2,570 words
“If He Doesn’t Hit You, He Doesn’t Love You.” So runs an African proverb. Or a Russian proverb, according to other sources. Or a Bolivian proverb, according to still others. Perhaps it is all three. A similar Latin American saying, “The more you hit me, the more I love you,” turns up over 100,000 hits on Google.
It is hardly a new idea that female sexuality has a masochistic component. Indeed, this seems to be part of the folk wisdom of the world; in other words, it corresponds the observations of many persons of both sexes across many generations. Yet it is not easy to find extended discussion of it. Within the past century, most writing on the subject has been beholden to the Freudian tradition, a circumstance that does not inspire confidence. A more hopeful sign may be the sizable feminist literature aimed at refuting “the myth of female masochism.” If nothing else, such literature is testimony to the enduring reality of the corresponding folk belief; no one writes polemics against things that have absolutely no basis in reality.
It is not hard to understand why persons of both sexes are reluctant to talk about female masochism. No one wants to appear to be condoning the abuse of women. A prime component of masculinity is the instinct to protect women. In the European tradition, this has given rise to the principle that “a gentlemen never strikes a lady.” Pushing gallantry to the point of silliness, as usual, Thomas Fleming writes in Chronicles that “there is something unmanly about beating women, unmanly and sickening.”
But what if there is something in at least some women that responds positively to male violence? The British anti-feminist “Angry Harry” shares this anecdote:
Emma Humphreys (a cause célèbre for feminists in the UK) had served some time in prison for killing her boyfriend. But, following vociferous claims from various wimmin’s groups that she had acted in self-defense against his violence, she was released.
When she was interviewed by the BBC on Radio 4 she had been out of prison only for ten days. And yet she admitted that she was already in another abusive relationship with a man who ‘slapped her about’ frequently.
Further, she stated that love and abuse were part and parcel of each other, and that you couldn’t have one without the other. “If he doesn’t hit you then he doesn’t love you.” [my emphasis]
The interview was cut short at this point with a very embarrassed female interviewer having to cover for the missing time.
A star is born
Another example: Hollywood earns its profits by appealing to the fantasies of its audience, including women; if the product fails to strike the audience’s imagination, it flops. Some lessons about what female audiences like can be drawn from the early career of Clark Gable. The film that made him a star was A Free Soul (1931), in which he played a gangster who pushes Norma Shearer around to let her know who’s boss.
As a fan site puts it, previous male leads had been “suave and svelte, romantic and tender.” Gable’s character:
was supposed to be the villain, the evil corrupt criminal that you are supposed to root against–it’s Leslie Howard you are supposed to hope Norma ends up with–plain vanilla Leslie Howard. Well, the fans spoke and spoke loudly–the 1931 woman didn’t want plain vanilla and no longer wanted “powder puff” men with styled hair and ruffles on their shirts–they wanted a real man, a rough man, a man who was a bit dirty and not afraid to put them in their place.
Gable followed up this role with that of a sinister chauffeur who knocks Barbara Stanwyck out cold with one punch in Night Nurse. These were the last supporting roles he was ever to play. Bushels of fan mail began arriving at the studio. Some breathless women are said to have offered to let Gable hit them!
Or consider this real-life Hollywood story, quoted by Steven E. Rhoads in his valuable book Taking Sex Differences Seriously (New York: Encounter Books, 2005):
Eddy Fisher and Debbie Reynolds both tell of a dinner party at their house where Mike Todd and Elizabeth Taylor started belting each other. Todd ended up dragging Taylor across the floor by her hair as she kicked and scratched. When Reynolds became alarmed and jumped on Todd’s back to get him to stop, Todd and Taylor both turned on her. According to Fisher, Taylor said, “Oh Debbie . . . Don’t be such a Girl Scout. Really, Debbie, you’re so square.”
Todd and Taylor were fighting in order to “make up” afterwards. It is not uncommon for wives to provoke their husbands into hitting them for precisely this reason.
Many of the “battered women” we are encouraged to sympathize with have a remarkable tendency to suffer from abuse at the hands of every man with whom they become involved. Tammy Wynette, the Country singer who gained fame with the song “Stand By Your Man,” was married to five men and left four of them (managing to die with her fifth marriage still intact). Most of her husbands are said to have abused her in some way, and teary-eyed retellings of her “tragic” life have been offered to the public.
I remind the reader of the central principle of male-female relations: women choose. They represent the supply; men represent the demand. If Tammy Wynette never took up with a man who failed to abuse her, there can be only one explanation: Tammy had a thing for nasty boys.
If you put a woman like this in a room with a dozen men, within five minutes she would be exclusively focused on the meanest, most domineering and brutal fellow in the room. Some women who had alcoholic fathers have a similar uncanny ability to detect the alcoholic in a room full of men, even if he is sober at the moment. “Women’s intuition” is a reality: it is an ability to pick up on tiny signals, slight nuances of facial expression that would go unnoticed by a man.
We are attracted to qualities in the opposite sex which our own sex lacks. For many women, this means an attraction to male brutality. Such women may claim to want a sensitive fellow who is in touch with his feelings, but this bears no relation to their behavior. What women say about men comes from their cerebral cortex; how they choose men depends upon their evolutionary more primitive limbic system. Even campus feminists choose arrogant jocks to “hook up” with, not male feminists in touch with their emotions. I have heard it suggested that the best reason not to strike a woman today is that you will never be able to get rid of her afterwards.
Why don’t such women simply tell their men that they find violence and dominance exciting? Perhaps it would destroy the fantasy to say “I’m in the mood, so could you please slap me around for a bit?” In most cases, the women are probably just behaving instinctively, not understanding their own motivations. In any case, it would obviously be useful for well-intentioned husbands to understand this aspect of women’s sexuality. It might prevent more serious violence and even save a few marriages.
The very first thing contemporary dating gurus teach men is not to be a “nice guy.” Nor is this aversion to “niceness” exclusive to feminine psychology: even men understand the pejorative connotations of the word innocuous.
Perhaps more important than piling up more examples to attest the phenomenon is giving a little thought to why female masochism occurs. Like other sex traits, it is an evolutionary adaptation. I am going to go way out on a limb and suggest that early hominid males may not have been quite so delicate as Tom Fleming, who becomes ill at the very thought of a woman being struck. African men are, by all accounts, pretty quick with their fists to this day. Gallantry is an achievement of civilization, not a part of our primitive nature.
Now, females in our “environment of evolutionary adaptation” were dependent on males for mating, protection, and access to resources. These males were bigger and stronger than females and could easily hurt them if angered or displeased. If our female ancestors had been delicate snowflakes unable to endure life with such brutes, we would not be here today. In other words, women adapted to male brutality, including occasional violence, learning how to get through or around it.
Think for a moment, men, how you would learn to behave if you were dependent for survival on an unpredictable and often violent creature larger and stronger than yourself. You would learn not simply to take what you wanted. You would learn to act when his back is turned, to use indirection, deception, manipulation. You would learn to conceal your true thoughts and keep Big Boy confused as to your true intentions. You would, in short, learn to act like a woman.
The battle of the sexes is a contest of force vs. cunning. Yes, civilized men learn to control their aggressive impulses and not beat women up every time they feel irritation with them. In the modern West, men have largely renounced the use of their natural weapon for controlling women, i.e., force. Have women renounced the use of their own weapons against men? Certainly we cannot expect women to shed millennial evolutionary adaptations automatically the instant men learn to behave.
Women’s basic strategy during courtship is still to keep suitors confused. Their primary method of getting what they want is still the indirect route through influencing their men. When they express aggression, it still usually takes the form of passive aggression. And they are still both more frequent and more effective liars than men.
