‘Intense and Overwhelming Narcissism’

Posted on | December 25, 2015 | 78 Comments

Feminists coined the term “Peak Trans Moment” to describe the point at which they became disgusted with transgender ideology. One woman who related her experiences complained that transgender activists “expect to co-opt feminist time and attention away from their own issues to trans issues, and they expect it as their right.” Why aren’t transgender activists supportive of women?

Their intense and overwhelming narcissism won’t allow it, and anyway, they have no genuine concern for women, because women are nothing more than a sexual resource to them.
These are the same kind of men who transition, identify as a “lesbian”, and then immediately expect some kind of Welcome Wagon gift basket of sex for it.

In other words, the transgender movement is about selfishness and entitlement, and these misguided men in dresses exploit “feminism” as a means to recruit women to participate in their delusional fantasies. Having their counterfeit womanhood accepted by women is an essential part of the transgender fetish. Relating the story of “a very socially-awkward man who had never had a successful relationship with a woman” before deciding to “transition,” the feminist summarizes the psychology of what we might call Transgender Rage Syndrome:

They feel like failures as men; well, what is a woman to them but a failed man? Therefore they must be “women.” And being a woman is a life on easy mode according to them, so after they transition they start to get angry. Where is all of the constant fawning attention they were expecting? Where are the pajama parties and makeovers and shoe-shopping and cocktails with the “girls” that’s owed to them? Why are their expectations and needs not a constant priority with the women they meet?

This is an insightful analysis, but where did transgender activists get their ideas of using “gender” as a weapon to manipulate others? Where did this victimhood mentality originate? Oh, that’s right — feminism.

If “the personal is political,” as Carol Hanisch said, who can define the limits of this ideology? If radical feminism is just the rationalization of personal grievance — a means of converting hurt feelings into a political “cause” — then what kind of reactions would we expect, as the logical obverse, from men who “feel like failures as men”? A proliferation of perversity and insanity, perhaps?

Radical feminists are complaining about the unintended consequences of a social revolution they have deliberately fomented, but who is to blame for their failure to study history? They are quite like those Bolsheviks — Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Bukharin — who were later purged and murdered by Stalin. “The dictatorship of the proletariat” was a more brutal tyranny than the Tsarist regime. The Bolsheviks had endorsed the annihilation of the Romanovs, and had no legitimate defense when they themselves were targeted for annihilation in The Great Terror.

Those who invoke “social justice” and “equality” as the slogans of revolution seldom consider such sobering lessons of history. Other revolutionaries no less determined (and, in their own minds, no less well-intentioned) have been responsible for creating the most deadly nightmares in human history and many revolutionaries were killed by the monstrous dictatorships they helped create.

That a feminist revolution might have negative consequences for women — including feminists themselves — should have been obvious long ago. In 1995, Wellesley College economics professor Julie Matthaei (“a Marxist living in a modern-day commune in Cambridge”) published a treatise called “The Sexual Division of Labor, Sexuality, and Lesbian/Gay Liberation: Toward a Marxist-Feminist Analysis of Sexuality in U.S. Capitalism,” which is included in the 2007 textbook anthology Queer Economics edited by Joyce Jacobsen and Adam Zeller. Professor Mattaei argues (pp. 217-218):

The feminist movement of the 1970s and 1980s was closely linked to lesbianism. On the one hand, lesbians had a higher stake than heterosexual married women in accessing well-paid jobs, since lesbians did not have access to “family wages” through husbands. Furthermore, lesbians . . . were less fearful of losing their “womanhood” and attractiveness to men if they took on “men’s jobs” than were heterosexual women. Thus lesbians made up a disproportionate part of the ranks of feminists among all class and racial-ethnic groups. . . .
Furthermore, feminist analysis and the movement . . . have resulted in the “coming out” of many involved. First, feminists developed a critique of the sexual division of labor and of gender roles as being both restrictive to all and oppressive to women. Second, they directly criticized heterosexual marriage because of its subordination of women to men as unpaid servants and sexual objects. Third, many feminists put forth lesbianism as a viable alternative — even, some argued, the appropriate feminist choice, a form of resistance to patriarchy that is more symmetrical and egalitarian than heterosexuality. . . . Many of the leading early feminist theorists — such as Adrienne Rich, Andrea Dworkin, Gayle Rubin, Charlotte Bunch, Mary Daly, Audre Lorde, Barbara Smith, Cherrie Moraga, and Susan Griffin — were “out” lesbians. Fourth, feminism has brought like-minded women together as coparticipants in support and action groups, providing them with potential sexual/love partners.
In other words, feminist movement has encouraged women to challenge and even deviate from traditional gender roles; it has highlighted the oppressiveness of traditional heterosexuality, it has supported and even advocated lesbianism as an option for women; it has encouraged women to pursue “men’s” jobs . . . that allow them to survive economically without men; and it has brought women in close and cooperative contact with other like-minded women.

What this Marxist economist is saying, quite directly, is something that should be obvious to any intelligent student of the feminist movement, i.e., lesbians had a particular motive for attacking “men’s jobs” and “family wages,” and this economic motive explains why so many “early feminist theorists” were lesbians. However, if you do not share this lesbian-feminist hostility to “the oppressiveness of traditional heterosexuality,” then feminism’s attack on the economics of “family wages” becomes problematic. If you are a woman who hopes that your husband will be able to support you and your children on his salary alone — especially during the crucial period when your children are infants and toddlers — the feminist economic agenda is directly hostile to your interests. Feminist demands for “equality” amount to a demand (often justified by a rhetoric of “diversity”) that no man should ever be hired for “well-paid jobs” if any qualified female applicant is available. The economic agenda of feminism is about achieving “equality” through deliberate discrimination against males, and the preponderance of women in higher education (where female students are 57% of undergraduate enrollment) is just one example of how successful feminists have been in promoting anti-male discrimination.

Few critics of feminism ever pursue the subject to the theoretical level of analysis that Professor Matthaei provides, and thus never question the movement’s basic premise. Does “the sexual division of labor” in marriage really cause the “subordination of women to men as unpaid servants and sexual objects”? If so, doesn’t this suggest, as Professor Mattaei and others have argued, that feminist “equality” can only be achieved if women reject heterosexuality, per se?

Whatever your opinion of Professor Matthei’s analysis, such theories are widely accepted within academic feminism, and the question at issue is how men are likely to react when confronted by the consequences of these theories. Feminism’s success means that the economic basis of heterosexual relationships has been undermined, so that fewer men have sufficient income to support wives and children. The supply-and-demand mechanism of the marriage market has been drastically altered. Without “the sexual division of labor,” there is less basis for cooperative partnerships between men and women. In recent decades, the logic of marriage has been sabotaged by an ideological regime of androgynous “equality” that has the effect of fostering implacable hostility between men and women. Feminism demands destruction of the social order, and this predictably leads to the “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes) as Hobbes called it.

That many men have reacted badly to this should not surprise us. Most men do not understand feminism because most feminists are purposefully dishonest about what feminism really is and what they mean by “equality.” The ridiculous posture of Emma Watson as spokeswoman for the United Nations “He for She” campaign — telling men that feminism will actually help men, too — is typical of the deceptive propaganda about “equality” that the feminist movement employs. Feminists seek to confuse men and deceive them into supporting an anti-male movement, and many young men foolishly accept feminism’s “equality” rhetoric as if it were sincere.

One men’s rights activist (MRA) asked the question, “Why Is It Harder For Men To Challenge Their Sex Role Than It Has Been For Women?” We can answer this question quite easily: Failure is not attractive.

Women are attracted to successful men, and the competitive drive for success is therefore intrinsic to men’s “sex role.” Every attempt to escape this logic is doomed. The “very socially-awkward man who had never had a successful relationship with a woman” will find that pursuing a “transgender” delusion does not solve his problem. Winners win and losers lose and, ultimately, no political agenda can change this.

What are we to make of the spectacle of transgender weirdos with “no genuine concern for women,” whose bizarre fetishes are inspired by “intense and overwhelming narcissism”? Is it not true, in some sense, that these monsters have been created by feminists who “developed a critique . . . of gender roles”? It would be no trouble to cite the passages from Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics (1970), Shulamith Firestone’s The Dialectic of Sex (1970) and Andrea Dworkin’s Woman Hating (1974) which endorse the belief that there are no natural differences between men and women. If these feminist pioneers were correct, then why can’t a man be a woman? Or why shouldn’t feminists be expected to celebrate transgenderism as “a form of resistance to patriarchy”?

The false premises of feminist theory produce these contradictions, and yet feminists refuse to acknowledge or take responsibility for the problems that they themselves have caused. Feminists are dishonest, selfish and cruel. No feminist has ever actually believed in “equality,” a slogan they only invoke to legitimize their limitless hatred for men.

Feminism is irrational, because hate is always irrational.

Exactly how are feminists ranting about the oppressive patriarchy different from anti-Semites ranting about a Zionist conspiracy?

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) December 24, 2015

Category: Sex Trouble

Comments

78 Responses to “‘Intense and Overwhelming Narcissism’”

Daniel O'Brien
December 25th, 2015 @ 7:30 pm

Cathy Brennan: “Sorry about your dick!” is one of my favorite quotes from the RadFem group.

Hey, did you read Milo’s article about the movement to kick the “T”s out of the LGBTxyzlmnopqrsuvw group?
Fail Burton
December 25th, 2015 @ 7:56 pm

One of the great success stories of gender feminism is how much they’ve been able to foist off their lesbian theory as “women’s issues” and even say patriarchy oppresses men. It goes in one end as heterosexuality as an invented oppression and out the other as don’t give your kids gendered toys and the world will know justice for all. The only success story this cult has had is in confusing young people with their Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy fantasies backed up by the President and Dept. of Education.
robertstacymccain
December 25th, 2015 @ 9:16 pm

So-called “gender-neutral” parenting is almost a guarantee you’ll never be a grandparent.

Why do we raise boys a certain way and girls a certain way? A major reason is so that our children will be able to attract the opposite sex and be capable of fulfilling the duties necessary to marriage and parenthood. Recognizing complementarity as both natural and desirable, we want our sons to be able to do “guy stuff” and our daughters to be able to do “girl stuff” because otherwise they will lack the qualities that make people attractive and successful as marriage partners. Normal women like masculine men and normal men like feminine women, and no amount of academic propaganda is likely to change this.

Tobias “Tobi” Hill-Meyer is a typical example of why “gender-neutral” parenting fails.
RS
December 25th, 2015 @ 9:42 pm

The Progressive/Leftist swoon over identity and their elevation of feelings over objective facts, leads directly to the problems you note among feminists and trans activists. It’s why we’re also seeking people like Rachel Dolezal making a nice living by “identifying” as black, while Clarence Thomas is pilloried as being inauthentic. Where identity is the only thing that matters, but “identity” is determined with reference to a specific set of political beliefs, the seeds of destruction of identity politics have been sown.

As for your discussion of feminist sexual economics, I would note that within academe in the last thirty years, the Feminist Industrial Complex has striven mightily to exclude any woman from its ranks who has the temerity to have children, especially in the Humanities and Liberal Arts. Where other industries have become more amenable to working mothers, Post-secondary education has become one of, if not the, most inhospitable places for women. And the primary leaders in this purge have been other women. The reason is quite simple: marriage and motherhood are deemed to be a betrayal of all women everywhere. Certainly tenure track employment in the Humanities and Liberal Arts is difficult for white males. Close behind (ahead?) of them are married women with children.
Dana
December 26th, 2015 @ 7:31 am

That “trans” “women” are upset that feminist real women don’t just accept them, uncritically, as women, is hardly surprising, for either group.

While the esteemed Mr McCain has documented the technical and intellectual reasons, there is something simpler at work as well: just as reality star “Jazz” — a boy who identifies as a girl — is just so upset that the boys pay attention to and flirt with the real girls, but not with him, because the real boys in the school understand that “Jazz” is not a girl!

And so it is with the feminists: they have a liberal ideology which says that they just have to accept trannies as being what hey say they are — so much so that Mayor Bill deBlasio wants to force New York City businesses to recognize trannies as what they say they are or face legal penalties if the businesses and all of their employees fail to lie to themselves — but they know, deep down, that “trans” “women” are not really women.

Every amphibian and reptile and bird and mammal can recognize the difference between males and females of the species; it’s pretty bad when highly educated professionals are less intelligent than a salamander or an iguana, but that’s what the trannies are saying that normal people should do.
Robert What?
December 26th, 2015 @ 8:22 am

“Victim” is the most highly coveted status among the American Left. There is nothing funnier than watching two groups compete for who has higher Victim Status.
Robert What?
December 26th, 2015 @ 8:45 am

Feminists view wives as unpaid servants and “sex objects”? I expect that many husbands have become slaves and “no sex objects”.
Dana
December 26th, 2015 @ 9:04 am

Our long-suffering host wrote:

Normal women like masculine men and normal men like feminine women, and
no amount of academic propaganda is likely to change this.

But some cultural propaganda might.

If you look at the cultural signals that the popular media are giving us these days, men are supposed to like the kick-ass women who can keep up, and even surpass, with men physically. You have the heroine from The Hunger Games shown as a gorgeous but totally bad-ass woman, who can fight and win against the men. Role-playing games push the same image. We see continual advertisements showing women climbing cliffs and engaged in other athletic pursuits (which always seem to involve wearing Lycra®). The body image being put forth now is the hard-bodied woman with the tight and toned abs, rather than the softer, more feminine image of a decade or so ago.
RS
December 26th, 2015 @ 9:32 am

Speaking as someone who, in his younger, immortal days spent a lot of time above various tree lines, I can say that the mountain/free climbing community does not object to having more of the distaff inclined involved. Indeed, back in the day, we would have done cartwheels had there been more girls around.

In my own case, while my lovely spouse of almost thirty years was not interested in climbing, she did pass the other two tests: Ten days in a canoe in the Boundary Waters and a week in the Jedediah Smith Wilderness, all without complaining. (She also raced giant slalom for a European national team, so there was that, too.)

The thing is, the “cultural propaganda” to which you allude is evidences typical Progressive zero-sum thinking. Femininity does not preclude enjoying the outdoors well, nor does mastering an Eskimo roll preclude owning high heels or being otherwise feminine. That’s more a problem than showing women on the north face of the Eiger.
robertstacymccain
December 26th, 2015 @ 10:22 am

“You have the heroine from The Hunger Games shown as a gorgeous but totally bad-ass woman, who can fight and win against the men.”

This is the “G.I. Jane” fantasy, which suffers from multiple problems: First, most women are neither physically or emotionally capable of that kind of “totally bad-ass” behavior. However, even if we stipulate that a certain percentage of women — 10 percent? 20 percent? — could conceivably be trained to perform this way, there are still caveats to be considered. Competing at high levels of physical endurance has a masculinizing effect — amenorrhea, the cessation of menstruation is a common problem among marathoners and other female athletes. Such activity is generally incompatible with procreation, and so it would be a negative factor in terms of reproductive selection. And then there is the quite obvious question of whether any male would be attracted to these “bad ass” women, even if we were to assume that such women would be heterosexual, which is not a safe assumption.

Lesbianism is so commonplace among female athletes that it is surprising to learn that any WNBA player (or women’s soccer player) is heterosexual. The more elite the level of female athletic competition, the more common lesbianism is, so that among college students “varsity softball” is practically a code word for “lesbian.” I do not think this correlation is coincidental, and am therefore skeptical toward the idea that this kind of “empowerment” is apt to be widely embraced as anything other than a childish comic-book fantasy.

