Just as overt discrimination against blacks was replaced with overt discrimination against whites with no intervening period of neutrality, when people opposed the double standard and started socially enforcing chastity on men, they abandoned social enforcement of chastity on women.
In the social world, everything is a feedback loop, and all slopes are slippery. The resulting equilibria rarely involve “equality.”
Either men are morally superior to women, and women’s sexuality is restricted, or women are morally superior to men, and male sexuality is restricted. Someone is always in charge, both at the societal level, and at the individual level.
The only time someone is not in charge is when the two sides don’t know each other very well, and don’t know how hard they can push. This is why dating is a process of the woman figuring out what she can get away with. They want to progress to the power shakeup so they know who is in charge.
Once someone wins an initial dispute, and gets defined as the party with the most valid needs (or greatest grievances), then their moral superiority turns into power. Once the first Schelling Point has been crossed, it’s very hard for the losing party to hold other Schelling Points, and will lose as much ground as the culture/subculture allows and the virtue of the winning party (e.g. upper class, lower class, and feminist women will take different amounts of flesh if they win at moral superiority).
Once one Schelling point goes, there can be no natural equilibrium at some new, nearby Schelling point. The new equilibrium is not a new stationary Schelling point near the old, but rather is unending retreat.  Retreat under fire always turns to total rout.
One possibility would be to give both men and women moral status in different spheres of society. This seems like it could work, but isn’t it what the Victorians tried? Women were given great prestige and moral authority in the home and education, but that moral authority expanded, as Mencken makes clear. Women’s moral sphere got bigger and bigger until eventually it swallowed the male sphere, and we now have Codes of Conduct in tech.
Blacks and whites could separate, and be in some sense equal if apart. But men and women need to be together, and being different, either men will rule women, or women rule men, and for obvious biological reasons women ruling men does not work very well.
“…and for obvious biological reasons women ruling men does not work very well.”
—————————-
I don’t think it works at all. When you boys in the Manosphere are handing out labels like ‘beta’ quite often the men involved are nothing of the sort – they are just sliding down that slippery slope trying to keep their families and their sanity.
Eventually most men hit that wall where they won’t go along any further – and then things start breaking. Divorce, or family breakup are the only options left.
Avoid all that. Long courtships. Get to know your gal before you hop in the sack with her. Dismiss and discard tire biters, feminists and other nutjobs BEFORE they become a problem.
A “beta” is just a young man betrayed by his betters. He looks to other men for guidance and help in dealing with women and competing groups of men, and when no such guidance and help is forthcoming colllapses under pressure he cannor possibly overcome on his own. We ought to blame him for loking for guidance from weak men, wrong men. But we ought not blame him for collapsing under pressure. We are all, at some point, a beta. And by beta I mean a man looking to other men for guidance.
Ten years before the CRA, the Commies purged “White chauvism”, as evidenced by microaggressions. The CRA was passed by a Congress that either agreed or was afraid of disagreeing. CRA style terror had already been imposed on educators and police for some time, and of course the MSM was completely on board with it.
And then a court of WASPs legalized miscegenation on the grounds that marriage is about love, i.e. giney tingles. But Roe v. Wade was good, because abortion is an important tool of the patriarchy, not to control women’s sexuality, but more importantly to control their reproduction. If Roe v. Wade had been decided the other way, we would have TV promoting cuckoldry as normal and feminists everywhere talking about how liberating their one night stand that got them their first pregnancy was while their beta husband tries to act like he approves.
CRA was passed by sliding down a slippery slope, but it wasn’t tipping like a pendulum from segregation to CRA, it was Christcucks Chtistcucking at larger and larger scales.
Damned good analysis peppermint
Always enjoyable to read your biting comments, peppermint. You remind me of “greatbooksformen” from roissy’s blog
peppermint is superior to gbfm imho lolzolzolzolzolzolzlzzlz
Progressives hope that Christian morality will survive the destruction of Christianity.
I am not convinced that their enforcement mechanisms of state disapproval can compete with persuading the masses that God is reading their minds.
The Reckoning…The longer we wait to fight back, the more horrific the outcome will be.
It had been said that when fascism comes to America, it will wear the flag and carry the cross. In fact, the reason it’s taken so long for fascism to come to America is Christians coopting and subverting any king of populist uprising and turning it away from the heresy of race idolatry towards saving the dindus and their fetuses, not to mention simply suppressing populism in rhetoric and in deed.
The seeds of feminism and anti-Whiteism are the totally unjustifiable view of women as pur moral equals or superiors as demonstrated by them having souls and being meek, and the totally unjustifiable view of dindus as our moral equals who we must not say that horrible word of lest we be damned.
