Item the 1st – I suppose that, with entry XX, it’s only appropriate I have a thought about radical feminists. A thought triggered by the title “How Woke Feminism Created the Manosphere” from the “Dad Saves America” podcast. I haven’t watched/listened to the podcast, so I’m making no representation as to it’s content or quality. But I did have a gut level reaction: “You fucking think?!?!?!” But this isn’t really about that question.
It’s more me wondering, how the hell do said woke feminists square the cognitive dissonance inherent in their central premise?
Namely – women have been held down by the patriarchy for… well, forever or at least the whole of recorded human existence. But somehow, men are just going to let you waltz in, tell them what to do, force them behave a certain way, and allow you to dominate them (yeah, yeah, some will actually pay extra for that!)? So how does that work (I mean other than the ancient access to the tiddies method)? If men are toxically masculine, patriarchal to the core and are capable of dominating women physically and mentally for all of human history and, by all your whining, apparently continue to do so to this day, just what the hell are you going to do about it? Even if you think you can ‘educate’ or cajole us out of it, why haven’t your equally capable feminine ancestors already done that? And why do you depend on men with guns and force to enforce whatever laws others, largely men, have passed? If men are the patriarchal monsters you always claim, you would be in chains. The whole of human history, including the modern history of your movement, is a giant refutation of your central postulate. If your postulate were true, rather than being not only tolerated, but actively coddled and getting preferential treatment (note I’m not objecting to said state of affairs), you would have been stuffed into a box somewhere to serve whatever purpose the nearest set of balls and toxicity thought best. But eventually, keep pushing and people will tire/have tired of your bullshit (including, more and more other women). Be thankful that, at least for now, the reaction is largely “fuck off, you’re on your own” and not the reaction one might imagine from real toxic masculinity that you are always imagining.
Item the 2nd – In a recent thread here, someone posted a comment about cops doing bad things to people in the service of the ‘elite’ – it may have been that whole “lego” kerfuffle. I responded something along the lines of “the holocaust was built on a pension and a paycheck”. And someone else (may have been JI?) had an observation about the cops behavior in COVID and/or BLM. An example currently in the new is the Nowak murder in England – every single cop did what they were ordered/trained to do
I thought about a more personal story. My father was a card carrying Bacon-man. This was in the late 60s through his retirement in the early 90s in small town Wisconsin. One story he told me was that, in the early days, laws against cohabitation were still on the books – you couldn’t shack up with a member of the opposite sex for illicit purposes unless you were married. Licit away if married. Anyway, it was never enforced except when the former significant other would call the police on her ex – and yes, according to him, it was always women that reported their ex-boyfriends or husbands, not the reverse. He reported his embarrassment and profound shame, standing in the hallway while the guy tried to hide in the closet or stood on the porch in his underwear holding his shoes. Profound shame. But he still ‘did his job’.
Now I’m not comparing busting up a rutting couple to letting a guy bleed out or putting a bullet in the back of pregnant Jewish woman’s head. But the principle is the same. For my father, the right thing to do would have been to refuse to do it. But he was a young father with a young wife and children. And even though it likely would have worked out better in the long run for him and his family (he never really like the job), in the moment, he felt he could not take the risk. In fact, this approach can be honorable – you do something difficult and unpleasant for your family, shield them and provide for them by absorbing the bad (quite the contrast to all that toxic patriarchy…).
It’s challenging to separate the honorable from the cowardly and to know when the unpleasant task is just an unpleasant, difficult task and when it is an affront to humanity. And even if you realize sub-consciously it’s the latter, very few are willing to invite attention, potential harm, and ostracization for a principle.
Item the 3rd – (Bonus Muzak) This was just a reaction to the CBS news story referenced here. In this case, it was related to injury from taking Ozempic and Mounjaro for weight loss, but I was triggered by the general framing of “If it can happen to me, it can happen to you!” that occurs when ever someone suffers consequences that they just didn’t think would happen. “It can happen to you!” – No. In this context, No it can’t. Because I’m not taking any of these drugs and when I heard about them did look into them and the paralysis, bowel obstruction is, if rare, documented and may be especially relevant given that the dosing for weight loss of these drugs is considerably higher than for glucose control/diabetic treatment where most of the longer term data on effects is available. If that’s a risk you’re willing to take (and not just at the level of “Oh, it’s rare, it couldn’t possibly happen to ME!” which seems to be the common interpretation of ‘rare’ side effects) against other methods of controlling your weight, more power to you. But, no, it can’t happen to anyone! because it requires action on your part to create the conditions under which it could happen. And if you took those actions and placed yourself in the category of people to which, yes indeed, it could happen to, you have assumed the risk – KNOWN risk; I’m not even taking them nor have I thought about taking them and I know the risk. Especially since Mounjaro and Wegovy have – as far as I can tell – always had warnings regarding ileus and Ozempic has since 2023. Whether those were sufficient is, I suppose, for the courts, PBUThem, to decide.
Note that this is not a comment on GLP-1 agonists in general, Ozempic in particular, or any other approach to weight loss, or any other treatment for anything really. Nor is it a comment on the appropriateness of the lawsuit itself, especially in case of Ozempic which did not list ileus as a potential side effect initially. Just the emotional manipulation inherent in the “bad thing X can happen to anyone” formulation to bolster a law suit. The basis of a lawsuit is whether the notification and knowledge of the side effects justify a tort, not whether it can happen to anyone. OF COURSE a side affect can happen to anyone. Who is taking the drug.
If men are the patriarchal monsters you always claim, you would be in chains.
That’s the feminists’ fetish.
Ain’t that the truth.
It ain’t men that made The Handmaid’s Tale so popular.
Or 50 Shades of Grey.
I recycled SOG, into a dumpster.
I try to avoid thinking that, but there certainly seems to be an undercurrent of it, at least as an outside observer to female psychology.
It’s not precisely ‘in chains’ but there is a common aspect – clearly to greater or lessor/non-existent degrees – of ceding control but with the underlying knowledge of essentially complete safety and support.
Perhaps analogous to the seemingly inherent contradiction in men’s psychology of wanting a total slut in private but a chaste virgin in public and prior to making your acquaintance.
My ex thought she was in control, until she wasn’t.
I remember my son told me one of his teachers said that homelessness could happen to any of us.
She got mad because he argued that his family weren’t drug addicts and if something bad happened either I would figure something out or our extended family would help.
I was kind of proud he had that much faith in me and definitely did not discourage him from arguing with his teachers.
If I have a house that I do not regard as a home, am I homeless?
baller
How dare one of the little shits deny the Narrative.
Well, it could happen. You might accidentally start using addictive drugs that you found out in the yard and then you’re hooked.
Thanks for the warning, I’ll try not to do that.
The most common length of homelessness is one night. Second is two nights.
It takes a lot for someone to not find any resource available to find a place to stay. And burning every bridge due to drug or alcohol addiction is a fast way to eliminate those resources,
We’re all just one paycheck away from flinging shit and yelling at imaginary people on the streets.
And even though it likely would have worked out better in the long run for him and his family (he never really like the job), in the moment, he felt he could not take the risk.
In all likelihood he would have been replaced by someone eager for the chance to put his boot on somebody’s neck.
Hey buddy…
Yes probably. And that eagerness was certainly true for a substantial minority of the force. For all his faults, he was not one for that. That also led to him not making much progress in the profession, staying a patrolman on late shifts for essentially his entire career – you don’t get promoted if you give warnings rather than tickets or don’t participate in the culture of us vs. them.
Hence, he would have been better off leaving in the long run, if not the short run; it was not a good job for his long term mental health.
To add to the cognitive dissonance, woke feminists will support the Current Things, which are standing up for Palestine and illegal immigration, both of which involve cultures that actually DO hold women down. It’s one ideology of the day over another, ignoring inconvenient facts that conflict with their current narrative.
I think that’s a different sort of cognitive dissonance. It’s a case of ignoring reality/compartmentalizing in the service of what is, clearly to them, a more important political/social goal. A trade-off in way.
The dissonance of the patriarchy is just an inherent contradiction in the whole concept.
It’s also not directly harmful to them, which allows them to choose fashion over practicality.
I still don’t know how that works.
But I think “Palestine” is just a stand-in for “leftism”. None of them actually gives two shits about those people. Probably the same for illegals. They pretend to support these things because all the other right-thinking people pretend to support these things.
OT – the mainstream PR groups are too right wing!
https://nypost.com/2026/06/11/opinion/mamdanis-only-making-his-puerto-rican-day-debacle-worse/
Mandami wasn’t even living in this country when the Puerto Rican day episode of Seinfeld aired.
Okay, I don’t bother to think about this stuff very often, but…
Have any of these “radical feminists” ever contemplated the notion of partnership, as opposed to enslavement? Maybe that whole division of labor concept is just a cruel hoax, but I wouldn’t want somebody who does the same things and wants the same things I do. It would be boring as Hell, and a lot of necessary tasks would go undone.
Maybe that whole division of labor concept is just a cruel hoax
One that has persisted in form or another throughout human history and, further, is essentially an iron clad rule in the entire biological world (outside of parasites, viruses, and the like). “Essentially” only because there may be examples, but I can’t think of a single animal or plant where there isn’t some division of ‘labor’ (function) between an exclusively bimodal division of phenotypes (to avoid the racist, sexist, and misogynist terms ‘male’ and ‘female’)
But relevant enough for you to try to gotcha him?
How does it feel to be outwitted by a geriatric Jew?
I would never heckle a stand up comedian, even a retarded one, because they would be much better at come backs than I ever would be.
One of my favorite examples, but Norm was definitely not a retard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7az23QCJBnQ
Exactly. These are people exposed to heckling on a regular basis.
That’s funny right there, I don’t care who you are.
Note that they’re not ambushing Israelis; they’re ambushing Jews.
Try that sort of collective guilt against any other minority group, and imagine the resulting howling.
So unbelievably not relevant that you are chasing him through the parking lot. Nice.
It seems there might be a downside to influencer culture
Hence, he would have been better off leaving in the long run, if not the short run; it was not a good job for his long term mental health.
A long time ago, I hit on the idea of “term limits” for cops. They deal, in large part, with the scum of the earth on a daily basis, and cannot help but be adversely affected by it.
Dear The Powers That Be,
R.J. explained to me how to force WordPress to render a plain URL instead of an embedded link. I edited my submitted article appropriately. Thank you R.J.!
(The secret is to press Shift-Ctrl-Alt-M to go into the code editor and edit the HTML directly. Press Shift-Ctrl-Alt-M to return to the visual editor.)
Even thought it’s a links article please feel free to assign it to any needy time slot.
For RJ, I’ve seen Switzy commenting over in Twitter land.
I know what the DOD needs… one more 4 star billet!
https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/senate-defense-bill-authorizes-new-combatant-command-autonomous-weapon-systems
I saw that movie. That will be the first guy Skynet kills.
Bitching mode activated:
Earlier this morning I saw a post on X that inspired me to respond. It was a national account, but at that moment I was one of the first to view it.
Since my post, the post I responded to has been viewed almost 2,000 times and reposted twice. I am the only response (as far as I can see).
My response has *four* views.
Four.
Presumably X displayed that post almost 2,000 times with zero responses under it.
How many other responses is it hiding?
I get burying a post from a nobody in an avalanche of hundreds of responses…. but showing zero instead of one? (Or 4 or 5)
What the heck, X?
Reddit is better than that.
Reddit hides responses also. Not sure if it’s lag, crap design, or intentional algo. They’re all the same. The goal is engagement and manipulation. Pomtekin villages were more real than this.