Sunday, 13 February 2011

The Puritan Paradox: How Incontinent Cultures Remain Puritanical


Recently, some silver-tongued fellow challenged the Anglobitch Thesis and some of his charges merited a counter-critique, which we present here. Incisive criticism presented with eloquence and skill - we love these things. His central objection was that the Anglosphere cannot be considered puritanical if we view it objectively – children born out of wedlock, rampant divorce rates, sex-education classes, teenage pregnancies, hook-up culture, and so on.

By way of reply, I must first point out that Anglo-American gender-relations are determined by social structure as much as Puritanism. The Anglo-Saxon nations have smaller, less influential middle-classes than most comparable western nations. This means fewer personable, attractive women, since such winning qualities are ‘middle-class’ as such. Continental countries like Sweden or Austria have rather more ‘high beta’ women than the Anglosphere (in Game ranking, 5s to 7s), while the Anglo-American power-distance between classes ensures such women are rare (lots of under-5s and a few entitled over-7s, complete with Homeric 'bitch-shields'). European countries also have traditions of exercise and good diet, further raising the average standard of their women.

That said, at first glance it seems ridiculous to claim that the contemporary anglosphere is ‘puritanical’. In virtually Anglo-American city on a Friday or Saturday night, scantily clad young women can be seen tottering about in drunken stupefaction on the hunt for thugs, sports stars or plutocrats. While the anglosphere was indisputably puritanical well into the 1950s, such a description seems laughable today.

And yet – and it is a crucial ‘and yet’ – the contemporary anglosphere retains a far-reaching animus against men as sexualized beings. Murdoch’s media demonizes men while glorifying women at every turn. For example, British girls who pass public examinations (after years of preferential treatment, of course) are celebrated in press photo-shoots (I kid you not) while young males are mocked as feral morons and pumped full of Ritalin. The ‘conservative’ politicians of the Anglosphere take women’s side at every opportunity, capitulating to every feminist demand. Women commit all manner of crimes with impunity while males are imprisoned for the most trivial offences (and no offences, in the case of divorced fathers).


And so we have a paradox - while the contemporary anglosphere is no longer overtly puritanical, it still exalts women as if it were. The explanation underlying this contradiction sheds much light on feminist conceit. As usual, nothing is simple when discussing the Anglobitch.

The culture-bearing classes in the contemporary anglosphere are not reflective of the general population. That is, social elites in Britain, America and the rest of the Anglophere retain an antiquated outlook completely out of step with modern experience. Moreover, the Anglo elites are typically WASPS whose beliefs closely inhere to ‘traditional’ Anglo-Saxon puritanism. British Prime Minister David Cameron is a perfect example – having attended Eton College, Oxford University and enjoyed a life of insular privilege, he might as well be living in the 1950s for all he knows of contemporary Britain with its gangs, drugs and Welfare mothers. Unsurprisingly, this weak character yields to feminist opinion at every turn, belying the old-style MRA belief that all feminists are Marxists. And elites across the English-speaking world are similarly archaic, repressive, puritanical and misandrist. This explains how a morally-lax culture still nurtures a puritanical, misandrist media, legislature and judiciary. Its top decision-makers are still living in the early fifties, woodenly partisan and fiercely insistent on imposing their outmoded beliefs.

Furthermore, Puritanism persists in pockets outside the elite. Of course, the Anglo elite are of paramount importance in maintaining the old puritanical culture, but they have many lesser confederates in their mission. The feminist movement clings fiercely to the old repression, with its hysterical ‘sex-trafficking’ fantasies, its paranoid desire to suppress porn – and above all, its overmastering urge to prevent American men seeking foreign mates via VAWA and its derivatives. The legal profession remains determinedly WASP-ish – and of course, pivotal in framing the torrent of anti-male legislation that has oppressed Anglo-American men in recent decades. The media – Ezra Pound’s ‘Liars for Hire’ – are also some fifty years behind the times, still exalting women as stainless angels, forever presenting males as dead-beat dads, rapists and morons. And the established Protestant churches augment this agenda – especially in the United States, where religion remains a potent socio-cultural force.


It is also notable that Anglo-American elite colleges like Harvard, Yale and Oxford are hotbeds of repression. The fact that very little sex occurs in these institutions (about half of Harvard students have no sex in four years of study) shows perfectly well that puritanical attitudes still thrive among the traditional Anglo elites. Academic feminism (as exemplified by the execrable views of Ms Catherine Mackinnon) is notably archaic and anti-sexual - indeed, could come straight from Seventeenth Century New England. Yet graduates of these institutions go on to occupy prominent positions in law, politics and the media, maintaining a strong puritanical agenda in the corridors of power.

