In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Manny Farber, RIP | Main | Munich's Master Poster Artist »

August 26, 2008

Sex Relations

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

A few links for those who have been fascinated by what Roissy and F. Roger Devlin represent and say:

* Expectations about office behavior seem a little different in Russia than they are here in the States.

* A wiki devoted to spanking. The entry on "paddle" is very informative.

* Kathleen Parker praises men and argues that they've been unfairly browbeaten for decades. (Link thanks to ALD.) Neil Lyndon writes that when he said similar things 20 years ago, "the response to my work was a torrent of abuse," he recalls. "I lost all my work and income and was bankrupted."

* BBC presenter Jeremy Paxman says "The worst thing you can be in this industry is a middle-class white male. If any middle-class white male I come across says he wants to enter television, I say 'give up all hope'. They've no chance."

* The world's best condoms.



UDPATE: The Olympics ... Where the athletes are concerned, it isn't just about sports. "I am not implying, for one moment, that every athlete in Beijing is at it," writes Olympian Matthew Syed. "Just that 99 per cent of them are."

A passage that should interest the evo-bio crowd:

It is worth noting an intriguing dichotomy between the sexes in respect of all this coupling. The chaps who win gold medals - even those as geeky as Michael Phelps - are the principal objects of desire for many female athletes. There is something about sporting success that makes a certain type of woman go crazy - smiling, flirting and sometimes even grabbing at the chaps who have done the business in the pool or on the track. An Olympic gold medal is not merely a route to fame and fortune; it is also a surefire ticket to writhe.

But - and this is the thing - success does not work both ways. Gold-medal winning female athletes are not looked upon by male athletes with any more desire than those who flunked out in the first round. It is sometimes even considered a defect, as if there is something downright unfeminine about all that striving, fist pumping and incontinent sweating.

posted by Michael at August 26, 2008


Apparently, you are getting up early so that I can argue, Michael.

A lawyer at the firm I work at so many years ago filed a class action lawsuit against Columbia U last week. The complaint: Columbia has embraced feminism as its official religion, and in the process creates a hostile environment for men. I wrote about it in this piece.

My experience in being involved in "men's issues" was damnably frustrating. Women are good at conspiring, which makes them a potent political force. Men? Every one a Little Napoleon intent on bending the world to his will. Just look at the commenters on this site (me included). Add to that the madness of chivalry, and men don't have a chance. Every man is busy protecting the little honeys, leaving men as a class defenseless.

By the way, Chris, I'm all for the workers of the world uniting to shrug off their masters and solving the great crises of our times. I just see absolutely no fucking evidence that that is remotely under consideration anywhere.

Question related to this post: As a freelancer, I'm constantly hustling for new clients. The bigger ones these days all take applications online. At the end of the online application, you are asked to reveal your gender/race. And of course you are assured that this is all confidential, never to be revealed. Does anybody believe this? I don't. I am certain that that is the first information they look at in their determination to enforce sexual and racial quotas.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 26, 2008 6:01 AM

Russia has always been a fascinating place and is likely to be more so in the near future. They tend to speak very honestly in Russia and with such a rapid population decline from a nation that does not want to see that, we should see some really interesting things from them over the next 20 years.

On a related note, the world of Psychological Therapy is changing as well. I am not a professional in that field, but feel very up to date with the current thought and research, and...
it turns out that what helps a man feel strong, confident and satisfied is quite different than what works for women.

We are living in interesting times.

Posted by: Usually Lurking on August 26, 2008 9:15 AM

From Kathleen Parker's article: " are human beings, too."

Whoda thunk it?

The fact that this is a "breakthrough" statement, the fact that she has to remind her "sisters" that this is so, tells us...what? tells us how successfully feminism has written men out of the human race.

Posted by: ricpic on August 26, 2008 11:15 AM

Women are good at conspiring, which makes them a potent political force. Men? Every one a Little Napoleon intent on bending the world to his will.

My impression is quite the opposite. men are competitive and ego-driven, but we're also hierarchical, which means that we soonsettle into our proper roles, and function as a team.

One example is rock bands. All-male bands sometimes last decades. All-female bands break up as quickly as they start due because of the back-biting and conflicting prima-donna syndromes.

