways for all sorts of (generally self-interested) reasons.

    Better stick to purely empirical claims.

    Bryan Caplan thinks that present day "feminists" believe that society generally treats men more fairly than women.

    Steve Sailer thinks that present day "feminists" tend to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.

    I think that both of these claims are pretty obviously true, and see no conflict between them.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    Define “less feminine” and “more feminine”. What metrics are involved here?

  183. @Rob Lee
    @Corvinus

    Typical hypocrisy from Corvinus.

    So a woman can define feminism however she feels at the moment - up to and including declaring rape after a night of initially consensual (then not) regret-sex - but the definition of masculinity is out of the hands of men and up to the authoritarians... how very woke of you.

    And I treat women they way they need to be treated, not how they want to be treated. You'd be quite surprised as to what that entails. And yes, it's gotten me very much ahead with the fairer sex thus far.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “but the definition of masculinity is out of the hands of men and up to the authoritarians… how very woke of you.”

    Never said that. Although I’m curious as to what YOU think is “masculinity”.

    “And I treat women they way they need to be treated, not how they want to be treated. You’d be quite surprised as to what that entails. And yes, it’s gotten me very much ahead with the fairer sex.”

    Pictures or it never happened—Steve Sailer
    It’s not a lie, unless you believe it—George Castanza

  184. Corvinus is a paid troll who collects a few pennies everytime somebody replies to him.

  185. Let’s look at the other side of the equation…
    The husband is expected to go to work, to a physically demanding, often dangerous job, requiring long hours, quite often for an unappreciative employer. Repairs and necessary maintenance around the house are on his shoulders alone. Worries about how to pay for his household and major repairs are also his concern alone. Lawn work, landscaping, keeping up the house infrastructure, snow removal and grass cutting are his duties as well. When he does attempt to help his wife, he is constantly criticized for not doing things “her way”, despite his efforts being totally adequate. The incessant nagging and criticism for not helping out enough or not doing things “her way” is enough to drive a man to drink. He is “damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t”. When he does take care of the children, she considers it to be “babysitting” and not child-rearing, a normal part of family life. Quite often his input in to child-rearing is not taken seriously, with the result being an honest resentment for not being permitted to take part in making decisions regarding the children. The ultimate threat is that of divorce, most often initiated by the woman, with the resultant one-sided “friend of the court” system making him pay above and beyond, with no accountability as to “child support” funds spent is demanded of the woman.
    IT TAKES TWO TO MAKE A MARRIAGE “WORK”…

  186. Since Men can be feminists too, and often are, your definition could be updated to the least sexually attractive of either gender

  187. @Polistra
    @Jehu

    https://i.ibb.co/2NN8V2K/f0bd34c632311d441b67fafece91a229e94dcf2d-14.jpg

    Maybe this is the correct thread for this.. To ensure her safety as a Black Woman, she flies first class while her police detail rides back in coach.

    At taxpayer expense, of course. But America's black-run cities are circling the drain because white supremacy.

    Replies: @Clark Kent, @AndrewR, @Jim Christian, @njguy73, @Forbes, @Rob McX, @AnotherDad, @Francis Miville

    Flying economy class is unsafe for black women because Black Nike stalkers love to take budget plane tickets even for not so long distances rather than busses. There are even a lot of adverts from delta aiming at this clientele.

  188. @Reg Cæsar
    @Kylie


    ...while men should shoulder more duty and responsibility.
     
    This cuts to crux of modern-- heck, post-Renaissance-- society's disease: duty vs rights. Perhaps this started with the Magna Carta, but those were lords. It hit the other classes in 1689 with the Bill of Rights.

    This and its American child were benign at first. Men swam in an ocean of duties, and delineated rights were to be ports in a storm. It is also sensible that rights are spelled out on paper for the state, but not duties, which are the province of the society which gave birth to that state. But over the centuries the grip of that society, and the families that gave birth to it have loosened so much that modern man is a dog without a leash.

    The analyst this analysis most closely resembles would be Pitirim Sorokin and his 1200-year social cycle theory, idealistic to sensate and back. Sorokin was half-Permyak (or Komi), from the wasteland east of Karelia and west of Siberia, and was arrested numerous times in post-Tsarist Russia before getting out.

    Similarly and antipodeally, the 36th in line to the throne is half-Maori and was named after a tree.

    Also antipodeally, researching Sorokin and his rival Talcott Parsons led me to one contemporary sociologist, Raewyn Connell.

    Classic iSteve late-in-life autogynophilia. Anyone familiar with Raewyn?

    http://www.raewynconnell.net/p/about-raewyn_20.html

    Replies: @Francis Miville

    Societies that enshrine rights actually set up a positive list of permissions outside of which everything is by default forbidden or at least not guaranteed as easily allowable by the authorities. It is actually very Jewish of origin : in Jewish ghetto cultures of the past, if we are to trust Israel Shahaq in “Jewish History, Jewish Religion” there used to be not a list of censored books (rather limited : essentially propaganda for the twenty most dangerous acknowledged heresies known to be influent) as used to be the custom in Christian polities but a (limited) list of “kosher” books out of which any book was forbidden and to be confiscated.

    The Magna Carta was of that inspiration : it rather implied that the state, most contrary to the French custom of then where noblemen used to be allowed practically everything unless they were issued orders from the King addressed to them personally (which anyway was an honour however hard the order), was not amicable and treated with these aristocrats as with a foreign occupied entity (which it was since William the Conqueror) to be negotiated with diplomatically. The American charter of rights set up an elaborate list of personal rights but what was not mentioned was the domain of throngs of ridiculous local by-laws that made life in the US particularly constraining. You could not for instance dress up above your official level of fortune, or show scholarly culture beyond your social class or your actual university diplomas, because there was no explicit constitutional guarantee against that form of oppression.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Francis Miville


    The Magna Carta was of that inspiration
     
    The Magna Carta attempted to regulate jews.
  189. @Francis Miville
    @Reg Cæsar

    Societies that enshrine rights actually set up a positive list of permissions outside of which everything is by default forbidden or at least not guaranteed as easily allowable by the authorities. It is actually very Jewish of origin : in Jewish ghetto cultures of the past, if we are to trust Israel Shahaq in "Jewish History, Jewish Religion" there used to be not a list of censored books (rather limited : essentially propaganda for the twenty most dangerous acknowledged heresies known to be influent) as used to be the custom in Christian polities but a (limited) list of "kosher" books out of which any book was forbidden and to be confiscated.

    The Magna Carta was of that inspiration : it rather implied that the state, most contrary to the French custom of then where noblemen used to be allowed practically everything unless they were issued orders from the King addressed to them personally (which anyway was an honour however hard the order), was not amicable and treated with these aristocrats as with a foreign occupied entity (which it was since William the Conqueror) to be negotiated with diplomatically. The American charter of rights set up an elaborate list of personal rights but what was not mentioned was the domain of throngs of ridiculous local by-laws that made life in the US particularly constraining. You could not for instance dress up above your official level of fortune, or show scholarly culture beyond your social class or your actual university diplomas, because there was no explicit constitutional guarantee against that form of oppression.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    The Magna Carta was of that inspiration

    The Magna Carta attempted to regulate jews.

  190. @Anonymous
    @Anon


    Could “feminism” be a strategy employed by outgroups against White people to crater the fertility of White women?

    Seems unlikely. Feminism has popped up all over the world from Latin America to Asia and even South Asia and Africa.

    Tbe lowest fertility rates are not among Western whites, but among East Asians and marginal whites, like Balkans.
     
    Nonwhite countries either have large enough populations to sustain a decline (to the extent one actually exists), don’t allow immigration, or enjoy both those advantages.

    Replies: @Anon

    Population size has nothing to do with fertility collapse survivability. In countries like China, where you have a huge aging populace dependent on government pensions and nationalized healthcare coverage, its a huge disadvantage. Low immigration is a disadvantage.

  191. Anon[313] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)
    @Anonymous



    My definition of “feminism:” A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.
     
    Could “feminism” be a strategy employed by outgroups against White people to crater the fertility of White women?
     
    My guess is that second wave feminism - the "women's liberation" movements of the 1960s - was intended as a means to goose U.S. economic production during the Cold War by nearly doubling the labor pool in short order.