Though writers like Roissy continually claim that America is now a ‘post-Marriage’ culture characterised by casual hook-ups, these views and experiences are most definitely not shared by the Anglosphere elites. No – they are still living in the fifties, frowning on sex outside marriage – even though a substantial proportion of Anglo-American citizens no longer marry at all. In Britain, the archaic Establishment gushes over Royal Weddings even though hordes of people are single and substantial numbers of children are now born out of wedlock (most Royal marriages fail, anyway).

So – while the Anglosphere is replete with drunken whores, sex-education classes and porn downloads, in many key areas of policy and opinion-formation the old puritanism is alive and well. And this explains our paradox: the Anglo-American elites defend 'princesses' even while the drunken Anglobitch staggers the streets, her panties around her ankles. Indeed, this gulf between the Anglobitch and the Anglo-American Establishment’s idealization of her is what renders feminism so intellectually inconsistent and absurd.


Where does the foregoing discussion leave us? Above all, it hammers home the point that the ‘conservatism’ extolled by old-style MRAs offers nothing to the Anglo-American men’s movement. Why should it, when residual Puritanism is the source of pan-anglosphere misandry?

Elite or overclass detachment from mainstream experience also explains the precipituous decline of the mainstream media. The Internet has greatly weakened the elite’s ideological influence, exposing the gulf between their archaic rhetoric and the post-feminist nightmare most men have to live in. It is by definition that the men’s movement is an online phenomenon, since the Internet allows for objective discussion without hindrance from the feminists' 'silk curtain'. The MSM does not like men, has no time for their issues and has experienced male disengagement for that reason.

24 comments:

  1. To start, I want to say

    Happy Marc Rudov Day!!!

    The mid-evil style puritanism is alive and well.

    What some people call "casual hook-ups" is nothing of the sort.

    I have met quite a few women who have sex with a man - not because they enjoy sex, or want the man to enjoy sex - but because they are trying to hurt their boyfriend (or even husband) - by having sex with somebody else.

    This is not a view of sex as being, "an enjoyment of life" - it is a view of sex as being "evil", or a way to hurt people.

    Sure there are swingers and the like - but these people are in fact rare.

    The mainstream of women - do not view sex an an enjoyable experience - they view it as a way to manipulate themselves into a man's wallet, or to manipulate him into raising her thug offspring. Or - as previously mentioned - a way to hurt people.

    This attitude does in fact stem from puritanism.

    Ultimately, it is the time-honored theme that sex is bad - or - that a man's penis is the source of all his flaws... Women shamelessly use these embedded attitudes to their advantage now.

    Unfortunately, many men fall for it too - since sex has become such a scarce commodity - i.e. the men themselves have become desperate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rookh:
    Puritanism and repression in the Anglosphere is worst than it used to be decades ago since nowadays Puritanism bites, and it bites hard. The Puritanism we are analyzing is not about teenage sex, children born out of the wedlock or an increasing divorce rate. It’s about the perception the whole society has about men, women and the interrelationships between them. In this case, Puritanism remains the same: Men are evil, mean and perverted beings who harass, assault and corrupt quasi perfect angels, that is, women. While this perception hasn’t changed in Anglo societies, feminism and other trends have worsened the effects of this view in society.
    In the past, women knew that they would provide a scarce good (sex, in a very short quantity and poor quality, by the way) for economic security through marriage. The more beautiful and young a woman was, the better and wealthier a husband she would get, and both parties were supposed to be happy with the arrangement. Today, misandrist laws have multiplied the price women put for accessing their bodies while they can behave in any irresponsible way they want, stripping men of their wealth and social status, knowing that they have immunity to any social critique. Giving teenagers sexual education is not going to make any difference in the easing of gender relationships if women still believe they are the unique entitled providers of something nobody else can provide. That’s why feminists oppose so vehemently to the legalization of prostitution. In my personal experience I can relate that I have been twice in a country where sexual education is also available in every school: Cuba. However the experience is completely different. Men and women relate easily. Every weekend people gathered around public plazas to dance ‘Casino’ (Cuban salsa). Young men and women joyously meet to dance, have fun and explore their bodies. It was like this in the pre Communist era, and the Socialist education system only reinforced this. It’s about a manly culture, not drunk thuggish girls walking down Piccadilly Circus.
    If this weren’t enough, the fat epidemic registered in all industrialized nations, but also in the Anglosphere has reduced dramatically the number of nubile women available in society. In the USA, two thirds of women are fat. The rest of females have a clear perception of this fact and use it to price themselves very, very high in the sexual and marital market at the expense of men.
    So, basically you have the same framework by which the relationships between men and women are understood. The difference is that in the past, everybody was supposed to be happy with the societal arrangement, while today the State, the culture and every public and private institution has taken the female side at the expense of men.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Santiago

    I absolutely agree with this statement:

    *The Puritanism we are analyzing is not about teenage sex, children born out of the wedlock or an increasing divorce rate. It’s about the perception the whole society has about men, women and the interrelationships between them. In this case, Puritanism remains the same: Men are evil, mean and perverted beings who harass, assault and corrupt quasi perfect angels, that is, women. While this perception hasn’t changed in Anglo societies, feminism and other trends have worsened the effects of this view in society.*

    In some ways, the post-feminist Anglo-American world closely resembles the old-style theocracies that ruled parts of the Anglosphere in the 16th and 17th centuries (Cromwell's Commonwealth and colonial North America). The only difference is that this modern, secular puritanism has fully substituted religious devotion with the veneration of women, who can do no wrong. Indeed, the male is now the embodiment of everything 'evil' in Anglo-Saxon culture - almost a Jungian 'Shadow' archetype. The recent 'celebration' of homosexuality across the Anglosphere represents an attempt to redefine masculinity in a manner inoffensive to this matriarchal agenda. Even males with a heterosexual orientation are succumbing to these overtures, so tarnished is the male's 'public image'.

    *In my personal experience I can relate that I have been twice in a country where sexual education is also available in every school: Cuba. However the experience is completely different. Men and women relate easily. Every weekend people gathered around public plazas to dance ‘Casino’ (Cuban salsa). Young men and women joyously meet to dance, have fun and explore their bodies. It was like this in the pre Communist era, and the Socialist education system only reinforced this. It’s about a manly culture, not drunk thuggish girls walking down Piccadilly Circus.*

    This chimes well with my experience of non-Anglosphere countries (even the non-Latin ones). Anglo-American gender-relations are fraught with mutual antagonism because of the elite-sustained puritanism that underlies the culture. Also, historical puritanism had a very real and long-lasting impact on Anglo culture that heightens its current gynocentricism. It will be noted that the Anglo-Saxon nations have a rather limited artistic heritage compared to Latin nations, a direct expression of the Seventeenth Century assault on the rich medieval heritage in English art, architecture and sculpture (check out the Wilton Diptych). The English Puritans systematically destroyed most of these 'graven images' and this philistine legacy is still potent across the Anglosphere (consider how literature is the dominant art-form in the Anglo nations, and how there is no Anglo-American equivalent of Shakespeare in the visual, musical or plastic arts). I believe this absence of alternative sources of visual delight gave Anglo women undue manipulative power and influence over men, since they became thus the sole 'owners' of visual stimulation (the human male's primary reactive sense). The ongoing deification of Anglo women owes much to this aesthetic shortfall. It is notable that Anglo gender feminism has a preoccupation with suppressing alternative sources of visual beauty and sensual stimulation - pornography, prostitution, even foreign mates. Moreover, post-feminist Anglo art is staunchly conceptual and only represents the human form in the most debased and repulsive terms, further highlighting the intimate link between puritanism and feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  4. *If this weren’t enough, the fat epidemic registered in all industrialized nations, but also in the Anglosphere has reduced dramatically the number of nubile women available in society. In the USA, two thirds of women are fat. The rest of females have a clear perception of this fact and use it to price themselves very, very high in the sexual and marital market at the expense of men.*

    As I said, Anglo social 'power-distance' as well as the poor diets and unhealthy lifestyles of most Anglo females give the attractive few a staggering sense of entitlement. Anyone who has lived in countries with many 'high-beta' women (5s to 7's in Game terms - I'm talking about Scandinavia, France, Germany and eastern Europe) will attest that such Homeric 'Bitch-Shields' are absent, even among 8's and 9's. Coupled with the cultural puritanism already described, the Anglosphere has a situation where, as one young American put it, 'American women think they're too good for guys - and I mean ANY guys.'

    Such are the fruits of aesthetic castration.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Such are the fruits of aesthetic castration. "

    Wow - now that is an awesome quote!

    ReplyDelete
  6. This whole comment thread has been full of excellent observations. The Scarecrow hit it perfectly with his observations on Anglobitch sexuality. My experience with Anglo women has always been that they saw sex as something 'unclean' and to be used as a weapon to further whatever self-serving designs they may have upon a man.

    This also goes a long way to resolving an issue I've wrestled with: why Anglo women prefer thuggish louts to decent/strong men. Unable to value men as human beings; seeing sexual intimacy as inherently vile; and their mentality of entitlement all logically lead Anglo women to chose men who are the weakest and worst rather than, as the Gamers and White Knights believe, the strongest and best.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anglo-American women use sex as a weapon. They think they are God's gift to men. Hell, even some of the fat and ugly women here in America think they are "hot stuff."

