Archive for ‘feminism’

July 14, 2009

Memo to Judith Warner

“[Sarah Palin] is the 21st-century face of the backlash against women’s progress. . . . The hatred of women . . . is still alive and well in our society, and when directed at well-educated women, it’s socially acceptable, too.”
Judith Warner

If Sarah Palin is “the 21st-century face” of anything, at least it’s a pretty face, eh?

People who like Sarah Palin don’t hate women. But everybody hates whiny bitches like you.

Now, get me a cup of coffee, hon. Cream only.

(Hat-tips: Little Miss Attila and Darleen Click.)

June 13, 2009

Blame Tigerhawk for this

I’m looking at SiteMeter and seeing more click-overs from Tigerhawk, but I don’t see where he’s got any new linkage to me. Ergo, he got some kind of big ‘Lanche today, and I’m getting extra traffic from the blogroll or something.

But he’s got good stuff, including this:

Marriage and housework: “Marriage is no longer a man’s path to less housework.”

The hell you say. If marriage doesn’t decrease your housework, guys, you’re doing something wrong. You do it right, you’ll occasionally get breakfast in bed and never even have to think about the laundry.

Before you ladies start screaming “sexist patriarchal monster!” — guilty as charged, ma’am — you really need to think about the alternatives. I was completely autonomous as a bachelor. My mother worked, and she died when I was 16. There were just us three boys (no sisters), and I had plenty of experience with cooking, cleaning and laundry. So it wasn’t as if I needed those services, but the package deal . . .

A free-market economist Thomas Sowell could explain all this. Think trade-offs, efficiencies of scale, stuff like that.

There is such a thing as a marriage market and, given current market conditions, there is a noticeable surplus of angry careerist bitches who consider domestic drudgery beneath their dignity as womyn. Therefore, if only as a marketing strategy, no matter how demeaning you consider it to scrub toilets or fold towels, try to pretend as if nothing else on earth could give you greater pleasure.

Honestly. You’re already faking orgasms so . . .

June 5, 2009

Shocker: Men and woman are different!

If you’re one of those pea-brains who thinks that male/female differences are entirely the result of a misogynistic patriarchal culture, read about the man who went through menopause:

I was in the middle of treatment for an aggressive case of prostate cancer last winter, and it included a six-month course of hormone therapy. My Lupron shots suppressed testosterone, which is the fuel for prostate cancer.
When your testosterone is being throttled, there are bound to be side effects. So, with the help of Lupron, I spent a few months aboard the Good Ship Menopause with all the physical baggage that entails. . . .

Read the whole thing, and show it to any feminist moron who is so stupid as not to understand that the fundamental differences between men and women are biological, permanent, and relevant.

June 5, 2009

Things beyond my ken

by Smitty

  How does the imagining left, especially the feminists, force western manhood to wear a hairshirt, while maintaining relative silence over what goes on in Muslim countries? Is it a “simple” case of displacement?
  Larry Johnson is unforgiving on the point: Yo Bitches, Wear that Hijab.
  Larry is less than fair. For that kind of a blog-drubbing, he owes the POTUS an alternative text on the topic. Getting the issue raised at all is something of a win. I liked the allusion to the list of countries that have elected female leaders. Nice oblique slap at the rest who’ve either had the same clowns in power for decades, or don’t even bother with them thar newfangled “ee-leck-shun” thingies. I doubt there is much cure for such cultures, other than a couple hundred years.
  As a thought experiment, would we gain anything if we could give the feminists to these “retro” dudes for some “western male appreciation training”?

May 31, 2009

It’s Time for ‘Girl Stuff,’ WithYour Hostess, Little Miss Attila

Dear Attila: Your post about icky girl stuff was very amusing, in the “a-ha” smile-of-recognition way that only a man who has been married for 20 years could be amused.

My bachelor friends are mystified by my assurance that they don’t know what love is. When your wife sends you to the store, when you stride boldly into the feminine hygiene products aisle in search of the specific brand and style, when you find it and then go to the cashier and purchase that package of Always[TM] Ultra Thin Regular without embarrassment or explanation — well, that, my friends, is love.

And let’s talk hormone-induced mood changes, shall we? I realize we’re already well past National Offend A Feminist Week, but doesn’t this inescapable biological reality argue strongly against the kind of sexual “equality” (identical and therefore fungible) that is the basis of feminist ideology?

As blatantly reactionary as it was for my friend G. Gordon Liddy to discuss Judge Sotomayor’s nomination in this light, it’s not as if the G-Man was just makin’ stuff up. We’re talking about a genuine, biologically-based difference, are we not?

Even a wise Latina from the South Bronx could have a bad day or two every so often. If one were disposed to entertain dramatic hypotheticals, what might happen if one day Associate Justice Sotomayor decided, mid-conference, to put an end to an argument from Chief Justice Roberts by . . . well, putting an end to Chief Justice Roberts?

Even if her aim were imperfect, an 11-round clip in a 9-mm Glock semi-auto would give her sufficient margin of error that the next ruling surely would be issued by a uninamous court, because the deceased Associate Justice Scalia could not write a posthumous dissent (in which the dearly departed Chief Justice and the late Associate Justice Thomas would certainly concur from The Great Courtroom in the Sky).

Well, as I said, if one were disposed to think hypothetically, such a ghastly scenario could be imagined, just as a hypothetically-minded person might ponder what might happen if one day a PMS-afflicted female pilot at NAS Pensacola decided to download the GPS coordinates for Rush Limbaugh’s home in Palm Beach and . . .

Fortunately, I never entertain hypotheticals, nor do I have any imagination. And shame on those who do!

May 18, 2009

Girl Scouts promote lesbianismand sell delicious Thin Mints . . .

. . . but mainly promote lesbianism:

When many parents think of Girl Scouts, they imagine young girls in uniform selling Thin Mints and Tagalong cookies – not learning about stone labyrinths, world peace, global warming, yoga, avatars, smudging incense, Zen gardens and feminist, communist and lesbian role models.
But that’s exactly what many of 2.7 million Girl Scouts will learn about with a new curriculum called “Journeys” released last year. . . .

Conservatives saw this one coming down the pike a few years ago, when the Boy Scouts got raked over the coals for prohibiting gay scoutmasters and the Girl Scouts were so quiet you could hear the crickets chirping.

Back in the day, Bill Buckley* postulated a law of organizational dynamics:

All institutions that are not explicitly conservative will eventually become liberal.

Fast-forward to 2009, and all institutions that do not explicitly prohibit homosexuality will eventually become pro-gay. So next time the Girl Scouts come knocking at your door selling cookies, try not to notice they’re now wearing flannel shirts, butch haircuts and sensible shoes.

And if you’re foolish enough to let your own child join the Girl Scouts, don’t complain when they come back from their annual camporee spouting quotations from Mary Daley and Shulamith Firestone.

“Really, mom, what kind of self-hating homophobic collaborationist are you?”
“Homophobic? Why, I don’t . . .”
“We’re being oppressed by the patriarchy!”
“Oppressed? What are you . . .”
“It’s dad! Don’t you see? He’s exploiting us!”

Future Femi-Nazis of America!

*A commenter suggests Robert Conquest as the originator of the maxim I’ve attributed to Buckley.

UPDATE II: Linked at the Creative Minority Report. When dealing with feminist dogma, it is important always to be as harsh as possible.

Feminist ideology is so self-evidently counterfactual that only a fool could believe it. Ergo, you should never address a feminist as if you were speaking to a person deserving solicitude, respect and deference, but rather comport yourself as if confronted by an unruly brat throwing a tantrum.

National Offend a Feminist Week was a rousing success. Some of us celebrate all year long.

UPDATE II: Linked at Stop the ACLU and Pirate’s Cove. I’m hoping we get some more linkage so this shows up at Memeorandum. Then Amanda Marcotte and Jessica Valenti will denounce the patriarchal homophobia, and I’ll ride the tsunami of hate to 10,000+ visits tomorrow. So link me now, you misogynistic right-wing bloggers, and we’ll all catch a wave.

May 15, 2009

Patriarchal misogyny triumphant!

NEW GALLUP POLL:

More Americans “Pro-Life” Than
“Pro-Choice” for First Time

And why? Because they hate women! Because abortion is the most important part of a woman’s existence, anyone who opposes abortion is an oppressive hater. (You tell ’em, Amanda Marcotte!)

Too bad Gallup couldn’t have announced this poll during National Offend A Feminist Week.

(H/T: Memeorandum.)

May 8, 2009

Army officer admits: ‘The mere idea ofsex with Meghan McCain repulses me’

In a strange development, Lt. Dan Choi was so horrified by the possibility of having sex with the pathetic loser that he decided to become gay, so that Obama was forced to kick him out of the Army:

BTW, you know how I knew the Republican Party was totally screwed in 2008? It apparently never occurred to any of the geniuses at GOP-HQ, “Hey, why don’t we pay that guy not to blog about the McCain campaign?”

Now you know why they call it The Stupid Party.

That’s something the Mitt Romney brain trust should bear in mind. It was your man who quit after Super Tuesday, thereby letting Captain Queeg get the nomination with a mere 47% of the Republican primary vote.

Having nominated John the Loser in 2008, now the GOP will nominate Mitt the Quitter in 2012. That makes sense. I can blog about that every day, y’know. Because I’ve got ethics!

* * * * *

Permit me to address a comment the anonymous “Phil” left on an earlier post:

Woo, tough guy! Takes a real man to knock around a 25-year-old girl! Who’d you warm up on, Dakota Fanning?. . . . Use your formidable powers on someone your own size. For real. Gray hair professional journo bashing a chick who couldn’t get into a bar too long ago — very unbecoming.

“Unbecoming”? Chastising a spoiled brat, it would seem to me, is exactly what I ought to be doing.

What Phil evidently means to say is that Meghan McCain, at age 25, should be permitted to (pretend to) speak for the Republican Party, and that Robert Stacy McCain, at age 49, should be silent. That is to say, according to Phil, that experience should defer to youth. By the same principle, knowledge should defer to ignorance.

This inversion of values, this notion that the young and ignorant should tutor the experienced and knowledegable, is a most striking aspect of our contemporary culture. It is the antithesis of conservatism. But, hey, what else are we to expect from someone who defends Meghan McCain?

Double Standards, Squared
Ah, but our friend Phil is quite the traditionalist in one aspect: “He’s picking on a girl!” Well, after all, it is National Offend A Feminist WeekAnn Coulter is among those commemorating the occasion — and this is an excellent example of why I detest feminism.

On the one hand, feminists tell us, a woman is absolutely equal to a man. On the other hand, feminists declare, if a man dares criticize a woman, he is not only a patriarchal sexist oppressor (as all men are, according to feminist “logic”) but he is furthermore accused of being unmanly.

Wait a minute! How on earth do feminists, who derogate traditional sex roles and stridently insist that men and women must be treated as if they were identical, get away with invoking the ancient code that requires men to treat women with deference and courtesy?

A woman must be treated exactly like a man, until that moment when the egalitarian harridan suddenly decides she wants to be treated like a woman, at which point I’m denounced for failing to embody the chivalrous virtues of a character from a Sir Walter Scott novel!

Feminists expect to get away with this ludicrous incoherence — and I point out merely one of the inherent contradictions of feminism, which are legion — because feminism is a virus bred in academia, a pathologically decadent subculture notoriously populated by neurasthenic wimps. At Harvard, even a liberal in good standing like Larry Summers could not be permitted the mildest skepticism toward the feminist dogma which interprets every inequality between men and women as the product of misogynistic discrimination.

If this is the case with the president of Harvard University, just imagine the terroristic fury that would be unleashed upon some untenured faculty member who questioned whether the existence of a Women’s Studies department was justified by anything other than the fact that, after all, varsity women athletes must major in something.

Narcissus Transfixed
Cozened during her collegiate experience, where the faculty is too frightened — and the undergraduates too ignorant — to debunk the myriad fallacies of feminist cant, the young feminist emerges into society to discover that the real world doesn’t operate by the rules she has been taught. Rather than causing her to rethink her premises, however, this experience merely reinforces the belief into which she has been rigorously indoctrinated: Woman is born free, yet is everywhere in chains!

And “the personal is political,” as the feminists say, so that every anecdote about her encounters with the unfairness of the world is pluralized as data.

Hence, Megan McCain’s complaint that because she was expected to refrain from any word or deed that might embarrass her Republican father, “The Republican Party Doesn’t Understand Sex.”

Like other manifestations of The Vision of the Anointed, Megan McCain’s complaint about the conservative defense of moral tradition is essentially narcissistic: It’s all about me!

Yeah? Well, it’s about me, too, you ignorant slut.

Man, they hate that word, don’t they? The precious darlings of liberalism — and let’s make no mistake, Tina Brown only publishes the precious darlings of liberalism — are permitted to make transvestite jokes about Ann Coulter and make “ping pong” jokes about Michelle Malkin, but no conservative can ever turn the enemy’s weapons against the enemy. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (speaking of precious darlings) can hide out in Pakistan plotting the deaths of thousands, yet liberals will sue if the CIA doesn’t treat precious Khalid with kid gloves.

This is a very old tradition among liberals, who defended the arch-traitor Alger Hiss and defamed the patriot Joe McCarthy, who hated Ronald Reagan yet consider Che Guevara a hero deserving of celebration in adulatory biopics. (Remember, kids: You can’t spell “liberal” without L-I-E.)

The Monopoly of Discourse
Wonkette complains that Meghan McCain deceitfully promoted her latest column as her “most revealing so far.” Rule 5C: Sex sells. So the Republican heiress titilates her Tweeps with hints of sexual revelation, but no one who disagrees with her can engage her on the terrain of her own choosing.

What part of “fuck you” do liberals not understand?

I will not be repeatedly insulted in the most personal terms — I “do not understand sex”? — and acquiesce in cowardly silence. You will not deceitfully malign me, impugn my beliefs and dishonor my heroes, and then demand that I treat you as if you deserved my respect.

“Don’t piss down my back and tell me it’s raining.”
The Outlaw Josey Wales

Perceptive readers (as opposed to the idiots among you) now begin to perceive what Jeff Goldstein has been trying to tell us about “the fool’s game” of allowing one’s antagonists to dictate the terms of rhetorical conflict.

Liberals are like the British redcoats complaining that the colonial riflemen at Concord Bridge dared hide behind trees and stone walls, rather than coming out into the open to be slaughtered by volleys of massed musketry.

From the mighty platform of The Daily Beast, wealthy celebrity Meghan McCain tells us that we “do not understand sex,” yet heaven forbid some obscure blogger should reply that at least he understands Meghan McCain well enough to bet she’s an easy mark after four margaritas. (And a fool like her never stops at three.)

Friedrich Hayek would understand what is going on here. Just as established businesses seek to protect their interests by getting government to erect barriers to entry that disadvantage potential competitors, so too does the liberal attempt to erect barriers to entry into the competition of ideas.

A neurosthenic wimp like David Brooks is acceptable as a columnist for the New York Times, but not Michelle Malkin, David Limbaugh, Mark Steyn or anyone else who might effectively challenge the worldview at 620 Eighth Avenue. And only certain McCains get published by Tina Brown.

This is how the game is played, and any conservative who dares to point it out is accused of whining. Like ad hominem insults, whining is another field of endeavor that liberals wish to monopolize, and if you consent to play by their rules, you will soon discover that you are playing a loser’s game.

Just ask Meghan’s dad about the loser’s game. He spent a full decade sucking up to liberals, and what did it get him? Forty-seven percent of the Republican primary vote and 46% on November 5. And after the GOP nominated every liberal’s favorite stereotype of a Republican — short, grumpy, old and bald — what did the David Brookses and the Kathleen Parkers shout from the rooftops: BLAME CONSERVATIVES!

And what did I tell you on Election Day? You Did Not Lose. Conservatives are presented with a choice: Continue listening to those who advised them to take the path that led down to destruction, or heed the call of the prophets who warned them against their folly.

Behold: The Philistine giant stands boasting in the plain, and your mighty men hide in terror. Will you join the cowards, or will you be An Army Of Davids?

Fortune favors the bold, and two years ago I’d never even heard of Kathy Shaidle. But look how she stands defiantly against the Canadian Goliath! To borrow a phrase from T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII, I like the cut of her jib.

“One of the basic principles of military strategy is to reinforce success. If you see a man who fights and wins, give him reinforcements, and bid others to emulate his success.”

WOLVERINES!

(And in case you’re wondering, this is just my morning workout. I’m warming up for a few things I have to say to a certain liberal later today. Did you know that the annual tuition at the prestigious Dalton School is $33,100?)

UPDATE: Daley Gator:

Of course, Meghan brings this type of smackdown on herself by constantly bashing Conservatives. So, Meghan, before you whine about being called a “dirty Moderate” remember that if you dish it out, you best be ready to take it.

Bingo. When you talk about me behind my back, when you insult me, when you pretend to be my friend just so you can get close enough to sucker-punch me and then kick me when I’m down, don’t complain when I come back on you like Sonny Corleone on Carlo.

And if you are going to offer yourself as the exemplar of young Republican womanhood, presuming to tell us that conservatives “don’t understand sex,” you have (a) invited me to point out that my Republican sources describe you as an alcoholic slut, and (b) forfeited any claim to the defense of chivalry by claiming to speak on behalf of women who, unlike yourself, are decent and honorable.

UPDATE II: I’ve deleted a few very sharp remarks directed at commenter Phil, who e-mailed to inform me of his identity, and with whom I had previously had friendly communication. My e-mail reply to Phil:

Just approved your latest comment, but for obvious reasons did not approve the one in which you gave your phone number. I do not shout idiocies — “Muslim!” “Terrorist!” — at campaign rallies, and am not responsible for those who do.
Even if you are among those who blame Sarah Palin for such outbursts (and I do not), the fact is that Steve Schmidt counseled McCain to choose Palin for the simple reason that, without the kind of surge of pro-life conservative enthusiasm she generated, he never stood at chance. Had I been consulted as to how to handle Palin’s media, and if McCain hadn’t heeded the idiotic Holtz-Eakin’s advice to support the bailout, perhaps it might even have been close on Nov. 5.
These are mere hypotheticals, however. If any Republican had ever listened to me, Mitt never would have dropped out in February, no conservative would ever have supported Mike Huckabee, and the Bush White House wouldn’t have gone within a country mile of the McCain-Kennedy “shamnesty” bill. My advice has never been sought by any influential Republican, and when I volunteer advice, I am ignored.
All of which is to say, Phil, that if you are seeking some forum in which to discuss the tone and content of the GOP message, there’s no point trying to argue it out in my comment fields, because no one of any significance will ever see it there. If I had realized it was you commenting as anonymous “Phil,” I’d have told you this directly, rather than taking it to you on the blog. I already have more Republican enemies than even Obama might ever hope for, and I certainly don’t want to make an enemy of you.
Am I “mean-spirited”? You might be mean-spirited, too, if you ever tried to walk a mile in my shoes. But please pay attention to my choice of targets, and remember what I’ve told others: Just because you don’t know what I’m doing, don’t assume that I don’t know what I’m doing.
Your friend,
Robert Stacy McCain

My apologies for the previous error. I can be quick to anger, but am never slow to forgive, as Matthew Yglesias may have been surprised to learn.

May 6, 2009

How to Reply to a Feminist . . .

. . . if you must. This is National Offend A Feminist Week, and Allison at The New Gay finds herself angry, mystified and intrigued by the crazy dude in the Speedo:

Why is feminism still a dirty word? Why do people still regard it as a fleeting female term with no historical purpose? . . .

To which I replied in the comments:

If we are in a War of Ideas, it is important to distinguish between ourselves and our ideas. Identity politics, however, convinces some people that an attack on feminism (an idea) is an attack on people (women), just as some people confuse an attack on same-sex marriage (an idea) with an attack on people (gays).
Allison, I believe that I know more about feminism than you know about conservatism, and I certainly believe I know more about conservatism than you do. Either I do know more or I do not. But to assert my own superiority of knowledge is not a personal attack on you. There are many people whom I love and I admire who know less than I do.
What I am trying to say is that there are actual facts in this world. Not everything is a matter of opinion. And the possibility that you might be mistaken as to the facts is something you might want to consider.
Thanks for the link. Like I say, Rule 4: “Hits is hits,” and linky-hate is as good as linky-love, when it comes down to increasing blog traffic. That is a fact.
BTW, I’m thinking of an Elvis Costello song:
Oh, it’s so funny to be seein’ ya after so long, girl,
And with the way you look, I understand
If you are not impressed . . .
My aim is true
.

Which is to say, don’t worry your pretty little head about it, sweetheart. Now run along and get me a cup of coffee, hon. Cream only.

(And I think somebody wants to hit the tip jar.)

May 5, 2009

The Cosmo Syndrome

(BUMPED; UPDATED) Dylan Sauders has a brilliant takedown of Cosmopolitan‘s sex-marketing scam:

The four prompts are 1) Sex headline 2) Smiling face showing approval of sex 3) A desirable bust-line 4) Second sex headline. . . .
These four prompts are enough to make your subconscious feel healthy, attractive and sexual – just like the girl on the cover. Cosmo found that they sold the most magazines by taking advantage of the natural eye pattern your eyes take accross a magazine cover and putting these four prompts in their path.

You should read the whole thing. (H/T: Conservative Grapevine.)

It must be noted that Sauders is a self-made “expert” on seduction, which will cause a lot of female readers to snort in derision. But since this is National Offend A Feminist Week, his article offers a good talking-point to discuss the degree to which “feminism” is an ideology advanced via brainwashing and propaganda methods.

My grievance against Cosmo (and Glamour, etc.) is one of long standing. In 2000, I wrote a Washington Times column about it:

It seems impossible to go through a supermarket checkout line without being confronted by magazine covers like the January 2000 Cosmopolitan, offering “Sex Tricks Only Cosmo Would Know: 20 Earth-Quaking Moves That Will Make Him Plead for Mercy — and Beg for More.”
The Kroger grocery chain has, thankfully, decided to install racks that conceal such lurid stuff from general viewing. Perhaps someday it will be safe again to take our daughters to the grocery store.
What is the point of schools and parents telling girls that they can be valued for their character, their intellectual abilities and their personal achievements, when the newsstands are full of magazines displaying near-naked supermodels and telling girls that their true worth is their ability to master “earth-quaking moves”?
Scarcely had my daughter learned to read than I found myself troubled by what she was seeing on women’s magazine covers at the checkout lines. A child with a knowledge of phonics can figure out what “s-e-x” spells and — according to Cosmo, Glamour and the other major women’s magazines — “s-e-x” and “d-i-e-t” are the most important things in a woman’s life. . . .

And you can read the whole thing, if you’d like. Having been excoriated recently for criticizing Carrie Prejean’s decision to get breast implants, and having long baffled female readers by my relentless jihad against feminism, this is as good a time as any to point out what should have been obvious: I hate feminism, I hate breast implants, and I hate Cosmo for the same reason — because I love women and want them to be happy.

You cannot have a happy life built on lies, and Cosmo is selling you lies. People want to give me a hard time because I occasionally blog about boobies, but my readership averages about 6,000 visits a day. If my readers are not all adults, they are at least old enough to operate a computer and care about politics. Whereas Cosmo‘s leering come-ons are displayed on thousands of magazine racks all over the country and, as Sauder says, they reach a readership of some 39 million women.

Cosmo sells a lie, namely that sex and beauty are the sum of a woman’s value. And this evil propaganda is conveyed effectively (that is to say, women accept the lie) because of the perception that this is “woman to woman,” that these messages are being related by other women — and glamorous, sophisticated women, at that.

There is a basic factor of communications psychology called the “halo effect.” If someone has certain attributes that you consider positive, you will tend to generalize this into an overall positive perception about that person, often giving them credit for personal qualities like being smart, kind, honest — attributes for which you have no direct evidence at all.

Parable of the Glen-Plaid Suit
Being physically attractive is one of the most powerful factors in the “halo effect,” which is why magazine ads feature attractive models. The positive perception created by the model’s good looks is psychologically transferred — generalized — to the manufacturer’s product. Let me tell you the story about my glen-plaid suit.

Back in the day, after I’d graduated college and was a bachelor on the hunt, I was something of a clothes horse. I had always desired to be a well-dressed man — to look sharp — but now I had a little more disposable income to devote to fashion than I’d ever had before.

GQ and Esquire were required monthly reading for me. In the summer of 1986, you might have seen me bopping around Atlanta in robin’s-egg blue slacks (triple-pleated, cuffed), a pleated-front pink tuxedo shirt, a robin’s-egg blue bowtie, and a sport coat that was striped in pink, robin’s-egg blue and white. (I’d bought the coat first, then bought the rest of my ensemble to match.) Buddy, I was styling, and the ladies loved it.

So, one day I saw a fashion layout in GQ featuring a guy in a double-breasted gray glen-plaid suit, wearing a red bow tie. Man, that dude looked sharp. I resolved that on the next payday, I’d get me one of those suits and a red bow tie like that. So I did, and got myself slicked up for a night on the town with my buds. And when I showed up at the club, one of my buddies said: “Look, it’s Pee-Wee Herman!”

Indeed, this was exactly the wardrobe that the absurdist comedian Pee-Wee Herman had made his trademark. But I hadn’t been thinking about that. I had been looking at that ruggedly handsome model in the magazine — briefcase in hand, standing with Manhattan skyscrapers in the background, the very epitome of a smart young businessman. But I was not a ruggedly handsome model and this was not Manhattan.

The money I’d spent on that suit had been spent in an attempt to purchase the perception conveyed by the magazine display. I wanted to feel like a smart young businessman. I wanted to look ruggedly handsome. But this suit did not magically transform me. I was still the same goofy guy I’d been before I bought the suit, and even goofier for inadvertantly dressing like Pee-Wee Herman.

Well, the money wasn’t entirely wasted. I seldom wore that suit again, but I’d learned a valuable lesson.

Marketing and Manipulation
One of the fundamentals of marketing psychology is the concept of how role models affect our perceptions. Because of the “halo effect,” we have positive reactions to attractive people, but we have the strongest positive reactions to attractive people who resemble us in some way. Such people can be said to represent our idealized perception of ourselves.

Thus, the smiling woman on the Cosmo cover represents an ideal — she is what women want to be, the aspirational self. And Cosmo uses this aspirational self to tell women that diet, fashion and sex — sex! sex! sex! — are the secrets of happiness. Oh, one other secret: Buying the products advertised in Cosmo.

William F. Buckley Jr. said that the hallmark of successful indoctrination is that the subject doesn’t realize he’s been indoctrinated. In fact, if you try to tell him he has been indoctrinated, if you point out the means and methods of his indoctrination, and cite evidence of the fallacious nature of his ideas, the indoctrinee will become angry. He will not only defend the indoctrinated beliefs as self-evidently true, but he will vehemently insist that he arrived at these beliefs by independent thought.

So it is with the 20-something “Cosmo girl,” who has been reading these trashy magazines every month since she was in middle school. She has a closet full of clothes and 42 pairs of shoes. She has enough cosmetics to equip the road company of Les Miserables for their North American tour. She has mastered every one of the “99 Sure-Fire Sex Secrets” and has been through two dozen boyfriends.

And she is desperately unhappy.

By the time the “Cosmo girl” has been consuming this propaganda for a good 10 years, complete de-indoctrination is almost impossible. She has internalized the belief system so deeply that it has become part of her identity. She will interpret criticism of her Cosmo beliefs as a personal attack. To question whether her mastery of “Earth-Quaking Moves” is beneficial or necessary is to criticize who she is.

Debunking the sexual mythology of Cosmo is as simple as getting a guy to talk honestly about women. Back in the day when I was sporting around in my pink-and-blue sport coat, a stylin’ babe-magnet with the cool Patrick Swayze mullet and the lean, tanned Speedo-worthy physique, I was scarcely an exemplar of the Christian ideal of chastity. Or any other Christian ideal, for that matter. (Hey, I was also a Democrat back then.)

What Matters?
Let us ask this question, then: When a young man is out there on the hunt, looking to “score,” how does he evaluate his conquests? That is to say, what is it about the chick he picks up that makes him want to brag about it the next day, and perhaps call the chick for another date?

Two things: Looks and enthusiasm.

The first factor is obvious enough. Among his various conquests, the fellow who rides the romantic rodeo circuit will tend to have the most favorable opinion of the drop-dead beauty with the bitchin’ bod. That’s just how guys are. But the stuff that Cosmo is selling — the clothes, the shoes, the jewelry, the cosmetics — has very little impact on this evaluation. Ask any guy.

A really sexy girl is sexy even when she’s in sweats and an oversized T-shirt, shopping for groceries. And women’s near-universal embrace of the cosmetics/fashion industry is kind of like escalation in the Cold War arms race: At some point, everybody’s got enough nukes to destroy the entire planet, and the argument for additional nukes is attenuated by the problem of diminishing returns. If every girl’s made-up like a fashion model, a little extra skill in applying make-up isn’t really going to gain you any advantage.

Somewhere in Pennsylvania today, there is at least one beautiful 19-year-old Amish girl who has never worn make-up, never worked out in a gym, never read Cosmo. And that girl, in her homemade plain dress, is more truly beautiful than any of the styled-up, decked-out hotties hanging around the most fashionable nightspot in Hollywood. Like I said, ask any guy.

So much for looks. Ceteris paribus, the better-looking girl is the more desireable pickup, the one the guy will brag about and ask for a second date. However, what about the sex itself? It may be — consider this a hypothetical, if you wish — that a young man on the prowl will score with lots of good-looking girls over the course of his prowling. Insofar as the performance of the sex act itself makes any difference in his evaluation of his conquests, what is the key factor?

Enthusiasm. The guy likes the girl who is not only “into” sex, but is evidently and unabashedly “into” him. She’s kissing him passionately, can’t keep her hands off him, she’s saying his name and telling him how crazy she is about him and — Oh yes! Oh yes! Oh yes! Yes! YES!

And here, ladies, is exposed the cruel lie of all those “sex secrets” they push in Cosmo. They want you to believe that a guy will evaluate you, sexually, based on your mastery of specific sexual techniques.

Think about this for a minute, ladies. However limited or extensive your sexual experience with men, ask yourself: Is a guy’s workmanlike mastery of sexual technique really what turns you on?

Of course not. If a guy is really “into” you — that is to say, if he has the necessary sexual enthusiasm — he’ll eventually figure out what you like. That eager-to-please attitude where you are so crazy about your partner that you’re actually asking them what they like, and doing it exactly the way they like it — it’s that fundamental enthusiasm, you see, that makes all the difference in the world. Ask any woman.

But don’t let the ladies kid you, guys. Being tall, handsome, muscular and wealthy kind of helps, too. The Pee-Wee Herman suit has nothing to do with it.

The Myth of ‘Sex Ed’
What this all means is that, even if a woman’s desire is to “spread it around” and be that chick that guys pick up in bars, Cosmo doesn’t tell her anything useful. Reading “sex secrets” in Cosmo is not going to make you more erotically attractive, or make your sexual performance more memorable. The idea of sexual “success” as being a function of technical expertise is a myth and a lie.

This relates to my disagreement with the proponents of “sex education.” It is a remarkable thing that mankind has, through sexual reproduction, flourished to the tune of 6 billion people on the planet and yet “sex education” wasn’t invented until the 20th century. If you buy into the sex-ed mentality, this means that for at least 92% of recorded human history, people had no clue what they were doing.

Furthermore, the sex-ed proponents would have us believe, unless sex is taught to children in classrooms — in a government school by a government-certified teacher using government-approved curricula — there is no possibility that kids will ever learn the basics of sex.

That these assertions of the sex-ed enthusiasts are self-evidently untrue. Sex is not rocket science or brain surgery, and untutored human beings have throughout history figured out the basic “Insert Tab A into Slot B” of sexuality without textbooks or classroom instruction. Three random thoughts:

  • Given the alarming failure of the government education system to teach math and reading, what kind of fool would trust a public-school teacher to instruct his children about sex? (Hello, Mary Kay LeTourneau!)
  • In the information age, surely mere facts and data about sex is not hard to find. But the religion of Educationism is based on the false belief that no one can learn anything without going to school to learn it. (Fact: Jimi Hendrix never took a single guitar lesson.)
  • What is the real value of knowing the Latin names of the genitalia? Never let it be said that public schools no longer teach Latin — every sixth-grader in America is now required to memorize such terms as labia, clitoris, urethra and vas deferens, and to identify these items correctly on an anatomical chart.

Such are the transparent fallacies of this perverse ideology. There are 501(c) non-profit foundations dedicated specifically to the purpose of promoting sex-education in public schools, without anyone ever questioning the false premises involved in their “philanthropic” mission.

Insightful readers immediately recognize the connection between sex-ed in schools and Cosmo on the magazine stand. Not only are they are both promoting the same ideology, but perhaps more importantly, they are promoting the same attitude. This attitude — of sex as a matter of technique to be studied and mastered, in which a superiority of knowledge and skill is the ultimate objective — is central to the sexual worldview into which the elite desire to indoctrinate the masses. And it is a monstrous lie.

Whether in gushy Cosmo “sex secrets” features or in the Educationist terminology of a middle-school sex-ed textbook, this attitude toward sex presumes that all sexual problems are the result of a lack of information. If you’re not getting off, or if your partner is not getting off, or if you’re both getting off but neither one of you is really happy, then what you need is more data.

My goodness, what did people do in the Dark Ages, before every middle-school child was required to study anatomical cross-section diagrams of the pelvis, learning to identify (by the proper medical terms) the prostate gland and the uterus? Pity poor Romeo and Juliet, who knew not the joy of the anatomical cross-section!

American young people today have more sexual information than at least 90 percent of the human beings who ever lived. Yet out-of-wedlock births, abortions, sexually-transmitted diseases and divorce are more rampant than ever. Somehow studying those cross-section charts, memorizing the Latin names of the genitalia and practicing how to put a condom on a banana have not prevented the skyrocketing levels of romantic misery.

We don’t suffer from lack of information. Instead, we suffer from a lack of virtue.

Good luck trying to locate “virtue” on the anatomical charts. God knows you won’t find it in Cosmo.

* * * * *

Well, I’ve been working on this for few hours and have reached a stopping point, but not the end point I had in mind when I started writing. If you’d like me to finish out this essay, just leave a comment, sharing your thoughts and requesting more, and I’ll come back and write more. But first, I need a nap. Ah, the joys of blogging. (Please hit the tip jar!)

And to Cassandra, in the famous words of Ulysses S. Grant: “I intend to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer.”

* * * * *

The comments — and correction, thank you — are piling up, leading to the conclusion that I must lead on to the conclusion of the matter. Thanks to the commenter who pointed out that when, in May 1864, Grant vowed to “fight it out . . . if it takes all summer,” he actually ended up fighting nearly another 11 months. And, in fact, he did not continue fighting on the same line, but maneuvered to his left in the famous campaign that brought him finally to besiege Lee’s army at Petersburg.

Yet it was his dogged determination, his unrelenting commitment to take the fight to the foe, that made Grant victorious. “I cannot spare this man. He fights,” Lincoln said and, while I am not in the habit of quoting Lincoln to make a point, in this he was entirely right.

Having had (not much of) a nap, I now remind you that we began this examination of The Cosmo Syndrome with a mention that it is National Offend A Feminist Week. I have found myself recently chastised for (a) criticizing Carrie Prejean for having breast implants, and (b) employing the words “slut” and “whore.” Ah, nothing gets ’em like plain English, eh? Well, then — forward!

* * * * *

Virtue, Vice and ‘Civility’
Virtue shiould always be praised, never derogated or dimissed as irrelevant. Virtue may be its own reward, but the natural human desire for esteem in society provides an incentive toward virtuous behavior, at least insofar as society esteems virtue.

When we praise the courage of heroes — the firefighters who went into the inferno of the WTC on 9/11, for example — we thus incite others to emulate such brave men, in the expectation that they might also merit praise. If we praise diligence and honesty, we likewise encourage people to be diligent and honest. Whatever society esteems, whatever is commonly praised and celebrated, it enshrines as a goal that attracts the eyes of the young and ambitious.

By the same principle, vice should always be condemned. Deceit, sloth, cowardice — if such traits and behaviors do not elicit scorn from society, if we tolerate and refuse to be “judgmental” about vice, then we may expect vice to flourish. Think about the “gangsta” rap culture, with its celebration of violent drug dealers and pimps, its lyrics boasting of drive-by shootings and rape, its costumes of garish “bling” — Bill Cosby is surely right that this perverse phenomenon has badly damaged the black community.

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil . . .”
Isaiah 5:20, KJV

To celebrate vice, to mock virtue — these are cursed behaviors. And thus we must recall our discussion of Jessica Valenti, the feminist whose book is called The Purity Myth: How America’s Obsession with Virginity Is Hurting Young Women.

Is chastity not a virtue? Premarital chastity is the dress rehearsal for the main performance that is marital fidelity. It is a natural presumption (though one seldom voiced in our increasingly unnatural society) that the ability to restrain one’s passions in youth — to resist temptation — would be a reliable predictor of the ability to be faithful in maturity. We might further reflect that habit is a great force in human behavior and that the habit of adventurously sleeping around, acquired early in life, would later make it difficult to adjust to the monogamous routine of marriage.

These are not merely philosophical speculations, but sociological fact that can be teased out of the available data if one is statistically minded. However, I need neither statistics or philosophy to know the truth, because I am a fool.

“Experience is a hard school, but a fool will learn in no other.”
Benjamin Franklin

Yesterday, in mock-Victorian mode, I declared that “years of youthful association with companions of low character have irretrievably corrupted me, rendering me permanently unfit for polite society.” You see, I had been condemned for demonstrating a lack of “civility” in my description of Valenti’s philosophy:

A perverse non-judgmentalism, that refuses to praise virtue or condemn vice, is moral nihilism. Valenti goes beyond this, to celebrate whoredom and condemn chastity.

If that was uncivil, what would they say if I started telling tales of my own experiences, about the things a young rebel does, and the things he sees, when he’s riding on that Highway to Hell? And if, by grace, I somehow managed to survive the ride, is it not my obligation to the memories of those who died on that road, to warn others against taking that wrong turn? If I see others making the same mistakes I made, or the mistakes that led others to an early grave, shouldn’t I tell them to turn back before it’s too late?

What a strange conception of “civility,” that would rob civilization of its natural defense, the social disapproval that is rightly heaped upon the coward, the liar, the sluggard, the whore. In the name of “civility,” we are supposed to allow Jessica Valenti to argue that chastity is a “myth” without fear of rebuke, lest we damage the fragile self-esteem of tramps, floozies and strumpets!
Next thing you know, your daughter will encounter some clever user — perhaps a practiced player of Dylan Sauders’ “game” — who’ll spring “the Cosmo routine” on her, and you may be sure that the upshot of this experience won’t be an increase in her self-esteem. Do you really think that Valenti and Sauders and the editors of Cosmo, who preach a religion of unabashed promiscuity, deserve to be protected by the cloak of “civility”?

Cosmo is read by 39 million women and Valenti promotes her book on the “Today” show, but somehow my right-wing “incivility” is the real menace? Come now, Cassandra — whatever my faults and failures, I think you’re taking aim at the wrong target.

It’s National Offend A Feminist Week, you see, and the ridiculous insistence that no man should be permitted to call a slut a slut is a byproduct of feminist ideology. It’s all about The Sisterhood, an Us-vs.-Them mentality in which even conservative women are supposed to align themselves in sheltering Jessica Valenti from the thorough condemnation she deserves.

Remember what Buckley said about successful indoctrination? Conservatives who instinctively invoke feminist concepts — e.g., non-judgmentalism toward promiscuity — might want to contemplate Buckley’s observation in silence, and stop superficially criticizing those of us who have already spent many years examining the ideological infrastructure of the Left. Just because you don’t know what I’m doing doesn’t mean that I don’t know what I’m doing.

And if anybody wants to hit the tip jar, now would be a good time to do it. Being “openly shameless” can be a tough row to hoe.

No pun intended.