gender differences
Today, feminists want all the rights, and none of the responsibilities, none of the more problematic side of life and reality. The last 40 or so years of feminist nonsense has not worked to uplift and empower women, or teach them about their rights, responsibilities and prerogatives in human society vis a vis the human mating and reproductive cycle. Instead the feminist movement has invested its time in promoting women as both super-heroines who can do anything, and passive victims that can do nothing.
Wish upon a Weinstein

Harvey Weinstein has the golden touch when it comes to movies. Not every one he has been involved in has been a success, but the overwhelming majority of them were watchable, and some truly great. Scream, The English Patient, Emma, The Crow, Beautiful Girls, Princess Mononoke, Good Will Hunting, Jackie Brown, Rounders, Phantoms (Ben Affleck was the bomb), Mansfield Park, She's All That, the Kevin Smith films, Lord of the Rings, Equilibrium, Chicago, Kill Bill, Inglorious Basterds: the list goes on and on.

Harvey Weinstein is also ugly. He was not lucky enough to be born in the top 20% of men, the "666s" as they are called: 6 feet tall, 6-pack abs, 6-figure salary. Those are the men that women will dare to approach; for the rest of us mere mortals, it's a slog to fulfill that part of your evolutionary purpose that involves finding a woman who is willing to have your children. For the Harvey Weinsteins of the world, it's a matter of cultivating your comedy, or your bank account, or your creative successes. For every inch on your waist, add another 0 to your salary to compensate.

Harvey Weinstein, in many ways, is a product of feminism. He's a Son of Feminism. He's a product of the self-hating masculinity inculcated in young men from birth by our 'modern' society that doesn't merely make it apparent that it values women more than men, but goes even further. It won't even let you talk about it. There's a reversive blockade against discussing female privilege in society, and the more apparent it becomes, the more rights conferred on women, the more we're forced to pretend it isn't true, the louder we're are expected to exculpate our masculine guilt.

Weinstein has become what so many men today have become: a self-hating cuck who has learned to survive by turning the contempt of women into titillation. Some women make fun of us for that, but it's a survival mechanism. Our sex drives are a convenient power source for the containment field needed to keep us from committing suicide. After all, we're all so disgusting, so psychopathic, so perverse. We're all rapists, and abusers and oppressors of women. The only thing that feminists celebrate about men in society today is our ability to contain and suppress ourselves and make way for feminists. "Sit still, be quiet, don't play rough, don't talk loud, don't say that, it's sexist. 'Women can do anything men can do, better and in heels'. You're obsolete. You're a pig. He's a fixer-upper. You have to kiss a few frogs before one turns into a prince. A real man wouldn't do that, a real man wouldn't say that, a real man wouldn't want that, a real man, a real man, a real man..."

Harvey Weinstein wasn't cruising the streets and propositioning women, he wasn't kidnapping them, or buying them from some human trafficker. They came to him. They came to his hotel room. Harvey Weinstein put out a shingle and advertised his special skills, skills that he developed and cultivated over a long career. His price was simple and direct - a primitive, if unscrupulous form of barter. He'd give you a break, set you on the path to success, to millions of dollars, to the love and admiration of millions of fans, and all he asked in return was for you to fulfill his embarrassing sexual fantasies.

Louis C. K. is much the same. He has no delusions about who he is, or what he is. He isn't that much of a narcissist. He knows he could stand to lose 40 lbs, get a tan and hit the gym. We all understand the vanity and exhibitionism of the Gym Bro: he's worked hard to sculpt his body into some kind of facsimile of our standard of male beauty, but Louis, why would that tub of lard want to drop his drawers in front of women?

Because he's learned to get off on shame. He doesn't want these women's validation. It's not an expression of male power or male entitlement; it's just shame, and it's so sad that the experiences of his life have left him with a crippled sexuality. I don't know if it was Jim Norton, or just some guy who looked like him, who once said in an interview that all comedians have some deep flaw. It's either drugs, or food or sex. It's from that self-awareness of their own lameness - their own crippled identity - that good comedy is born, especially observational comedy.

The Myth of Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment is not asking a woman at work for a date. Sexual harassment is not making a comment about boobs, hers or anyone elses. Sexual harassment is not looking too long at her plunging neckline. Sexual harassment is not a hug, not a dirty joke, not a wolf whistle, not a catcall, not a hand on the thigh, not a stolen kiss.

Sexual harassment is repeatedly pursuing a woman after she has said no and or applying consequences such as demotion or firing to her free exercise of choice not to date or interact with you. When a woman claims she was sexually harassed in the work place, this is the image in our minds. This is why when a woman claims sexual harassment she can sue the company for millions of dollars. She deserves millions of dollars. Unfortunately, this is the exception rather than the rule.

Sexual harassment as defined by feminists, and laws passed to punish it, have become laws to separate classes of men from classes of women. They have become a kind of privilege for women, in the true sense of the word, as in a "private law." In history, you could insult a Lord or a Lady, you could talk to them, you could make eye contact with them, you could talk down to them, provided you were a Lord or Lady. If you were a peasant, it was a different story. If you were a peasant, leering at a highborn person might get you a thumping. As a peasant, you would never presume to strike up a conversation with a high-born woman, to ask her on a date, or to presume to think yourself worthy to marry her.

That is what the word Creep really means. A Creep is a man who doesn't realize he's too ugly, too awkward, too poor, too homeless or too old. Sexual harassment laws simply make a Creep into a Criminal. It's no accident that the infamous Cat Call video filmed in New York showed overwhelmingly low-class and minority men.

Mud in the water

A not entirely thorough study of undergraduate women by Muehlenhard and Hollabaugh published in the Journal of Personality and Psychology found that 39% of undergraduate women had used what is called "token resistance" with male sexual partners - essentially saying "no" even though they meant "yes." In this modern climate, a survey of 20-something co-eds who have just embarked on their women's studies and psych double major shouldn't instill much confidence in the results. Nevertheless, 39% is surprising to say the least.

Because these topics are sensitive, it is normal to err on the side of under-reporting. Take for instance a Psychology Today article which showed that between 31% and 57% of women have fantasies of rape. Anyone who has perused a dime-store romance novel will know why they are affectionately called 'Bodice Rippers'.

A paper by Bivone, J. and J. Critelli, published in the Journal of Sex Research, found that some 52% of women had regular fantasies of being "overpowered by a man". The missing piece of information is that women who do want to be overpowered, want to be overpowered by the right kind of man. Who is the right kind of man? Well - not you. In fact there's an 80% chance you're not the kind of man she wants, and that's a sad fact. According to the research of social psychologist Roy Baumeister, throughout human history only 40% of men have reproduced. Which is why having sons is more important than having daughters - that Y chromosome is rare. That means though that there is a 60% chance you're not the kind of man she'd ever want, period.

This isn't to say that women want to be raped or assaulted; what it means is that the line between yes and no is blurry. Men know this. Women know this. And yet in the modern day we pretend like it isn't the case. There's a term for that. It's called gas-lighting. Men know you have to ask more than once. We even know that most women require you to ask more than once. But if it turns out you're not her type and you ask more than once, she may claim you sexually harassed her, and you could lose everything.

This is a double-bind. You can't win. How is the species supposed to survive under these conditions? Well, it's not surviving. Not in the west. Western culture is not at replacement levels.

This is all part of the female archetypal romance that manifests in their conspicuous fetishisation of Vampires, Werewolves, Pirates and Doctors. All of these characters share something in common: exploitative amorality. The Doctor who takes advantage of his patient's weakness but is himself weak in his inability to control himself in a professional setting. The Pirate who robs, rapes and pillages. The Werewolf whose uncontrolled impulses are violent and murderous. The Vampire whose cold psychopathology makes him seek and violate the most innocent of victims.

The overwhelming majority of women like men to be strong, unrealistically well built and to provide for their women. Women have varied but consistent needs for dominant and aggressive men who pursue them and wear down their natural resistance. Most women know how to handle a man they don't want, and if things get out of line they are confident that a withering look or a well-placed slap will end the problem.

It's all part of the cliched implicit agreement between men and women. We pursue, they flee. If they turn around and give you a wallop, it's time to move on. That's why women are allowed to hit men. No one would question a lady's prerogative for a sharp slap to the cheek or, if necessary, a knee to the groin. Even in public. Men however do not have that right. If a woman doesn't respond or behave the way you'd prefer her to, you don't get to slap her. If you do, you'll be roundly condemned by the men and the women in the room, and you'll be guilty of assault. Even a curmudgeon like me would make no bones about sending your uncouth butt down the river.

Feminists are fond of using the phrase 'blaming the victim'. They usually use it when anyone (mostly men) question the validity of their sexual assault claims. The problem is, wearing sexually explicit clothing is a sign to men that you want to breed. There are generally two types of women who dress sexy: the ones who want to attract a mate, and lesbian activists who think it is amusing to mess with men's heads and cause a scene if they look too long.

The problem with women looking for a mate is that they are looking for the right mate (which means you have a 20% chance of it being you). Whatever narratives women tell themselves like "I just wanted to feel sexy" are irrelevant, because we now have ample experience with the female ability to delude herself with all manner of justifications for her behavior. The fact of the matter is that visual stimuli is a primary signal to men for mating. It leads to real physical results. If you dress sexy, men will approach you for sex. You know this. I know this. And yet they continue to act surprised and indignant when it happens. That's more gaslighting.

Society does not owe any woman protection if she decides that she wants to run around to private parties into the wee hours and get falling-down drunk. You choose your lifestyle, and you choose to accept the risks of that lifestyle, assuming you're not too deluded to be entirely aware of the risks. That was the whole point of feminism. A woman's right to choose, a woman's right to agency. In the old days it was believed that women could not be morally responsible for themselves. That they had to be protected from the roughness of life. Women's liberation was an assertion that women were moral agents who could be responsible. Were they wrong?

It seems that today feminists want all the rights, and none of the responsibilities, none of the more problematic side of life and reality. The last 40 or so years of feminist nonsense has not worked to uplift and empower women, or teach them about their rights, responsibilities and prerogatives in human society vis a vis the human mating and reproductive cycle. Instead the feminist movement has invested its time in promoting women as both super-heroines who can do anything, and passive victims that can do nothing. Look, are you Wonder Woman, or Tess of the d'Urbervilles? Sorry, you don't get to be both.

Who Defines Sexual Misconduct?

Just who defines sexual misconduct? On what authority? A read through history or an inspection of other cultures shows a wide range of beliefs. Oh, we all have a basic core of don't murder, don't steal, don't rape and don't adulter, but the rest has been as varied as you could possibly imagine.

If you look at primates, who we are supposed to have evolved from, you find very similar behaviors being practiced among humans today, except in human society certain aspects of that behavior are simultaneously demonized. Male monkeys sidle up to a female and try to groom her. If she's 'up for it' she lets him, if not he receives a whallop, but the monkey tribe doesn't particularly feel the need to lynch the poor bugger.

The overwhelming majority of mammalian, including human, communication is extra-vocal. It's body language and movement. It's how you sit, how you smile and for humans how you dress. This is precisely why the modern discourse on "consent" is so completely absurd. In most cases, what you say has nothing to do with what you do, and most people like it that way. That's the whole point of innuendo and double entendre.

Who came up with the current dominant thinking on what constitutes sexual misconduct? The least qualified people on the face of the planet, that's who. There is absolutely no reason why any thinking person should adopt the puerile ideas of sadistic lesbian academics preaching to a congregation of naive women's studies majors. A less credible source of social engineers couldn't possibly be found. The day I need or accept dating advice from a middle-aged lesbian or her addle-brained neophytes is the day the sun goes 'round the moon.

The problem with the feminist narrative is not simply that it is mind-numbingly stupid, it's that it is so hypocritical. We're told women can do anything a man can do. That women are strong. We're told that women are Thelma and Louise. Then we're expected to rush in and defend them when some old man pinches their bottom. Which is it? Are women strong or weak? Are men and women equal? Of course men and women are equal, women are just a little more equal. So when they bawl like little girls on TV because someone touched them on their backside, we're supposed to grab the pitchforks, but if we open the door for them we're patronizing sexists?

I personally put exactly zero stock in the accusations against Roy Moore, but let's allow for them to be more or less true. Let's say he did interact with this woman - was she 14, or 16? It makes a difference, and I don't believe for a second that she can be so completely sure. Of course this isn't really the question. Like all such scandals, the main point is never really the issue - the question I have is this: According to the alleged victim's testimony, her mother encouraged her. Why do none of these moral paragons take issue with that? Oh, 'cause a woman done it?

Of course I don't take issue with it, because she sounds like a sensible mother who wanted to pair her daughter off with an established gentleman of means. What she is alleged to have done is nothing much different from the good council of Mrs. Bennett in Pride and Prejudice and the ideas professed by the feminist paragon Jane Austen. Well, if it's good enough for Miss Austen, it's good enough for me. I was taught to respect women's opinions.

Accusing Men of Doing What Women Do

The behavior and mentality of women is on constant and flagrant display and it is juxtaposed with an ever-expanding and well-funded feminist lobby that seems to get whatever law, no matter how repressive to men, passed with enthusiastic support. The definitions of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment have expanded beyond all recognition into dystopian caricatures that don't bother to hide their anti-male bias. Consider the expansion of the definition of domestic abuse in the UK recently that adds details like "controlling clothing, selecting friends, or discouraging social activities", calling them domestic violence.

The farce has become too much. It's a truism that when you marry a woman, she will start to alter the way you dress, decide which friends you should or shouldn't associate with, and interfere with your traditional social activities (no more sports games, no more drinking at the bar). Essentially the law criminalizes men if they are accused of doing what everyone knows that women actually and normally do!

The necessary response to this is not rage, but apathy. What is being exploited here is the fact that the feminist narrative is inverted. Men are not evil, rapey patriarchs. We actually do care about women's experiences, and we want them to be happy and safe, which is why we continue to give in to their demands.

But we shouldn't. It's not a matter of it having no benefit to us, which it doesn't, but that the simple act of responding with empathy and a genuine desire to help is being used to destroy our lives and society. There is absolutely no reason to sympathize with a feminist who denigrates and objectifies you with her beliefs and ideology. There is no reason to sympathize or empathize with someone who isn't willing to reciprocate.

Every time you 'listen and believe', all you do is make a rod for your own back, or your brother's, or you son's, or your father's. Every compromise is a defeat, an inch lost, and today men find themselves painted into a corner from all the concessions that they've made. When you are painted into a corner you have two choices: stand there until it dries, or walk across the floor and just realize you'll have to fix the mess you made later.

One woman I know told me of an instance where her girlfriend had been caught having sex in a parked car with a boy. To avoid punishment from her father she claimed that he raped her. The boy was convicted and sentenced to life in prison and had to flee the country. I was staggered how she could morally live with that. The idea that men can count on the mercy and empathy of women who have drunk the feminist 'kool aid' is something of which they must be disabused. They have no intention of speaking up for you. These women do not sympathize with men. Injustices against men are just par for the course.

An accusation of rape is a conviction. Once it's made, it cannot be unmade and our society has become organized around the idea, however erroneous, that women are generally trustworthy. It has become a nuclear option that women use more and more frequently to destroy men in trivial revenge plots, or merely to get attention, or to escape social judgment for their own indiscreet behavior. The most commonly overturned wrongful convictions are for rape and sexual assault.

What if it Was Your Son?

Just why have things gotten so bad? And they are bad. People's lives are being ruined from hardly noticeable indiscretions 30 or more years in their past. And it's not just in Hollywood. Men have already been convicted by feminists. The jury has been released. All that is left now is the slow march to the quarry. You were judged guilty before you were born. Because of what you were born as. Your impulses must be suppressed. Your sexuality is grotesque and creepy. Your fantasies disgusting, your needs unconscionable, your manner uncivilized, your nature atavistic.

It is made all the more apparent by your pig-headed insistence on flaunting your masculine privilege. How dare you look at a woman's breasts, how dare you touch her knee, or brush a buttock. How dare you steal a kiss. How dare you presume to approach that woman, to tell her she is attractive. You objectifier!

How dare you be anything that nature made you in contradiction to the unwritten dictates of the invisible social law, written nowhere but behind the fiery rhetoric of condescending pundits. Maybe this is the world women want, more power to them. But what I can't wrap my head around is the men. Would you really be so happy to dig your own grave? Why do you go along with it?

Perhaps you're a special kind of man. Perhaps you've never bought a girl a drink in the hopes it might smooth the social interaction. Maybe you've never made a pass, or a lewd joke. Congratulations, you're a paragon of morality. Is your brother? Is your father? Will your son be? And his son? Would you like their lives to be unraveled by a 40-year-old indiscretion? Fifty years from now your son might be in the election for president of the United States of America, or some other public office. Only, he's going to lose because, when he was 19, he hooked up with a girl who was drunk at a frat party. Now 30 years later she claims it was rape and she's on every national TV news station sobbing in between lurid descriptions of her traumatic sexual experience.

Every time something like this happens some yahoo gets on TV and says: "Well if it was my daughter I'd castrate the son of a bitch."

Yeah? Well what if it was your son?

There is only one place for a woman to go if she has been the victim of an assault. It's not the local news station. It isn't Twitter. It isn't Facebook. It isn't the New York Times. It's called the Police Station. The law, that single greatest human institution ever devised, is our last great hope of safety and we destroy it at our collective peril. The law still, in theory, ensures that a person is innocent until proven guilty. It also contains the inherent implication that the accuser is mistaken (or a liar) until proven otherwise. Feminists would turn that on its head and have us all believe that their accusations are valid, independent of impartial investigation, with the court of public opinion - or trial by media - the first and final arbiter. But the Court of Public Opinion is a Kangaroo Court. It's a Drumhead. That is disgusting. That is uncivilized. There was never a good witch hunt. No one ever felt great about an inquisition. A lynch mob was always a tragedy, and history has always judged poorly those who let it happen on their watch.