Today, some Christians think they’re using the alt-right to destroy the progressive Christians and then rebuild the flag and cross Americanism. We need to make sure nothing survives of the old order, not the progressive Christianity, nor the conservative Christianity.
The reason this backlash was just barely possible now is that Christianity had been weakened to the point at which the fetuses and Israel candidate lost to the populist candidate. If Christianity had been able to hold us back for another decade, it would be much more horrifying for us, by not necessarily for them. History is about forces, and strength is always better than weakness, there is no sense in the Christian delusion that the meek shall inherit the Earth. Winners win and losers lose.
Lol, good luck with your new age faggotry. That will surely create a much better and saner civilization than Bourbon France or Imperial Spain
New Age is what the victims of the cuckstain dildo come up with when they’re prohibited from going fash. It has all the important parts of cuckstainty – spirituality that inappropriately prioritizes feelings and universalism.
You sound like one of those pepole who thinks rednecks would win in a war against swpls.
You win a war by cooperation and coordination. Pretty sure that rednecks can cooperate with rednecks and obey orders better than swipples can cooperate with swipples and take orders.
This would not have been true back in the days when swipples were smart and rednecks were stupid, but this has now become considerably less true than it was.
Rednecks have guns. SWPLs have gun control. That war isn’t going to last long. If the SWPLs hire mercenaries to go kill the rednecks, the mercenaries might turn around and rob the SWPLs instead.
SWPLs live in cities. In WW2 it took hundreds of bombers to set one city on fire. Today one computer hacker could burn down hundreds of cities by disabling the EBT cards.
In this article, Jim shows how give them an inch and they will take an ell works, Swipples love being moderate and reasonable, as do the priests that have historically led rednecks unto perdition.
We obviously shouldn’t be considering giving the proggies abortion for free, let alone standing by them when they advocate for a women’s right to choose; make them fight for every inch. But it should be fun to tell the PP canvasfags that show up on the street that abortion is a tool of the patriarchy to control women’s reproduction, and say we’re not cucking for unborn bastards while pointing out that the leftist NGO sells baby meat.
jim, I’m pretty sure that swipples can cooperate and coordinate better than rednecks. I’m pretty sure swipples are still considerably smarter than rednecks. And I’m pretty sure they are more self-sacrificing than rednecks. They would probably also have more physical courage if it became necessary.
I don’t know why you would think otherwise. Swipples are more like East Asians; Rednecks are more like blacks.
People think swipples are soft and teat, therefore, they would make poor soldiers. They thought the same thing about silver-spooners versus street toughs. They were wrong. The idea that life makes people soft in a way that matters when the chips are down is as much bullshit as the idea that poverty is the cause of crime.
Priests versus warriors: Soldiers, cops, rentacops, and the like are rednecks. Swipples are priests. Occupy versus rentacops was swipples versus rednecks.
Occupy’s cooperation and coordination was incompetent, absolutely hopeless and hilariously ludicrous. Rentacop cooperation and coordination was iron discipline.
You cannot get more swipple than Occupy. Occupy was probably smarter than the redneck rentacops they faced, and certainly more self sacrificing, but they could not cooperate and coordinate to save their lives. Rentacops had them for breakfast.
» The idea that life makes people soft in a way that matters when the chips are down is as much bullshit as the idea that poverty is the cause of crime.
I was born a swipple, my immediate family are all swipples, my girlfriend’s immediate family are all swipples, I know maybe two rednecks through Facebook. But swipples have destroyed themselves with decadence and cucking.
Abraham Lincoln said that to determine what a man’s character is, give him power, and see what he does with it. Swipples have used their power to destroy themselves and their children: decadence isn’t not doing pullups. Decadence is being a gayfag, teaching your kids all kinds of nonsense and avoiding teaching them real stuff in school, cutting your titties off and being a transfag, never reproducing, and letting mud people take over all your systems.
We know the time for decadence is running short. Most younger swipples thus turn to delusional techno-milennialist fantasies, while the older swipples say that the US today can turn into Sweden 20 years ago. Some Obama voters are saying today that the US is better off today that it was eight years ago.
Swipples need to drop the spiritualism and face biological facts. They need to drop the universalism and realize that they are the FUCKING WHITE MALEs that they rage about. Then they will be nazis, and the ones that lack any useful skills from school but have years of indoctrination into terror, incuriosity, and passivity, will need to unlearn that to compete with other nazis.
Hipsters also rack disciprine and carry coffee cups riterarry everywhere shamefurry.
PS leftists probably once had a hivemind capable of strategic thought or at least total media control to gaslight everyone into thinking they won every time.
I thought leftists would undercharge Zimmerman, then sue him for a lower standard of evidence and force more training and insurance requirements on neighborhood watch and rentacops, and restrict the ability of the rich to privately obtain services that the government provides. I told them that at the time and they accused me of disloyalty and not caring about Blacks. To this day, leftists seem to think Zimmerman was guilty of 2nd degree murder.
If you think leftists have any training or inclination for strategic thought, look at what the proggies are saying on DailyKos. Yesterday on the front page some idiot said that Trump was wrong about Ferguson being the most dangerous US city and racist, and helpfully listed the top three most dangerous, which we can guess at easily.
Did you see the recent photo of the HuffPo editors meeting?
They’ve signaled themselves into gibbering insanity.
The threat isn’t that cuckstainty will survive, that’s impossible, since biology and nationalism are essential. The threat is that some cuckstain moral principles like cucking for unborn bastards will be atavistically retained and serve to embarrass or hold back fash.
“when people opposed the double standard and started socially enforcing chastity on men, they abandoned social enforcement of chastity on women.”
But is this really true? I mean, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam called for male chastity, while zealously enforcing female chastity. Of course, they also called on women to satisfy their husband’s sexual needs on demand, so he would have no need to sleep with another woman.
“But men and women need to be together”
Homosocial cultural arrangements beg to differ. Men and women only need to be together for conjugal purposes. However, women do not need to be in public, male spaces
I am looking at the transition from Regency England (no real enforcement of chastity on men) to Victorian England (no real enforcement of chastity on women).
Various aristocratic males had to make themselves scarce in Victorian England because of sexual immorality, but Queen Caroline and Florence Nightingale were sainted instead of getting the whippings they deserved.
What kept King George from whipping her? By that point it seems like standards created for keeping women from causing trouble had already collapsed. What changed from the middle ages when Henry VII hung his wives due to the inability to produce an heir?
*Henry VIII
[…] Breakdown. Indeed. Proposition Nation. Facezucker (cuck) & Media propwash. Hoe appreesh. Slippery slopes. JQ mainstreaming? Mirror black. Rape. Ironism. Mao-y Republicans. Depthless minds. #nrx digests: […]
[…] maps authority. Vampiric priors. NRx will be eaten. Slippery slopes. Only a new religion can save us (and ancient Chinese signaling spirals). The weekly round, plus […]
[…] maps authority. Vampiric priors. NRx will be eaten. Slippery slopes. Only a new religion can save us (and ancient Chinese signaling spirals). The weekly round, plus […]
“Victorian England (no real enforcement of chastity on women).”
I was right with you up until there. Please explain? The beginnings of liberalized divorce law? The end of state sanctioned corporal punishment dealt by the husband with a no-thicker-than-thumb switch? It’s all I can come up with to counter the fact that Victorian England still placed high social value on feminine “purity”; if anything, I suspect Regency England, with its Lady Caroline Lambs, was more elastic in the area of female morality.
Enlightenment sought.
Then why were the slut and adulteress Queen Caroline, and the whore Florence Nightingale, sainted?
If anything, women got away with worse stuff in Victorian England than today. One cannot imagine Michelle Obama dancing with younger men while naked from the waist up.
To recollect Victorian women as under control is like future generations seeing our city streets through the eyes of the “Black lives Matter” movement rather than through the eyes of white males who have to step aside for black males and whites forced to abandon homes they have built and paid for due to ethnic cleansing carried out by gangs of back males.
The end of corporal punishment led to wild exuberant sexual excess along the lines of spring break in Cancun. Victorians were paralyzed and in denial about what they had unleashed, and did not have any alternative means in their social arsenal to restrain women. Since then we have been developing ways of restricting the sexual behavior of women without beating them, and have perhaps gotten better at it.
But even if many women, perhaps most women, can be restrained without beatings, we really have to reintroduce beatings for at least some women.
I can’t say I disagree with your conclusions. Women are obviously pushing far beyond the borders of anything self-respecting males should allow, much less condone.
re: Victorian morality, I see some nuance. For one thing, Royalty and noble upper-classes had much more licentious lifestyles than the middle-class. The nobility in England were notorious for sexual license, and you see that through the Regency and Victorian eras.
The middle-class and upwardly mobile made female chastity into a cult, however, and that is what popular notions about Victorian morality is based on. There are strong aspirational and self-disciplining ideas in back of conservative Victorian middle-class morality. It was, in part, a reaction to anecdotal evidence for Regency debauchery.
Yes, there were many prostitutes (probably not as many as some estimate though). Yes, people had affairs. But, to take one example, women’s magazines of the era promoted an exalted idea of female sexual reticence. Unlike today, when women’s magazines constantly promote sexual expression and experimentation.
I confess myself unacquainted with the details of Florence Nightingale’s life, beyond the common knowledge. I will look into finding a good book on her.
Essentially, while avoiding the common over-estimation of Victorian prudery, I do feel there are important popular cultural and attitudinal distinctions between the Regency and the Victorian periods.
They made denial that their women were cuckolding them and whoring themselves out into a cult. The whore Florence Nightingale was middle class, and it was the middle class that sainted Queen Caroline.
They could not admit that ending corporal punishment had been an utter disaster, so doubled down on massive denial. Depictions of women as normally and customarily chaste were, and are, political, like depictions of magic negroes. Reality was spring break at Cancun.
Women in Victorian media were depicted as chaste the way every woman in our media can defeat three adult males in hand to hand combat.
Absolutely. Regency England tightly controlled women’s sexuality, thus indirectly but drastically limited sexual outlets for men to their wives, and if women were sexually uncontrollable, as they very often were, used all necessary coercive means, up to and including beatings, dungeons, and leashes. Victorian England let them run wild, and was paralyzed when they promptly did run wild, when something very like Spring Break at Cancun ensued.
They concluded that evil men were inducing women to misbehave, so doubled down on trying to control men – which of course does not work, because it does not take very many men to provide a very large number of women the opportunity for misbehavior.
Remembering Victorian England as an age when women were sexually oppressed by the patriarchy is like seeing our streets through the eyes of the “Black Lives Matter” movement.
I must confess that your view of sexual history in England intrigues me. I’m a huge fan of counter-intuitive and revisionist thought/history.
I am also well aware that a search for superior understanding of social history subjects is reliant on both not falling into “official academically-approved” ruts and actively seeking dissident and contrarian views.
Having done a great deal of reading on both Regency and Victorian social history, I can assure you that your view of “Regency Control v. Victorian Sexual Chaos” is not the doctrinaire position, as you no doubt are well aware.
The Regency, in fact, is a byword for sexual indulgence; the upper-classes indulged in a dizzying array of affairs and partner sharing/switching; a road map and cast of characters index is necessary to keep track of it all.
I would like to ask you to recommend any sources, esp. books, that you can recommend as having formed your view of these periods. I am most interested in further exploration of your framing of 19th c. sexual mores and practices.
Oh come on. If you look at the more famous eighteenth century divorce scandals, we see minute, trivial, and frivolous transgressions by upper class males getting extraordinarily draconian career ending punishment. It was OK to have a mistress, or two, or three, and thirty bastards by your maids, but if you were in the slightest degree complicit in your wife’s transgressions, you were toast. You were allowed to have a few mistresses, but you had to totally and absolutely support and protect your marriage and father your legitimate children. And since women are barnyard animals who would fuck in the streets and frighten the horses if permitted, that included a positive duty to ensure your wife’s fidelity and your legitimate daughter’s chastity. (They really did not take the ideal of wives voluntarily being faithful and daughters voluntarily chaste seriously at all)
If the Victorians restrained women from fucking around they would have to prevent single fertile age women, like the protagonist of “Pride and Prejudice” from having a room of her own in which love interests could enter, close the door, and remain indefinitely in private without anyone noticing, and from which she could stay out late, or not return at all, without anyone noticing.
And they would have to punish fertile age single women who stayed out late. Which, as the Duchess in “Pride and Prejudice” complains, they failed to do. The Duchess does not want the main love interest to marry the protagonist, because the protagonist has had the opportunity to fuck around, and the Duchess realistically assumes that any fertile age woman given that opportunity will promptly do so. Protagonist explains to the Duchess that failure to rigorously restrain female sexual conduct is fine, implying that the protagonist would never do such naughty things.
I look like Jabba the Hut, but give me a few hours with any girl, followed by a few hours more behind a closed door, she will fuck me, because that is just what girls do. Given the standard stimulus, the standard response eventually follows. Protagonist has door she can close, therefore, in real life, serial monogamy would ensue.
Being pious about female chastity does not stop fucking. Curfews stop fucking, because it makes it harder for Jabba the Hut to expose girls to the standard stimulus which leads to the standard response. Victorians had piety by the bucket load, but no sanctions against young women who spent lots of time in private with gentlemen behind closed doors as Florence Nightingale did. (And was financially rewarded for doing.)
Sexual immorality shows up, and is enthusiastically recorded, in divorces.
Very few eighteenth century divorces, and scandalous behavior by males was severely punished. Scandalous behavior by females was presumably punished also, but for the most part punished in a manner less visible and recorded.
And, as if right on cue, here’s something from The Chateau…
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2016/05/20/shiv-of-the-week-choices-and-consequences/
…and Alpha Game…
https://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-invasive-species.html
And the hits keep right on coming…
http://www.atkhairy.com/login
Time was, a post like this would be quickly covered with comments like women have perfectly fine souls in fact probably better souls than men.
Jim’s perspective on women won – http://www.dailystormer.com/endwomenssuffrage-austrian-women-voted-commie-men-voted-nazi/ – with the provisio that Anglin wrote in a snarky caption “I don’t tell you how to wash the dishes, woman – don’t tell me how to stop these kikes!”, which is false, my woman doesn’t ask but looks to me for guidance on how to wash dishes all the time.
Jim has repeatedly said that women do and should look to their men for guidance in all things, including ‘women’s sphere’ things, this time he came down on women’s sphere as a concept. When women are emancipated of emancipation, they will return to their instinctual special knowledge of baby care.
Jim said a lot of things first, I wonder to what degree he will be remembered as a father figure to our movement.
[…] All slopes are slippery. […]
[…] Buy on the rumor. Sell on the news: Jim confirms the news: All slopes are slippery. […]
Quote “If you look at the more famous eighteenth century divorce scandals, we see minute, trivial, and frivolous transgressions by upper class males getting extraordinarily draconian career ending punishment. ,,,but if you were in the slightest degree complicit in your wife’s transgressions, you were toast.”
Not so. Look at William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne. He had a long political career, including as Home Secretary and Prime Minister; yet his wife, Lady Caroline, was Byron’s most notorious and out-of-control lover and a general erotomaniac.
Her husband seemed relatively immune to the effects of his wife’s near insanity-level indiscretions, even though he was well-aware of them. It could even be said he was something of an enabler.
Look, I am not questioning your essential premise that women are rutting beasts. I’m on-board! And that’s based on personal experience as well as education. Yes, they are shameless pigs with a bottomless proclivity for perversity.
I also agree (if you will hear it) that moral positioning is a political act. Yes, yes, a thousand assents to your view of Black Lives Matters being an experiment in reality-warping through consensual propositions of an “as-if” nature.
What I was seeking was an insight into your framing of 19th century (by the way the bulk of the Regency period fell in the 19th, not 18th century) sexual cultural paradigms. I feel you rather consistently assumed I was promoting the myth of female purity, when in fact I was never attempting that particular piece of heavy lifting. Discussing cultural norms v. cultural ideals does not automatically place one in the position of partisan.
That is nineteenth century, 1812, not eighteenth century.
The rot became manifest with King George’s inability to restrain the adulteries of Queen Caroline, despite his clear, strong, and obvious desire to do so.
The prototypical example of Victorianism is not Victorian, but rather the presumed chastity of Queen Caroline, which closely parallels the presumed chastity of Florence Nightingale. The problem with Victorianism is that the presumption of female virtue led to giving women a loose rein, which is unlikely to result in the actuality of female virtue.
See the discussion in “Pride and Prejudice” about letting women out.
Back in the eighteenth century, it would have been socially acceptable for him to beat her, indeed socially unacceptable for him to refrain from beating her.
The problem was that it had become politically incorrect, and would shortly become increasingly illegal, for upper class men to beat misbehaving upper class women. Paralleling this it had become politically incorrect to suspect women of misbehavior, which latter problem is classic Victorianism.
I don’t see that her indiscretions were any more insanity level than Queen Caroline’s, yet Queen Caroline was sainted, and to a considerable extent remains sainted to this day.
Queen Caroline is certainly no bargain; the difference between her perversity and Lady Caroline Lamb’s would not be worth disputing; other than, I believe Lady Caroline was what we would term manic-depressive, and her indiscretions had more of compulsion than cynicism in them; LCL was indeed threatened with institutionalization and had two nurses assigned to her in the role of asylum nurses, essentially, though she was allowed to remain at home.
Queen Caroline was simply a born whore, let’s face it. A filthy one, at that.
Of course I believe you would agree that the sanctification of Queen Caroline was an overt (not simply by default) political act; she was used as a cudgel against the Prince of Wales. She also was championed (with proto-feminist impulses) by a group of women, which might make a good study for someone of an ur-feminist revaluation of societal (masculine) values. With the knowing salaciousness and resentment of a Sandra Fluke.