    It's incredible when you meet women who are unattractive or overweight who think they deserve to marry a doctor or a professional athlete!

    I have a news flash for Anglo-American women, ONLY VERY BEAUTIFUL WOMEN DESERVE TO MARRY GUYS WHO RICH! If your an average looking woman or an unattractive or overweight woman, you shouldn't even be thinking about marrying a wealthy man. Anglo-American women are delusional, as they have priced their market value WAY to high!

    Personally, I wouldn't touch an Anglo-American woman with a 10 foot pole!

    ReplyDelete
  8. BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN
    Why American men should boycott American women

    http://boycottamericanwomen.blogspot.com/

    I am an American man, and I have decided to boycott American women. In a nutshell, American women are the most likely to cheat on you, to divorce you, to get fat, to steal half of your money in the divorce courts, don’t know how to cook or clean, don’t want to have children, etc. Therefore, what intelligent man would want to get involved with American women?

    American women are generally immature, selfish, extremely arrogant and self-centered, mentally unstable, irresponsible, and highly unchaste. The behavior of most American women is utterly disgusting, to say the least.

    This blog is my attempt to explain why I feel American women are inferior to foreign women (non-American women), and why American men should boycott American women, and date/marry only foreign (non-American) women.

    BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN!

    ReplyDelete
  9. JamesBond:
    Although from what I've seen, even the beautiful American women have no aversion to hooking up with whatever street-slime they happen to come in contact with. Wealth often equates power, and there's nothing American women enjoy more than emasculating a powerful man.

    I agree with you: embargo American women! I've been sucessfully dating foreign women for the last few years; meanwhile, guys I know who've kept in the US dating scene have gone from one disaster to the next.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "As I said, Anglo social 'power-distance' as well as the poor diets and unhealthy lifestyles of most Anglo females give the attractive few a staggering sense of entitlement. Anyone who has lived in countries with many 'high-beta' women (5s to 7's in Game terms - I'm talking about Scandinavia, France, Germany and eastern Europe) will attest that such Homeric 'Bitch-Shields' are absent, even among 8's and 9's.'


    We definitely appear to be on the same page. The upshot of this mindset is that Anglosphere men are relegated to the status of performing seal, while the onus on women is principally to judge. For women, this amounts to little more than deciding whether or not to "turn up". Privilege and entitlement is their lot.

    Continentals (Europeans), by contrast, are definitely more engaging - they realize that their men expect far more of them than simply to "turn up".

    Yet as much as we appear to be on the same page, I continue to find this reference to puritanism unsatisfactory. Germans, Czechs, Dutch, Italians, they've all had episodes of "puritanism". Consider, for example, the Amish, the Lutherans, and the Hussites. Puritanism does not really capture the essence of Anglosphere sterility, class, privilege, entitlement and "proper behavior".

    I think it has more to do with England's historical obsession with class and royalty. The division into classes, the privileged, serfs and gentry, all that stuff. The gallant knights and chivalry. From these class divisions we get a culture obsessed with show and superficial appearances. Lack of honesty or directness. They weave in and out, ducking around and under, avoiding truth at all costs. They will routinely lie to you and call it "polite" or "diplomatic". And at one level, polite they might be, but behind it is the subtle presumptions about their superiority over you. We have the "socialy aware" crowd with their dopey rules of proper conduct, like it constitutes some sort of objective, absolute truth that everyone is expected to comply with. Like the cockney git the other day "putting it over on me" trying to sell me garbage that I'll never need. The Anglos love their "social crap", the endless flow backwards and forwards of expectation and social effluent, and the idea that everyone has to live up to the opinions of others.

    The Anglos have never established any enduring sense of morality as courage. The only morality they know is that of social obligation. It doesn't occur to them that they owe nothing to some self-opiniated stranger whom they've never met before.

    Anyways, I think that class division lies at the very core of the Anglosphere mindset, and not puritanism. Class division, with its silly social expectations and fear of standing out from the crowd points in the direction of psychic sterility. The multiple, false divisions of reality into truth versus untruth, objectivity versus subjectivity. Educated upper classes out of touch with reality versus tribal lower classes, soccer hooligans with their tribal assumptions of belonging and thuggish unity by coercion. Social obligation - it's this idea of morality as being polite and "nice" to everyone (regardless of what you might think of them), as opposed to morality as courage, in the sense of standing up for what you believe in. It’s not what you know but who you know... the same garbage as anywhere else, but multiplied a thousand-fold.

    So... what's the one word we might employ to best describe the condition of the Anglosphere? It's not puritanism. Puritanism is too opinionated and individualistic. Puritans are self-righteous, and they will be rude to you if you cross them. Puritanism does not sufficiently convey the sterility, dishonesty, pretensions, WASPish privilege and WASPish entitlement that characterize the Anglosphere.

    ReplyDelete
  11. *I have a news flash for Anglo-American women, ONLY VERY BEAUTIFUL WOMEN DESERVE TO MARRY GUYS WHO RICH!*

    This message was perfect apart from this sentence. In truth, even the most beautiful woman on Earth is owed nothing by ANY man - not ONE second of his time, not ONE cent of his income, not ONE brick of his property. If he chooses to offer those things to her, that is HIS choice - but she is not OWED them, in any sense.

    Men have no obligations to women and owe them nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wow - you beat me to it Dr. Kshatriya.

    Women these days do not DESERVE the time of day from a man - any man - look at how they treat men - and are continuing to allow men to be treated!

    "Men have no obligations to women and owe them nothing."

    ...except perhaps some loathing and disrespect. (chuckle)

    ReplyDelete
  13. *Yet as much as we appear to be on the same page, I continue to find this reference to puritanism unsatisfactory. Germans, Czechs, Dutch, Italians, they've all had episodes of "puritanism". Consider, for example, the Amish, the Lutherans, and the Hussites. Puritanism does not really capture the essence of Anglosphere sterility, class, privilege, entitlement and "proper behavior"*

    I think the anglosphere nations vary to some degree in their attachment to puritanism. I think many Americans would say their cultural elites are very keen on maintaining puritanism. American feminists like Dworkin and Mackinnon harbor an obsessive hatred of male sexual freedom; VAWA prevents American men marrying foreign women and the Disney princess is of course an American creation. It is notable that the United States was effectively founded by puritan fanatics in the early seventeenth century and that the American brand of gender-feminism is the most overtly misandrist in the anglosphere. In my view, the link between religious repression and misandry is self-apparent in the American context. American men are the most likely to be divorced for no reason, fleeced by the courts and end up in trailer-parks, stripped of all assets and self-worth. Some have said that America's role as the foremost Western power in the Cold War uniquely permitted the persistence of a paranoid puritanism well into the modern era, which contributes to the especially virulent nature of American feminism).

    I find the class argument more convincing in the case of Britain and Commonwealth countries. However, Australia is one of the most open societies in the world in terms of social mobility, much more fluid than Britain or the United States. Canada also permits a high level of social mobility. Of the Anglo-Saxon nations, only Britain retains an aristocratic class on the old European model (the rest of the Anglosphere has business dynasties like the Astors, Rockefellers or Murdochs). So, there are difficulties with a class model of feminism, since most of the Anglosphere is not especially defined by class. I would hesitantly guess that Australia's classlessness may relate to its (relative) sexual openness (although other confounding variables may play a part, the rebellious Celtic origins of many Australians, for instance).

    Britain's elite is the most warped by puritanism, however, having adopted homoerotic pedophilia as a normative sexual condition. Nearly every novel or film describing the English upper class contains this theme, usually proclaimed with proud entitlement. Perhaps this comes closest to your concept of class-based sexuality (although women are decidedly uninvolved in it, I hasten to add). I would say that the English MIDDLE class retain a latent-homosexual puritanical exaltation of women that is closely akin to the American model - as we know, sheer sexual repression automatically exalts women (which is why the repressive lower-middle class British press - the Daily Mail and Daily Express - routinely deify females while slandering all men as monsters).

    ReplyDelete
  14. *The Anglos have never established any enduring sense of morality as courage. The only morality they know is that of social obligation. It doesn't occur to them that they owe nothing to some self-opiniated stranger whom they've never met before.*

    That is because Anglos are a military people, not a warrior people.

    *Anyways, I think that class division lies at the very core of the Anglosphere mindset, and not puritanism. Class division, with its silly social expectations and fear of standing out from the crowd points in the direction of psychic sterility. The multiple, false divisions of reality into truth versus untruth, objectivity versus subjectivity. Educated upper classes out of touch with reality versus tribal lower classes, soccer hooligans with their tribal assumptions of belonging and thuggish unity by coercion. Social obligation - it's this idea of morality as being polite and "nice" to everyone (regardless of what you might think of them), as opposed to morality as courage, in the sense of standing up for what you believe in. It’s not what you know but who you know... the same garbage as anywhere else, but multiplied a thousand-fold.

    *So... what's the one word we might employ to best describe the condition of the Anglosphere? It's not puritanism. Puritanism is too opinionated and individualistic. Puritans are self-righteous, and they will be rude to you if you cross them. Puritanism does not sufficiently convey the sterility, dishonesty, pretensions, WASPish privilege and WASPish entitlement that characterize the Anglosphere.*

    Perhaps you are referring to a kind of Anglo-Saxon 'feminine' morality? Since the Anglosphere is latent-homosexual and gynocentric in orientation, an unmanly morality based on convention and conformity rather than masculine, amygdala-driven instinct is what we should expect, and little more.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rookh, as an Australian, there are some things I'd like to add:

    - I find that elitism pervades amongst Australian females, but is not really evident amongst males; it is not uncommon to see wealthy males behave like bogans - this of course, could just be them being Anglobitches (i.e - they will take ANY excuse to disdain a man)

    - Australia's culture (being a relatively young country) is weaker than any other primary Anglo nation - as such, it is much more prone to external influences, especially from within the Anglosphere. Initially, the influence was British (Australians, up until WWI, saw themselves as being subjects of their empire despite being nominally independent); more recently, it is American.

    - This leads to garish displays of patriotism (something that was largely absent up until the mid-1990's, when the Anglo-con John Howard rose to power), infiltration of trash media and a much more insular mentality than is generally realised (non-white immigrants like my mother are, like in America, not made particularly welcome, whilst the Australians travel not so much to broaden their horizons as just for the hell of it)

    - The Celts were known for their combativeness, but Australians still tend to be relatively passive in the face of injustice (yes, they may complain a little when politicians do things they don't like, but not that many punish them for doing so, nor would they ever engage in the aggressive protesting of the Arabs or even the Romanians in Ceausescu's Romania), which indicates that Australia is likely much more Anglo than Celtic.

    - America is on the surface, as sexually open as Australia is. Many of the men and women are sexually promiscuous. In both countries, the devil is in the details. How is sex viewed? How are the genders viewed? Whilst AUS women may not view sex as evil in the way that American women do, it is often portrayed as being 'forbidden', 'naughty', even 'dirty'. Filipina's do not view sex in this manner, nor would Continental Europeans, I suspect. It can fairly be said that Australia is well and truly puritanical. The rhetoric of DV propaganda and even general discourse (depicting women as angelic innocents and men as ogres straight out of Warcraft) bears this out. This can also be partially blamed on American influence.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Something that I always wondered about - and still do -

    Why are there so many people who weigh a man by whether or not he is in a relationship with a woman?

    Or - by how much "skirt" he gets?

    I know that this is a common shaming tactic (i.e. you cannot get laid), however, it breaks down when prostitution is involved.

    That is, if a man can "buy" all the hookers he wants - he is getting "skirt" - yet he is still thought of in a negative context (or a belittled context).

    How on earth did this mindset make it into our culture?

    Is it female-driven, male-driven - or both?

    ReplyDelete
  17. That Scarecrow is very interesting. Perhaps it has something to do with male jealousy; males feeling that their success with (as many women as possible) is equivalent to success with women.

    I am actually more interested in the converse, namely Male Prostitution and what that says about a female, because I suspect that women do not see the buying of sex as a sign of failure.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Great post, DaRick. It's good to see a fellow countryman here. I agree with you that Australia is more "Anglo" than "Celtic" which explains why so many Australians are passive in the face of injustice (this can be seen as a product of Australia originally being a British penal colony where severe punishments were dished out for the most trivial mistakes). Also, don't forget that Australia is the only country in the Anglosphere that has compulsory voting and Australian voters are forced by law to vote in every election under the threat of fines and, in extreme cases, imprisonment.

    In regards to what you said about Australian culture. I've noticed that our country is still very Anglophilic despite the influence of American culture. If you look at Australian culture today, it still tends to exalt Australia's "British origins" and all things British while at the same time, mindlessly denigrate the US and its society, culture and politics.

    Rookh,

    In regards to the women of Western Europe and Scandinavia, they are as equally as feminist and misandrist as their sisters in the Anglosphere. If Anglosphere men want European women, they should go to Eastern Europe (especially Russia and Ukraine). At least Eastern Europe is more male oriented than Western Europe and Scandinavia.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "...However, Australia is one of the most open societies in the world in terms of social mobility, much more fluid than Britain or the United States... Of the Anglo-Saxon nations, only Britain retains an aristocratic class on the old European model... I would hesitantly guess that Australia's classlessness may relate to its (relative) sexual openness (although other confounding variables may play a part...).

    Just to clear up a couple of common myths here.

    1) Australia is not open and it is not classless. Australian culture is in fact quite closed because it does not tolerate differences (there is limited "freedom of expression" here). And it is not classless because it is single-class (there's a difference). Obviously these definitions beg explanations.

    The myth about Australia, that it is relaxed and "easy-going", is attributable to the label that we all see. But the hidden reality is that "easy-going" is actually a means of constraining conversation according to terms that Australians are comfortable with. What I mean by this is that at one level conversation might come across as casual, lightweight and frivolous, but at another level conversation is not permitted to stray beyond casual. Should you try this too often, Australians will define you as being "up yourself". For all the pretence of "easy-going", beneath the facade is a minefield of secret rules of proper conduct that even Aussies have never really understood.

    Australia is single-class, not classless. Again, the idea of a classless, socially mobile society is a myth. The single class emerges because other modes of expression are forbidden, and assimilation to the single-class is inevitable. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. The Australian hostility to differences ensures that assimilation to a single class is inevitable.

    2) Australians are not sexually open. Australian women expect little of men, and this creates a peculiar dating ritual based on first-come-first-served. The illusion of sexual freedom persists perhaps because of the arbitrariness of their couplings (and the fact that, before pc, they used to talk about sex so much - they don't now, but don't underestimate the surging, unrealized passions beneath the veneer of indfifference). The trouble is, whilst their pairings are quite a bit more random than elsewhere (Game does not work very well in Australia), they are often "for keeps". So we have a peculiar, sterile form of morality in Australia based more in this "single-class" materialism than in higher ideals like courage and character.

    There are therefore mixed, confused interpretations of sexuality in Australia. At the level of arbitrary encounters, it appears to be sexually free, but at the level of social pressure (everyone needs to be married in order to be socially acceptable and "normal") it is the most puritannically stitched-up culture on earth. Australian women might often come across as "easy", but you are actually not at liberty to go your own way following what you think is supposed to be a casual, friendly encounter.

    Other things complicating Australian sexual dynamics include the good-girl/bad-girl duality, which is more amplified here than elsewhere.

    From my experience, American and English women are actually much easier to get along with than Australian women. American women are more direct, they single you out, and you get the impression that you are specifically chosen. With Australian women, you are not chosen so much as accidentally encountered, like stubbing your toe. In Australia, you are no different to the next joe. But you needn't worry... the little that Australian women expect of men will give your accidental encounter the opportunity to blossom forth into matrimonial commitment into old age, in your house behind a white-picket-fence in the 'burbs.

    Such is the reality of single-class Australia.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "In regards to what you said about Australian culture. I've noticed that our country is still very Anglophilic despite the influence of American culture. If you look at Australian culture today, it still tends to exalt Australia's "British origins" and all things British while at the same time, mindlessly denigrate the US and its society, culture and politics."

    As I observe America's decent into brain-dead statism under Obama (yes, even more brain-dead than it was under GW Bush, if that's even possible), it begins to resemble Australian populism more and more. I'm increasingly thinking about the precious gift that once was the US Constitution... a principles-based political/legal system.

    In Australia, laws are passed not according to principles, but according to whatever arbitrary forces justify them. Public opinion? The weather? A nanny lobbies to make cross-bows illegal? Doesn't matter. The politicians want people to vote, so make it illegal to not vote. The police don't like bikers, so resurrect antiquated anti-association laws to outlaw bikers and target them even when they've not committed any crime.

    In a principles-based legal/political system, such arbitrariness would be abhorrent to normal folk.

    The Australian denigration of Americans, btw, is pure, unfounded racism driven by an inherent inferiority complex. Where does this inferiority complex come from? It's based in "reputation", "social obligation", and the idea that your ultimate worth depends on what others think of you. Hence the interpretation of morality as "niceness" over morality as "courage".

    ReplyDelete
  21. "...However, Australia is one of the most open societies in the world in terms of social mobility, much more fluid than Britain or the United States... Of the Anglo-Saxon nations, only Britain retains an aristocratic class on the old European model... I would hesitantly guess that Australia's classlessness may relate to its (relative) sexual openness (although other confounding variables may play a part...)."

    Just to clear up a couple of common myths here.

    1) Australia is not open and it is not classless. Australian culture is in fact quite closed because it does not tolerate differences (there is limited "freedom of expression" here). And it is not classless because it is single-class (there's a difference). Obviously these definitions beg explanations.

    The myth about Australia, that it is relaxed and "easy-going", is attributable to the label that we all see. But the hidden reality is that "easy-going" is actually a means of constraining conversation according to terms that Australians are comfortable with. What I mean by this is that at one level conversation might come across as casual, lightweight and frivolous, but at another level conversation is not permitted to stray beyond casual. Should you try this too often, Australians will define you as being "up yourself". For all the pretence of "easy-going", beneath the facade is a minefield of secret rules of proper conduct that even Aussies have never really understood.

    Australia is single-class, not classless. Again, the idea of a classless, socially mobile society is a myth. The single class emerges because other modes of expression are forbidden, and assimilation to the single-class is inevitable. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. The Australian hostility to differences ensures that assimilation to a single class is inevitable.

    2) Australians are not sexually open. Australian women expect little of men, and this creates a peculiar dating ritual based on first-come-first-served. The illusion of sexual freedom persists perhaps because of the arbitrariness of their couplings (and the fact that, before pc, they used to talk about sex so much - they don't now, but don't underestimate the surging, unrealized passions beneath the veneer of indfifference). The trouble is, whilst their pairings are quite a bit more random than elsewhere (Game does not work very well in Australia), they are often "for keeps". So we have a peculiar, sterile form of morality in Australia based more in this "single-class" materialism than in higher ideals like courage and character.

    There are therefore mixed, confused interpretations of sexuality in Australia. At the level of arbitrary encounters, it appears to be sexually free, but at the level of social pressure (everyone needs to be married in order to be socially acceptable and "normal") it is the most puritannically stitched-up culture on earth. Australian women might often come across as "easy", but you are actually not at liberty to go your own way following what you think is supposed to be a casual, friendly encounter.

    Other things complicating Australian sexual dynamics include the good-girl/bad-girl duality, which is more amplified here than elsewhere.

    From my experience, American and English women are actually much easier to connect with, more engaging than Australian women. American women are more direct, they single you out, like you are specifically chosen. With Australian women, you are not chosen so much as accidentally encountered, like stubbing your toe. In Australia, you are no different to the next joe. But you needn't worry... the little that Australian women expect of men will give your accidental encounter the opportunity to blossom forth into matrimonial commitment into old age, in your house behind a white-picket-fence in the 'burbs.

    Such is the reality of single-class Australia.

    ReplyDelete
  22. chuckew,

    In regards to the way our country's laws being a result of arbitrary forces and mindless populism and not principles, I agree with your comments. It seems that our politicians would like to use any tragic event to pass more draconian legislation (don't forget that Australia's draconian gun laws were introduced in the aftermath of mass-shootings and when the public was shocked to the core and not thinking straight). Also, chuckew. Licenced, law-abiding firearm owners are as equally as despised as the bikers by our politicians and police, no matter how law abiding these two groups are. It goes to show that our country doesn't value individualism, freedom or individual liberty as much as our American cousins do.

    In regards to our country's penchant for denigrating the US, I've noticed through studying Australian history that our country's anti-American sentiments have their roots in our "British heritage" in which all things "British" were lionised while all things American or Australian were put down. IMHO, this preference for all things "British" has led to Australia having the inferiority complex as well as contributing to the anti-American and pro-British sentiments that are present in Australian society and culture today.

    If you want to see Australia's preference for all things "British", take a good look at the large numbers of Australians heading off the the UK as their first overseas destination. Many of these people say that they're using the UK as their stepping stone into Europe, but the majority of them don't go into Europe and stay in the UK instead.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Roughneck Jase,

    Thanks for your reply. You live in Brisbane too, don't you?

    You're right about the compulsory voting of course. The concept is not very liberal, is it?

    It is true that Australia does indirectly celebrate ties to the British quite often - through Australia Day and ANZAC Day (which in turn arose from a tactical and strategic disaster). That being said, Australians from my experience denigrate the British ('Poms' is not a term of endearment, I don't think) as much as they do the Americans (and there was pro-American sentiment here for a time after September 11).

    Many Australians who visit America (I mean born-and-bred Australians) do apparently like the place, too (I wouldn't, but then I'm different).

    But then Australians are not known for their tact or empathy, so maybe this denigration is just a joke to them.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hmm, an interesting blog. So when do you think the elite will catch up with the debauched masses, or does sexual repression play an essential role in maintaining power?

    I'm not really sure whether puritanism is what makes the West so crummy. Yes, men's sexuality is demonised whereas women's sexuality is celebrated. Men are devils; women are victims/angels. Yes, yes, I get all that. I'm just not sure whether having loads of sex (or being allowed to have loads of sex) will solve the world's problems per se ...

    Maybe men should just not bother having sex with women anymore? That would certainly send a strong message that feminism is no longer welcome or required. Why don't men just vote with their feet? Don't hook up. Don't marry. Don't have children. Just ignore women. And if people question you about it, say you're simply exercising your rights as an individual to "freedom of association".

    Nobody forces men to have sex with women, so why don't men simply revolt and spurn women? Live life on your own terms - for yourself!

    Lastly, I'm not sure latent homosexuality and sexual repression have anything to do with each other. Accusing the elites of being latent homosexuals implies homosexuality is invalid. Aren't such judgements "repressed" in and of themselves? I don't think being gay has to play into puritanism. Gays can be free too - as long as they reject the misandrist, feminist, elite-controlled media, which constantly pits them against their heterosexual brothers - most of who accept gays.

    ReplyDelete