Brown Girl in the Wringer

Regarding Jeff Bezo’s recent run-in with publishers who have pictures of his tackle, The Zman had this to say:

He broke the cardinal rule of super villains. Never write when you can speak. Never speak when you can nod. Most important, never send pics of you wiener to people. He was cavalier about being recorded and now is the world’s silliest super villain.

Donald Trump talks a lot of nonsense and tweets an awful lot more, but he’s not stupid enough to put it in a document and circulate it. This gives him ample room to backtrack, shift the goalposts, or simply state “No, I never said that.” Like many businessmen and politicians, he’s smart enough not to commit to anything he may be held to.

Over the past month or so several people – notably Scott Adams – have been praising Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for her political savvy, and likening her powers of persuasion and reframing the conversation to those of Donald Trump. I agree she does have appeal and is good on social media, but she’s already made her first blunder. As I wrote the other day, she issued this Green New Deal which seems to have been inspired by episodes of The Flintstones. Before the ink was dry, the front-running Democrat presidential hopefuls – Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Brooker, and Kirtsten Gillibrand – had endorsed it. But within hours anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders was having a merry old time tearing it to pieces and hooting with laughter.

Team Ocasio-Cortez sprang into action to say, variously: the document was fake, it was the wrong one, it was only a draft, and it was issued by mistake.


It probably wasn’t lost on most Americans that the person who wants to radically transform the entire socio-economic system from the top down can’t even manage to release a simple policy document without making a pig’s ear of it. And to make matters worse:


The Republicans hold the senate and the deal is non-binding anyway, so there’s little risk in holding the vote from their side. But for the Democrats, they will have to decide whether they go on record backing a document a child may well have drawn up or denounce what their leading presidential candidates have publicly endorsed. I expect they’ll be a lot of abstentions, which will send their own message. Mitch McConnell has played a blinder here, and even more amusing are Democrat attempts to avert this catastrophe:


This is a complete own-goal by the Democrats, and boils down to the fact the half-sensible party leadership hasn’t got a grip on hotheaded dimwits like Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar. I found these two tweets explained a lot:


This is the kind of thing you’d expect from schoolgirls under 11, not congresswomen. Aren’t we always being told how girls mature much faster than boys, who never really grow up? It seems modern feminism, consistent with pressing women to adopt the worst behaviours of men, encourages them to remain in perpetual adolescence. I was stunned to discover Ilhan Omar is 37 years old; I had her down for about 25. We keep being told it’s important for the future of society that grey-haired white men make way for multicoloured young women. Okay, but is it too much to expect they behave like adults and show at least some degree of competence beyond that which makes you popular in an American high school? I suppose this is what happens when you go straight into politics without having run so much as a whelk stall. Say what you like about Trump’s outbursts on Twitter, he does have skyscrapers in Manhattan with his name on. Until this week, the only think with AOC’s name on it was a tip jar in a bar somewhere in the Bronx. Now her name is on a hand-grenade rolling around the floor of Democrat HQ with the pin nowhere in sight. Political savvy, indeed.

Share

Projection of Power(skirts)

A few commenters on here have raised the question as to whether the US Navy’s infatuation with diversity and political correctness might be behind their recent spate of warship collisions. Via Twitter Kevin Michael Grace I came across this very long article detailing the circumstances around the 2017 collision between the destroyer USS Fitzgerald and a large cargo ship. Not that I wish to extrapolate too much from this, but it makes for grim reading:

Sarah Coppock, lieutenant junior grade, was the officer of the deck, responsible for the safety and navigation of the ship while Benson slept.

Coppock did not trust some of her team that night.

Still, Coppock, naturally self-assured, took the bridge undeterred.

Her conning officer was Eric Uhden. Like Woodley, he was an experienced sailor who served years at sea as an enlisted man before becoming an officer.

Uhden alerted Coppock to the potential danger. At first, she dismissed his concern. But a moment later, Uhden said that Coppock seemed to realize her miscalculation.

Uhden memorialized the incident in an understated note scribbled in his private journal: “Fishing vessel got close on watch.” But nobody else knew about it. Coppock never told the captain, as she was supposed to do.