To judge by self-help literature aimed at women, most conceive the task of finding a mate as one of figuring out “how to flatter, tease, dupe, and otherwise manipulate a man into marriage” (Rhoads, p. 120). Does it never occur to women that if they really were loyal, sincere, and feminine, men might not need to be duped into marrying them?
While I am not holding my breath for feminism to demand an end to feminine wiles, I think it possible for women to overcome the uglier side of their nature just as men learn to control their temper and instinct for aggression. Women who relied on trickery and deception in their dealings with the opposite sex used to be referred to pejoratively as “designing women”—an expression which has largely disappeared from our language.
In short, I would be more inclined to sympathize with all the campaigns opposing “violence against women” if they were coupled with their logical counterpart: opposing “fraud against men.”
Another interesting aspect of campaigns against domestic abuse to consider is: Why now? Are men behaving more violently today than they used to? There seems to be no evidence for this. As early as 2000, Massachusetts District Court Judge Milton H. Raphaelson declared that there exists “not an epidemic of domestic violence, but an epidemic of hysteria about domestic violence.” Insofar as there is any real problem of women being brutalized in Western countries, it mainly involves recent non-Western immigrant populations, a fact systematically ignored or concealed by feminists.
Popular concerns are often weirdly unrelated to actual circumstances. It was only in the 1960s, after the percentage of Americans failing to complete secondary school had been falling for decades and had reached an historic low, that Americans discovered the problem of “high school dropouts.” Political and economic conditions in France steadily improved in the decades leading up to the French Revolution; as Tocqueville explained, expectations rose faster than conditions could improve, so more humane government was accompanied by growing dissatisfaction over “despotism.” A similar process may underlie contemporary hysteria over “intimate partner violence.”
Many have commented on the “irony” that the most pampered women in history are the ones complaining most about oppression. Perhaps we should consider whether this does not represent an irony but a direct causal relation: whether modern woman complains of her lot because—rather than in spite of—its being so favorable.
Writer Jack Donovan has made an ethological argument in favor of such an interpretation. Bonobos, or pygmy chimpanzees, are physically not very different from other chimps, but they are now classed as a separate species because of radical differences in their behavior. Bonobo males are not very aggressive. They compete less for status than do male chimps, and they do not compete at all for mates. Sex is promiscuous, and males are not possessive. Homosexual mating is common. All parenting is done by mothers. Female bonds are stronger and more enduring than male bonds. In short, bonobo society is a feminist paradise.
Chimpanzee behavior is the opposite of bonobo behavior in almost every respect. Male chimps form hierarchical gangs and compete constantly for status and access to females. They are violent and territorial, forming alliances both to defend their own territory and raid that of other chimpanzee bands. They kill stray males from other bands when the opportunity presents itself. They push females around, and females are expected to display submission to males. Homosexuality is uncommon among them. Chimpanzee social behavior is a feminist’s worst nightmare.
Evolutionary theory would lead us to look for a difference in the living environments of bonobos and chimps to which their radically different behavior could represent adaptations. And the primatologists have found such a difference: chimps must compete with other species, especially gorillas, for food. The bonobos live in a food-rich, gorilla-free environment where the living is easy. It is this lack of competitors which makes violence, hierarchy, competition, and male bonding unnecessary for bonobos.
Western man is like a chimp who has done his job too well. Having defeated nearly all his dangerous competitors, he finds himself without much of a function in a prosperous society that no longer needs to be defended. It is only to be expected that his women are going to start bitching that he needs to learn to act more like a bonobo. Feminism is a byproduct of peace and prosperity, not a response to patriarchy and oppression.
Some contemporary female behavior, such as that catalogued by Michelle Langley, seems more akin to sadism than to masochism. But this does not necessarily contradict what we have written: sadism is merely the opposite face of masochism. I would suggest that female sadism might be expected to emerge in a society where men refuse to or are prevented from displaying dominance. A society-wide failure of men to take charge of women is likely to produce a great deal of conscious or unconscious sexual frustration in women which may express itself as sadism.
Is the Violence Against Women Act an attempt to get back at men for their failure to put women in their place? Surely women would rather have Clark Gable than take out more restraining orders, force men to take more anger management classes, enjoy more absurd police-state protections from men who are increasingly wimpy anyway.
I do not know if frustrated masochistic instincts cause sadism in women—it is just my hunch. What I do feel confident in stating is that female masochism is a critically important subject which neither feminist denial nor the sanctimonious gallantry of Christian traditionalists should dissuade us from investigating.
22 Comments
Very good article and a refreshing change from the incessant pedastalizing of chivalrous White Nationalists elsewhere.
If you want the nuts and bolts of male dominance over women, (especially feminist women), without the pretentious consumerist bent of a lot of popular books, then read the following:
http://manhood101.com/ebook.html
Keep in mind that this is not a WN website, nonetheless, the book itself is free piece of unparallelled wisdom on this matter.
Ah! What an interesting article, and so true!
My pet theory is that the shit test is an evolutionary adaptation to gauge whether a man is an adequate protector/of proper sexual status. For, if you cannot stand up to me, a woman, who poses no physical threat to you then what good are you when some other man threatens you or your family???
That said, there is certainly THAT GIRL, who is a little beyond. A good friend of mine, before settling down was hit by every single boyfriend. Two of these guys dated other girls I knew and never so much as gave them a light push. So there is certainly a type that thrives on this type of violence and bring it out in their men.
A lot of words are printed on fickle, manipulative women….however, I have never seen a more embarrassing display of cognitive dissonance than when I see a girl flirt with a guy she is just using for xyz. We do it BECAUSE IT WORKS.
Smile, tilt your head “Can I just have it?” look embarrassed, bite your lip, look up, smile. Lather rinse repeat with “help me move” “change my oil” etc etc. It works even if you know the score. Because mayyyyyybe she really DOES want to sleep with you.
Feminine wiles will be eradicated when you guys are no longer swayed by them. AKA never.
It actually doesn’t work. I think you’ve missed the entire point of this article. Devlin’s assertion is that modern feminism is a response to modernity, not patriarchy. There just isn’t the need for feminine wiles anymore, because there is no demand for it. A slightly tilted head, a bitten lip and smile….doesn’t work anymore. It did – once – but not anymore.
Good Grief, it appears that Mr. Devlin garnered all his knowledge and experience of the fairer sex in the 50’s when women were duped into manipulative roles while men were duped into their own stifling slots. True their are masochistic women and equally true is that many women make a lucrative career as professional dominatrixes. Do not accuse me of feminism, feminism is for insecure and gullible women and many times in the past, while dating, I was able “to control my aggressive impulses and not bitch-slap men every time I felt irritated with them.” Does it ever occur to men that if they were strong, sincere and masculine women would not need to dupe them and likely turn their backs on feminism? Alpha males attract alpha females. Wife beaters, and doormats deserve each other.
“Do not accuse me of feminism…”
Well if it quacks like a duck…
If you do not want to be accused of feminism then stop making feminist arguments.
Those 50s gender roles were far closer to harmony than anything since, or for that matter, anything a woman has to propose.
Remember, men are the sole architects of civilization. Women are just the cherries on the cake.
Remember, men are the sole architects of civilization. Women are just the cherries on the cake.
Don’t know about anybody else, but this “cherry” made babies, nursed them, and made them racially aware. And a whole lot more. Let’s see you do that, Matt, before you mouth off to your betters.
Well, I’m not going to be doing that because I am a man, not a woman.
Yet giving birth, nursing children, raising children etc… doesn’t this require you to be in the home?
Yeah, my point exactly. Meanwhile men have bled and died to give you this safe environment. And you want to compare yourself to that?
A cherry indeed.
As a woman, you’re not my better.
“If you do not want to be accused of feminism then stop making feminist arguments” …
(1) This is synonymous with saying that whites who lament the rise and rise of sexual violence against white women are “feminists” or that whites who lament the sexualisation of our underage daughters are “feminists”… I shouldn’t have to point out the intellectual laziness of suggesting someone or something is “feminist” by virtue of sharing its condemnation of what anyone whether man or woman of honour would see as aberrant behaviour. I’m not a member of PETA simply because I think halal is an aberration either.
(2) And you might stop insulting -white- women if you don’t want to sound like an anti… whites, that is white men and white women, ought to be united. Feminism divides us. People like you do a fairly decent job of that too.
Meanwhile men have bled and died to give you this safe environment.
Come on, now. Why would your & my male ancestors have troubled themselves to bleed and die if there was nothing in it for them? They weren’t exactly a stupid bunch. Working together, we benefit together: no reason for me to make babies and take care of them unless my environment is relatively safe; and no reason for men to create a nice home without a woman to procreate with and benefit from the services only females can provide (at least that’s how it was at one time).
With more and more women not wanting to do their bit and behave themselves, and men being utterly demasculinized, I guess it’s quits for us as a race.
“Thomas Fleming writes in Chronicles that “there is something unmanly about beating women, unmanly and sickening.”
We have seen many female on male attacks recently – including gang attacks. The white host of the Opie & Anthony radio show was attacked by a black woman (conveniently backed up by a dozen or so black males). He only fought back verbally (though he was packing and may have used his gun if the black mob attacked him) but was still fired for writing about the racial nature of the attack on Twitter.
I cannot for the life of me see why not fighting back against a woman who attacks you physically – especially if she is not your wife – should be so “unmanly.” Isn’t it especially unmanly to let yourself be beat up by a woman?
The author sounds like an intellectual guy who has had bad luck with women. So much of what he writes is within the realm of science, but he has made no effort to check out the studies. He says that women lie more than men. This is a falsifiable assertion. Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not true. My guess is that there exists actual evidence on this point — as opposed to some guy just shooting his mouth off — which would be a lot more interesting and compelling. There are so many non sequiturs and blanket assertions. Also, what difference does it even make if Devin is correct? So what? Furthermore, publishing this kind of thing is bound to be off-putting (at the very least) to women, which is against our interests — right?
Thank you Marion. I thought about replying to this dribble, but then I was overcome with the feeling of why bother.
I am a woman and can confidently say that this post was not off-putting in the slightest. It would have been nice indeed if there were evidence provided regarding women lying more frequently than men, but then again, this goes hand-in-hand with what Devlin was saying about female manipulation. I have personally not read any studies about lying and manipulation in relation to women, but have witnessed countless examples of this. We might also have a hard time proving “female intuition” in a study, but his points are still valid, though obscure. Women could benefit greatly by accepting the more flawed aspects of their nature—and actively working against these negative instincts by fighting away certain behaviors which may result in aggravating one’s partner. Some of the strongest women I know personally are very aware of their natural tendencies and make a real effort to fight their more negative traits (such as manipulation).
I think Devlin is correct in his theory regarding sadism being the result of women who are fed up (or simply accustomed to) modern, feminist men. The modern man now attempts to please women by essentially concealing his true nature, effectively emasculating himself. I would be willing to bet that many women who are sadists would, indeed, become quite submissive when paired with a more dominant man.
I appreciate this guy’s unflinching attempt at providing a realistic picture rooted in the principles of evolutionary biomechanics, but I think his argument goes off the rails around here:
“While I am not holding my breath for feminism to demand an end to feminine wiles, I think it possible for women to overcome the uglier side of their nature just as men learn to control their temper and instinct for aggression. Women who relied on trickery and deception in their dealings with the opposite sex used to be referred to pejoratively as “designing women”—an expression which has largely disappeared from our language.”
Men never learned to control their instinct for aggression. They lost their instinct for aggression. It was bred out of them by the last thousand years of civilization and it isn’t coming back unless through the intervention of some sort of eugenics plan. I think HBD Chick has done some good work by examining the effects of punishing murder with the death penalty, which increased in Europe especially starting at the fifteenth century. Other factors have influenced female mate selection to diminish the selection for aggression and violence. In sum, I think the instinct for social manipulation still exists in women, but the instinct for violence has greatly fallen off in men — probably moreso in European civilization than anywhere else.
interesting point you are trying to make, I do not quite agree however. both the general HBD and “MRA” themes that are being discussed in this piece are sort of outside the general theme of this website. both more or less have a limiting aspect to them that is really detrimental to the further development (intellectual or otherwise) of White Nationalism,as you note above the women taking issue with the piece (fairly enough, as a well read mother of multiple children is worth far more than yet another asexual intellectual in this sphere).
but I digress, I disagree with the pseudo-science being used to talk of breeding of traits and et cetera. never before after the development of agriculture and “civilization” has any animal outside of the mighty ant displayed such a propensity for violence as the human male. you have notes of the cutting of carbon emissions due to the violence of the mongols, walls draped in flayed women and children by the assryians, the much lauded einzatsgruppen and chetka, the interhamwe. this list goes on ad infinitum. the problem with this “sexual-darwinian” tripe is that there is in man an organizing principle, a totalitarian principle. however much man might “calcify” martially, it is only due to the ORGANIZATION of his environment. look at for instance these typical middle class kids who travel to syria and suddenly become 7th century warriors with absolutely no qualms about murdering unarmed people. the idea that man is simply another “plant” evolving denying the very essence of this organizational part of the human being. you will note how from the first day at a job to the 3rd year, a typical employee’s personality will have shifted to fit within the environment. you cannot “breed” an individual-will based choice out of something that contains within itself the ability to organize (man will overthrow, man will emigrate or flee, man will choose death, etc.)
This really is a super article. So good I had to read it in two parts, and will read it again.
Procedural Analysis is largely based on these premises. Female procedures derive from her handicap, that she is physically weaker than the male. (It is fitting to recall the ‘rule of thumb,’ when Sir Francis Buller ruled in court, a couple of hundred years or so ago, that it was permitted for a man to beat his wife provided the stick was no thicker than a man’s thumb. That is supposed to be the origin of the saying. He was parodied for it in a London magazine at the time.)
One comment I will make is that perhaps Devlin goes a little too deep concerning the impetus behind feminism. Females make the demands they do simply because they can. There is no inherent limit to female behaviour.
Evolutionarily and historically, the female relied on the male to constrain her. Quite recently there was the law of coverture, whereby a husband was responsible for the debts and even criminal acts of his wife (hence that wisdom from he who became known as Judge Thumb). In contrast, a man who did not or could not control his instincts would have been killed by the others, e.g. male elders of the village.
So women act the way they do because they are expressing their (often anachronistic, and certainly less evolved) instincts and because there is nothing to stop them. Expressing these instincts leads to behaviour which was formerly inhibited. That behavour is validated and encouraged by the media (and TV has no evolutionary precursor at all; humans have no natural defence against its influence).
No matter what one might think of the article, it’s hard not to laugh at the accompanying book covers. Scoundrel’s Captive! Frickin’ hilarious. Nights With Sasquatch is classic too.
@Marian, Rhondda & Co.
This is lifted from another site. It is Beverly S’s account. The challenge: excuse it. I want to see the rationalization hamster’s dubious fruit in this one. Don’t hold back any silliness. Let ‘er rip:
“Beverly S. writes:
I met my black man in the mid seventies. I’m sure, now that I look back on the relationship, that I was partially color blind, in that I didn’t much notice that he was black. He was afterall, singing on stage, very handsome, very sexy, and had this mesmerizing rhythm of the dance. On his break he asked me to slow dance. His demeanor was soft, and Sidney Poitier-like, in that he was well spoken and very, very charming.
After the first sexual encounter I was so shaken that I thought I had committed a sin. I was the proverbial innocent little white girl. I had never even spoken to a black person in my middle class life. Our high school had two black people that kept to themselves, and I had absolutely no way of knowing that this relationship might be something I was not at all prepared for.
My wedding had been planned. This was a chance meeting, but ultimately I cancelled my wedding, and left town with the black singer.
It was a four year on-and-off relationship, running away after being beat up, or running back to him after he had convinced me he’d changed. I sunk into behavior that was completely out of my character, looking for ways to fix this man.
He had not been raised by a broken family. He had two parents and lived in a nice area of New York. Still, the cultural differences between us in moral values, family values, and a number of other values in general, were there and were not going away. He had lied, sat on the sofa in my parents living room and asked for my hand in marriage from my father, a blue collar worker all his life and a man of values.
This guy was already married and by the time I found out the truth, I was so deeply in love that I couldn’t turn back.
My parents were convinced I’d lost my mind, but they had never spoken one word at the family dinner table about black people. Not once. We lived in the suburbs and were Catholic, conservative and family oriented….Leave it to Beaver life, dinner on the table at five, in bed by nine.
Yes, this could be any other white entertainer with a famous singing group with low morals, lies and deceit….sure it could. Hey, look at any singer, white or black and come up with the same value system. But whether the violence would be there is another question. This man hated women. One of his closest friends confided that to me after he once punched me in the stomach because I caught him with another woman. I’ve had enough years, enough PHD psychologist friends, and enough analyzing from so many on this, that I really have no answers to the scope of his psychological problems, or whether they were black or white or mixed or what….who knows.
I left when I felt that my life was very possibly in danger. I had also had thoughts of stabbing him while he was dozing off in the bubble bath. I had enough sense to know it was time to leave, and I left pregnant and without anywhere to go. My family had disowned me.
Now, this is the hard part, in that I have to admit the truth. Black men are physically and sexually superior to white men. After leaving this ugly relationship I dated many more black men, all with emotional damage. I didn’t marry until I was forty years old, and I married a white guy, quite like my wonderful dad. ….
I have more than a handful of white girlfriends through the years who have had black relationships. None of which ever worked out in a solid, trustworthy marriage with values.
Recently, my neighbor who was divorced after thirty years of marriage, started dating a black man. Same thing. Sex like she’d never even imagined or experienced in her life, but lousy values and morals.
How does this relate to feminism, or does it at all? Yes, maybe, in that when women broke out with feminism, they went looking for better sex. I remember going to the library and reading Mandingo out of curiosity. I also remember my mother telling me I was white livered…
I remember saying, “What on earth does THAT mean?””
I predict more “why bother” in response to this. Case closed.
Basically individual women are masochists but due to being women(sneaky/liars) they lie about being masochists. Taking this a step further one would suspect that maybe groups of women get together and lie about what women want and these groups of women are called feminists. Just as individual women want the opposite of nice guys one can observe women(in the western world) as a group voting to let in hordes of third world immigrants from patriarchal cultures because women are showing a preference for them over nice white guys.
Feminism is the big lie. Women, including feminists, want patriarchy. This is why feminists protect muslims and why women in America want open borders between the USA and Mexico. They want the third world to bring back the patriarchy that white men have abandoned.
Feminists hate white men for abandoning patriarchy, they console themselves over this grief by developing elaborate fantasies about white christian heterosexual conspiracies because they wish that were true.
Women love introspecting on their dreams and fantasies but when the topics of morality and responsibility are introduced, they suddenly become all become all business. And the business of women is feminism. How dare we criticize their behavior! Cato warned Romans that they were losing control of their women whose profligacy would bankrupt them. But it was already too late and this became another factor in the Fall of Rome. Women will only be an asset to us when kept under control. There are a few individual exceptions – and we can tell who they are because they will share our viewpoint on women. Wasn’t it Queen Victoria who came out so strongly against women having the right to vote? Now that’s what I call an ally.
A propos of the NFL scandal a few days ago…
Does it never occur to women that if they really were loyal, sincere, and feminine, men might not need to be duped into marrying them? — Simply doesn’t work. Men get bored, want a challenge and move on to someone else.