Sixteen Volts

Sometimes in life you get lucky in the sense that all the points that you have ever wanted to make are pretty much made for you by your opponents. So that you know, you don't have to do anything but link to them, and then sit back and let your ideological opponents basically self-destruct. It's been quite a while since I last laughed as hard as when I saw the video "FATASS PDX on German Television". Seriously, go watch this video right now. The funniest losers in American Idol tryouts have nothing on these deluded people. God, if only there was some way to show this video to every college student in America, just before they go to their compulsory diversity training and feminist brainwashing lectures. After all, the main problem with feminism is that it doesn't get enough publicity, so that people could see it for what it really is. Of course, I try to do my best to bring this ideology to sunlight, which is the best disinfectant. (That, and having to actually organize and make a platform, instead of being able to evade every argument with "not all feminists believe that". We can surely remember what happened after the Swedish feminists were stupid enough to do this.)

And hey, let us also not forget that the majority of profeminist men would actually get a chubby watching these women prance around. After all, weren't these morbidly obese women supposed to be your notion of ideal beauty? Or are you guys just saying that to demonstrate that you are really caring and progressive and enlightened and nonthreatening, with the intention of getting to the pants of the more slender and thus hotter chicks? Say it ain't so! Of course, some profeminist men are actually true believers in fatty humping, although I don't really see how many slender chicks would really cry their hearts out for not being able to attract any of these men. One of these fatty admirers is actually featured in the video, and almost as if to prove all my observations about feminists to be true on purpose, he mocks his opponents to be fags. (Not that there's anything wrong with fags, of course! We just love faggots and think they are all witty and smart! As long as they are leftists! Faggity fag fag faggot!)

But enough of that. Speaking of colleges, the latest issue of Macleans revolves around the college theme, and it features two interesting articles. First, the article "Where Everybody Knows Your Name" informs us that because universities have constantly increased their student intakes and thus had to dumb down everything, they are now starting special programs, "universities within universities", which are restricted for a small elite set of carefully chosen students. The curriculums of these elite programs are rigorous and broad, and the students in these programs have a crushing workload and lots of homework, plus they have to actively participate in class. You know, this sounds like the way that all universities used to be, back in the day before somebody decided that a college degree is a basic human right. But I am sure that the equalists already have these restricted elite programs in their sights, so enjoy them while they last.

Second, the article "Two girls for every boy" discusses the effects of the current gender imbalance in colleges. I recall that I have already discussed this topic in my old post... "Two girls for every boy"? Hot damn! Jesus H. Christ, the Macleans article even goes to say pretty much the exact same things that I wrote in my post of the same name, but less explicitly and more in the spirit of "Charlotte Simmons", saying all the obvious stuff between the lines for the reader to decipher and thus maintaining the plausible deniability.

The whole phenomenon really is quite simple. When there is a significant numerical excess of women, they find themselves in the very unnatural situation in which they have to compete for all men, not just the quality alphas (and dating a townie is, of course, like, totally out of the question). Thus they are unable to follow their normal female modus operandi and preference to demand several months of faithful handholding and other stupid girl stuff from their boyfriends before finally agreeing to have sex. Instead, if these women want to monopolize any boyfriend (and despite the angry denials of feminists, most women and men do want to date and eventually monopolize an attractive member of the opposite sex), they have to engage in a race to the bottom (hehe) to out-slut the other girls. If they don't, some other girls will. The article goes on to inform us that in the bars, sexually charged girl-girl kissing is the norm, to attract male attention. Men can afford to be slovenly and unkempt in a way that would doom them to remaining single in any college where women actually had a choice of men.

According to the article, the male students (as any moron would easily be able to predict) don't have any problem whatsoever in being a numerical minority. Those men who did get in the college, that is. But who cares about all those losers who don't? Not the writers of this article, at least. This is eeriely similar to the way that every single magazine article about polygamy always interviews the polygamous man (who is really happy about polygamy), the junior wife (who is happy to be hitched to an alpha male) and the senior wife (who isn't that happy but can't help but go along, knowing which way the husband would choose if he had to be monogamous). But nowhere in these articles do you get to hear what the excess males numerically doomed to remain alone have to say about polygamy. ("I guess they just have to be fags, ha ha!")

The funniest parts of this Macleans article were certainly the picture captioned "Econ 101: Learning about supply and demand at the Laurier campus pub" (the picture itself featuring several girls with two happy-looking dudes) and the paragraph about some male students greeting the parents of incoming freshmen with a banner "Thank you fathers for your virgin daughters". The funniest part by far was about some male biology student who examined and explained this phenomenon in the school newspaper with instructions of how men can benefit from it, which made feminists so angry that they distributed to female students printed warnings not to have sex with that particular thought criminal. The article didn't say whether the campus feminists had declared that student to be a racist, rapist and pedophile, but I'm pretty sure that those eventually came up.

And you know what I certainly predict will be the most hilarious aspect of this whole thing? The way that most feminists (dim and ignorant of even the basic economics and logic and other patriarchal constructs of oppression that they are), will soon try to proclaim that the undeniable real-world observation that casual sex becomes more common when there is an excess of women somehow proves that women want more sex and are more sexual than men. Because, you know, in those colleges where female students are a small minority, those women would be eager to have lots of casual sex with the male students, but these men in their haughty moralism repress these women by refusing to engage in it.

Of course, in the real world this observation only proves that women are the constraining resource of casual sex. And this fact, in turn, proves that women, on the aggregate, want casual sex less than men. Just like anybody with two eyes and common sense should be easily able to understand. But I guess that the notion of a "constraining resource" and its far-reaching implications about what it tells about the sex that is the "constraining resource" in this sense is absolutely incomprehensible to the pre-numeric and pre-logical feminist brain.

To conclude this post, let's have an idle common sense exercise about the relationships and power structures between sexes. Consider the movie "My Stepson, My Lover" that I noticed was playing last night on the Canadian women's TV network "W" (as an aside, I am not sure how well-thought that channel name really was these days) while flipping through the PVR program grid. Paraphrased from memory, the short description of the movie was the following:

A neglegted wife turns to her adult stepson when her husband is swamped with work.

Now, do you think that we will soon see a movie "My Stepdaughter, My Squeeze" described in equivalent terms

A horny husband turns to his adult stepdaughter when his dumpy wife loses interest in sex.

so that the said husband would be the sympathetic hero of the movie, and have this movie play in Lifetime or Oxygen or W whatever channel it is that women mostly watch? If your answer is no, can you explain what you think is the main reason for this curious asymmetry?

By the way, the two descriptions given above really are equivalent. When it is a woman, we say "neglegted", and when it is a man, we say "horny", but objectively both words mean the exact same thing, namely that that person doesn't get as much quality sex than s/he would like to have. Also, I would say that a husband who loses sexual interest in his wife because she is fat and dumpy is at least more honest than a wife who demands that her husband must compete in the workplace to finance her lifestyle and keep up with the Joneses, making him too tired to have sex.

And of course, let's not forget that in the well-known feminist double standards, every wife is allowed to leave her loser husband any time she wants and look for something better (after all, "strong women" are "entitled to be happy" once they have "learned to better understand what they want in life"), but a husband who similarly leaves his wife to look for something better using objectively identical reasons is automatically a pig, rapist, wife abuser and a pedophile.

God, I sure wish that feminists made up their mind whether they want marriage to be a binding covenant or not, and once they made their decision, admit that this principle will then apply to both sexes equally. But of course they won't. In reality, despite all their beautiful rhetoric how "patriarchy hurts men too", practical feminism is plain womenfirstism, and thus calls for equality only in those situations where women are currently worse off, and has no intention whatsoever of making men better off, with the possible exception of making other groups of men better by making straight white able-bodied males suffer. (The feminist womenfirsters are not unlike those Muslims who tearfully call for tolerance of diversity, individual liberties, presumption of innocence and respect of minorities when they are the minority and thus not in power, even though they have no intention whatsoever of respecting these ideals once they become the majority in that particular area.)

Posted by Ilkka Kokkarinen on Wednesday, June 21, 2006 at 9:21 AM