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/

Reparations and Politics

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/bernie-sanders-reparations/424602/   In which At-Nehisi Coates takes Bernie Sanders to task for not feeling guilty enough about white supremecy to insist on reparations.

You can't unscramble an omelet. Reparations like affirmative action polarize society and are therefore political suicide. I notice that Coates has no suggestions on how to make reparations work. Just that they are his wet dream of something or another. And where do you begin with the reparations? Native Americans? Black men? Black women? White women? American Veterans? There have been enough atrocities in the USofA let alone the rest of the planet, that choosing one group for reparations would merely turn all of the equally deserving victims into enemies of both the recipient and the granter of the reparations.  Add to that the white supremacists who think they earned their supremacy and are entitled to the spoils.  Any attempt to redistribute those spoils is politically impossible, particularly if any single group is singled out as more deserving than the rest.  What is Coates' plan to attack white supremacy?

At least Bernie Sanders has a plan to redistribute wealth that has a chance of helping all disadvantaged citizens. 

• Single payer medicine treats all the same, the rich and the poor have equal rights to sleep under the hospital roof and receive the same care. While the comfortable may choose to pay a premium to heal in first class, they get to the same result at the same time.  
• Higher education for all at any college one can be accepted into at no cost is at least theoretically egalitarian.  Different preparation and support from parents and mentors will tip the playing field so that those with less preparation will be at a disadvantage, but so will the  lazy and stupid denizens of the privileged.  
• Rebuilding the infrastructure using local labor is ideally egalitarian although political reality is less so.  The best one can do politically is focusing your infrastructure on the disadvantaged areas and hire locally.
• Breaking up banks and making the local subsidiaries responsible for fraudulent activities by making restitution to those damaged paid for by punitive fines to the National banksters would help all equally but since the disadvantaged were the primary victims they would be primary beneficiaries.  As an example if Banks were required to return fraudulent foreclosed homes to the original mortgagee repaired to code compliance where known or to homeless families where the original mortgagee is unavailable homelessness would be a minor problem.   There are more foreclosed homes unoccupied today than there are homeless.  
• A living minimum wage is known to raise living standards for all as minimum wage earners spend essentially all of their earnings.  A living wage is a foundation that supports all wages as employers who require more than minimum skills will be forced to raise wages to attract the skills they need.  A living wage is also "fuck you" money against an exploitive employer as the employee is not a paycheck away from destitution.    
  

     Have you read "A Case for Reparations?" -  Coates

OK. I read it. I see a lot evidence that black people (Coates usage) have been treated badly and therefore deserve special consideration but I see no case for reparations as the only or even a desirable solution. In particular I see no case at all that reparations should be considered by Sanders or would be a better solution than Sanders' announced policies to mitigate the problems of all the disadvantaged. As black people are heavily over represented in the disadvantaged population, why commit political suicide by advocating reparations. Simply giving foreclosed housing back to the former owners and forcing the bank to pay for code compliance would overwhelmingly benefit the black population as Coates notes in the article.

I agree that the case for reparations for all I mentioned in my post is unassailable. So is the case for justice for unarmed blacks killed by police. And a thousand similar cases of injustice. But aside from "Look at what a good slactivist I am." what do the arguments accomplish.

     That's part of why affirmative action is still so essential.

Please compare for me affirmative action and "a truly blind admissions" policy on graduate success if the university is paid the same for all admissions. There will still be structural differences, but the stupid white guys wouldn't even get in the door. 

Pass

Most of the top tier private universities are "need blind" in admissions, but preferences are given to athletes, legacies, and rich kids. I suspect they consider ethnic balance and gender issues as well.  I know of one top University that first sorts applications on academic excellence, that is, those below these standards are not suitable for admission under any subcategory.  Once that threshold is passed department heads, coaches and development people are permitted to assign preferences: Superstar, preference, and desirable.  Once those preference tiers are considered, the admissions department applies demographic and gender preferences to the mix and admissions are issued. 

Many elite High Schools today have to discriminate against North and South Asian women to get a balanced student body. That is, give the white boys a chance.  Both Lowell and Lincoln HS are magnet schools in SF with a high Asian demographic. IIRC both tried to restrict Asian admissions by applying a higher academic standard for Asians. At least Lowell has resolved the issue by restricting academic admissions to 70% of the admissions.  The other 30% come from middle school recommendations based partly on academic excellence but considering other criteria including special preference for schools underrepresented in last year's admissions.   

Affirmative action like reparations in the absence of other indications of merit are simply causes for failure and resentment.  Lotteries are a good indication of rewards based on nothing but chance.  Most winners end up worse off eventually than they were before winning, victims of "advisors" and other scam artists that help them get rid of their windfall.  Perhaps I am simply lacking in imagination, but I can think of no way to administer reparations that would not cause resentment among those in the reparation class that missed out which inevitably would be a large majority if reparations are significant for any recipient.  

I assume this is why Coates refuses to spell out how reparations would work for black people.  Just that reparations are like motherhood and apple pie. They are all great concepts until somebody has to decide who gets the child subsidy or the apple pie. 

Sexist Dogs and Culture Change

It is a well known fact among dogs that men are generally abusers or at best working partners. Women are emotional partners (as are children) that dogs easily bond with and will fiercely defend against any intruder, especially a strange man or a dangerous man (which dogs can instinctively sense.)  According to Jon Franklin in A Wolf in the Parlor it was ice age women that domesticated follower wolves as baby sitters and care givers in the home which are both natural behaviors of pack wolves in the wild. The first dogs used by men were shepherds, which were encouraged to be aggressive to any intruders including the human shepherds who were tolerated as partners and food providers but not particularly liked.  One can assume that Cesar Millan's training methods were standard. 

For thousands of years men have taught dogs to fear them, and cooperate to avoid inflicted pain.  Even "Doggy" men properly do not give or expect trust from a dog. If a man knows dogs he can gain the trust of the most aggressive dogs, but it takes lots of patience. My dog of 7 years will snap at me rather than let me inspect an injury that the female vet can even treat without issue. Dogs are sexist and it is probably too late for men to change their image although it is possible even for men to gain trust and even love from a dog by patient training.

Maybe there is a lesson here about the rape culture as well. In cultures dominated by the Abrahamic religions, women are regarded a chattel, valuable chattel that needs to be protected from strangers to protect her function as the producer of male children as heirs, clergy, and cannon fodder.  The female children are eventual trading assets and useful to the women as assistant house slaves. They learn only women skills and are discouraged from reading or independent thinking.  

In a culture where women are encouraged early to learn to read and think independently, it should be recognized by all that men are not about to drop the privilege of chattel owners willingly or easily even if they intellectually agree that all humans are equal.  Culture change is a labor of love on both sides of the change.  Abusive methods must be recognized as perhaps getting tolerance and cooperation, but respect and love must be gained by other means. 

A major problem on both sides, feminism and the MRM, is that both consider the other side as an enemy trying to coerce changes in behavior often using abusive methods to achieve a desired change. Abusive methods may get behavioral change but the attitude change associated with the behavioral change is resentment rather than ownership and even pride in the change.  If the other is seen as another human with different values and needs, as well as a different body type, it is possible to use reward training to achieve not only behavioral change, but attitude change as well.  

Consider a typical scenario in a bar.  Both the players are presumably interested in a hook-up.  The man leers at the cleavage, it is there for a purpose, and instead of the usual fuck off glare of the feminist, the leer is acknowledged by a body movement, but she becomes intent on the game on the TV. Now the reward hook is set, and a human approach is suggested. If the man is at least aware and empathetic he will notice what she likes about the game and will comment on that.  If he is right a human conversation is started and a human relationship is being built. The reward for both is the desired hook-up, and respect is part of the deal. 

Or: a female career oriented college or grad student that nevertheless has not suppressed her maternal drive. Disclaimer: I married one. Forget the bar as a pickup it will be done at a library, a student bull session for a conference of mutual interest.  The effective pickup line will something on the order of what are your career goals in (your specialty.  You have figured that out already, haven't you stud?) The response soon will be what do you think of working mothers?  The proper response is what do you think of working dads?  Any man who hasn't done household chores, baby sat, changed a diaper and done his own wash, won't even be a player.  Trying to change one who hasn't is Sisyphean. This mating dance eliminates a whole lot of chaff on both sides, and a rare relationship of mutual respect has begun.  No harm done the chaff has all of the social opportunities at any level they wish to play at.  

Or: a single professional woman in business dress on Wall Street or equivalent that is interested in expanding her network of male professional friends.  The construction worker on the scaffold catcalls.  Instead of taking offense and frigidly stalking down the street she rewards the catcall with an attractive wiggle simultaneously mocking the catcaller and attracting the attention of the successful single men she is interested in finding.  The "Hi Babe, how about lunch" common with or without the wiggle is easily countered as is the equally common space invasion.  But a respectful approach will lead to friend based networking.  Everybody in business needs as many friends as they can get.  Most of the bonding experiences among men are not available safely to women but the male-female bond with or without benefits is much more powerful and useful in the business world. If she has put her bio clock on pause to get established the parenting mating dance above can be part of the game.  But in any event the place to meet successful men is in their natural habitat: on the street where they work.  

 

Are Dogs Sexist?

I suspect distrust of men is genetic. Men are abusive trainers generally, and are much more inclined to abuse animals in general. Dogs are useful for women, protecting and amusing children, and are naturally protective and nurturing of the infirm.  The nurturing behavior is apparently inherited from wolves.  Big game hunting commonly results in disabling injury to a pack member who is nurtured back to functionality by the rest of the pack.  Jon Franklin thinks that it was the babysitting and nurturing of the ill that got the more docile follower wolves into the parlor.  By the women naturally, the men were too busy beating them into guard dogs for the domestic animals.  The men didn't care that sheep dogs hated everything including the shepherd as long as they protected the sheep.  Herding and hunting dogs needed to work with their handlers, but didn't have to like them.  Guard dogs are unreliable even for their handlers.  I was told by a Doberman breeder how you can tell that somebody breeds Dobermans:  He pointed at the scars on his face and said look for these.

I suspect this trait is why working dogs are generally considered hard to train without abusive methods.  I watched a dog show the other day and noticed that the working group had at least choke collars and one was shown with a prong collar.  These were dogs that were bred for conformation and acceptable docility for shows. 

I trained a purebred German Shepherd using the immediate verbal reinforcement delayed reward method, to acceptable levels of control on and off leash, but he never learned to like men he did not have time to get acquainted with at his own speed.  I had to advise new male visitors how to avoid confrontation.  And I never even tried to introduce strange men "in the wild." Strict control, sit-stay at my side, and told the men to keep their distance.  It was generally not a problem. He was a 75 pound whole dog, and was not friendly looking even in a sit-stay.

Peter was apparently abused by men while he was a stray. We have taught him to tolerate men (even me) but he still trusts only women and children.  He bonded immediately with Sue at the Shelter, through the holding pen door in the not for adoption aisle.   "We will look at Peter."  Sean and I were considering more socialized dogs as a first pet.  It was only my long experience with training puppies and dogs that convinced the placement staff that we should be allowed to adopt the relatively fresh stray. 

It was not easy, even as the source of treats it took him years to trust me enough to proffer a sore paw that he couldn't shake the burr out of.  He still tries that first.  The first time I tried to help he snapped at me even though he couldn't put weight on the leg.  Nonetheless, no adversive training was used.  Always verbal reinforcement delayed treats.  I don't even carry treats on walks or training sessions.  The HSSV noted that hot dogs were a favorite treat, and I found that turkey dogs are the best of the best. Any real meat works, he spits out commercial treats.