Why I am Not a Feminist Part n+1: Language Idiocy

The issue of trying to change the language to comply with feminist dogma is one I have been fighting since I was thrown out of an early feminist meeting for insisting that trying to change "Men/man" from generic to specific was a huge mistake. I tried to point out that a male pronoun should be created to refer to male humans.  Comparable to "woman" like "heman."  Pronounced hee-man to encourage men to flex proudly and adopt it willingly. 

Feminists are still trying to change historical usage like “All men are created equal”  to “All people are created equal” trashing not only the author but herm meaning as well.  Pretending that Jefferson was not a heman of his time ignores a crucial part of our heritage that has made equal rights for women, minorities, and non-propertied men a major issue for Americans ever since.    

Not incidentally I proposed at the time to create a gender inclusive/neutral pronoun to refer to "men" when gender is not significant.  I proposed hesh and herm and have used them since in my own writing as specifically gender inclusive at first for hemen and women but currently for all gender varieties.  I have found the usage useful when gender of the referent is known but irrelevant.  As in: herm article in a journal or popular publication.  Conceptually thinking of an author as "hesh" is particularly useful in avoiding unconscious gender bias in reading an article.  I generally notice the name of the author only when after reading the article I find the name useful for reference.  This practice is useful whether gender is an issue or not.  I don't have to try to forget the author of a worthless article.  

Why I Am Not a Feminist. Part n +2: Strong, Independent Women Don't Need It

I come from a family tradition of strong, independent, competent women.  In choosing women friends and partners I search out those same qualities. None to my knowledge call themselves feminists.  They are too busy being twice as good as the average man to achieve their goals in life.  (As more than one noted “Fortunately that is not difficult.") If a man tries to be a prick, they don't try to change his ways or his attitude they simply ignore him, or as one commented dripping in sarcasm "God, I am really impressed!"  The reason men are pricks is to attract the attention of women, and feminists play into their hands by objecting to it. 

Why I Am Not a Feminist. Part n+3: Men Will Always Be Boys

Incels, single men, and philanders have been catcalling women since birds learned to sing.  Women have been ignoring them since then if they are not interested.  Some women take a catcall as a complement and respond with a non-inviting flirt move.  Some women may actually check out the catcaller to see if he might be interesting and if so make an inviting flirt move.  She may even look up and smile.  This is behavior that can be observed in all sexual creatures.  

 The campaign claiming that this demeans women is totally worthless.  Women are sex objects.  So are men.   But whatever attracts his interest the man must make his interest known to the strange woman in order to have any chance of meeting her at all.  Women are expected to be more subtle, but if she sees a stranger that may be a desirable sex toy or a sugar daddy she will certainly find a way to make it known.

 "If a man stops looking lustfully at a woman, bury him he is dead."  The feminist insistence that there is something wrong with a man who appreciates the physical differences in the women he meets when women are flaunting those differences in every encounter are not only making feminism look ridiculous but expecting men to not be male mammals.

There must be limits. It used to be that there were universal social signals that were respected and enforced by both genders.  A man at a bar who touched a woman who had just turned her back to him risked anything from a physical attack by some other man, to ostracism, to somebody of either gender to loudly commenting "Leave her alone, go jack off in your own back yard."  These signals seem to be still evolving in this more permissive and equal opportunity "Hook-up" culture, but among reasonable people seem to be known and agreed to.  The rape culture is fighting back, but then rapists were never reasonable people.  One can't help but wonder if the wolf crying in the first paragraph has not decreased sensitivity to actual abuse.     

Why I Am Not a Feminist. Part n +4: No Action on Women's Work

Feminism seems to be unconcerned about women and men doing "women's work" other than insisting that they have non-gendered titles. They are too busy trying to get equal pay in "men's jobs" to pay any attention at all to getting equal pay in "women's jobs"

• The caretakers: Nurses, Physician Assistants, teachers, child care workers, etc. 
• Doctors in family practice, pediatrics, and similar. 
• Servers and retail workers.
• Interns and secretaries. 

They all have more flexible hours and generally shorter work weeks that allow time for people to be: Stay at home moms that get their children to school, go to PTA and school board meetings, get them to practice and lessons, in short making sure that the next generation becomes useful citizens.

They also have universally shitty pay plans that insure that a man that wants to support a stay-at-home mom will choose "men's jobs" that pay more and demand more:  more hours, less flexibility in scheduling and location choice, and frequent short notice time away from home. 

Women who chose "men's jobs" and to be a parent must have a partner to share in being mom in exchange for her being dad as needed. Much of the joint income will be used to contract those housekeeping and child care jobs that have less parenting associated with them.   

Why I Am Not a Feminist. Part n +5: Breedig is Sinful

Perhaps I am not up to date on modern feminism and am locked in the mommy wars of the late 20th century, but I have yet to find many feminists of either gender that are not permanently physically and philosophically non-reproductive.  They seem to have traded the benefits of active sexuality and material success for the bonding necessary for parenting. 

Once they have achieved the good 'prick job' and the reproductive drive is satisfied with casual sex they seem to have settled for delegating the breeding to others less successful and therefore less able to provide the necessities for the next generation of leaders in any occupations let alone the 'prick jobs.'  While I do not object to any human breeding, the cream will rise from any population; I still want to scream at a well bonded couple with a successful female partner "Knock her up, humanity needs her genes."  As Heinlein noted, "Nobody owns his genes, he is merely their custodian."  Successful homosexual bonded couples solve the problem by having or adopting children.  I have heard of one lesbian couple who worked out an arrangement with a gay couple to have children naturally with both two dads and two moms.  Similar to a shared custody agreement, although at the time impossible to formalize. 

One of the issues feminists' apparently still have with Heinlein is that all of his intelligent, strong, competent, successful women were breeders.  They actively searched out intelligent, strong, competent, successful men and got pregnant as soon as possible.  Even most of the juveniles had strong female characters that were scheming to be breeders.  One would think feminists would celebrate conservation of the genes of such women, but it seems not to be the case either in fiction or in real life.  

Public Figures, Private Lives, and Sexual Issues.

 I evaluate authors, artists, and publishers on their public works not their private lives. In particular the scandal sheets and tabloid reporting. There are damn few people, maybe even me, who could stand a tabloid report on their private lives. If you are one of them go ahead and shit on anybody's private life you want to. We will see what the tabloids say when they get you on the cover. 

 When autobiographical data that I disagree with creeps into art or fiction, I will criticize the character or art as inappropriate or socially dysfunctional, but even if there is credible evidence that the artist is similarly dysfunctional, that is herm privilege, and only those close enough to be affected have the right to comment.  

 This is one of the reasons that when I quote authors, whenever possible I quote the character, with proper annotation of the work and the author and date.  People who allege that an author believes something and quotes a character to prove it I will shout bullshit, even if there is evidence that the author in fact does believe something like it.  If one wants to shit on an author's beliefs, better get and cite the source of the direct quote by the author.  

 There is a current trend in virtue signaling to claim that personal behavior even after the fact revelations of the creator taint the value of the work which quickly turns artistic discussions into gossip sessions. This consigns many excellent works to the dustbin of public opinion when the behavior of the creator had no apparent effect on the message or the value of the work.   

 11/21/17 update.  Finally women are speaking out about sexual assault by public figures, as they should, but removing the public figure from herm public position is the wrong solution.  These public figures should be held accountable in a court of law, civil or criminal depending on the statute of limitations on the crime or violation, with witnesses given appropriate protection from retaliation, and cross examination limited to veracity and consistency.  External considerations such as "enticement via dress or behavior" should be explicitly excluded.  The law should provide appropriate sanctions but loss of position should not be one of them unless associated with a felony etc. where a felony is a disqualification.  

 Public opinion may affect ratings and votes, but it is the ratings and votes that should determine the fate of the public figure not the allegations.   

 In spite of the failure of Title IX the in camera fact gathering feature of the system encouraged women to come forward with allegations of harassment, assault and retaliation for speaking out.  The failure was in the fact that there was no similar in camera for the accused to respond before the allegations became a public issue as institutions responded to the allegations before proper investigation of the situation was made and the "Believe the woman" brought the whole issue before the court of public opinion with disastrous results for all involved including the complainant who inevitably will be outed when the shit hits the fan.  In one University case I followed the Title IX administrator, several high ranking officials, and the original complainant all left the university "early" in the face of public displeasure at the outcome of the case.  

 

Mansplaining Modern Patriarchy

 There has never been a reasonable moral argument for Patriarchy.  From the beginning it exploited women as breeders of cannon fodder to prey on more stable egalitarian societies or weaker paternalistic and feudal societies. Pragmatically it was one solution to maintain population in spite of inherently high human maternal and infant mortality rates.  It was successful in spite of or maybe because of the resulting excess of poor young adult males. 

 The industrial revolution further enabled patriarchy by removing the father from the home leaving mom holding the lunch bag, the wash bag, the shopping bag and all of the other bags associated with running a household.  The flip side of that was that the man was socially required to provide for his family. Unskilled jobs were paid enough to support a household minimally even at the entry level. The pay envelope went to mom who was expected to manage with what was in it.  Women who did not wish to play the paternalism game were relegated to "women's work" nursing, teaching, and pseudo-housework where the pay was not expected to support a family and sex was not an option.     


 In the West Prior to WWII infant and maternal mortality, lack of household appliances, and wrong information on natural birth control propagated by churches, insured that women's economic contribution to the society was homemaking.  Supporting a man in the workplace by providing meals, clean clothes, and relieving him of all child care responsibilities for his (presumably) genetic line, and networking for him at church and business functions was a respectable and necessary career for a married woman with several children. 