Coppock may not have ensured that the radar on the bridge was properly adjusted to obtain a finer-grained picture. A post-crash reconstruction showed that Coppock lost sight of one of the ships due to clutter on the “improperly adjusted” SPS-73 screen.

But the 5-foot-4-inch Coppock was used to giving what she got in the Ashland’s wardroom, where the ship’s officers gathered to eat and talk. “You could sit there and scream at each other for hours and it was just to get stuff done. We really didn’t care. It wasn’t personal,” she said. “We’d go out and drink afterwards.”

It was a different story on the Fitzgerald.

Coppock stopped dining with her fellow officers in the Fitzgerald’s wardroom. By long Navy tradition, attendance at such meals was considered necessary to forge the esprit de corps needed to run a ship. Not eating with them was akin to snubbing family.

Fellow Fitzgerald sailors noted her absence. To some, Coppock appeared disconnected. Other shipmates went so far as to call her “lazy” or “abrasive and unapproachable.”

Coppock said she stayed away from the officers’ mess because of criticism from fellow junior officers. She blamed their hostility on her singular focus on getting the job done. Mission came first, she said.

Coppock had displayed her skills in the weeks after Benson took command. She and her enlisted assistant, Alexander Vaughan, had stayed up almost 48 hours in the successful pursuit of a Chinese submarine off the coast of Japan. The achievement sealed Coppock’s reputation as a hell of a sailor.

It also boosted her self-assurance. She considered herself one of the better officers on the ship.

Parker alerted Coppock. Coppock told Parker not to worry — she was tracking the ship. She said it would pass 1,500 yards behind the Fitzgerald.

“We gotta slow down,” Parker told Coppock.

No, Coppock told her again. “We can’t slow down because it’ll make the situation worse.” Coppock worried that slowing down might bring her into the path of the ship that was supposed to pass behind them.

Coppock disobeyed Benson’s standing orders. Rather than call Benson for help, she decided to continue on her own. Coppock didn’t call down to the combat room to ask for help, either.

Coppock decided that she was not going to clear the Crystal by going toward the right. Such a turn would put her on a possible collision with the Wan Hai 266.

“Oh shit, I’m so fucked! I’m so fucked!” she screamed.

Instead, Coppock ordered a move that disregarded the very basics of her training.

Coppock did not sound the collision alarm to warn sailors of the impending risk.

“I just got so wrapped up in trying to do anything that I had to just drop the ball on everything else that I needed to do,” she said.

Babbitt was trying to save his sailors. The five crew members trapped in sonar were rescued early on. Womack appeared in a daze. Coppock was inconsolable, sobbing and berating herself.

The Navy’s investigators concluded that sailors bore the primary blame for the collision. Benson, Coppock and the bridge and combat information center watch teams had failed to use basic seamanship skills to escape an “avoidable” accident. They had been “excessively fatigued” and had not taken steps to rest. Coppock had ignored basic rules of the road and the captain’s orders.

To be honest, I don’t think this episode makes the case that women are useless sailors. Under a different regime, women could probably perform very well on a warship. The trouble is, the same politicised, ultra-progressive, bureaucratic, management system which places high value on diversity is also responsible for standards plummeting across the board. The captain was a man named Bryce Benson, and he didn’t seem up to the job either. It’s not difficult to imagine that the behaviours and characteristics which get you recognised and promoted in the modern US Navy (and most modern organisations) are not those which are valuable in a crisis. This snippet is illuminating:

Coppock had displayed her skills in the weeks after Benson took command. She and her enlisted assistant, Alexander Vaughan, had stayed up almost 48 hours in the successful pursuit of a Chinese submarine off the coast of Japan. The achievement sealed Coppock’s reputation as a hell of a sailor.

I expect there were many such instances of Coppock’s reputation soaring as her career progressed, only when it really mattered it was abundantly clear it was undeserved. This is depressingly common: I can’t remember how many times I’ve seen slavish dedication to senior management form the basis of someone’s stellar reputation, even as everything falls apart around them. The outlook’s not too gloomy for her, though:

Coppock was charged with dereliction of duty and pleaded guilty. She remains in the Navy and is expected to be a witness against Benson and Combs in their trials. Navy investigators have praised her candor and cooperation. She has a tattoo on her left wrist with seven shamrocks. It features the coordinates of the crash.

I’m slightly surprised she didn’t get a medal.

(I’d be interested in Jason Lynch’s comments on this story.)

Share

Food for Thought

Consider this tweet by Israeli journalist Lahav Harkov, who is sound on a lot of issues:


Now I know there’s a whole swathe of the alt-right who believe women should never leave the kitchen, and I know the expectation that a woman is obliged to cook for her husband every night is old-fashioned. But that said, if a woman does cook for her husband that will go some way to defining her worth, both in his eyes and those of outsiders. Imagine the roles were switched, and Harry was cooking for Meghan every night: his stock would soar in the eyes of most women.

I know a lot of men my age and younger who can cook, and part of this is because feminists told recent generations of women they ought not to learn. “If he wants dinner he can cook it himself,” was the prevailing attitude. Well, that’s what they did and I know several families in which the man is the main cook (and enjoys doing it). The problem with that is it removes a valuable tool women of my mother’s and grandmother’s generations used to attract and retain a husband. Men of that era couldn’t boil an egg, so it was a huge incentive to settle down with someone if you wanted to eat properly the rest of your life. The phrase “The way to a man’s heart is through his stomach” isn’t repeated across languages and cultures for nothing. Of course it placed a burden on the woman, but having a stable job (that was often dangerous) placed a burden on the man. A marriage is a partnership in which mutually beneficial tasks are divided between the couple, each doing what they’re best at. If women decide they don’t want to cook, the man will either find someone who can or learn to feed himself. He isn’t going to starve. The standard feminist response to this would be: “Well, if all he wants me for is to be his slave, he can get stuffed.” And quite right too. But as I’ve just said, a relationship is a partnership. If she’s not cooking, what is she offering? Sex? That’s not enough, especially in the Tinder age. Sassy feminism? No thanks.

I’m being unfair. There are many women who bring plenty to the table, if you excuse the pun, without cooking for her partner every day. But on the other hand I keep reading articles on how hard it is for modern, middle class women to find a decent man who sticks around. Apparently, they’re only interested in Tinder hookups these days, and many don’t want relationships. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if these women had cooking skills in their armoury along with a willingness to deploy them regularly, they’d find men a lot less keen to skedaddle as soon as the first ray of sunlight touches her bedroom window on a Sunday morning. I base this on the fact that, if a woman meets a man who can cook well and likes doing it, she brags to all her friends and spends more time at his gaff than her own.

My point is, to find a decent partner you need to maximise what you bring to the relationship, and focus on those skills they might lack. You would be amazed at the degree to which my relationships have been based on an ability to unblock sinks, take down heavy boxes from the top of wardrobes, fit insulation strips to ill-fitting windows, and bleed radiators. Having someone who is willing to cook is a huge asset in a relationship, regardless of who is doing it. Being able to share the duties is even better. But modern feminism has taught women that being able to cook should not contribute to their worth in a relationship, and they ought not to even bother learning. Stripped of one of the most valuable skills they can bring to a relationship, they’re now howling at the lack of men who are interested in one.

As I’m fond of asking: whose fault is that, then?

Share

Misidentified Gender

An article from Vox:

Ever since women started holding political office, American men have been fixated on their clothes.

Yeah, sure. Just like when Theresa May was interviewed at home wearing leather trousers, the cattiness that followed was also from fixated men. Uh-huh.

(Via Steve Sailer, who notes it’s about as plausible as: “Ever since men started playing golf, American women have been fixated on their golf course architecture.”)

Share

State of the Union Dressup

I’m seeing a pattern here:

Behind him, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sat in a white suit jacket and blouse. Before him, a block of female lawmakers donned a range of white outfits and visibly unimpressed expressions. Even his daughter Tiffany was pictured in white, with social media speculating that the choice may have been more than a coincidence.
President Trump’s State of the Union address was flooded with the color white.
The bold statement, initiated by the House Democratic Women’s Working Group, saw dozens of lawmakers coordinate their attire as a show of solidarity among women. Democrats taking part included newly-elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who was seen wearing a white cape, and Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who wore a white vest and trousers paired with a blue hijab and red shirt.

Oh yes:

Women are wearing black to the 2018 Golden Globe Awards to protest sexual harassment and raise awareness for Time’s Up, a new initiative fighting sexual misconduct in Hollywood and beyond. As the stars take the red carpet for tonight’s ceremony, they explain the powerful reasons why they went all-noir for the awards show.

And:

When US vice-president Mike Pence visited Philadelphia on 23 July, he was greeted by a now familiar sight: a wall of women dressed in scarlet cloaks, with oversize white bonnets obscuring their faces.

The outfit worn by Margaret Atwood’s handmaids in her 1985 dystopian novel The Handmaid’s Tale and its recent TV adaptation has been in evidence from Argentina to the US, the UK and Ireland, and has emerged as one of the most powerful current feminist symbols of protest, in a subversive inversion of its association with the oppression of women.

And:

An estimated 500,000 people gathered for the Women’s March on Washington to advocate for gender equality on President Donald Trump’s first full day in office. Many sported pink knitted beanies with cat ears, called “pussy hats,” as a symbol of solidarity among protestors.

A group called the Pussyhat Project helped make the hat part of marchers’ uniform. Project co-organizer Jayna Zweiman told Business Insider that anyone who planned to march could download a crochet, knit, or sew pattern for the hat on the project’s site. Alternatively, people could make and send them to the organizers to give away at DC’s march.

An awful lot of what passes for women’s politics these days is just a big game of dress-up. Whereas this might be expected from empty-headed actresses and the vinegar-drinking cat-ladies who go on women’s marches, what excuse do female politicians at the State of the Union address have? That America oppresses women so much it behooves the dozens of women who hold high political office to draw attention to it? This is theatre – nay, pantomime – and these women are play-acting. The whole stunt screams:

“Hah! We have forced our way into your institutions and now we’re going to act like a bunch of teenagers and there’s not a damned thing you can do about it. Take that, daddy men!”

Which is strange, because the old misogynistic dinosaurs of yesteryear warned against allowing women into senior positions on the grounds they’d not take them seriously. From accounts I’ve read on Twitter, each woman in white sat through Trump’s address with a face like a bulldog licking piss off a thistle until he said:

No-one has benefited more from a thriving economy than women, who have filled 58% of the newly created jobs last year.

At which point they rose to their feet and delivered a round of applause in congratulation to…themselves.


I can understand why this goes down well with some women. What I don’t understand is why normal, intelligent, self-assured women would take them seriously. Even more baffling is that men vote for them as well. As others have said, modern feminism is little more than a giant sh*t-test which men are failing badly. Men are gonna need to snap out of it soon. So are ordinary women, for that matter.

Share

Aisle see you in court

I’m sure this will result in unforeseen consequences:

Supermarket giant Asda has lost an appeal in the latest development in a long-running legal dispute with staff over equal pay.

The decision means that lower paid shop staff, who are mostly women, can compare themselves with higher paid warehouse workers, who are mostly men.

The Employment Tribunal first ruled against Asda in October 2016. It said shop workers, who mainly work at check-outs or stacking shelves, could compare themselves with staff who work at warehouses.

It’s not over yet, though:

A ruling over whether the work is of equal value is likely to be in May.

There are three key stages in an equal pay case

– Are the jobs comparable?

– If the jobs are comparable, are they of equal value?

– If they are of equal value, is there a reason why the roles should not be paid equally?

I’ve worked on a shop floor and in a warehouse, and I’ve got to say I preferred the warehouse. Although the work is more physical, colder, and you have to dodge forklifts and reversing lorries, you don’t have to mind your language nor deal with idiotic members of the public. You can also goof off more easily: one of the worst things about working a shop floor is you can’t start loafing in the quiet times. Warehouse work tends to be peaks and troughs.

I expect there are women who work in Asda’s warehouses, just as there are men who work their shop floors. As Asda says:

“Our hourly rates of pay in stores are the same for female and male colleagues and this is equally true in our depots.”

The myth of the gender pay gap has long been debunked, and all but the dimmest of feminists are beginning to realise the differences in pay are down to the choices men and women make. Across the population, men are more likely to do dangerous jobs, work nights, work outside, and do deeply unpleasant jobs which women avoid – all of which attract a wage premium. So what we’re seeing now are campaigns for those jobs women choose being recognised by law as of “equal value” to those men opt for. It is quite easy to determine whether working in a warehouse carries equal value as working on the till – see which role requires the higher salary to attract suitable applicants – but this is producing the wrong result. Enter the ambulance chasers:

Leigh Day represents more 30,000 shop floor staff from the big four supermarkets – Asda, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Morrisons – in similar cases.

This is the law firm which leads witch hunts against British soldiers who fought in Iraq. They believe the courts – rather than the market – is the true arbiter of a job’s value, and will be hoping to follow up on the success of this case, which they also brought:

A group of female workers in the West Midlands have won a Court of Appeal decision on equal pay claims.

The case involves 174 former employees of Birmingham City Council.

The women, who worked as cooks, cleaners, caterers and care staff, claimed they were excluded from getting the bonuses handed out to employees in traditionally male-dominated jobs.

Then there’s this:

It took more than six years and a hard-fought court battle for Joan Clulow, 72, and Pamela Saunders, 67, to finally receive compensation for the years they had been underpaid as home care workers.

“The pay was diabolical for what we did,” said Saunders, a carer employed by Birmingham council for 30 years.

When the council finally graded jobs, it put theirs on a par with mainly male road cleaners and refuse collectors whose wages were boosted by bonuses, shift payments and attendance allowances. “We were gutted,” said Clulow, a home carer for 25 years.

“It hurt because we worked that hard. Christmas Day, Boxing Day, night time if they needed us. We never refused,” she added.

Saunders said: “We couldn’t believe it. Don’t get me wrong, the men do work hard, but we did work hard. And I couldn’t see a lot of them doing what we do. Would they empty a commode, wash somebody down covered in mess, go into a house full of maggots and clean it up? But I’ll tell you what, I would have gone and done a dustman’s job for the day.”

Her remarks reminds me of this post, in which I noted some women don’t seem to understand exactly what “male” jobs entail. Does this Saunders really think men who clean streets and run garbage trucks couldn’t go into a house full of maggots and clean it up, or empty a commode? I think this Asda case might stem in part from the fact supermarket warehouses are no longer situated beside the retail outlets, leaving staff with little idea of what sort of work their colleagues are doing.

What will be interesting to see is how Asda and the other supermarkets handle this. If the courts rule that shop floor and warehouse work are comparable and of equal value, is there any reason why employees couldn’t be required to rotate between them? If Mrs Saunders would gladly have done a dustman’s job for a day (but for some reason didn’t switch to this more lucrative line of employment), would Janet from the deli mind humping boxes in the warehouse at 5am when the first lorry-load of vegetables comes in? I’m sure Barry who normally stacks pallets wouldn’t mind a turn on the till when the temperature drops below freezing in the yard.

We’re going to see a lot more of this, as progressives attempt to close the wage gap by equating wholly different jobs, supported by idiot judges and politicians. It will be interesting to see how the market responds, and what the unintended consequences are.

Share

Label Weiss

I’m currently halfway through listening to the recent Joe Rogan podcast with Bari Weiss, a journalist at the New York Times. I don’t think I need to wait until the end to conclude she’s dumber than a wet breeze block.

She says on the podcast that she doesn’t consider herself white but Jewish, despite her being paler than a male feminist whose hard-drive’s been seized by police. This isn’t surprising. If you want to join the ranks of the liberal left, it’s best you identify as something other than white. Weiss has simply looked at the options in front of her and decided it’s best to call herself Jewish rather than white. This is an American thing: I can’t imagine too many British Jews doing this.

She also says she was inspired by the first Women’s March. This was a gathering of the wealthiest, most privileged, and well-kept women outside of royalty in the history of mankind, and there were 200,000 of them. Their excuse for marching was that they were suffering under the yoke of an intensely patriarchal society, and the election of Donald Trump, who made remarks several years before they didn’t like, was the final straw. What they were really doing was protesting the results of an election that didn’t go their way and subscribing to an alternate vision of reality because their own lives are spiritually empty. Like a small boy lying in a ditch with a stick thinking he’s fending off a battalion of invading Germans, these women fantasised about a world where they were important and did something meaningful. Bari Weiss was part of this.

She then says how dismayed she is at the realisation that the Women’s March is a hotbed of anti-semitism, fronted by people who turn up in photos standing next to Louis Farrakhan. She goes on to explain how poisonously divisive antisemitism is, and how it is based on lies and distortions which nobody seems interested in correcting. Which is funny, because she’s describing exactly how I felt about the Women’s March. It seems to me Weiss is happy to play identity politics by disavowing her skin colour and joining in a 200,000 strong mob to denounce men, but when others do the same and it’s her tribe under attack, she doesn’t like it. It’s clear she doesn’t understand that when you make tribalism and political identity the basis of your existence, you’re likely to run into conflicts with other tribes. At one point (1h:07m) she actually describes newly-anointed congresswoman Ilhan Omar as an “incredible American dream story” because she’s a refugee from Somalia, is a mother, and wears a hijab so “obviously” she wants to cheer her. Yet she’s dismayed to discover not only does Omar not like Jews very much but she’s happy to say so in public. What was she expecting, exactly?

What will it take for it to dawn on people like Weiss that it is not white American men she needs to worry about but people who really don’t like Jews, many of whom have no business being in the United States, let alone holding office? What is Weiss’ position on immigration, do you think? As various dissident right voices have said, at some point American Jews are going to have to decide whether they want to join the ranks of white deplorables or continue to stoke the fires of identity politics which enable those who truly detest them.

Share

Stance Macabre

Regular readers will know that my position on abortion is that it’s a necessary evil, something best made available under certain conditions, with restrictions, and with the acknowledgement it’s really not a good thing to happen under any circumstances. This appears to be the general consensus in the UK and other European countries; there are principled opponents, but they lack the numbers to lobby for an outright ban, let alone get one passed.

Not so the US. Rather than seek political consensus the American ruling classes opted for legal fudge, meaning 45 years after Roe v Wade the subject is still highly divisive. This has led to those on the fringes dominating the discourse. On the right you have the likes of Ben Shapiro who thinks abortion is akin to murder and rape victims should be forced to carry their unwanted babies to term. On the left the issue has become the vehicle by which lunatic feminists punch the patriarchy on the nose, and the more ghoulish they can make what ought to be a sensitive subject, the greater they imagine their victory.

Yesterday New York State passed The Reproductive Health Act, which guarantees women the right to terminate a pregnancy up to 24 weeks, or afterwards if her life is at risk or the fetus “not viable”. This bill was brought about in response to demands from feminists who are deluded enough to believe Roe v Wade is about to be overturned and abortion will be banned nationwide. In passing it, they may have inadvertently strengthened the argument that it’s a matter best left to individual states to decide. Despite feminists’ claims that America is on the cusp of outlawing abortion, their laws are more lax than most European countries. For instance, France, Belgium, and Denmark impose a limit of 12 weeks; Sweden’s limit is 18 weeks. Germany imposes a 12-week limit as well as a mandatory counselling and a 3-day waiting period. The UK and the Netherlands set the limit at 24 weeks, with the latter imposing a 5-day waiting period and the approval of two doctors after 12 weeks. None of these countries are hotbeds of religious patriarchy, yet American feminists claim they’re being stripped of their human rights unless their sisters can have unfettered access to abortion up to 24 weeks. Even then, many argue this doesn’t go far enough, hence the clause in the recent bill that allows for termination after this date.

So having passed what is probably the most permissive abortion law anywhere on the planet, its proponents decided to celebrate. Here’s what New York’s governor thought was appropriate:


And here are the scenes from the New York senate:


Whatever your views on abortion, there’s something seriously amiss with politicians rubbing celebrations in the public’s face at the passage of a bill of this nature. I suspect this isn’t really about abortion at all, and more a manifestation of deep psychological problems among members of the ruling class and those who support them. They hate their political opponents so much they’re going to kill fetuses just to spite them. These are the people who accuse Trump of dividing America.

Share

Hidden Figures

In the comments under my latest podcast on the subject of sexual promiscuity, Jim makes an interesting point:

I would suggest that in hard numbers a man in later life will still be viewed better by women for X previous partners than a woman would be by men for the same number, assuming a similar quality of partners on both sides.

This is true, and it explains why women lie about the numbers. Recall that my podcast was prompted by this tweet:


If women didn’t think their value in the dating marketplace was devalued by the number of partners they’d had, there would be no reason for them to lie about it. Sure, men lie too, but mainly to inflate the numbers. Then when they settle down and their partner asks them, they deflate the number to avoid looking like a complete fanny-rat.

However, both men and women lie about this stuff in part to avoid hurting the feelings of someone they care about. This is why sensible women who have enjoyed themselves at college learn to shut the f*** up, or lie when asked. A point I made in my book is the truth often doesn’t matter as much as how it’s presented. Most blokes these days know they’re not marrying virgins, but they’d prefer their partner applies some discretion and not mention their sexual history, and the same goes for the man. By being tactful, it’s a sign one partner respects the other and doesn’t want to hurt them unnecessarily.

Unfortunately, modern feminism decrees a woman should openly brag about her promiscuity. Not only does this put potential suitors off for crude biological reasons, it’s also a sign she doesn’t respect her partner nor care much for his feelings. Put simply, having several sexual partners doesn’t in itself devalue a woman, but it does if the bloke gets to hear about it. As I said, sensible women bury this stuff in a vault.

Share

Mock ’em razors

During the marketing module of my MBA which I did last semester, the subject of colossal marketing failures came up. It appears Gillette is vying to be included in marketing lectures long into the future:


I don’t think I need to explain to my readers how insulting this is on so many levels. A comment over at David Thompson’s struck home, and included a last line which made me laugh:

Society has been bringing up boys according to the feminist model since the 1970s. It’s been going on a lot longer than #metoo or Gilette’s marketing pivot. We have enough multigenerational experience that we should be able to determine how the project of feminizing boys has worked out – do the boys grow up in to happy, successful men?

Even if it wasn’t so problematic, progressives don’t even find it believable that their guys, the oversocialized pajamaboy feminists, have any kind of iron hand inside their velvet glove, so much for the feminist promise to men of being able to access both their masculine and feminine side. They imagine instead that black men, under a kind of carbon credit scheme for their toxic masculinity, can be their street muscle against white Deplorables.

The reaction on Twitter was one of apoplectic fury, with people vowing to ditch not only Gillette, but all Proctor & Gamble products. But not everyone is unhappy:

Gillette has a dedicated page, to support the ad, which speaks volumes (emphasis theirs):

It’s time we acknowledge that brands, like ours, play a role in influencing culture. And as a company that encourages men to be their best, we have a responsibility to make sure we are promoting positive, attainable, inclusive and healthy versions of what it means to be a man. With that in mind, we have spent the last few months taking a hard look at our past and coming communication and reflecting on the types of men and behaviors we want to celebrate. We’re inviting all men along this journey with us – to strive to be better, to make us better, and to help each other be better.

From today on, we pledge to actively challenge the stereotypes and expectations of what it means to be a man everywhere you see Gillette. In the ads we run, the images we publish to social media, the words we choose, and so much more.

As I may have said before, modern corporations are as much standard bearers for a hotch-potch of post-modernist moral virtues than businesses returning value to shareholders. As I have definitely said before, these people would be better off joining a church.

The fact is, this advert has been dreamed up by a marketing department in a giant, multinational corporation. We already know which demographic these companies pander to when recruiting and promoting, and the further you get from the science and engineering branches, the more pronounced the effects of these policies will be. It doesn’t take any great genius to imagine what the marketing team behind this catastrophe looked like, and what views they subscribed to. The irony is companies justify diversity programs in part by claiming they allow marketing departments to better identify with their customers. Well, Gillette’s done a great job of that, haven’t they?

Share