Posted by: PA on August 26, 2008 11:38 AM

Feminism is powerless to damage men. It has had no effect on men's lives, not on anything that matters (porn anyone?). Feminism is powerless to harm men because women are powerless to harm men. Men run things. The patriarchy is as firmly esconced now as it has ever been. The only power women have over men is the power of withdrawal: of sex, of pregnancy, of social connection. The "powers" women have today of affirmative action preferences, of making false accusations of rape or assault and getting away with it, of winning divorce battles, have all been granted to them by men, and are enforced by men.

Feminism is a weapon used by men to control the only rivals they care about: other men. The analogy is with the way white people use black people to engage in a covert Darwinian-to-the-max class struggle against other whites. The same war is being fought today on what seems to be another front: gender wars. But it's the same old class warfare: a struggle of high-status white men against lower status male rivals is pursued viciously and underhandedly, using feminism as a shield. Racism and sexism are accusations supported in their use by the white male power structure to maintain their position of power.

It is men lower down on the hierarchy, especially young men, who are the victims of "feminism" in this sense. It is older men, high status alpha males, who permit their younger co-sexists to be brutalized, marginalized and otherwise exploited or discarded. Feminists, i.e. women, could no more harm low-status males without the help of high-status males than they can beat up a Hell's Angles biker because they've taken a women's karate class.

Who are the most vociferous supporters of "feminism"? The SWPL crowd and the New Class professionals, technocrats and money men who run the world. White men, overwhelmingly white. Overwhelmingly men.

We run the world. We always have. Just a small few of us, though. The rest of the [Evil Race and Evil Sex] humans, they are the ones getting the shaft. To view "men" as victims of feminism is to mistake most men as victims of women. They are not. They (we) are victims of other men. Women do not have the power or the ability to seriously harm men...without men's acquiescence at least, and cooperation most often.

Leftist politics broadly, therapeutic culture, PC, it's all couched in touchy feely language...and it has a HEART OF PUREST ICE. And men run all that stuff, just as we run everything. Feminism is a tool of men. Very very bad men. It's just another way we have of ignoring the elephant in the room: class. Class. Class.

Posted by: PatrickH on August 26, 2008 3:19 PM

Superb comment from PatrickH which I've cut out (does he have a blog) Immigration and feminism are the two tools which the ruling male elite have imposed to subjugate the males which threaten them the most.
There have never been better ways of undercutting wages, destroying workplace solidarity and cowing male assertiveness.
These are the tools of the new soft totalitarian machine. Billy club wielding strike breakers and labor camps were too crude. This is far more subtle.
In response to ST's point that women love to conspire, I think it goes further than that. Women actually bond through a shared harassment of a third - usually male - party. They enjoy it as a bloodsport, as I know to my cost.
There is a chilling first-hand account of what this can involve over at Dr Helen's blog at Pajamas. It is entitled Workplace Discrimination Against Men.


Posted by: BarryW on August 26, 2008 4:27 PM

As far as female athletes go, I'm pretty sure no one would kick medalists like Isinbayeva, Liukin, Khorkina, Jacobellis, Bleiler, May, etc. (i.e. good-looking winners) out of bed and that the extra thrill of doing a famous chick that would impress your friends would be a plus.

In other words, it's more important for a woman to meet a baseline attractiveness level before her success can help her in the dating department. Pulling, say, a Sharapova is more impressive than pulling a pretty tennis instructor at your local Y that no one has ever heard of.

Posted by: jack on August 26, 2008 5:33 PM

Thanks Barry for the kind words. I don't have a blog...maybe here is my blog! It's interesting how some aspects of left wing analysis really do apply to left wing thought, isn't it? Power still runs things, doesn't it? Including PC, the left, corporations, NGOs, feminism, conservatism, etc. Everything old is new again. Ironies abound...

As for winning female athletes not being objects of lust: not as winning athletes sure. But some of them are honeys as jack pointed out, and they would indeed be the objects of much lust.

The thing is: professional accomplishment is not an element of what men find attractive in women. We don't care...and if that accomplishment was achieved by obvious easily detectable in your face workaholism, careerism, ambition, etc., we'd actually find the winning athletes repulsive. Men are attracted to women based on looks, personality, intelligence. Career accomplishments are less than nothing in our eyes. We don't care. We care about the accomplishments of men. Women say to men, "Look at me! Look at what I am!" Men say to men, "Here's what I can do. Can you?"

True in sports as well. The only female athletes we care about have more in common with artistic performers like dancers. The rest are just incompetent men.

Posted by: PatrickH on August 26, 2008 6:49 PM

Patrick H is right about feminism being a tool of the upper crust white male elite. To complete his thought, I'd compare it to massive illegal immigration in that it's a way to flood the labor pool and therefore depress wages.

Plus, the family is the one unit in society that enabled lower class people to raise up their status by giving them some support. By wrecking that thru feminism and supporting illegals (who have massive out of wedlock births), the elite have created a premanent underclass that's filling prisons and streets.

The worst part of this is that when you try and talk about this in polite company, it's politically incorrect and people say you "hate" women and immigrants. So they basically rigged the system.

The only way out of this that I see is that the underclass will adopt third world values, much like the black community in the inner cities: every man for himself, no responsibility for their own kids, and slap down those bitches (not my opinion -- an observation). This, in a backwards way, lets lower class men grab back power by unshackling themelves of the old christian morals that shaped the society. Roissy is intellectualizing this in his blog, but less educated men do this instinctively.

Posted by: Days of Broken Arrows on August 26, 2008 6:51 PM

Let me get this straight - this alleged advocate for and praiser of males wants to help us guys out by reducing casual sex, getting rid of hook-up culture, increase responsibility given to men, and make it more necessary to date and commit to women in order to get sex (you know, because casual sex *hurts* us men - I know I often curl up and cry after getting laid with no strings attached). Seriously, this lady and her "save the males" nonsense is bs - males are just fine.

Posted by: al on August 26, 2008 6:53 PM

To pick up a bit on PatrickH's comment, what could be a more convincing display of emasculation than men complaining about being victimized by a bunch of women?

Sheesh, grow some sack.

Posted by: Todd Fletcher on August 26, 2008 7:39 PM

What the Olympics article means is that athletic talent doesn't always correlate with physical beauty so it doesn't necessarily help female athletes in the meat market. If blessed with both, however, the athletes in question can reap the benefits. To further the evo-bio perspective, it is hardly coincidental that attractive top female athletes are invariably linked to top guys in athletics or other fields. In particular, the Russian and Chinese ones, nationalities known for their pragmatism, are often linked to business tycoons.

Posted by: harris on August 26, 2008 10:18 PM

Patrick H, I usually agrre with and appreciate your comments, but that women are able to make false allegations in order to manipulate outcomes is not true. In fact, any allegation of that nature is looked askance and hurts a women's credibility these days even when it's true. Considering how undereported violence against women is, the few cases of women lying to get retribution have taken an awful toll on all women. I'm frankly more angry at those harpies than I am at abusers and rapists.

Posted by: Bradamante on August 27, 2008 6:52 AM

See what I mean by my Little Napolean comment? PatrickH, DOBA, al, Todd Fletcher and harris... thanks for the illustration.

I like men... I really do. At the age of 58 I still go out there and play music all the time with men. You'd think that they'd get the message... by that age the best they're ever gonna do is play dives for (at most) a hundred bucks. Nope. They're still battling each other like they're only one step away from the Big Time. I know more than a few who live in rat traps or trailers to keep the dream alive.

Damn the micro world of females running the workplace! The Duke lacrosse hoax was just, I guess, the result of those boys' refusal to "grow some sack!" All those men impoverished and driven away from their children by feminist inspired divorce courts? Wimps, I guess. Certainly won't happen to me. I've got balls.

Apparently, our Little Napoleans are so important and cocksure that they don't need a job. Or else, their jobs involve deliberation on the all important effects of globalization. Even Chris, the weepy liberal, is caught up in this. He refuses to consider any detail in life. His job is to bring about the second coming of Christ... or Lenin... I don't know which.

We're dead ducks, men, because women will pay attention to little things and we won't. I have absolutely no delusions that this will change in my lifetime. The women will continue to beat the hell out of us by placing their ducks in a row, while we continue to obsess about our great Theories of the Universe.

I swore off all political involvement 20 years ago after a brief involvement with men's issues. Men are utterly hopeless creatures. No wonder so many of us fold up into drunkenness and suicide as we get older. Men are also, ironically, very likeable and human.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 27, 2008 7:15 AM

Bradamante, you're right. I don't think that making false accusations is much of a power, and although some women have been able to ruin men's lives by doing so, it's a sign of the powerlessness of women that that's the best they can do. Notice that my main point remains unchanged: women could make these accusations forever, but unless men act on them to punish the falsely accused, very little will result. Women can hurt men by withholding or withdrawing sex, by cutting men out of social networks, and by ruining them in divorce settlements. So I think we actually agree on this point.

Women who make false accusations of rape or assault should get the same prison sentence as those they accused would have gotten if convicted. The Duke rape loon should be in prison now and for the next 30 years. But MEN protect women from the consequences of their actions. We're responsible for that specific injustice (Mike Nifong?).

Posted by: PatrickH on August 27, 2008 10:35 AM

Oh, and Bradamante women do suffer from making false accusations. You're right...they don't always get away with it. But they almost never pay the price for their crime.

Posted by: PatrickH on August 27, 2008 10:37 AM

And al and DoBa: are you the only other people on earth who've noticed that K Parker is full of it? That she doesn't admire or respect men or understand us at all. She views us as lost souls, pining for a return to the days when we wasted our lives in dead end jobs providing for families we may not even have wanted. She's a fool. It is MEN who have been liberated by feminism. Women now HAVE to work...the kept woman housewife role, one of the most pampered in history, is now largely closed off. MEN in the upper echelons of business have now got a labour market flooded with women, suppressing wages, massively increasing job insecurity for everyone, and driving modern liberated couples into the modern two income / no life lifestyle that so sickens anyone who values the good things, including all the things that Michael likes that start with the word Slow.

Funny, this seems to lead back into the argument between Michael and ST about children and family vs. the hipster life.

And speaking of the Noise That Thought It Was A Man:

We're dead ducks, men, because women will pay attention to little things and we won't.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Could you please try to explain your outbursts for once? What is the connection between men being "dead ducks" (what does that even mean?) and women paying attention to the little things? Women paying attention to little things somehow turns men into ducks and then kills us? Okay, whatever. But could you please try to draw some causal connection? What the frackin' 'fuh are you even talking about?

The women will continue to beat the hell out of us by placing their ducks in a row...

Ducks? Again? Are these the dead ducks you were talking about? So let me see if I get you: women will beat the hell out of men, which will turn us into ducks, after which they kill us by placing us all in a row. And women will accomplish this all while focusing on the little things. Do I grasp the gravamen of your, ah, point (more like an extrusion, but I'm not sure extrusions have a gravamen)?

So women and jihadists are going to be the death of us. Well, Mister Noises Off, the jihadists aren't exactly moving from strength to strength from what I can tell. Women are still unable to enter the highest reaches of society. But maybe that will change. Somehow human nature will spontaneously evert through the fifth dimension, re-emerging in our world as a comic strip playing in what you choose to call your mind.

Until then, I'll pay attention to what's actually happening. And what's out there is this: white men run the world. Asians are joining us, in a development of great historical import. The rest of the world is playing catch-up. The only reason they've gotten away with their parasitism on US so far is because we've let them.

And dig it, Todd F: what is more pathetic than a man complaining about being emasculated by a woman, thereby verifying his castrato status for all the world to see? The answer? ST complaining about being men being emasculated by women (and gays! Not in this post, but gays! Gays! Every other post! Can't forget them!) , thereby verifying his own hypogonadality for everyone to see.

Yours, while gouging out my eyes with a railroad spike because I don't want to see anymore of ST's hypo-anything,

Posted by: PatrickH on August 27, 2008 11:06 AM

"Women" and "Men" are largely powerless to hurt each other because "Women" and "Men" rarely, if ever, act together as a large group to do so. An individual man or individual woman certainly has the "power" (which can take so many forms when we're talking on the micro-level)to hurt another individual man or woman but the idea that women are going to form a block against men as a group, or that men are going to form a block against women as a group because they are women (rather than, for example, people of another race or tribe) is very unlikely.

This is more plausible when talking about different ethnic groups which have made war, instituted segregation or formed blocks against each other. That's not feasible on the basis of gender. Interdependence makes it neither feasible nor desirable to anyone.

Posted by: gt on August 27, 2008 1:56 PM

"Game" is getting the gold medal without the winning time.

Posted by: roissy on August 27, 2008 2:32 PM makes a late entry with some common sense. Men and women cannot be analogized to feuding ethnic groups or nations, we are too entangled in each other's lives.

Posted by: MQ on August 27, 2008 2:53 PM

ST – Since you're arguing with me here and I haven't commented yet, I guess I'd better say something. Let's start with something semi-predictable. Here's the first paragraph of the summary for a 2003 report found at

"The Discrimination Research Center (DRC) has found that temporary employment agencies in California show significant preference for white job applicants over African American applicants. In 64 undercover tests conducted between May and November, 2003, temporary agencies preferred white applicants 4-1 over African Americans in Los Angeles and more than 2-1 in San Francisco."

I was unable to find a link to a report about a more recent study that sent identical resumes around to different companies who were seeking job applicants. Only the names were changed from one to the next. Funny, the rate of rejection was far higher for female names and names which seemed African American or Arabic or otherwise 'too foreign' sounding.

Kathleen Parker, a noted right wing anti-feminist female columnist & pundit, is chiding women and claiming " ... men are human beings, too." Now THAT sure is a shocker.

While Patrick and I may lock horns on some things he is right on the money when he notes that the elephant in the room is CLASS. And Barry is on to something when he sees that this is just as much the case in the immigration situation. In one the elite tries to pit He against She, in the other brown skin against white. And looking at ST's comments, I guess the strategy works.

Posted by: Chris White on August 27, 2008 3:08 PM

Chris, you and MQ and gt have nailed it. Men and women aren't some deep sense we can't be. We have to, and do, live with one another. The "battle of the sexes" is real, but it's a battle of how to live together, not a war of elimination, oppression, or control.

You're right about how we clash, Chris. But you and JV do keep bringing up something that is the real taboo in America: class. Racial discussion is, IMO, a dishonest Kabuki dance, designed to maintain illusions about race necessary (in some people's view) to maintaining order and justice. But class is Just Not Talked About. Not even dishonestly. There's no dance going on at all about that, Kabuki or otherwise. Funny, since class (here functioning as a stand-in for money and status) is the engine of the modern world. You profoundly disagree with me about matters of IQ. And yet I believe that IQ is taboo, not ultimately because of its racial overtones, but because of its relationship to class, to money and to status and to power.

Naturally, that relationship is described rather differently by some. :-) But it is CLASS that's at work in the modern world...and it is class that even drives the immigration debate.

Funny. Only not, really.

Posted by: PatrickH on August 27, 2008 6:02 PM

And one last comment (promise!) about men and women and collective harm: while women cannot really harm men, men can harm women...and do. Millions of men are not raped each year by women. This asymmetry grows out of men's physical superiority to women and women's simultaneous nature as objects of male sexual desire, in the sense of being seen as "having" something that they "give" to or "withhold" from men. This unilateral campaign of violence and intimidation (gack! Brownmiller!) has its target in women.

This campaign of violence is not the collective responsibility of men (Brownmiller, gack!), and men are also its targets not just as rape victims--ST might actually have a point if he talked about how news of gay rape is suppressed by the media and unreported by its victims; I seem to remember reading somewhere that the occurrence of gay rape is a significant fraction of how often het rape occurs--but as "possessors" of women who are raped. I'm thinking here of things like systematic wartime rape.

But, the evo-bio facts are out there. One sex is targeted for a staggering amount of violence by another sex, while engaging in very little violence in return. So there does seem to be something to the idea that while women are incapable of harming men, the reverse is not true.

Posted by: PatrickH on August 27, 2008 6:14 PM

ST, the vast majority of the whiners don't have a horrific divorce or sexual harassment suit to point to. Mostly they're pissed that all the alphas are getting the models, that's the big injustice that drives them.

Maybe I'm too much of a hayseed to see it, but I really haven't experienced any problems working with women. I don't know where all these castrating harpies are, maybe they just haven't made out to the southwest yet? If so thank god for that.

Posted by: Todd Fletcher on August 27, 2008 6:28 PM

I personally love all the women in the workplace, especially the female designers that have proliferated in my industry (graphics) like fleas on a monkey's back.

Because I charge by the proof, all the indecisive back-and-forth between female customers and their female freelancers has put a lot of money in my pocket. I'm just glad they only use on side of their brains; I might have to start working for a living!

Posted by: Brutus on August 27, 2008 9:28 PM

More new Devlin up:

Posted by: anon on August 27, 2008 9:55 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?