Archive | Princess Cupcake Narrative RSS feed for this section

Like poetry? Tired of white knight bullshit? Try this on for size

29 Dec

rok

 

Blair Naso, who writes at Return of Kings, has some pretty definite ideas about the state of gender relations in society, and he is unabashed at holding men just as responsible as women for the mess we are currently witnessing. There are a few people in the Manosphere who are convinced that I am an evil traditionalist woman raping my husband of resources and giving him nothing in return (except for the 3 well-mannered, loving biological children, a comfortable, welcoming home that is appreciating in value because I take care of it, healthy, nutritious, delicious food three times a day, clean clothes and frequent sex, but who cares about that stuff, amirite?), and I tend to just avoid the debate for the most part.

 

 

I have had my say on whether I am a traditionalist, and I will engage in the debate no further, because it really isn’t a debate, as far as I am concerned.

 

There are a lot of things that Blair says that I heartily disagree with, and many more things that I do agree with, but ultimately we are unified in our thinking that something has gone very, very wrong with modern relationships between men and women. Blair not only lays the smackdown over at Return of Kings, but he writes creative works of prose and poetry as well.

 

I can’t tell you how often I browse bookshops, picking up titles that have all kinds of awards and praise plastered all over them, only to read a blurb that says something like “after divorcing her husband of 20 years, Susie takes her children…. blah blah blah” and my response is always ugh no thanks with this single mother destroying her children bullshit. I don’t want to read crap like Eat, Love, Pray. It disgusts me. It’s not empowering or enchanting or even interesting. It’s sickening.

 

book

 

So for all those men who have chosen MGTOW as a philosophy, or even just men who are interested in poetry and prose, but who do not want to read gynocentric Princess drivel, I present to you The Death of Ideology by Blair Naso.  This book is an eclectic collection of poems, lyrics, parables, fables, short stories and even an email that discusses love, relationships, sex, gender and life from the perspective of the Manosphere. It doesn’t hold back on the satire, irony or sarcasm, and Blair pulls no punches when it comes to treating women like delicate flowers in need of protection. His words can be sharp and his portrayals of both men and women rather cutting, but underlying it all is a longing for a world in which men and women can love and respect one another beyond ideologies about how men and women should be. Blair is not interested in how men and women should be.

He is interested in how they are.

Here are three short pieces from The Death of Ideology, reprinted with permission.

walking_away_9-1

 

The Physics Of Relationships or Chemistry Is Not A Science

To every sin there is

An equal and opposite reaction,

So was mine the one you expected?

Were you expecting smiles and puppies

In exchange for deceit?

It’d be nice to say that

I’m glad your friends approve of you,

But the reality is that

You’ve turned them all into enemies.

 

duel

 

A Story For The Tavern

Once there was a merchant who was of a certain age when men begin to look to marry. There were two women to whom he was prospecting. One was very beautiful, but very evil. The other, her sister, was very ugly, but very compassionate, and both very much loved him. The man could not choose to whom he should marry, so he decided that they would draw straws. The lot fell on the ugly sister, and so the wedding arrangements were made.

The beautiful sister could not stand this, and so she went to see the Fool, who lay drunk in prison. He was not really a court jester, but he had always been thought of as out of his sanity, and everyone enjoyed making jokes at him, so gradually he became known thus. He was rarely sober, but since he had inherited a coal mine to the west, he had no need to work. The Fool had always loved the Beauty, as did everyone, but she could not feel the same about such an unstable man. Nevertheless, being very evil, she did have some purposes for him every now and then. Today she asked, “If you love me, then kill my ugly sister.” “Iʼll do anything for your pleasure, my lovest.” “Uh, sure…just make sure no one knows I told you to do it.” And then she quickly left, seeking to be as distanced from him as possible.

So after he was sober and freed, the Fool went into the marketplace to find the Ugly. And when he did, he shot her in the back with his revolver. Everyone was shocked at this random shooting. Women fainted and an infant began to cry. The Ugly did not even see him, and the Fool had said nothing. The Beauty saw everything, and only smiled approvingly. “Someone arrest that man!” cried a townsperson. The constable seized the Fool and took him back to jail.

