Feminism

Women get a false sense of male attention and validation from social media in the same way Men get a false sense of female sexual image and experience from porn. The thing is, the former drug is far more accepted and mainstream, even used by many men today to pay female gaming streamers for "parasocial" (parasitic) relationships. The irony of "terf/radfem/traditional/right wing" women using social media to criticize porn through the very drug that is toxic to their own development is amazing.

I wonder how many traditional women online would be willing to abandon the internet altogether. I'm sure they all have their own respective excuses as to why they don't, and I'm sure they're likely for self-flattering "heroic" reasons and not because of some dependence on social validation. Yet most men online still approach such women with a "neutral" attitude, not understanding the dysgenic self-selection of a woman becoming an "activist" or "e-celebrity".

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Rollo Tomassi (@RationalMale) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Do you think this means we will eventually have a female Freud, or Jung, or Eysenck?
Highly improbable.
Females transmit, preserve, maintain, they never challenge, innovate, invent...

This is the face of compassion, progress and of independence.
Look at those loving eyes and tell me different. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Felix Rex (@navyhato) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Andrew Kloster (@ARKloster) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

When immortality is hindered by a mental or psychological deficiency, only physicality remains as a possible, yet uncertain, alternative.
When the collective cannot be fertilized, to maintain and indefinitely propagate your memory, then what remains is individual spiritually and/or physically fertilization.
Great philosophers had confidence that their mental gifts sufficed to lend their memory some degree of immortality – we can only imagine that the unknown, un-great ones, with no less arrogance – if not a greater one – misjudged their mental potency and so lost both avenues towards immortality, and so nobody knows of them.
Those few ‘greats’ succeeded, due to chance or talent – perhaps a bit of both, since talent modifies chance – implied in the proverb "chance favours the bold" – but does not guarantee anything.
There must be thousands, if not more, unmarried geniuses that never managed to find relative immortality through a collective, and went to their graves unknown and uncelebrated – forgotten.
Marriage is a display of socioeconomic acquiescence (memetic adherence) – just as any use of a technology (including vaccines) affirms its shared utility: a symbol of an individual’s trust and participation in institutions, and loyalty towards common authorities.
A wife, and children, place a great burden on a mind's time and energies and so the effort and focus required by philosophy is hindered.
One can either fertilize the minds of the masses – linguistically – or the minds of a spouse and his children. In both cases the outcome remains uncertain, falling within a probability range – focused genetic propagation multiplies probability, whereas memetic propagation relies on quantities and chance.

Male Feminists are the worse of them all...Hypocrites?
Morons?
Emasculated douche-bags?
Betas signaling their worthiness?

We've studied those in chimpanzee social groups.
They're the inferior males that babysit the alpha male's offspring hoping to get a quickie when he ain't looking.
The ones bringing her bananas...or fighting other females on her side...
You know the kind.
Carpets.

Typical American females, can't cook, semi lesbians, love diversity, constantly looking for thrills, permanently in social media. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Dr. Ricardo Duchesne (@dr_duchesne) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy." Orwell, 1984. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Dr. Ricardo Duchesne (@dr_duchesne) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Orwell, George wrote:

It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.

Feminization of Man.
Indoctrinate young females and you've indoctrinated young males. They become even more fervent proponents of the ideology, signaling their "social fitness" to females.

Send your daughters to college. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— I,Hypocrite (@lporiginalg) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Feminism is "progressing"...

What about [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]?

Feminism is a scam [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Brittany Martinez (@BritMartinez) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Their nemesis are European males - European "paternalism.
Destroying the family became a priority because it eliminated the only challenge to their uniformity, the father as head of the family.
In Abrahamism this was already achieved with the "father in the sky", i.e., god, relegating biological males as no more than proxies, representations of its divine, authoritarian, masculinity.

See Abraham's storyline.
A biological male's family is not really his, but gods, and he is the mediator.
Marxism eliminated this mediation and replaced it with the institution, i.e., the state.
Masculinity was abstracted out of existence....from a hyper-real entity to a idea that could be represented by anyone: women, homosexuals, children.
Idolatry with no idol.....

Tim Pool often repeats the argument that "Conservatives will out-breed Liberals over time", but this is a narrow and false presumption.

When the Marxists flooded into USA after 1945, they became radicalized. What did they do? They taught their children to "never trust Whites/Europeans". Then, their children became teachers and professors, in the 1970s. They also infiltrated every aspect of Main Stream Media. Then, again, another generation of radicalization took place--so now we are 3 generations into a stranglehold on Media and 'Edumacation'.

Tim Pool is wrong. It doesn't matter how many children Conservatives have, while they keep sending their children to college to be brainwashed and duped into useful pawns of these Globalists...all under the name of "Social Justice". Worse thing is, they actually believe their own bullshit. This is due to an increased division and separation from Reality/Nature. Demonization of white males, is now apparent in US culture.

So, how degenerate will things become in another generation or two? Where is the resistance?? There is none; so things will only get much worse and much faster.

Rape & Feminism...

