The Sexual Revolution’s Arab Spring.

There is a naive celebration by many conservatives of California’s new Yes Means Yes law.  The theory is that unleashing a feminist jihad of false rape punishment will somehow end the sexual revolution, bringing us back to either Victorian or Puritan sexual mores.  Conn Carroll looks forward to an explosion in false rape accusations leading to a sudden boon of “committed relationships”.  Heather Mac Donald entertains similar fantasies, explaining:

Mothers worried that their college-bound sons will be hauled before a biased campus sex tribunal by a vindictive female should tell them: “Wait. Find a girlfriend and smother her with affection and respect. Write her love letters in the middle of the night. Escort her home after a date and then go home yourself.”

These fantasies and those which will surely follow are the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of why we have the hookup culture in the first place.  It wasn’t men who drove the creation of hookup culture, it was women.  The sexual revolution asked young women to reshape our culture to best suit their desires, and hookup culture is what young women created. Giving women even more capricious power over men won’t suddenly make today’s campus sluts desire marriage, or even marriage lite.  While the new rules will undoubtedly take some young men (perhaps a large number of them) out of the hookup market they won’t reduce young women’s desire or opportunity to fully indulge in promiscuity.

The law also won’t help the young women fighting against the hookup culture, those who are looking for marriage or at least a “serious relationship”.  The law is designed to create mistrust between men and women, and to destabilize all heterosexual relationships on campus.

To the extent that the law drives (some) young men away from the hookup culture, what will fill the void is not a sudden resurgence in marriage or even a path to marriage, but some combination of men checking out (the dreaded peter pan manboys/grass eaters), turning to porn/VR sex, and homosexuality.  If your favorite sexual marketplace player is represented in that lineup, then aside from the cruelty and injustice of the law you might have something to look forward to.  But for those who want to see a return to marriage, this next wave of feminist sexual insanity will only take us farther from the end goal.

Posted in Feminists, Foolishness, Traditional Conservatives, Yes Means Yes | 255 Comments

How “Yes Means Yes” fuels the hookup culture.

Commenter theasdgamer asked how Yes Means Yes is intended to grease the skids of hookup culture for women.  This is a crucial question, because conservatives are tempted to assume the law will greatly constrict the hookup culture, as Heather Mac Donald of The Weekly Standard argues (H/T Martel):

Sexual liberation is having a nervous breakdown on college campuses. Conservatives should be cheering on its collapse; instead they sometimes sound as if they want to administer the victim smelling salts…

The ultimate result of the feminists’ crusade may be the same as if they were explicitly calling for a return to sexual modesty: a sharp decrease in casual, drunken sex. There is no downside to this development.

But this fantasy denies what the promoters of the law are saying outright.  The intent of the law is to make women feel freer to engage in the hookup culture, as Ezra Klein explains:

The Yes Means Yes law could also be called the You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure law…

A version of the You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure law is already in effect at college campuses. It just sits as an impossible burden on women, who need to Be Pretty Damn Sure that the guy who was so nice to them at the party isn’t going to turn into a rapist if they let him into their dorm room — and that’s not something anyone can be sure about.

As the proponents of the law are very openly explaining, the point is to make it feel safe for women to take strange men back to their dorm rooms, or to travel to unknown cities and sleep in strange men’s beds.  This is what feminists have in mind, and this is what such a law will promote.

It is worth reiterating that the law will only make these foolish choices seem safe.  It won’t actually make doing these things safe.  Just like “Teach men not to rape” won’t reduce rape, giving women comfort in making risky choices won’t actually make those choices safe.

Posted in Fantasy vs Reality, Feminists, Foolishness, Traditional Conservatives, Yes Means Yes | 226 Comments

Making the world safe for foolish promiscuous women.

I stumbled on a recent piece by Ezra Klein at Vox titled “Yes Means Yes” is a terrible law, and I completely support it.  It is a remarkably frank discussion of California’s new law defining how universities which receive state funds are to handle allegations of rape.  My initial reaction on the whole “Yes Means Yes” question was one of limited interest.  As I’ve explained before, I’m not interested in creating rules of the road for fornication.  It isn’t that I don’t care about injustice, but that I don’t see a way to make fornication safe.

My own initial response is I’m quite certain the standard response for most conservatives.  To their credit, feminists have done a brilliant job of maneuvering conservatives as a blocking force around the battlefield of the culture wars.  The problem however is not that conservatives aren’t interested in creating rules of the road for fornication, it is that they are all too eager to assist feminists in doing this.  The greatest precedent for this is in the area of child support.  Feminists complained that it wasn’t fair for the fornicating woman to be responsible for any resulting pregnancies while fornicating men get off scott-free.  The idea of a cad not being responsible for supporting his children understandably enrages conservatives, and you will be hard pressed to find a conservative who objects to child support in theory or in practice.

The problem with child support however is that in trying to make fornication fair, conservatives have unwittingly given their approval for the replacement of marriage as the fundamental family structure in the Western world.  Making fornication “fair” (for women) turned out to come at a profound cost, something we haven’t begun to process.

What we see in the Yes Means Yes law is the next level of legislation attempting to make fornication as pleasant and rewarding an experience for women as possible.  As Klein explains in the opening of the piece, it is in fact a ridiculous law:

It tries to change, through brute legislative force, the most private and intimate of adult acts. It is sweeping in its redefinition of acceptable consent; two college seniors who’ve been in a loving relationship since they met during the first week of their freshman years, and who, with the ease of the committed, slip naturally from cuddling to sex, could fail its test.

Yet while he is very open about the absurdity of the law, he goes on to explain that it is needed in order to create a culture of promiscuity where men are afraid and women are not:

If the Yes Means Yes law is taken even remotely seriously it will settle like a cold winter on college campuses, throwing everyday sexual practice into doubt and creating a haze of fear and confusion over what counts as consent. This is the case against it, and also the case for it…

…”No Means No” has created a world where women are afraid. To work, “Yes Means Yes” needs to create a world where men are afraid.

Klein explains that this other piece by Amanda Taub was largely responsible for bringing him to support this view.  Taub’s piece is even more eye opening, explaining that women’s fear of doing risky things is “a tax on women”.

That status quo puts women in the position of having to constantly police their own behavior to make sure that they are not giving the appearance of passive consent. That’s not only exhausting; it’s limiting. It reinforces power imbalances that keep women out of positions of success and authority.

This is the core idea behind the slogan “Teach men not to rape”.  Feminists are pushing for a world where female promiscuity is encouraged and defended with the full force of society.  The danger is, conservatives could be baited into backing this as they were baited into backing child support.  Those who don’t formally approve of the new order are likely to want to stay out of it, out of a reluctance to being perceived as going to bat for promiscuous men.  Ironically the standard argument against the law, that it will create a chilling effect on the hookup culture, only confirms to conservatives that this is in fact a good law.  But the law isn’t designed to put a damper on the hookup culture, it is designed to grease the skids for women to participate more fully in the hookup culture.

Taub describes the problem of the status quo in greater detail:

As a result, certain opportunities are left unavailable to women, while still others are subject to expensive safety precautions, such as not traveling for professional networking unless you can afford your own hotel room. It amounts, essentially, to a tax that is levied exclusively on women. And it sucks.

The example she is referring to here is a woman named Sophia Katz who by her own account traveled to New York City to take a man she had never met up on his offer to share his bed.  The first night she spent in his bed she rebuffed his sexual advances with “Hey, I’m really tired. Could we not do this right now?”  On the second night she first argued that his roommates would hear before giving in.

Katz is the poster child for the Yes Means Yes law, because while neither she nor the man she slept with were involved with California universities, the intent is to make it safe for women to do exactly what Katz did without fear of feeling pressured to have sex.  Likewise, the intent is to make it safe for women to go home with random hook up partners and not risk feeling regret later.  In order to accomplish this, the law must as Klein explains create a world where men are afraid so women will feel comfortable in doing foolish, risky things.

Right now this law only impacts students at California universities.  However, the push is clearly to modify the criminal code across the West in similar fashion.  Nothing short of this will make women and girls feel safe pursuing promiscuity with wild abandon, even though making something dangerous feel safe will only put women at far greater risk.

The question is how will non feminists react to this latest gambit.  Will they actively support it, or at least not protest as it is pushed through, out of a sense of disgust at cads like the one who shared his bed with Katz expecting sex in return?  Or will non feminists recognize the folly in yet further laws attempting to make promiscuity and foolishness as fun and rewarding for women as possible?

 

Related:  We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan

Posted in Feminists, Feral Females, Foolishness, Philosophy of Feminism, Replacing Marriage, Traditional Conservatives, Yes Means Yes | 210 Comments

If it was a snake, it would have bitten them.

CNN Money has a new article up claiming that men with children magically earn more than childless men (H/T Sunshine Mary):  It pays to be a dad

Dads had a median salary of $49,000 compared to around $29,000 for men without kids.

“Parenthood is giving advantages to men but not to women,” said Justine Calcagno, a social psychologist and author of the report.

The sad thing is very few can spot the problem with this logic.  Men who have families to support have larger expenses than single, childless men.  This means they have to work harder to earn more money.  They all but tripped over this fact while rushing to their false conclusion:

Overall, 92% of dads are employed full-time compared to 77% of non-dads, who are more likely to be part-time workers.

Even to the extent that managers prefer fathers over childless men, the reason is that they know the father is much more motivated.

Everyone understands this when talking to a young man who wants to someday have a family.  Everyone knows the young man had better work hard if he wants to be able to support a family.  But once the family man has done what he needs to do, this is suddenly proof not of sacrifice by men, but of unfairness to women.  Even most conservatives can’t spot the flawed thinking.

We see the same nonsensical thinking regarding findings that married men earn more than unmarried men:

“Particularly for men, marriage typically brings what has been called the ‘marriage premium’ where married men with identical experience and education make more money than their single counterparts.”

Edit: Here is a link to the original study. The ‘Mommy Tax’ and ‘Daddy Bonus’

Posted in Data, Denial, Fatherhood, Foolishness, Patriarchal Dividend | 272 Comments

A woman’s work is never done.

The indignities of marriage never stop piling up for feminists.  On top of being trapped in boring drudgery, Kelsey McKinney explains at Vox (the other Vox) that Obama’s latest bit of male groveling insidiously forces wives to train their husbands.  Clearly now the patriarchy has finally stooped too low:

What President Obama is suggesting, really, is that women — on top of dealing with internet trollsdomestic abuse, higher rates of sexual assault, and being paid less than men for the same work — must also deal with the mighty task of reforming all of the world’s males into decent husbands.

At the event, Obama also said, “Eventually we learn, but it takes us a little longer, because we’re not as smart.”

The president may have gotten this idea from his wife, who claimed in August that women are the more intelligent sex. But if that’s true, then it’s important women are able spend their time developing cures for cancer and renewable energy sources rather than training men to do the dishes.

What we need is a great hero, someone who can rescue feminists from this endless misery instead of expecting women to solve it themselves.  Won’t some big strong not-woman come rescue the poor feminists?

Posted in Feminists, Weak men screwing feminism up | 64 Comments