The culture women wanted

Kay Hymowitz laments the immaturity of the modern young man. Vox Day reads it, shrugs, and goes back to the Plaguelands:

But this history suggests an uncomfortable fact about the new SYM: He’s immature because he can be. We can argue endlessly about whether “masculinity” is natural or constructed – whether men are innately promiscuous, restless and slobby or socialized to be that way – but there’s no denying the lesson of today’s media marketplace: Give young men a choice between serious drama on the one hand, and Victoria’s Secret models, battling cyborgs, exploding toilets and the NFL on the other, and it’s the models, cyborgs, toilets and football by a mile.

For whatever reason, adolescence appears to be the young man’s default state, proving what anthropologists have discovered in cultures everywhere: It is marriage and children that turn boys into men. Now that the SYM can put off family into the hazily distant future, he can – and will – try to stay a child-man. Not only is no one asking that today’s twenty- or thirtysomething become a responsible husband and father – that is, grow up – but a freewheeling marketplace gives him everything he needs to settle down in pig’s heaven indefinitely.

There was no shortage of women who didn’t like it when men were responsible for everything. They wanted to vote, they wanted to work, they are demanding a turn to take the reins. Fine, says the modern young man, who has been subjected to 16 years of feminist propaganda that women are just as good – better, in fact – than men at pretty much everything. Not being given to whining and being largely practical, the young man is happy to leave the responsibility to the women who are demanding it. Who in their right mind would trade models, games and football for marriage to some controlling bitch who’s as likely to leave you as not?

I certainly wouldn’t. Yeah, I got married, but only because I got lucky and met a woman who looks like a VS model and is fine with the cyborgs and NFL as long as I keep it to what she considers a reasonable 12/7.

This is what matriarchy looks like. And until it collapses, as it most certainly will in a shorter period of time than anyone expects, we can expect to see more of this rational immaturity from men. If Ms Hymowitz thinks it’s bad now, she should just wait until the MMOs get superintelligent, Madden installs a live link to NFL trades and injury updates and the inanimate sex dolls become animated sex droids. You wanted to drive, women, now you’ve got the wheel. Good luck with that.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, there’s an infestation of Skeletal Flayers in the Ruins of Andorhal that requires my attention.

Advertisements

Proposing a review surge

Someone suggested following up the success of the first book surge with another one. I rejected that idea because a) been here done that, and b) you guys have already done more than enough to get the ball rolling. You exceeded not only my expectations, but even my objectives. I really appreciate your enthusiasm and support. What I think would be helpful now is posting your reviews on Amazon once the book’s page is open to them, presumably on Friday. So, if you’ve read the book and you’re up for it, then please let me know here.

This is particularly important because, as the shrieking monkeys have made abundantly clear, they’re not about to permiit not having read TIA get in the way of offering their uninformed opinions on it.

For crying out of the loud

Rich Lowry marvels at the political astuteness of Kate O’Beirne:

Pundit Credit Where It’s Due

Someone who called the Rudy thing from the beginning—that he wasn’t a good fit for the GOP and wouldn’t win the nomination—was my colleague Kate O’Beirne.

She was hardly the only one, as every political observer with even half a functioning brain knew that he was a horrible, no-good, very-bad candidate. The only question was if the party elite could cram him down the Republican base’s throats long enough to let him take another pre-arranged dive for Hillary. As it turned out, he was so hapless that they couldn’t. Which is actually somewhat of a a comforting thought to take into the next eight years of rule by humorless lesbian blackskirts.

And you still wonder why I prefer to spend my time in Azeroth…. Meanwhile, the Englishman in New York goes medieval on the Manhattan conservatives:

You already have a genuinely conservative candidate on offer. He’s just not slick enough for you. What, he has positions you don’t agree with? More than the other guys? Actually, I have heard very little complaining about Paul’s positions. What I have mostly heard is (a) He’s funny looking, (b) He can’t win, and (c) He has a lot of icky supporters.

The answer to (a) is to put aside the New York Times “Style” section for five minutes and think. The answer to (b) is, that if conservatism is going to lose big in 2008 anyway (newsflash: it is), it should at least make a stand, to inspire future generations. The answer to (c) is, get in there and swell the ranks of non-icky Paul supporters — there are plenty of us — to drown out the nutsos.

I’m probably considered one of the nutsos, (in fact, now that I think about it, I KNOW I am), but hey, the more the merrier. And as it is written: Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from insanity.

Welcome to WND

I very much like the addition of Nat Hentoff to the lineup:

What distinguishes us from all other nations is the range and depth of the First Amendment’s expressive individual liberties against government control of what we say and think…. Once our republic began, James Madison expected that no American would be punished for his “thoughts.” But “hate crimes” laws – vigorously and incredibly supported by the American Civil Liberties Union – are what Madison feared.

I seldom agree with Mr. Hentoff. But I have far more respect for him than for most of the nominally “right-wing” commentariat, because unlike them, he genuinely understands the concept of freedom of thought and the dangers of government control.

The Lewis book sounds like a restatement of the obvious, but then, the mindless Left could use just such a reminder right now, especially from one of its own.

The sacrificial lamb is gone

Long live the new sacrificial lamb… until November, anyhow:

Rudy Giuliani, who bet his presidential hopes on Florida only to come in third, prepared to quit the race Tuesday and endorse his friendliest rival, John McCain.

While I’m still standing by my 2003 prediction of a president Rodham-Clinton, my ability to read the tea leaves with regards to the Republicans hasn’t been very good. I initially thought Pataki might be the unelectable Republican selected to take the fall, (although I did suggest Giuliani as the other probability, as he indeed turned out to be), but as I noted before the primaries began, Giuliani was such a horrendous candidate that he couldn’t even fulfill his appointed role.

But Democrats need not fear, both McCain and Romney are eminently capable of being defeated in the same landslide that was intended for Giuliani. It doesn’t actually matter which of them is nominated to play Bob Dole redux. (Rameshh Ponnuru notices the similarity as well, although I doubt he is fully aware of its significance: “It has seemed a bit like the 1996 race. McCain is Dole: the old war hero who has run before, who does not enthuse either economic or social conservatives but has a pretty conservative record.”)

Giuliani’s theme of “I saved New York City” was always self-destructive. Given how a significant portion of the rest of the country feels about NYC, it probably cost him more votes than it gained him, especially in a state with no shortage of people who are happy to have shaken its dust from their flip-flops.

Daily TIA Review

Unlike the shrieking mob of panic-stricken primates, Thoughts and Ideas had the bright idea to actually read the book(!) before attempting to reach any conclusions about it:

A common mistake in this debate–or indeed any debate–is to argue exclusively from one’s own perspective. Quoting verses from the Bible is ultimately ineffective to someone who views it with the same amount of respective as one would regard the Weekly World News…. Vox steers clear of this trap and meets the atheist charges head on. The results are glorious to behold, though a tremor of pity may escape the human breast if one glances at the slain trinity. It’s not just that Vox is intellectually honest whereas Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are not. Vox has clearly read books relating to the subject matter–his knowledge of history is especially keen–whereas it appears that his opponents have assembled books after a series of college bull sessions and limited research, probably involving Wikipedia.

Sam Harris is clearly the biggest breaker of the laws of logic; as such, he takes the lion’s share of the blows. Vox points out twelve glaring errors from his two books, before tackling the “striking”–Dawkin’s term–argument of the superiority of atheism, based on a survey of crime data from red states and blue states. As Vox points out, the argument is idiotic, and proves nothing; but Harris is so mindbogglingly incompetent that the data actually suggest the opposite of what Harris claims.

The Idiotic Atheists

This hilarious quote pretty much sums up the slack-jawed, vacant-eyed response by the Dawkins cheerleading club upon learning about TIA. I very much enjoy the way they keep delving into my old op/ed columns like an old Roman priest digging through sheep innards, trying to interpret the auspices.

This is the craziest thing I’ve seen in a long time. What on earth is he talking about?

Only one of them seems to have even a glimmering of a clue: “Worrisome… This again shows that the atheists in this forum are far too quick to mock and dismiss opponents.”

Bring it, bitches. And when you slink off wet, silent, and stinky, just remember, that’s Eau de Vox Day you’re wearing.