The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Fear and Loathing of the Penis

Posted on | February 13, 2015 | 196 Comments

“All women are prisoners and hostages to men’s world. Men’s world is like a vast prison or concentration camp for women. This isn’t a metaphor, it’s reality. Each man is a threat. We can’t escape men. . . .
“[H]eterosexuality doesn’t exist and our ‘urges’ to bond with [men] emotionally or sexually aren’t natural drives but normal PTSD reactions to years of abuse and mind-programming.”
— Radical Wind, August 2013

When I think back on how this project began, I recall the woman whose screed against intercourse (“PIV is always rape, OK?”) led me deep into this swamp of radical feminism. It was, however, another rant by that same blogger which made me seriously explore the ideological psychosis of which her rant was a symptom.

“No woman is heterosexual.”

That four-word sentence sent me off on an investigation of her sources, especially including Professor Dee Graham, whose 1994 book Loving to Survive theorized female heterosexuality as a response to male-inflicted “sexual terror,” akin to post-traumatic stress syndrome. Understanding this claim in turn required me to examine the sources cited in Graham’s bibliography, including lesbian feminists like Marilyn Frye, Adrienne Rich, Mary Daly, Audre Lorde and Charlotte Bunch. Graham even managed to work in a citation to “Starhawk” (neé Miriam Simos), the lesbian feminist who was the founding high priestess of a California-based pagan witchcraft cult known as Reclaiming. From such dubious sources Graham had propounded her theory of sexuality, based in a view of men as violent oppressors and women as victims suffering under tyrannical male supremacy. After several months of further research, I’ve begun to refer to this feminist worldview as Fear and Loathing of the Penis.

You see this in the counterfactual “rape epidemic” hysteria on college campuses, with activists at Columbia University trying to frighten prospective students — high school kids — with protests about “gender-based violence on campus.” Robert Tracinski at the Federalist examines the possibility that “rape culture” discourse represents “an attempt to create a scapegoat for the emotional dark side of promiscuity.”

It is evident that these women’s dread and contempt of masculinity arises from specific circumstances. Feminism does not cause women to hate and fear men; feminism is the political rationalization of these women’s anti-male feelings, permitting them to believe that their own unhappiness is not merely personal. It is the explanatory power of feminist theory that attracts women who do not wish to consider themselves responsible for their misfortunes, disappointments and failures, offering them a convenient scapegoat for their problems: Patriarchy.

To give you an idea of what I’m talking about, consider this recent post on Tumblr.com by an Australian woman named Kate:

I think that most of the times I feel afraid of the world, it is because there are men in it.
Men who want to hurt women; men who don’t want to hurt women but do not realise that they are doing so anyway; men who don’t want to hurt women, but do not care when they do, because whatever they want from the situation is intrinsically more important to them.
Men who you can tell are bad just by looking at them or listening to what they say; men who you instinctively feel could be bad, but you second-guess yourself because you want to believe and trust that they are good; men who you would never guess are bad in any way — whose badness doesn’t show for years, and when it does it is near-invisible to anybody else.
Men who make you feel threatened when they don’t get their own way; men who lash out and shift the focus when they don’t get their own way; men who spin every word when they don’t get their own way; men who act like children and make you their mother figure when they don’t get their own way; men who control you to get their own way, men who take what they want anyway when they don’t get their own way.
Men who do not listen to women’s words the same way they listen to other men’s; men who turn you invisible unless they want to f–k you; men who only want to be your friend because they want to f–k you; men who call you ‘intellectually dishonest’ for using emotion and context to argue a point; men who back you into corners physically, emotionally, verbally.
Men who call you ‘crazy’; ‘hormonal’; ‘irrational’; ‘emotional’, men who will not allow your anger to be recognised as a valid emotional response, or your sadness, your distrust.
Men who make you feel the most loved, safe, and cared for after they have abused you.
Men who make you question your reality by telling you with conviction that it is wrong.
Men who take away your sense of independence and self by controlling your every move, and by telling you a better way to do every little thing you’ve taught yourself.
Men who dissolve your self esteem by belittling and insulting you, and calling you names.
Men who tell you that your reasonable emotional reactions are abusive, and infringe on their rights to do whatever they want to do.
Men who do not stop whatever they are doing to you when you ask.
Men who look you in the eyes and lie to you every day to protect their double lives.
I am so tired of absorbing all of this.

Who are these men who do these things to Kate? We don’t know.

She doesn’t name them, but she is apparently surrounded by them, and we are thus unable to offer any advice or assistance to her. She is a helpless victim of men — men! men! men! — and it would seem she offers this catalog of masculine “badness” in the expectation that other women will recognize the pattern. Yet we might notice how Kate lists men’s reactions when they “don’t get their own way,” as if she can’t see that the entirety of her complaint involves her own dissatisfaction because she can’t get her own way with them. Men don’t behave the way Kate wants them to behave, men don’t say and do things the way Kate wants things to be said and done, and their failure to live up to her expectations — their unwillingness to comply with the imperious demands of Queen Kate — is proof that she is a victim of male oppression.

She is inviting us to a pity party where she is the guest of honor. If men reject that invitation, this just proves how bad men are, because they “will not allow your anger to be recognised as a valid emotional response, or your sadness, your distrust.”

Why wouldn’t male contempt for her be “a valid emotional response”? Men are the way we are in part because we must be that way in order to be recognized as men, as responsible adults. Nobody wants to hear a man complain about his problems. Women can be especially merciless in their contempt for any man who expresses a sense of emotional suffering, and many women are deliberately sadistic toward men. Some women enjoy nothing better than to insult a man and then mock him as a “whiner” if he takes notice of the insult. Women who take pride in their own cruelty toward men are invariably the same women who complain when men fail to treat them with solicitude and kindness. Such women are never able to admit that they are even partially responsible for their inability either to attract good men or to sustain relationships with the men they do attract.

Fear and Loathing of the Penis — a paranoid resentment of men, characterized by irrational suspicion — is the underlying mental condition that feminism turns into a political ideology. What disturbs me, after months of studying this phenomenon, is that this madness is both contagious and incurable. Feminism is a sort of cultural virus that, once it takes hold in a woman’s mind, makes it impossible for her to relate to men in a normal manner and, because misery loves company, she feels compelled to share her hateful anti-male attitudes with other women. If left untreated, the effects of this dangerous malady are well known.




 

 

“There are no Christian feminists, because feminism is a sort of narcissistic idolatry, wherein women deny God and instead worship themselves as their own divinity.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Dec. 17

 

 

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! As to envy, I have always thought Freudian psychology — “penis envy,” “Oedipus complex,” “castration anxiety,” etc. — to be a lot of mythical pseudo-scientific humbug. However, Freud did say this:

“Women have but little sense of justice, and this is no doubt connected with the preponderance of envy in their mental life.”

Like so much else Freud said about women, this seems insulting if read as a general statement applicable to all women. We should remember, however, that much of Freud’s practice involved treating neurotic women, the unhappy wives and daughters of the upper classes. As a description of a certain type of woman, his statement is certainly true. Envy is a poisonous emotion, and is antithetical to a sense of justice. The characteristic rage of feminists — their angry insistence that every advantage enjoyed by men is an unearned “privilege,” and that all women suffer oppression because of “male supremacy” — is entirely consistent with Freud’s observation of how “the preponderance of envy” manifests itself in the behavior of neurotic women.

UPDATE II: Linked by That Mr. G’s Blog, Brian Cragin and Doug at Daley Gator — thanks! — and our friend Doug apparently felt a need to pour salt in the wound. It should be sufficient to report facts and let people draw their own conclusions.

Of course, some conclusions are more obvious than others.

 

Category: Fear. Loathing., Feminism, Sex Trouble

Comments

196 Responses to “Fear and Loathing of the Penis”

  1. Quartermaster
    February 14th, 2015 @ 10:45 am

    You mean full of feminist insanity. Not a bit of theory present.

  2. Quartermaster
    February 14th, 2015 @ 10:56 am

    It. He was never a she, and can never be a she. The cosmetic surgery required to make him look like a she merely made him an it.

    A real Cousin It.

  3. sestamibi
    February 14th, 2015 @ 10:58 am

    Eventually all this will pass since none of them have kids and they won’t be able to convert the children of others to their cause.
    Don’t believe me? Consider some halftime scores:
    Michelle Duggar, 19
    Sandra Fluke, 0
    Mitt Romney, 18
    Bill Clinton, 1

  4. Ruffin
    February 14th, 2015 @ 11:04 am

    “Hate” is a strong word, but mine can be a pain in the tuckus sometimes. Particularly when she starts ranting about feminist nonsense.