Like so much else associated with feminism, the celebration of “bad-ass” women — competitive, ruthless, violent — points toward a Darwinian dead end, with very low fertility rates being a predictable consequence for any segment of society that embraces feminist ideas.
robertstacymccain
December 26th, 2015 @ 11:02 am

“… the Feminist Industrial Complex has striven mightily to exclude any woman from its ranks who has the temerity to have children, especially in the Humanities and Liberal Arts. … The reason is quite simple: marriage and motherhood are deemed to be a betrayal of all women everywhere.”

There are two factors involved here, which are related. First, in the zero-sum game competition for faculty employment — only a finite number of tenure-track positions become available each year — an obsessive dedication to researching, writing and publishing is necessary even to hope to be hired for such a position. Motherhood would be a severe disadvantage to any woman engaged in this competitive pursuit, because nearly all the other young Ph.D.s against whom she is competing (both male and female) are childless, and have no parental duties to distract them from their research. The “old days” (where the young male scholar was often a married father, with his spouse among the “faculty wives” social group) are decades behind us now.

The second factor is that feminism (for all intents and purposes, a religion among women in academia) is explicitly hostile to heterosexuality, and especially condemns the “traditional” roles of women as wives and mothers. In a 1990 speech to the National Women’s Association, Professor Marilyn Frye asked the provocative question, “Do you have to be a lesbian to be a feminist?” This speech (reprinted in Professor Frye’s book Willful Virgin, pp. 124-137) concludes with her saying that a feminist “cannot be heterosexual in any standard patriarchal meaning of that word — you cannot be any version of a patriarchal wife.” Over the past 25 years, it has become increasingly obvious that most feminists in academia agree — and I do, too, for that matter. The kind of androgynous “equality” feminism demands (the abolition of “gender”) is simply incompatible with heterosexuality. This is as obvious to me as it was to Professor Frye, and yet we still have liberal idiots (both male and female) who suppose that they can reconcile feminism and heterosexuality, a fool’s errand.
RS
December 26th, 2015 @ 11:23 am

With respect to women’s athletics at the college level and beyond, there is an interesting “chicken and egg” question which arises. As you point out, lesbianism is quite common. Do not underestimate the effect lesbian coaches have in indoctrinating impressionable 18 year old girls into a “lifestyle.” Many of these programs are like cults, where team members are isolated from external influences for weeks at a time in the name of “team building” When you take an impressionable teenager who’s paying for her schooling with a year to year athletic scholarship, the pressure to conform becomes more than she’s able to bear. Too many parents have watched their daughters disappear into the maw of D1 or D2 sports only to discover later they voluntarily committed them to “Lesbianism 101.” I personally am aware of more than a handful of such situations and the parents involved universally rue the day their daughters were recruited for athletic scholarships. (I also know of a couple of young ladies who gave up athletic scholarships rather than be subjected to 24/7 indoctrination and abuse for failing to conform.)
Quartermaster
December 26th, 2015 @ 11:42 am

A tranny is simply a mutilated man. There is nothing that will change that fact short of God waving His hand over them to make the conversion actual.
Quartermaster
December 26th, 2015 @ 11:43 am

Indeed! Refusal of consortion is a ground for divorce in many states.
kilo6
December 26th, 2015 @ 12:08 pm

fiat sexuality would be a more accurate name for trans sexuality. Reality by decree, something only believable by someone who is either delusional or was indoctrinated by 12+ years of publik skooolz and social engineering

If this garbage continues I’ll self identify as a moose and apply to Wossamata U grad school

imgur.com/LSCzJvq.jpg
Steve Skubinna
December 26th, 2015 @ 12:32 pm

Intense physical effort increases testosterone levels in both men and woman.

Now if you’re a radical feminist that means nothing because gender is a construct, but if you believe that biochemistry affects behavior then it might have some significance.
Steve Skubinna
December 26th, 2015 @ 12:34 pm

The transgendered are mentally ill. We do the mentally ill no favors when we pretend their illness is normal. And as some feminists are discovering, pretending the patriarchy is oppressing them does not make a mentally ill person sane.
Steve Skubinna
December 26th, 2015 @ 12:36 pm

The Cabela’s catalog has a very extensive women’s section, with high quality outdoor gear designed for women. I suspect they have a reason, and that reason is they think there is enough of a market for Cabela’s to make money serving it.
Dana
December 26th, 2015 @ 12:54 pm

Our honored host wrote:

And then there is the quite obvious question of whether any male would
be attracted to these “bad ass” women.

Of course some males, and I’d suggest many males, are attracted to these “bad ass” women; if such were not the case, the cultural images of them would cease, because it would be a waste of advertising dollars. Advertising pushes culture, but advertising also follows culture; fiction does as well. The kick ass woman is being used more and more, because that is what is currently selling; this wouldn’t be selling if men weren’t buying.
Dana
December 26th, 2015 @ 12:58 pm

Our esteemed host wrote:

Competing at high levels of physical endurance has a masculinizing effect — amenorrhea, the cessation of menstruation is a common problem among marathoners and other female athletes. Such activity is generally incompatible with procreation, and so it would be a negative factor in terms of reproductive selection.

In a culture which already pushes reproduction off for years, as a matter of choice — and we can argue later about how much actual choice is involved — the factor you have mentioned is not going to be seen as a bad thing by a lot of people, men and women alike. Certainly not everybody would see it as a good thing, but we can already see the results in lowered reproductive rates. The reasons may vary, but the results all come together.
If All You See… » Pirate's Cove
December 26th, 2015 @ 1:00 pm

[…] blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on peak trans […]
marcus tullius cicero
December 26th, 2015 @ 1:08 pm

…Love it when Leftist movements devour each other…..LOL.
DeadMessenger
December 26th, 2015 @ 2:18 pm

Maybe he’s talking more about the Marilyn figure versus the Twiggy figure. Both body types can be athletic, but you won’t see a Marilyn figure glorified in today’s media, unless you’re talking about porn media, and probably not even there either. What you’ll see are Twiggys with freakish gel sacs glued onto the chest and rear areas.
DeadMessenger
December 26th, 2015 @ 2:25 pm

Well, I can tell you this: when I was younger, I played softball, and I was good at it. By the time I was in my 2nd or 3rd year of college, I couldn’t play anymore because I’d be assumed to be a lesbian. So it sucks that I can’t play team sports because of this. Even the coed teams in my area are men and lesbians.
Daniel Freeman
December 26th, 2015 @ 3:04 pm

Try this hypothesis on for size: Hollyweird lacks ideological diversity, so every movie is essentially a very long ad (with very high production values) for said ideology and its variants. If a common thread in all the variations of Hollyweird ideology is anti-natalism, then they would eventually all feature badass women for the reasons described. Then the choice would be to watch a movie featuring that character trope, or not watch movies.
Dana
December 26th, 2015 @ 6:00 pm

In the book, Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo is rescued from the Black Riders by Glorfindel, “one of the mighty of the Firstborn,” and “an Elf-lord of a house of princes.” In Peter Jackson’s movie version, he is rescued by Arwen Evenstar, the daughter of Elrond. Mr Jackson’s other films play up the role of women in the story far more than did J R R Tolkien in the books. Mr Tolkien did give a battle role to the Lady Eowyn, along with a lament by her that being a woman means that her part is in the home, but she is the only female character so depicted.

Interestingly, while some on the left have decried the sexism of the books, because virtually all of the great deeds depicted — other than Eowyn’s slaying of the Lord of the Ringwriths — were done by male characters, others on the left have claimed that due to their great love for each other as friends, Frodo and Sam must really have been meant to be homosexual, even though Sam marries Rosie Cotton at the end of the book.
Fail Burton
December 26th, 2015 @ 6:56 pm

The issue is not “real women,” but lesbian feminists who don’t accept transgender. Or rather, some do and some don’t. It has created a divide in Third Wave Feminism. It is mostly the older lesbian crowd that doesn’t accept them.
Fail Burton
December 26th, 2015 @ 7:08 pm

People are getting carried away with these fantasies. Recently there were claims that MMA Ronda Rousey could box with Floyd Mayweather and beat half the men in her weight class. The truth is Rousey couldn’t last 20 sec. with Floyd and got beat up by an indifferent boxer in terms of the men’s game named Holly Holm. There is not a single man in the UFC Rousey could beat, nor could any woman do so. Having said that, Rousey and Holm could probably do well against amateur men in their weight class, just not pros. an WBA team might be able to beat an average college men’s team but maybe they’d have to sink to a boy’s high school team to do that. I don’t know.
mole
December 26th, 2015 @ 7:22 pm

Its a little strange, my fathers viet wife has a bunch of relatives and staff staying at his place while they open a new business in town.
The Viets are generally very morally conservative (outside the cities) but their attitude is ‘why should I care what a mad person does, or why they say they are doing it”?
This seems quite sensible for both feminism and trans issues, except people are listening to mad people, and publicly funding them.
Dads been rather shocked to find out one of those staying at his place is an ex-man who has had the top bits screwed on and the bottom bits screwed off.
The other viets don’t care much but do give the he/she the shits.
“when do you get your period”
‘I don’t get periods”
“you don’t get periods, you must be pregnant then”..
queue all the Viets rolling on the floor laughing..
followed with
‘maybe she gets a nosebleed every month”.. prompting one to actually fall off her chair laughing.
Steve Skubinna
December 26th, 2015 @ 7:57 pm

Hollywood has an ideology, yes, but they are also in business. Therefore they make two types of films: The first group is targeted to the largest possible audience.

The other we see in Truth and Trumbo, and the soon to come pic concerning Ted Kennedy’s travails. These films aren’t meant to make money, but they do garner awards and serve as virtue signalling for the onanistic inside crowd.

Let the rubes in flyover country flock to the new Star Wars film, so long as the clique can still afford to produce their artistic self exculpations.
Steve Skubinna
December 26th, 2015 @ 8:02 pm

What Tolkein had in mind regarding Frodo and Sam was the relationship between officers and their batmen at the front in WWI, as he himself experienced.

Another excellent depiction of this relationship continuing beyond the war is Bunter and Lord Peter Wimsey in the books of Dorothy L. Sayers.

Today’s metrosexuals face no hardship, let alone physical danger at all, and cannot conceive of a close personal relationship between men that is neither homosexual nor a bromance. But anybody who has served in combat – or in any other high stress environment in which your life depends upon those beside you – knows what this is about.
RS
December 26th, 2015 @ 8:03 pm

Women’s basketball and men’s basketball are two different games completely. The innate differences in the sexes lead to different styles of play. Even an “average” men’s college team would run circles around a “pro” women’s team.

(BTW, the American basketball game is different than the European game. My daughter played hoops through high school and now plays lower league and coaches U17 in Europe. The European game drives her nuts.)
RKae
December 26th, 2015 @ 8:08 pm

Here in Washington State, we had the delight of watching the leftists lose their tiny minds when the Makah tribe wanted to begin whaling again.

“…uh… Native Americans… uh… whales… I don’t know who to root for!”
RKae
December 26th, 2015 @ 8:10 pm

…so after they transition they start to get angry.

Can you imagine what would happen if black people could turn white, and then discover that we don’t get our lives successes handed to us out of “privilege”; that we don’t get what we want in life; that we have to settle for far less than our dreamy fantasies?
RKae
December 26th, 2015 @ 8:12 pm

Where are the pajama parties and makeovers and shoe-shopping and cocktails with the “girls” that’s owed to them?

This is the main point: Trannies think they are women – but it’s a cartoon, burlesque of womanhood that they imagine.
RKae
December 26th, 2015 @ 8:38 pm

The false premises of feminist theory produce these contradictions.

And also the contradiction inherent in the idea of “equality: the sexes are not different… but men are evil controllers.” OK, if the sexes are different enough that men can be inherently evil, then they can be different enough that women are emotionally unbalanced. According to the radical feminists’ own view of the world, the perceptions of male chauvinists are just as likely to be true as are the perceptions of radical feminists.
Durasim
December 26th, 2015 @ 8:54 pm

Rousey has long boasted that she can beat whatever male in the ring. Though she immediately concludes her boasts with a feminist alibi. She says that she will not fight a male in the ring because any such male opponent would presumably be allowed to hit her back and Rousey says that society should never permit or condone a male to hit a female. So that is why she is exempted from backing up her trash talk.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-ronda-rousey-fighting-men-20150306-story.html

Of course, this was all before her encounter with Holly Holm.
Daniel Freeman
December 26th, 2015 @ 10:08 pm

The only difference is that in the big movies the Narrative is subtext, while in the small ones it is text.
Daniel Freeman
December 26th, 2015 @ 10:26 pm

Sounds like it was supposed to be rhetoric for excluding the tranny. Good intentions, poor execution.
Daniel Freeman
December 26th, 2015 @ 10:34 pm

Like how Norah Vincent found that men don’t actually play life on easy mode, in Self-Made Man.
Daniel Freeman
December 26th, 2015 @ 10:42 pm

If they’re LARPing for lifestyle fantasies, then it’s just autogynephilia with enablers. Sad.

ETA: “LARP” is Live-Action Roleplay, as in Vampire: The Masquerade, which I played once in college. Good times.
jakee308
December 26th, 2015 @ 11:26 pm

I’m a lesbian trapped in a man’s body.

Help me.
Steve Skubinna
December 26th, 2015 @ 11:42 pm

If you want an argument from me you will not get it.

This time.

But if our estimable host ever opens the door, watch out.
Steve Skubinna
December 26th, 2015 @ 11:44 pm

You know, I wanted to be a lesbian.

But I flunked the physical.
Prime Director
December 26th, 2015 @ 11:56 pm

The left’s designated role for American Indians tribes is living indictment of the system.

Obviously, that means wholesale rejection of modernity; but it also means no return to the old ways, either; treaty rights mean nothing to progressive necromancers with their living, breathing documents.

Indians, like blacks, are supposed to live short, pointless lives of misery and squalor in accordance with the narrative. No looking forward or backward for meaning.

OT, check out the cool t-shirt my niece gave me for Christmas:
Steve Skubinna
December 26th, 2015 @ 11:58 pm

Okay. Take even a cursory look at women that gays like.

They are all either caricatures, such as Bette Midler or Cher, or totally dysfunctional and self destructive, such as Judy Garland or Marilyn Monroe.

Gays don’t care for women who are fully developed persons in their own right.
Steve Skubinna
December 27th, 2015 @ 12:03 am

About ten years ago I discovered Steampunk. It turned out that I’d been interested in it for years before somebody came up with a name for the genre.

And immediately afterwards I discovered LARP, again something I knew about but was not as much interested in. Back in the eighties there were “Runners,” people who dressed up as Logan’s Run characters and who did re-enactments at SF conventions. Then there came along others re-enacting or reinterpreting Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, and other SF adventures. I knew one guy who dressed from “A Boy And His Dog” for conventions.

Anyway, I think I got all of those urges out of my system attending Renaissance Faires so there’s no Bob Fett costume in my closet.
Finrod Felagund
December 27th, 2015 @ 12:05 am

This is why when someone like Kate Upton came along, she was spectacularly successful despite none of the usual crowd thinking she ever had a chance.
Steve Skubinna
December 27th, 2015 @ 12:05 am

Brianna Wu just sent out a Twitter stream admonishing men because she saw an incident that a man could have intervened in and ended.

So the idea is “The genders are equal, except that women are superior and – AWK! A spider! Some man come kill it!”
Steve Skubinna
December 27th, 2015 @ 12:06 am

And Christina Hendricks.

Woof.