– Gavin McInnes has some excellent thoughts on feminism here. It does strike me that demeaning motherhood is just about the most anti-feminist thing one could possible do.

Also, I always find it strange that these articles about whether or not feminism has been good for women focus on women with jobs in the top 1-5%. If the picture isn’t absurdly clear for these women, it should absurdly clear that the rest of the women are getting screwed. Put another way, if your job as a high-powered executive or official isn’t obviously better than taking care of your kids, it should be super fucking clear that working as a cashier or an editor or a mortgage broker isn’t better.

Some interesting and related thoughts here and here.

– On romantic love.

– On old books.

– Derb and Alfred Clark on the ghettoization of American culture (and religion).

Handle: “In the future, the Democrats will give us Jim Crow with a Progressive Face.” (HT)

– Without having read the full article, this statement strikes me as significant and totally correct: “What Do America’s College Students Want? They Want to Be Oppressed.”

– In totally unrelated news, World War T plods onwards.

– From a book review that may be of interest:

But however dark the view of human nature that inspired this mission, I fear it’s not dark enough. If Greene thinks that getting people to couch their moral arguments in a highly reasonable language will make them highly reasonable, I think he’s underestimating the cleverness and ruthlessness with which our inner animals pursue natural selection’s agenda.

– I don’t know whether you’re born gay or made that way, but I’m pretty that, at the extreme, it’s possible to be made that way.

Scharlach: “Democracy is rule by idiots who vote for things that sound good to them at the time.”

– Remember a while ago when everybody was mocking British “austerity?” Yeah, me neither.

10 Responses to Randoms

  1. spandrell says:

    Feminism is the fight of lesbians to be accepted as men. It’s getting out of hand recently, but the essence is still in “women who want to behave like men (i.e. lesbians) should be allowed to do so”.

  2. KK says:

    Well, considering that economists have recently discovered the law of supply and demand, it’s appropriate that psychologists, biologists and anthropologists have also discovered the theory of evolution by natural selection.

    In that book review link the first comment is a very good counter-argument against universal morality in our current ‘messy’ world. I don’t know how strictly Atlantic oversees the purity of its comment threads so I’ll paste it all here:

    Evolution is the missing dimension in this argument. The problem was well described by Sir Arthur Keith in “Evolution and Ethics” seventy years ago.

    Evolution does not favor all of mankind living together in tranquility. Quite the opposite – natural selection has always favored those individuals whose tribes out-competed, lorded over and vanquished the others. It is only over the past few centuries that European civilization has learned, at considerable cost, that learning to live together is beneficial to our group survival.

    That lesson applied well within tribes – cooperate in the hunt, share the meat. It worked with nation states as well. When England prospered, so did most Englishmen. For the past two centuries in our industrial world, with abundant energy, our productivity outstripped our fertility. Net of war, that is. We finally figured out, after two major wars, that we are better off cooperating in commerce than attempting to dominate one another. The Better Angels of our Nature have won out – we are less violent all around.

    For whatever reasons – chagrin about our past behavior, or living in close quarters like rats in one of John Calhoun’s mazes – we of the industrial nations have totally reversed population pressure. We now need geriatric nurses much more than lebensraum. No kids.

    The other side of evolution is how different it makes us. Much more different, I’m afraid, than Greene or Wright would like to admit. The populations that continue to reproduce enthusiastically are also those which lack the wit to ever entertain such philosophical arguments as they present. Their religions tell them to have children. They rationalize that what belongs to the flaccid, timorous white man once belonged to them, and their children’s mission is to take it back. They have been impeded in the past by their own lack of ability – read Richard Lynn, Tatu Vanhanen, Arthur Jensen et al. on intelligence – and the will of the more intelligent to hang onto their own. That will has dissolved. Western civilization no longer believes in itself and defends itself.

    The biological basis of morality would only be at issue if the game were among the civilizations and nations which demonstrate well developed levels of morality. The ascendent peoples do not extend their moral umbrellas farther than their own tribes. They have what Keith would call a cosmical – amoral – view of the world. Kaffir, gadje, or however they refer to outsiders are subject to a different set of rules. Until these peoples can be convinced to join a universal ethical union, we will find that “We Can’t Just All Get Along.” If we did, evolution would come to an end and we would stand Darwin on his head. Let’s just get real. A biological basis of morality can never be universal.

    That covers a lot of ground – sometimes at the cost of focus – but I won’t disagree about the general point of fiercely divergent moral systems found around the world and how the more primitive among them are on ascendancy at least demographically. (The recently relative genetics vs. culture angle of this is addressed in a later comment).

    Also notable is this brilliant (and upvoted) rebuttal:

    While your comment seems well reasoned, you do assert presumptions which are quite reminiscent of white supremacy logic, and therefore you miss the mark of being compelling.

    21st century discourse in a nutshell. The modern heresy.

  3. PA says:

    “Ghettoization” (as it appears in the original linked article) is a misnomer. Ghettoization suggests a walling-off or a formation of pockets of insularity, rather than the mass adaptation of the African American affectations that they are describing. A more accurate term would be “negrification.”

  4. Peter Blood says:

    “What Do America’s College Students Want? They Want to Be Oppressed.”

    Empty lives desperately seeking meaning and drama.

    • Thales says:

      “Oppression” = moral authority and political clout. Surely you understand the seductive power of the Dark side…

  5. Magus Janus says:

    on homosexuality, Cochran makes persuasive arguments as to it being virally caused:


    and more at length here:

    Click to access infectious_causation_of_disease.pdf

  6. Taggart says:

    Where’s the Halloween post? It’s one of my favorites.

  7. namae nanka says:

    ” It does strike me that demeaning motherhood is just about the most anti-feminist thing one could possible do.”

    ‘most feminist thing’?

    • sunshinemary says:

      Yeah, I caught that, too. I think it should read either like this:

      It does strike me that demeaning motherhood is just about the most feminist thing one could possible do.

      or like this:

      It does strike me that celebrating and encouraging motherhood is just about the most anti-feminist thing one could possible do.

  8. sunshinemary says:

    Although actually, I think there is something more anti-feminist than encouraging motherhood. Celebrating and encouraging female submission to male authority is the most anti-feminist thing one could possibly do.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: