Sixteen Volts

In my writings, I have often mentioned the phenomenon that I have dubbed "chasing the rabbit, the hunter is blind to mountains", in which a person temporarily forgets the big picture in the rush to gain some small local benefit. This typically happens when people are angry and want to mock their opponents, thus accidentally revealing their real opinions about something that they under normal conditions piously admire in public. For example, when a leftist mocks his opponents as being "gay", as if being a homosexual was somehow a bad thing. The comment

No more sex for Noer. I wish there was a website where you could warn other women to keep away from men like Michael Noer. If this article gets around he may never have sex again, which would be for the best because he strikes me as someone who doesn't really value women.

in response to the now-infamous silly Forbes article that adviced men not to marry "career women" (who were rather strangely defined as women who work outside home and make at least $30K a year) is also a good example of this. When I read this comment, it almost seemed to me that the woman who wrote it believes that women are sexual gatekeepers, and that women's preferences are mutually highly correlated which naturally sorts all men into a hierarchy of sexual desirability, after which simple supply-and-demand analysis will reveal that the men in the bottom of this hierarchy have to settle for either really unattractive loser women or Rosie Palm.

But of course my impressions can't possibly be true, since feminists have categorically thoroughly debunked both the idea of women being sexual gatekeepers and the idea that women's preferences in what they (just like men) look for in a partner are highly correlated, leading to a market reality in human mating so that, for example, the typical sitcom setup of a hot slender wife married to a fat schlub husband would be extremely unrealistic in real life. Since love cannot be examined in market terms but is airy and abstract so that anybody could fall in love with anybody else because we all have totally different personal preferences which "don't always correlate" (to borrow the common humorous phrase), for any woman who thinks less of Michael Noer because of what he wrote, there would be another woman who thinks more of him because of what he wrote. Right?

Or perhaps I have again misunderstood something. Either way, this general discussion leads to something that I was casually wondering earlier today as I was walking somewhere, so perhaps I can now make a blog post about it. As I predicted in my post "So if you care to find me, look to the western sky", about a hundred million young unmarried Third World women in their Internet cafes will soon (if not already) be skyping and wannachatting with young Western men en masse in hopes that they would get to live in the rich fantasyland of America and other rich Western countries that they have only seen depicted in television shows such as Dallas. So we can look forward to seeing a lot more weddings between Western men and Third World women taking place within only a few years. This should make at least the anti-racist community very happy, with men giving up racism in their own lives in such an accepting way.

Despite this, Western women and especially feminists don't particularly seem to like the idea of the Western men marrying Third World women. I do have problems with their arguments, though. First of all, haven't the feminists been telling us for several decades now that a man should always respect a woman's "no" so that if she rejects his amorous advances, he shouldn't be a creep or a stalker but just move on and never try to approach her again. (If only women were equally respectful of men's "no" when men say that they don't want to use their bodies to pay higher taxes to subsidize the various socialist utopias that women so often come up with... hey, one can dream.) In this light, I find it difficult to comprehend the feminist complaint about the Western men who are losers and thus rejected by their fellow countrywomen giving up the Western women and turning their eyes to the Third World. Wasn't this exactly what these men were supposed to do, once they were rejected by the Western women? Just like Sigmund Freud, I remain utterly confused of "what women want".

(By the way, for those women who say that these loser men should stop approaching all women altogether and die alone in their loserdom, I would like to remind you that there is a word that means a person who believes that inferior people should have no right to try find companionship or to breed.)

Every man already understands perfectly that only a teeny-tiny minority of the three billion women on Earth desire him sexually. (All right, if you want to nitpick, things might be different for Brad Pitt and other doubleplusalphas at the top, but such men are quite rare and they are not reading this.) Each man knows that the vast majority of women would find him sexually horrifying, by which I mean that if they were somehow legally necessitated to have sex with him, this experience would traumatize them for life. Therefore each man will have to first hear about twenty women say "no" to him before he finds one who says "yes", after which he will spend the rest of his life telling that woman that she is special among all women and it never could have been anybody else for him. Having a woman tell a man that she doesn't want to have sex with him should be no big deal for him: after all, this only establishes that she belongs the vast majority of women on Earth. The only way a woman can make her rejection really sting against a man who has any common sense is if she can somehow pretend that her attitude is shared by practically all women that the man will meet during his life, the way you can see in the comment that I quoted above.

We don't consider a man to be a "loser" if one or ten or even a hundred women reject him but one woman of similar quality eagerly says "oh yes!". This simple observation leads us to another problem that I see in the usual mockery of those Western men who find themselves a wife from the Third World. A common theme seems to be that since these men are losers who can't convince any Western women to stoop down to date them or have sex with them, these men have to settle for significantly inferior sex and partnership than what a Western woman could have provided. For some strange reason, this mockery is not considered as deviously contemptible as, say, if I mocked somebody who can't afford to pay a pittance of a few hundred bucks to go see a doctor. This blatant double standard in when it is acceptable to mock losers both for being losers and for being angry for the mockery and rejection that they receive from the non-losers is rather galling. Which way is it, do losers who are angry and want to change society to make it more suitable for their needs deserve our sympathy and understanding, or our cruel mockery? Hey, I could live with either option, but I won't let you have this both ways depending on the needs of the moment.

Coming back to the main train of thought, I would now simply like to know if the Western women generally do believe that they are somehow better than their brown sisters in the Third World. Because if they do believe this, then they explicitly admit that they are racists. And if they don't believe this, then they admit that a man doesn't really lose or miss anything if he marries a Third World woman instead of a Western woman, since both women are equally "good". So which way do you want it to be? Again, I can certainly live with either option, but I would certainly be interested to hear what women, especially the left-leaning ones who are currently the noisiest against the idea of Western men getting increase their dating prospects with globalization generally think of this dilemma.

Lawrence Auster has occasionally written about how the white Western liberals (as an European, I don't want to give up this linguistic battle and will therefore use the word "leftists") secretly consider themselves to be superior to the brown Third World dwellers, the fact whose truthity you can easily see if you just look at the leftist rhetoric and actions. For example, it is clear that they can't even imagine themselves or their descendants ever becoming dhimmis under a Muslim rule, nor can they treat their beloved minorities as adults who should be responsible for their own thoughts and actions. The attitude of Western women towards marriages between white men and Third World women similarly brings out in the open their (perhaps unthinking) racism, when they so obviously consider the Third World women to be their inferiors.

Posted by Ilkka Kokkarinen on Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 2:16 PM