The Other McCain

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


Posted on | April 14, 2015 | 39 Comments

Exactly how I never before noticed the blog “Owning Your Sh*t,” I’m not sure. This lady has got it nailed cold:

Okay, someone commenting on my last video scoffed at my assertion that unless our attitudes change, society will, sooner or later, reach a…well, let’s call it a “fempocalypse.” That is, that feminism will eventually help bring about an economic and social collapse.
Many people are simply unable to wrap their heads around that idea, because we’ve all been told, ad nauseum, that feminism is a cause of prosperity, when in reality, it is largely–perhaps entirely–a consequence of it.

Watch the video:

Here is a key paragraph:

“By prioritizing women in education at all levels, we have handicapped men’s ability to be as productive as the system needs them to be to maintain itself. By encouraging single motherhood and allowing women to banish fathers from their children’s lives, we’re creating half a generation of boys who risk becoming unemployable and expensive burdens on the system as adults, and half a generation of girls who are more likely to perpetuate and exacerbate the problem by becoming single mothers themselves.”

These two factors are interrelated. When you separate motherhood from marriage — by subsidizing illegitimacy and incentivizing divorce — you are consequently disincentivizing the behaviors necessary to successful marriage. That is to say, where women’s desire to become mothers requires them first to attract a man’s commitment to monogamy, mothers will teach their daughters (and other cultural institutions will support this teaching) how to be the kind of women men want to marry. Meanwhile, in a marriage-oriented society, men will strive to become the kind of men that women admire and respect, in order to obtain the benefits of marriage.

Break this connection, however, and the whole thing unravels. Men and women can behave however they wish, without really losing anything. If everybody is selfish and irresponsible, and if “society” (i.e., the taxpayer) enables these attitudes and behaviors, then why teach your daughter the virtues of the Good Wife? Or why teach your son to strive toward the kind of behavior necessary to attract and keep the Good Wife? Let him be a “playa” with a string of “baby mamas,” and so what? Furthermore, since women can’t rely on men to behave responsibly, “prioritizing women in education at all levels” is necessary so that women can fend for themselves. Why invest in education for boys, if males are just lazy, violent, selfish, unreliable creatures who contribute nothing useful to society?

These attitudes are part of a syndrome that is like a snowball rolling downhill, gathering momentum until, next thing you know, it’s Detroit.

“Owning Your Sh*t Is” is an awesome blog, and you should follow her (@girlwriteswhat) on Twitter, too.



39 Responses to “‘Fempocalypse’”

  1. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    April 15th, 2015 @ 12:27 am

    Idiocracy is starting to look like a positive look on the future, the reality is far far bleaker.

  2. Daniel Freeman
    April 15th, 2015 @ 12:42 am

    I could go on and on about Karen Straughan (@GirlWritesWhat). She’s a superstar in men’s rights and a rising star among libertarians. Although Canadian, she’s known internationally. Since this blog is primarily focused on U.S. politics, I’ll leave you with this from a couple of years ago:

  3. Law Professor Lisa T. McElroy had a really bad day Rule 5 | Batshit Crazy News
    April 15th, 2015 @ 12:42 am

    […] Fempocalypse and What do you expect from a Canadian education […]

  4. M. Thompson
    April 15th, 2015 @ 1:12 am

    “Exile-And Glory” by Jerry Pournelle is the most honest view forward from the 1960 and 70s I’ve read. Bureaucratization destroying American Life, and PC running amok to prevent people’s advancement.

    God ha’ pity on we!

  5. Matt_SE
    April 15th, 2015 @ 1:15 am

    That sums it all up.
    I noticed years ago that the societies that were most equal between the sexes were historically the ones on the verge of collapse.

  6. RS
    April 15th, 2015 @ 6:49 am

    This is the point which those “conservatives” who wish to eliminate discussion of social issues in order to win elections don’t realize. the institutions of traditional marriage and the family are not incidental to our nation’s economic success. They are the foundation of it. Standing idly by while those institutions are destroyed ultimately leads to the destruction of everything else.

  7. Quartermaster
    April 15th, 2015 @ 8:48 am

    There are far too many people that are myopic in this area. Those who try to boil things down to a single issue (I’m looking at you NRA) and ignore the moral aspects of society, are simply going to watch things fall apart and wonder why those “stupid socons” won’t shut up and let the “adults” fix things. An immoral people will fail as civilization can not be maintained without morals, and morals, for the west, came from Christianity.

  8. Finrod Felagund
    April 15th, 2015 @ 9:19 am

    That and Harrison Bergeron.

  9. Eric Ashley
    April 15th, 2015 @ 9:24 am

    Well said, gentlemen, well said.