A good Mrs. was a valuable degree.  The men did all the work and the women ran the society. When women were trapped by biology and custom to Kinder, Küche, Kirche, finding a skilled, hardworking, husband and pushing him to success and a nice house through the "right Church network" was the Western woman's dream.  She had plenty of credit, it was in her husband's name but she did the banking.  It wasn't until women got control of their fertility that other options opened for them.  Even today a Mrs. from a top university is a reasonable choice for a woman that can't hack the academic and social pressure of independent living.  A strong Mrs. from anywhere is still a reasonable choice for many women who choose not to be independent.  Contraception under her control gives her considerable leverage over the paternalistic provider.  

 Women may choose to partner with a man for companionship or sex or possibly a business deal, but few men can get past their patriarchal channeling and assume that providing any income to the partnership or paying their partner anything in a business deal gives them their patriarchal rights to sexual abuse as part of the deal. In all too many professions, the assumed inferiority of women gives the patriarchy considerable leverage in providing opportunities in exchange for abuse.  In some instances "The casting couch" was part of the vernacular long before anyone thought it was anything but a perk of the patriarchy.  

 The real problem with the transition, which we are still in, to full gender equality is that the supply of candidates for the Mrs. status is dwindling rapidly while the demand for the services provided by the Mrs. has remained constant.  In addition the social pressure to treat women with the polite respect necessary to attract the attention of the Miss to become a Mrs. has for a number of reasons become negligible.  Compounding the issue is the fact that many women have separated the functions of the Mrs. and rejected the dependence on the income of the male as a condition for any of them making the traditional Patriarchal mating dance useless for the swain, who has no training in treating people, especially women as human and he reverts to the traditional male power games for all.  

....to be continued....

Toxic Masculinity

https://t.co/DddqnZtP67

Toxic masculinity teaches that men cannot assert their own manhood absent sex with a woman that they alone possess

Being brought up male in a few tweets.  Storified by miniver.

Not much I can add, but this tweetstorm is a must read for all males in especially dads of male children.  Sports must not be the only acceptable outlet for the male need for human physical contact other than sex, spouse abuse, or rape.  

 5/10/16

Heinlein's Women and Their Pricks.

If the universe has any purpose more important than topping the woman you love and making a baby with her hearty help, I’ve never heard of it. - Lazarus Long - Time Enough For Love, Robert A. Heinlein 1973.

Lazarus Long was a prick.  A prick with an uncommon respect for and admiration of competent women for his time, but as Galahad noted "...he has remained canalized by the primitive culture he was brought up in." Not surprising as Heinlein was canalized by the same primitive culture.  Woodie Smith 1912, Heinlein 7/7/7 (1907.)  In Christian America where men were men and women were baby breeders. Feminism was on the not to distant horizon, with some closet feminists trying to break the Kinder, Küche, Kirche track for women.  But until the mid-20th century and reliable contraception a working mother was of necessity rather than choice and "proper" mothers were expected to stay at home until the youngest child was in Kindergarten which effectively eliminated a career in a well paid profession. The options were volunteer work, teaching and service occupations.  

The early feminists tacitly accepted this culture, and advocated non-breeding for professional women.  At worst, a long delayed first and generally only child long after becoming established in a career.  Women who chose to breed in their 20s and still fight the misogyny of most professions were viewed by feminists as outlyers and not "real feminists."  The men who supported their choice of career and parent, were occasionally labled "enablers" of a dysfunctional choice for their wives.  Never mind that they too payed the price of parenting in their careers, less than women due to privilege but nevertheless choices had to be made that limited career opportunities.  But this mind set still lingers in the feminists who despise Heinlein for writing about women who intend to be mothers among other things.  



The problem feminists have with Heinlein women seems to be that all those intelligent, competent women were interested in propagating  their genotype and realized that an intelligent, competent man was a necessary adjunct in that endeavor.  Since Heinlein men are basically pricks one must appeal to the prick to get the genes. 

Make no mistake.  According to the prevailing misogynic social ethos of Heinlein's formative years, especially the military ethos, all his male characters are pricks.  See The Number of Beast where the pricks are going to go gallivanting around the multiverse while the ladies stay in Safe Harbor to have babies. Even late in his career his basic canalization was that men were gallant protectors of their women, but in general he was able to overcome this and substitute support and partnership for gallantry and most of the families had at least equally competent and frequently more competent women at the head.  
 
Heinlein was raised and socialized in a society where sex meant having babies.  (Disclaimer: I was raised in the same social ethos by feminists whose mantra was make damn sure you have sex only with a carefully chosen women who will be a partner in a good family. Recreational sex was not an option.) The difference in his later books was that recreational sex was an option, and the women knew they could manipulate pricks by effective use of recreational sex.  But in accord with Heinlein's early socialization he created few male characters that were immune to such manipulation.  I can only think of one male protagonist that was comfortable with non-manipulative recreational sex as the line marriage structure depended on it.

 https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2017/07/31/robert-a-heinlein-the-man-who-loved-women/