    The decline in fertility came later, and as crazy as it sounds it may not have entirely been predicted or desired from the outset. After the declining fertility trend became apparent, the solution for capital interests was simple - unrestrained immigration (prior to 9/11, the Wall Street Journal would regularly and openly agitate for open borders). Capital interests funding the GOP made a tacit deal with Democrats - unlimited cheap labor in exchange for clients for an ever-expanding welfare state.

    I suppose you can decide whether all of this happened just because of a few homely but intelligent Jewish girls or whether the Deep State's hidden thumb on the scale was the necessary cause.

    Replies: @Anon

    The decline in fertility came later, and as crazy as it sounds it may not have entirely been predicted or desired from the outset.

    Wrong.

    US fertility fell off a cliff in tbe 1960s right at the onset of second wave feminism (a.k.a “bitch” feminism).

    The US went below replacement in the early 1970s. Little GUPPY.

    Everybody saw it coming, it was written about in journals and magazines, problem is no one really appreciated the consequences until people started seeing them with their very eyes.

    Also, people back then were too occupied with frivolous pursuits like computer coding, Willie Nelson concerts, running radio shows sns other assorted degeneracies to care about their national demographic trajectory.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Anon

    Obsessing over (white) demographic trajectory is rather odd.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    , @Anonymous
    @Anon


    Everybody saw it coming, it was written about in journals and magazines, problem is no one really appreciated the consequences until people started seeing them with their very eyes.
     
    What reasons did they give for it?
  192. @Anon
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)


    The decline in fertility came later, and as crazy as it sounds it may not have entirely been predicted or desired from the outset.
     
    Wrong.


    US fertility fell off a cliff in tbe 1960s right at the onset of second wave feminism (a.k.a "bitch" feminism).

    https://www.prb.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/07282009-US-TFR.gif

    The US went below replacement in the early 1970s. Little GUPPY.

    Everybody saw it coming, it was written about in journals and magazines, problem is no one really appreciated the consequences until people started seeing them with their very eyes.

    Also, people back then were too occupied with frivolous pursuits like computer coding, Willie Nelson concerts, running radio shows sns other assorted degeneracies to care about their national demographic trajectory.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Anonymous

    Obsessing over (white) demographic trajectory is rather odd.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Corvinus

    'Obsessing over (white) demographic trajectory is rather odd.'

    You're the most absurd hypocrite. If it were blacks -- or American Indians, or Jews -- expressing similar concerns, you'd be genuflecting to it.

  193. @Corvinus
    @Anon

    Obsessing over (white) demographic trajectory is rather odd.

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘Obsessing over (white) demographic trajectory is rather odd.’

    You’re the most absurd hypocrite. If it were blacks — or American Indians, or Jews — expressing similar concerns, you’d be genuflecting to it.

  194. @Anon
    @Alec Leamas (working from home)


    The decline in fertility came later, and as crazy as it sounds it may not have entirely been predicted or desired from the outset.
     
    Wrong.


    US fertility fell off a cliff in tbe 1960s right at the onset of second wave feminism (a.k.a "bitch" feminism).

    https://www.prb.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/07282009-US-TFR.gif

    The US went below replacement in the early 1970s. Little GUPPY.

    Everybody saw it coming, it was written about in journals and magazines, problem is no one really appreciated the consequences until people started seeing them with their very eyes.

    Also, people back then were too occupied with frivolous pursuits like computer coding, Willie Nelson concerts, running radio shows sns other assorted degeneracies to care about their national demographic trajectory.

    Replies: @Corvinus, @Anonymous

    Everybody saw it coming, it was written about in journals and magazines, problem is no one really appreciated the consequences until people started seeing them with their very eyes.

    What reasons did they give for it?

  195. Anonymous[382] • Disclaimer says:

    Steve Sailer:

    “My definition of “feminism:” A movement that attempts to elevate the status and interests of less feminine women above those of more feminine women.”

    Of course! Because the only thing that “feminine women” want out of life is to be in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, making their husbands sandwiches. Gotcha!

    Funny fact: Steve Sailer admires Margaret Tatcher and Ann Coulter, two women who do not exactly fit his definition of “feminine women”. I wonder how Steve Sailer deals with the cognitive dissonance.

  196. Feminism: A movement to get a government goon with a gun to rob someone on your behalf in order to get things you cannot or will not earn for yourselves as a group. (See: Anti-racism)

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement