certain essential aspects of the Sixties, even overseas, were in part the creation of two late hangers-on of the Push, Richard Neville and Germaine Greer.
Neville and Greer both believed in the therapeutic effects of "free love". They did so for very specific reasons, which I'll cover in a future post. What I want to point out now is that Richard Neville went on to have two very attractive daughters. On having his daughters, he suddenly gave up on the 60s mantra of free love and drugs, becoming instead a strict dad:
Lucy Neville, his 28-year-old daughter, still chafes at the memory of her teenage years. "Dad became a colonel when I was a teenager...We used to call him Colonel Neville...I wasn't allowed to do stuff that everyone else was allowed to do...I was always screaming at them [my parents] and telling them they were hypocrites"
Julie and Richard had strict rules about boyfriends. They had to come home first to meet them, say hello, shake hands (a firm handshake was compulsory) and look them straight in the eye...
According to Lucy her parents went into a "state of hysteria" when they overheard her talking about drugs on the telephone. "Mum used to pick up the phone on the other end and listen," she says. "They were full on. They threatened to send me to a boarding school in the desert. The fact that my father had written glowingly in the 1970s about recreational drugs was irrelevant."
It shows, I think, that the hopes that Richard Neville had for his daughters involved something more than casual sex and drug use. His 1960s hippie philosophy just didn't cut it when it came to those closest to him. His protective paternal instincts kicked in.
While we're on this topic, Dalrock has penned an interesting piece on the slutwalks. His theory is that women respond to male validation more than most men realise. Hence the wounded response of feminist women to criticisms of slutty behaviour and the attempt by feminists to make such criticisms socially unacceptable.
Also interesting is a comment following Dalrock's piece on feminist Jaclyn Friedman. She admits that she doesn't find her feminist male allies sexually appealing because they are too deferential and therefore come across as unmasculine:
Interviewer: So do you meet guys who pass the feminist test but then turn out to be disappointments for other reasons?
Friedman: Oh God. There is a type of feminist guy who is so eager to fall over himself to be deferential to women and to prove his feminist bona fides and flagellate himself in front of you, to the point that it really turns me off. And it makes me sad, because politically, these are the guys that I should be sleeping with! You know what I’m talking about?
Friedman: Everyone knows what I’m talking about. And some of them are even really cute! I want to say to them, “If you could be a person, like a whole, complicated person, who I feel like I could crack jokes around, then I would really like you.” But they’re so serious about their feminism at every moment that I don’t feel like a person to them. I feel like I’m on a pedestal, almost. I know that they’re not going to disagree with anything I say under any circumstances. . . I hate to be critical of our allies in any way, because we need them, but there’s something about that certain kind of hyperfeminist guy that makes them unappealing to date, to me. I suspect it has something to do with our internal conceptions of masculinity, which is terrible on my part.
Here, again, feminism is like a "beta test" for men: a left-wing girlfriend might want you to say the politically correct things, but how she really wants you to act is something else again.
As for unsexy fem-men.ReplyDelete
If you are conservative but not pushy with your views a girl usually comes closer to your viewpoints over time.
Girls like changing that sort of thing for a man for some reason.
Just be strong and don't be a complete prick, good advice for dealing with most females.
This experience is almost similar to the schizofrenia between political liberalism and moral liberalism inherent in some individuals. Liberals also sometimes tend to be hypocrites in trying to segregate themselves from minorities and only staying with their own kind. My father also became stricter when I was born but that was because both my father and my mother became Christians after living in a state of mild unbelief.ReplyDelete
I like how she blames her "internal conceptions of masculinity" and without irony, thinks that's terrible. They sense the truth, but fail to take it on because of their investment in a false ideology.ReplyDelete
Another set of anecdotes supporting the evo-bio view of men and women.ReplyDelete
As a North American, this is the first I've read of Richard Neville, but I'm familiar with the phenomenon described. In fact I've seen men do this myself, once overhearing a distant relation earnestly trying to explain to one of his daughters that yes, he did live with her mother for some years before getting married, but that he didn't want her to do the same thing. He didn't sell it very well, I'm afraid. Perhaps if it had been a "lessons learned the hard way" pitch it might have worked better.
Jacquie Friedman I'm more familiar with, and it has been obvious to me for some time that she and other "sex positive" feminists like her wish to take the sting out of the word "slut" by any means necessary. Thus I agree with the idea that at least for some slutwalkers, the purpose is to mainstream promiscuity. The irony here is that at least in the US you can't really expect promiscuity to get much more mainstream than it already is, without mandatory prostitution or some other extreme, absurd measure.
And of course dear Jacquie doesn't like earnest, feminist men. They are being "nice guys", and women despise "nice guys", for reasons that Roissy has made abundantly clear. In fact, having read on Game, I found the interview excerpt to be completely predictable.
On a more serious note, this is another example of why marriage is such a minefield in the US. Consider a young woman who has absorbed any of the sort of attitudes displayed. She's going to be conflicted in various ways; on the one hand, she's sure that she's the equal of any man, on the other hand her own evo-bio nature wants and needs a man who can lead her and even dominate her in some ways. So her desires are in direct conflict, and this is a surefire recipe for her to wind up not at all haaaaaapy. In North America, where marriage 2.0 is the norm, a woman who is not haaaapy is very, very likely to put herself, her husband and any children right into the divorce industry, thereby making everyone really, seriously unhappy.
(I do not have the link to hand, but recently read of a longitudinal study on longevity that found a strong correlation between "parents divorced" and "likelihood of early death". That's right, there is a higher chance of children of divorce dying earlier than the norm from such causes as heart disease, cancer, and so forth. If I find the URL to the study I shall post it).
To sum up: this verifies the Game model of men and women. The conflicted desires of Jacquie Friedman are repeated to a lesser degree in millions of other women in the US, making them a big risk for any man who would marry them.
Jacquie is wrongheaded. "Slut" will never be normalized, feminism is wrong and Game is right.
PS: This article, by verifying Game, is another chip in the pedestal holding up the idea of women as "more moral" than men.
PPS: Thag Jones, that's one hallmark of an ideologue; faced with reality that conflicts with her ideology, Jacquie decides to ignore...reality. This is the same mindset that could be found in the upper reaches of the leadership of the USSR in the 1970's and 1980's. The Party had to be right, because the ideology insisted it was so. I can feel a tiny trace of pity for Friedman because of this, but only a tiny bit given some of the harm she's promoted against other people through her politics.
I don't understand it really - I mean, I get what they're doing, but it seems like an awful lot of twisting and effort to make to hold onto something that isn't even true. They would be so much happier if they could accept the truth and be more honest with themselves. It's pretty sad to wrap your whole identity is falsehoods, but there you have it.ReplyDelete
I suppose to defect would also be to lose a lot of friends, but who needs friends who are only helping you be miserable?
"it seems like an awful lot of twisting and effort to make to hold onto something that isn't even true."ReplyDelete
Liberalism is like that on every single issue, not just male-female relations!
I suppose without constant reference to the Gospels they're more susceptible than most to hypocrisy - we labour under an establishment that has made a fine art of it.ReplyDelete
It still staggers me how many baby-corpses this revolution of theirs has produced in abortion. And they are absolutely dependent upon it like the One Ring. Their whole cultural and political edifice stands on the ability to kill their own child.
Much gnashing of teeth as they come to terms with the hard reality of their demographic extinction.
The declaration of war to control trace gas production and every activity in society - is a desperate last redoubt of a dying religion that must steal treasure and children to perpetuate itself.
I'd like to see the rest of the Lucy Neville interview. Is it not online?ReplyDelete
Sorry, I went to the website but it wasn't posted there.ReplyDelete
The effects of divorce upon children's longevity is reported in the book "The Longevity Project". Here is a review of that book:ReplyDelete
Look at this latest appalling crusade from the Queensland Minister for Women: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/sunday-mail/mp-hammers-tradies-over-sexism-at-rna-expo/story-e6frep2f-1226073561048ReplyDelete
Maybe its because the physical labour trades are not naturally complementary to the feminine essence of women. They don't want to work in those industries, but they appeal to men. Nobody is being oppressed here!
The feminist who expressed disappointment with un-manly feminist men, reminds me of a vegetarian girl I met in college. She approached me at a party and asked me, rather sniffly, if I was a hunter. I don’t know how she knew, as I was not wearing hunting clothes nor was I talking about it. I guess she discerned it from my body language or the way I walked. Of course, I answered, Yes, and the fruitless debate was on.ReplyDelete
Somewhere during that useless conversation it became apparent, to my shock, that this girl was strongly attracted to me!!! Why? Best guess: a hunter triggers a deep ancestral longing in a woman for… well, a hunter, a man who can provide in the most primitive, rawest terms.
Yet, her liberal urban vegetarian programming, had taught her to romantically reject precisely the sort of man her most ancient instincts craved AND UNERRINGLY PICKED OUT OF THE CROWD. Talk about cognitive dissonance!
Needless to say, I wasn't interested in her.
Van Rooinek said,ReplyDelete
"Needless to say, I wasn't interested in her."
Lol, its probably for the best. Its fiery for a while and then the arguments start think and fast. You date til she thinks you're weak on some ground then over.
Somewhere during that useless conversation it became apparent, to my shock, that this girl was strongly attracted to me!!!ReplyDelete
It doesn't surprise me at all. Heterosexuality requires sexual polarity. Modern culture has undermined this polarity in so many ways and it now seems as though women need some special "masculine marker" in men to spark their interest.
The marker could be something like martial arts or playing football. I know men who you wouldn't think of as gun owning types, but who nonetheless do own guns and occasionally hunt and I suspect the reason is not that they are really committed to hunting but that it creates the right kind of image to display to their wives.
It seems as if we've gone back to "masculine display" because the everyday lives of men no longer create the sexual polarity they once did.
I have never met an intelligent feminist of either gender. Just hateful ones.ReplyDelete
She admits that she doesn't find her feminist male allies sexually appealing because they are too deferential and therefore come across as unmasculineReplyDelete
Want the greatest example of this truth, watch the S&M community and specifically watch Dominant women looking for submissive men.
When a submissive man first gets into the scene he learns the ratio is sub men to dom women is 10:1, 8:1, 12:1. You get the idea. Yet by observation you most dom women are unattached.
Why? Because 19 out of 20 sub men are exactly what is described above and what satisfaction or value can a dominant find in owning them.
The sub men who do wind up in permanent relationships generally aren't like that (excluding those with women into feminization). They are masculine a don't drop to their knees for any woman. They will take charge, get things done, and meet first as equals (while being honest about what they're seeking). When they meet a woman they respect and trust only then do they submit to her will.
As a friend of mine put it, when someone you know is a masculine man who has the ability to do and chooses to give over that authority to you that is yummy. The other types have no power to give so where is the satisfaction.
Then again, the typical feminist I know would break down and cry with the responsibility the typical dom woman has to display while in the early dating phase of a D/s relationship. Perhaps they are getting the men they deserve.
Any, my prime point is if women who are openly looking to be the dominant partner in a relationship and show the ability to do so don't want they typical feminist man, why are we surprised when the typical woman doesn't.