The Most Important Job In The World

I recently had repeated to me a line by a demagogue I dislike which went something like this:

Motherhood is the most important job in the world.

I am sure you've seen or heard some variation of this at some point in your life. What's infuriating about it can be broken down into two rather obvious parts: where it is right and where it is wrong.

Stay with me.

Where it is right is that motherhood is the most important job in the world, for women. The reason this caveat is required before the sentence can be correct is that, simply put, women cannot be a mother by themselves, and this is true at both the physical and mental aspects of being a parent.

At the physical level, a pregnant woman is significantly debilitated by the process of pregnancy. I've seen this firsthand often enough now to know that a pregnant woman is largely incapable of providing for herself during this time, and colloquially we recognize this in the diminutive expectation on fathers to retrieve whatever a pregnant mother is craving, at any time of day, because the implicit assumption is that if she could do it herself then she would.

At the mental level, a woman is not wired to sever the dependency her children have on her, but instead to be there to meet every need and desire. To properly cultivate and instill discipline in a child, you cannot be primarily concerned with how they feel and how they're immediately reacting to the process. A young mother is instinctively wired to react to emotional distress of their young and alleviate it, to comfort and nurture, so it's quite literally the opposite of their instincts to ignore distress or to try and break that connection. A crying baby is most stressful to the mother of that baby, because especially at early stages of development, crying is the only means for a baby to communicate "I need something".

These "problems" are really only so if the mother being dependent on anyone else is itself a problem. In our current culture, this does become a problem because of who the mother is dependent on, not that she necessarily requires assistance at all, at least at our current stage of degradation. If she is dependent on "a man", then that is somehow a denigration of her womanhood, but if she is dependent on a corporation or tax dollars funding a program that she then relies on instead of a man, then that's socially acceptable. If that doesn't seem logically coherent, it's not, don't waste time trying to make logical sense of it, and I'll explain why later.

This leads us to what is wrong with the original statement, in that if applied universally without caveats, it quickly becomes a joke, because if the "most important job" is dependent on some other job, then that other job is probably more important, because if it's not being done, then nobody can do the "most important job" in the first place. This is akin to saying that the internet access is the most important thing in the world, ignoring the importance of electricity. If you can't have one without the other, then trying to separate the two becomes absurd.

This is made even more amusing by the fact that, being a sexually reproducing species, women cannot get pregnant on their own. Humans do not reproduce asexually, like a virus or bacteria, but instead requires a man with viable sperm to fertilize a woman's eggs. This means that, even discounting the material and physical requirements once a woman has become a mother, a woman can't even become a mother without a man either. At no point in the process can the dependency of a woman on some external factor be severed, though you can be certain that once they've finished gossiping about each other, feminist scientists will get around to finding a way for women to reproduce without men.

Now, as absurd as all that may be, the supposedly more rational men can make a similar mistake, in that while they are no less important, nothing that they provision or protect matters if they do it only unto themselves. Selfishness does not ever actually result in mutual benefit, and so just as absurd as women trying to cut men out of the picture is, so are men who try to cut out women.

While the most important job for a woman is to be a mother, the most important job in the world for a man is to be a father. The responsibilities are different, certainly, in that while mom is debilitated and wired for nurturing and care, fathers are wired for protection and provision. Men are better at remaining focused on a goal, regardless of how they or others feel, to ensure that a task is accomplished. At the biological level, this is explained by the effects of testosterone on the brain, in that connections which are strong for women are broken for men, and so the connections that male brains make to compensate are the foundation for the increased capacity for logic and reason.

Logic and reason provide the means by which men can detach themselves from how they feel to address needs for themselves and their families. It's why a father won't be moved in the same way by the sound of a baby crying as a mother, not because the father does not care for the future of their offspring, but because their focus is on ensuring their children are prepared for when the parents are no longer around to help out. The nature of a child is to be dependent on the parents, and to keep that alive forever, but that would end the species in a generation, and so fathers must work to sever the dependency on the parents, and that is a painful process for the child no matter how you try to approach it.

Nevertheless, if there is no mother to carry and care for children, then it won't matter how good a man is at provision and protection, because he'll provision more than he can ever consume, and his protection of said resources will prevent them from being invested as a legacy that will continue on after he has died. Material accomplishments cannot fight back against entropy anywhere near as effective as your posterity can.

In this, there is a dependency on men with respect to women, and women with respect to men, for either of their most important jobs in the world to be available to work in the first place, let alone for each of them to do the best job they can at their most important job in the world.

This is about the closest that men and women will ever get to equality, not in any tangible behavior or appearance, but in that they are both wired and required to achieve disparate tasks and responsibilities, and when they work together in unison with respect to those roles is when either will ever truly find success.

Where this system fell apart is with men.

Yup, men, the problem originated with us, and because we caved, we have thus continued to be the source of problems, even when we didn't make the choices that have led to the specific circumstances. We took on blame when we shouldn't have, and much like how apologizing in public only increases the thirst of those who demanded an apology in the first place, when men groveled to women, they invited women to continue to blame them for even the poor choices of women.

The reason this hasn't been solved is because men simply won't admit that they were wrong in the first place. The same arrogance and pride that conquered foreign armies also deluded men into thinking that their power was sufficient that they could absorb any bad consequences that came about because of the folly of women. That the lofty idealism that they boasted of possessing was, or ever could, have been turned against them and perverted.

Time and again, even in the Bible, how often do we see men who are puffed up in arrogance, sure that nothing a woman could do would bring them any harm, turn to a woman and offer to give her "anything she desires", only to then hear an absurd request that he is then regretfully bound to oblige, lest he lose face and admit that his power is not so great as to have supported making such a boast.

Male arrogance, not grounded in any sort of truth, is how we got here. Men, thinking that their power would not ever be dampened or eliminated because of their voluntary humiliation, gladly stepped up to the plate, deluded into thinking that they were paradoxically demonstrating great power.

Like Samson with Delilah, the arrogance of man believing himself to be infinitely strong leads to his inevitable downfall. Instead of refusing to play, men thought they could play along with the silly games women suggested and that nothing bad would come of it. The reality is that the worst behaviors of women were then put on display, and men had to force themselves to not just hold their tongues, but to even go so far as to praise women in their degenerate behavior, hoping that if they played this new game better than other men, then the true measure of their power would be seen and they would be justly rewarded for it as well!

So not only did men start the game out by taking blame and groveling when they shouldn't have, many doubled down on this and thought that in taking on even more blame and groveling even more would somehow "end the game", and they'd be the "winner". All of this only created a negative feedback loop where more and more absurd, more and more selfish, more and more dysgenic behavior was entertained by women, and men went right along with it. That's why it doesn't make sense, because manifesting irrationality is the name of the game.

The less rational, the more fantastical, and especially the more pleasurable, the "better" it must be, and damn the consequences because our power is sufficient to take on whatever fate can throw at us.

That's how we got to where we are today, with men declaring some variation of "motherhood is the most important job in the world", because they're still too arrogant to admit that they've been played. They're still convinced that they're "going to win", and that the women who have behaved irrationally will magically come to the rational conclusion that there are any winners to declare, or that it's time to play a new game.

The reality is that they'll keep playing the game till it stops being fun, and that'll happen either when men stop playing along, or when consequences finally force everyone to stop playing altogether.

For the same reason fathers need to detach themselves from appearance and emotion to make the hard decisions in support of their family, so do men need to do so at the societal level as well, not worrying about the labels and the emotional outbursts, because the choices they're making are for the better of everyone involved. The discipline that needs to be instilled, the dependencies that need to be severed, are necessary for our mutual survival, for mothers to be mothers and fathers to be fathers, and like a child throwing a tantrum, the process is not going to be easy or rational or civil or polite.
 Mothers plant, fathers prune. Without one we have chaos, and without the other we have no future.

We need both, and men need the confidence to not just say and believe that, but to stop playing games and act on it as well. Sooner the better.

Ralph Did Nothing Wrong

I won't be paying money to see Ralph Breaks the Internet, because it's Disney playing the same narcissistic feminist bullshit they did with Star Wars, where men are the source of all problems, and women are goddesses whose every whim should be satisfied because their desires are intrinsically holy and righteous.

It should be obvious to even those men who aren't trying to pay attention that women will simply never get over having been so terribly wrong back in Eden.

I will be spoiling the only thing that should really matter: the plot. Here's the relevant excerpt from the plot synopsis:

The Internet is restored and Vanellope decides to stay in Slaughter Race. Coming to terms with the changes in his life, Ralph returns to the arcade and begins participating in activities with other game characters, while staying in touch with Vanellope through video chats.

Couple short points and then a big, long one.

1) "Game jumping" was one of the biggest evils from the first film, but this was thrown out because Vanellope got bored.

2) "Make peace with your role in life" was one of the big takeaways of the first film, but that was thrown out because Vanellope was unhappy with her role.

3) Vanellope's glitch prevented her from leaving her game, this was a huge plot point in the first film, and that glitch wasn't fixed at the end of the first movie, but now she's still got the glitch and is leaving her game and going on adventures because...?

4) Ralph and Vanellope are apparently platonic friends, contrasted with Felix and Calhoun that got married at the end of the first film, and thus supposedly so now are Vanellope and Shank, her new girl-crush, but that hasn't stopped people from applying more intimate overtones to the relationship between Ralph and Vanellope, while also desperately trying to prevent anyone from doing the same to the second.

Vanellope chose to stay with her new "totally not a lesbian" girl crush and making courtesy phone calls to Ralph because she got bored with her life and wanted more and despite all that Ralph did, he couldn't provide the freedom she didn't realize she had always desired.

*Begin Sarcasm*
I am sure you've never heard that story before and are genuinely surprised at how remarkably similar that sounds to the (((secular culture's))) approved life path of every GenX and Millennial girl. What a coincidence that young girls who see this will view any male friend in their lives who wants to keep them in the kitchen arcade is really demonstrating that the men have a toxic codependency, and a disgusting fear of their friends being free to make choices of their own, so they just need to "let it go" and trust the girl's instincts. Why would anyone ever have an issue with anyone thinking anything like that?
*End Sarcasm*


The significance of Ralph's relationship with Vanellope is directly tied to how close the two are really supposed to be. For any of the relationship dynamics to be "creepy", for Ralph's reactions to being "left behind" to be unmerited, and especially for him to be the only one "at fault" in how things play out, the only one that needs to grow or change, the mutual nature of the relationship dynamics cannot have been platonic and distant.

And if you want to understand the undertone of perhaps how at least Vanellope viewed the relationship, let's take a look to someone who has a viable claim to a deep connection: her voice actor.

Sarah Silverman has deep connection to her ‘Ralph’ character

 “I had done voice-over work, but this character was really special,” Silverman says. “This is a character that feels really close because I am playing my own inner child. In the first movie, she was a glitch and she made that her superpower.

The thematically pertinent portion of the article reads like this though (emphasis added):

Silverman’s character is facing a new challenge. There’s a restlessness in Vanellope that she doesn’t quite understand until she and fellow arcade character Wreck-It Ralph (John C. Reilly) have to go into the internet to find a way to keep Vanellope’s “Sugar Rush” game going. While searching for the solution, Vanellope discovers a much more exciting driving game, “Slaughter Race,” and begins to look at a different kind of future.

Why is this relevant?

Because Silverman has publicly commented about having chosen her career over motherhood.

As a comic always working & on the road I have had to decide between motherhood & living my fullest life & I chose the latter. (archive)

Men don't have to do that. I'd so love to be a fun dad, coming home from the road & being my best fun dad self. (archive)

So this is just a lil fuck all y'all bc u can't be a woman w/out sacrifice & that's the fact jack. (archive)

If the voice actor who feels a "deep connection" to a character already has a chip on their shoulder about the choices between career and being a mother, and has delusions that men don't also make sacrifices, leading to an unfounded envy for fathers, how exactly do you think that person is going to feel a "deep connection" to a character that just-so-happens to make a remarkably similar choice for remarkably similar reasons? I mean, really, what are the odds?

If you doubt this connection, why does she portray the choice as being between "motherhood" and living her "fullest life"?

These parallels aren't an accident, and they run even more personal, and disturbing, than you may guess or really want to know.

For example, did you know Silverman suffered, and likely still does, from urinary incontinence?

From the article above, she notes the similarity to when she wrote a book about it and how she used her own "glitch":

 “That is a lot like when I wrote the book, ‘The Bed Wetter: Stories of Courage, Redemption, and Pee’ (Harper Perennial), that talks about the humiliation of being a bedwetter and thinking that would be the deepest, darkest secret of my life. Then I grew up to be a comedian and it became this rock, this piece of strength in me because if people are going to boo me or hate me, I already know what humiliation feels like.”

Did also you know Silverman has cited her depression as another reason she doesn't want to have any biological children?

And though she adores kids, Silverman says, she does not want any. "Maybe down the line, in my 40s, I might want to adopt, but for a few reasons I just do not care to have biological children," she says. "I feel like, other than vanity or ego, I can't justify it. There's just millions of kids that have no parents, and it seems crazy just because you want to see a little you to have a baby. And I also think that everyone has things about themselves that they don't like, and I am afraid to see that.... My parents, my sisters and I, all of us had a lot of sadness in our childhoods; it's in our genes. Depression. And I just can't bear to see it.... "

One of Vanellope's fears in the first movie is that her glitching will cause people to not like her, thus ending her "life" when they "pull the plug" on the game. The plot finds a way to make the glitching work in her favor, but because reasons it doesn't also get rid of the glitch, despite one character quite literally having the ability to fix anything he hits with a hammer.

If Vanellope is Silverman's "inner child", and Silverman's glitches were her incontinence and her depression, then despite those things not getting in the way of her relative success, she can't ever "cure" or "fix" them, and thus neither can Vanellope lose her "glitch" either.

Vanellope being restless "at home" in the "daily routine" with Ralph, is coincidentally blessed by circumstances that expose her to a "different kind of future" that is "more exciting" and so she decides to follow that path and live life to the fullest, just like how Silverman thought that being a mother would not let her live to the fullest and so she chose a career instead. I mean, how did the Disney writers know how to try and do all of this? It's such a mystery! *roll eyes*

But what we're supposed to believe is that Ralph, whose genuine concern is with fixing Vanellope's game, and eventually the future of their relationship, so that she can go back to where she belongs is the one who is the real problem. Tricky how that works out, isn't it? The manipulation is subtle, but it turns what is normally very healthy into something sick, because the reality is that the best way to stay married is for the relationship to have a higher priority than your own pleasure and comfort.

What is "normal" gets portrayed as "evil" by those who are "evil" and yet still seek validation that never comes outside their own fantasies.

Is it then any surprise that a woman who now claims to never want to get married, for reasons that you're not supposed to notice would also contradict her prior demands that same-sex marriages be legalized, would so closely identify with a fictional character that also chases what is exciting and new, without really considering the impact of how such choices would play out or reflect on her?


Vanellope's new "totally platonic" life partner also just happens to be the leader of a gang, isn't that also convenient that she'll be able to help raise and teach these other racers who lack any biological connection to her. The parallels are just so convenient and we're supposed to believe entirely unintentional, I must put on a face of genuine expression to express how shocked I am to find these connections!


So that's Vanellope's "side", basically just Silverman without wrinkles, bedwetting, and mind-altering depression medications, and Ralph is a bitter clinger who wants her barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

What about Ralph?

From the first film, another of the "big rules" is that if you die "outside your game", you can't ever regenerate or come back, and for this reason alone, Ralph's concern for Vanellope and everyone else who had been in Sugar Rush is genuine and well-founded, in that if any of them "died", since they've all been forced out of their broken game, that's it, kaput, they'll never come back again. Dead-dead.

And if folks want to argue that yet another extremely important rule from the first movie now somehow doesn't apply, because the story they want to tell demands it now change, congratulations on being too stupid to understand the importance of continuity and its relevance to good storytelling.

Morons like you are why Star Wars is now dead.

Anyway, Ralph apparently thought that because he had saved someone's life and then had fun spending time with them outside life-threatening circumstances that there was an actual relationship there worth fighting to keep. Ralph was apparently under the impression that there was more to their friendship than there actually was, and so his behavior comes off as "creepy", but again only if there wasn't really ever any mutual depth to what they had in the first place.

If Ralph didn't do anything for Vanellope, if he wasn't actually her best friend, if they didn't spend time together and enjoy each other's company, let alone her hero and savior from death, then his behavior would be like that of a stalker, and the creepy categorization would fit perfectly.

The thing is, Vanellope does owe Ralph something, because even with the problems he created, he ended up solving all of them and even bigger ones in the process. Her place in the arcade is literally due to Ralph's efforts, and without him she'd still be stuck in the proverbial gutter, alone and unloved, if not dead.

But the story plays out like a Pretty Woman remake but the idiot who tried to make a hooker into a housewife gets upstaged by a lesbian. The parallels between Ralph and Ross from Friends are not an accident either.

As thanks, Vanellope gets bored and when Ralph tries to again step up to her rescue, her subsequent choices then start causing problems which he is not able to rectify. He still comes to the rescue time and time again, genuinely sacrificing for her, but any expectation on his part with respect to reciprocation is framed as controlling or toxic.

Now, Ralph is actually wrong to keep doing this, because it highlights the dysfunction in the relationship where Ralph is literally doing everything he can for her, and in the end she just moves on and expects him to do the same. She and he clearly didn't view the relationship the same way, and that should have been a big red flag for Ralph. His ignorance, though, does allow unfiltered hypergamy to be put on display, lauded as a virtue in Vanellope for continuing on to bigger and better, while any of Ralph's discontent with this arrangement is declared to be rooted in a problem with him.

Ralph is "creepy" because he doesn't ever really understand that Vanellope doesn't want freedom from the routine that happens to involve him, but from feeling like she ever owes Ralph anything, because their bonding never occurred on her terms, and any confusion on this is entirely Ralph's fault, because solipsistic narcissists assume everyone else can put the dots together just like they did, even if critical information never left the mind of the narcissist.

The White Knight Ralph may save the damsel in distress, but he is supposed to be doing it simply because that is what he is supposed to do, and his reward is in getting to save the damsel in distress, but expecting anything more is simply unheard of, and demonstrates how stupid, backwards, controlling, and thus "creepy", he really is.

What makes this even more clear is that Vanellope didn't return to the arcade and split time with Ralph, her literal savior, and instead shacks up with her new "totally platonic wink wink" girlfriend, and their only contact after that point is through video chats.

Vanellope wanted freedom from Ralph, using the "routine" and "boredom" as the spoken cover, and then exploits Ralph's inexperience with this manipulative relationship dynamic to lead him down a path where he will inevitably make a "mistake" that she can then point to as the "real reason" that she now needs freedom from not just the arcade, but Ralph as well.

This is also what "chivalry" has become, or really always was, a means by which women assert dominance over men they otherwise cannot. Women, under this system, benefit from the sacrifices of men, while having no moral or social requirement to reciprocate, and men think it demonstrates great virtue and quality on them, as opposed to exposing them for the rubes they really are. About the only other place we find such a relationship is with respect to worshiping a deity, and that's why I referenced goddess worship in the opening.

Modern woman are, by no accident, an embodiment of a capricious goddess character, hedonistic and short-sighted, selfish and deeply flawed, and yet Vanellope is held up as a "role model" for young girls, while Ralph is supposed to be the warning to all men.

Ralph is the "traditional" fuddy-duddy who simply hasn't gotten with the times, and his backwards thinking is not just a problem for their relationship, but for the dynamic of the society as a whole, which is why his problem breaks the internet, because being a stick in the mud is that big a threat to the entire modern social dynamic. Ralph is the kind of guy who doesn't think he worships women as goddesses, but if it'll get him a wife, he'll hold open a door or drive a certain type of car or eat the forbidden fruit.

To people who still think like Ralph, what is the correct response to gradual ostracizing by a goddess?

Thankfulness! You've been spared a terrible fate you were otherwise attempting to invite upon yourself. The favor of a goddess is never a blessing, but a curse, and if you've been freed, be thankful and don't seek to bring such a curse back on yourself again.

Ralph is the guy who thinks that the "old rules" regarding friendships are what still work. The guy who thinks that being nice, providing, and being a protector, will net him a good partner for life. That simply isn't how it works anymore, and the exceptions prove the rule.

The reason Ralph should be thankful is that if Vanellope is really so stupid and shallow as to think she'll find more satisfaction with people who have sacrificed nothing for her, with people that don't share almost any history with her at all, who simply recognized she had a talent they could exploit to their benefit, then she'll deserve the unhappy ending that will inevitably come as soon as she has stopped being of use to them, and Ralph will no longer come to her rescue.

So while the movie is terrible, and destroys any of the good set up by the first, perhaps that is itself the "silver lining". The two movies show men how, even if you sacrifice and slave away to a woman's benefit, she'll dump you the moment she thinks something better has come along, and it only needs to appear better because she's not smart or mature or rational enough to need it to actually be better. She's a creature of emotion, capricious and volatile, happy to drink deep of your resources and then move on to the next ignorant sap who thinks that he'll do any better.

The movies show that our (((secular society))) expects inequality between men and women, and women are the ones who will net all the benefits. That men will be told to work harder and harder and that they should be be thankful for the opportunity to do so, while women are told not worry about the men they are stepping on to make their dreams come true.

It's a film I won't pay to watch, but it does still have utility and purpose, in serving as a sign of the times. We are heading towards great calamity, but people think all that awaits them is fun and excitement and freedom. They do not realize the hell that awaits them, and how there won't always be someone there to save them from themselves.

Those folks simply cannot be saved, and aren't worth saving, and your delusional attempts to do so will only result in your own damnation as well.

Envy, Bitterness, Denial: Part 7

This is the continuation of Part 6, looking at an opinion piece published by the NYT.

White Women, Come Get Your People

In Part 6 we looked at some of the hateful results of what happens when white women behave like colored women do, in self-interest, and how because that does not immediately work in favor of colored women, white women are "gender traitors", because women are supposed to be voting based on what helps all women and not just themselves. White women, in making partner and lifestyle choices that do not benefit colored women, are selfish and playing a role in oppressing colored women. And they should just stop doing that right now.

If the theme sounds familiar and childish it's not an accident, because it's always easier to try and tear someone else down, to devalue their achievements and make excuses, than to try and accomplish something yourself. It's orders of magnitude simpler to be a critic than a creator, and so when even the very fabric of reality is demonstrating that some choices are better than others, and you can't change the past, you will work hard to change the future instead to try and mitigate the cost of bad choices you have made. This is natural, expected, and yet so often entirely self-destructive.

Let's finish up the article.

I’m sure he does “have” them; game girls will defend their privilege to the death.

Envious jab, and little more than that. Females naturally defend what is "theirs", whether we're talking about humans or animals, and so a woman accusing other women of doing so while trying to defend "what ought to be mine" is certainly hypocritical, but pointing that out is impotent at best.

