Power, Sex, Suicide: Or why do genders exist in the first place?

Image Source

There has been a lot of crap happening the last few weeks, so I thought a not particularly political post might be a nice respite for some. Please bear with the large digressions in this post. It may not seem like it, but it is all related in a meandering sort of way. I promise. I will get to the point eventually and hopefully you will learn some interesting things along the way. Anyway, I wanted to expand on the evolutionary origins of two sexes (as opposed to none or more than 2). I did not cover it in Smart and Sexy because it wasn’t directly relevant enough to be included. The focus in the book was the intellectual differences between human genders, not why gender exists in the first place. It would have been too much of a digression to include that. I think it is an interesting question nonetheless and wanted to address it at some point. Especially since a growing group of lunatics keep wanting to expand the number of genders to the limit of infinity.

On to the first “non sequitur,” or so it deceptively seems. There was recently an askreddit thread which asked about atmospheric oxygen concentrations during the carboniferous period and reminded me of the topic of this post. Specifically, the oxygen concentration was an astounding 35% compared to today’s 21% and the person wanted to know why it was so high and why it dropped so much afterward. If we went back in time to that era, we would suffer from oxygen poisoning. I imagine that wildfires then must have been quite a hellish sight. Literally. This high oxygen concentration probably also explains why insects grew to be so large during this time, such as seagull sized dragon flies. Most insects depend upon passive diffusion to get oxygen to their cells and that is more effective at higher partial pressures of oxygen. Our lower concentration of oxygen today probably isn’t enough to enable such large insects, which is why they evolved to be smaller. Anyway, I had actually read some books which tried to answer this question and I relayed that info in the following comment:

Like most of the other ideas here this is a hypothesis. Life has made various evolutionary innovations over history and one idea is that woody bark/stems first evolved some time immediately proceeding the carboniferous. Woody stems are stronger and more resilient because there are protein cross links between cellulose strands. Cellulose being a long strand of linked sugars. Woody stems are very difficult to digest, which is why pretty much nothing eats it. When it first evolved, literally nothing ate it because it was so new and no organism had the tools to break it down. So, during the carboniferous trees and plants with woody stems proliferated because they had few or no natural predators, and probably also because they could grow taller than their competitors thanks to the strong stems and thus had better access to sunlight.  They did still die of old age however, and that woody material would just sit there without decaying. Eventually it would be buried and millions of years later we would dig it out of the ground as coal or oil. Most of the coal and oil deposits date from this period which is why it is called the carboniferous period.

Well, the process plants use to grow is that they take CO2 out of the atmosphere to build cellulose and other structural molecules and release oxygen. So what was happening in the carboniferous was that this was a very one way process. The carbon was being fixated and nothing was breaking down the large organic molecules to re-release it.

That all changed when fungi, think mushrooms and molds, eventually evolved the enzymatic equipment to break down woody stems. Some time at the end of the carboniferous presumably. With this second innovation, the woody part of plants didn’t just sit around waiting to be buried, it was broken down and the fixated CO2 was released back into the atmosphere. Obviously this added a new variable to the equation and the oxygen level in the atmosphere struck a new and lower balance.

I suggest “Oxygen: The molecule that made the world (Oxford Landmark Science)” and “Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life” by Nick Lane if you are really interested in this subject.

Some of the other comments did touch on this same idea but some people argued that the carbon dioxide concentration wasn’t high enough to account for all the oxygen. That honestly doesn’t make sense to me. The only process I know of which can oxygenate an atmosphere is photosynthesis, and photosynthesis absolutely requires carbon dioxide molecules to run to completion and release oxygen. One carbon atom is fixated for every one molecule of oxygen released (elemental oxygen is a diatomic molecule [except ozone which is triatomic oxygen but that doesn’t matter for this discussion]). Yes, CO2 was much lower in concentration than oxygen but that was because it was being used up. Venus and Mars both have much more carbon dioxide, for example, and presumably so would Earth if there were no photosynthesis.  Wildfires and volcanism were probably the main things getting CO2 back into the atmosphere which explains why it was never completely used up. In fact, carbon dioxide concentrations at the time were three times higher than pre-industrial levels, and double today’s level, but that was still only about 1-1.2% of the atmosphere. My guess is that Earth’s core was hotter, and that there was far more volcanism then than today. That would have made for a very high rate of carbon dioxide release which fueled the one way carbon fixation trip going on in the plant world. The point is, the idea that “there wasn’t enough carbon dioxide” is a red herring. oxygen release simply can’t happen without carbon dioxide, period, and the reason it was so low and not 96% of the atmosphere like on Mars is because of the stupid high rates of fixation.

As a side note, life seemed to get along just fine with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels double that of today during the carboniferous… Plants grew so abundantly in fact that this time period produced great deal of our oil reserves; perhaps even most of it. We also had monster sized insects. I don’t know why climate skeptics never mention this. It goes a long way in demonstrating a bit higher carbon dioxide concentration isn’t going to end the world.

At the end of my comment I mention two of my favorite lay-person science books. Both by Nick Lane, the first is Oxygen and the second is Power, Sex, Suicide. (You can consider the majority of this post to be an indirect summary of these books). The first one I read was the later, which also came out after Oxygen. Both books are great, but I have to note that there is a great deal of overlap between the two. For those of you familiar with mitochondria you can probably guess why. If not, the short answer is that mitochondria take oxygen and use it to to break down organic molecules into water and carbon dioxide. The energy released via this reaction is captured and used to fuel life itself. So, a book on the history of oxygen is by necessity going to overlap a lot with a book on mitochondria. My impression overall is that the material in Oxygen was reworked, improved, and added to new material to create Power, Sex, Suicide. Thus, if you read the later you will have most of the information you could have gotten in the former (though not all). If you had to pick only one to read, Power, Sex, Suicide is the best choice.

The title of the book was absolutely inspired. If you read the title your first thought is that it is about some game of thrones-esque political intrigue. Chimps throwing shit at each other is of course one of the most attention grabbing topics for humans available so anytime you see it on amazon, your gaze is instantly drawn there. The provocative title is what made me take a closer look. However, what makes it even better is that it is in no way deceitful. It is a book about mitochondria which are the power stations of the eukaryotic cell. All large multi-cellular life depends on this power generation. This is the most widely known fact about mitochondria and I will leave it to the reader to learn more about it.

Skipping sex for a second to briefly mention suicide, it turns out that mitochondria are important for signaling apoptosis, or programmed cell death. I.E., suicide. Two of the main reasons for this to happen is for fine tuning body structure and reducing the risk of cancer. In the first case, an example would be when hands grow in the embryo they are initially webbed then cells between the fingers intentionally die off so the fingers are separate. In the later, when a cell becomes damaged and malfunctioning (and thus more likely to eventually become cancerous) this can usually be detected and trigger the cell to commit suicide before developing into full-blown cancer. Obviously this doesn’t always work, but it definitely helps to cull damaged cells. Aging may be tied to this phenomenon because over the course of a lifetime the population of stem cells slowly depletes as they become damaged and are culled to prevent cancerous growths. Stem cells are the most likely to turn cancerous because they are the only cells which continue to rapidly divide, which means bad mutations are more likely to occur and regular or rapid cell division doesn’t need to be turned on via new mutations before the cell line becomes cancerous. Of course, having a lower population of stem cells reduces your body’s ability to keep all your tissues in a youthful state. Thus it is possible that aging, at least in part, is a result of evolved mechanisms for reducing the risk of cancer. Those suicidal mechanisms require mitochondria.

And now on to Sex. What does mitochondria have to do with Sex? Well, as it turns out, they have everything to do with sex. But to understand that, you first need to know the history of how mitochondria came to be. When life first came to exist on Earth, the planet did not have an atmosphere with much oxygen. There were plenty of reduced molecules floating around the oceans and being released via volcanic vents which could be oxidized for energy. (The term “oxidized” was originally coined when scientists thought only oxygen participated in this type of reaction, which was a long time ago. The definition has since been expanded to include reactions which don’t involve molecular oxygen but the name stuck. Path dependence. Obviously the first life wasn’t using molecular oxygen to derive energy when there wasn’t any molecular oxygen available.)

Eventually photosynthesis evolved in the ancestors of modern day cyanobacteria and chloroplasts. Light was a readily available source of energy which did not require any preexisting source of reduced molecules. Carbon dioxide at the time was probably at Venus or Mars percentages so that was absurdly abundant too. The cyanobacteria thus did extremely well, spread everywhere including places with no other source of energy, and proceeded to oxygenate the atmosphere at a massive scale. At first, however, preexisting reduced molecules present in the oceans would have quickly reacted with the released oxygen and thus the build up of the gas would have been delayed. Perhaps for millions of years. Evidence for this comes in the form of banded iron formations. Reduced iron is far more soluble in water than oxidized iron, so oxygen would be released, it would react with the iron, then the new molecule (rust basically) would sink to the bottom of the sea floor forming these bands.

Eventually, however, these reduced reactants would have ran out and oxygen would have started building up in the atmosphere. Believe it or not, oxygen is actually a very poisonous gas. And yes, that includes to you as well. We can live in it only because of evolved mechanisms that deal, incompletely, with its extreme reactivity. (This is not an endorsement for antioxidant products, personally I think that stuff is useless. Or worse than useless if it keeps cells functional long enough to avoid triggering apoptosis and thus allowing them to become cancerous). All of this poisonous oxygen in the atmosphere created a selection pressure for mechanisms that could mitigate the problem. In short, eventually this led to not only the ability to mitigate the presence of oxygen free radicals, but to actively harness oxygen as an electron acceptor in the production of usable energy. Some bacteria, including the ancestors of mitochondria, developed this ability. Though it isn’t entirely clear how it happened, one of these oxygen loving bacteria was engulfed by an archaeal cell (site with more detail). Probably with the intention of using it as food. Either that or the oxygen loving bacteria became parasitic on archaeal hosts. At some point this predatory or parasitic relationship goofed up and both cells started working symbiotically. The larger cell could provide shelter and sources of food, while the newly formed mitochondria could use oxygen to efficiently convert that food into energy and possibly transfer oxygen defense mechanisms to the host cell if it started out oxygen intolerant. This was the origin of all subsequent multicellular eukaryotic life, including you. A descendant of this lineage similarly engulfed a cyanobacteria and that become the universal ancestor of plants.

Some time later, the early eukaryotes developed sexual reproduction where genetic material is shared between two individual members of the species in order to reproduce as opposed to earlier binary fission. Reasons why are debated, but my preferred explanation is that sexual reproduction increases the probability of novel genetic combinations which may have increased evolutionary fitness especially with respect to, but not limited to, evading predators and parasites (including infections). Keep in mind that the origin of sexual reproduction is not the origin of the sexes. You don’t necessarily have to have two genders to sexually reproduce. (This is a general biological fact and should in no way be misconstrued as an endorsement of any sort of mental illness related to gender in humans. It doesn’t matter how worms do it, we are human and we only have two genders).

The advent of sexual reproduction, however, created a problem not dissimilar in type to the penis fencing worms in the previous link. That is, evolutionary self interest creating bad incentives for competition during reproduction. In the case of worms they are trying to reproduce without incurring the metabolic costs of growing eggs. Between mitochondria competition needs a bit more explanation, though. Mitochondria within eukaryotic cells have never completely lost their genome even today. Each eukaryotic cell thus has two methods of transmitting genetic information to descendants. One is through the mitochondria and one is through the nucleus. Even though mitochondria only increase in number via binary fission, random mutations can occur during that process thus allowing separate mitochondrial lines to evolve independently of one another. Since mitochondria have their own genome, reproduce, and are variable they are subject to natural selection. If in sexual reproduction two mitochondrial lines are placed together within the same cell, you create a situation of direct competition between both lineages for the domination of that cell and thus the opportunity to be passed on down the line. Competing mitochondria could and would evolve ways of eliminating rivals. Ways which would only have minimum concern for the overall well being of the host cell. What does it matter how the host cell does if that other mitochondria wipes you out?  Even at the cellular level, diversity + proximity = war. An evolutionary war between mitochondrial lineages going on within the cell is obviously not a desirable situation for the organism as a whole. Eliminating the potential for mitochondrial war would be a great advantage to any eukaryotic organism which managed to accomplish it. Basically, the nuclear genome would need to step in and tell everyone to play nice… Na, its much easier to build a big wall.

Which, 2500 or so words in, FINALLY gets us back to the title of this post. I do apologize, but I feel the explanation is incomplete without the requisite background information. Having two sexes is a direct response to this issue of battling mitochondrial lineages and is what gives us our most universal definition of two sexes. Having distinctive male and females genders is “the wall” so to speak keeping different mitochondrial lineages from directly competing with each other. Specifically, the female sex is that which donates mitochondria to offspring and the male is that which does not donate mitochondria to offspring. That’s it. This is the commonality, the only commonality, between all males and all females in all species which have distinct genders. It also explains why more than two genders is in no way necessary. Two individuals is enough to gain the benefits of sexual reproduction and two sexes is enough of a wall to prevent intracellular competition via natural selection in mitochondria.

As I have already pointed out, there are examples of sexually reproducing species which do not utilize two different genders. In the case of fungi, I am not sure how they deal with the issue of mitochondrial war (or if anyone else does) but I am sure they have some mechanism for it even if unknown. Maybe creating billions of spores renders it a moot issue because there is more than enough opportunity for both lineages. In the case of the penis fencing worms, you can see the problem of not distinguishing genders quite saliently. Two individuals attempt to forcefully inject (rape?) each other with sperm while not getting injected themselves. You have got to love the sadistic creativity of nature for creating a species in which each individual acts as both the rapist and the rape victim at the same time. You’ve got to rape before you get raped. This method of reproduction can and does cause injury to the rape “victim” which could lead to infection and other issues. Not exactly ideal from a fitness perspective.

And this is why sexually reproducing organisms have evolved a binary gender dynamic many, many times independently. Evolving a male and female sex is one of the best examples of convergent evolution because it has happened so many different times.  Most people are already familiar with sex determination in mammals which is determined via an XY system. Two X chromosomes gear the human form to passing on mitochondria (i.e., female) as well as other things, while an X and a Y chromosome gears the human form to not pass on mitochondria (i.e., male) again among other things. But the mammalian XY system isn’t the only way this mitochondrial division of labor can be accomplished. Fruit flies, for example, have an independently evolved and completely unrelated XY sex determination system. Hymenoptera insects (ants, bees, and wasps) have a haplodiploidy sex determination system in which the male only has one set of chromosomes (haploid) while the female has two sets of chromosomes (diploidy). A number of lizards and other reptiles use a temperature determination system. Some fish determine sex via social hierarchy. (Again this is not an endorsement of mental illness in humans, despite wikipedia believing it is.) Even plants can’t wait to give up hermaphrodism and divide into two sexes and that has happened independently a ton of different times. Last in my list, though I won’t claim it is exhaustive, is the ZW sex determination system present in some birds, turtles, crustaceans and so on. Mirroring the XY system, ZZ is male and ZW is female. Like with mammals and fruit flies, when these species are not closely related chances are these systems are also independently evolved. It has recently been called into question that the bird ZW is actually independent of the mammalian XY because of discoveries with the playtpus sex determination system. I tangentially discussed this in an April fools article I wrote on hybridization theory a while ago and I will let you read it to come up with your own conclusions. Keep in mind, a joke works better if you mix in some facts to make it more believable…

Regardless, you can see that using two and only two sexes has evolved again and again and again and again and again in completely unrelated species with incredible levels of divergence. Even in the sex changing fish they opted to have two sexes rather than just stay hermaphroditic. The fish are never both male and female at the same time. Having two and only two sexes, regardless of how that is accomplished, seems to be some sort of evolutionary equivalent of an energy minimum. Dealing with mitochondrial war doesn’t strictly require two sexes and other arrangements can work (in species that aren’t human), but clearly the two sex binary is one of the easiest and most effective ways for nuclear genomes to prevent intracellular war between mitochondrial lineages. Judging by the widespread level of convergence, cellular civil war must be a very common and extremely grave problem for biology to deal with. The existential urgency of preventing the internal war probably accounts for why an astoundingly large and diverse list of species have all converged on the two and only two sex binary. They keep falling back to that arrangement via remarkably different yet equally effective systems. And so that is why we have two sexes and not zero or a million. And it is why we will always have two and only two sexes.

 

Share Button

Lesbians are Sub-standard, Imitation Men

For the most part, I consider lesbians/feminists to be essentially the same group because of the degree of overlap. At least if you restrict the meaning of “feminist” to include only those actively and fervently going out to protest or causing various problems with some intensity. I consider a woman who mentions in passing she is a feminist, but makes no effort otherwise, to be a “real” feminist about as much as I consider a “Christian” who has never actually read the bible, and thus knows less about it than myself as an atheist, to be a real Christian rather than just a status signalling churchian. Lots of people merely pay lip service to the norms of their community whether it is feminism, Christianity, or any number of other cliques just so they can fit in. Believe it or not, such behavior is not intrinsically good or bad. In a healthy culture this is exactly how you want most people to behave; we just don’t have a healthy culture. I suspect a lot of women claiming to be “feminist” fall into this category or at least are fairly passive about it and think more about make-up and shoes than women’s lib. However, I also suspect there is  a category of “real” feminists (i.e., the radical “true” lesbian feminists) and they are the ones who take leadership roles in spreading degeneracy and misleading otherwise normal, but psychologically vulnerable, women. Fortunately, not all women are susceptible.

Leftoid click-bait title aside, however, I do feel that female sexuality is probably more “fluid” than male sexuality. There is an evolutionary reason why this might be the case. As we know, both men and women have duel mating strategies. In the case of women, they have the alpha/beta dichotomy where alphas can provide good genes* but rarely provide good commitment whereas betas may provide commitment and provision but not good genes (in terms of the reproductive potential of offspring). In the ancestral environment, high tier women might have, while young, secured alpha commitment, but mid-tier women or older high tier women would have probably received very little, if any, material support from the alpha as he moved on to younger women. These women might try to move onto a beta to pay for these illegitimate children, but there is no guarantee they would be successful and even if many succeed, there are probably many more that completely fail in the second part of the strategy for whatever reason. Even betas occasionally realize providing for another man’s children isn’t a good deal and would rather spend their money on booze and whores. In ancient polygamous societies it may actually be impossible for the woman to move on anyway even if her and her children have been made a very low priority by the resident alpha. In the context of the ancestral small tribe in the jungle where no-one knows paternity, all men might have been inclined to completely ignore women past a certain age and their children. Lesbianism could provide a benefit to abandoned and neglected women psychologically and materially.

(Without digressing too much, men are unlikely to have this middle ground softening of selection pressures without the burden of child-rearing which means what we get is either complete genetic failure or complete heterosexual males without all that much in between. Sexually antagonistic selection probably explains the persistence of male homosexuals.)

For under-provisioned single mothers, it might make sense for two women to “pair” together to pool resources in raising their collective children. Clearly this is less than ideal compared to a monogamous, heterosexual nuclear family, but it may be a step up materially from raising children completely alone. They would get some benefits from division of labor. This could explain why female sexuality appears more fluid and why lesbianism might even have a modest positive selection pressure so long as the “lesbians” in question are still getting pregnant consistently. And in fact, self-identifying “lesbians” are more likely to get pregnant than straight women. Go figure. A woman having sex with another woman does not appear to stop her from having sex with men as well. Now, this last piece of evidence begs the question of whether lesbianism exists at all as a distinct thing (except in a minority of cases), or whether what we are actually looking at is a spectrum of promiscuity; greater promiscuity in women translating into more sex with whoever happens to be around. I think this may be likely for many cases, but that isn’t the focus of this post. Like I said before, I am more concerned with the exceptional “true” lesbians who populate the leadership and role-model levels of the feminist movement.

When women pair-bond, it is likely that one of the women assumes the “dominant” masculine role while the other assumes a “submissive” feminine role. Now the dominant woman isn’t a man, and can’t completely fulfill the role, but from the perspective of the submissive, she is probably better than nothing at all when the sub’s alpha/beta dual strategy fails in the second stage. What inclines one woman to be more dominant? Well, one thing might be a higher than average (for women) level of testosterone during fetal development[PDF]. Higher levels of testosterone in women during the critical development periods masculinizes them. I know of two specific conditions which can cause this, but I doubt they are the only possible causes out there. One is polycystic ovary syndrome and the other is congenital adrenal hyperplasia. (I also want to note that androgen insensitivity syndrome might also contribute, by a separate mechanism, individuals somewhat similar to a “true” lesbian. Except in this case, the person in question actually is male but for all outside appearances looks female. There is no way to know what influence such individuals may have historically had on the feminist movement since before recent times there was no way to know they had this condition. And even after we could know, it is private medical information the “women” would probably be hesitant to reveal). As I have already outlined, there may be evolutionary reasons why partially masculinized women may be favored. In an environment where men rarely commit, women must take on the brunt of the child-rearing duties and they are likely better at providing if they think and act a bit more like males and if they collaborate with other women in similar situations. This is probably related somewhat to the greater testosterone levels in black women. Black men are notoriously poor providers on average, both in America and Africa, so the race as a whole has developed more masculine women because it presumably helps those women provide for their children alone. (And which is in a feedback loop with female preference for higher T masculine cads).

Anyway, because lesbianism doesn’t have a strong enough selection pressure against it, or maybe even a modest positive one, the trait can stay stable in a population at above zero frequencies. It may even be analogous to the way sickle-cell anemia interacts with malaria. The sickle cell trait gene, when in a heterozygous state, provides protection from malaria but is crippling when in a homozygous state. In the same way, female attraction to other females may provide insurance against male abandonment without preventing reproduction when expressed in a partial manner while being reproductively crippling when completely expressed. The benefit of the former may, like in the case of sickle-cell, outweigh the cost of the later on balance and keep the trait present in the population. If true, however, that means that completely expressing “true” lesbians are born at some small but non-zero frequency and are in some sense “crippled” with respect to their evolutionary fitness. It is these “true” lesbians who completely express lesbian preferences who have been and are the real earth-movers in the feminist movement; at least this is what I suspect.

But you have to ask, why are these “true” lesbians not simply content to date other women and otherwise remain fairly quiet? Presumably enough women are partially expressing that they shouldn’t have too much trouble pair-bonding with the “true” lesbian being dominant and the partially expressing woman being submissive. If the “true” lesbian doesn’t have much trouble pair-bonding, what the hell is her beef with society in general? What makes her so mad that she feels she must destroy everything? I would venture to guess that the reason is masculinization does a lot more than simply create attraction for women. A key aspect of the male experience is competition within masculine hierarchies. It is this competition which allows men to demonstrate their high value to each other and especially to women they potentially want to mate with. Anything that masculinizes the brain will create a need and desire to be successful in these male status hierarchies. “True” lesbians are masculinized to such a degree that they also try to engage in male hierarchy jostling and competition. The problem is that though they are masculinized compared to other women, they are still women. They do not possess the same innate physical or mental capability of even the most beta men. Almost every time they attempt to compete with men, they almost invariability end up near the bottom of the established male pecking order. They are, therefore, masculine enough to recognize and desire to compete against men, but feminine enough that they are almost guaranteed to completely fail at every attempt. They are, in effect, sub-standard imitation men.

The idea that the “true” lesbian leaders of the feminist movement are essentially defective men seems to be tentatively confirmed by recent research  (though they say it a bit nicer). The abstract:

The feminist movement purports to improve conditions for women, and yet only a minority of women in modern societies self-identify as feminists. This is known as the feminist paradox. It has been suggested that feminists exhibit both physiological and psychological characteristics associated with heightened masculinization, which may predispose women for heightened competitiveness, sex-atypical behaviors, and belief in the interchangeability of sex roles. If feminist activists, i.e., those that manufacture the public image of feminism, are indeed masculinized relative to women in general, this might explain why the views and preferences of these two groups are at variance with each other. We measured the 2D:4D digit ratios (collected from both hands) and a personality trait known as dominance (measured with the Directiveness scale) in a sample of women attending a feminist conference. The sample exhibited significantly more masculine 2D:4D and higher dominance ratings than comparison samples representative of women in general, and these variables were furthermore positively correlated for both hands. The feminist paradox might thus to some extent be explained by biological differences between women in general and the activist women who formulate the feminist agenda.

My longstanding impression that the main activists in feminism tend to be highly masculinized women seems to be corroborated. Also, I am not alone in this perception:

A survey by Scharff (2012) found that amongst a demographically diverse sample of young women sourced from Germany and the UK, 30 out of 40 women rejected feminism as a consequence of their belief that the ideology is unfeminine, associated with lesbianism, and encourages man-hating. Feminism was also found to be strongly associated with unattractiveness and lesbianism by young men and women alike

The study sample, taken from attendees at a feminist conference, had a large over-representation of lesbians. 45% of the responders were attracted to women vs. 5.6% in the general population. Feminists attending a feminist conference are thus 4.5 times more likely to be attracted to other women than the general population, apparently. Though there is probably a fair margin of error here, I suspect the overall trend is very real.

The feminist activists are at least partially motivated by female solipsism. They project their own atypical experience and feelings onto normal woman and imagine all women want to compete in masculine hierarchies and are resentful of their failure. They aren’t really capable of understanding that normal women have very little in common with masculinized lesbian feminists and do not feel the need to compete against men or feel resentful that they are unable to.

Another possible explanation of why feminism represents a minority position amongst women is therefore that the activists who shape feminist attitudes and beliefs are themselves generally more physiologically and psychologically masculinized than is typical for women (Wilson, 2010). This might for example explain their belief in sex-role interchangeability, as they may perceive the behaviors and interests of sex-typical women as incomprehensible and at variance with their own more masculinized preferences in terms of child-rearing and status-seeking. This might then lead them to infer that women in general have been manipulated to become different from themselves by external forces, as embodied by notions of social constructions or gender systems

As I mentioned before, and is gone over in detail in the article, many women do not identify as feminists. This is true even when they agree with some or all of the goals of feminism. This is known as the feminist paradox and the consensus seems to be that normal women view feminists as manly lesbians and don’t want to themselves be seen as unfeminine. If activist feminists are in fact mostly manly lesbians, say because of higher levels of testosterone exposure, then this paradox can be explained. Those women really are a breed apart and normal woman don’t want to associate with them. Who could blame them?

In conclusion and summary, feminist activists (i.e., lesbians) in general were exposed to too much testosterone, probably during fetal development, which made them masculine enough to feel compelled to compete in ways similar to men and be a part of the masculine hierarchy. Unfortunately for them, they are still women and though their brain is masculinized somewhat it isn’t very masculine relative to real men. As such, they invariably are placed in the very bottom of the masculine hierarchy when they try to legitimately compete in it. This of course builds resentment and they seek any method to push themselves up. Specifically, they are still feminine enough to use means not generally accepted from men by other men. They can be socially manipulative similar to normal women and can act up in ways that men would never allow another man. Men have some sort of chivalrous instinct which usually prevents them from striking down duplicitous and disingenuous feminists. How lesbian feminists behave is thus a sort of hybrid masculine/feminine strategy. They use it, and male passivity towards women generally, to manipulate cultural institutions to artificially place themselves higher in the male hierarchy than they could have ever achieved through honest competition. They want to compete in the male hierarchy and are compelled to try something, anything, to boost their status within it because of their masculinization and they achieve boosts through artificial means like affirmative action and quotas engineered through primarily feminine social manipulation. Clearly their hybrid strategy has been extraordinarily effective in degenerating our society into the crumbling farce it is today.

It is ironic that what leads to the dedicated propagation of destructive feminism is actually a dash of masculinity. A trait which is good and beneficial in men becomes highly toxic and destructive when it appears in women. Unfortunately, given the evolutionary pressures I described it is likely that lesbian feminist harpies will always appear in every generation. Even if we create a new reactionary order these “women” will always be a destabilizing influence. If and when we create a new order, the problem of excessively masculinized women will have to be proactively addressed lest we get a repeat of feminism all over again. Their influence over society must be curtailed as a primary necessity. I’ll leave it to you to consider how that might be done. Perhaps we should exile them all to lesbos.

——————————————————————————————–

I will end with a mildly interesting anecdote which isn’t meant to be persuasive evidence of this idea, though it may be somewhat relevant. I was playing pool in a bar with my brother one time when a group of women sat down at a table near where we were playing. I scoped them out to see if any might be worth approaching. I observed that two of the girls seemed closer than you would expect from friends (i.e., they had their hands on each others thighs). After four or five beers I autisticly went up and asked if they were lesbians. Things were awkward for them, I just didn’t give a damn. I did not condemn them or anything like that, but one of them did get pretty mad (based on non-verbal ques). I think she was still in the closet and didn’t like the overt attention. We talked for a little while then I went back to play pool. Later I was going to the bathroom when one of the lesbians walked by and intentionally chest bumped me. I staggered slightly but she just bounced off me and nearly fell. And this when I wasn’t even paying attention and she was fully conscious of what she was doing. Surprised, I said “What the hell is your problem?” If looks could kill I would be dead, but after a second she just walked off without saying anything. I laughed because after the initial surprise I immediately realized she was mad that I pointed out she was a lesbian and she wanted to chest bump me in anger and frustration. My brother and I still laugh about the lesbian chest bump story every time it comes up. Now, you guys might say I’m a dick, and you are right, but I don’t care.

I imagine that is the type of experience many of these lesbian feminist activists have (figuratively or literally). Not the specific situation, but attempting something competitively with a man (chest bump) and it being almost completely ineffectual (she bounced off harder and farther than I moved) which is probably what makes them so mad.

High quality is determined by instincts and evolution, not reason or preference for civilization. Resources can indicate high quality, but so can great charisma, as well as physical attractiveness. The instincts of women seem to consider all such traits holistically. The only thing that is important is the potential for the children of these men to inherit the traits that enable them to reliably reproduce themselves.

Share Button

PCU

The Hestia Society has recently created an “official” forum for neoreaction and the Dark Enlightenment. One of the first forum posts asked what movies or TV shows are out there which aren’t completely drenched with progressive nonsense. As I and others have detailed, many forms of entertainment and writing are little more than progressive propaganda including movies like 12 angry men, TV shows such as the walking dead, video games like mass effect, high school reading assignments, and even standardized tests with reading and writing portions. Also worth considering is that the tests themselves are designed to give skewed results with respect to comparing genders; which can then be used as infallible “science” in other propaganda. Convenient that. Please note that I think the tests still work, just not nearly as well as they could when it comes to specifically comparing average scores between genders.

Anyway, I spent some time thinking about this and gave a few answers in a comment and moved on (which you can see in the second link in this post). However, I had that on the back of my mind while I started on the next thing. Almost immediately after that comment I decided to do some in-depth digging to see what exactly was going on at Mizzou with all these protests in greater detail. Previously I had just glanced at a few articles. I find these sorts of outrage-porn events in the news-cycle depressing and tend to skip over many of them for the sake of my sanity at least until it grows large enough to force me deal with the despair and to look deeper. Events include hunger strikes by a student from a family worth 20 million but who is nonetheless O so oppressed (affirmative action or cronyism?), heads of the University resigning, and “professors” being hit with assault charges. (Also Mizzou isn’t the only University undergoing craziness.) Students are afraid to disagree with the protests because the university is shutting down freedom of speech (not to mention fear of retaliation from extremely crazy leftists),

The University of Missouri police department sent an email urging students to report offensive or hurtful speech – not because it is illegal – but so the Office of Student Conduct could take disciplinary action against these students.

Several of us are afraid to disagree with other students, who in turn may report us to the authorities so we can be “dealt with.” Many students have told me they are also afraid to speak out against the protest narrative, afraid they will be called “racist” and become campus pariahs.

Struggle sessions are real friends. This whole thing is just completely Kafkaesque. I mean the whole scene there just seems to be going completely nuts beyond all reason. People are getting hysterical if the reports are to be believed.  And most people actually seem to be against the radical leftists this time; a hopeful sign I suppose.

There were supposedly two big triggers, although I have to admit it is convoluted and different articles say different things. In one that I have seen, some black guy got mad because allegedly someone yelled “nigger” at him while driving by in a truck. I actually sympathize with him. I really do. I once had some asshole in a truck pass as fast and as close as he could while I was riding a bike and the passenger screamed out his window right as they passed me. I nearly had a heart attack. That was, after all, extremely dangerous for me if I had fallen or he had hit me. As in real danger, unlike someone yelling nigger but doing nothing else otherwise… He then got stopped ahead at a light, though, and I broke his mirror off as I myself ran the light and went on a trail next to the road in some woods where they couldn’t follow in the truck and wouldn’t keep up without a bike of their own. It was a nice revenge, and I don’t feel bad about it. What I am trying to say here is that I know what it is like to be the recipient of grief from an obnoxious asshole in a truck and can even understand why this guy would be mad. However, I can tell the difference between a singular asshole in a truck who needs an ass-kicking (or just ignoring) from a society wide problem of discrimination warranting protests, hunger strikes, and university president resignations. [People do protest for more bike friendly regulations etc, and I have never taken part in such a demonstration]

The other important incident is something I would expect from the onion. Apparently an unknown person went into a unisex bathroom at one of the dorms, shat on the floor, smeared shit all over the walls and door handle, then as a cherry on top (poorly) drew a swastika with their own poop:

Mizzou shit swastika cropped

I am not going to lie. When I first read about this, I laughed. I don’t mean a mild chuckle either, I mean a deep gut laugh that carried on for some minutes. I find this hilarious. Not so much that poop was spread along the walls (which is pretty immature), but the fact that thousands of people have completely gone ape-shit (chimped-out?) over poop on the walls. Like, how is this the reality we live in? How is it people don’t just step back and think “we are talking about poop on the walls, maybe we shouldn’t take this or ourselves so seriously?”

Now, this could have been a false flag where some deranged SJW carries out crimes in an effort to stir up a hornet’s nest of other SJWS, like with the “black church burnings” also happening in Missouri and which probably has contributed to the current growing craziness. Or the fake “confirmed KKK presence” also part of the absurd events going on at Mizzou. As detailed in the previous church burning link, it turns out that a black man was pretending to be a racist white burning churches because he just wants to stir up shit I guess (that is, he wanted to generally increase racial animosity). Of course, I doubt there was any reflection to strike the burnings off the list of white “crimes” after the truth was revealed. That doesn’t fit the desired narrative after all.

As far as the poop swastika goes, this is what I believe happened assuming it wasn’t a false flag. Someone, probably male between the ages of 18 and 21, got drunk and/or high, came back to the dorms late and had to take a shit. He was feeling mad or mischievous or antisocial or something and decided to make a big mess. He then proceeded to shit on the floor. Or perhaps he was so messed up he just shit on the floor for drunk reasons with no particular purpose [it happens…] then decided “I went that far, might as well roll with it. It gives me some ‘good’ ideas….” He then proceeded to spread the shit everywhere and thought it would be funny to make a swastika while he was at it. The only purpose behind his actions were to make people mad and disgust them by breaking taboos so why not? (I seriously, seriously doubt a real Nazi would use shit as his artistic medium) He was after entertainment rather than interested in making a point, as most trolls are. Well, I doubt he expected his shit trolling to escalate into world wide media coverage. Who would? Somewhere there is a poop brigader going “oh shit, my shit really caused a shit storm.” No troll could possibly imagine their extremely intoxicated decision to draw a poop swastika would result in weeks of protests, a hunger strike, complete stifling of free speech, and high ranking university officials resigning. Who would expect that level of over-reaction to some poop spread on the walls of a dorm? As cynical as I am about leftists and how crazy they are, even I wouldn’t have guessed that.

So anyway, these two things plus other alleged grievances led to a series of protests to end “racism,” as was already linked to earlier. In one case a professor, who happens to be an extremely homely white woman, tried to dismiss several journalists from the protest and physically engaged one guy recording video with his phone. Look at the the study topics and publications of this “professor” in the previously linked article:

A closer look at her Mizzou faculty page reveals much.

Her current subjects of reseach include: “50 Shades of Grey readers, the impact of social media in fans’ relationship with Lady Gaga, masculinity and male fans, messages about class and food in reality television programming, and messages about work in children’s television programs.”

Selected publications: “Click, M. A., Lee, H., & Holladay, H. (2013). Making monsters: Lady Gaga, fan identification, and social media. Popular Music & Society, 6(3), 360-379.

Click, M. A., Aubrey, J. S., and Behm-Morawitz, E. (Eds.). (2010). Bitten by Twilight: Youth culture, media, and the vampire franchise. New York: Peter Lang.”

Accolades: “Outstanding Mentor” (2011) and as “Graduate Advisor of the Year” (2013).

How do people like this, doing such asinine and pointless “research,” manage to stay employed? On the taxpayers dime no less (she apparently is paid 4,700 a month). She’s a completely worthless parasite and I wish we could all get a refund on subsidizing higher education. This reminds me of how the taxpayers have spent millions of dollars studying why lesbians are fat. I could have answered that for free.

Its taken awhile to get to the point but the article about the professor and the journalists is what caused me to remember a specific movie that, if not really reactionary, isn’t supportive of SJWs and is what gave me the title of this post. You see, when the professor and student protesters were trying to evict the student journalists they came up with a chant:

“Hey hey, ho ho, reporters have got to go.”

This real-life chant is extremely similar to one used by ultra-feminazis in the 1994 movie PCU. Toward the end of the movie, a group of militant “womenists” chant “This penis party has to go, Hey, hey. Ho, ho.” in protest to a large party being thrown by the protagonists. Talk about synchronicity. I just happened to have non-PC movies on the back of my mind when I read this article thanks to the neoreactionary forum post and immediately remembered that scene in PCU when the eerily similar chant at Mizzou was described.

The gist of the story is that a recent high school graduate (Tom) is going to various universities he was accepted to in order to decide which one he was going to attend. The weekend the movie takes place during is centered at Port Chester University (PCU) in Connecticut. In other words, it is a pun which can be doubly interpreted as Politically Correct University. I think it is also loosely based on a real school in Connecticut called Porter and Chester, though I have no reason to think that school is exceptionally politically correct. The name just happened to be convenient and that is probably the end of the reference. Tom ends up getting assigned someone to show him around who is essentially a nihilistic party animal (Droz) as a result of a practical joke on the later by one of Droz’s friends. Droz reluctantly does show him around after seeing there was no shirking the duty. Tom then proceeds to learn about all the many different radical, prig prog, leftist, student organizations which regularly protest and cause problems on campus. Blacks, gays, militant lesbian feminists, “the causeheads” which have a new cause every week, the grateful dead inspired mega-stoners etc, as well as people pursuing absolutely worthless degrees. Protests in the movie are obnoxious and disturb any sane people within proximity, not unlike real protesters at real universities today. The last group isn’t technically a protest group though; they just get mad that their “work” was deleted thanks to some messing with electricity to the computers by one of the protagonists. And not to leave conservatives out, the movie also has a very cloistered group of white republican Frat guys led by David Spade who spend most of their time hiding (literally) from radical leftists. Ya, really.

This movie definitely isn’t reactionary. If there is a moral to the story it is probably nihilism and hedonism (or maybe just be easy-going and have fun). However, I kind of think “a moral of the story” is a little too much to attribute and expect from a story along the lines of van wilder. It is first and foremost a comedy with a large number of one liners meant to make you laugh, and at that it succeeds masterfully. I feel it should be appealing to reactionaries simply because, if not reactionary itself, it spends the vast majority of its time making fun of SJWs (before the term was even coined). 90% of the time, SJWs are the butt of the joke. This simple fact is quite the breath of fresh air compared to the typically progressivism-oriented fair produced by the media. In that sense it is reactionary from the perspective of the middle, if you want to call anti-moralizing hedonists the middle. Let’s face it, we reactionaries moralize quite a bit and so do SJWs but from essentially diametrically opposed sets of morals. “Middle ground” might be an appropriate, if imperfect, description. I laughed quite a bit watching this movie which, combined with them actually targeting SJWs for once, allows me to forgive their essentially hedonistic message.

I first watched this movie when I was in high school and thought it was very funny. The most memorable moment (from my high school days perspective) being an interaction between a stoner and an old lady which I won’t ruin for you; you will have to watch the movie to find out what I am referring to.  I remember once in college I told many people about it and convinced a group to sit down and watch it. They liked it, but they seemed to think I over-hyped it. One friend (one of two who knows me in person and knows I write this blog, and will be forwarded a link to this post) even said that it was very dated or that it didn’t age well. We watched the movie together in 2006 or so and SJWs weren’t quite our primary concern. Though radical leftism was surely going on, we weren’t as interested or as informed about it as we are now. Needless to say, we have both moved pretty far to the right since we watched this back then…. I took the criticism in stride at the time, but with hindsight from the events from 2010 to 2015 I would say the movie is better suited to the current cultural climate now than it was then, or even probably when it was first released in 1994. In many respects, the satire in the movie has become essentially a reality today; the chanted lines in the movie and in Missouri for example. The leftists of reality today are very like the satirical leftists in PCU from 1994. The convergence of satire and reality is what give the comedic elements their punch. The pilloried leftists in the movie are much like how I would expect the leftists at Mizzou today to act and the movie leftists believe what the Mizzou leftists of today believe. Unfortunately, the movie didn’t do too well when it was first released; it was too prescient and ahead of its time I guess.

Now I want to go ahead and discuss specific quotes and events in the movie, but I don’t want to spoil it for you if you haven’t seen it already. If you go to duckduckgo.com, a search engine which values privacy and doesn’t block streaming websites, and search “PCU 1994 stream” you may be able to watch the movie for free at the first link. I don’t know, though, because I never tried that.

[spoilers follow after the add, stop reading here if you would like to watch this movie prior to learning specific details about the jokes in it or keep going if you don’t care]

The movie starts with Tom going into the frat house dubbed “The Pit.” There is no one there to greet him so he just walks in and observes some pictures on the wall. In the frames from 1950s up to 1967 it shows in each a collection of pictures of respectable looking white men in suits. Then there is a change and in the 1969 image it is just one picture with a bunch of stereotypical dirty hippies; which are also now co-ed. You find out later that frats were banned at the University in 1967, which is what causes the change. It should be noted that banning frats (i.e., congregations of white males) seems to be a real goal today. As Tom moves through the pictures up until the contemporary year, they degenerate and get more shabby until the year prior to the setting of the movie (1993) where it is just a polaroid thumb-tacked to the wall. A not too subtle symbolism of advancing degeneracy. Overall, “the pit” is a very nice old building that is horrendously maintained and disrespected. Its a mess, people rollerblade inside, and grafiti is all over the walls in some rooms.

One of the earliest gags is about how people today often major in quite useless degrees. One of the members of “the pit” is nicknamed “Pigman” and they approach him as he is watching TV and “working” on his senior thesis. Droz explains Pigman’s thesis to Tom. Pigman is trying to prove the Caine/Hackmen theory which postulates that no matter what time of the day or night or which day of the week; there is always at least one Michael Caine or Gene Hackmen movie playing. Droz responds to Tom’s incredulity with the following line “That’s the beauty of college these days, you can major in Gameboy if you know how to bullshit.” Funny to be sure, but also disturbing when you compare it to the work of the actual professor mentioned above whose “research” is on twilight, 50 shades of grey, and lady gaga…. You can’t make this stuff up. This satire is barely satire. Scratch that, a Caine/Hackmen theory is actually more respectable than research on lady gaga and 50 shades of grey by a fair margin.

Towards the end of the movie the topic of useless majors is revisited. A series of people had their theses deleted as a result of an event earlier in the movie, and Droz peddles in providing completed theses to lazy students. To calm nerves he offers to help these people out by providing them ready-made work at no charge. One student wants a thesis for Sanskrit; to which Droz replies awestruck “Sanskrit? You’re majoring in a 5000 year old dead language?” He then gives him a thesis on latin saying that is the best he could do. The next student comes to him and tells Droz that he is majoring in Phys. Ed.  Droz replies “Phys. Ed.? You, out of my room. Seriously get out.” In 2015, we are no longer surprised to read about or meet people getting worthless degrees and doing worthless research since worthless degrees have only gotten more popular over time.

One of my favorite scenes occurs shortly after the description of the Caine/Hackman thesis. Droz finally agrees to really show Tom the campus and he proceeds to describe the culture of political correctness that we are all by now familiar with:

[Droz] “Here’s the deal, you have to get all of that 50s cornball shit out of your head. Its a whole new ballgame on campus these days and they call it PC.”

[Tom] “PC?”

[Droz] “Politically correct and its not just politics, its everything. Its what you eat, its what you wear, and its what you say. If you don’t watch yourself you can get in a boatload of trouble.

[as the conversation goes on, they walk out of the frat house and past a bunch of protesters, agitators, prig progs and advocates who are making noise]

[Droz] “For example, see these girls?”

[Tom] “Ya”

[Girl 1] “We have rights too”

[Girl 2] “choose to choose now”

[Droz] “No you don’t, those are women, call them girls and they’ll pop your face.”

[Tom and Droz continue walking past a series of other activists]

[Male 1] “Save the whales!”

[Male 2] “Gays in the military now!”

[Male 3] “Free Nelson Mandela!”

Notice how the middle one is now a reality…. All of these activists so far are white people for the most part. I would say that is pretty accurate; with the exception of identity politics most of the random SJW causes without reference to a specific human group are majority white. Sad really. At this point Tom and Droz spot a group of ultra-feminazi butch dykes.

[Tom and Droz stop and look ahead, brief pause]

[Tom] “What? Are those women?”

[Droz] “Those aren’t women Tom, they’re womenists”

[shows a bunch of short-haired butch dykes in camo all  looking angry; there is one attractive one]

[Dreadlocked butch dyke to attractive chic] “Hey Sam, isn’t that the guy you used to, uh…?”

[Sam] “Ya”

[Third plain-looking dyke] “You went out with a WHITE MALE!?” [surprised unbelief; all three are white women…]

[Sam] “What?! I was a freshman.”

[Dread Dyke] “Fresh person please.

[Droz attempts to approach Sam]

[Dread Dyke] “He’s coming over here, [blows a rape whistle] Sister’s form a wall!”

[A line of butch dykes form a wall between Sam and Droz.]

[Droz] “Hello, is Sam in there?”

[Dread Dyke] “In there? whats that supposed to mean?”

[Plain Dyke] “Ya, cock man oppressor!”

[Droz] “Why thank you. Can you just tell her that Mr. pokey stopped by”

[blank stares; Tom and Droz leave]

[Dread Dyke] “What the hell does that mean; Mr. pokey?”

[Plain Dyke] “I think he meant his [hmphf] phallus” [erects index fingers]

[Dread Dyke angrily turns to Sam] “You participated in a phallus naming?”

[Sam] “No, no i have no idea”

[Dread Dyke] “You stay away from him Sam, he’s an animal.”

I find this depiction of feminists gratifying. Saying that angry feminists aren’t women is true enough. It also captures the impotent rage well, as well as their stupidity. I also enjoyed Droz’s use of a cocky-funny response and how he held frame during this massive shit test. There are also stories of White! women who seem to hate white men and won’t date them. It is a small group; but they are invariably radical leftists which is what gives them that hate of their own race. They buy, hook, line and sinker, the propaganda that whites are evil oppressors and seek their own destruction. Though they probably did exist in 1994; I can only assume they are more common now. Or else they just get a lot more notoriety and news coverage. Either way, this attitude is perceived to be real among some small groups of radical leftists.

[Tom and Droz continue walking]

[Tom] “This place is kind of insane.”

[Droz] “Wait till you meet the causeheads.”

[Tom and Draz approach a university building. Hippi-looking people have formed a circle holding hands outside the building. Other hippis are dancing weirdly in the circle. Several are dressed in cow costumes. A chic is in front of them with a megaphone leading a chant. You find out later her “name” is Moonbeam.]

[Moonbeam] “What don’t we eat?”

[Protesters] “Meat”

[Moonbeam] “Why don’t we eat it”

[Protesters] “It’s murder”

[repeat ad nauseum]

[Droz] “These, Tom, are your causeheads. They find a world threatening issue and stick with it… for about a week.”

[Tom and Droz approach another pitfiend; a resident of the pit]

[Pitfiend] “Last week it was the ozone layer but now its meat. They were making chili burgers and won’t let anyone in.”

At this point about 7 pitfiends sneak past the protesters by new-age dancing through the crowd. They enter the cafeteria and grab the hamburger and meatballs and other things. As a hippi plays guitar singing hippi music and Moonbeam explains how the life of a student (dying from starvation) is worth sacrificing for a cow or other animals, the pitfiends hurl several hundred pounds of raw meat at the protesters from an upper story window. How satisfying that would be to do in real life.

Shortly afterward, the pitfiends are running but Tom is the last to get out and the only one the causeheads see. A large ultra-leftist mob then chase, with seeming violent intent, one solitary guy. This witch hunt scenario is a continuing gag throughout the movie and true enough in a figurative sense to how actual leftist mobs behave. As Tom was escaping, he happens to run into the group which is most like that of the current most radical and obnoxious protesters. Though in the movie they weren’t portrayed as obnoxious as their real life counterparts with the exception of their opinions. In terms of loudness and physical intimidation real life is worse than fiction (see also, and this). I like to call this all-black group in the movie “the Quanza group.” When Tom runs into them, the leader is giving a monologue on the evils of whiteness. The Quanza leader is saying “And the walls are painted white, and the chalk is white, and the paper is white, and even the copy machine is painted white. This my friend is a white devil’s conspiracy.” This is so absurd that you can’t help but laugh. Unfortunately, it isn’t too far off from the paranoia of real life black activists. The concept of white privilege can be pretty much summed up by the previous statements. Everything, no matter how trivial, is interpreted in terms of white vs. black by many protesters and far left academics. Yet the things often focused on as “white privilege” are typically just as asinine in real life as they were in this satire.

After Tom manages to escape from all the rabid leftists, making their attempt at lynching fruitless, they proceed to plan B and en masse submit complaint forms against the pit. The complaint form is one of my favorite additions to the movie. I used it as the post image at the top, but here it is again below (open in a new tab to read it):

PCU complaint form correct

The reason there are lines through it is because the movie shows this as a close up as “Moonbeam” fills it out. I swear, that name makes me laugh every time. I had to merge several screenshots so you could see everything in one image. I find this very funny. Levels of insensitivity can be no less than “typical.” This suggests that no matter what anyone does everyone is persistently and consistently “insensitive.” Sounds a lot like “white privelege”  and other leftist complaints in real life to me. When it comes to leftists, there is no such thing as someone doing the right thing and everyone is guilty of sins against political correctness. The other options are funny too; levels of offendedness and suggested punishments including written apologies and sensitivity workshops.

At this point the president of the university shows up and has a conversation with “Moonbeam” about the pit and expresses she also would like to get rid of them. Rather than go over every situation in detail; I will just provide some choice dialogue from the university president throughout the film. Some of it is pretty quotable stuff because of its absurdity; at least in my opinion.

  • [Talking to Moonbeam] “Those pit offenders are single-handedly destroying sensitivity levels on campus.”
  • [Addressing the residents of the pit] “Need I remind you that this house already has enough complaints to qualify for a sensitivity awareness weekend? You passed out cigarettes for a smoke-a-thon on earth day. You installed speed bumps on the handicap ramps, and most recently poured 100 pounds of meat on a peaceful vegan protest.” [Beyond hedonism, the pit is a group of super trolls who willfully rustle the jimmies of anyone prigging out]
  • [Addressing a University board member at a upscale party] “Well I think bisexual Asian studies should have its own building, but the question is who goes? The math department or the hockey team?”
  • [Addressing board members again] “I am going to announce the changing of the mascot from the offensive Port Chester Indian to an endangered species. Gentlemen, meet our new mascot: the Port Chester whooping crane.”

The last two especially remind  me of problems in universities today. Creating whole departments dedicated to advancing degeneracy is certainly something modern universities engage in. Various “victims” studies programs is common and a complete waste of taxpayer money. Moreover; leftists do legitimately seem interested in prioritizing these worthless cronyism departments at the expense of real academics and even sports; the later of which at least more people can enjoy. The last quote reminds me very much of the recent controversy with the Washington Redskins. Prig prog bureaucrats recently revoked their trademark primarily because it was “offensive.

Well, this post is already almost 5000 words so I am going to finish with two last scenarios. There are certainly other scenes and jokes worth mentioning; but I will leave it to you to watch the movie and see what they are. I suppose I should also mention that George Clinton the “funk” musician makes an appearance at the end. I am not really a fan; so that could have been left out in my opinion. However, I don’t think it detracts too much from the movie overall. It’s just there. Clinton doesn’t express any opinions, he just sings a song.

In the end there was a depiction of the victim Olympics which I enjoyed. In the scene, all the various groups are in line waiting to get into the party being thrown by the pit. They are impatient so they start trying to use their “victim” status to cut in line. Not only is it funny seeing various groups try to out-victim one another, but it is also illuminating to see the real reasons such groups engage in this: A selfish desire to gain social and financial advantage without actually contributing anything. It starts with the Quanza leader:

[Quanza leader] “I’m a black man; there is no justice for me here in America. I should be at the front of the line.”

[Camera moves towards front of line]

[Gay dude] “Ya well, I’m gay and subject to ridicule and discrimination wherever I go.”

[Camera moves even closer to the front of the line]

[Dread dyke] “Women are oppressed throughout the world, give it a rest.”

And I will leave you with the pitfiend’s take on the whole of PC culture. Though not exactly deep, I think it really captures the zeitgeist of the modern left without going into any sort of detailed analysis. These lines come before the party actually starts and it is getting protested by the “womenists.” This is when they are chanting the quote which reminded me of this movie and is similar to the real chant at Mizzou.

[Womenists] “This penis party has to go. Hey, hey. Ho, ho.

[Droz] “You try to spread joy and the PC shock troops shut you down.”

[Pitfiend Girl] “God, don’t they want to have a good time at least once in their lives?”

[Droz] “That’s a damn good point. The majority of students today are so cravenly PC they wouldn’t know a good time if it was sitting on their faces.”

Share Button

The Kite Runner

I was recently asked to help a 9th grader with a “research paper” that was supposed to be related to a book he was assigned to read in class. This book was called “The Kite Runner.” I had never read this book before, so I was limited to focusing on more generic elements such as “Don’t begin every sentence with the pronouns, and especially not the same pronoun” and make sure that when you switch subjects you make it clear that you did instead of using “they” again and again while switching between different groups: Both problems this student had. (Independent of the book content or essay topic, the essay was horrible. He almost certainly didn’t read the book and didn’t try very hard to BS his way through it).

However, I am not entirely convinced that this student’s lack of interest both in the book and in the essay were all that bad in the grand scheme of things. Specifically, the summaries I have since read on this book strongly suggests to me that it is a very clear case of progressive propaganda being forced onto unwitting children. In fact, I was at once reminded of my own experience in high school with similar propaganda. “Speak” by Laurie Halse Anderson. Where as speak was only concerned with feminists conceptions of rape, “The Kite Runner” appears to focus more on Muslims/Afghans (although it also goes into rape as well).

In summaries of the plot, it follows two boys in Kabul who play with kites together. One is of an Islamic sect which is considered lower class than the other. The lower class boy in one scene protects his superior from being beaten up, while in another, later scene the higher class boy does nothing to stop the former from being raped (by a male). Typical prog lionization of lower classes; as well as an awkward insertion of rape. Later the high class boy escapes the soviet invasion and moves to America as a refugee where he experiences guilt at his luck generally (he regularly imagined the hard lives of his friends back home) as well as specifically with respect to this friend he didn’t save from the rape. Finally, he finds out that this friend who he didn’t save from a rape both had died and also had a son during the general turmoil in the country. He goes back and saves this friend’s son and brings him to America as well.

In this story we seem to have both support of cat-lady style saving of refugees as well as touching on rape hysteria. There was probably little mention that there might be a connection between the ethnicity involved and tendency for rape and violence. At least that is how it seems. Without reading the book, I can’t be entirely sure of how much it is in fact propaganda and how much it is just a story (though my own experience with progressive propaganda leads me to a specific guess). I won’t comment further on the content of the story itself. However, the student also showed me his rubric and instructions on what topics were allowed for the essay. All of the designated topics were clearly progressive points of interest (such as “human rights,” which is what this student chose) which leaves no doubt that whatever merits this story has on its own, if any, it is being used in schools to indoctrinate children into progressive positions.

Moreover, the author also hinted that the story is at least to some degree auto-biographical. The degree that his personal life experiences are in the book, or the degree to which it is completely fictionalized, is not entirely clear. Summaries imply that it isn’t really known how much really happened to the author. My guess is that it is mostly fiction with very loose inspiration from real life events, with the events radically changed in the process of writing. It is far easier to warp fiction to meet the acceptable narrative than to fit real life to it. This ambiguity probably allowed the author to sell more copies to gullible progressives without outright lying about its authenticity. From Wikipedia:

According to Hosseini, the narrative became “much darker” than he originally intended. The Kite Runner covers a multigenerational period and focuses on the relationship between parents and their children. The latter was unintentional; Hosseini developed an interest in the theme while in the process of writing. He later divulged that he frequently came up with pieces of the plot by drawing pictures of it. For example, he did not decide to make Amir and Hassan brothers until after he had “doodled it.” Like Amir, the protagonist of the novel, Hosseini was born in Afghanistan and left the country as a youth, not returning until 2003. Thus, he was frequently questioned about the extent of the autobiographical aspects of the book. In response, he said, “When I say some of it is me, then people look unsatisfied. The parallels are pretty obvious, but … I left a few things ambiguous because I wanted to drive the book clubs crazy.”

Even though the author does seem to be pretty open about it being almost entirely a fictional story, it has not seemed to stop progressives from believing it is only a slightly fictionalized auto-biography.

Anyway, I focused mainly on non-content related suggestions to improve his essay. However, I also made a point that when he spoke of human rights he did so in a very general sense, yet all of the examples from the story were from a very specific group of people with a very specific religion. After all, we don’t hear about Theravada Buddhists raping and murdering Mahayana Buddhists. To generalize Muslim culture in Afghanistan as if it were a world wide issue for every group of people is inaccurate and absurd. This is as much crimethink as I dared to inject into the situation, but I think the point was taken and will be considered by the student. In my head, I thought facetiously that the human rights issue he should write about is forcing young children in schools across the country to read and write about progressive propaganda; with their essay conclusion being determined in advance of writing. I did not say this however, as I anticipated the comment would not be appreciated by the adults who would no doubt hear about it. If you are a parent, I would suggest keeping an eye out for this story in your child’s curriculum so that you can do any necessary damage control when they are forced to regurgitate prog propaganda as a graded assignment.

Share Button

Daily Absurdity

Short post today. First, sorry about the theme change. There was a problem with an update to my old theme so this is a stand-in until I can get the old back. If I can. This was actually an issue the developer of the theme introduced, so it is possible that one is gone for good. Or at least long enough for me to decide on something else. [edit, this has since been fixed]

On another note, I got reminded why I do not watch much, if any, TV anymore. I was visiting with some family and we  decided to turn on netflix for some background noise. What was chosen was the netflix original series called “Between.” The premise is there is a virus that kills all of the adults in what looked like a New England town. There is a quarantine instituted and the under 22 years old survivors have to fend for themselves. The first scene shows a guy barely able to grow a beard walking towards a fence when all these military guys with guns rush it and tell him to go back. This lasted about 5 seconds. The next scene flashes back 10 days to before the quarantine and we see the main character walking through her high school. She is about 8 months pregnant. The show couldn’t go 15 seconds without going full prog propaganda. Needless to say, I was annoyed. Then she started talking about going to MIT. ya… I ended up walking out of the room and just talking to some other people outside of this show. I hate watching propaganda, or even being in the same room when it is on.

I checked to see if I actually heard her correctly in claiming she was going to be going to MIT despite having a new-born, but it turns out she was talking about her male friend not herself according to wikipedia. My bad. I guess that is still too delusional for propaganda purposes, but if it was part of the plot I honestly wouldn’t have been surprised. But still, degenerate unwed mothers were in saner times sent out of high schools so they couldn’t spread their degeneracy. Now they are main characters of TV shows. She is probably depicted as sassy, strong and independent if I had bothered watching a few episodes. I am not though, I have seen enough progressive propaganda to know that this is probably true, and that I don’t really care to see it. Ostensibly, this is just a show about some teenagers trying to survive a freak virus. In reality, that is only half of the show. The rest is progressives trying to completely redefine what is and is not moral and normalize degeneracy. I have reviewed multiple items of this sort and in much greater detail in the past (see list below) and it follows a very familiar pattern. Almost all mass produced “entertainment” has it which is why I don’t watch mainstream TV or movies anymore.

Giving this insignificant show the time to watch it and find all the best propaganda moments isn’t worth it. It isn’t popular, it isn’t even highly rated by people who don’t grok the cultural Marxism. If you want some examples where I put in the full effort for more notable works, see below:

A Neoreactionary Analysis and Review of “12 Angry men”

A Review of Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson

How Cultural Marxism Ruined the Mass Effect Franchise

How Cultural Marxism Ruined The Walking Dead

Share Button

How Cultural Marxism ruined The Walking Dead

Even though I have previously written on something similar, at first I wasn’t going to write this post. I conceived of it, and halfheartedly dismissed it as being too trivial and not really worth the investment. But then, I don’t have children so there isn’t much point in thinking too hard about TV shows since I already know how most of them are crap and correspondingly almost never watch them. If I did have children, or if I do someday, I suppose that formula would necessarily change. That seems to be the case for 28Sherman in his latest post “They Progged Cartoons.” Since the topic was brought up, I guess it is only appropriate to add my two cents.

He complains (rightly) that the progs in the entertainment industry use their influence over plot lines to create propaganda for children, when they are least able to critically evaluate it and so soak that crap in like a sponge. I remember once we were talking about education around my teenage nephew and he, at different points, both said “that is sexist” and “that is racist.” Poor guy. This is probably more to do with the school system than cartoons, but same difference (same same, but different?). Keep in mind that I do sort of, maybe try to tone myself down at family events. Apparently dismissing blog posts isn’t the only thing I do halfheartedly. After the third or so statement of this sort, being the cold-hearted, insensitive asshole I am, I responded with “reality is racist” and he suddenly seemed to be deep in thought. I didn’t hear about being racist again. It turns out crazy uncles might have more influence than low-IQ education majors! Who knew?

In any event, I almost never watch TV anymore except stuff I can be very preselective with on the internet for this very reason. Every time I give a show a chance, which is rare anymore, I am invariably disappointed and disgusted by the progressive parasites infesting the story. For example, I like gore and zombies. Who doesn’t? I was told The Walking Dead was a pretty decent show and reluctantly gave it a chance. The first 4 seasons were on netflix so I watched them. For the most part it was pretty good, but they just can’t leave out the prog propaganda. A mindless show revolving around killing zombies can’t just be about killing zombies; it also must be progressive. At least the progs finally did something right though, a post-apocalyptic wasteland seems the appropriate setting and endpoint of progressivism. The third and final straw happened in the last episode in which they introduced some gay dudes and had them make out. Ya, I am not shitting you. The gay dudes make out in the show. I have a very bad feeling that those two are going to stay on as characters for a long time. I am not going to find out, though, because I am done watching it. It isn’t that I have anything against gays, like everything else in human psychology (most importantly intelligence), I am pretty sure it has biological origins and that they are unfortunate misfits born with a bad combination of alleles. Gnon was not kind to them. But understanding that does not mean I want to see them make out (or have civilization cater to them or give them special victim status). Even then, that isn’t even the major problem for me (though it is an important problem). The major problem is the er…hrmm northern aggression of it all. It is the fact that these assholes can’t keep their fucking values to themselves. They HAVE to try to propagandize me and everyone else who don’t want to have anything to do with them or their values; even if we would never bother or hinder them in their personal lives at all if they just left us alone. It isn’t enough that I am (or was) willing to just let them be if they let me be. They HAVE to get in my face about it. Fuck them. Goodbye libertarianism.

For the curious, the other two things that preceded the third and final straw was the first two lesbians and the whole miscegenation thing (black dude, white chic) at the prison. In the interest of full disclosure, two chics making out doesn’t exactly cause me direct offense. It is natural for men to like harems after all, right? In addition, it is probably accurate to say I have bedded more girls outside my own race than within it (mostly Asian and I haven’t kept count). I don’t think I can ever come down that hard against this without being a complete hypocrite. There may be good rationales for it, but I think I will let others tackle that consideration. I am much more concerned with IQ directly than any particular race even if there are large differences between races. Besides, preserving racial “purity” seems to be a female responsibility.

In any event, this was before my transition from the red pill to the dark enlightenment. I fully agree that this sort of cad behavior isn’t good for civilization, the traditionalists are right and I was wrong. But like I said before, I can’t control the culture I was born into and I am doing more than most to provide powerful secular arguments for traditional family values.

It isn’t that other people have different values that bothers me, it is that people are trying to forcibly push their values on me and others who may be ambivalent or in strong disagreement. Most important is that the values they push are objectively shit. Ya, maybe I haven’t been a paragon of virtue in the past, but at least when pressed I can objectively evaluate what values are best for civilization as a whole. I don’t pretend like self-interested behavior is anything other than self-interested behavior. If people disagree with a set of values they should be able to disassociate and allow Gnon to be the judge of who is right or wrong. We aren’t being allowed that privilege. This northern aggression can not stand.

EDIT: I just remembered there was another thing that was dumb in the show. There was a group at a hospital being lead by a small framed women. This was just stupid, in such an apocalyptic setting strength and endurance are what matter most and men wouldn’t follow someone who would never be able to keep up with them. Post-institutions affirmative action would not apply and she would have been demoted to a support role she was actually suited to.

Share Button

HL Mencken Describes Hypergamy

I have heard of HL Mencken, called by some the greatest misogynist of all time, talked about in a number of different places in the manosphere and in neoreaction. Specifically, the book “In defense of Women,” written in 1918, was recommended to me and so I decided to go ahead and order this book and read through.  I can’t say that I agree with everything he states in the book (when I am sure it is serious, rather than hyperbole). However, a few things he mentions are deeply insightful. For example, the book contains one of the best descriptions of hypergamy I have read (before the phrase hypergamy was even coined):

But here I rather depart from the point, which is this: that the average woman is not strategically capable of bringing down the most tempting game within her purview, and must thus content herself with a second, third, or nth choice. The only women who get their first choices are those who run in almost miraculous luck and those too stupid to formulate an ideal—two very small classes, it must be obvious. A few women, true enough, are so pertinacious that they prefer defeat to compromise. That is to say, they prefer to put off marriage indefinitely rather than to marry beneath the highest leap of their fancy. But such women may be quickly dismissed as abnormal, and perhaps as downright diseased in mind; the average woman is well-aware that marriage is far better for her than celibacy, even when it falls a good deal short of her primary hopes, and she is also well aware that the differences between man and man, once mere money is put aside, are so slight as to be practically almost negligible. Thus the average woman is under none of the common masculine illusions about elective affinities, soul mates, love at first sight, and such phantasms. She is quite ready to fall in love, as the phrase is, with any man who is plainly eligible, and she usually knows a good many more such men than one. Her primary demand in marriage is not for the agonies of romance, but for comfort and security; she is thus easier satisfied than a man, and oftener happy. One frequently hears of remarried widowers who continue to moon about their dead first wives, but for a remarried widow to show any such sentimentality would be a nine days’ wonder. Once replaced, a dead husband is expunged from the minutes. And so is a dead love.

One of the results of all this is a subtle reinforcement of the contempt with which women normally regard their husbands—a contempt grounded, as I have shown, upon a sense of intellectual superiority. To this primary sense of superiority is now added the disparagement of a concrete comparison, and over all is an ineradicable resentment of the fact that such a comparison has been necessary. In other words, the typical husband is a second-rater, and no one is better aware of it than his wife. He is, taking averages, one who has been loved, as the saying goes, by but one woman, and then only as a second, third or nth choice. If any other woman had ever loved him, as the idiom has it, she would have married him, and so made him ineligible for his present happiness. But the average bachelor is a man who has been loved, so to speak, by many women, and is the lost first choice of at least some of them. Here presents the unattainable, and hence the admirable; the husband is the attained and disdained.

and

I have used the phrase, “in despair of finding better game.” What I mean is this that not one woman in a hundred ever marries her first choice among marriageable men. That first choice is almost invariably one who is beyond her talents, for reasons either fortuitous or intrinsic. Let us take, for example, a woman whose relative naivete makes the process clearly apparent, to wit, a simple shop-girl. Her absolute first choice, perhaps, is not a living man at all, but a supernatural abstraction in a book, say, one of the heroes of Hall Caine, Ethel M. Dell, or Marie Corelli. After him comes a moving-picture actor. Then another moving-picture actor. Then, perhaps, many more—ten or fifteen head. Then a sebaceous young clergyman. Then the junior partner in the firm she works for. Then a couple of department managers. Then a clerk. Then a young man with no definite profession or permanent job—one of the innumerable host which flits from post to post, always restive, always trying something new—perhaps a neighborhood garage-keeper in the end. Well, the girl begins with the Caine colossus: he vanishes into thin air. She proceeds to the moving picture actors: they are almost as far beyond her. And then to the man of God, the junior partner, the department manager, the clerk; one and all they are carried off by girls of greater attractions and greater skill—girls who can cast gaudier flies. In the end, suddenly terrorized by the first faint shadows of spinsterhood, she turns to the ultimate numskull—and marries him out of hand.

This, allowing for class modifications, is almost the normal history of a marriage, or, more accurately, of the genesis of a marriage, under Protestant Christianity. Under other rites the business is taken out of the woman’s hands, at least partly, and so she is less enterprising in her assembling of candidates and possibilities. But when the whole thing is left to her own heart—i.e., to her head—it is but natural that she should seek as wide a range of choice as the conditions of her life allow, and in a democratic society those conditions put few if any fetters upon her fancy. The servant girl, or factory operative, or even prostitute of today may be the chorus girl or moving picture vampire of tomorrow and the millionaire’s wife of next year. In America, especially, men have no settled antipathy to such stooping alliances; in fact, it rather flatters their vanity to play Prince Charming to Cinderella. The result is that every normal American young woman, with the practicality of her sex and the inner confidence that goes therewith, raises her amorous eye as high as it will roll. And the second result is that every American man of presentable exterior and easy means is surrounded by an aura of discreet provocation: he cannot even dictate a letter, or ask for a telephone number without being measured for his wedding coat.

Mencken has a lot of good passages in his book as those two listed above, so I highly recommend reading the whole thing (free online). I think his discussion casts a lot of clarity on the relations between the sexes. It may be that many readers might object to average men being described as romantically idealistic numbskulls, but keep in mind that it is unlikely that the the average man would have made it to the point of browsing neoreactionary blogs and reading HL Mencken in the first place. He isn’t describing such above average men (you my dear readers), but strictly the average, and I think his description is accurate.

At any given level of intelligence, it is likely that the women excel at social engineering and manipulation relative to men of similar intelligence. Men’s talent advantage tends to express more in mechanical fields at the cost of social acuity. However, what we see is that the greater social acuity in women does not result in their increased happiness, but in increased dissatisfaction in their romantic lives. That they are keenly aware and constantly comparing and contrasting the men who make up their potential partners even with fictional characters leaves many women in a state where they simply cannot be fully satisfied with whatever man they happen to actually attach themselves to. This is a moral failing which many, if not most, women are susceptible. Through most of the book, Mencken regularly highlights the greater cunning most women demonstrate in their social dealings but the implication is that these gifts are used in devious and disingenuous ways; ways that cause problems for both the men and women involved and for society at large. More often than not, women are just as much a victim of their own cunning and deception as the idealistic men that get manipulated. This is the source of the controversy about whether the book is one in favor of women’s rights or a tongue in cheek criticism of the moral failings of women.

The old standards of marriage were to a large extent designed to mitigate the hypergamous tendencies of women since they often extend past the point of pragmatism into irrationality and immorality. As is readily apparent by the divorce rates and laws that exist today in the west, it is quite clear that women can’t be depended on to act loyally towards their husbands (all of which are “second raters” compared to flights of fancy) or for them to willingly accept the weight of responsibilities that should be concomitant with their vows of marriage. Even the system of arranged marriage starts to look better as it prevents the mechanism of hypergamy inherent to women from playing any role.

EDIT: Here is another good discussion of Mencken.

Share Button