Wednesday, November 29, 2017

sex, feminism and liberalism, part two

Part one can be found here.

Female sexuality is an absolute nightmare for feminism. It all but tore feminism apart during the feminist sex wars. The feminists who started spouting their slogans about all men being rapists, all sex being rape, about pornography being exploitation of women, about the wickedness of awful things like BDSM (bondage dominance and sado-masochism) that the patriarchy imposes on women. They naturally expected their pronouncements to be met by a chorus of praise from women.

Much to their horror many women, even fully paid up members of the feminist sisterhood, violently disagreed with them. These women objected that they actually liked having sex with men, many of them had no real issue with pornography (some of them enjoyed pornography). Even worse, it transpired that there were women who were happily engaging in consensual BDSM sex (even more embarrassing was the revelation that BDSM was incredibly popular among lesbians).

The stage was set for the bitter long drawn out war between the anti-sex feminists and the sex-positive feminists. It ended with a virtually complete victory for the sex-positive feminists.

This might sound like a happy ending. The anti-sex feminists like Andrea Dworkin were a crazy miserable lot and totally out of touch with the reality of female sexuality. Unfortunately we’re talking about feminists here so it goes without saying that there was and is lots of craziness on both sides. The sex-positive feminists can be pretty loony as well, and they’re the ones who’ve been supportive of much of the trans madness.

And being feminists even the sex-positive feminists tend to be control freaks. It’s not enough for them to be tolerant of outright perversions - they have to force everybody else to celebrate those perversions.

The problem of female sexuality remains unresolved for feminism. One problem is that for most women sex means sex with a man. The danger in that is that the man might enjoy it. Feminism can just about deal (with certain very stringent limitations) with the idea of a woman enjoying sex, but a man enjoying sex is definitely problematical.

Much more problematical is the feminine desire for dominant men. The reality is that lots of women actually enjoy feeling dominated, at least to a limited degree, in the bedroom. And some women take that desire to its logical conclusion and enjoy sexual practices that feminist theory simply cannot cope with. Feminist theory tells feminists that all that nasty stuff used to be forced on unwilling women by the patriarchy. There’s no room in feminist theory for women who think that the beastliness and aggressiveness of male sexuality is incredibly exciting and they want it. And feminists cannot abandon their theories - that would be terrifying.

Pornography was the main battlefield of the feminist sex wars. The total victory of the sex-positive feminists has to a large extent ended the debate on pornography. There are still Christians who are opposed to pornography but no-one listens to them.

One other thing that needs to be remembered is that male sexuality as it exists could not have survived the process of evolution unless it had a great deal of appeal to women. Sexual selection is a very potent evolutionary force. And female sexuality as it exists could not have survived unless it had a great deal of appeal to men.

An essential tenet of both feminism and liberalism is that men and women are basically interchangeable. Sex presents them with an enormous problem. No matter what they do they can’t eradicate the profound differences between male and female sexuality, and no matter what they do neither male nor female sexuality will conform to good liberal principles. Women will continue to want strong masculine men and men will continue to want pretty feminine women.

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

sex, feminism and liberalism, part one

There’s an extremely good post over at Oz Conservative, Accepting our monstrosity?

Canadian writer Stephen Marche, clearly a whiny male feminist, is aghast at the reality of male sexuality. Nothing unusual about that. Anything pertaining to reality always surprises liberals. But rather than merely mocking and laughing Mark carefully unpicks Marche’s babblings and in the process makes some very good points. And he demonstrates that Marche, in his own way, has uncovered some unpleasant truths. Being a liberal Marche naturally cannot deal with these truths or accept any of the conclusions they might lead to.

Marche is very upset over the brutality of male sexuality. Being a good male feminist he is ashamed of being male. Men are so beastly!

Mark quite rightly makes the point that

“there is an element in sex of men as the active and aggressive part and women as the responsive and receptive part.”

This is true, and of course it’s obvious to anyone with experience of the real world.

But the thing that really really upsets liberals, the thing they really will not face, is that on the whole women want sex to be this way. They like it. The big problem for liberals is female sexuality. Female sexuality just doesn’t work the way liberals want it to work. Amazingly enough most women are nauseated by the idea of having sex with whiny male feminists. They want to have sex with virile masculine men. No matter how virulently and enthusiastically they espouse feminist principles, no matter how bitter and angry they might be towards men, when it comes to the nitty gritty it is to a very large extent those beastly brutal masculine men who get women sexually aroused.

Women might like nice guys, but that doesn’t mean they want to sleep with those nice guys. Women might in an intellectual sense strongly disapprove of bad boys but they still get sexually excited by them and they still sleep with them.

None of this is surprising. Our survival as a species depended on having effective mating strategies. Women being attracted to the strongest most aggressive members of the tribe was a very effective mating strategy. Those were the men who could, if necessary, defend them. Men being attracted to the prettiest and most feminine females was an equally effective mating strategy. They were the females most likely to be fertile and most likely to be capable of successfully raising offspring.

The unpleasant truths (unpleasant for liberals and feminists) are that it’s perfectly normal and perfectly healthy for men to be masculine, that masculinity does indeed contain an element of aggressiveness, and that the aggressive element in masculinity is part of male sexuality. The other unpleasant truth is that it’s perfectly normal and perfectly healthy for women to respond sexually to this.

Liberals and feminists have now created a world in which the expression of masculinity has been all but outlawed. What this means in practice is that normal healthy masculinity has been repressed, so women in search of masculinity go looking for any kind of masculinity they can find. They usually find it in the sort of men who are obviously men they should have nothing to do with but the women can’t help themselves. Fundamental biological urges cannot be denied.

part two will follow

Friday, November 24, 2017

conservative delusions - the War of the Cradle

Conservatives like to think that liberals live in a world of fantasy and theory while conservatives are hard-headed realists. Unfortunately that’s only partly true. Conservatives cling to all sorts of delusions. One of the most persistent is the War of the Cradle delusion.

The idea is that conservatives must triumph in the end because they have more children than leftists. A variation is that Christianity must triumph because Christians have more children than atheists.

Unfortunately there’s a huge flaw in this argument. Liberals don’t need to have children. They know they’re going to get the children of conservatives and Christians. Conservatives and Christians still don’t really get this. Once their kids go to school they’re lost. You might delay things by home-schooling but not every conservative and/or Christian home schools. It doesn’t matter anyay, because once their kids to to university, even if they’ve been home-schooled, they’re lost. They’ll turn into blue-haired freaks screetching about social justice. And no matter what you do, if your kids are exposed to mass media and/or social media you’re going to lose them.

It’s no good thinking you can get around the problem by sending your children to a Christian school, or a Christian college. Many of these are worse than state schools, and even more infected by social justice ideology.

Let’s say that for every fifty children born to liberal parents there are a hundred born to conservative and/or Christian parents. Of those hundred children liberals only to need capture thirty. If they do that then out of the total of 150 children born 80 will end up as liberals and liberals will continue to win the numbers game. In reality they’re more likely to capture more than 30 of the hundred kids, so the liberals end up even further ahead.

That’s how liberals reproduce. It’s a very effective reproductive strategy. It’s why they’re winning.

Of course homosexuals reproduce in the same manner, which is one of the reasons why they’re so extraordinarily interested in children and the education system. You’d think that the education system would be of no interest to people who can’t have children but you’d be wrong. They’re very interested indeed. The schools are where the next generation of homosexuals will come from.

Conservatives and Christians surrendered control of the schools and universities to liberals at least half a century ago. That’s when the Culture War was lost.

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

intellectuals and their delusions

One of the most amusing thing about intellectuals who identify as being on the Left is their sense of their own importance combined with a startling degree of naïvete and outright delusion. They are all convinced that once the Glorious Socialist Revolution is achieved that they will be leaders or, at the very least, high-ranking commissars.

In fact of course as far as the people pulling the strings are concerned intellectuals are disposable. They have their uses in creating the instability that makes revolution possible but once a revolution actually succeeds those intellectuals become not merely useless but a positive embarrassment.

The problem is that once a revolution succeeds instability is no longer a desirable thing. The aim of all revolutionaries is power. Achieving power, and then maintaining it. The last thing they want once they have power is people who create instability. Once the revolution succeeds the intellectuals are most likely to be the first people lined up against a wall and shot.

Back in the 1930s effete western intellectuals were hopelessly in love with communism. They looked forward eagerly to the coming of communist revolutions in the West. Their admiration of the Soviet Union was embarrassingly adolescent. What they failed to understand was that if they had been in the Soviet Union during the 30s the best fate they could have hoped for was to be sent to a labour camp. Far from being welcomed as leaders these intellectuals would have found themselves cowering in cells in the Lubyanka, begging for their lives, followed shortly thereafter by an appearance at a show trial in which they would have been making grovelling apologies for counter-revolutionary crimes and facing the prospect of a bullet in the back of the head as a reward for their loyalty to the revolution.

What intellectuals always fail to understand is that actual revolutionaries, or at least the successful ones, are hard-headed practical and unsentimental. Successful revolutionaries recognise that intellectuals are a menace. Successful revolutionaries are concerned with power, not ideology.

The globalist elites are no different. Once their aims have been achieved they will have no further use for the hordes of worthless academics with professorships in gender studies. At the moment the globalist elites want instability, but they want instability as a means to an end. Once their power has been established beyond question then instability will no longer be a desirable thing. That’s when the purges will begin, and those being purged will be professors of gender studies and other similarly worthless academics. Those further down the food chain, the armies of paid activists and agitators, will be seen as not just expendable but dangerous. A potential threat that must be liquidated.

The most extraordinary thing about intellectuals is their complete incapacity for learning from experience. Reality always surprises them because reality plays no part whatever in their theories. They never learn, and they never will learn.

Saturday, November 18, 2017

the case for Christian Wahhabism

You might think that for an atheist I’m a bit obsessed with Christianity. And you’re probably right. The thing is I really do believe that secularism is a dead end. I believe that the greatest enemy that the West has ever faced is liberalism and I don’t see any way to fight liberalism by purely secular means.

The only secular alternatives to liberalism that ever seemed viable were communism and fascism. They weren’t terribly pleasant and they certainly don’t look viable any longer.

The only way to combat liberalism is, I believe, some kind of religion. There are several alternatives but most seem very unpromising, or unpalatable, or both. The least unpalatable alternative would be a revival of Christianity. The question is, is such a revival possible?

It’s instructive to take a look at the history of Islam over the past hundred years. A hundred years ago nobody took Islam seriously. The Ottoman Empire seemed to be tottering towards destruction and the universal view in Europe was that quite naturally the European great powers would carve up the corpse of that empire between them. The idea of Muslims putting up any kind of resistance seemed too fantastic even to consider. And in fact when the Ottoman Empire did collapse most of it was carved up by the great powers. The European powers pursued a policy towards the Middle East that was cynical, hypocritical, vicious, short-sighted and foolish. After the Second World War the Americans naturally assumed that the Middle East would be within their sphere of influence, and they proceeded to pursue policies that were even more cynical, hypocritical, vicious, short-sighted and foolish.

Much to the surprise of the great powers there was a reaction within the Islamic world. In fact there were two responses. One was the growth of Arab nationalism, but the Americans were determined to put a stop to that. The other response was the explosive growth of a new kind of Islam - the kind of militant radical Islam with which we are now familiar. This didn’t really exist to any great extent a hundred years ago. Wahhabism existed but was confined almost entirely to what is now Saudi Arabia. The spectacular growth of movements like the Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabism was a response to what many Muslims saw as an existential threat.

There’s no question that the West in the 21st century faces an existential threat at least as serious as that facing Islam in the 20th century. Christianity as it currently exists is not going to be any help. In fact mainstream organised Christianity is part of the problem, not part of the solution. It is merely secular liberalism with a feelgood gloss. It’s a more emotional, more effeminate, secular liberalism.

Of course I am aware that Not All Christians Are Like That. Of course there is still a very small minority who still follow the teachings of actual Christianity, and a small number of Christians who are still prepared to fight for their faith. However the sad truth is that most of the people who currently identify as Christians are secular liberals, and globalist SJWs.

If Christianity is to play a part in defending the West it will have to reinvent itself the way Islam did. It is significant that Wahhabism started as a movement to purge Islam of what were considered to be un-Islamic innovations. A viable Christian revivalism requires a similarly ruthless purging of non-Christian innovations, and that means it must be purged of liberalism. Purged thoroughly and completely. No compromise is possible with liberalism. No compromise at all. A pre-Enlightenment Christianity is what is needed. I do not believe that any existing mainstream Christian church can be reformed sufficiently to be able to play a useful role. A new Christianity will have to be built, from scratch. The existing churches need to be consigned to the scrap heap. They are too thoroughly infested with liberal ideas to be saved.

The new Christianity will need to be a radical militant Christianity, somewhat on the lines of radical militant Islam. Many Christians (and many on the right) are not going to like the idea of learning from Islam. They are also going to be reluctant to abandon many of their cherished liberal ideals, ideals that they often do not recognise as the liberal poison that they are (I enumerated many of these ideals in a previous post on conservatives and Christians defending liberal ideals).

The struggle against liberalism is a war, and it’s a war to the death. It’s about time we accepted that reality. A Christian wahhabism may be our one slim chance of survival.

Friday, November 17, 2017

urbanisation, decadence and western decline

An overlooked factor in the decline of the West over the past two hundred years is urbanisation.

Urbanisation lowers inhibitions. You can get away with degenerate behaviour that you could never get away with in a small rural community. The anonymity of urban life makes it easy to abandon all the time-honoured rules of decorum. Adultery and other sexual misconduct will earn social disapproval in a small town or village. In a city no-one will care.

And no matter how esoteric your perversion might be you’ll find someone in a big city with whom to share it.

Now of course we have the internet, and social media, so urban degeneracy is available to everyone. The entire world is now effectively urbanised.

City life is remote from unpleasant realities. In a rural community it’s difficult to avoid manual work, and a good deal of rural work is dangerous. In the city it’s easy to avoid getting your hands dirty.

Cities turn men into soy boys. The lowering of inhibitions turns women into sluts.

The more urbanised a society is the more decadent it will become. It’s no coincidence that we’re approaching peak decadence at the same time that we’re approaching peak urbanisation.

Thursday, November 16, 2017

conservatives and Christians defending liberal ideals

A major obstacle confronting anyone trying to promote social conservative or traditional values, or Christian values, is the extraordinary extent to which liberal values permeate our society. These liberal ideals are so all-pervasive that we often do not even recognise them as being fundamentally liberal.

It is common to encounter people who describe themselves as conservative who really do seem to believe that concepts like freedom of speech and freedom of religion are core conservative values. I have even come across Christians who think that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are the foundations of white Christian society. They also tend to be people who think that openness and tolerance are compatible with social conservatism. And it goes without saying that these “conservatives” take the same view of democracy.

In fact of course these are all core liberal values.

They date back to the Enlightenment, the most disastrous episode in the history of the West. Liberalism is the political child of the Enlightenment.

These concepts were all devised by white European liberals (or proto-liberals) who had one thing in common - they despised and detested European Christian society. They wanted to destroy European Christian society. They then intended to build Utopia on the ruins. They were especially hostile to Christianity.

As Mark at Oz Conservative is constantly pointing out (quite correctly) modern mainstream conservatives are actually liberals. They are right-liberals, the most dangerous kind of liberals.

The greatest danger currently facing the West is (as Mark has also pointed out) that the dissident right is going to be hijacked by right-liberals.

There is at the moment a great deal of disenchantment in the West with the existing political order. There is also a great deal of anxiety about population replacement, this being quite clearly the objective of the globalist class. My great fear is that naïve well-meaning people with genuine concerns about immigration are going to be persuaded to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with liberals in defence of liberal values. These liberal values (the ones enumerated above) will be sold to us as being the essential foundations of western civilisation. And a great many people are going to fall for this con.

And it is a con. These liberal ideals are the very things that have brought our civilisation to the brink of disaster. They are the very things that have weakened our society to the point where invaders no longer have to invade, they can just walk in and take over.

Any realistic hope of saving the West depends upon a categorical rejection of these pernicious liberal ideals. We must recognise these ideals for what they are - mechanisms for undermining social stability and for destroying Christianity.

Don’t be foolish enough to be persuaded that your bitterest enemies, liberals, can ever be allies. Liberals are the enemy, and right-liberals are the most dangerous enemy of all.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

making traditionalism fun

A major problem facing traditionalists today is that we naturally tend to regard the past fairly favourably, but liberals and the cultural left have had a century or more in which to paint the kind of  distorted picture of the past that suits their agenda. The Narrative applies as much to the past as it does to the present. And a negative view of the past has now been well and truly ingrained in the minds of most people.

That negative view has been propagated through schools and the news media and through books but most of all through movies and TV programs. It is important to remember that most people do not distinguish between fiction and non-fiction. If they watch a movie they might understand that the actual story itself is fiction but they assume that the background to the story is basically factual. If the movie is set in the 1930s then they assume that it’s giving them an accurate and faithful picture of life in that decade. Of course nothing could be further from the truth but the average person has a touching belief in the basic honesty of people who make movies and TV shows.

This makes it incredibly difficult to persuade people that perhaps the past wasn’t so bad, that perhaps the beliefs and values of the past were as valid as the beliefs and values of today, and most of all it makes it near-impossible to persuade people that life in the past may actually have been pretty good, and even fun.

If you suggest to anyone under the age of 40 that maybe life was a lot more pleasant in the 1950s they’ll look at you as if you’re mad. They know that in the 50s in the American South blacks were being lynched by the hundreds every year, they know that homosexuals were brutally persecuted, they know that women were not allowed to leave the kitchen, they know that liberals were thrown into prison just for being liberals, they know that teenagers were forbidden to have fun, they know that life was grim and miserable and oppressive. They know all these things because their teachers have told them that’s how it was and they’ve seen modern movies set in the 50s and those movies have confirmed everything their teachers tell them. The fact that none of these things are true makes no difference. The cultural left controls the megaphone and their view of the past prevails.

If you try to suggest that perhaps the Victorian age wasn’t so bad and that the Victorians weren’t all  vicious capitalist robber barons, that not all eight-year-olds were sent to work in coal mines  or that the Victorians were not hopelessly sexually repressed you just are not going to be listened to.

If you’re unwise enough to put forward the notion that the Middle Ages might not have been a constant nightmare of filth, squalor and violence then again you’re not going to be believed. People today know how brutal that era was, they’ve seen it in movies. They know for example all about the droit de seigneur, the right of the local lord to have sex with any young unmarried girl under his dominion. The fact that this right didn’t exist doesn’t matter - their teachers will have assured them that it was true.

If we are to have any success in promoting the idea that traditional values, traditional lifestyles, traditional sex roles, are worth emulating we have to be able to sell those ideas. We have to make such ideas sound not just reasonable but desirable and attractive. We have to convince people that traditionalism isn’t just good for society but that it promotes individual happiness. We need to sell the idea that traditionalists have more fun. That’s very difficult to do when the megaphone is in the hands of those who are determined to convince people that the past was a horrible nightmare and that today we live in the happiest most enlightened period in all of human history.

We also need to distinguish traditionalism from puritanism. Puritanism was a destructive religious heresy and, in a mutated secular form, it is very much with us today. It still exists to some extent as a religious heresy. Puritanism has always been unhealthy. The Cultural Left never misses an opportunity to paint traditionalists, and especially Christian traditionalists, as grim humourless puritans.

In fact puritanism has been a major strain in many destructive leftist ideologies, especially feminism. And the mindset of the modern SJW is to a large extent a puritan mindset, obsessed with sin.

Given that traditionalists are not likely to be granted any access to the megaphone I really don’t know how we’re going to promote the idea of traditionalism as the secret to happiness. But I do know that our biggest problem is that it has been so easy for our enemies to portray us as miserable oppressive killjoys.

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Biological Leninism and the Coalition of the Fringes

There’s a truly excellent post at Bloody Shovel on Biological Leninism that explains, fairly convincingly, why the Left relies on women, homosexuals, sexual deviants and minorities for its power. It’s all about loyalty and building a stable ruling class. The more useless someone is as an individual the more valuable he is as a member of the ruling class - if you want reliable and loyal foot soldiers you pick people who are entirely dependent on you.

This goes far to explain why what Steve Sailer calls the Coalition of the Fringes is so powerful, and why (despite its apparent weakness) it isn’t going to break up any time soon. The fact that the various groups that comprise the Coalition of the Fringes appear to have no actual interests in common (what possible genuine community of interests can there be between blacks and homosexuals for instance) is irrelevant. They are united by one thing. They have no choice. They are entirely dependent for their livelihoods on the largesse of government and of people like George Soros. Have you ever come across a lesbian feminist or a trans-whatever or any kind of “activist” who held down a real job in the real world?

Any deviation from orthodoxy means the end of the gravy train for these people. Any threat to the Coalition of the Fringes means the danger that the gravy train will be cancelled altogether. Thus they remain loyal, because they have no other options.

There’s an interesting struggle going on at the moment between the TERFs (trans exclusionary radical feminists) and the trans activists (see feminists losing the terf war). The TERFS subscribe to the heretical belief that there’s a biological difference between men and women. This struggle can only end in one way - with the complete surrender of the TERFS. Radical feminists are not exactly people who are likely to be success stories in the real world. They have pretend jobs in academia, or pretend jobs in women’s health centres or similar sheltered workshops for women. If they refuse to recant their heresies they will be purged. Not purged in the way Stalin purged his enemies. Such methods are unnecessary in our Brave New World. They will simply be informed that if they persist in their heresy they will lose their nice safe comfy jobs. There is no doubt of the outcome. The radical feminists will confess their counter-revolutionary crimes. They will therefore keep their nice safe comfy jobs. What else can they do? In the real world they would starve.

And that’s the point. The storm troopers of the cultural left can be trusted to do what they’re told to do because without the Coalition of the Fringes they’re just unemployable low-status drones. They will do nothing to threaten that coalition, because their survival depends on it.

The optimistic belief on the right that the incoherence and contradictions of the Coalition of the Fringes will eventually destroy it is likely to turn out to be a fantasy. Once the first purges take place, once the first show trials are held, the members of that coalition will become even more fanatically loyal and even more determined to maintain that coalition.

Sunday, November 12, 2017

virtue signalling or status signalling?

A comment on a recent post at Vox Popoli caught my eye. It suggested that a great deal of SJW virtue signalling is actually status signalling. It’s actually a way to demonstrate that the person in question belongs to a high enough social class to be immune from the consequences of the social justice agenda.

This seems very plausible to me. I have never bought the idea that SJWs are self-hating. Maybe some of the sad male SJWs are actually self-hating but I don’t believe for one moment that female SJWs hate themselves. If they’re white they may claim to hate white people but you can be sure they don’t include themselves in the category of white people it is acceptable to hate. They hate working class and lower middle class white people certainly but they don’t hate upper-class whites (and let’s face it the true believer SJWs are overwhelmingly upper-class).

Subscribing to certain dogmas, such as man-made global warming, welcoming refugees, affirmative action, Black Lives Matter, etc, is a good way to signal your membership of the ruling class. The secret to this is that if you’re wealthy and high-status you’ll never have to suffer the consequences of your ludicrous beliefs. Ever-increasing electricity prices as a result of the global warming scam don’t affect rich people. Rich people don’t have to live in diverse neighbourhoods (and they never do). Rich people are pretty much unaffected by the social decay caused by feminism and homosexual activism.

This is something that is particularly attractive to women. Status signalling is immensely important to women. And never underestimate the enthusiasm women have for humiliating their social inferiors.

If you’re white then subscribing to unworkable SJW fantasy ideas is a powerful way to signal that you’re not one of those awful working class or lower middle class white people (and of course those white people are completely evil). SJW ideas are a kind of luxury good. Believing in them is a form of conspicuous consumption, a way of making one’s elite status clear and a wonderful way to express contempt for the lower orders.

The great thing is that it’s a socially acceptable way of saying that you’re rich and you hate poor people.

Friday, November 10, 2017

sleeping her way to the top

The recent scandals in Hollywood have highlighted something that everyone used to know but these days no-one is supposed to talk about - women sleeping their way to the top.

This has been going on from the first moment that women started entering the workforce, or more particularly since women started working in areas that were previously male-only. It is of course absolutely inevitable. If you have a mixed-sex workplace then women will figure out that they can trade sex for career advancement.  Not all women will do so, but a lot of women will.

In Hollywood it arguably doesn’t really matter. If an actress is willing to follow the time-honoured practices of Hollywood, in other words if she’s willing to have sex with producers in return for getting a shot at good rôles in good movies, then she may get plum rôles that really should have gone to other, more talented, actresses.  But Hollywood only makes movies so it’s not a serious problem for society as a whole.

On the other hand when women start doing the same thing in business, politics, the military, the police force, etc (which they do) it can have very serious consequences. In these fields it really does matter that the top jobs go to people with genuine ability, rather than just a willingness to spread their sexual favours around. It does matter if women who use sex to further their careers take jobs away from better qualified men or women.

When you look at women who do reach the top you can’t help wondering how many have in fact slept their way to the top. It’s extraordinary how many of these women seem quite unable to cope with the demands of the top jobs once they get them.

It’s absurdly unrealistic to think that there’s any way you can stop this from happening. Mixed-sex workplaces simply do not work, and never will. It’s not just the problem of unscrupulous women doing so consciously. There’s also the uncomfortable fact of female hypergamy. Women are attracted to powerful high-status men. A woman is going to want to sleep with her boss even if she doesn’t intend to use this circumstance to further her career. She’ll want to sleep with him simply because he has status and power. And it’s not terribly realistic to believe that he won’t then do things to help her career along.

It’s not just women sleeping their way to the top. There’s also the related issue of women marrying their way to the top. There have for example been plenty of instances of women basing careers on particularly favourable marriages. There is the case of a certain woman who almost succeeded in getting to the very top of the political tree in the United States, merely by virtue of being married to a man who had occupied that very job.

There are many reasons why women should not be in the workplace. The “sleeping her way to the top” phenomenon is just one of them.

Saturday, November 4, 2017

the Hollywood sex scandals

I’ve avoided the subject of the recent sex scandals in Hollywood involving Harvey Weinstein and others but since I have a particular interest in the nexus between popular culture and politics I probably do need to address this issue. It’s actually a rather complicated issue which sheds some fascinating light on the sorry state of our culture in general.

The first point to be made is that it’s absurd for anyone to pretend to be surprised by any of this. This is how Hollywood has always worked. If you want a part in a movie you have to be nice to powerful people like producers and everyone in Hollywood has always known exactly what that means. Any aspiring actress (or actor) who arrives in Tinsel Town hoping to be a star knows what he or she will have to do to achieve that aim. If the price is unacceptable then the smart move is to forget being a star and keep away from Hollywood. In the unlikely event that you are really are naïve enough to be unaware of this reality then within about ten minutes of getting off the bus you’re going to figure it out. If you don’t like the idea, get back on that bus.

As 1940s Hollywood star Hedy Lamarr put it, “The ladder of success in Hollywood is usually a press agent, actor, director, producer, leading man; and you are a star if you sleep with each of them in that order. Crude, but true.”

Obviously it’s a different situation with child actors, and one of the reasons the allegations of homosexual predation in Hollywood are more disturbing is that they do involve children. In these cases it’s a matter of parental responsibility. If you want your kid to be a star then unless you’re prepared to watch him like a hawk it’s almost certain he’ll attract the attention of these predators. Of course these days parental responsibility is pretty much an unknown concept.

I’m certainly not trying to get sleazy Hollywood producers off the hook. There’s no doubt that Hollywood is, and always has been, full of sleazebags who use their power to have sex with pretty starlets. It’s totally reprehensible and obviously morally wrong. It is however worth bearing in mind that where such incidents involve actresses who are legally adults then there is highly likely to be fault on both sides. Hollywood attracts sleazy men but it also attracts women who are willing, sometimes even eager, to trade their sexual favours for career advancement. We need to be wary of falling for the feminist line that women have no agency. If an actress is of legal age and she’s willing to have sex with a producer to get a film role then she must accept her fair share of the responsibility. The trouble with Hollywood is that it’s corrupt all the way through and it corrupts everybody, literally everybody, that it touches.

It’s noticeable that actresses who make accusations of sexual harassment usually seem to do so only years later when it’s becoming obvious that their careers are fading. As long as they think there’s still a chance to hang on to their dreams of stardom they tend to keep their mouths shut. One can’t help suspecting that at the time of the alleged events they were in fact perfectly willing to trade sex for stardom. We need to keep in mind that in spite of the lies of feminists it is extremely common for women to sleep their way to the top (and not just in Hollywood).

The other important point to remember is that at this stage what we have are a great many allegations of the he said/she said variety. Such allegations are by their very nature unprovable. Unfortunately in most cases in which allegations are made against public figures they are of this type. Even more unfortunately it is by no means unknown for people to be convicted of an offence even when it is a matter of one person’s word against another’s. There have been cases in which convictions have been obtained on the basis of very questionable evidence.

It is particularly dangerous to accept accusations in situations where no charges have even been laid. It’s sad that many on the Right have been so excited by the prospect of watching the suffering of Hollywood liberals that they have lost sight of the importance of the presumption of innocence. Even Hollywood scum are entitled to the presumption of innocence.  It’s quite possible that most of the accusations are actually true, but it’s equally possible that many are quite untrue. We live in a society that offers generous rewards to anyone making accusations of sexual misconduct against public figures. It is all part of the corruption of our society.

Obviously anything that makes Hollywood look bad is to be welcomed but we must be aware that this situation is going to be spun in a way that supports the narrative. In this case it’s going to be spun to support a particularly vicious part of the feminist narrative, that women need never take responsibility and that everything is always the fault of those evil patriarchal white heterosexual males.