This is why deceit and misdirection is required, because facts and data don't matter, so one must "dig deeper" to create the desired resonance that goes beyond intellect.

And that is why the article went where it did next.

But apparently that doesn’t include Ms. Murkowski anymore. Maybe it’s because she comes from a state with the nation’s highest rate of sexual violence, with a sexual assault rate three times the national average, where prosecutors just let a man evade jail time after he kidnapped a native Alaskan woman and strangled her unconscious, then masturbated over her body. Maybe.

The details don't need to be true for the narrative to appear convincing, and that's the point.

The statistics and data are reported out of context, because at face value this appears to be relevant given the nature of the accusations made against Kavanaugh. The emotional appeal is strong, but if you actually read the article linked:

Some 47 percent of suspects are Alaska Native. About one-third are white. Some 97 percent are male. Suspects and victims tend to be the same race, except for black suspects, whose victims most often are white, the analysis found.

Another data point:

Almost all the victims and suspects knew each other. Just 4 percent of the attackers were strangers, and for the youngest children, only 1 percent were targeted by someone unknown, the analysis found. Most suspects were acquaintances. Some were relatives. A few were boyfriends or girlfriends. In five instances, the suspect was the baby sitter.

Rather different framing. Apparently people are lacking proper sexual outlets and, given that incest and rape are really only a moral issue for Christians, the problem doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with any of the national narratives at all,

Now, the article cites 1,542 "incidents involving felony sex offenses" for Alaska in 2016. California meanwhile had 13,695 rape cases in 2016. They used "national average" to try and make Alaska seem so terrible, because that relies on statistics per capita, and since California is a more highly populated state, even if the "rate" is low, the actual number of reported rapes is much higher.

The same way that, as we saw earlier, even if only 10% of white women pursue abortions, because that's 10% of a bigger population, that still results in more actual abortions for white women than colored women.

So, does Alaska or California have a bigger rape problem? And how are "whites" to blame for any of it when they're not the ones doing the majority of it in the first place?

Facts, details, boring boring boring.

And for the man who "evaded jail time"?

Schneider was charged with four felonies, including kidnapping and assault. He pleaded guilty to a single felony assault charge in the second degree in exchange for a sentence of two years with one suspended, plus three years probation. Schneider received credit for time served while wearing an ankle monitor and living with his wife and two children.

Who cares about the truth when the story "feels right"?

The reason thus particular case was brought up was in an attempt to equate Trump, who is also entirely coincidentally also a white man, with this convicted felon. Trump was upset that a Republican congresswoman would not vote for the Supreme Court Nominee of a Republican President after hearing unfounded allegations brought forth by Democrats only after the nominee was announced. The attempt is to equate Trump's dismissal of the politically motivated and unfounded allegations with the judge "letting the evil white man go". Sneaky, but not very well hidden.

The intent is to make it look like Trump is an uncouth aggressor acting outside "civilized norms", sufficient to justify white women turning against him and to the "side" of colored women in solidarity against this oppressor who seeks to dominate all of them.

That asking for "proof" is the same as "excusing evil".

And yet this is all still falling under the "stop doing that" type of argument, not the "you should be doing something else and here's why", because the author and those who think like them rely on their opponents surrendering, never fighting back. If an opponent were to fight back, that would be "improper", and in this fashion did they so successfully manipulate those tempted by ideologically superiority.

"We'll win without fighting because we desire a higher path and none can denigrate the power of our ideals!"

"We may lose this election, but we'll still have our principles, and they can never take that away from us!"

Now let's see the contrast.

Meanwhile, Senator Collins subjected us to a slow funeral dirge about due process and some other nonsense I couldn’t even hear through my rage headache as she announced on Friday she would vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. Her mostly male colleagues applauded her.

The author couldn't be bothered to listen to how legal processes actually work from a woman who has actually tried to work hard to achieve something in a legal system that was crafted by men. The author was so overcome by emotion that she couldn't even listen to another woman! Such terrible men for causing her to sin against her "sister" in such a fashion, at least, so long as that sister quickly repents of her own sins of being a "gender traitor" first.

Even this, though, is a misdirection from the fact that the author doesn't want to understand how to affect actual change, because the author isn't actually capable of, or interested in, doing anything but trying to convince other people to surrender, to be worn down by nagging stupidity cloaked in intellectualism and activism. To throw a tantrum and push people to just throw their hands up in the air and say "fine, do what you want, just go away!"

It's this same childish stupidity that lets the author pretend that because a woman said it, it must be good, but if a man said it, it must be bad, because the path to truth is obviously in the vagina. Even woman agreeing with a man, that's bad because a woman is apparently supposed to be diametrically opposed to anything a man might agree with, unless that man got what he said from a woman, then he's just a liar and a creep.

It's this kind of simplistic ignorance wrapped in grandiose vernacular that prompts people to promote socialistic ideals, because they're simply too dumb to understand why those lofty ideals won't actually work. It's this kind of intellectual laziness that the readers are supposed to ignore because they're supposed to be drummed up into an emotional fit just like the author.

Is anyone genuinely confused as to why the author is still single?

The author is the stereotypical "bossy girl" on the playground who goes into an absolute fit whenever someone isn't playing in exactly the way she wants. The kind of girl that finds herself lonely and insecure, but with a chip on her shoulder, certain that the problem is everyone else and not her.

She never grew up because her parents didn't care enough to tell her "no", but instead shipped her off to be brought up by a soulless government system which only taught her to repeat, not to think.

The article finishes out with the same pathetic weakness that the author is desperately trying to hide behind the emotional misdirection.

The question for white women in November is: Which one of these two women are you?

I fear we already know the answer.

The author wants what white women have, and if she can't nobody can, and all without putting in the work required for stable relationships and families.

The author is angry at men, because she's been rejected for putting what she believes before what she is, and so men are being mean and must be diminished in value and significance for refusing to "play along".

The author is ignoring truth, preferring instead a fantasy where women are goddesses and worthy of your worship, and perhaps if you've groveled enough they'll deign to show you favor.

But pointing all this is out is simply stating the obvious. It falls flat, nobody is really surprised or convinced by any of it. So what's really the "proper response" to such an article?

Well, beyond the dissection for understanding to help those who aren't quite aware of all that's going on, saying nothing is usually best. Ignoring a tantrum can sometimes work because the individual throwing the tantrum will come to realize that their inputs are not achieving the desired outputs.

If you don't ignore? I am bad rhetoric, but perhaps something along these lines:

Fake women want lives that matter.

And then tell white women to vote for white interests, marry and then have white babies, and make a big deal about women who dress like sluts needing to spend lots of money on batteries.

Envy, Bitterness, Denial: Part 4

This is a continuation of Part 3, looking at an opinion piece published by the NYT.

White Women, Come Get Your People

In Part 3 I highlighted how, according to the author of the article, the "problem" the author sees is both a race issue and gender issue. It is a race and gender issue in that white women are trading "basic rights" for "mutual benefit" and being "cherished and revered" by white men, and that's a bad thing because it interferes with the political goals of colored women who want to dress slutty and vote for Democrats who will take money away from white men to give to everyone instead of letting white women "monopolize resources" of those white men.

I also noted that, while appearing to be about "white women", the article is also revealing much more about the author herself, in that the motivations for her castigation of white women has a lot less to do with "colored women" and a lot more to do with the specific life circumstances of the author herself. This is seen in how things which are normal and healthy in a family dynamic are painted as being indicators of something wrong.

Before I continue, I want to cite a verse that is pertinent:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! - Isaiah 5:20 (NKJV)

It is not innocent when things that are "good" are called "evil".

Let's continue with the article.

This elevated position over women of color comes at a cost, though. Consider what Kellyanne Conway, a top adviser to the president, said at a dinner last year for New York’s Conservative Party. She suggested that higher birthrates are “how I think we fight these demographic wars moving forward.” The war, of course, is with non-white people. So it seems that white women are expected to support the patriarchy by marrying within their racial group, reproducing whiteness and even minimizing violence against their own bodies.

So here we have a formal identification of at least some sort of conflict with "sides", in that we've got a bit more of a definition to "patriarchy". The "Demographic Wars" are fought with reproduction, with those that actually reproduce and whose offspring survive to reproduce as well and so on and so forth, will be the one that "wins" these "Demographic Wars".

That's called "basic survival", by the way. The author is literally trying to make basic survival of white people into some sort of oppressive act on everyone else in the world. The dynamic of natural selection is now being accredited to "white men", or at least "the patriarchy", as something they're responsible for putting into place and sustaining, to the detriment of all non-whites.

Well, if you take the gendered labels for God into account, that doesn't sound quite so crazy, does it? If God were masculine, and God set things in a particular order, and you think there's something wrong with that order, and you aren't masculine, would it be a surprise that masculinity would then become "toxic" to your efforts to undermine the current order and put a new one in its place?

But let's step down from the supernatural narrative though, take the fancy language out of this, and just look at the basics. A woman is upset at other women for having babies and protecting themselves from danger with men who are of the same skin color.

Put any other race into the mix, and nobody bats an eye. But when it's "white people"?

Saying things like "white people should be able to exist and their children not live in fear" is considered supremacist, if you didn't know.

Seriously. I just re-worded the "14 Words" that supposedly only white supremacists dare recite, which are:

We must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.

That's the state of modern "white supremacy", the most terrible form of racism that exists in the world. Existing and having white children, and wanting your white children to have a future, means you're a white supremacist. That's the "Demographic War". That white people, who do not constitute a majority of the world population, want to exist and have children, and so white women are betraying colored women in this "Demographic War" by marrying white men, monopolizing resources, and having white babies.

Because, you know, women are supposed to stick up for other women before their own interests otherwise they might get kicked out of the group and have to eat their lunch somewhere else.

Welcome to the front lines of a cold war few had idea they were always a part of. A war that the author of the article is losing, by the way, because she has no partner to help her bear children. So, instead of trying to find one, she'll instead try to discourage white women from "fighting" in the "Demographic War" to begin with, by making the existence and having children that look like you "supremacist", and subsequently, "evil".

We'll see what other methods the author thinks can work to upset the "supply lines" in Part 5.

Envy, Bitterness, Denial: Part 3

This is a continuation of Part 2, looking at an opinion piece published by the NYT.

White Women, Come Get Your People

In Part 2 I continued on with the article and demonstrated that there is a binary being created with men on one side and women on the other. While my assertion of that binary may have seemed a stretch with only what was in the article up to that point, even the most skeptical will be satisfied in due time.

There's no way to unpack everything that's been said and what it means in a short fashion, this article just hits so many buttons at the same time.

Without further ado, let's continue the article a bit more.


They’re more sympathetic to Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who actually shooed away a crowd of women and told them to “grow up.” Or Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, whose response to a woman telling him she was raped was: “I’m sorry. Call the cops.”

These are the kind of women who think that being falsely accused of rape is almost as bad as being raped. The kind of women who agree with President Trump that “it’s a very scary time for young men in America,” which he said during a news conference on Tuesday. But the people who scare me the most are the mothers, sisters and wives of those young men, because my stupid uterus still holds out some insane hope of solidarity.

Note that the behavior of the women "shooed away" doesn't matter. Note that telling a possible rape victim to do the very thing that would bring some measure of justice against her rapist is dismissed as being dismissive.

Note that the consequences of a false rape accusation are swept under the rug because "being raped" is so much worse. Note that the risks a man takes in associating with women, given how domestic abuse, family courts, and divorce laws are all tilted in favor of women, are meaningless.

Women who sympathize with the genuine struggles of men are "gender traitors". Women who agree with a man on how to handle a circumstance are "gender traitors". Women who notice the preferential legal treatment of women, and how other women can exploit that inappropriately and selfishly, are "gender traitors".

Because the article's author's uterus thinks that women are supposed to only agree with women. Or something. Let's continue the article a bit more.

We’re talking about white women. The same 53 percent who put their racial privilege ahead of their second-class gender status in 2016 by voting to uphold a system that values only their whiteness, just as they have for decades. White women have broken for Democratic presidential candidates only twice: in the 1964 and 1996 elections, according to an analysis by Jane Junn, a political scientist at the University of Southern California.

Right, so at this point we're more clearly talking about gender, not behavior, as the "problem". Specifically, about how white women didn't vote in ways that benefited non-white women. In case you doubt that this is a racial issue as well as a gender issue, just continue reading.

Women of color, and specifically black women, make the margin of difference for Democrats. The voting patterns of white women and white men mirror each other much more closely, and they tend to cast their ballots for Republicans. The gender gap in politics is really a color line.

Colored women want to dress slutty and vote Democrat, and so because since white women vote Republican and tell their daughters to dress modestly, they're "gender traitors" for choosing to align with white men instead of colored women because the colored women also have a uterus.

It gets better. Or worse, depending on your perspective.

That’s because white women benefit from patriarchy by trading on their whiteness to monopolize resources for mutual gain. In return they’re placed on a pedestal to be “cherished and revered,” as Speaker Paul D. Ryan has said about women, but all the while denied basic rights.

White women get married and their husbands work to provide for their wife and family, and in turn they're cherished and revered by their husbands and children. That's a bad trade because the white men are denying all women "basic rights".

The 19th amendment was adopted in 1920. Title IX has been in place since 1972. Which "basic rights" are being denied? We don't actually get to find out. For the same reason that the stories of sexual assault are to be believed and acted upon, the assertion that basic rights are being denied has to be taken as true at face value and then acted upon.

Even worse, let's look at the phrase "monopolize resources" in the context of taxes. Democrats support using taxes to put money where it needs to go on the premise that, left to their own devices, people would be too selfish to share their money. Republicans are already on the record as giving more charitably than Democrats, and so they favor fewer taxes and greater freedom on part of the individual family unit in deciding how to spend resources.

Guess which one of these paths is more attractive to someone who isn't married, doesn't have someone who would work hard towards their "mutual benefit", and believes that other people aren't sharing their money correctly and so they have to vote for people who will take that money and redistribute it by force?

At this point in the article, you have to realize that the politics and shaming are a clever front, a sham, a distraction from the real problem: the author simply can't find a man who wants her, and because of that, her politics reflect her need find a replacement for the role that men played to her "mutual benefit".

Think about it. Why would you have a problem with how someone else found happiness and contentment unless you cannot also take advantage of that opportunity because of choices someone else made without considering you? Why, other than envy, would someone try to tear down what others have built instead of building their own accomplishments instead?

Even in the secular world, the phrase "living well is the best revenge" holds some meaning, right?

This is the power of a victim identity over people. At no point can they ever stop being the victim, and not just them, but any who are demographically similar to them must also be victims, otherwise the demands being made would have no moral weight at all. If you've been wronged, you are supposed to seek justice, right? If a whole group of people have been wronged, then the scope of th justice scales, right?

It's the difference between a childish tantrum and a legitimate demand for justice, and oh boy, does it continue on in Part 4.

Envy, Bitterness, Denial: Part 2

This is a continuation of Part 1, discussing an opinion article published by the NYT:

White Women, Come Get Your People

In short, last post I presented that men and women aren't equal, but they're both valuable, because they're different and they both serve different roles that, together, are necessary. I also demonstrated why the dramatic opening to the article has tipped off the careful reader to know that it is not intended to be taken on merit of truth, because truth doesn't matter when you're told to "listen and believe" a story just because it has been told, despite there being precedent for stories being unreliable and blind trust exploitable that dates back thousands of years.

Now, rejection of these different roles is rooted in envy, because men and women are going to be valued by different things, and some things are going to be more obviously or easily held in higher regard than others, so in order to "right the wrong", or to "achieve equality", people deny that distinct roles are necessary at all, or seek to write new ones.

What then happens is that when folks repeatedly fail to have anyone adhere to their "new roles", by others or reality or natural consequences, they grow bitter. They don't learn from their failure, they project it out and blame someone else.

"Oh, if ___ did/didn't do ___ then I could totally have ___! I now hate ___ and so you should you for being so mean and oppressive as to prevent me from being able to ___!"

Does that pattern seem familiar? It's how one affirms that they're just fine and the problems are with everyone, or everything, else. It's a type of solipsism, a manifestation of the belief that the individual is the center of the universe, the most important person there is, and screw you for defying the commands of your god. Or, to suit the times, goddess.

It's just as mature as the bossy child on the playground who believed it was their duty to tell everyone else how they're supposed to be playing, only now that childish mind also has leverage in the legal system and access to tools with which to try and assert their will on others.

The article from the NYT demonstrates this in an attempt to use identity politics to shame women into behaving differently. This is seen in the title, as well as where we pick up in the article.

With the exception of Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, all the women in the Republican conference caved, including Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who held out until the bitter end

These women are gender traitors, to borrow a term from the dystopian TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale.” They’ve made standing by the patriarchy a full-time job. The women who support them show up at the Capitol wearing “Women for Kavanaugh” T-shirts, but also probably tell their daughters to put on less revealing clothes when they go out. 

"Gender traitors." Really think about that term for a second. Selling out "the sisterhood"?

If ever there was doubt that "Feminism" was not just an anti-men movement intent on complete feminine dominance, phrases like this should at least fuel an understanding of why that framing came about.

Even taking the term at face value, traitors in what sense? What "battle" is there between the sexes that could cause women to be considered a "traitor" to other women? What cause, what noble goal could be pursued so passionately that women who don't immediately believe other women and who tell their daughters to dress more modestly are considered "traitors"?

We get a hint in the label "patriarchy". While not really defined, it does set up a binary. If one "side" is "the patriarchy", and treason is based on which gender you "side" with, then the "other side" is then inevitably "the matriarchy."

Feminine dominance, in other words. That's the only possible alternative because if the "lines" are drawn based on gender, and those genders are based on biological distinctions, and the most significant biological distinction is between males and females, then the alternative to male dominance is thus female dominance.

Were the lines being drawn on behavior, or people taking on particular roles, or on issues with dominance itself, then both the social and written laws would seek to destroy dominance wherever it shows up, demonstrated by man or woman, because the problem is "dominance" and "oppression" and "inequality".

If men erred because they were unfairly dominant, and the problem is in the dominance and not men, then the target would be manifestations of dominance, and not men, right?

But then what does how a woman dresses play into this? Why would female modesty, where women are exposing less of themselves to the apparently depraved and salacious eyes of men, be "bad", a sign that you are a traitor to your gender?

Because women don't want to deny what they are. It's only men who need to change, who had a role that was incorrect. Thus, it's not about the dominance itself being a problem at all, it's about men being a problem, and that leads to the secular denial of the significance of men in the most basic priority in any creature: continuation of the species.

And the article is only just getting started. Continued in Part 3.

Envy, Bitterness, Denial: Part 1

It is common to believe that there was a time when Feminism could be painted as trying to "balance the scales" between men and women. We believe this because when the raw emotion of it is put on display today, the instinct is to recoil and say "this is too far", as if there were some safer ideological ground that we could retreat to which was "just right".

The truth is that there can't ever be a true balance because that would require men and woman to be literal equals, which is literally impossible when you have a species that reproduces sexually instead of asexually.

Specifically, that because humans do not continue the species by separating a part of their own genetic code off of themselves and then that becomes another individual example of the species with the same exact genetic code, no two individuals are really going to be identical, and because there are differences between individuals, they are not equal. They are not the same.

Even simpler, because humans have sex to reproduce, men and women aren't the same.

This doesn't mean one is thus "better" than the other, we aren't stuck in a binary where either everyone is equal or someone has to be "superior" and someone else "inferior". One will be better at some things than the other, and vice versa, but since the combination of the things that both can do together is what is required for the continuation of the species, neither is then "more valuable" than the other. We need both men and women, and so both are valuable, in their different ways.

It is that difference which fuels the envy behind the rejection of this human dynamic that is seen ever so clearly in a recent opinion article published by the NYT.

White Women, Come Get Your People

You can read the article first, but I'll also be reproducing it in posts as well.

Let's get started!

After a confirmation process where women all but slit their wrists, letting their stories of sexual trauma run like rivers of blood through the Capitol, the Senate still voted to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Stories of sexual trauma. Not legal accusations, not credible allegations, stories. The author wasn't even keen enough to use the word "accounts" to try and lend even a semblance of truth, but instead echoes the sentiment behind the "listen and believe" mantra, where even if the "stories" are fake, everyone needs to act as if they were true anyway.

Never mind that even in the Bible is documented at least one story where a woman makes a false sexual assault allegation in order to cover for her own indiscretions, the modern belief is apparently that women would never lie, or if they did never on something serious.

Except, of course, for when they do. Whether about age or number of sexual partners, the evidence that women lie is plentiful. Egalitarians will be quick to point out that men are liars as well, but that's not in question, and irrelevant. Worse, it can come off as trying to say that men also being liars makes women being liars less of a problem.

Put differently, "women aren't liars, and even if they were, men are too so only a hypocrite would point it out and you don't want to be a hypocrite, do you?"

Does that sound like the basis of a mature thought process? A reasonable argument, one that has weight to it because it is aligned with truth?

An excerpt from that last linked article:

"Modern women just can’t stop lying, but they do it to stop hurting other people’s feelings. It could be argued that these little white lies simply make the world go round a little more smoothly. But to tell a man a baby is his when it’s not, or to deliberately get pregnant when your partner doesn’t want a baby, is playing Russian roulette with other people’s lives."

Why is this so important? Because if Feminism was ever really about equality, then the "balance" would be that men and women both lie, they both do it in big and small situations, and they always do it because they think that telling the lie will benefit them in some way or another.

Instead, we now have stories being told which are to be believed simply because they were told by a woman, and to then accept on blind faith alone that the women telling them aren't lying without anything but the word of those very same women to trust, and then even if the story isn't true, we're all supposed to act as if it was anyway.

Frankly, that didn't work out well for Adam, and Eve wasn't even carrying around the baggage of a postmodern victim identity.

This doesn't even account for the deceptive body language of those telling the stories, because that is also a part of the story, and professionals at reading body language had a lot to say about the testimony about the most prominent accuser:

None of this is absolutely conclusive by itself, because whether spoken or not language and communication are somewhat subjective, but what it does is grant credence to doubt that the story is true, at some level. That there is a need for hard evidence, real proof, any corroboration at all, because people who behave in this manner are more often than not lying.

And that's not an uncommon problem when it comes to testimony.

Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts

Even the Bible in Deuteronomy says "One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established." - Deut 19:15 (NKJV)

Now, the reason I am hammering this point before continuing to the rest of the article is because of the drama that this opening paragraph was intentionally drenched in. Slitting wrists? Stories flowing "like rivers of blood"? This is language meant to evoke an emotional response, not rational.

Right out of the gate the manipulation is meant to distract from what really happened, and the distractions continue throughout the rest of the NYT article, which we'll continue to look at in Part 2, because this post is already long.