Topple the Patriarchy

jill-soloway-topple-the-patriarchyAt this week’s Emmy Award Shows, the creator of the show Transparent, Jill Soloway went on a rant while giving an award acceptance speech, finally chanting “topple the patriarchy” near the end of it (video).

The ironic thing is that without the “patriarchy” and masculine men willing to fight for, defend, and die for our civilization, Jill would probably be DEAD.

You know what ISIS and other muslim countries do to homosexual and transgender people like Jill Soloway? They bind their hands behind their backs and throw them off rooftops to their deaths.  The only thing that stops them (and others like them) are men building up our civilization and fighting for our way of life.

dday-soldiersJill Soloway and those like her owe their lives and the freedom to live an “alternative” lifestyle to the very thing they decry – masculine men acting like men. It’s by their grace that they are protected. For if men stopped and walked away, how long would our way of life last? And do they think they could protect themselves when our legal mechanisms that extend from such patriarchal endeavors is replaced with pure violence and aggression?  Yet they choose to bite the hand that feeds them.

It is like watching a teenager bitch and moan about her father’s curfew and rules. With no appreciation that those things go hand in hand with the safety and security his home provides.  Money doesn’t grow on trees … and neither does freedom.

iraq-soldiers2  Inside Iraq

This example underscores how many progressives in the West (including transgenders and homosexuals) are the very definition of Privilege they rail against.  They live in a world free of consequences, and disdain the very things that give them the freedom to live as they do.

Indeed, I would posit the true definition of “privilege” is living in an environment where your actions are no longer correlated with your outcomes.  Rather than the Liberal ideal of personal industriousness leading to success or failure, the Progressive slant is that people should be able to do whatever they want and the amorphous “state” will take care of the consequences. Yet that state only exists so long as there are men willing to defend it, and to pay for it. Indeed, men pay most of the taxes in any society while women accrue most of the benefits, i.e. the Gender Tax Gap.


Now I don’t necessarily have any beef with people who are homosexual or whatever, but I would say this: maybe their gay pride parades – rather than be some celebration of hedonism – be better served as a celebration of the men and women who die fighting to protect the freedoms that let homosexuals and transgenders live as they do within our free society? Just a thought.

Share: Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hillary Clinton and the Sexism Platform

Hillary_Clinton_SexismQuestion: Why is it sexist for men to not vote for Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman … yet it is not sexist for women to vote for Hillary Clinton just because she has a vagina?

The reality is that they are both the same thing.

Of course, that never stopped the media from blatant cases of double-think otherwise. Over at PBS Newshour, correspondent Daniel Bush argues that only if white men refuse to vote for Clinton is it sexism … even while arguing in the exact same article that people should vote for Clinton just because she has a vagina. The irony of using a sexist position to criticize others’ supposed sexism is beyond Mr. Bush, apparently.

This sort of stuff is all over the media right now, and indeed Facebook and Twitter as well.  Even if many people (like myself) don’t want to vote for Hillary because we think she is untrustworthy or conniving or has bad policy positions … none of that matters, refusing to vote for Hillary is an act of sexism. Because – wait for it – you should vote for someone based on what is between their legs. And that, my friends, is the very definition of sexism.

Women_for_Hillary_SexismWhether it be schadenfreude or just plain obliviousness, we have reached a point where being blatantly sexist (but in socially acceptable ways) to criticize someone else for being sexist is now part of the mainstream.  The irony is palpable.

Now, if you read this blog on a regular basis at all, you know I’m not big on using the various -isms as shaming language, it’s mostly a tactic for stifling legitimate debate and/or certain ideas. But the mere fact that the Progressives and SJWs are engaging in the exact behavior they claim to despise (e.g. “Sexism”) should tell you something.

Make no mistake, Hillary herself is playing on this current paradigm. Pulling out the Woman Card when needed to rebuke any man (whether that be Bernie Sanders or Trump or anyone else) who tries to criticize her. Her team is even pumping out the #ImWithHer hashtag. And I predict that will only continue, if not increase, during the general election this fall.

In short, Hillary’s is a sexist platform … built on the idea that we should judge someone based purely on their biological sex. People who vote for Hillary purely because she is a woman are, by definition, sexist. It is not a revocation of sexism, but the embrace of it.

Share: Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Feminism: Meaningless Words create Meaningless Ideals

Hitler_Socialist_SandersOne of the interesting things about dating a lot of women is that you very quickly come to realize the amount of verbal-sorcery and word-salad that comes out of many women’s mouths. They often don’t mean what they say, or the things they say are simply a reflection of how they feel at the moment.  Later they will tell you the exact opposite.

The problem is that they use a lot of words and phrases that lack a clear meaning – love, happiness, OMG LOL totes, etc. – you get the idea.

When the words we use have no grounded meaning, when they can be defined as anything by anyone, then we are no longer talking about a tangible thing or fact. Rather, we are talking about feelings.

In parallel, and perhaps not surprisingly, the words used by Feminists and Progressives and SJWs are much the same – common good, patriarchy, social welfare, equality – when we use these words we say nothing at all. We are not communicating meaningful ideas … we are simply expressing our feelings. Or what I like to call “Feels before Reals” …

Even reformed Feminists realize this. It becomes even more blatant when they redefine words with obvious meaning, like “violence”, in ways that render those words meaningless.

Public policy or serious discussion cannot be based on feelings … any more than I base my actions in the dating world on a woman’s feeling words. They are ephemeral and prone to change. They are a reflection of reality, but not reality itself.

In his book Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek pointed out the problem socialists and other collectivists (which the Progressives and Feminists largely fall into) suffer because of their use of meaningless words.  In their drive for greater “equality”, the policies they pursue often ironically create greater inequality. Because they abandon classical Liberal principles that create a self-correcting marketplace of freedoms that derive from competition, and replace that with central planning “committees” that decide what is important and who should get what.

Political freedom derives from economic freedom. Without economic freedom, without the resources to support yourself and your loved ones, none of us are free. And such economic freedom demands competition to fuel it. Or rather, the opportunity to compete.

In its stead, the Progressives and Feminists would dictate your opportunities, and impose gender and race-based quotas. They would strip your economic freedom. All in the name of meaningless words like “common good” and “social justice”. All in the name of ephemeral ideas that serve no one, but hurt everyone. Lest we forget, even the Nazis were originally the National Socialist party …

The first sign that someone has no idea what they are talking about is their use of meaningless words. Remember that.

Share: Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

The Politics of Fragility

A couple weeks ago, author Michelle Goldberg wrote an excellent article for Slate about how conservatives uncomfortable over the Transgender bathroom issue are co-opting Left-wing rhetoric to push back … for instance releasing a video of female rape and sexual abuse victims describing how men in bathrooms, trans or not, is an instant “trigger” for re-traumatization.

political-correctnessIt’s an irony that even conservatives are now employing “victim mentality” tactics typically used by SJWs and Feminists against them … and in the process highlighting the contradictions of Feminism and Progressivism. To quote Goldberg:

Those contradictions, however, are real. There’s no coherent ideology in which traumatized students have the right to be shielded from material that upsets them—be it Ovid, 9½ Weeks, or the sentiments of Laura Kipnis—but not from undressing in the presence of people with different genitalia. If we’ve decided that people have the right not to feel unsafe—as opposed to the right not to be unsafe—then what’s the standard for refusing that right to conservative sexual abuse victims? Is it simply that we don’t believe them when they describe the way their trauma manifests?

Which underscores the very inherent instability of a strategy relying on the Politics of Fragility … when weakness becomes a corrupted form of strength, then we all suffer for it. Moreover, when our public policy is based more on feelings than logic, then we as a society become paralyzed in making tough decisions, being accountable for our own mistakes, or willingly changing course when needed.