The Groom, of course, was obligated to avenge the Uglyʼs death. And so he called the Fool to a duel, as was the usual custom in those parts. This greatly worried the Beauty, so she went again into prison to see the Fool. “If you love me, then empty your gun and fire blanks so that my Groom will not die.” “Iʼll do anything for your pleasure, my dovliest.” “Right…just remember your promise.”

Meanwhile, the Groom was having second thoughts. Who was he to take a life? Was that not the responsibility of the government? He was just a civilian. No, it would not be right for him to kill the Fool. But he could not back out from the fight, for, if he was to abstain from the fight and marry the Beauty, he through his great-grandchildren would be shamed throughout the whole country. No, he would not fill his gun and instead take a hit, and thus people would cry instead of laugh at his funeral.

The next day, the two men lined up to duel. The whole town came to the village square to watch. A street vendor was selling turkey legs, and another had wooden toys to be bought by children. Suddenly, the Fool realized that he forgot his revolver at his house. “Wait!” he cried. “I will send my boy to fetch it.” So his slave ran off to get him his gun. But when the boy found it, he realized that there were no bullets inside. ‘Silly masterʼ, he thought. ʻHe forgot to load his gun. I will do it for him.ʼ

The gun having been brought back, they lined up again with their backs to each other. They took ten steps as a snare drum rolled, and then they turned around to fire. The Groom fell dead, and the Beauty ran to him, tears down her face. “My love!” she cried. “For whom now shall I hope? My future is my past!” And she took his switch-knife and cut longways her wrist. The brass band continued to play, and the crowd took no notice. A journalist went around asking important people questions, and the mayor said something about the impact this will make on something else.

The Fool saw this and began to twitch neurotically. His purpose lay dead by his own doing. He checked his gun; it was fully loaded. ʻHow!?ʼ he thought. ʻDid I forget to unload it? Surely I havenʼt made such a grave mistake!ʼ With nothing left for which to live, he put another bullet into his head, and he, too, fell dead.

And so the moral is this:

Donʼt waste your short life,

Already full of strife,

On a vain woman,

An emotional omen,

For emotionʼs a blooded knife.

 

 drunk

 

Daddy’s Little Girl

Daddy’s little girl is gonna be a slut tonight.

She’ll put on the drag for the big game.

There’ll be a dance afterward,

And then she and Hot Johnny Rocket will run.

Here is the park where she used to play

As the sweetest little girl in the first grade.

There is the Baptist church where Mama

Played the pipes and daddy smelled

Like mint and oak. She’d be dressed

Up in bows and beauty like a Southern queen.

 

Hot Rocket’s burning, and he lays her down

On the picnic table at the park.

Across the street, the church looks dead.

Groaning, the wood is uncomfortable.

She can’t stretch her back right,

But Johnny has to have his prom.

Mama gave it to Rick before she married Craig.

Daddy took it from Sarah in a tent,

Like the cherry on the top of a perfect rush.

Burning faster, Hot Rocket finishes and laughs

With a tint of embarrassment.

“Wasn’t that fun?” he pretends. And it was.

The Sunday School flower girl fell in love tonight.

Hot Rocket knows how to spread his fire.

 

She’ll graduate and marry Bill,

Then shit out three kids and be the greatest

Youth football mom ever. Her sons

Will grow up to rape cheerleaders

And her daughters will let themselves be raped.

The Baptist church won’t even notice.

 

Want more? Feel free to buy the book, and indulge in some wicked and often wickedly amusing writing, brought to you by Blair Naso.

 

Enjoy!

 

Lots of love,

 

JB

Why men should NEVER pay for the first date

2 Dec

front page

 

This article appeared in Metro and you would think by now my anger towards feminist hypocrisy would have abated, given the sheer volume of it, but alas, it has not. This article really pisses me off, because it paints women as such pathetic, rapacious, grasping whores and if anyone wants to know why some men have such a low opinion of women, you need look no further than Yvette Caster. Let’s look at this nasty little piece of work in detail. Yvette in italics.

 

I have something to admit.

 

Bitch please. Get ready for some butthurt.

 

Despite being a feminist and despite being more than capable of affording my own dinner, I still want a man to pay for me on dates.

 

Isn’t that nice. It’s good to want things. Let’s see if you’re worth it.

 

The first time I realised this was during a date in Islington.

 

Oh Islington. Posh bitch, are you? How shocking!

 

We’d been chatting on Match.com when he asked me out to lunch.

He asked you out to lunch or he asked you to meet for coffee? Your story is falling apart already luv.

 

At first it seemed perfect – there he was, waiting for me at the Tube turnstiles, chatting as if we were old friends then leading me to a lovely book shop/café.

He was waiting and he led you to a café? I’ll bet you thought that was perfect. Why, it’s almost like you’re a Princess or something!

 

The barista asked us both what we wanted.

She didn’t assume he would order for you? How sexist of her to treat you as equals!

 

He replied quickly ‘coffee’ and paid for his. I had to buy my own chamomile tea.

The bastard! You had to pay for your own tea? Why didn’t you pay for his coffee? Just curious.

 

No, I did not reply to his subsequent emails.

 

cunt

 

Look. I can afford my own tea. But, as one male friend later put it ‘if he can’t be bothered to do that he can’t be that bothered about you.’

And if you can’t be bothered to pay for your own tea, that’s a pretty good indication you can’t be bothered about him, either, unless it involves cash flowing in your direction. Very noble *cough* whore *cough*.

 

Paying for a women on a date has nothing to do with feminism.

Of course not. Paying your own way would indicate you are a mature, independent, self-sufficient adult capable of taking care of yourself and that has nothing to with feminism which is about women being mature, independent, self-sufficient adults capable of taking care of themselves.

 

logic

 

To me, it’s a way for a man to show, very clearly, that he likes you. Enough to try to impress you. Enough to make some effort.

Well I hope you plan on blowing him afterwards or at least giving him a handjob because if you have the right to demand money from a man as his way of “impressing you” or showing that he “likes you”, surely he has the right to demand sex from you for the exact same reasons? It’s the age old transaction, right? You take his cash, he takes your body. Very, very progressive of you. But wait, let me guess – that’s not the deal you want is it? You want to take his money and give nothing in return. How gracious. Who could refuse?

 

On a bigger scale, it’s a way for a man to prove he will be a good boyfriend – thoughtful, kind, generous and supportive.

Yeah, and an impromptu blowie out in the back lane is a way for you to prove that you will be a good girlfriend – thoughtful, kind, generous and supportive. On your knees, toots! Turnabout is fair play, no?

 

Of course relationships are not one-way streets. Many women earn more than their partners and end up being the ones supporting their family financially in the long-run.

Can you say lip-service? You get his money, he gets jack-shit. That street? She’s one-way!

 

But that initial gesture of paying for a simple dinner, a lunch or a tea signals an intention to support you, as well as showing that they come from a good family that values manners.

Why the fuck should he support you? What entitles you to a man’s support from day fucking one? I’m not saying men and women supporting each other is bad, but it’s not something you are owed. It’s something you negotiate over a long relationship. You begin as equals which means pay for your own fucking tea and stop acting like such an entitled, whiny little bitch.

 

In short, it says ‘I like you and I’d like to look after you.’

Look after yourself. Prove you are an adult. Then maybe another adult might be interested in having a relationship with you and not your inner four year old sulky Princess.

 

princess

 

Relationships are about mutual support.

Indeed they are, and where exactly have you shown a single inclination to support him? You had a tantrum over buying your own tea!

 

Sometimes we are so proud of ourselves and our hard-won independence I think we forget that.

You certainly appear to have done so.

 

Only a total relationship novice would argue that people don’t need support from their partner sometimes – emotional, mental and, yes, sometimes financial. And, of course, they give it back in return.

It is 100% sexist bullshit feminist hypocrisy for you to demand the man show support first, and in the form of cold hard cash. Gee, I wonder why men think women are gold-digging whores with people like you around?

 

This emphasis on going Dutch from the start makes my heart sink.

Not mine. Going Dutch is just another word for a world in which men and women are equals and since I am not a feminist, I actually think that looks like a pretty wonderful world.  But leave it to a feminist to scream out the dictionary definition of feminism and then reject the actual practice of equality.

 

How exactly is a man supposed to sweep you off your feet if he can’t buy you dinner and roses any more?

Stand on your feet, woman, so a man can respect your strength, confidence, ability and resilience. Without those qualities, you are not an adult. You are a child.

 

Of course, if you’re simply looking for sex, not a partner, why are you bothering with dinner at all?

Of course, if you’re simply looking for cash, not a partner, why are bothering with dinner at all?

 

There are enough hook up websites around to make meeting up for drinks (who cares who pays?) then ‘fun’ absurdly easy.

Why not just give him your bank account, ask him to deposit the cost of dinner/tea/a movie and be on your merry little way?

 

One final note – to those men complaining about how much dating is costing them in London I say three things.

How about we give that advice to all the people dating in London? Remember the dictionary? That whole equality thing? Ring a bell at all in your vacuous, vacant little brain?

 

  1. It doesn’t take much research to find nice restaurants or coffee shops to suit your budget.

So find one you can afford and ask him out for a change. Pay for yourself. Pay for him, too.

 

  1. Be more discerning in the number of women you ask out. If you don’t like her enough to buy her dinner you don’t like her enough to be her boyfriend.

Be more discerning in the kinds of people you ask out. If they are only in it for the money, place the trash on the curb and walk away.

 

  1. If women, on our still unequal wages, can afford to buy nice outfits, make up, shoes, hair dos and the cost of prebooking a taxi in case you turn out to be a sex pest, then you can afford to buy us dinner.

If a woman can’t afford dinner but is still spending money on clothes, make up, shoes, hair and being chauffeured around, run the other direction because this woman is a moron who will ruin you financially, emotionally and physically. If a woman demands you pay for her in order to enjoy the great pleasures of her narcissism, petulance and immaturity, she will demand that forever.

 

These women do not grow up. They stay five years old forever. My advice to men is carry a sippy cup and a bag of Cheerios. If she demands you pay for her, hand her the juice and cereal and tell her to enjoy her childhood.

 

sippy

Then go find a real woman who knows what it means to be an adult and how to stand on her own because she understands that relationships really are mutual and sometimes you will need to lean on her. You can’t lean on someone who wants to be swept off her feet.

 

queen

 

You’ll both just end up broken on the ground.

 

Lots of love,

 

JB

 

 

Newlywed woman kills her husband after 8 days of marriage by shoving him off a cliff from behind, and still only gets a second degree murder charge. Because she totally didn’t mean to kill him, right? Lots of people survive being shoved off cliffs. :/

11 Sep

jordan

Jordan Graham, 22 years of age, had been married to Cody Johnson, 25, for just eight days when he “fell” to his death off a cliff located in Glacier Park, Montana.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/10/us-usa-crime-montana-idUSBRE98904Y20130910

Jordan initially spun a web of pure and utter bullshit, and then eventually admitted that oh, oops, she pushed Cody off the cliff. Because they had been arguing and he beat her mercilessly grabbed her arm. To the surprise of no one, including Cody’s family, Jordan is up on murder charges.

glacier-national-park-montana-350x262

Because the crime happened in a federal park, she is not being charged under Montana statutes, but under federal ones, which distinguish between different types of murder.

First degree murder is when a killing is planned and carried out.

Second degree murder is when someone is killed, but it wasn’t planned.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111

Jordan lied about what happened, pushed Cody FROM BEHIND and most importantly, she left him there to die. And prosecutors don’t think they can make a first degree charge stick?

occam

Occam’s Razor:  the simplest explanation is likely correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam’s_razor

Jordan wooed Cody to the edge of the cliff and when his back was turned, she shoved him over.  She planned it.  Picked a good spot and got him to turn his back.

And then he fell for her all over again.

The way we treat people in the criminal justice system is ground zero in the definition of human rights. Justice is blind.  Any time justice sees skin color or class or ability or gender and applies a harsher penalty to some humans on the basis of one of those factors, that human’s basic rights have been violated.

A conviction for first degree murder in the United States carries the possibility of the death penalty.  I don’t agree with the death penalty precisely because it is not applied to ALL humans fairly and equally.

The people most likely to receive the death penalty?

Black men who kill non-blacks.

chart

And that is bullshit.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-black-and-white-who-lives-who-dies-who-decides

Who is least likely to receive the death penalty?

woman

Women.

One percent of men convicted of murder are sentenced to death, while only one tenth of one percent of women convicted of murder are sentenced to death.

http://stratification.wikispaces.com/Group+4-+Gender+Differences+Within+The+Death+Penalty

In general, both the death sentencing rate and the death row population remain very small for women in comparison to that for men. Actual execution of female offenders is quite rare, with only 571 documented instances as of 12/31/2012, beginning with the first in 1632. These executions constitute about 2.9% of the total of confirmed executions in the United States since 1608.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/women-and-death-penalty

Curious silence from the feminist brigade when it comes to making sure men and women are treated equally before the law, no?  In fact, it’s quite the opposite.  Feminists argue that women should not be in jail, period. In the UK, the Women’s Justice Taskforce is making headway in eliminating women’s prisons altogether.

Roma Hooper, director of Make Justice Work, which campaigns to reform short-term prison sentences, said: “The increasing incarceration of women is a disgraceful situation which must be challenged.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13666066

Well, that’s one way to eliminate gender disparity in sentencing.  Just make sure women don’t get sentenced at all.

Lest anyone think that such a blatantly discriminatory and sexist policy is beyond the tolerance of the government and the British public, it should be noted that it was only last year that British judges were recommended to issue lighter sentences to women offenders, regardless of their offense. That recommendation was issued by the Equal Treatment Bench Book, published by the Judicial Studies Board (JSB).

Yes, that is correct, the Equal Treatment Bench Book recommended that half the population, based solely on sex, should get lighter sentences for the same crimes than the other half.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/chivalry/it-is-now-suggested-that-womens-prisons-close/

Gee, what can go wrong with that?  Women will really be able to “Lean In” to their criminal careers in the UK, won’t they?  Those two guys who slaughtered Pt. Rigby in broad daylight only need to get their girlfriends to wield the machetes next time.

lee

http://gawker.com/terror-in-london-soldier-hacked-apart-by-machete-wield-509321352

Oh, but wait, women never commit those kinds of atrocities, right?

lady terror

http://www.smashinglists.com/notorious-female-terrorists-aka-girls-with-guns/

Sweet little ole grannies would never hack an intruder to death with an axe, right?  Maybe granny was well justified, but the idea that women don’t engage in brutal bloodshed when provoked is a joke.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2013/07/14/75-year-old-eastern-cape-woman-hacks-intruder-to-death

The question is “what provoked her”?

Mens rea.  It means “guilty mind”.  Criminal intent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

And that really should be the only thing that factors into deciding if Jordan is guilty of first degree murder.  But it’s not.

Jordan is a woman, and therefore she gets a pass.  It begins with not even facing the harshest penalty.  2nd degree murder?  And it will continue right up to conviction and sentencing.

Male violent offenders receive, on average, an additional 4.49 years on their sentences compared to women, while gender differences for property and drug crime (3.14 and 2.35 years, respectively) are considerably lower.

http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=gang_lee (p. 335)

Why is this? Why do women get the pussy pass?  What is the rationale behind lenient sentencing for women, even when they commit the exact same crime as men?

The Chivalry Thesis posits that women are seen as less morally culpable than men, and are therefore treated delicately and absolved of responsibility.

knight

The Chivalry Thesis posits that gendered stereotypes about both women and men influence sentencing outcomes according to the sex of offenders. Sometimes called paternalism, chivalry asserts that women are stereotyped as fickle and childlike, and therefore not fully responsible for their criminal behavior. Women therefore need to be protected by males who, with all due gallantry, are portrayed as wanting to minimize any pain or suffering women might experience.

http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=gang_lee (p.320)

The Chivalry Thesis predicts that women will receive more lenient sentencing for stereotypically female crimes, like shoplifting. The more “feminine” the crime, the more men will feel the need to protect the poor darling, and make sure her sentence doesn’t cause her any suffering. When women commit manly crimes like murder, the Chivalry Thesis predicts that women will be treated harshly because they are violating gender norms as well as the law.

But that doesn’t seem to be the case.  Women get even more lenient sentencing when their crimes are strongly associated with men and masculinity.

So what is going on?  Why do we, as a culture, sentence women more lightly, assuming we can even be bothered to charge and convict them?

Females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html

It’s tempting to jump on the “women are helpless and never responsible for anything they do” meme because it is so strongly related to feminist thought.  #rapeculture

But disparity in sentencing has been going on for a very, very long time.

Here’s my theory:  it’s a key part of the Myth of Male Dominance aka “patriarchy”.  A word on “patriarchy”, if I may.  At no point in our collective North American history has it ever been acceptable to kill a woman for no reason OTHER than the fact that she’s a woman with two notable exceptions, one of which is not an exception at all, and one of which is a “right” fiercely protected by feminists.

1.  During slavery, it was acceptable to kill a woman if she happened to be black.  In other words, it was acceptable to kill SLAVES.  Men and women alike.

2. It is acceptable, and remains acceptable to this day, to kill women who are not yet born.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/09/08/a-fetus-isnt-a-person-unless-its-a-female-how-to-have-your-cake-eat-it-too-and-blame-the-whole-mess-on-men/

You have to go all the way back to the Salem Witch Trials to find the wholesale slaughter of women, and even then, a sham trial was enacted.  The principle of justice may have been adulterated beyond recognition, but it still held enough sway to convince adjudicators that a “trial” was required.

salem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

Oh, and a shitload of men were killed in Salem, too.

salem men

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_of_the_Salem_witch_trials

I’ve written about this research before, but it’s such a hidden gem of ignored scholarship that I think it’s worth quoting at length again.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/04/14/there-never-was-a-patriarchy-and-there-isnt-one-now-in-related-news-mr-jb-cant-do-shit-without-running-it-by-me-first/

…although peasant males monopolize positions of authority and are shown public deference by women, thus superficially appearing to be dominant, they wield relatively little real power. Theirs is a largely powerless authority, often accompanied by a felt sense of powerlessness, both in the face of the world at large and of the peasant community itself.

…a non-hierarchical power relationship between the categories “male” and “female” is maintained in peasant society by the acting out of a “myth” of male dominance.

The perpetuation of this “myth” is in the interests of both peasant women and men, because it gives the latter the appearance of power and control over all sectors of village life, while at the same time giving to the former actual power over those sectors of life in the community which may be controlled by villagers. The two sex groups, in effect, operate within partially divergent systems of perceived advantages, values, and prestige, so that the members of each group see themselves as the “winners” in respect to the other.

Neither men nor women believe that the “myth” is an accurate reflection of the actual situation. However, each sex group believes (or appears to believe, so avoiding confrontation) that the opposite sex perceives the myth as reality, with the result that each is actively engaged in maintaining the illusion that males are, in fact, dominant.

Now, the reality is that men still overwhelmingly control the justice system in the United States.

Most police officers are men.

police

In 2007, about 1 in 8 local police officers were women, compared to 1 in 13 in 1987.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=71

Most judges are men.

judges

State Final Appellate Jurisdiction Courts: 116 women / 361 total (32%)

State Intermediate Appellate Jurisdiction Courts: 316 women / 977 total (32%)

State General Jurisdiction Courts: 2,768 women / 11,049 total (25%)

State Limited and Special Jurisdiction Courts: 1,596 women / 5,072 total (31%)

State Court Judges in the US: 4,711 women / 17,489 total (27%)

http://www.nawj.org/us_state_court_statistics_2012.asp

Most criminal defense lawyers are men.

lawyer

Today women make up 31 percent of practicing lawyers in the United States and just over 20 percent of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) members.

http://www.nacdl.org/Champion.aspx?id=28960&terms=women

Men are very firmly in control of the judiciary, which is an institution of formalized power.  It’s an area where the myth of male dominance plays out – a trade we all make to disguise the fact that women continue to wield a disproportionate amount of the real power.

Feminism is interested in hanging on to all the traditional, informal power of women, and indeed tries hard to formalize that power into laws where women and men’s power intersect:  child custody, divorce and alimony being prime examples, while attempting to wrest formal power from men.

family court

Feminists want both powers:  formal and informal.

Two problems with that little project:

Where does that leave men?

What do you think the world will look like if feminists succeed in making men socially powerless and then humiliating them to boot? Feminists are nowhere near that goal when it comes to the men who command the formal institutions of power, but they have certainly created a world in which men who don’t have access to those formal institutions – meaning MOST men – have indeed been rendered powerless.

The G8 leaders pose for a group photograph at Lough Erne, Northern Ireland

Second problem?  Feminists have not considered what they will be giving up when the “myth” is shattered.

To put it bluntly, they will be giving up the privileges that have always accompanied women, including the right to lenient treatment when sisters go off the fucking rails and shove their husbands off cliffs.

The reason the judiciary is still enmeshed in treating women more leniently is precisely BECAUSE the judiciary is still in the control of men, with the exception of family courts.

The myth of patriarchy ultimately protects women, even the ones who are very, very unworthy of protection.

But it requires a trade.

Given the fact that peasant women actually wield considerable amounts of power, several anomalies remain: both men and women behave publicly as if males were dominant, while at the same time male peasants seem to be characterized by a felt lack of power. I suggested a model to explain these apparent contradictions, in which male dominance is seen to operate as a myth, while a balance is actually maintained between the informal power of women and the overt power wielded by men. Furthermore, the power of both depends on the persistence of the myth, which itself is maintained by a degree of ignorance on the part of both groups as to how the system actually operates.

Ultimately, it comes down to understanding, and respecting one another.  And understanding that when humans fail, men or women, we embrace the myths of our society so we can all keep functioning.

The most important point to be made is that it is only when we stop looking at male roles and forms of power as the norm and begin to look at female arrangements as equally valid and significant, though perhaps different in form, that we can see how male and female roles are intertwined and so begin to understand how human societies operate.

In the case of lenient sentencing for women who are monsters, powerful men send a message to all the other women that they will not be held accountable for the actions of monstrous sisters.  All of which depends on women being, by and large, not terribly monstrous.

Men sentence other men more harshly because they hold them to a higher standard when it comes to respecting formal power, because formal power IS male power.

Modern, liberal feminism has shattered the myth.  Feminists rage and scream and cry at the power men wield in the formal institutions that govern our world, but refuse to relinquish one iota of their traditional informal power.

protest

Of course there is a price to pay for surrendering formal power in favor of informal power.  It means that our sons, our brothers, our fathers, our nephews, our cousins, our friends can be shoved off a cliff and the murderess will face little to no consequence for that.

In return for that sacrifice, we get the protection of men.

Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.

Warren Buffett

It’s really what it comes down to.  Do you value men or do you not?

It’s seems almost obscene to say that valuing men means you are willing to sacrifice a few to murderous women, but in truth, the only obscene thing is that women are prepared to sacrifice those men without giving up any of their own privileges.

protects

Pick one.  Men protect us.  Or they sentence us.

In equal measure.

death penalty

We cannot have both.

Lots of love,

JB

%d bloggers like this: