Monday, November 10, 2014

Mars and Venus

I’m certain that all of you know about the old marriage-therapy book “Men are from Mars, and Women are from Venus.” 

The book used that title in an attempt to rightly get people to start understanding that men and women, while being the same species, taxonomically, might as well be from different planets for all that they are alike and share in common.  The book became well known in large part because it was successful in getting people to understand that your husband (assuming you are a woman) or your wife (assuming you are a man) will understand and interact with things entirely differently than you will, in a manner that you won’t understand, unless you first take time to learn and see things from their perspective. 
"When I'm sick, he tells his friends that his 'dishwasher is broken'"

I noticed a good example today, of a late 20-something woman CEO of a small business, who couldn’t figure out why the attractive men at her office don’t want anything to do with her sexually.  In her eyes, power, wealth, and prestige are huge attractants, because that’s what women want in a man.  She can’t see how men wouldn’t want a woman of higher status than them, or be attracted to a woman who is successful and powerful and wealthy. 

What she doesn’t understand is that she is reviewing her attractiveness as a mate from a Venusian perspective – she finds power, wealth, and prestige massively attractive, and therefore cannot figure out why the men she’s seeking don’t do likewise. 

It also reminds me of the “nice guy” who is meek, and seeks a woman’s approval, and is sweet and sensitive to her, and sacrifices his needs and desires to ensure he keeps her happy, and then acts shocked when women find him unattractive.  The fact is, he is becoming what he seeks in a mate – meek, sensitive, sweet, sacrificing…

…those are the traits that men are hard-wired to find attractive in a woman.  He is basing his attempt to be attractive to women on a Martian perspective, failing to understand that those traits are what HE finds attractive in a mate, not what women find to be attractive. 
I could do a long post on how not being a "nice guy" doesn't mean you're a dick.  It isn't binary like that.  There is
a lot of territory between being a wimpy, mincing, sycophantic "gay friend nice guy" and this douche bag
But the idea is that each gender is coming at the mating game with completely different views and perspectives, and if you don’t speak the language, and fail to understand the perspective of the person on the other side of the dining table, you’re going to be in for a pretty rough date night. 
"If she fucking talks about her cats one more time, I'm leaving..."

It occurs to me that the situation with Lena Dunham, admitting in her book that she systematically molested her little sister over a period of many years, and the subsequent shock that many expressed at the revelation (and the reverse shock from side #1 that people were shocked) is a just such a case of two different groups of people being so different in constitution, that they may as well come from separate planets. 
"Greetings, Marklars!"
I base this observation off of the almost clueless, genuinely surprised reaction of Dunham, et al, at the backlash springing from her revelation.  They act as if admitting to sexually molesting your younger sister over a period of years is so completely normal that they honestly cannot figure out what all the hubbub is about. 

This is not an act; they really are confused. 

To the modern-day, far “progressive” left, such a thing is perfectly acceptable, because it falls within a group of far-leftist shibboleths:

A woman (or other oppressed group) can do no wrong.

Lorena Bobbitt was perfectly within her right to cut off her husband’s penis while he slept.  But a man who mutilated his wife’s sexual organs in her sleep?  He’d be a fucking monster.

Likewise, if Lena Dunham were a man confessing to having sexually molested his younger sister when they were both children, the calls for his head would be broadcast from every rooftop. 

As it is, about half of left-wing America is defending her as some pioneer of women’s lib for some damn reason.  

It is for this same reason that Islamic Terrorism is not roundly decried by the progressive left in the same manner as a white guy shooting up a movie theater.  An Islamist who enters a theater shouting “Allah Ackbar” and shooting the place up is not to be talked about.  His ethnicity and motive are to be covered up. His story is to be told, and we are supposed to “understand” why he did what he did, and at least on some level, relate to it.

But a white guy does the same thing?  Oh, he’s just got a small dick and is a piece of shit and we’re glad he’s dead.  Oh, yeah, let’s make sure we take guns from everyone so it can’t happen again… 

Anything that a woman does that is “different”, or outside of societal norms, is to be celebrated.

Lena Dunham is “different” from most other women, and is not ashamed of that, so she works as a poster child for feminism (which has just become an offshoot of far-left progressivism) because she isn’t being constrained by “societal norms”, which progressives see as the greatest evil of all.  
She is comfortable with her body, and shows this by displaying it at any opportunity, even when the situation doesn’t necessarily call for it.  
Which, by the way, please stop doing?  Because eeew!
She is comfortable with her sexuality, and is vocal about that, too.  She is “different” than the hated, “repressed” woman who has the decency to not constantly talk about sex and be naked all the time, so she’s a feminist hero. 
I am patiently waiting for feminism to applaud the next female serial killer as a “strong woman who rejected the norms of society and went out on her own to blaze new trails for feminism and femininity everywhere.”
Nothing says "you GO, GIRL!" like a good murder, amirite?
Progressivism, at its base, is the rejection of everything that is, and the acceptance and embracing of everything else.  It is the arrogant belief that you know better than 5,000 years of humanity before you, and as a result, the social norms and traditions in place should all be shit-canned and replaced with whatever you think is best.  This isn’t a screed against progress where progress is warranted.  This is a screed against “progress” that is just for the sake of doing something different than the people before you, because fuck them. 
"What did we ever do to you?  We're relatively certain that you'd float just fine!"
 This is very common among the more progressive-minded folk – that rejecting the way things are, for no other reason than to reject the way things are, is a noble goal and a purpose in and of itself, even if doing so accomplishes fuck-all and even if doing so rejects traditional, in place morality that is pretty clearly black and white.
Like protecting our children from sexual abuse, for example, which I think
is a traditional social more that we should all agree to rally behind
For another instance, consider that the same people that pretend to literally fucking die inside every time a gun is used to commit a violent act against white people, are pretty goddamned silent about condemning more “ethnic” types of violence, such as Islamic terrorism and urban gang (read: black person) violence, since supporting diversity and ethnicity against what they call the “status quo” (which was, in their opinion, all white, all the time) is more important than opposing violence. 
Sexual obsession (for women, mostly) is a good thing.

Lena’s mother took full-on pornographic pictures of herself, and put these pictures throughout the house that she grew up in.  Everywhere Lena turned, she got to see her mother, “full spread” showing off what God gave her. 

Her father’s “art” specialized in stylized pictures of women’s genitalia. 
"Looks like we got ourselves a couple of weirdos, Guinevere!"
Her entire life, Lena has been surrounded by sexual obsession, and this obsession is part and parcel for the progressive left.  Look at their current list of sacred political cows, and you’ll see that very few of them are not sexual in nature.  Some examples:

  • Abortion on demand (freeing women from the negative repercussions and responsibilities of sex)
  • Free birth control, anytime, anywhere, subsidized by the taxpayer (think of all the times you’ve heard caterwauling about how women who don’t have their birth control paid for by someone else are being “denied access to birth control”)
  • Reduction to outright elimination of due process in rape cases (giving 100% of the sexual initiative and control to women, even after the fact)

In areas where reality does not match up to their perfect utopia, you are not allowed to speak of those examples without facing the wrath of the progressive.  You are not allowed to state that promiscuity is both physically and psychologically unhealthy.  You are not allowed to discuss the psychological and physical risks of abortion.  You aren’t allowed to point out the stupidly high incidence of AIDS in gay men, or discuss the fact that it is probably a good idea to not encourage young girls to sexually molest their little sisters.

Because to do differently would be to suppress Lena’s right to explore herself, sexually, and sexual exploration is the most important sacred cow of all.  As long as it is a young, white girl doing the exploration, of course. 

A young boy who did the same thing would be burned at the stake, because that would be a violation of the leftist shibboleth of the disadvantaged that I mentioned above.  By their way of thinking, the disadvantaged get to do things the advantaged are not allowed to do.  A woman can maim her spouse.  A sister can molest her sibling.  A brown-colored man with a funny name can blow people up.  And through it all, we’re not supposed to ask the question about why it is okay coming from these groups, and not from others, because they know that they cannot develop any sane-sounding reasoning to justify their opinion.  So instead of debating the topic, they just call you a racist misogynist hater, and end the discussion. 

It all boils down to Mars and Venus.  The two sides don’t speak the same language, and it routinely shocks both sides, because neither side seems to understand this simple fact. 

The progressives were shocked when the rest of the world looked at the facts of the Trayvon Martin case and did not convict George Zimmerman, because they cannot comprehend a situation where a black guy versus a white guy can end without the black guy winning, or injustice having happened (those being the only two options, regardless of circumstance).  They were shocked when Lorena Bobbitt was prosecuted for cutting her husband’s penis off, because they cannot comprehend a world where he was totally in the wrong for making her so mad that she did that.  Essentially, if a woman did something like that, it must have been because he deserved it.   

And likewise, they are shocked that the rest of the world looks at a case of the sexual molestation of a child and are revolted at the idea of it, and also of the comfort that the perpetrator felt in telling the entire world what she’d done – because in her mind, she hadn’t done anything wrong.  She had nothing to hide.  She’s a woman, exploring her sexuality.  By the leftist shibboleths, she’s heroic.       


  1. Clearly we're reading similar inspirational material for our blogs...

    You're also clearly much better at this!

    1. Thanks, Angus.

      You're much better about posting daily than I am. That's like blg rule #1, and I just don't have the energy or time to make it happen.