Paglia, Camille wrote:

Rape is an outrage that cannot be tolerated in civilized society. Yet feminism, which has waged a crusade for rape to be taken more seriously, has put young women in danger by hiding the truth about sex from them.
In dramatizing the pervasiveness of rape, feminists have told young women that before they have sex with a man, they must give consent as explicit as a legal contract's. In this way, young women have been convinced that they have been the victims of rape. On elite campuses in the Northeast and on the [New York Newsdqy, January 27, 1991]
West Coast, they have held consciousness-raising sessions, petitioned administrations, demanded inquests. At Brown University, outraged, panicky 'Victims" have scrawled the names of alleged attackers on the walls of women's rest rooms. What marital rape was to the Seventies, "date rape" is to the Nineties.
The incidence and seriousness of rape do not require this kind of exaggeration. Real acquaintance rape is nothing new. It has been a horrible problem for women for all of recorded history.
Once fathers and brothers protected women from rape. Once the penalty for rape was death. I come from a fierce Italian tradition where, not so long ago in the motherland, a rapist would end up knifed, castrated, and hung out to dry.
But the old clans and small rural communities have broken down. In our cities, on our campuses far from home, young women are vulnerable and defenseless. Feminism has not prepared them for this. Feminism keeps saying the sexes are the same. It keeps telling women they can do anything, go anywhere, say anything, wear anything. No, they can't. Women will always be in sexual danger.
One of my male students recently slept overnight with a friend in a passageway of the Great Pyramid in Egypt. He described the moon and sand, the ancient silence and eerie echoes.
I will never experience that. I am a woman. I am not stupid enough to believe I could ever be safe there. There is a world of solitary adventure I will never have. Women have always known these somber truths. But feminism, with its pie-in-the-sky fantasies about the perfect world, keeps young women from seeing life as it is.
We must remedy social injustice whenever we can. But there are some things we cannot change. There are sexual differences that are based in biology. Academic feminism is lost in a fog of social constructionism. It believes we are totally the product of our environment. This idea was invented by Rousseau. He was wrong. Emboldened by dumb French language theory, academic feminists repeat the same hollow slogans over and over to each other. Their view of sex is naϊve and prudish. Leaving sex to the feminists is like letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist's. The sexes are at war. Men must struggle for identity against the overwhelming power of their mothers. Women have menstruation to tell them they are women. Men must do or risk something to be men. Men become masculine only when other men say they are. Having sex with a woman is one way a boy becomes a man.
College men are at their hormonal peak. They have just left their mothers and are questing for their male identity. In groups, they are dangerous. A woman going to a fraternity party is walking into Testosterone Flats, full of prickly cacti and blazing guns.
If she goes, she should be armed with resolute alertness. She should arrive with girlfriends and leave with them. A girl who lets herself get dead drunk at a fraternity party is a fool. A girl who goes upstairs alone with a brother at a fraternity party is an idiot. Feminists call this "blaming the victim." I call it common sense.
For a decade, feminists have drilled their disciples to say, "Rape is a crime of violence but not of sex." This sugar-coated Shirley Temple nonsense has exposed young women to disaster.
Misled by feminism, they do not expect rape from the nice boys from good homes who sit next to them in class.
Aggression and eroticism are deeply intertwined. Hunt, pursuit, and capture are biologically programmed into male sexuality.
Generation after generation, men must be educated, refined, and ethically persuaded away from their tendency toward anarchy and brutishness. Society is not the enemy, as feminism ignorantly claims. Society is woman's protection against rape.
Feminism, with its solemn Carry Nation repressiveness, does not see what is for men the eroticism or fun element in rape, especially the wild, infectious delirium of gang rape. Women who do not understand rape cannot defend themselves against it.
The date-rape controversy shows feminism hitting the wall of its own broken promises. The women of my Sixties generation were the first respectable girls in history to swear like sailors, get drunk, stay out all night—in short, to act like men. We sought total sexual freedom and equality. But as time passed, we woke up to cold reality. The old double standard protected women.
When anything goes, it's women who lose. Today's young women don't know what they want. They see that feminism has not brought sexual happiness. The theatrics of public rage over date rape are their way of restoring the old sexual rules that were shattered by my generation. Because nothing about the sexes has really changed. The comic film Where the Boys Are (1960), the ultimate expression of Fifties man-chasing, still speaks directly to our time. It shows smart, lively women skillfully anticipating and fending off the dozens of strategies with which horny men try to get them into bed. The agonizing date rape subplot and climax are brilliantly done. The victim, Yvette Mimieux, makes mistake after mistake, obvious to the other girls.
She allows herself to be lured away from her girlfriends and into isolation with boys whose character and intentions she misreads.
Where the Boys Are tells the truth. It shows courtship as a dangerous game in which the signals are not verbal but subliminal.
Neither militant feminism, which is obsessed with politically correct language, nor academic feminism, which believes that knowledge and experience are "constituted by" language, can understand preverbal or nonverbal communication. Feminism, focusing on sexual politics, cannot see that sex exists in and through the body. Sexual desire and arousal cannot be fully translated into verbal terms. This is why men and women misunderstand each other.
Trying to remake the future, feminism cut itself off from sexual history. It discarded and suppressed the sexual myths of literature, art, and religion. Those myths show us the turbulence, the mysteries and passions of sex. In mythology we see men's sexual anxiety, their fear of woman's dominance. Much sexual violence is rooted in men's sense of psychological weakness toward women. It takes many men to deal with one woman. Woman's voracity is a persistent motif. Clara Bow, it was rumored, took on the USC football team on weekends. Marilyn Monroe, singing "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend," rules a conga line of men in tuxes. Half-clad Cher, in the video for "If I Could Turn Back Time," deranges a battleship of screaming sailors and straddles a pink-lit cannon. Feminism, coveting social power, is blind to woman's cosmic sexual power.
To understand rape, you must study the past. There never was and never will be sexual harmony. Every woman must take personal responsibility for her sexuality, which is nature's red flame. She must be prudent and cautious about where she goes and with whom. When she makes a mistake, she must accept the consequences and, through self-criticism, resolve never to make that mistake again. Running to Mommy and Daddy on the campus grievance committee is unworthy of strong women. Posting lists of guilty men in the toilet is cowardly, infantile stuff.
The Italian philosophy of life espouses high-energy confrontation. A male student makes a vulgar remark about your breasts? Don't slink off to whimper and simper with the campus shrinking violets. Deal with it. On the spot. Say, "Shut up, you jerk! And crawl back to the barnyard where you belong!" In general, women who project this take-charge attitude toward life get harassed less often. I see too many dopey, immature, selfpitying women walking around like melting sticks of butter. It's the Yvette Mimieux syndrome: make me happy. And listen to me weep when I'm not.
The date-rape debate is already smothering in propaganda churned out by the expensive Northeastern colleges and universities, with their overconcentration of boring, uptight academic feminists and spoiled, affluent students. Beware of the deep manipulativeness of rich students who were neglected by their parents. They love to turn the campus into hysterical psychodramas of sexual transgression, followed by assertions of parental authority and concern. And don't look for sexual enlightenment from academe, which spews out mountains of books but never looks at life directly.
As a fan of football and rock music, I see in the simple, swaggering masculinity of the jock and in the noisy posturing of the heavy-metal guitarist certain fundamental, unchanging truths about sex. Masculinity is aggressive, unstable, combustible. It is also the most creative cultural force in history. Women must reorient themselves toward the elemental powers of sex, which can strengthen or destroy.
The only solution to date rape is female self-awareness and self-control. A woman's number one line of defense is herself.
When a real rape occurs, she should report it to the police. Complaining to college committees because the courts "take too long" is ridiculous. College administrations are not a branch of the judiciary. They are not equipped or trained for legal inquiry.
Colleges must alert incoming students to the problems and dangers of adulthood. Then colleges must stand back and get out of the sex game.

Quote :

THE RAPE DEBATE,
CONTINUED

A selection of my public remarks about the issue of rape, in the year following the appearance of my op-ed piece on date rape in Newsday.
I wrote the following letter to the editor of The New York Times Magazine in response to a column by Susan Jacoby criticizing my view of rape (May 19; June 9, 1991).
Γm sure Susan Jacoby means well, but I must correct her simplistic caricature of my position on date rape, upon which I have been writing and speaking extensively. First of all, I am not, as she claims, an "antifeminist." I am a feminist who wants to radically reform current feminism, to bring it back to common sense about life.
Jacoby's article is a good example of the warm, fuzzy, genteel thinking about sex that has been emanating for twenty years from privileged, white, middleclass feminists. The dream man in this scenario is literate, sensitive, introspective, cooperative. Such men are a minority in America, much less in the world.
Intelligent, ambitious, but overprotected young women, brainwashed by this view of life, are arriving at college and screaming bloody murder when reality doesn't jibe with their expectations.
When I entered college in 1964, women were locked in the dorm at 11:00 P.M. My generation rebelled
against and shattered these paternalistic rules.
But with freedom come risk and responsibility. We accepted the risk in order to explore and learn about life. My kind of feminism stresses independence and personal responsibility for women.
Blaming the victim makes perfect sense if the victim has behaved stupidly. I doubt that Susan Jacoby would leave her purse on the street or sleep with her doors wide open at night. Theft, rape, and murder are facts of life in large societies, except in police states.
Feminism has got to wake up and look at life as it is. Sex is a dark and turbulent power that may not be controllable by pat verbal formulas and chirpy hopes.

From interview with David Talbot, the San Francisco Examiner, July 7, 1991.
Dating is a very recent phenomenon in world history. Throughout history, women have been chaperoned.
As late as 1964, when I arrived in college, we had strict rules. We had to be in the dorm under lock and key by eleven o'clock. My generation was the one that broke these rules. We said, "We want freedom—no more double standard!" When I went to stay at a male friend's apartment in New York, my aunts flew into a frenzy: "You can't do that, it's dangerous!" But I said, "No, we're not going to be like that anymore."
Still, we understood in the Sixties that we were taking a risk.
Today, these young women want the freedom that we won, but they don't want to acknowledge the risk. That's the problem. The minute you go out with a man, the minute you go to a bar to have a drink, there is a risk. You have to accept the fact that part of the sizzle of sex comes from the danger of sex. You can be overpowered.
So it is woman's personal responsibility to be aware of the dangers of the world. But these young feminists today are deluded. They come from a protected, white, middle-class world, and they expect everything to be safe. Notice it's not black or Hispanic women who are making a fuss about this—they come from cultures that are fully sexual and they are fully realistic about sex. But these other women are sexually repressed girls, coming out of pampered homes, and when they arrive at these colleges and suddenly hit male lust, they go, "Oh, no!"
These girls say, "Well, I should be able to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy's room without anything happening." And I say, "Oh, really? And when you drive your car to New York City, do you leave your keys on the hood?" My point is that if your car is stolen after you do something like that, yes, the police should pursue the thief and he should be punished. But at the same time, the police—and I—have the right to say to you, "You stupid idiot, what the hell were you thinking?"
I mean, wake up to reality. This is male sex. Guess what, it's hot. Male sex is hot. There's an attraction between the sexes that we're not totally in control of. The idea that we can regulate it by passing campus grievance committee rules is madness. My kind of feminism stresses personal responsibility. I've never been raped, but I've been very vigilant—I'm constantly reading the signals. If I ever got into a dating situation where I was overpowered and raped, I would say, "Oh, well, I misread the signals." But I don't think I would ever press charges.
The girl in the Kennedy rape case is an idiot. You go back to the Kennedy compound late at night and you're surprised at what happens? She's the one who should be charged—with ignorance. Because everyone knows that Kennedy is spelled S-E-X. Give me a break, this is not rape. And it's going to erode the real outrage that we should feel about actual rape.
This is just overprivileged people saying they want the world to be a bowl of cherries. Guess what? It's not and it never will be.

From article on date rape in YM magazine, September 1991.
Various "experts" were asked the same questions. My replies were 180 degrees opposed to the others.
Is it rape if you don't say no?
Absolutely not. This kind of thing is turning women into jokes. All the responsibility is being shunted onto men. And besides, it's ridiculous to think that saying no always means no. We all know how it goes in the heat of the moment: it's "no" now, it's "maybe" later, and it changes again.
Is it rape if a couple is making out and the girl decides she doesn't want to go all the way, but the guy forces her to?
You can't make rules to legislate this kind of behavior. These girls don't understand the risks of adulthood and sex. Don't put yourself in that situation and then go crying to authority figures—stay home if you can't handle it.
Is it rape if she's too drunk to object?
If she's drunk, she's complicitous. If someone gets behind the wheel of a car drunk and mows down three people, you wouldn't excuse him because he started whining that he didn't mean it.

From interview with Warren Kalbacker, Playboy, October 1991.
Playboy: You've noted with delight that your views on rape have inspired feminist fury.
Paglia: I am being vilified by feminists for merely having a common-sense attitude about rape. I loathe this thing about date rape. Have twelve tequilas at a fraternity party and a guy asks you to go up to his room, and then you're surprised when he assaults you? Most women want to be seduced or lured. The more you study literature and art, the more you see it. Listen to Don Giovanni. Read The Faerie Queene. Pursuit and seduction are the essence of sexuality. It's part of the sizzle. Girls hurl themselves at guitarists, right down to the lowest bar band here. The guys are strutting.
If you live in rock and roll, as I do, you see the reality of sex, of male lust and women being aroused by male lust. It attracts women. It doesn't repel them. Women have the right to freely choose and to say yes or no.
Everyone should be personally responsible for what happens in life. I see the sexual impulse as egotistical and dominating, and therefore I have no problem understanding rape. Women have to understand this correctly and they'll protect themselves better. If a real rape occurs, it's got to go to the police. The business of having a campus grievance committee decide whether or not a rape is committed is an outrageous infringement of civil liberties. Today, on an Ivy League campus, if a guy tells a girl she's got great tits, she can charge him with sexual harassment. Chickenshit stuff. Is this what strong women do?

From two-part interview with Celia Farber, SPIN, September and October 1991.

Part One

Paglia: I'm noticing that many people coming into the media now are people whose minds have been poisoned by their training at Yale and other Ivy League places. For example, I see where this whole date-rape thing is coming from. I recognize the language of these smart girls who are entering the media; they are coming from these schools. They have this stupid, pathetic, completely-removed-from-reality view of things that they've gotten from these academics who are totally off the wall, totally removed. Whereas my views on sex are coming from the fact that I am a football fan and I am a rock fan. Rock and football are revealing something true and permanent and eternal about male energy and sexuality. They are revealing the fact that women, in fact, like the idea of flaunting, strutting, wild masculine energy. The people who criticize me, these establishment feminists, these white upper-middle-class feminists in New York, especially, who think of themselves as so literate, the kind of music they like, is, like Suzanne Vega—you know, women's music.
SPIN: Yuck.
Paglia: This date-rape propaganda has been primarily coming out of the elite schools, where the guys are all these cooperative, literate, introspective, sit-on-theirass guys, whereas you're not getting it that much down in the football schools where people accept the fact of the beauty and strength of masculinity. You see jocks on the campus all the time—they understand what manhood is down there. It's only up here where there is this idea that they can get men on a leash. It's these guys in the Ivy League schools who get used to obeying women. They're sedentary guys. It's ironic that you're getting the biggest bitching about men from the schools where the men are just eunuchs and bookworms.
SPIN: That point about primordial male sexuality is also at odds with much contemporary pop psychology.
Γm referring to the twelve-step, women-who-love-too much school of thought, which insists that a woman's attraction to an "untamed" man, as it were, is necessarily a sign of sickness—a sign of a warped emotional life that invariably traces back to childhood, and the attention span of the father. It never considers such an attraction to be a naturally occurring phenomenon—a force of nature. I think the approach to remedying the problem is simplistic, even dangerously so at times.
Paglia: I agree. I'm a Freudian. I like Freud very much, even though I adapt him and add things to him. But his system of analysis is extremely accurate. It's a conflict-based system that allows for paradox. It's also very self-critical and self-analytical. I've watched therapy getting more and more mushy in the past fifteen years in America. . . . It's become what I call coercive compassion. It's disgusting, it's condescending, it's insulting, it's coddling, it keeps everyone in an infantile condition rather than in the adult condition that was postulated as the ultimate goal of Freudian analysis.
You were meant to be totally self-aware as a Freudian.
Now, it's everyone who will help you, the group will help you. It's awful. It's a return to the Fifties conformist model of things. It's this victim-centered view of the world, which is very pernicious. We cannot have a world where everyone is a victim. "Γm this way because my father made me this way. I'm this way because my husband made me this way." Yes, we are indeed formed by traumas that happened to us. But then you must take charge, you must take over, you are responsible. Personal responsibility is at the heart of my system. But today's system is this whining thing, "Why won't you help me, Mommy and Daddy?" It's like this whole thing with date rape.
SPIN: One point that hasn't been made in the whole rape debate is women's role over men, sexually. In the case of a rape, a man has to use brute force to obtain something that a woman has—her very sex. So naturally she's weaker physically, and will always be oppressed by him physically. But in that moment when he decides that the only way he can get what he wants from her emotionally, or sexually, or whatever, is to rape her, he is confessing to a weakness that is allencompassing.
She is abused, but he is utterly tragic and pathetic. One is temporary and the other is permanent.
I was raped once and it helped me to think of it like that. Not at all to apologize for him, but to focus on my power instead of my helplessness. It was a horrible experience, but it certainly didn't destroy my whole life or my psyche, as much as contemporary wisdom insisted it must have.
Paglia: Right, we have what they want. I think woman is the dominant sex. Men have to do all sorts of stuff
to prove that they are worthy of a woman's attention.
It's very interesting what you said about the rape, because one of the German magazine reporters who came to talk to me—she's been living in New York for ten years—she came to talk to me about two weeks ago and she told me a very interesting story, very similar to yours. She lives in Brooklyn, and she let this guy in whom she shouldn't have, and she got raped.
She said that, because she's a feminist, of course she had to go for counseling. She said it was awful, that the minute she arrived there, the rape counselors were saying, "You will never recover from this, what's happened to you is so terrible." She said, what the hell, it was a terrible experience, but she was going to pick herself up, and it wasn't that big a deal. The whole system now is designed to make you feel that you are maimed and mutilated forever if something like that happens. She said it made her feel worse. It's absolutely American—it is not European—and the whole system is filled with these cliches about sex. I think there is a fundamental prudery about sex in all this.
Rape is one of the risk factors in getting involved with men. It's a risk factor. It's like driving a car. My attitude is, it's like gambling. If you go to Atlantic City—these girls are going to Atlantic City, and when they lose, it's like "Oh, Mommy and Daddy, I lost."
My answer is stay home and do your nails, if that's the kind of person you are. My Sixties attitude is, yes, go for it, take the risk, take the challenge—if you get raped, if you get beat up in a dark alley in a street, it's okay. That was part of the risk of freedom, that's part of what we've demanded as women. Go with it.
Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and go on. We cannot regulate male sexuality. The uncontrollable aspect of male sexuality is part of what makes sex interesting.
And yes, it can lead to rape in some situations. What feminists are asking for is for men to be castrated, to make eunuchs out of them. The powerful, uncontrollable force of male sexuality has been censored out of white middle-class homes. But it's still there in black culture, and in Spanish culture.

Part Two

SPIN: In the first part of our interview, the section about rape upset every single woman who read it—in the offices at SPIN and even at the typesetters. They all seemed to feel that you were defending the rapist.
Pαgliα: No, that's not it at all. The point is, these white, upper-middle-class feminists believe that a pain-free world is achievable. I'm saying that a pain-free world will be achievable only under totalitarianism. There is no such thing as risk-free anything. In fact, all valuable human things come to us from risk and loss. Therefore we value beauty and youth because they are transient. Part of the sizzle of sex is the danger, the
risk of loss of identity in love. That's part of the drama of love. My generation demanded no more overprotection of women. We wanted women to be able to freely choose sex, to freely have all the adventures that men could have. So women began to hike on mountain paths and do all sorts of dangerous things. That's the risk of freedom. If women break their legs on mountain bikes, that's the risk factor. I'm not defending the rapist—I'm defending the freedom to risk rape. I don't want sexual experience to be protected by society. A part of it is that since women are physically weaker than men, in our sexual freedom, women are going to get raped. We should be angry about it, but it's a woman's personal responsibility now, in this age of sexual liberation, to make herself physically fit, so that she can fight off as best she can man's advances. She needs to be alert in her own mind to any potential danger. It's up to the woman to give clear signals of what her wishes are. If she does not want to be out of control of the situation, she should not get drunk, she should not be in a private space with a man whom she does not know. Rape does not destroy you forever. It's like getting beaten up. Men get beat up all the time.
SPIN: But don't you think that people see a man getting beat up and a woman getting raped as completely different? Do you think rape should be considered as serious a crime as murder?
Paglia: That's absurd. I dislike anything that treats women as if they are special, frail little creatures. We don't need special protection. Rape is an assault. If it is a totally devastating psychological experience for a woman, then she doesn't have a proper attitude toward sex. It's this whole stupid feminist thing about how we are basically nurturing, benevolent people, and sex is a wonderful thing between two equals. With that kind of attitude, then of course rape is going to be a total violation of your entire life, because you have had a stupid, naϊve, Mary Poppins view of life to begin with. Sex is a turbulent power that we are not in control of; it's a dark force. The sexes are at war with each other. That's part of the excitement and interest of sex. It's the dark realm of the night. When you enter the realm of the night, horrible things can happen
there. You can be attacked on a dark street. Does that mean we should never go into dark streets? Part of my excitement as a college student in the Sixties was coming out of the very protective Fifties. I was wandering those dark streets understanding that not only could I be raped, I could be killed. It's like the gay men going down to the docks and having sex in alleyways and trucks; it's the danger. Feminists have no idea
that some women like to flirt with danger because there is a sizzle in it. You know what gets me sick and tired?
The battered-woman motif. It's so misinterpreted, the way we have to constantly look at it in terms of male oppression and tyranny, and female victimization. When, in fact, everyone knows throughout the world that many of these working-class relationships where women get beat up have hot sex. They ask why she won't leave him? Maybe she won't leave him because the sex is very hot. I say we should start looking at the battered wife motif in terms of sex. If gay men go down to bars and like to get tied up, beaten up, and have their asses whipped, how come we can't allow that a lot of wives like the kind of sex they are getting in these battered wife relationships? We can't consider that women might have kinky tastes, can we? No, because women are naturally benevolent and nurturing, aren't they?
Everything is so damn Mary Poppins and sanitized.
SPIN: What do you think is the main quality that women have within them that they aren't using?
Paglia: What women have to realize is their dominance as a sex. That women's sexual powers are enormous.
All cultures have seen it. Men know it. Women know it. The only people who don't know it are feminists.
Desensualized, desexualized, neurotic women. I wouldn't have said this twenty years ago because I was militant feminist myself. But as the years have gone on, I begin to see more and more that the perverse, neurotic psychodrama projected by these women is coming from their own problems with sex.

From interview with Margaret LeBrun, Syracuse Herald American, November 3, 1991.
How do your views differ from today's feminists?
Today's feminists want the government to pass rules to protect them. They all want approval. I don't look for approval. I believe we do everything by ourselves.
I identify today's feminists as Rousseauists. That is, they belong to this tradition of liberalism which sees mankind as naturally good and thinks an evil society makes us bad.
The feminists would say sex is naturally good.
It's nice and happy, Betty Crocker time. And therefore, anything that's bad or abusive in sex is, like, rape.
"Well," they say, "rape can't be coming from sex, because sex is good. And we're naturally good. So, rape has to be coming from—pornography!" Now I, as a Catholic and also as a Freudian, have the opposite view. I believe it's society that trains us not to be
aggressive, that trains us to be ethical.
I hear you have outspoken views on date rape.
What's happening with this date-rape thing is a crock.
There is rape, which is an outrage, or there is not rape.
I'm not excusing men. That's stupid. Ethical men have always been opposed to rape. If a man commits a crime, punish him. If a rape occurs, go to the police.
Men have responsibility too. But we as women cannot constantly be putting ourselves in this infantile position of, you know, this floating victim status, as if we were like these accidents waiting to happen. It's like defensive driving. I'm calling for defensive dating. We allow for the fact that some people can be stupid. Other people can break the law. Other people can be drunk.
Other people could have a failure of their brakes. I'm not excusing the driver who runs the red light. But I'm saying, if women want to protect themselves, if women want to be rational and realistic about the world as it is, okay, we must allow for the fact that we cannot constantly be trusting.
Unfortunately, most victims of date rape are young and inexperienced—they haven't thought about these things.
That's correct. That's what I'm saying also. I'm saying this endless prolongation of childhood in this country, this endless coddling and pampering of people who are in fact adult, is another paternalistic way of turning back the clock. What we have in this country is this
absurd idea that we are not an adult until, what? In the middle of our twenties. Even Anita Hill, she was, what? Twenty-six when this [alleged sexual harassment] happened. Please, that's ridiculous.
It seems you give men "permission" to behave like animals.
That it's okay for men to flaunt violence and aggression, because that's their nature.
People have misread it that way. People say, oh, she's a biological determinist. But that's not what I'm saying at all. I say again and again: it is necessary for us to behave as civilized beings. Ethics is something we learn. We've made an enormous transition out of barbarism and dog-eat-dog toward abstract law and order. My entire book is about civilization.

From interview with Emily Culbertson, The Daily Pennsylvanian
(University of Pennsylvania), March 3, 1992.
I am saying that many of the problems between the sexes are coming from something prior to socialization, a turbulence that has to do with every boy's origin in a woman's body, a mother's body, and the way he is overwhelmed by this huge, matriarchal shadow of a goddess figure in his childhood. And I feel, after so many decades of studying this, that men are suffering from their sense of dependency on women, their sense that at any moment they could be returned to that slavery and servitude they experienced under a woman's thumb, when they were a boy in the shadow of the mother. I got this from studying all world culture, and comparing and noticing how often there were these patterns in many different cultures.
Many things that erupt in rape or violence, battery and so on, are happening when a woman is pushing that button of fear and dependency.
I'm saying that sex is a surging power thing between the sexes. It's a sex war. You cannot solve it by legislation. We can regulate the work environment.
We must have equal opportunity and sexual harassment guidelines, but you cannot legislate relationships.
This is why I think the date-rape thing has become propaganda and hysteria. We cannot legislate what happens on a date. It's up to women to realize it's dangerous. Sex is dangerous—it's a dangerous sport.
As a Sixties liberal, I am saying we do not want to overpolice life-style. And this demand that feminism has that date rape be policed by campus grievance committees, it's totalitarian. It's deeply Soviet. And they don't realize the degree to which it is de-sexing and de-individualizing women.
What Γm saying is that even in my era, we knew not to go to fraternity parties. We knew fraternity parties were about scoring! I say let's leave fraternity parties to be about scoring. That's what I want. Leave it. I am pro-sex. I am radically pro-sex. I think women should have a choice: go to the party or don't go to the party. I don't think that when you're there, you should be assaulted. On the other hand, if you drink a certain number of drinks and behave in a certain way and go to a man's room alone—I believe it's time to take the Sixties attitude toward that; that is, you are consenting to sex.

Interview with Sonya Friedman, Sonya Live, CNN Television, December 13, 1991.
Friedman: While some women around the country say they felt betrayed by the verdict in the William Kennedy Smith trial and see it as a setback for women, there are some who feel differently and say that women share the responsibility when it comes to sex. Camille Paglia is such a woman. Everyone's going to have to listen carefully because I know you have a different point of view. Your view of the outcome of the William
Kennedy Smith trial?
Paglia: Well, I was delighted that Smith was acquitted, because I think this was a terrible case to base the rape cause on. I think there's been too much daterape propaganda coming out of the feminist establishment in America in the last few years. I feel that—
Friedman: We can't go any further, now that you've said "date-rape propaganda." What in heaven's name does that mean?
Paglia: I think real rape is an outrage. And for me real rape would be either stranger rape or the intrusion of overt sex into a nonsexual situation. I feel that women should take full responsibility for the dating experience. This is one of the rights that my generation of the Sixties won. When we arrived in college in 1964, the dorms were all-women, and we were locked in at night. We are the ones who broke through the parietal codes and said to the authority figures, "Get out of our sex lives." Now one of the freedoms we won is the freedom to risk danger, the freedom to risk rape.
Friedman: But Camille, the idea that I agree to go out with a man does not mean that I agree to have sex with that man. Why in the world would you suggest that just putting myself in a proximity to him would really allow him to feel that that was the message that Γm giving?
Paglia: Well, Sonya, dating is a very recent phenomenon, historically speaking. It's confined principally to the industrialized democracies. You know, God did not come down on Mount Sinai and say to Moses, "There's going to be risk-free dating forever." It's not like that. I feel that the moment a date happens that it's a social encounter that is potentially a sexual encounter.
And the question of sex needs to be negotiated from the first moment on.
Friedman: "Hello, I'm not here to have sex with you."
Is this what the new law of consent is going to be?
Paglia: No, I think it should be in the air. I think it should be hovering above the date—that is, the question of what is being expected on both sides. I think a woman should not put herself under the control—
Friedman: So a pickup is out, as far as you're concerned?
Paglia: I think if you're going to pick up people—men do that with men; it's part of the gay life-style—if you're going to do that, you have to realize the risk involved. I think it's a very exciting kind of sex. But you have to realize you are risking injury and not just rape but death.
Friedman: So then what do I have to do, find out about a man's entire history, know him only through family, be introduced to him and then only see him in public?
I mean, are we going back to the chaperoned date?
Paglia: We have to be aware of people like Ted Bundy, a very smooth and charming man, who could be a murderer!
Friedman: Do you see this as liberated feminism, Camille?
Paglia: I see a liberated feminism that takes full responsibility for the woman's part in the sexual encounter or the potentially sexual encounter. Yes, I do.
You see, in the old days, you did have a system where fathers and brothers protected women, essentially.
Men knew that if they devirginized a woman, they could end up dead within twenty-four hours. These controls have been removed.
Friedman: I'm so lost here, Camille. What I hear is not something that is either modern or egalitarian. What I hear is a woman going back into veils, in effect.
Paglia: No, no! Γm encouraging women: accept the adventure of sex, accept the danger!
Friedman: Do you see a difference between sex and rape?
Paglia: I think this is one of the biggest pieces of propaganda coming out of feminism, the idea that rape is a crime of violence but not of sex. All rape is erotic. All rape is sexual.
Friedman: Erotic for whom?
Paglia: Erotic for the man!
Friedman: Yes, but there are two people having sex. You don't just want it to be erotic for him, and you feel vulnerable as a result of it.
Paglia: From twenty-five years ago, the material that goes into my book is coming from my study of rape as demonstrated in the whole of human cultures, everywhere in literature and art. All ethical men, from the beginning of time on, have protested against rape. This is not just a recent feminist discovery.
Friedman: Okay, now you use an interesting term—'ethical men."
Paglia: All ethical men, yes.
Friedman: Do you agree that a man has some responsibility to have discipline for himself?
Paglia: Correct! Oh, yes.
Friedman: Is it that you feel that we are being the enchantress, that we are sending out messages that we deny that we're sending?
Paglia: First let me say that I think that rape cannot be discussed separate from ethics, that we have to consider it as part of all of human behavior. We must begin training people for ethical behavior from earliest childhood. You cannot suddenly focus in on the freshman year and expect to solve the rape problem!—if you have people who are raised without religion, without ethical codes, without morality. Throughout all of
history, ethical men have not murdered, have not stolen, have not raped. Feminism's claim that it discovered rape is simply false. Now, yes, I do believe there is an element of provocative behavior. I do feel that women have to realize their sexual power over men. This is part of our power.
Friedman: Okay, let's get this out of the way. A woman wants to wear a see-through blouse, a very short skirt, walk out on the streets at any time of the day and night. She says, "I have a right to feel free to do this.
I can dress or undress any way I choose, and a man doesn't have a right to touch me unless I tell him that he has that right." What's your position on this?
Paglia: Let me make a parallel, Sonya. We have the right to leave our purse on a park bench in Central Park and go play twenty-five feet away and hope the purse is going to be there when we return, okay? Now, this is just simply stupid behavior. If someone steals the purse, we pursue the thief, we put him in jail. We also say to you, "That was really stupid)" Now, the same thing here. You may have the right to leave your purse there, you may have the right to dress in that way, but you are running a risk.
Friedman: Isn't that really what the verdict says? I mean, he was found not guilty, he wasn't found innocent.
Paglia: Oh, I think that was an appalling case, because that girl had her own private agenda—
Friedman: How do you know that? What an assumption on your part—
Paglia: —trying to glom onto the Kennedy glamouή Pu-leez! Going back there in the middle of the night!
She's a party girl!
Friedman: Let's see how some of our callers feel about this.
[A woman, identifying herself as a feminist and a member of NOW, calls from Tennessee: " I completely disagree with what Camille Paglia
says, and I think she's just rationalizing rape."]
Friedman: I think you're going to find a lot of women taking issue with what you say about date rape.
Paglia: Actually, I find that a tremendous number
of women agree with me, especially working-class women. Women who are street-smart agree with me.
It's the white middle-class women who have a problem with it. And also I find that foreigners, people from Europe, know that Γm the one who has the voice of realism in rape. I have to explain to them how absurd the feminist position is today on this question!
[A woman from Massachusetts calls: "Her attitude is condoning rapel"]
Friedman: It does come across a little bit that way. I don't think you mean to condone rape—
Paglia: Certainly notl
Friedman: But you're really putting the responsibility on women—that if they go out with a man, that whatever happens, they have set themselves up for.
Paglia: I feel that sex is basically combat. I feel that the sexes are at war.
Friedman: Oh, my goodness.
Paglia: I do feel it. It's like going to Atlantic City and gambling, okay? Every date is a gamble. Now, when you lose, you cannot go running to Mommy and Daddy. Sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose.
I am a sexual adventuress. I am a member of the Sixties generation. I believe in going out and taking these risks! But you have to realize you are risking injury and even death when you go home with a stranger and get into the car of someone you don't know and go into the apartment of someone you don't know. And until women wake up and face the reality of this, there are going to be more such rapes. There have been naϊve and stupid women from the beginning of recorded time—we have chronicles of this going back. This is not something new. The tunnel vision about this, the focusing in on this date-rape thing in the last ten years, is an absolute madness. It's part of the parochialism and provincialism, naivete, and sex phobia of American feminism!
Friedman: You know, Camille, you should really learn to speak up, to articulate your positions more clearly!
[laughter] Well, it is different, and I'm glad to have had an opportunity to hear it and to be able to think about it.

Freedom means risk.

My most viewed video[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— I,Hypocrite (@lporiginalg) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Dr. Julie Ponesse (@DrJuliePonesse) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Listen - at 3:40 - to what distresses the feminist writers, using a fictional character, She-Hulk, to express their first-world "trauma".

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— I,Hypocrite (@lporiginalg) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Did anyone explain to them that it all determined?

Without white men controlling women, civilization is impossible. In Sex and Culture (1934), Unwin studied 80 primitive tribes and six civilizations, concluding that there was a positive correlation between civilizational achievement and the sexual restraint of women. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Dr. Ricardo Duchesne (@dr_duchesne) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Most of the men who had families in the past would have little to no chance of having one in the present; feminism, postmodernism would have been denied access to the future, like many modern males.
Ironically, females like the daughters they fathered – when paternalism was still strong – would reject them and filter them out of the gene-pool.

Irony at its finest [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— CryptoDriverZX (@driver_zx) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Without paternalism there is no connection to the past, no traditions for women to nurture and preserve, no purpose for human suffering to validate and justify itself.
With no paternalism children give themselves to supply/demand market forces; they become institutionalized to find shallow identity in systemic utility.
With no paternalism boys find alternatives in gangs, and ideologies and ideals with no external referents, self-medicating and self-pleasuring themselves to become numb to the emptiness inside.
Without paternalism women mentally and psychologically submit to faceless ideologies and institutions, serving them as they would have a family, connected to the past through culture, finding purpose and contentment in gestating and weening the next generation of its continuance.

This is what this parasitical nihilistic ideology has done to women, and through women to males that will never participate in the future and will never be born.

Given the serious nature of the ongoing economic implosion of the EU how accurate do you believe this meme to be? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Felix Rex (@navyhato) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Cat babies, alcohol, anti-depressants and fast LHS men. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Edward Dutton (@jollyheretic) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A "strong, independent, liberated, modern," Americanized female.

Women initiate 70% of divorces.
The average age of 1st marriage for women is 29 in the US.
50% of marriages end in divorce.
5-9 years is the most common duration of marriage.
Women file for divorce between the ages of 34-38 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Rollo Tomassi (@RationalMale) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

7 year itch...as soon as the intoxication of what they call love (lust) subsides....a marriage dissolves.
Seven years is how long a human infant needs to reach the level of physical self-sustenance.
It's all biologically programmed into females....so they fall easily and completely in love/lust - hormonal intoxication - and then gradually lose interest...
Men are utilitarian. they won't let go of what they can still use.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Asking about Polygyny in Islam ... how can you fulfill Men mating strategy [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Coach Kareem (@CoachKareem_RP) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Feminists....you made yer choice, whether you realized what it was, or not - or it was determined by god or natural order - so now get used to what you wished for: you all get the alpha male.
Congratulations!
Nice win.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Once you see the pattern you cannot unsee it.
You'll see it repeating in places you never thought you would.