Blog Archives

Feminists like Jessica Valenti, captainess of the Feministing ship of harpies, regularly complains about a sexual promiscuity double standard between men and women.  Jessica even wrote a book about it.  She loves to gripe about the inequality: men who sleep around are STUDS, while women who sleep around are SLUTS.

At the same time, SoCons hold to the image, the comforting lie, that women yearn for “good” men as husbands, and that they are awash in a sea of beastly cads, using and losing these pristine princesses.  This image appears so real to SoCons when they hear women truthfully professing that they want one “good” partner.  And what about hearing that princess still wants one “good” partner for a long term relationship?  Is this not the sweetest sounding affirmation that women crave monogamy?  After all, that one “good” partner is always the same guy.  Right?  To a SoCon man, yes it is.  But in thinking this, he is lying to himself.

The problem lies in how men and women have a differing definition of “good.”  The man’s definition usually centers around a notion of “fidelity.”  While a woman might agree with this man’s version of “good,” her definition is so much more complicated.  Her definition is based on the best approximation of the image of her fantasy ideal.

In a woman’s fantasy world, she mates with the perfect man and then he commits to her, putting off all other women.  This is why pulp romance fiction, e.g., Twilight, has such broad-based appeal among women.  Note the problem of where the fantasy meets reality.  There is no such thing as the perfect man.  Besides, even if the perfect man existed, he could not exclusively mate with all women.

This is where female hypergamy set in.  It is the trick women play on themselves so they can hold to their fantasy while navigating reality.  A woman will select the most available, closest approximation of her ideal man.  But the ideal man is incredibly dynamic.  He is so dynamic, that he has the magical ability to change in perfect synchronicity with her mood, age , career and a plethora of other factors.

By the princess fantasy, women think they are entitled to the best.  The pulp romance formula always has a woman amidst a swarm of unsuitable suitors, while longing for the ideal man of her dreams.  In reality, a woman is always waiting for the bigger and better deal.  This is why a real a man MUST ALWAYS make her FEEL that she is not good enough for him.  Because when a better approximation of the ideal man comes around, she will pounce on him, regardless of the circumstances.

Women, especially Feministers like Jessica, love to complain about double standards.  Just like their search for the ideal man, women are very selective in what they complain about.  Women choose to complain about the double standards favoring men, while unflinchingly dis-acknowledging and taking advantage of double standards favoring themselves.

For example, consider the typical woman in a Northern Virginia “power couple” saying:

I’m independent.  I make MY OWN money.

and consider the translations perceived by both a unsavvy and savvy man:

• UNSAVVY: blah blah blah blah blah (hmm, look at her sagging….)
• SAVVY: My husband pays for housing, food, the kids so all my income is disposed on shoes.

Beware of selective outrage regarding double standards between men and women.  Yes, they exist, and government cannot take them all away, nor should it.  Men have double standards that favor them and disfavor women, and vice versa.  This is why women and men complement each other as a yin and yang, and this is why oriental despotism threatens the West.

SoCon men cannot relate to how the status of mega-celebrities work on women.  They especially cannot handle a woman’s irresistible attraction to men of supreme status.  Some SoCon women even cling to this, but with differing motivations (of course).  To understand why, consider the thought experiment:

• SCENARIO ONE: Attractive Wife

1. Take “blue collar SoCon man,” (e.g., military, coal miner, etc)
2. PLUS “attractive wife”
3. PLUS affair, on the part of the man
4. EQUALS DIVORCE

Remember by law, “attractive wife” owns “blue collar SoCon man,” and can take him for as much as government will enforce (nearly eveything).  Also, being attractive, she can easily take her business elsewhere in search of that dynamic ideal man.  Now, alternatively, consider:

• SCENARIO TWO – Fat Frumpy Wife

1. Take a “blue collar SoCon man”
2. PLUS “fat frumpy wife”
3. PLUS affair, on the part of the man
4. EQUALS NO divorce

BECAUSE fat frumpy wife has no dating market options!  Attractive, but old, infertile women may have a little more, but dating market value tilts heavily in favor of younger, attractive women (a quality men are very good at screening for).

Now that we understand female hypergamy, we can answer the questions:

• Why are women offended by Tiger Woods’ cheating?
• Why are women not really offended by the women he is cheating with?

Women are attracted to the notion of Tiger’s supreme status.  Do not be fooled by women disparaging Tiger’s looks (given the opportunity, star status overwhelms and his looks are not a “deal-breaker”).  As discussed prviously, women act out on their feelings based on their image of their ideal man.  In doing so, they empathize with Tiger’s wife, as they react to the shattering of their image of the ideal man leaving them, for another woman.  What about the women coming out to reveal that they had affairs with Tiger?  No outrage, but rather grudging respect because women fantasize about being the fancy of all men, including the one ideal man.  Just like a man has  a grudging respect for a man that attracts hordes of women, a woman has a grudging respect for a woman that can attract a superstar.  However, a gradient of respect exists from young attractive women to older, fatter frumpier women.  Younger, more attractive women having more grudging respect  for each other, while fatter, older, frumpier woman have more grudge than respect for all women.  Of course the grudge is really self-loathing of their waning ability to attract an approximated ideal man.  Jealousy is indeed a complicated bitch.

For men, it’s a lot simpler.  Tiger’s cheating commands a grudging respect, but in the context marriage, it is wrong, JUST as the parade of women aiding Tiger’s cheating is wrong.

So, in this regard, we see that men are indeed simple, and women are very, very complicated.  How often is this thrown at men?  Why would a man ever take this as an insult?

Given all this, why would a man ever get married?  We will talk about that next time.

What star do you pray to?

Last time, we noted, amidst a flood of troubling world events, America remains transfixed on the image of Tiger Woods, a representation of all they hold dear: the image of the American family.

The term, image, is best defined by the American historian, Daniel Boorstin, in his classic, The Image, A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America.  Images form a pseudo-reality where contemporary Americans reside.  Boorstin describes contemporary America as “the Graphic Age,” an age initiated by the invention of the telegraph, leading to the creation of a pseudo-reality, a world of made-up images reflected by celebrities (people known for being well-known) and pseudo-events (manufactured occurrences, e.g., press conferences, presidential debates, product launches, etc.).  Celebrities and pseudo-events replace the traditional concepts of heroes (i.e., people known for doing great things) and history (events of actual significance).  Boorstin’s construction of the celebrity as differentiated from the hero is useful:

The hero was distinguished by his achievement; the celebrity by his image or trademark. The hero created himself; the celebrity is created by the media. The hero was a big man; the celebrity is a big name. -from The Image, ch. 2

Out of celebrity is borne stardom, the zenith of human achievement, the realization of our wildest dreams as Americans:

The star is the ultimate American verification of Jean Jacques Rousseau’s Emile. His mere existence proves the perfectability of any man or woman. Oh wonderful pliability of human nature, in a society where anyone can become a celebrity! And where any celebrity … may become a star!  -from The Image, ch. 4

Heroes were traditionally the object of our aspirations.  By heroes’ actions, we model and measure our own aspirations.  How do we know what to aspire to, in a pseudo-reality of celebrities and stars?  The answer to this lies in the answer to another question: as Americans, what is it, that we do?

Nearly a century ago, when asked, “what is it, that we do,” we would answer that we were great manufacturers.  Blessed with an abundance of natural resources, we made the most things for the best price.  As our manufacturing waned, we held to the idea that we are at least great as technological innovators.  But no one really believes that anymore.  Especially not, given the hordes of marketing/business “professionals” that our institutions of “higher” learning have belched out.  But we do know what it is, that we do best.  It existed all through times we fancied ourselves manufacturers and technological innovators.  What is it that we do?  Why, we advertise.

That’s it!  That’s what we do!  Now, we can say, with supreme confidence, that we are the best at making people feel like they needed to buy things.  In other words, we are the best at making and selling images.  We are so good at this, we can make people buy things they never even thought they needed.  Boorstin explains:

We read advertisements … to discover and enlarge our desires. We are always ready—even eager—to discover, from the announcement of a new product, what we have all along wanted without really knowing it. -from The Image, ch. 5

As Americans in the late twentieth century, till now, there is no greater truth of American existence than the notion: WE ARE WHAT WE BUY.  No longer are Americans properly regarded as citizens, but rather, we are consumers.  This is why political parties and brands have become synonymous.  As consumers, we are nothing more than marketing demographics with advertising as the means to an end of capturing market share.  Boorstin illustrates:

Advertising could not be understood as simply another form of salesmanship. It aimed at something new—the creation of consumption communities…. The primary argument of the salesman was personal and private: this hat is perfect for you (singular). His focus was on the individual; he succeeded when he cajoled, flattered, managed, and overwhelmed a particular buyer’s ego. The primary argument of the advertisement was public and general: This hat is perfect for you (plural). While the salesman persuaded the customer that the item was peculiarly suited to his unique needs, the advertisement persuaded groups of buyers that the item was well suited to the needs of all persons in the group. The advertisement succeeded when it discovered, defined, and persuaded a new community of consumers. -from Boorstin, The Americans: The Democratic Experience, ch. 16

Eureka!  A new lowest common denominator is discovered!  Now, let us bring the celebrity to market.  The celebrity, and better yet, the star will allow us to personalize on the mass level.

By identifying ourselves in what we buy, we are no longer merely buying items for everyday living; no, instead, we are buying a little piece of a star.  A star that will provide us with light so that we may achieve a transcendence that distracts us from our own reality.

For SoCons, Tiger Woods, the star, is the fantasy family man.  He has it all.  Talent.  Riches.  A beautiful wife.  A beautiful family.  In short, the ideal image: “the perfectability of any man or woman,” a true achievement and realization of the glory of the American Dream.  The dream to which we all aspire and to which we all compare, even in our own little way.  In this context, we feel the impact when this image is shattered.

Suddenly, the products sold by Tiger Woods are tainted.  When you are rubbing a Gillette personal hygiene product on yourself, you are tainting yourself.  Tiger’s sins are now yours.

Worse yet, his sins remind us of our own.

Women are reminded of their outrage toward adulterous men.  He offends their idea of commitment.  Not so much as they are offended by a cheating star (which would be okay, if he were cheating with them), but rather, their notion of the ideal family is offended by identifying with Tiger’s wife.

SoCon men are outraged because they are expected to be outraged by adulterous men  They are conditioned to think that expressing such outrage keeps their women bound to them because this is what attracts “good” women (wrong on both counts).  It is their primary means of distracting themselves from the reality of female hypergamy which regularly reveals itself in episodes of  unpredictable mood-swings.

Once the image is shattered, there is only one way it can be reforged….in death.

Only in death, do stars realize their full potential: as a brand no longer tainted by human frailties.  Deifying stars is a risky proposition due to the human propensity to fail.  Take Michael Jackson, for all his flaws as a child molester, the world’s first recipient of a medical blackendectomy, and overall weirdo:  his glorious image was reforged upon death.  His sins, forgiven.  He died for us.  He died, so that we could feel good again when watching his videos and wearing apparel with his image.

So ask yourself: What star do you pray to?

Join us next time as we see stare straight into the vacuous reality of what SoCons use the perfect family image to distract themselves: female hypergamy.

On the day we remember Pearl Harbor, amidst present day apprehension stemming from economic ruin, an escalating war in Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation amongst Islamist extremists, and cap & trade tyranny, let us turn to a consideration of the most important issue of the present day, sent down, from on high, by our masters:

The Tiger Woods Affairs

Even the ChiCom media has taken notice, providing an amusing computer-animated dramatization

with the whole news video here.

One peculiar reaction to the Tiger Woods Affair is amongst social conservatives, affectionately referred to as SoCons.  SoCons are particularly outraged by Tiger Woods philandering behavior.  Why?  Is it the adultery?  Yeah, kinda.  Is it offensive seeing the status of a mega-celebrity commanding a harem?  Oh, yeah, I guess.  How about the shattering of the image to which SoCons hold dear: the family.  Yes, yes, yes!

Tiger Woods offends the SoCon image of the family, which is joined at the hip by the image of the pristine princess. The image of the pristine princess is held by SoCon men as the paradigm of virtue behind which their significant others and daughters masquerade. Its the mechanism by which SoCons deceive themselves from the reality of female hypergamy and the precarious peace between the sexes they call marriage.  Join us over the next few days as we explore SoCons and their struggle with images divorced reality.