Signs of the Decline: Dog Food Edition

In this Brave New World, women will balk at the prospect of having to heat up TV dinners for their families while happily making wholesome crockpot meals for their dogs.


The Unbearable Autism of Gender Neutrality

New guidance issued from the New York mayor’s office now prohibits city bars and restaurants from refusing to serve alcoholic beverages to pregnant women. According to the the Mayor’s office, this refusal is prohibited by the New York City Human Rights Law which classifies pregnancy discrimination as “discrimination based on gender.” Thus, refusing to serve alcohol or raw fish to pregnant women constitutes rights violations. Quoth the legal wizards on the Commission on Human Rights, in part:

While covered entities may attempt to justify certain categorical exclusions based on maternal or fetal safety, using safety as a pretext for discrimination or as a way to reinforce traditional gender norms or stereotypes is unlawful.

Naturally, this development has been made possible by a confluence of factors: a culture so degraded that it has enshrined as paramount value the primacy of corrosive individualism, fanatic adherence to the ideology of gender egalitarianism, and the devaluation of the lives of the unborn. This guidance is the logical product of a society in which the individual is free to engage in any manner of life destroying acts while those who aim to preserve life are denounced as bigots. This is the perverse morality of a dying civilization. This is the logic of a society so collectively autistic that it views dysgenesis as an acceptable price to pay for complete equality between the sexes.

The logic implicitly operational here is that the genders are equal in every sense, so much so that any deviation from a common standard of treatment is per se suspect, even when there is a material physical condition present in one group that would militate for the disparate treatment in question. There is no functional difference between a man and a pregnant woman that would justify a bartender’s abstention from serving alcohol to a pregnant woman, even though the risks of fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) are known to all and have been known to all for decades. We live in a world in which is exercising judgment is a crime and to make an observation is a sin.

But what else could one expect from a state that demurs to hold pregnant women accountable for willfully engaging in behaviors deleterious to the health of “the fetus”?

In 2003, a New York court found that child protection law does not apply to pregnant women whose actions could influence the health of a fetus.

If child protection laws do not extend to the child in utero, and the mother cannot be held legally responsible for conduct that harms the child while in utero, then why should it matter if a pregnant woman indulges in one, two, or even ten drinks?

Men & Leadership

Human nature is nonexistent and expressed human preferences are malleable to the point of irrelevance; these are the fundamental views of the Leftist. As their only collective point of reference is The Current Year, they remain willfully blind to long-established patterns of behavior, doggedly refusing to consider the possibility that all displayed human behaviors are adaptive ones which persist because they facilitate survival. These behaviors have evolved to enable disparate groups, evolving in disparate environs, with disparate survival/reproductive strategies to survive and to thrive. All other strategies (i.e., ones we tend not to observe on display as frequently) are maladaptive ones, and have been accordingly consigned to the dustbin of evolution.

So when one reads a headline inquiring “Why Do So Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders?,” one immediately understands that what the author actually means to ask is “why do individuals in the corporate setting prefer leaders demonstrating overtly masculine traits rather than leaders demonstrating overtly feminine ones?” The author begins by floating three possible explanations for the “clear under-representation of women in management.”

There are three popular explanations for the clear under-representation of women in management, namely: (1) they are not capable; (2) they are not interested; (3) they are both interested and capable but unable to break the glass-ceiling: an invisible career barrier, based on prejudiced stereotypes, that prevents women from accessing the ranks of power.

The first and second theories accurately capture the current state of affairs in the business world. On average, women are not as capable as men when it comes to navigating the murky waters of the corporate world. On average, women are less interested ascending to the zeniths of management, opting instead to prioritize family over employment and quixotically pursuing that fabled “work-life balance.” Nevertheless, the author finds each of these theories wanting:

In my view, the main reason for the uneven management sex ratio is our inability to discern between confidence and competence. That is, because we (people in general) commonly misinterpret displays of confidence as a sign of competence, we are fooled into believing that men are better leaders than women. 

Several thoughts occurred to me as I read this passage. Firstly: why is it that people tend to associate confidence with competence? Secondly: is it not the case that confidence and competence generally occur together? Thirdly: might there be a subconscious, or perhaps. . .evolutionary rationale for why humans tend to gravitate towards the confident peacockers rather than to the self-deprecating ground doves? The next paragraph provides the reader with some interesting factoids:

This is consistent with the finding that leaderless groups have a natural tendency to elect self-centered, overconfident and narcissistic individuals as leaders, and that these personality characteristics are not equally common in men and women. 

Several things. This “natural tendency” business. Could it be that the individuals in these groups are utilizing proxies and heuristics to determine the types of characters statistically likeliest to secure optimum group outcomes? Could it be that certain traits advertise a certain unfitness to lead, while certain other traits advertise robustness and fitness to lead? Why is it that when humans are left to their own devices in a setting that (very) loosely approximates an ancestral environment (disorder, lack of hierarchy, etc.) that people tend to organize themselves around individuals possessing the mentioned traits? Furthermore, why is it that the distributions of these traits between men and women are so drastically varied? Could it have anything to do with the fact that both sexes evolved the constellation of traits likeliest to help them achieve their respective reproductive goals? Is it possible that classically male traits are better suited the an aggressive & results oriented business environment than are classically female traits?

Indeed, whether in sports, politics or business, the best leaders are usually humble.

Confidence and humility are not antithetical. One can be confident and still conduct oneself with humility. The question of why people consistently perceive there to be a positive correlation between confidence and competence remains.

But back to my initial point regarding adaptive versus maladaptive traits. Though massive & complex multinational corporations are a relatively new innovation, for as long as humans have engaged in commerce and organized trade, the same traits have proven time and time again to garner the best results; business is nothing if not results oriented. Were it the case that retiring, risk avoidant, and collaborative traits obtained the best results, it is obvious that we would see more of these types of behaviors rather than less of them in the business context. Were they maximally effective, these more passive traits would be privileged over more aggressive traits.

Were it the case that “sensitivity, considerateness, and humility” were the traits that helped close the most deals, then we would, without a doubt observe use of these tactics proliferating across the business world. Were it the case that people were most inspired to follow leaders who were more nurturing and emotionally intelligent, we’d see far fewer people hitching their wagons to the Alexander the Greats of the world and more people signing up to follow Jane the Housewife. What Mr. Chamorro-Premuzic fails to realize is that results speak for themselves. The present order has emerged after millennia, if not millions of years of trial and error – not due to baseless gender bias or mere happenstance. Chatty Cathy tends to secure worse business outcomes than Psycho Steve, hence the overwhelming preference for/attraction to the latter and the enhanced willingness to put up with his caprices and mercurial moods. No amount of shilling for EQ and ovaries over IQ and cojones will change the facts on the ground – especially when there’s something major at stake.


Women & The Marine Corps

In an announcement that came as a surprise to no one but the most indoctrinated, a Marine Corps study found that all-male ground combat units were more effective than mixed-sex teams. This finding is completely unsurprising, as the core Marine Corps competencies are grueling and intensely physical tasks that men naturally excel at. Nonetheless, we live in an age where the most obvious knowns are repackaged and delivered as heretofore unknowns.  The all-male groups outperformed the mixed-sex groups on 69.4% of the assigned tasks. These findings are of particular relevance due to a January 2016 deadline for the opening of all military combat positions to women. The snippets of the report that have been released read like a realtalk primer on biological sex differences:

  • women were less likely to accurately hit targets than men
  • women have higher body fat percentages than men
  • women are more easily injured than men
  • women have less upper body strength than men

But who is any of this a revelation to? The commenters at, for starters. Faced with the stark, black and white reality of women’s inability to perform up to military standards the NPR commentariat got right down to work, manufacturing counterfactuals and churning out excuses.

With these types, the goal is always to make an issue about everything that it’s not about. On face, it’s clear what these findings mean: that on average, women are weaker performers on key Marine competencies and the addition of these weaker on average female performers to the general Marine population brings down the overall performance of mixed-sex groups. Put simply: women are a liability and should not be admitted into combat positions. Naturally, this is clear to anyone who’s realistic about the physical and spatial limitations of women as compared to men. However, delusional liberals eager to preserve their equalist nurture versus nature fantasies in the face of indisputable evidence to the contrary prefer to turn this into a question of morale (mixed-sex groups don’t perform as well together, so that’s the cause of the sub par performance of those groups) and demand to know why the Marines didn’t test the performance of all-female outfits, perfectly blind to the fact that the mixed group essentially takes into consideration female performance-and this performance was found wanting.

At any rate, what these equalist wet dreamers don’t realize is that an all-female squad would be their worst nightmare, as it would do nothing more than expose everything they believe as balderdash and lies. Even if the Marines had enough female recruits to be able to put together an all-female outfit (something which I seriously doubt to have been a possibility) the performances of these pussy posses would, without a doubt, have been so abysmal as to call the entire gender integration of the corps project into question. The Marines mercifully spared liberals from having to look this ugly truth square in the face by only going so far as testing mixed-sex groups, thereby leaving open the question of whether those groups’ poor performances were due to poor morale of mixed-sex groups or due to the addition of shitty female recruits who will never be as effective as male recruits.

Though the results of this study are unlikely to change any thoroughly dildofied minds, there is humor in this situation, however black. It’s clear that none of the powers that be within the military are going to make the decisions that one would logically expect them to make given this evidence; to do so would be sexist. So I don’t expect any waivers to be requested. Nonetheless, what’s amusing about this is how clear it has become that the average liberal thinks that life is just one huge science project, an experiment wherein there are no consequences for operating under a false hypothesis. What’s funny is how ignorant these people choose to remain in the face of indisputable evidence that puts the lie to their harebrained equality schemes. They have no comprehension that a wrong decision in this respect can result in catastrophe, mayhem, and massive loss of life. To their minds, this is just a distant & low probability concern.

What’s most important to liberals is creating the semblance of equality even if it comes at the expense of national security and American lives just so that they can pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves for being so inclusive and progressive. They’re the vanguard of equality, and they desperately need to signal how progressive they are. There’s no sense that they are on the verge of making a dangerous and costly mistake that will be hell to undo. None of this matters. Facts don’t matter. Reality doesn’t matter.

Agenda uber alles.


Dowries & The Dystopian Future

My friend’s daughter turned one a few days ago and I was invited to the birthday party. Not wanting to show up empty handed, I decided to write a small check as a gift for the baby. After I signed the check, I realized that I’d left the “memo” line empty. My friend is one of those ultra-feminist types (complete with a Rosie the Riveter tattoo), refuses to dress her daughter in anything that alludes to femininity, heavy into the gender neutral/blank slate psychobabble that is so much in vogue nowadays. So, to antagonize her I flirted with the idea of writing “for N’s dowry college fund” as the memo.

Ultimately, I settled on writing “for N’s college fund” so that it was clear who the check was for, coming to the conclusion that sometimes it’s best not to goad. Upon further reflection, however, I realized that I wasn’t too far afield. In seventeen years, that money will have far more utility as part of a dowry than it will as a contribution to the little girl’s college fund. The West in general and the U.S. in particular is in the end stages of a decline into civilizational irrelevance, and the Dark Age that will follow will necessarily bring with it a hard reset from suicidal liberalism to far more antiquated and patriarchal ways of life and the resurgence of the traditions associated with vigorously androcentric cultures.

What is a dowry and what is its function? A dowry is collateral, either real or monetary that is brought by a bride to her husband upon marriage. While the dowry’s intended purposes varied slightly from culture to culture, dowries primarily served two purposes: to defray the costs associated with the maintenance of the newly established household and to prevent the woman from falling into poverty in the event of the husband’s death or abandonment of her. Above all, the dowry was provided in the recognition that the husband assumed a burden when he assumed a wife and that the assumption of this burden should be offset in some pecuniary fashion. As women in antiquity and in pre-modern eras typically did not work outside the home, were not formally educated, and were likely to have several children.

Roman family law is unequivocal in this realization: “the dowry should be where the burdens of marriage are; fairness requires that the fruits of the dowry (fructus dotis) should accrue to the husband, since he bears the burdens of marriage, it is fair that he also receives the fruits.” Legally, the wife retained her claim to the dowry which had to be returned to her if her husband divorced her or upon her husband’s death. Practically, this never happened, as the husband’s relatives who were responsible for settling his estate viewed the widow as a burden upon the husband’s estate. This was the case in in late medieval/Renaissance Italy. Dowries also served as a type of insurance policy, with the secondary effects of reducing occurrences of marital dissolution and capricious abandonment.

The features common to almost all dotal cultures are patriarchal norms supported by legal system enshrining patriarchy while strongly penalizing female inconstancy/infidelity (for example, Roman family law entitled the husband to maintain a 1/6 of the dowry per child, up to three if the woman initiated divorce against him, with an additional 1/6 in the event of adultery), extreme socially reinforced traditionalism (female domesticity, young marriage, several children), small decentralized governments, and pre-modern conditions.

Obviously, in the postmodern, enlightened, liberated, technology addled, and equality fetishizing West, women are “strong, and independent, and don’t need no man” (provided that the government is behind the scenes facilitating this “independence” by diverting money from far more productive men and funneling the lucre to initiatives and programs designed to benefit women almost exclusively in exchange for their votes). No dowries are necessary, as modern women aren’t taken on by their husbands as wards or burdens but rather as equals, at least superficially. Patriarchy is railed against as a relic of a time when women were “oppressed.” Thus, female liberation vitiates the need for dowry customs as women no longer millstones around the necks of their husbands.

Currently, in 2015 the topography of most females’ life plan map looks something like this: go to high school, then go to college/university which is financed primarily through usurious loans from the government or from private sources, once in university, “do what you love” and major in some useless subject, don’t look for a potential mate because that’s a waste of time and all men are rapists anyway, drench yourself in deluges of cock on a voyage of “self discovery,” graduate with mortgage sized debt, obtain more debt to pursue an equally useless advanced degree, graduate for good and begin working in some low prestige and low paid make-work position, realize that you hate your empty cubicle monkey existence and start looking for a man in earnest to save you from languishing in corporate drudgery.

Built into this life plan are certain assumptions: (1) the continued existence of a strong centralized and solvent government capable of and inclined to redistribute the earnings of men to women through gynocentric policies and outright preferences (2) adjunct to that, the government’s continued solvency and continued ability to provide loans to finance even the most useless of degrees (3) the continued existence of the U.S. as a world power, however enervated (4) continued male desire to remain productive within society in spite of a misandrist system (5) university’s continued relevance as a mechanism for gaining access to wealth (6) replacement level reproduction

2032 however, will be a whole different kettle of fish for reasons obvious to anyone with an iota of awareness of what is just around the bend.

The failure of 1-3 of these pillars will yield mild to moderate discomfort; the failure of all of these pillars will mean the abrupt and catastrophic end to life as we know it. Liberalism is on its deathbed, its death rattles heard by all as it draws its last breaths. The collapse is already in motion and the pillars keeping this ersatz culture aloft are beginning to crumble. Consider:

2032 or thereabouts will likely find us at a crossroads. Collapse is inevitable, but the response is variable. Regardless of the outcomes, dowries may make a comeback either to allay the burdens of marriage for men in a world post collapse world forcibly returned to conditions mimicking premodernity and restores tradition and patriarchy or in a slightly modified form to provide insurance for ever decreasing numbers of affluent males desirous of security against the villainy of females in a post collapse world that persists in its gynocentricity at men’s expense.

The West may either:

  • admit the failures of equalism and liberalism, reform the unjust family law system, eliminate no fault divorce, uproot feminism, place a 20-year moratorium is placed on immigration, establish austerity programs, repeal quotas and gender preferential laws thus forcing women out of the workplace and allowing men to reassume their rightful places as breadwinners, stop underwriting universities so that they become less expensive but more selective with leaner operating budgets, make efforts to correct massive gender imbalances skewing female, permit companies to make use of intelligence tests in hiring OR
  • make no key reforms, increase spending to stave off the effects of the collapse and institute a policy of managed decline, continue to favor women continue in hiring, continue to allow women to obtain 60% of all college degrees, keep funding universities allowing them to become even more expensive, irrelevant, and dumbed down, continue employing women in make-work government positions, permit men to fall further and further behind creating a permanent male underclass with a few elite marriageable men, accept that instability and constant low level violence will become permanent features of the new landscape

In the first scenario, dowry customs may see an uptick in popularity due to a female exodus from the labor force and back into the home. This development will not be negative per se, but will simply be the result of a massive corrective trending towards a patriarchal model. The reforms will be sufficient to assure men that they will not be thrown to the wolves by a wife looking to hit the circuit again in a bid to trade up and then fleeced by proxy by divorce courts that overwhelmingly favor women. Women will be more of a burden, but the benefits of marriage will nonetheless outweigh the risks to men.

The second scenario may see dowries reintroduced, but for considerably more brutal reasons. This scenario seems likelier to occur than the former due to the entrenchment of special interests, feminists and assorted leftists desirous of the complete collapse of the current system. Times will be hard, women will still have incomes, albeit substantially reduced, and women will increasingly seek safe havens in marriage to guard against victimization by roving gangs of brigands. Dowries will, for all intents and purposes, become necessary for all women seeking monogamous, heterosexual marriages as men seek insurance against the vagaries of an unpredictable and unfair family law system. In this scenario, polygamy rates will likely increase geometrically, as below average to average men steadily drop out of the marriage market clearing the field for the wealthiest and most elite men, and all but the most beautiful and/or wealthiest women resort to sharing the few men still willing to play the game.

Maybe my friend should just cash the check and buy the baby some shades. The future is just that bright.


Two Observations

Observation One: The New York Times is fast becoming little more than a literary sewer. I suggest the editors seriously consider changing the paper’s motto to say “all the news that’s shit to print,” as I think that would more accurately reflect the syphilitic quality of its offerings.


Take, for example, the above gem of an article. Quite newsworthy.

Observation Two: feminism has become entirely farcical. It continues to render itself more and more irrelevant, by revealing itself to be little more than a hollow, catch-all concept that women can use to justify anything from the murder of the unborn to the selling of hideous lingerie.

Some ideologies inspire the great to wage wars and to establish great and durable civilizations. Other ideologies inspire the mediocre to manufacture high waisted culottes and to attention whore half naked before an international audience.


Film Review: Mad Max: Fury Road (Not Your Mother’s Feminist Movie)

Mad Max: Fury Road is a fantastic film, a stunning vision in X-Pro that is definitely worth the watch. The film is fast paced, visually stunning, and laconic. The acting is superb and overall, the film is a piece of solid cinematic storytelling. In full disclosure, my primary motivation in seeing this film was to find out whether the film was as feminism inflected as critics suggested. While the film confusingly opts to center its story on Imperator Furiosa (played by a butched-up Charlize Theron) in a film ostensibly about the trials and travails of its titular character, “Mad” Max Rockatansky (Tom Hardy) I couldn’t help but notice just how profoundly un-feminist the film was. It pits itself decidedly against the dominant cultural narrative of equalism, godlessness, and relentless modernity and firmly in the camp of radical inequality, mysticism, and tradition. Fury Road is an intoxicating mix of religious iconography, deep ecology, and apocalyptica.


Fury Road returns to the desolate desert in which it was born, to a universe that is even more brutal and unforgiving than the ones preceding it. The nuclear holocaust has come and gone; survival is the only aim. This world, where disfigured hoardes in the valley are counseled against becoming too attached to water lest they come to resent its absence by a disfigured overlord atop a verdant peak as he niggardly doles it out, is indubitably a man’s world. Only the toughest of the tough will survive. Imperator Furiosa drives the war rig and saves the virgin wives, but the men are the real conductors in this universe.

This much becomes clear within 30 minutes of the film when the rig makes a pit stop after a particularly intense chase scene. Max stumbles upon Furiosa and Immortan Joe’s five (supermodel) wives clad in diaphanous white fabrics, cutting off their chastity belts. Max, who is still disoriented from the crash and from having been used as a “blood bag” by the sickly war boy Nux, is initially antagonistic towards the women. Once Nux comes to, eager to return the wives to Joe, Max’s role quickly shifts to that of protector. Max fights off Nux, herds the women back onto the rig, and the set off again towards the mythical “Green Place.” The rig is soon besieged by Joe and his gang and Max finds himself protecting, fighting, and repairing the rig, all while the women cower inside the cab of the rig. Furthermore, it is revealed that Nux has stowed away on the rig. He soon develops an emotional relationship with one of the wives and transitions from antagonist to coven protector.

Ultimately, after a series of chase scenes and intense pyrotechnical feats, the gang arrives at the Green Place, and finds the place barren and populated by a group of leathery crones called the Vuvalini. Even though Furiosa claims to have made the run to the Green Place several times before, she appeared to be unaware of the Green Place’s actual condition. She also learns that her matriarchal clan has been decimated, its members dwindling down to the last. Realizing that the Shangri-la that she intended to deliver the girls to does not exist, Furiosa cooks up an abortive plan involving riding into the desert on motorbikes with 160 days of provisions. Realizing the plan to be nothing short of suicide, Max presents Furiosa with a map outlining a path back to the Citadel, the only semblance of a society that still exists. On the chase back to the Citadel, Furiosa is gravely injured, Nux sacrifices himself to ensure that the women may return to the Citadel safely, and Max provides Furiosa with a blood transfusion. At the movie’s conclusion, Max slips off into the crowd, allowing Furiosa and the wives to return to the Citadel victoriously.

This is no feminist fantasy. This is brutal realism, patriarchy at its finest. While Furiosa is the spitting image of the “strong, independent woman who don’t need no man,” she nevertheless does need a man (several men in fact) to help liberate the wives from Joe. Furiosa is employed by Joe, and her position as right hand woman (heh) is what gave her the latitude to have the audacity to steal his wives from right under his nose. As the action heats up in the desert, it becomes manifestly clear that Furiosa and the wives rely on Max both materially and emotionally. Max is the one who must make the physical and psychic sacrifices to facilitate the women’s freedom. It is Max who ventures into the dark to recover ammunition and returns covered in blood. It is Max who battles off hostiles on top of a moving rig. It is Max in all his taciturn splendor who the women turn to when they are inquieted by a sudden and unexpected turn of events.

This theme deepens once Nux defects to the good side. One of the wives quickly develops a bond with Nux and he quickly develops a sense of responsibility for her well-being. Many a wistful gaze and truncated wave is shared; many a sleepy nuzzle shared in the rig’s cab. Ultimately, Nux literally self-immolates to insure that the wives are ushered to safety, at last obtaining his elusive entry to Valhalla. This is pure chivalry: that a male character would sacrifice himself for the female characters

Analyzing the last third of the film does nothing to dislodge this hypothesis. If anything, it highlights just how patriarchal the world of Fury Road is. The Green Place turns out to be a mirage. The stark reality is that this fabled place was naught but a desert wasteland inhabited by a nomadic band of women vainly attempting to eke out an existence in the barrenness. Their only link to life and civilization is a case of seeds carried around by one of the elders. Thus we see the futility of matriarchy: it created nothing and could sustain nothing. It could not protect the downtrodden. Far from being a powerful and independent force, matriarchy is fundamentally weak and dependent, powerless to offer even a modicum of solace to the oppressed. Furiosa took the wives away from the forces of masculine oppression, signified by Joe and the society of the Citadel only to bring them into the hopeless abyss.

The return to the Citadel is also telling. The Vuvalini understand that they cannot help the wives and were themselves eager to return to the Citadel. The Citadel is the only semblance of civilization remaining, a true oasis in the nuclear desert. The return to the Citadel is the acceptance of the failure of matriarchy and is the tacit recognition that a return to the masculine is the only thing that will preserve life. The Return to the Citadel is the characters prostrating themselves before the supremacy of masculinity and its ability to synthesize life out of the void, to create civilization out of nothingness.  In this world, women are not the equals of men, nor could they be. The harshness of the environment necessitates hierarchy and precludes modernist fantasies of gender equality. Even Max’s blood transfusion to Furiosa is testament to this life giving property of the masculine. The protector of life becomes the resurrector from death in the face of all but certain oblivion. For all its feminist posturing, Fury Road is a paean to masculine virtue that succeeds in its honesty and unforgiving realism.