    I’ve speculated that the so-called ‘conservatives’ hate socons more than they love liberty. Let me suggest, that if given a choice between a virtuous and free society, or a totalitarian amorality, they would pick the latter.

    Perhaps the solution is, in part, to assume their wrong, and move on forward…..’no, I’m not voiting for Jeb Bush, neither is anyone else, so lets have a real discussion on the choices between ….” ?????

  10. Eric Ashley
    April 15th, 2015 @ 9:24 am

    Very, very impressive. She should write a book.

  11. RS
    April 15th, 2015 @ 9:38 am

    I’ve speculated that the so-called ‘conservatives’ hate socons more than they love liberty.

    I think what they love is an idea of a libertine social order with low taxes. Stated differently, they fail to grasp that economic liberty is predicated ultimately on the traditional family unit and its desire to protect its own and provide for itself.

    The alternative to it can only be the state. The economic “conservative’s” desire for or at least tolerance of a life which approximates no-holds-barred college kegger ultimately leads to what the highlighted video discusses. Certainly Feminism is a culprit, but the anti-marriage, anti-family wing of “conservatives” are not helping. They think that by ignoring social issues like abortion, gay marriage and the like, the problems caused by those things will disappear and a flat tax will magically become law.

    To paraphrase the Bible, such conservatives have a form of conservatism, but they deny the foundation thereof.

  12. RS
    April 15th, 2015 @ 9:41 am

    There is a place for single issue organizations. While the NRA, to use your example, focuses on the Second Amendment, there is certainly a lot of cross-pollination between its membership and other true conservative causes. Sometimes a division of labor can be a good thing.

  13. Matt_SE
    April 15th, 2015 @ 9:43 am

    I’ve heard that argument before, but I still agree with the NRA’s approach. For them to do otherwise would be an invitation to bureaucratic mission creep, and that always ends in disaster.

  14. Shawn Smith
    April 15th, 2015 @ 11:17 am

    Yup, you cannot have a fiscal conservative’s small government without a social conservative’s family values. The latter enables the former. Tearing down the family values creates a society of selfish nihilists who must be controlled by an intrusive big government because they will it control themselves.

  15. Daniel Freeman
    April 15th, 2015 @ 11:39 am

    Indeed, it goes both ways. As we have seen, the regulation of the economy is the proverbial “camel’s nose in the tent” for the regulation of conscience. Virtually every aspect of human life involves commerce.

    Today the florists and bakers are no longer free to refuse to do something; tomorrow it will be everyone. Without individual freedom, there is no freedom at all.

  16. DeadMessenger
    April 15th, 2015 @ 11:48 am

    Perhaps the solution is a redefinition of terms. For instance, we should stop saying we are “conservative” or “liberal”, as some may be conservative on some issues, but liberal on others (though not wackadoodle liberal; that’s another thing altogether).

    Rather, we should use the terms “individualist” or “collectivist” on the grounds that “collectivist” implies collectivist in all things (as there is no other way to implement such a society), and “individualist” implies individual freedom in all things.

  17. DeadMessenger
    April 15th, 2015 @ 11:49 am

    I’d buy it.

  18. Daniel Freeman
    April 15th, 2015 @ 11:54 am

    That is what the political compass is for, because they are independent variables. “Totalitarian amorality” would be left-authoritarian, while “traditional freedom” would be in the opposite corner, right-libertarian.

  19. Love, Valerie: Smooches All Around for MSNBC Staff | Regular Right Guy
    April 15th, 2015 @ 11:56 am

    […] ‘Fempocalypse’ […]

  20. Quartermaster
    April 15th, 2015 @ 1:36 pm

    The problem with the NRA’s approach is that other things are going around them, and when those things have them fully invested, the position of eh NRA will be lost.

    Liberty is a package. The left understands that well, and the NRA refuses to do so. It will not work out well.

  21. Quartermaster
    April 15th, 2015 @ 1:40 pm

    There’s nothing wrong with the term Conservative, but we need to say it loud and strong when we get some poseur trying to adopt the label for selfish reasons that such people are not conservative. Little jebbie and dubya are two good examples of this.

    FisCons are not conservatives either. Conservatism is a package, and trying to leave out the moral part is to strip the entire thing to the bone. FisCons are simply fakers.

  22. Quartermaster
    April 15th, 2015 @ 1:41 pm

    I can’t lay hands on my copy, but I seem to recall that the title was “Exile To Glory.”

  23. Zohydro
    April 15th, 2015 @ 1:53 pm

    Where Yours Truly falls on the Political Compass axes:

    Economic Left/Right:

    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.36

    I’m too close to the centre for my own comfort… This can’t be right!

  24. M. Thompson
    April 15th, 2015 @ 1:54 pm

    “Exile to Glory” was collected with short stories in the same setting a few years back. The omnibus was entitled “Exile- and Glory” a few years back by Baen.

  25. Zohydro
    April 15th, 2015 @ 1:59 pm

    I suppose this may be due in large part to my answers being merely “agree” or “disagree” to most questions, rather than “strongly agree or disagree”…

  26. Daniel Freeman
    April 15th, 2015 @ 2:09 pm

    I’m too close to the centre for my own comfort… This can’t be right!

    They take a global, historical perspective, and today’s American left is not the same as even twenty years ago. Radical extremists control the institutions of here and now, so even an average human would feel like an insurgent.

    The Flaming Rage Nozzles of Tolerance continue to alienate the silent middle, and there isn’t anything that the Democrats can do to stop them, since the zealots are their base.

  27. Daniel Freeman
    April 15th, 2015 @ 2:27 pm

    I respectfully disagree. The ACLU’s gradual transformation to supporting “civil rights” over their eponymous “civil liberties” has destroyed their credibility as an issue-oriented organization. The NRA serves a valuable role among mixed-values voters by reinforcing a love of freedom and the Constitution, which serves as an entry point for other arguments.

  28. Quartermaster
    April 15th, 2015 @ 3:49 pm

    Their problem is that they think they can erect a monument at one point and fight the entire battle, when all the enemy does is bypass them, and that’s what’s happening. You either fight for the entire package, or you are wasting your time in the long run.

  29. theoldsargesays
    April 15th, 2015 @ 5:28 pm

    “Abortion on Demand & Without Apology”
    That certainly sounds “progressive”.

  30. theoldsargesays
    April 15th, 2015 @ 5:39 pm
  31. DeadMessenger
    April 15th, 2015 @ 8:02 pm

    Good point.

  32. Quartermaster
    April 15th, 2015 @ 8:27 pm

    IIRC, Exile to Glory was a full story about a college kid, who had gotten caught out by the SJW bureaucrats who dead ended him, going to the asteroid belt with McKenzie’s daughter, who was traveling incognito because of corruption on the part of a project manager in the belt.

    High Justice was a collection of short stories.

    Jerry has collected a number of his novels and collections in an omnibus. I knew he had one for the mercenary series, “The Prince,” which I have, and knew he one or two others, but wasn’t really interested in much of his other stuff.

  33. M. Thompson
    April 15th, 2015 @ 10:09 pm

    It is what I’m referring to.

  34. Quartermaster
    April 16th, 2015 @ 9:48 am

    Jerry Pournelle proposed a two dimensional scheme that is not properly described over at Wikipedia (and they won’t let him correct it) that is quite workable. The FisCons are actually in the same quadrant with the wackadoodles, and that’s appropriate as their outlook is just as unrealistic as that of the loonies.

  35. Quartermaster
    April 16th, 2015 @ 9:58 am

    Econ Left/Right: 0.13 Authoritarian: 1.74.
    I guess I’m going to put y’all in KZs before the day is over. Like most things of that sort, I would have to know what the mentality behind the ratings are before I can give it much credence.

  36. Quartermaster
    April 16th, 2015 @ 10:00 am

    A lot of my answers would have fallen neutral if that had been an option. That’s one weakness of such tests. Looking at where they place certain groups, with Liberal Democrats falling Libertarian, I’d have to question how they make their determinations. Liberal Dimocrats are as authoritarian as they come.

  37. Zohydro
    April 16th, 2015 @ 12:30 pm has a much better political test… I believe the methodology is quite valid…

    My results with the customary self-denunciation:

  38. Robert What?
    April 17th, 2015 @ 8:44 am

    Yes, I’ve been dropping in on GirlWritesWhat for some time. Very interesting and provocative. How indeed is the machine going to perpetuate itself with fewer and fewer producers feeding it? Abolish the 13th Amendment? Oh wait – they already did that in the 16th.

  39. Radium
    April 19th, 2015 @ 8:07 am

    A few decades ago, Detroit was the most prosperous city on the planet. Now it is a social wasteland. This was accomplished by giving low skilled women the option of working or staying home with their children if (and only if) they make decisions that will harm their children. This was an easy choice for many.

    Breaking the western democracies takes an extra step. Middle class women want more than a subsistence living. They understood they could have more by marrying than taking welfare. However, they also didn’t want to be tied to their commitments so feminists lobbied for no fault divorce. This way they could take the children, house, and their husband’s income if they wanted to opt out of their commitments.

    Of course, the children of divorced parents are not as successful as children raised by two biological parents. It takes a couple more generations to destroy an entire society than just the portions with low skilled workers.