  5. RS
    February 14th, 2015 @ 11:10 am

    Is the nose ring a hipster fashion statement or is it a bit of unintentional irony, given that nose rings were and are used to guide livestock around, not to mention war captives during antiquity?

  6. RS
    February 14th, 2015 @ 11:11 am

    My comment below was made before I say yours. You beat me to it.

  7. RS
    February 14th, 2015 @ 11:15 am

    A Catholic priest, a Baptist pastor and a rabbi walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, “What is this? Some kind of joke?”

  8. ChandlersGhost
    February 14th, 2015 @ 11:52 am

    Hubba hubba!

    I denounce myself.

  9. Chuck Pelto
    February 14th, 2015 @ 11:57 am

    Just a classic ‘tease’…..

  10. Chuck Pelto
    February 14th, 2015 @ 11:58 am

    RE: Understanding

    You’re reminding me of Dr. Emmett Brown from Back to the Future, when he’s going to give up on time travel and study the other great mystery of the Universe…..women.

  11. Chuck Pelto
    February 14th, 2015 @ 12:02 pm

    RE: Sanity Checks

    There is only one thing men and women have in common…..they both do not trust women.

  12. Dana
    February 14th, 2015 @ 12:35 pm

    So, you could be her father?

  13. Dana
    February 14th, 2015 @ 12:36 pm

    I always thought that it made people look like they had a booger hanging out.

  14. Dana
    February 14th, 2015 @ 12:40 pm

    Now that the tribe is not threatened with physical danger, it appears that other dangers have had to be made up, not to continue the need for men, but to subjugate men.

  15. Dana
    February 14th, 2015 @ 12:42 pm

    You are a h8ful h8ey h8er, and should be thoroughly denounced!

  16. jakee308
    February 14th, 2015 @ 12:42 pm

    Power to the Penis!

    Thrust aside the shrieking harpies and penetrate the mystery of who would think of sex with any of those people.

    Let us spread the word and the word is VAGINA!!!

  17. Dana
    February 14th, 2015 @ 12:44 pm

    Some of us think that you’ve already let go of the precipice and are falling . . . .

  18. Daniel Freeman
    February 14th, 2015 @ 12:49 pm

    Sure, why not?

    A Nazi, a pedophile, and a misogynist walk into a bar. The bartender looks up and says, “Oh hi, Simone.”

  19. Fear and Loathing of the Penis |
    February 14th, 2015 @ 1:00 pm

    […] The Other McCain: […]

  20. TheAmishDude
    February 14th, 2015 @ 1:06 pm

    I know these people don’t interact with men, but do they interact with other women? How could anybody stand to deal with somebody like this?

  21. TheAmishDude
    February 14th, 2015 @ 1:07 pm

    Drugs.

  22. Jacksaid
    February 14th, 2015 @ 1:07 pm

    Chuck Pelto: I’m in awe of your amazing resume. What a worthy life you have lived and the contribution’s you have given to your country. I salute you!

  23. Jeanette Victoria
    February 14th, 2015 @ 1:08 pm

    I don’t even understand women

  24. Jeanette Victoria
    February 14th, 2015 @ 1:11 pm

    Heh I’m a retired psych tech (sort of a LVN for the mentaly ill) I haven’t a clue about women. My female co-workers were almost as dysfunctional as our patients (just almost) Especially the younger women.

  25. Fail Burton
    February 14th, 2015 @ 1:13 pm

    I think what he was saying is there is not alternate to water is wet. It’s just wet. There is no alternate history where it is not wet. There is no if this had happened…

  26. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    February 14th, 2015 @ 1:17 pm

    For the ladies:

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-q3OTT4a4tmo/VN-LC7XN8GI/AAAAAAAArWg/aVangmFwzzg/s1600/n-CLEAN-570.jpg

  27. K-Bob
    February 14th, 2015 @ 1:19 pm

    The men who make lath strips, cardboard, poster paper, markers, paints and brushes must have raped these women into using their products.

    And hey, while we’re at it, let’s spread the meme:

    #ProtestIsRape

  28. Squid Hunt
    February 14th, 2015 @ 1:21 pm

    Sounds like money well spent. Hope she atleast got a solid career out of her four years of indoctrination.

  29. K-Bob
    February 14th, 2015 @ 1:21 pm

    Ugly chick with glasses in the middle of the photo makes all of them look hot.

    Wait, nevermind. Metrosexual.

  30. K-Bob
    February 14th, 2015 @ 1:30 pm

    I get it. I hate nose “jewelry”. Looks like shiny snot.

    But it isn’t the look that’s the problem. I know a LOT of young people who look like that, and many of them are solid, decent folks who just like the Bohemian lifestyle.

    There’s a whole bunch of them that are trying to do urban homesteading in ruined Detroit. Things like rebuilding those old mansions, farming the vacant lots, etc. Mostly art freaks. Probably all Obama voters (those that bother to drag themselves to the voting booth).

    Oddly enough, many of the claim to hate hipsters and hippies, both.

    Many will be like this chick, it’s true. But most of them would roll their eyes at people like her for being obsessed with “the man” and not really down with the whole, “off the grid” lifestyle.

  31. Squid Hunt
    February 14th, 2015 @ 1:30 pm

    This is SOP for the left. They lift themselves to the level of accredited, then they begin taking over as gatekeeper. Then they control the discourse. See news media, Hollywood movies, college professors, Human Resources offices, etc.

  32. K-Bob
    February 14th, 2015 @ 1:32 pm

    I used to know some fine fellas who worked on EDM machines. Those are still used to cut really thick slabs of metal in intricate shapes.

  33. Squid Hunt
    February 14th, 2015 @ 1:35 pm

    I think most feminists would probably do very well in that culture. Their real problem is lack of self control, lack of identity, and self loathing. Daddy issues. A culture like ISIS would define boundaries, give them identities, and reinforce it with the punishment to scratch their self loathing itch. It’s exactly what they need and crave.

  34. rayc22558
    February 14th, 2015 @ 2:36 pm

    That night was so fuzzy. (Tongue firmly planted in cheek)

  35. Bill Maher: ObamaCare Largely Sucks | Regular Right Guy
    February 14th, 2015 @ 2:40 pm

    […] Fear and Loathing of the Penis […]

  36. Fail Burton
    February 14th, 2015 @ 3:06 pm

    “Cherchez la femme mental case” – Simone de Mental Case.

  37. Fail Burton
    February 14th, 2015 @ 3:07 pm

    A gender feminist couldn’t produce the industrial base to produce a Bic pen.

  38. Fail Burton
    February 14th, 2015 @ 3:11 pm

    They’d be shot in the head and pitched into a river.

  39. Fail Burton
    February 14th, 2015 @ 3:15 pm

    “I’ll have a Shirley Temple… straight.”

  40. Adobe_Walls
    February 14th, 2015 @ 3:16 pm

    I’d say it has a great deal to do with the left.
    It’s the immorality and amorality of the left that encourages the politics of envy and zero-sum that are the only avenues available to the victimists. With the exception of women and ethnic minorities, the various victimist groups represent tiny percentages of the left overall. It is only as members of the left’s overall coalition that allows these tiny groups to ”punch above their weight”. This is why they CAN NOT allow any deviancy among the larger left from their narrow strident agendas. What they’ve already begun to suspect is that the Left’s pretensions to principled support for their agendas are just that, pretensions, as the Left has no principles other than the will to power. These tiny sects of victimist have never been anything more than mere weapons in the larger quest for power. When they threaten the larger Left power structure or simply lose effectiveness as a weapon they are no longer relevant to anybody. The larger elements of the Left such as African-Americans or the Unions have no inherent interest in transgender affirmation or any of the other far fringe sects in the Left coalition. The belief in zero-sum ideology must at some point apply within the coalition as well as apply to the coalition’s opponents. The environmental extremists opposition to the Keystone pipeline is in direct conflict with their union allies interests. Increased immigration is in direct conflict with poor and working class Blacks as well as the White working class. At some point Blacks will come to that same realization. Even worse for Blacks, as the Hispanic demographic grows Blacks importance to and concern from the Left will diminish. Zero-sum politics means zero-sum results, both within and without the Left coalition.

  41. Chuck Pelto
    February 14th, 2015 @ 3:16 pm

    RE: Pardon My French

    Mais….

    Cherche des cas mentaux de femmes

  42. Chuck Pelto
    February 14th, 2015 @ 3:28 pm

    RE: [OT] Life Worth Living

    It was interesting….

    There are two axioms I’ve learned from it.

    You haven’t lived until you’ve almost died.

    Been there. Done that. The t-shirts have long since gone into the rag bin.

    If you had a life in the first place, you’ll never have a mid-life crisis.

    You might have some divorces because of feminism and your unwillingness to be a beta-male. But it will be ‘interesting’.

    [NOTE: Years after my lieutenancy in the 82d, I encountered my first company commander.

    He, amongst all our recollection, was the only officer STILL married to his lovely wife from that time. That’s a 99% failure rate.]

  43. Miss Conduct
    February 14th, 2015 @ 4:02 pm

    This all gives me a headache. I think I’ll take my vagina and go have a glass of wine. Just enjoy men for what they are – creators of all things necessary and all things fun and all they want in order to share these things with you is sex. So give it with joy and enthusiasm!

  44. Adobe_Walls
    February 14th, 2015 @ 4:29 pm

    Undoubtedly.

  45. Alexander Rawls
    February 14th, 2015 @ 4:45 pm

    One of the most basic human instincts is to try to seek advantage by making claims of victimization and for redress. It is a primary part of the manipulative dishonesty that I call “the female vice,” in contrast to the male vice of aggressive violence.

    This is a direct result of the division of labor within the family between the man and the woman. That division of labor assigns to the man the responsibility to make himself in some degree into a wielder of personal power. As the primary source of income for the family unit, he has to make his way in the world, carving out at least some niche where he can either create value that he can sell to others outside of the family unit, or steal value from outside of the family unit.

    The male vice is to take the stealing route instead of the producing-value and selling it route, but either way, he has to go out into the world and bring value back to the family. The woman, in contrast, mostly operates within the home. Because she does not have to be a power in the world she is not as physically strong as the man, and she is not as driven to be a direct wielder of power. This leaves her under the power of the man, which leads here to become, not a direct wielder of power, but a manipulator of power.

    Just as the man has a cooperatively productive way he can use his power (by creating and selling) and a socially destructive way he can use his power (by stealing), so too does the woman’s indirect manipulative power have cooperative and destructive possibilities. If she loves her man and thinks in terms of what is good for both of them then the many different forms of leverage she has in the relationship, from being industrious or not, to being loving or angry, to the arguments she makes, will tend to increase productivity and happiness within the home.

    But women also “steal.” Their indirect manipulative power is also subject to being used in anti-social ways, focusing on their own power and welfare relative to them mans. They turn the internal dynamics of the relationship into a power struggle, where they aren’t focused on the productivity of the relationship, but on their relative place within it. They want to be the powerful one, and it tends to be petty and emotional, because the woman’s world is internal to the relationship. They want their emotional needs attended to, and they measure the relationship by how much the relationship is about them.

    Such women focus on every little thing they can find a way to complain about, and when a person is looking for things to take as slights or disparities, there are endless possibilities. Instead of trying to make sense and see both sides and see the larger picture of a couple proceeding on a rational division of labor that makes the best use of both of their strengths, there is just self-driven acrimony.

    Both the male and the female vices have the same result: they are nothing but destructive to cooperative relations, making mutual benefit impossible. In the case of the male vice, we actually pass laws against it, and try as a society to root out and actually exterminate this behavior. The female counterpart is just as destructive, but it takes place within the relationship where there is no larger social reach. The men who are afflicted by these women just leave them and that is the only social recourse.

    I agree with Stacy that the female vice, once acquired, is pretty much an incurable disease. Finding ways to see oneself is an addiction, both ridiculously easy to do (imagine a person trying to quit smoking while constantly surrounded by lit cigarettes), and offering a seeming way at least in the immediate circumstance of making things better. A claim to victimization is a claim to redress, and so long as the relationship exists, such claims yield some manipulative power.

    Of course the relationship explodes, but does the practitioner of the female vice learn from this? No, like the Australian woman who Stacy quotes, she stands and rages to the world, proclaiming her anger and the legitimacy of her claims of victimization and her insistence that they have force in her relationships. The explosions of her relationships only affirms her victimization.

    Personally I think that whether a male or a female falls into the vice of their sex is primarily genetic. Some people are born to see the larger picture, to want to make their way in the world by being productive and getting rewarded for it while others are born to steal. Criminality is one of nature’s most persistent experiments. Nature itself makes no moral judgment. Animals that steal are as common as animals that produce.

    The difference with humans is that we are moral animals. We can see the larger picture and judge how we want to live, and here is where a difference between men and women can be seen. Exerting power in the world requires rationality. You have to think straight, where as wielding power indirectly is manipulation, where the whole idea is often to evade thinking straight, making the case for things that are not so.

    Thus the male-female division of labor enhances men’s ability to think straight and see the larger picture, resulting in the systems of law that men created to suppress the male vice of aggressive violence or theft. But the woman’s sphere is more emotional and more manipulative with still a high premium on thinking straight, but not as high as in the man’s world of the surrounding reality, and so it isn’t surprising that women would be especially susceptible to vice, even if it is not in their genes, making it in some measure, yes, contagious.

    Of course the same contagion does spread amongst men too. Look at all the blacks who find ways to see themselves as victims. Whites, rationally fearing the extreme risk of criminal violence presented by unknown blacks, cross to the other side of the street, and it is the blacks who seeing this somehow imagine that it is THEY who are the victims. Imagine if a black in the old south, where blacks legitimately feared violence from whites, crossed the street to avoid whites, and the whites tried to claim that this showed that it was really whites who are being victimized?

    All of our identity group politics are driven by the female vice of manipulative dishonesty, seeking dishonest ways to make claims of victimization and for redress. The present day Democratic Party is a stitched-together coalition of such manipulatively dishonest groups, banding together to create a tyrannical majority that steals from the remaining minority (though they often steal from each other as well).

    We live in the age of the female vice. We figured out how to beat the male vice, but now the female vice is ascendant (allowing the male vice to resurge across the Muslim world, where it was ever only suppressed externally). We had better get the moral men and women back in control or we are doomed. Male and female vices must BOTH be expunged.

  46. dicentra
    February 14th, 2015 @ 5:40 pm

    Thing is, I read witchwind’s stuff and I realize that she is herself a badly damaged person. It’s not hard to imagine that she was groomed for sex at an early age by a pedophile and that years of abuse messed her up such that for her, all PIV indeed feels like rape.

    Similarly abused women tend to agree with her. Many abused women turn to lesbianism because they absolutely cannot trust men, and trust is HUGE for women when it comes to sexual attraction because of the emotional vulnerability.

    Unfortunately, today’s RadFem crowd is made up primarily of similarly damaged people, and our society is so messed up that instead of taking such women aside and saying, “hey, it sounds like you’ve had a really rough time of it; how ’bout we get you some help,” such women are feted and admired for their “edginess” and “courage” and are given the keys to the agenda.

    “All PIV is rape” is provocative, after all, which means it’s the new frontier rather than a symptom of something gone wrong.

    Our society has lost the ability to tell the difference between healthy and unhealthy sexual attitudes. Because sexuality is at the core of our beings as individuals, this very private sickness makes the whole society sick.

    I mean, look at Islam, with it’s own form of sexual sickness, leading to rage against Teh Other (with a considerable assist from cynical leaders); with us, it’s made us unable to form permanent, healthy bonds between the sexes.

    If you haven’t read this article about the connection between sex and state power, get ye over there and do so: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/07/sex_and_state_power.html A lot of things will begin to make sense that didn’t before.

  47. dicentra
    February 14th, 2015 @ 5:41 pm

    Zat you Dar?

  48. dicentra
    February 14th, 2015 @ 5:46 pm

    “Penis envy” is something Freud cooked up for no discernible reason, along with the Oedipal Complex and other imaginary constructs that modern psychology rejects but that humanities departments still embrace.

    Freud also posited “vagina dentata” to describe male sexual anxiety and said that because women’s sex organs are internal, they’ve got some hidden forbidden quality about them.

    Ignoring completely the chesticular area, wherein a woman’s sexuality is there for all to see, even when she covers up.

  49. dicentra
    February 14th, 2015 @ 5:49 pm

    Men are superior in ways that are important to men.

    Women are superior in ways that are important to women.

    The healthy society recognizes that Yin and Yang are complementarities of equal rank and that masculinity and femininity must be united and balanced and symbiotic and all that stuff.

    Which is why same-sex marriage is problematic: you’re excluding one of the sexes, which is unbalanced and unstable. Quite apart from the desires of the participants, society has an interest in honoring fundamental relationships that include both flavors of person.

  50. Finrod Felagund
    February 14th, 2015 @ 6:37 pm

    Never heard of the furlong/firkin/fortnight measurement system?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFF_system