The whole Transgender issue highlights the problem of basing your political platform on such an approach, as Feminists and Progressives and SJWs have done:

Some radical feminists believe that these contradictions should make people on the left reconsider their commitment to trans rights. Certainly, creepy men can and probably will take advantage of trans-friendly bathroom laws to try to prey on women. Shortly after Washington state allowed trans people to use bathrooms and changing rooms that correspond with their gender identity, a man barged into the women’s locker room at a local pool, announcing, “The law has changed, and I have the right to be here”

The point NOT being whether there is any merit to the risk of sexual assault due to allowing Transgender individuals bathroom access opposite their biological sex. That is debatable. Rather, the point here is that the language being used circumvents our ability to make sound policy decisions. It stifles rather than engages rational debate.

In short, it highlights how the tactics of Feminists/Progressives/SJWs undermine our Western Liberal principles.  Particularly from a Classical Liberal perspective.  In other words, Progressives are NOT liberals.

Another glaring example of the above is Oklahoma’s move last week to pass a bill that requires students in schools to use the bathroom of their assigned biological sex at birth, unless special accommodations are needed for their sincerely held religious beliefs.  Clever, really.

You see, right-wing conservatives are now arguing that people should be able to violate legal or societal norms based on their beliefs. Maybe it’s that they believe in a Christian God … or maybe it’s that they believe they are a woman trapped in a man’s body. There is no way to prove the validity of either belief. So if transgenders can use whatever bathroom they want, why shouldn’t, say, Christians be able to refuse to cater gay weddings or pay for birth control?  It would be hypocritical to argue otherwise.

The whole transgender issue is problematic for Progressives on the far left … because it exposes the weaknesses of adopting the Politics of Fragility as a platform.

politics-of-fragilityIt was interesting to see even President Obama criticize Political Correctness and the fragility of many college students to ideas they disagree with at a commencement speech at Rutgers a couple weeks ago, even though some of the President’s other comments were clearly criticisms aimed at Trump. Nonetheless they highlight the fact that even among mainstream Democrats like Obama, there is some understanding beginning to surface that Progressives and their Politics of Fragility are a real risk to Liberalism and Western Democratic principles.

You can’t simultaneously seek to stifle debate while maintaining that you are merely pushing for more “freedom” … because eventually those same tactics will be turned against you.

Share: Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Otherkin – The Transgender Conundrum

otherkin-transgenderThe Politics of the Fringe. Transgenders in public bathrooms, Otherkin, and the like. Despite what conservatives may say, the real problem is not about sexual predators or voyeurs … no the real problem is the practicality of accommodating every tiny minority without impinging on the freedom of the vast majority of people. It is a Classical Liberal problem.

While gays and lesbians make up about 5-7% of the population, those experiencing gender dysphoria only make up about 0.3% of the population, and only a fraction of those actually choose to live life as the opposite sex or undergo hormone therapy or surgical sex change.  As such, we are, in essence talking about an issue that effects maybe 1 out of every 2000 people. Which is a very very small minority.

It is reasonable to ask whether it is really practical for our public policy to accommodate every tiny minority out there. The reality is that it is probably NOT practical.

tocqueville-effectLumping transgenders in with the Gay and Lesbian community is a little intellectually dishonest. Gender dysphoria is a very different issue, and the number of those affected is a tiny fraction. Even many of my gay friends are uncomfortable with including transgenders in the LGB community, because they feel it undermines the legitimacy of their cause.

For instance, there is also a small minority of people who identify as Otherkin. They actually believe they are cats or mermaids trapped in human bodies. Would it also then be reasonable to force Target to put kitty litter in bathrooms for these people?

At some point, you have to accept the fact that we can’t accommodate every tiny minority. Not without disrupting life for the other 99% of people. It is just not practical.

Those who argue it is practical, are arguing for the Doctrine of the Minority.  They are placing vague notions of “equality” over the rights and freedoms of the vast majority of people. Because such “equality” entails measures that are disruptive or create inefficiencies.  It is a veiled yet subtle anti-Liberal stance. Or as Tocqueville argued two centuries ago:

“Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.”

The reality is that you cannot have both complete equality and complete freedom. Those two things are incompatible.

A simple commonsense solution would be to encourage more unisex bathrooms, where possible. Engaging in social shaming of who is “intolerant” of who, or arguing about who should be more “uncomfortable”, is counterproductive.

Moreover, it really shouldn’t be the place of massive corporations like Target and the NCAA to try to force people’s elected representatives to behave in ways they see fit. Such actions undermine the principles of Western Liberal democracy. That power belongs solely to the individual people who elect those representatives.

Share: Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Enemy Within – The Danger of a Single Narrative

A couple days ago, writer David Brooks wrote a piece for the New York Times about the Danger of a Single Story.  By that, he was alluding to the notion developing in recent years about the negative consequences of allowing a single dominant narrative to shape the way we view the world and the things we do.

PrintMoreover, he delved into the psychology of why certain individuals feel the need to publicly announce their allegiance to that narrative, what Brooks calls “identity markers”. In that sense, public outrage and SJW facebook memes are not so much about political ideas or oppression or equality, but rather ensuring one’s continued acceptance by “the tribe”.

The reality is that Mr. Brooks is in fact alluding to Virtue Signaling.

If you find you are continually frustrated when you point out the nonsensical double standards or contradictions expressed by certain political affiliations (e.g. progressives or SJWs), like this video about college students thinking it’s okay that a 5’9’’ white guy declares himself a 7-year 6’5’’ Chinese woman … then the problem is that you think you are having a political discussion, when really you are having a social psychology discussion.

It is not about facts and figures … it is about who is in who’s tribe.

Virtue-SignalingA perfect example is two articles published by the Chicago Tribune last week, on the same exact day.

Example 1: Chicago Blackhawks player Andrew Shaw was suspended for making “homophobic” remarks toward a referee after being sent to the penalty box during a heated playoff game. In short, he was upset and called the ref a “faggot” in the heat of the moment. The outrage was immense (including from the Tribune itself), and Shaw later apologized.

Example 2: Chicago Teacher’s Union (CTU) president Karen Lewis referred to Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner as an “ISIS recruit”, inferring that he was a Muslim terrorist. Rauner is a Republican who is pushing for pension and other reforms to solve Illinois’ Bankruptcy crisis. The outrage in this case was minimal. There was no similar censuring from the Tribune as in Shaw’s case.

Here we have two very similar cases of people name-calling others, both at the minimum uncivil, and perhaps offensive to some. Both were uncalled for. Both were using other’s identities as a form of shaming language. Yet one case was seen as socially appropriate, and the other case a platform for moral outrage. Why?

Because one case (CTU Lewis’ comments) was seen as fitting the dominant Cultural Narrative: heterosexual white men are “bad”, guilty of historical sins, and should be labeled as such.

The real danger of such cultural narratives is that when one “single story” (to use David Brooks’ term from above) comes to dominate the discussion, then it warps our sense of right and wrong.  Political decisions and policy choices that need to be based on facts and figures can no longer be done as such. Because we are no longer having a fact-based political discussion … rather we are engaging in acts of social display.

But the real danger is much more insidious … because as any group rises to power, the extremists within their ranks will engage in Totalitarian behavior to try to shape and control the cultural narrative. Snake-eating-tailSocial displays and virtue signaling gradually displace and undermine the positions and ideals which brought you to power in the first place. The principles of your movement become fractured by caricatures and contradictions and increasingly extreme positions. In the end, the undoing of any political movement that achieves power is often its own Totalitarian behavior. Like a snake eating its own tail.

It is the enemy within.

Given the tendency towards such totalitarian behavior and virtue signaling within political movements and  “tribal” affiliations in the modern world, it does raise the question if this process is some sort of natural cycle in the evolution of human groups, nowadays manifested as ideas and political movements. A way for nature to continually shuffle the deck … perhaps the fluidity of human “tribes” both in modern times and prehistory served some evolutionary purpose for promoting greater genetic variance and avoiding the stagnation that might otherwise arise.

Share: Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments