Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: "progressives", feminism, game, sexual politics, television, the office, the simpsons
Been seeing a lot of chatter recently about the intersection of feminism, the sexual marketplace and progressivism. The basic pattern being observed is a cycle (whether virtuous or vicious depends on your POV) that resonates between female independence from men, female pursuit of alpha males, and female support for big government.
To describe the cycle (starting arbitrarily somewhere in the middle of it – it has no beginning or end):
The more women pursue and indulge alpha-male-exclusive fantasies, the less they have (stable, monogamous) relationships with men in their lives. The less monogamy and stability, the more big government women support. The more that government involves itself in and arrogates to itself the right to control, suckle, and nanny every aspect of human existence, the less pressure women will feel to have stable, monogamous relationships with men, and the more inclined they are to join alpha-male harems. The more they join alpha-male harems, the more they’ll need big government to be their husbands…
Compounding all this is a little-commented but not-unimportant side effect: as government gets bigger and power/money more concentrated, the few alpha males who come out on top of the game become that much more alpha. There’s far more ‘spoils’ accruing to a President, or Senator, or CEO of a firm tied to/dependent on government – which, increasingly, means virtually all firms – in a big-government world than in a small-government world; there’s far more in 2010 than there was in 1910. That makes those alphas that much more alpha, which makes alpha-pursuing women want them more, which only helps further the sort of society that creates these mega-alphas.
The end goal sought is, as stated brilliantly in the comment unearthed by Vox Day in the post linked above,
…a polyandryous society that still maintains a “Sex and the City” civilization. They somehow expect to limit sexual access to the five percent of men they find attractive while the rest toil away to make life easier and more comfortable for them.
It’s not clear how to halt or even slow down the progress of this development before it leads to real disaster.
So, as has happened before, the only thing I can really think of is ridicule. To that end, I need to observe that the key development enabling this cycle is that women, having been liberated and having (as they do) equal rights, now have jobs – in fact they seem to be doing better in the workforce than men. And don’t get me wrong; women being able to work, by itself, is obviously a good thing. But it is what allows women to be independent, and marry later, and date (or just sleep with) a lot of alpha guys with no real concern for eventual settling down. In other words their jobs are the fuel for the feminism/alpha-chasing/big-government cycle.
Here’s where the ridicule comes in: a disproportionate number of those ‘jobs’ (when compared with the jobs men do) wouldn’t exist without the government. Essentially, they are made-up, cushy, silly jobs that were basically invented, often by women, to give women something to do. Because otherwise, there’d be nothing for all these women, who want all these jobs for their independence, to actually do. Nobody would pay them to do (non-sexual) things, out of their own volition; they needed to harness the power of the government – men with guns – to take money away from others and create (directly or indirectly) ‘jobs’ for women to do. By definition, such ‘jobs’ aren’t – can’t be – contributing anything to society. They didn’t arise out of genuine need, they arose out of nagging and campaigning, or nannying and worrywartism, or something other than genuine economic need.
The ‘jobs’ held by Marge Simpson’s sisters on The Simpsons (chain-smoking unpleasant trolls of the DMV) are the canonical example. The reason The Simpsons has been so funny for so long is because much of its humor rings so true; it is closely-observed, and Marge’s sisters are no exception. I have seen, and you have too, real-live DMV employees exactly like that: Large, unpleasant, heavy-set middle-aged women grudgingly shuffling over to the copy machine at a snail’s pace to grab the printout of the form you had to stand in line for 75 minutes to pick up. The details vary but a lot of womens’ “jobs” are pretty much just like that. They work in an office somewhere. They work with a lot of paper. There are some government rules or regulations and they have to comply with them. They have to have, or set up, weekly meetings about this and that. They have to fill out forms about this and that. People are required to go see them, or make an appointment with them, or ask them to schedule an appointment with someone else, or call them, all of it because of some rule, or regulation, created by the government. They don’t produce or create or sell something. In one way or another they are basically glorified day-care workers tasked with keeping an eye on this or that aspect of society – this or that ‘classroom’ – so that real stuff can get done elsewhere.
I’m painting with a broad-brush here, obviously. I have to, for maximal ridicule. Obviously I’m not describing all jobs held by women, or even (necessarily) a majority of them. There are female scientists and saleswomen and engineers and writers and doctors (to name some non-made-up jobs that come to mind). Of course there are. And there are jobs held disproportionately by men (soldier, for example) that wouldn’t exist without the government.
But let me just try this:
(a) would the job Diversity Coordinator exist without the government?
(b) if I told you someone was a Diversity Coordinator, and you had to guess their sex, what would your guess be?
How about: the HR person who explains your health care plan to you when you start a new job, or an HR anything really. Same questions, (a) and (b). Or, someone works in compliance at a corporation. (a) and (b). Someone who works at a nonprofit that campaigns for government ‘clean-energy’ funds, or a nonprofit anything, really. (a) and (b).
Now, to sober up a bit here, I admit it’s not like there are no men in these sorts of jobs. There are. But what is true is that (a) these jobs wouldn’t really exist, or would exist in lesser numbers at least, without government priming or politicizing of one sort or another, and (b) they are disproportionately female (I think).
MIWBIIN*, why would that be? Why are made-up jobs disproportionately held by women? Why can’t oh-so-independent women cut it in the real world – make real economic contributions – without the embarrassing and belittling crutch of government either artificially spawning endlessly larger bureaucracies for them to run, or needlessly writing endlessly intrusive regulations for them to nanny?
Once I praised The Office as my favorite conservative show, particularly for its portrayal of salesmen. (Have you noticed how often I link to myself by the way? I have! That’s because my blog is so awesome that it has lots of good posts on everything.) More recently I pointed out that it’s gone downhill. One small but notable development I hadn’t mentioned was that Pam, who had long aspired to be an artist, and then more recently wanted to be in sales, has now become the ‘Office Manager’, which was a job she made-up. A non-job. A job that didn’t really exist, and which has no observable tangible duties that I can see. (In one episode she decided to make a ‘My New Year’s Resolutions’ bulletin board; okay so that’s 0.25 hours, what is she doing for the remaining 39.75 hours of the week? You got me.) Why, you might ask, do they even keep her on? Well basically (to combine the TV logic & the intrinsic logic on the show), because even though she wasn’t a good saleswoman and generates no revenue for the firm, she’s pretty, and people like her, and people would get mad if she weren’t on the show, and would feel sorry if she got laid off or fired or something. So, let’s give her something to do and keep giving her a paycheck. And then pat her on the back, because look, she’s ‘independent’!
This is what I’m talking about, in microcosm.
Let me try to end this post on a positive, optimistic note by stating my observations as a challenge: if women have equal rights (and, surely they do), and have equal potential (as I believe they do, if in different dimensions), there should be plenty of work for them to contribute to the private sector – without the direct or indirect prompting of government, nannyism, phoniness, style over substance, etc. So maybe that’s the key to ending or at least interrupting the feminism/big-government cycle: create real, genuine jobs for women to do, jobs that help to create actual profits, jobs that make actual positive economic contributions to society – instead of the jobs that so many of them, all too many, actually do have. And the great news is, feminists should be totally on my side here – because they, like me, believe women are equally capable of making economic contributions as men (right?) – thus they should be totally on board with what I’m saying.
So who’s with me – no more ‘nonprofit’ or bureaucratic paper-pushing work for women – so demeaning! They’re better than that! (Right?) I say, it’s time to put women to work in generating actual things, goods, and profits – just like men. There’s gotta be something meaningful and profitable they can do.
[*MIWBIIN=Maybe I'm wrong but if I'm not]
Neo makes the observation that women with high-status careers tend to have a harder time finding a mate. As he says, in part this is because men don’t care about a woman’s career. But that only really scratches the surface. Because, why don’t men care about a woman’s career?
Let me throw this out there as the main reason:
Because in any future relationship with such a woman, men instinctively know they would either (a) have to be the breadwinner anyway, regardless of how well she does in her career, or (b) not be the breadwinner, not make more money – and be thought of as an unmanly beta. The implicit choice – for a man considering whether to go long-term with a high-status career woman – is (a), or (b). And neither is appealing. Is it?
If with such a woman, a man could check out of his career and just go with (b). Or, he could stick with the high-status-career woman, but (a) still have to focus on his own career, and face the proposition of being a two-high-powered-career couple, with salaries to match but (more importantly – to the man), with the lack of focus on home life that results.
Which option is supposed to be appealing to a man?
This isn’t feminist, or enlightened of me, to put out there. But more importantly, I think it’s the truth: a woman’s high-status career is bringing nothing to the table that is of any use to a man. It’s not like he can think “well she’s making $X so I can slack off”. (Or, he can think that, but be beta.) So her career does not relieve him of any responsibilities. It doesn’t help him. All it does is take her attention and focus out of the home for extended periods of time. But his attention and focus has to be out of the home for extended periods of the time (because he’s a man – unless he wants to be thought of as not one).
In this way, a woman having a powered career is about as much use and appeal to a man as if she had a time-consuming hobby. For women, careers are options. For men, they are obligatory. If a woman with a JD or an M.D. had a family and decided to take time off for the career, absolutely no one would think twice about it. Good for her! But if a man were to do the equivalent – raised eyebrows. Oh, there might be a bunch of faux “I think that’s great!” comments from certain types, but they wouldn’t really mean it. Deep down.
The man can’t “check out” of his career, and still be a man, and still think of himself as doing his part for his family. The woman can. And everyone knows this deep down. This is why women with high-status careers have no appeal to the typical man. It is as if they are advertising that they have a distracting hobby that will take her away from him, not help him, and make his life more difficult. And then they wonder why they don’t have suitors, and blame it on men being “threatened” by their being “strong” women with vaunted careers. It’s closer to the truth to say that by focusing so much on their own careers, they are preparing for having lives without men. And so – often – that’s exactly what they get.
This is a Neanderthal, retrograde thing to say. And it is what I think.
UPDATE: This notion of men finding strong/career woman “threatening” is a bit fascinating to me. So many women go around saying this that I can only assume it’s what they actually believe. But if you think it through logically & take to heart what I’ve written above, saying “men don’t want career women cuz they find career women threatening” is almost like saying “men don’t want ugly women cuz they find ugly women threatening“. In a way I suppose it’s true (probably, men are ‘threatened’ by the prospect of being attached to an ugly woman for life!) but this sort of thing is a grand reach for some esoteric, psychological, phobia type explanation to explain what really has a far more obvious and straightforward explanation.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: 'liberals', barefoot, feminism, inversion, lefties, palin, politics, words
Apparently, “liberals” now believe the following, among other things:
- women with small children should stay out of politics and in the home. “Liberals” are very troubled by womens’ entry into the work force.
- when a teenager has sex, it’s the parents’ fault. A parent’s job is to prevent their teenager from having sex (e.g. chastity belt?). As we all know, “liberals” think teenagers should never have sex.
- out-of-wedlock sexual contact is inherently scandalous. The mere mention of it can, does and should destroy lives and careers.
- anyone whose daughter had out-of-wedlock sex is automatically unfit to hold the nothing office of Vice President. Sex-free daughters is one of the primary qualifications of being the VP. Need to set a good moral example for the country!, say “liberals”.
- if a Presidential candidate learns that a prospective running mate has a daughter who had sex, and still asks her to join the ticket, this means he “didn’t vet” her. “Vetting”, you see, means digging up dirt and applying moralistic rules such as the previous bullet-point.
- candidates are required to disprove prurient, intrusive rumors that frenzied lefty bloggers make up on the internet. If they don’t, it’s suspicious. What are they hiding??
- a candidate’s family is not off-limits. A candidates’ children are not off-limits. Private lives are not off-limits. It’s all fair game. We need to know what’s going on in these peoples’ bedrooms. According to “liberals”.
Thus completing the “liberal” evolution from…
1998: He only lied about sex; that’s between him and his wife!!! Let’s move onTM!
2008: When was the child conceived? Is this really her child? Who is the father really? Could there be incest involved? Eskimos? Why won’t they let us talk to the ob/gyn who delivered? What’s the timeline? Did you know that at least 80% of Down’s babys are born to women under 43? Why didn’t they use a condom or if they did why did it fail? How did he put it on exactly? Did he unroll it correctly? She doesn’t look pregnant in those photos! She does look pregnant in those photos! Let’s find more photos!! I wonder if she ever wore a bikini…?
Wow. “Liberalism” sure has come a long way. One might even say all the way. I mean, I’ve never seen a more illiberal group of people in my life.