For Your Amusement indeed

Lady Raine has a blog post entitled “For Your Amusement” which is basically a misandrist dig at The Spearhead (which I now write for). I didn’t read the entire comment thread because I couldn’t be bothered, but I picked up on one of her most recent comments and tried to engage her in intelligent discussion. She demonstrated her true colors immediately. Therefore, I submit my comment (and all the comments that follow, obviously) “for your amusement.”

Here’s a fun game to play while following the thread – keep track of all the logical fallacies LR commits, with special attention paid to ad hominems! Aren’t we all so glad we decided to let women run the nation?

New piece coming soon

I just wrapped up an essay I’d been working on for a philosophical conference, and submitted it over to The Spearhead. I am told it should be up within the next day or so. I wouldn’t mind becoming a regular contributor over there, but we shall see. If that becomes the case, I could use this blog to merely talk about video games and the military. Haha!

::EDIT:: Here it is.

Another good comment

I’ll get around to generating my own content again shortly (long weekend, competing priorities) but for now, I rather enjoy pointing out good comments on posts that may otherwise go unnoticed.

The comment is a sort of companion diatribe to this analysis (author’s blog) of common “feminist” (I use the term loosely and apply it generally – I accept/acknowledge the hypothetical possibility of an honest to goodness, logical “feminist” even though I haven’t met one) debate tactics.

Enjoy!
[EDIT] Kudos award to this comment for presenting a great dilemma to the advocation of a broadening of the definition of rape. Plus, this keeps language narrow and specific, which we all know I’m a fan of.
And here’s some lulz.

Moral of the Story: Get a Vasectomy

This comment on this post was just too hilarious (and awesome) to let get buried.

TL;DR summary: guy gets a vasectomy. Three months later, he meets a woman with whom he enjoys a casual relationship. She had other designs, however, and about four months into the relationship she plays the “I am pregnant” game, which our hero indulges with a bit of pleasure (knowing obviously the child is not his). After revealing her to be completely crazy and immoral, he performs an awesome coup-de-grace that leaves her sobbing.
Comeuppance! Catharsis! Woo.

Is There Anything Good About Men?

So I took a break from doing serious reading or thinking for a while, distracting myself with a perfectly mindless video game (Torchlight – if you like Diablo style games, I recommend it!). But now it’s time to return to the real world, I suppose.

Through a series of links, I eventually found myself reading Is There Anything Good About Men? by Dr. Roy F. Baumeister. As always, I would encourage you to go read the article yourself first and then read my two cents, but I can’t control you and certainly won’t attempt to.
He seems to reject, or at least minimize, the idea that one gender is “better” or “more capable” than the other gender in favor of a theory that asserts two things: men and women have different motivations (which manifest themselves in ways that confuse us into thinking men and women have different abilities) and men and women socialize differently.
According to Baumeister, women prefer intimate one-on-one social interactions, which he claims are vital for the continued existence of the species. Men, however, favor “shallower” and less personable group interactions. Men are more likely to be attracted to the impersonal group socialization of a corporate hierarchy, for instance. He has several examples that illustrate and flesh out these points.
The upshot of all of this is a rejection of the feminist conception of the world being organized as a patriarchy designed to oppress women (which Baumeister calls at one point a “conspiracy theory.”) Instead, he says this (emphasis from original link retained):
Note that all those things I listed — literature, art, science, etc — are optional. Women were doing what was vital for the survival of the species. Without intimate care and nurturance, children won’t survive, and the group will die out. Women contributed the necessities of life. Men’s contributions were more optional, luxuries perhaps. But culture is a powerful engine of making life better. Across many generations, culture can create large amounts of wealth, knowledge, and power. Culture did this — but mainly in the men’s sphere.
Thus, the reason for the emergence of gender inequality may have little to do with men pushing women down in some dubious patriarchal conspiracy. Rather, it came from the fact that wealth, knowledge, and power were created in the men’s sphere. This is what pushed the men’s sphere ahead. Not oppression.
An undercurrent for his entire discourse is a fact he asserts early on – today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. He discusses at length the implications of this – because women are more assured of reproductive success, for instance, they may have evolved to have more “safe” behaviors whereas men evolved to have more risky behaviors, and so on.
He gives an alternative interpretation of one of FM’s favorite allegories (see mistake #5), which I found interesting if only because I recognized it before:
Throughout most of history and prehistory, giving birth was at the center of the women’s sphere, and men were totally excluded. Men were rarely or never present at childbirth, nor was the knowledge about birthing even shared with them. But not very long ago, men were finally allowed to get involved, and the men were able to figure out ways to make childbirth safer for both mother and baby. Think of it: the most quintessentially female activity, and yet the men were able to improve on it in ways the women had not discovered for thousands and thousands of years.
Let’s not overstate. The women had after all managed childbirth pretty well for all those centuries. The species had survived, which is the bottom line. The women had managed to get the essential job done. What the men added was, from the perspective of the group or species at least, optional, a bonus: some mothers and babies survived who would otherwise have died. Still, the improvements show some value coming from the male way of being social. Large networks can collect and accumulate information better than small ones, and so in a relatively short time the men were able to discover improvements that the women hadn’t been able to find. Again, it’s not that the men were smarter or more capable. It’s just that the women shared their knowledge individually, from mother to daughter, or from one midwife to another, and in the long run this could not accumulate and progress as effectively as in the larger groups of shallower relationships favored by men.
He hits on a lot of common ground and themes I’ve seen before (e.g., the phrase “women and children” in the context of reporting deaths in a newspaper literally means men are worth less than either of those two groups – building to the point that men are more expendable to society). Or another that has bugged me personally, in the past: “…there is still some sense that manhood must be earned. Every adult female is a woman and is entitled to respect as such, but many cultures withhold respect from the males until and unless the lads prove themselves.”
Ultimately, it’s all about getting laid:
The essence of how culture uses men depends on a basic social insecurity. This insecurity is in fact social, existential, and biological. Built into the male role is the danger of not being good enough to be accepted and respected and even the danger of not being able to do well enough to create offspring.
The basic social insecurity of manhood is stressful for the men, and it is hardly surprising that so many men crack up or do evil or heroic things or die younger than women. But that insecurity is useful and productive for the culture, the system.
Again, I’m not saying it’s right, or fair, or proper. But it has worked. The cultures that have succeeded have used this formula, and that is one reason that they have succeeded instead of their rivals.
After years of listening to, reading about and debating whether or not men and women have different biological abilities that determine their fate, it was, at the very least, a refreshing change of pace to read something that provided a seemingly cogent alternative. The problem is that it’s from a professor of psychology (which isn’t exactly yet a hard science – but that may change with time and increased understanding of the mechanics of the brain) and there wasn’t any sources cited to investigate further.
Alas.
Thoughts?

An Analysis of "Sexual Utopia In Power" Part 1

I’ve been reading, among many other things, Sexual Utopia in Power by F. Roger Devlin, Ph.D. and apparent regular contributor to The Occidental Quarterly. I was not previously familiar with either the author or the publication, but on the basis of this stunningly well-written (and, presumably, researched, with thirteen sources listed for approximately 27 pages of writing) article, I will have to become more intimately familiar with both. The entire article is worth commenting on; I had intended to merely pick “the best” parts but found myself copying entire paragraphs or pages in preparation for this analysis. Let me start by suggesting that perhaps the best course of action is to not read anything I am about to write, and to go read the article yourself.

Still here? Well, perhaps I can convince you to read it by quoting the parts that stuck out to me, with some of my own commentary. Devlin begins quickly and makes an important point about the basics of male-female relationships: that women, ultimately, do the choosing, while men do the competing. Women have a natural advantaged state in this regard. They do not need to “prove” their worth or suitability – the dictates of nature demand that men compete for the mating privilege of women. In the words of Devlin:

Nature has played a trick on men: production of spermatozoa occurs at a rate several orders of magnitude greater than female ovulation (about 12 million per hour vs. 400 per lifetime). This is a natural, not a moral, fact. Among the lower animals also, the male is grossly oversupplied with something for which the female has only a limited demand. This means that the female has far greater control over mating. The universal law of nature is that males display and females choose. Male peacocks spread their tales, females choose. Male rams butt horns, females choose. Among humans, boys try to impress girls—and the girls choose. Nature dictates that in the mating dance, the male must wait to be chosen.

Why does he bring up this point? Because his main aim is to then discuss “sexual utopias,” or the ideal sexual situations that could exist for men and women alike. He discusses the ideal sexual utopia for males and compares it with the ideal sexual utopia for females. He tackles males first, who “are in every respect simpler” when it comes to the matter. A male sexual utopia, Devlin argues, is much what you might imagine it to be: a harem for every man with women constantly coming to him in droves for sexual attention. Marriage, it seems at first, would get in the way of that:

Marriage, after all, seems to restrict sex rather drastically. Certain men figure that if sex were permitted both inside and outside of marriage there would be twice as much of it as formerly. They imagined there existed a large, untapped reservoir of female desire hitherto repressed by monogamy. To release it, they sought, during the early postwar period, to replace the seventh commandment with an endorsement of all sexual activity between “consenting adults.” Every man could have a harem. Sexual behavior in general, and not merely family life, was henceforward to be regarded as a private matter. Traditionalists who disagreed were said to want to “put a policeman in every bedroom.” This was the age of the Kinsey Report and the first appearance of Playboy magazine. Idle male daydreams had become a social movement.

But reform could not have been brought about without the consent of women, Devlin posits, and thus begins his analysis of the ideal sexual utopia for women. As you might imagine, it contrasts quite sharply with sexual utopia for men. He dispels the myth that women are naturally monogamous – something I don’t think needs dispelling if you’ve been paying much attention to the relationships that men and women have even in your own daily life, not to mention what you can read about in news articles and magazines and see on “reality” TV or read about on the internet.
Devlin describes female sexuality as naturally hypergamous (a term I was not previously familiar with), which can be understood with a simple analysis: “They are always satisfied with the best. By definition, only one man can be the best. These different male and female “sexual orientations” are clearly seen among the lower primates, e.g., in a baboon pack. Females compete to mate at the top, males to get to the top.” Thus, in an ideal female sexual utopia, she is able to mate with the hypothetical “perfect” man and is able to get him to commit at the same time (to commit meaning to cease mating with all other females). Just as James Bond appeals to men for being a work of fiction that relates to male sexual utopia, so does the pulp fiction romance novel appeal to women, says Devlin. But just as everyone knows it is impossible fantasy for every man to have his harem, so to is it fantasy to suppose a hypergamous utopia can exist: “The fantasy is strictly utopian, partly because no perfect man exists, but partly also because even if he did, it is logically impossible for him to be the exclusive mate of all the women who desire him.” At best, then, only one female would be able to live in the utopia. In a world of approximately 6 billion people (and approximately 3 billion women), a hypergamous ideal does not seem to be the best way to organize society for the maximum happiness of all.
Devlin draws a further distinction between monogamy and hypergamy:

Hypergamy is not monogamy in the human sense. Although there may be only one “alpha male” at the top of the pack at any given time, which one it is changes over time. In human terms, this means the female is fickle, infatuated with no more than one man at any given time, but not naturally loyal to a husband over the course of a lifetime. In bygone days, it was permitted to point out natural female inconstancy. Consult, for example, Ring Lardner’s humorous story “I Can’t Breathe”—the private journal of an eighteen year old girl who wants to marry a different young man every week. If surveyed on her preferred number of “sex partners,” she would presumably respond one; this does not mean she has any idea who it is.

It is at this point that I suspect a reader with a feminist bent might criticize myself or Devlin for being misogynists by daring to suggest that women are anything but perfect. “Women are not fickle,” they might shout, stamping their feet, “you must either just hate them or you have a small dick!” Maybe they would complain that we’re only saying what we are because we never get laid. Maybe they’d be incensed at the suggestion that there are differences between men and women that are biological as opposed to social. Perhaps only a few years ago, I would’ve had to submit to such shaming tactics and been shouted down; thankfully, I’ve found the resources that enable me to have civil debates with those who would disagree but want to carry on in a rational manner with that disagreement. We can, thankfully, ignore those that would just shout down discourse.
Moving on, then!
Devlin goes on to say that an important part of hypergamy is the rejection of most men. Obviously, not every man can be the best man – hell, not even most men can be the best men – so in a hypergamous utopia, there’d be a whole lot of rejected men. He has some choice words to describe women which, again, would incense most feminists – saying that rather than being naturally modest, they are actually naturally vain, being inclined to believe that they are deserving of only the best suitors – even if this is a logical impossibility. Devlin asserts that the feminist movement was an attempt to realize this female utopia:

The sexual revolution in America was an attempt by women to realize their own utopia, not that of men. Female utopians came forward publicly with plans a few years after Kinsey and Playboy. Helen Gurley Brown’s Sex and the Single Girl appeared in 1962, and she took over Cosmopolitan magazine three years later. Notoriously hostile to motherhood, she explicitly encouraged women to use men (including married men) for pleasure.

It is at this point that feminists might critique myself or Devlin for not knowing what feminism is all about, bellowing that it’s all about “equal rights for equal work!” I would suspect such a commentator is not at all familiar with feminism, and suggest he or she get acquainted with what feminist leaders have to say on the matter of male-female relations. And to those who would say that the extreme opinions of the few are irrelevant in the end (even in light of the last essay), I would say: not so!
Moving on, then!
I’ll skip the play-by-play and cut to the chase. There’s a lot I’d love to comment on from Devlin’s work, but hopefully at this point, I’ve convinced you to go read it yourself. I am going to offer up only the parts of the article that resonate most strongly with my own experiences and opinions before posting this.
After an in-depth analysis on the myth of date rape – exposing it for the lack of personal accountability that it is, rather than a rape in any meaningful sense of the word – Devlin goes on to say this:

I sympathize with the young woman, in view of a miseducation which might have been consciously designed to leave her unprepared for the situation she got herself into. But as to the question of whether she was raped, the answer must be a clear no.

I’ve already linked once to the essay I wrote years ago in school that attempted to debunk feminism on several fronts, one of which was the way in which “rape” has been virtually weaponized as a political tool to achieve political ends. Others have begun to notice and take action, trying to raise public awareness about the insidious effect that such deplorable tactics have had on relationships, men and women. Aside from critiquing feminists for exploding the definition of rape to be practically useless (in the words of Catherine MacKinnon: “All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman,” and therefore, one would presume, rape) which has been done elsewhere, Devlin offers up a cogent reason why we should oppose legal reform that seeks to explode the definition of rape:

To anyone who believes that a society of free and responsible persons is preferable to one based on centralized control, the reasoning of the date-rape movement is ominous. The demand that law rather than moral principle and common prudence should protect women in situations such as I have described could only be met by literally “putting a policeman in every bedroom.” However much we may sympathize with the misled young people involved (and I mean the men as well as the women), we must insist that it is no part of our responsibility to create an absolutely safe environment for them, nor to shield them from the consequences of their own behavior, nor to insure that sex will be their path to happiness. Because there are some things of greater importance than the pain they have suffered, and among these are the principle of responsibility upon which the freedom of all of us depends.

The only way to protect against rape, as feminists define it and as they attempt to legislate it, is to enter into a Orwellian world of Big Brother and totalitarianism. How else can we protect against the fluid and changing situations under which women discern whether or not they consented to a sexual act, and to absolutely guarantee that no man continue to “go” after he has been told to “stop” even if the woman worked him up into a frenzy up until the point she decided she wanted to stop? There is no way. This is why we must reject such expanded interpretations and return to a moral code that promotes personal responsibility and accountability. Devlin goes on:

It is a cliché of political philosophy that the less self-restraint citizens are able to exercise, the more they must be constrained from without…Human beings cannot do without some social norms to guide them in their personal relations. Young women cannot be expected to work out a personal system of sexual ethics in the manner of Descartes reconstructing the universe in his own mind. If you cease to prepare them for marriage, they will seek guidance wherever they can fi nd it. In the past thirty years they have found it in feminism, simply because the feminists have outshouted everyone else.

I disagree that it is simply because feminists have outshouted everyone else, and would argue it is because feminists have outmaneuvered everyone else; other than that, however, Devlin makes a fine point. And before someone goes whining about generalizations (as so often seems to be the case in discussions like these), it is implicit that Devlin means ‘most human beings cannot be expected…’ Certainly, there are some who will work out such systems of ethics on their own (I might argue I am one of them, though, only to a certain degree of ‘being on my own’) but they are far and away in the minority. And we are speaking of proper ways of organizing a society, for the maximum benefit/happiness of all.
And maybe that’s the most important point of all, and a good one to end on. Devlin does go on to talk about the benefits of marriage and what can be done to save us from our desperate situation, but the real take-home point I’d like people to consider is this. When we are afforded a system that allows us to do whatever it is that we wish (and feminism certainly seeks to allow women to do whatever it is they may wish), we end up, among other things, misbehaving like a spoiled child that is allowed to follow its impulses whenever it pleases. In the words of Devlin: “In a word, [we] learn to think and behave like spoiled children, expecting everything and willing to give nothing.” Expecting everything and being willing to give nothing is a recipe for disaster when it becomes the social norm.
On an entirely unrelated note, I would still consider myself “single and looking,” by the way. Just not looking to get (ab)used, is all.