My five sons religiously read various “manosphere” “neo-masculinity” websites, but unfortunately, they don’t come here, because their interest is fucking as many women (well, for us “girls”) as possible. I remember well the uncontrollable pressure that one had as a 19-year-old, with the need for constant banging. But, when young, one has the time to waste on such games. Later, after the divorce, when the women in your age group are bush pigs, it is time to pay for professional services, and cut out the amateurs, because, everyone pays, so why pay for a sandwich with dry meat and stale bread, even if it is white bread? As Lawrence Shannon put it in The Predatory Female (1997): https://www.amazon.com/Predatory-Female-Dating-Marriage-Divorce-Industry/dp/0961593806, “Remember the basic rule: If it flies, floats, or fucks, it’s cheaper to rent” (p. 56)
But, I digress. Being an anti-civilization, apocalyptic kind of guy, my thought sometimes wanders to meditate on how women expect to survive the coming crash, be it economic or ecological/disaster. Will they continue to be witches and bitches or will they shut their mouths, gravitate to the warmest campfire, and open their legs? Or, will they be warriors like the women in the politically correct zombie apocalypse TV show, The Walking Dead? Let’s ask a woman expert.
Ashley Barkman, “Women in a Zombie Apocalypse” (in W. Yuen (ed.), The Walking Dead and Philosophy, (Open Court, Chicago, 2012), pp. 97-106), has some insights worth quoting because she is, obviously enough, a woman but also a professional philosopher and she says some damaging things to feminism, which holds that gender is a “social construct.”
Are men and women equal in a zombie apocalypse/collapse situation? She argues on the basis of recent scientific research (summary L. Sax, Why Gender Matters (2005)) that gender is not a social construct. Men and women “are not just biologically different (male and female), but also spiritually different: differences between masculine and feminine exist at conception.” (p. 98) And further “we can know this to be true naturally,” e.g., that men are generally/statistically, stronger than women. Philosophically, if we have any sense, we should follow the Stoics and Confucius, and act according to that which is natural. And this is natural: “masculinity has qualities that lend itself to leadership, whereas femininity lends itself to being led.” (p. 99)
But then there’s rape: “On the biological level women generally have the disadvantage not only in their lack of testosterone-driven aggression, and overall physical strength and size, but in the vulnerability that comes with being female. A woman using her strength to brutally rape a man is unheard of, if it is even possible. But the temptation of a man to rape a woman is a popular motif in any zombie tale.” (p. 102) And, in the real world the result of the pumping of all that jungle juice could well be pregnancy, which sort of slows one down.
In conclusion: “Feminism should not thrust leadership positions upon people who do not have the ability to optimally fulfil such roles. The zombie apocalypse opens our eyes to what feminists misconceive as a “gruesome” reality: men and women are not only different, they are not equals, and being equals is not the be-all and end-all of life – getting away from the flesh-eating undead, preferably with the ones you love, is. Political correctness shouldn’t rear its haughty head in life-or-death situations.” (p. 106)
While, perhaps, all of this may seem common sense to us, all of the above statements are generally denied in our liberal left universities. Hence my surprise in finding one dissenting voice in a mainstream text, even if the subject matter is exotic.
I predict that when the great die-off begins, the academics will be the first to have their carcasses eaten by rats. Rats, who will not discriminate on grounds of race and gender.