House of Eratosthenes

This is something that has fascinated me for awhile. But, looking back over the years, it seems to me sometimes like I haven’t been fascinated with it nearly enough. Our whole cultural trajectory, if you want to call it that, has been determined over terms of time both long & short, by the squeamishness of political figures and news commentators who claim to be listening to what’s going on from sea to shining sea; paradoxically, when these figures run into something outside their milieu of comfort it’s “Omigaw” time and they turn into the Wicked Witch of the West after the water treatment. And, they’re essentially advertising the notion that what they’ve seen is well outside of anything they’ve ever encountered before. Reporters like Baldwin don’t seem to understand how this compromises their suitability for the rest of what they’re trying to do.

Really? You’re supposed to be bringing me news? And that pantsuit wonder and that alto gelding over there want to represent my state in Washington…yet your worlds are so tiny?

I’m particularly fond of the gentleman on the left. At 2:37 “I also love women as well…” but “boobs” throws him into a tailspin. I’d like to see where a five-minute conversation about this, not on his terms, would end up going. Oh yes, everything good about women I notice right away, except that! And those! And other things. I only notice the good things about women that are just as good about men! But I loves me some women! In, uh, certain ways. Not those, or anything else that would make women different. In any way at all.

Reminds me of one of my favorite recently-discovered cartoons:

Kurt Schlichter made some insightful observations about it…

What was A-OK yesterday is now forbidden, and what was forbidden yesterday is now mandatory. Their goal is to keep our heads spinning and paralyze us with fear, like nearsighted corporals caught in a minefield and terrified that if we take one wrong step we will detonate a concealed wrongthink booby-trap. They want us living in fear of their fussy wrath, and that is precisely why it is so important for us to keep abreast of pseudo-scandals like this so we can nip these libfascists’ schemes in the bud and deny them the ability to rack up yet another victory in the culture war.
:
Are women the strong, powerful equals of men, or fragile flowers who wilt at the mere mention of lady parts? It depends on which one is the most useful to the liberal narrative right then and there. Can you talk about lady parts? Apparently the new rule is that you can’t, at least in the normal context of heterosexual men citing the parts that they like. But if you want to wear a gynecological sombrero on your pointy head, apparently that’s muy bueno.

Part of the strategy behind the new rules is to not actually have any firm rules, to make you so uncertain and timid that you’re unwilling to take any action because anything you do, at any time, can be a violation of a rule that didn’t exist 30 seconds before. If you do talk about female body parts, you’re wrong because you’re insulting womyn, and if you don’t talk about female body parts, you’re wrong because you are invisibling womyn. Basically, if you don’t have any female body parts, you’re just wrong all of the time. Unless you have fake female body parts and betrayed your country; then you are America’s greatest hero and a martyr to Harvard’s infamous legacy of transphobia. Or something.

Schlichter, true to his first paragraph, spends much of the column advocating some sort of push-back, a resistance or counter-attack. Well, he’s a warrior. I think he may be over-complicating it. I could be wrong, but I believe most people look at this the way I look at it…what an adorable level of ignorance, the “news” airhead can’t comprehend that men like boobs.

That’s what forty or so years of “You have a swimsuit calendar visible on your desk, you’re OMG so so fired” gets you.

But what about decency? What about what you’d say in front of your own mother? My mother would’ve seen the humor. “Boobs”? Where I work…ah, depends on who’s in earshot. People do say much worse where I work. We don’t really have to worry about females melting down into the floorboards, wailing away about “But I’m a woman! What if he’s talking about me??” That would be silly, since they wear ugly green camo uniforms and no one can see enough of their boobs to even speculate. They’re also made of much tougher stuff than Brooke Baldwin.

Who lives, along with others like her, in a tiny, tiny world. That’s the point. It’s a case of the tiny “kingdom” banishing people to the outer side of its village gates, and realizing belatedly it’s been banishing itself.

Feminism is what pushed us down the wrong road here. It’s this business of “If you notice good things about women that actually make them different from men, you must not be capable of seeing anything they do that men could also do.” This false mutual exclusivity, the one-or-the-other thing. Somehow, that became legislated, without anyone actually voting on it, as the only way to go here. That was wrong.

I think I’ve come up with a way to fight this. We men love data. So, someone needs to compile the hard (hehe) numbers on how likely agreeing with feminists is to get you laid. That’s how this whole thing got started — remember the old Prohibition slogan “lips that touch liquor shall not touch ours”? Same deal. Guys figured that if they humored the gals, they’d get laid more. This was especially true in college, where confused girls get way into feminism and young, Game-deficient guys abound. Being Game-deficient, they try to agree with girls to get girls to sleep with them, and after that it’s a simple process of social conditioning — you’ve already declared yourself a “feminist,” so to avoid self-contradiction you just keep going….

But agreeing with feminists doesn’t get you laid, with feminists themselves or with anyone else. (All agreeing with feminists gets you is more lectures about how awful you are). Show young fellows this, with hard numbers, and they’ll stop agreeing with feminists.
- Severian | 09/18/2017 @ 05:52
My own experience back in my young & foolish days, reveals a problem for your plan: Agreeing with feminists gets you both laid, and some lectures about how awful you are. Men at that age will fork over a sizable chunk of their paycheck on a lobster dinner just for the chance. But to actually get some? And you just have to “Mmm hmmm, yeah, whatever” your way through a bunch of prattle to make your way to victory lane? Total win.

“How’d you like to actually get her pregnant and then spend the rest of your life being a parent alongside someone you can’t stand?” isn’t going to work either. That’s the one thing that should…but “should” doesn’t work with young-adult guys trying to get some.

What has a better chance is this: “Have you ever had the mind-blowing experience of sex with a female who doesn’t think you’re a towering asshole just because you’re a male?” Clue them in that this is a second losing-of-virginity…no one with a sane, working mind goes back again. Maybe that will do the trick. Maybe.
- mkfreeberg | 09/18/2017 @ 06:07
Maybe. But I can’t think of anything else. The appeal of feminism to women is obvious — it’s Sailer’s Law of Female Journalism (“social values must be overturned such that, come the Revolution, the journalist herself will be considered hotter”). But for guys? That’s the weak point that must be attacked.

Stiff dicks have no conscience, I realize, and I myself agreed with more than a few feminist platitudes in my day in order to get some action, but we’ve got to instill a quality-over-quantity mindset in young men… hard sledding, I realize, but in a way, the feminists themselves may be doing us a real favor with their “rape culture” nonsense. Guys: You nod and say “uh-huh” in all the right places, then you get some (brief, terrible) action… then, three months later, she takes another Wymyn’s Studies seminar and decides oh hey, you raped her.

Either get it all on film, signed and notarized in triplicate, or just don’t mess with the kind of girl where that’s necessary. Avoid feminists, and that won’t be a problem. And as soon as enough quality guys start doing it — that is, guys with the self-restraint enough to do this — boom, feminism goes back to being strictly for dregs.
- Severian | 09/18/2017 @ 06:53
Paradise By The Dashboard Light.
Gosh, I wonder why that ballad became a de facto anthem for a generation (or two)?
The Taming Of The Shrew.
Boobs? Offensive? We’ll have NONE of that.
From now on a woman’s rack will be deemed detrimental for other than initial spawn nourishment.
- CaptDMO | 09/19/2017 @ 04:48
But, and Schlichter alluded to this somewhat…if Mr. Travis appeared on the newscast wearing a “pussy hat” CNN would have just treated it a a humorous lead-in to whatever side-topic Anti-Trump auxiliary commentary he might’ve wanted to provide. Could even have drawn a polite chuckle or two.
- mkfreeberg | 09/19/2017 @ 05:06
Heh heh heh…hey Beavis, you said “boobs.”

Then there are those puerile, immature minds that immediately think of Cartman’s buttcheeks with little bewbs drawn on them. For shame. 😛
- P_Ang | 09/19/2017 @ 11:55
Note the clothes the News Chick is wearing, lots of skin showing of the chest area. (Which if I’m not mistaken is close to the boobs).

Now why is that? Does she, like all women who wear such attire want people…by people I mean men – dirty minded, sex addicted men…to notice their…brains?
- tim | 09/19/2017 @ 13:03
Who are these people? I think you are right, when these events come up, the offended reveals herself to have an exceedingly narrow view or to be a wilting violet. In their world, being the victim means you win. As we, the polite and wholesome bunch, adapt to the new rules, they change so the wilting violet can win again. We need to call bullshit. News Chick isn’t offended. She doesn’t give two shits. Clay can respond by saying News Chick can’t think on her feet, and isn’t too bright. That’s why he said it, to brush her back a little. I work in an environment that’s a bit over half women, and if I said something like that at an inappropriate time, the woman would say something like, “WTF, we’re going juvenile now? That’s all you have?” She certainly wouldn’t shimmy into her SJW jeans and take the conversation that way.

Honestly, I watch and read the MSM, and I don’t know who these people are. They don’t act like anyone I know.
- Randomizer | 09/23/2017 @ 10:26
[…] “Restoring Due Process on Campus” Barack Obama’s Intelligence Memo For File CCVI Living in Fear of Their Fussy Wrath On Binary Thinking The Crunchy Frog Measuring System May I Suggest, Going Back to Discussing […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 09/30/2017 @ 09:46

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Living in Fear of Their Fussy WrathMonday, September 18th, 2017

Living in Fear of Their Fussy Wrath
Monday, September 18th, 2017