Steve Moxon:
Women are privileged (compared to men) in every society and in every period of history...The females of all animal species constitute the "limiting factor"...in reproduction...and this inevitably translates in various ways to the female being prized.

Women are privileged only in the sense of being desired by men as objects to be preserved, and not destroyed, so that they may be possessed reproductively. This male agenda can lead to women being confined by men (harems, purdah, serial monogamy) precisely so that dominant men control access to the reproductive bottleneck. The “doing down” of men is a reflection not of male lack of privilege, but of the need by dominant males to eliminate rivals for reproductive access. Men seek to preserve and possess women, and to eliminate and destroy men. This has nothing to do with privilege, except the privileges of dominant men--of the patriarchy, precisely.

Men “prizing” females as sexual/reproductive objects is also responsible for rape, forced marriage, pimping, and the use of rohypnol as that special drink mix ingredient for the big heavy date. This is a way of being “prized” that many women might be happy to do without. After all, when have “prizes” ever had any control over their fate?

Males act in effect as a "quarantine" station for deleterious genetic material, and also as laboratories for nurturing new, better gene combinations...genetic material is more exposed in males than in females — so that natural selection acts much more on males than on females.

Intriguing. This explains greater male variability, perhaps. The greater selective pressures that Moxon claims have been placed on males may be the reason for the overwhelming dominance of men in all non-reproductive areas of human accomplishment, especially at the highest levels of action, creativity, and intellect. Men possess both a greater range of abilities than women, and through greater variability, are much more likely to possess non-reproductive abilities to a very high degree. This may be, if I understand Moxon correctly, because men are, in a sense, more evolved than women.

Feminism is just business-as-usual elitism….Feminism is an intensification of the natural prejudice we all share towards males — that is, towards the majority of necessarily lower status males. High status males and attractive women win out. Plus ca change.

I think Moxon is right when he implies that “feminism” and the legal and cultural assault on men are the fruits of a collaborative exercise between dominant men and feminist women, the assault aimed at the main body of men, the “betas” who make up ninety percent or so of the male population. Feminists are therefore dupes of the very patriarchy they claim to despise. Feminists have always struck me as foolish and shallow, devoid of any insight into human nature, and of course, into their own nature as women. Now they’ve ended up, as fools so often do, as dupes of the oppressor. Ironic, but not surprising.

Fascinating interview. I’m going to get the book.

Posted by: PatrickH on May 21, 2009 11:09 AM

patrickh:
Feminists are therefore dupes of the very patriarchy they claim to despise.

but they are not dupes. they willingly and enthusiastically advanced their joint venture with the alpha males. for you to see women as "dupes of the patriarchy" you would have to presume women didn't enjoy giving themselves over sexually and emotionally to the top 10% of powerful men, even when doing so means they will be shared like scrumptious pastries on a food carousel by a few fat and happy diners.

"i loved that he was so powerful i was nothing."
- O, on her lover.

Posted by: roissy on May 21, 2009 3:51 PM

Feminist porn?

Porn aimed at men is exploitive of women.
Porn aimed at women is empowering of women.

Posted by: anonymous on May 21, 2009 5:33 PM

Not feminists, Roissy. At least not the ones back in the day who advanced all that "men are rapists" collective shit-test nonsense. If they've ever realized all their man-bashing and man-hating has simply led to legislation and social policy that advanced the interests of the 10% by crushing the 90%, well, they'd deny it. They wanted 100%.

Mind you, Gloria Steinem dated Mort Zuckerman, and Andrea Dworkin spent her nights dreaming of getting gang-raped by big-bonered men-monsters. So maybe you've got something there.

Posted by: PatrickH on May 21, 2009 9:10 PM

but they are not dupes. they willingly and enthusiastically advanced their joint venture with the alpha males.

He is right and wrong. He is right in that the sisterhood were the enthusiastic partners in the demolition of the Western "patriarchy", but he is wrong with regard to their motivation. I don't think their motivation was to be "shared like scrumptious pastries on a food carousel".

They wanted to be the ones picking from the carousel, but hey, things didn't turn out that way, they never do when you act contrary to human nature. Sure, they wanted to do the screwing around but in the end they got screwed. Sometimes the only thing worse than not getting what you want, is getting what you want.

Posted by: slumlord on May 21, 2009 11:16 PM

That interview with Moxon on the conservative website contains a virus - at least my anti virus software believes it does.

Moxon is a bit strange - claiming to some effect that alpha males and women conspire to preserve the best genetic material for the human race.

This is presumably a good thing, so obviously he cannot be an alpha male or he wouldn't be annoyed by their supremacy, because it is obviously good for evolutionary reasons. He's worked himself into a corner, either he is wrong and 'normal' men deserve better, or he is right and he should accept his place as a non 'alpha' male for the good of the human race, and put up with 'privileged' women.

Ah, the beauty of logic.

Posted by: Paganite on May 22, 2009 5:06 AM

Paganite -- Thanks for letting me know. I've put a warning into the posting to alert people about the possibility of a virus.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 22, 2009 9:04 AM

As for some women not needing foreplay...well, one of the, ah, finest, ah, partners I've ever, ah, known, never needed foreplay--didn't want it, ever!--and didn't even like receiving DATY!

Such women are rare, however. Last I heard of her, she married a swinger (his fourth wife), and was giving "sensual" massage services with "release" to a parade of clients under her increasingly severe (and otherwise unemployed) husband's ever-watchful eye.

I mean, lordy, she told me he gave her a valentine's day card signed, "Get to work." I'm not kidding. I think she deserved a better fate.

P.S. DATY = Dining At The Y. Think about it.

P.P.S. NYT has a review of Soderbergh's film about young escorts in pre-bust Manhattan called The Girlfriend Experience. Starring your fave young thing, Michael: Sasha Grey. Unfortunately, the review describes her acting as "tentative and cool", not displaying enough vulnerability.

Oh well. It's hard to display something you don't have, isn't it?

Posted by: PatrickH on May 22, 2009 10:26 AM

"As individuals they’re hysterics. As a group they’re either a lowing herd or a raving mob; nasty and petty conformists of the worst sort. Ask them to dance and they jerk about grotesquely revealing only a sliver of soul."

As accurate a description of academics as one could hope to encounter.

Posted by: Charlton Griffin on May 22, 2009 2:00 PM

Speaking of fun visual stills, look for Jon Haddock's Porn with the Figures Removed .

Posted by: Hapax Legomenon on May 22, 2009 3:42 PM

Paganite:

Moxon is a bit strange - claiming to some effect that alpha males and women conspire to preserve the best genetic material for the human race. This is presumably a good thing...

Your false assumption is that the actions of those on the top of the food chain are motivated in the service of what is best for the human race.

If history is any guide, then the opposite appears to be true: that those with the most power have usually been motivated by what is best for *them*. In other words, whatever they can get away with, eveyone else be damned.

...so obviously [Moxon] cannot be an alpha male or he wouldn't be annoyed by their supremacy, because it is obviously good for evolutionary reasons.

I believe humans are motivated by self-interest first, abstract Darwinian future-projections second. At best.

He's worked himself into a corner, either he is wrong and 'normal' men deserve better, or he is right and he should accept his place as a non 'alpha' male for the good of the human race, and put up with 'privileged' women.

Or - he is right, and he'd rather the political power of the State (which has heretofore been employed with undue favor towards feminist interests) be wrested back and used in a more equitable fashion. Blance of the force, and all that.

Ah, the beauty of logic.

Logic is beautiful, but a *smidgen* of logic can be a dangerous thing.

Posted by: Tupac Chopra on May 22, 2009 5:01 PM

Still arguing here about alpha men and wrongheaded feminists? Shouldn't you alphas be out in the world away from your computers, lending your superior seed to the USDA choice cuts of womanhood who have enjoyed the Story of O? Why are you still here?!?

Just letting you know that woman are far less interested in the mating dance you guys are always on about. We only care about shoes and oral sex, to tell you the stark and brutal truth.

Okay, carry on!

Posted by: Sister Wolf on May 23, 2009 4:58 AM

Care to make that an "I" statement, Sister Wolf?

Posted by: Eric on May 23, 2009 10:53 AM

Giving or receiving, Sister? Oral sex, that is. Not shoes, which I guess women just want to RECEIVERECEIVERECEIVE.

Posted by: PatrickH on May 23, 2009 11:07 AM

I'm sorry that you misunderstood me Tupac Chopra, but it isn't my argument at all. It is Moxon's.

Of course 'alpha's' don't do it for the human good, but what they do 'is' for the human good even if it appears selfish to us. This is Moxon's argument remember, they have the best DNA and do what is necessary to spread it around and preserve it.

I am not using any of my own arguments here, only pointing out inconsistencies in Moxon's arguments.

Posted by: paganite on May 23, 2009 10:36 PM

Men “prizing” females as sexual/reproductive objects is also responsible for rape, forced marriage, pimping, and the use of rohypnol as that special drink mix ingredient for the big heavy date. This is a way of being “prized” that many women might be happy to do without. After all, when have “prizes” ever had any control over their fate?

that's exactly right, very insightful. Understanding why many women experience their reproductive "privilege" as a burden is crucial. Both to understanding gender relations overall, and to "getting" where women are coming from. (Even helps in picking them up). It's not that they are lying when they deny privilege, it's that their experience of it is quite different from their male pursuers. From the inside this kind of "privilege" isn't always very pleasant and can be stifling and constraining. This is a lot of why women like men who signal some degree of immunity to the woman's reproductive allure.

Sister Wolf is hilarious, as usual.

Posted by: MQ on May 24, 2009 5:42 PM

@PatrickH
receiving my good sir.

clio's tupac

Your false assumption is that the actions of those on the top of the food chain are motivated in the service of what is best for the human race.

If history is any guide, then the opposite appears to be true: that those with the most power have usually been motivated by what is best for *them*. In other words, whatever they can get away with, eveyone else be damned.

I agree

Posted by: chic noir on May 24, 2009 8:39 PM

Thx for the Mary Roach vid, Micheal. All of her books are fab. It's fun to get a glimpse of her in action, so to speak.

As for the "Jon Haddock's Porn with the Figures Removed" above ...

I just gotta say I've seen (and even produced: see my blog) some of the saddest wastes of time on the internets, but bothering to photoshop people out of porn? Wow.

(Granted, I'm only going on having viewed the pics and haven't done any further reading or research on the guy, but jeez. And please note, Mr./Ms. Hapax Legomenon, I speak of the artist, not you. Thanks for the link, even. Next time I'm in a meeting, I'll be able to think "at least I'm not photoshopping people out of porn.")

Posted by: Yahmdallah on May 25, 2009 5:49 PM

Interesting review. I read O a great many years ago, long before I understood the psychology behind it unfortunately.

Speaking of that book though, I think this woman (Alexa) is probably the one I'd most likely expect a sequel to the Story of O from (or at least a similar story). She seems to have a bit of a submissive side in need of exploration.

http://www.realprincessdiaries.com

Posted by: DontChaKnow on May 26, 2009 2:34 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?