The progenitors of the #MeToo meme have been elevated to that dubious plinth of social endorsement, the cover of Time magazine.
These women did not “launch a movement.” However, the current wreaths-to-laurels victimhood craze does bear out the completion of an important cultural cycle.
Free Love Wasn’t Free
A core premise of our sexual dystopia is:
‘My body my choice.’
Within the bounds of legality, we are supposed to believe that neither sex is more damaged by their coital decisions than the other. The retro-active outrage now mounted by women at men on account of mutually consensual sexual intercourse (and calls for the bounds of legality to be shifted accordingly), reiterates that this is not actually the case.
The struggle of many a post-prime girl for exclusivity with a series of increasingly inferior suitors, must be a brutal way to discover that it is still impossible to raise a joyridden car back to its factory-new price.
Men are checking out of monogamous commitment, leaving two generations of women wandering a widening bimbo-limbo between settled life either as a housewife or denizen of the increasingly cash-strapped welfare state (the overwhelmingly administrative sector jobs provided to ‘career women’ being a manifestation of the latter).
As an institution, marriage is only debased further by social and legal efforts to enforce commitment from men to polygamous women who spent their bloom years in promiscuity. Although such an iniquitous contract could be excused by a myriad of exceptional circumstances, the unprecedented glut of women beneath the male investment threshold turn the exceptions into clichés.
The Gynocentric Interpretation
A defining characteristic of corporate and clickbait discourse is the effort to sublimate readers’ frustration into outrage while bypassing the question of accountability. Time and others are now under huge pressure to find mythologies to both explain the dissatisfaction of their female readership and serve as the basis for corrective political action. Someone must be to blame for their problems; anyone but themselves.
What Time has produced is a fairy tail without a prince. It begins:
‘Movie stars are more like you and me than we ever knew.’
We are then introduced to a wide range of women who were:
‘brought together by a common experience.’
They were actually brought together by Time, at great expense, to confirm the biased premise of their leading article. Time then chews over each of these women’s testimonies, droning on and on and on in a tantric, mantric, incuntation of its utterly banal and predictable conclusion:
I suspect that the feminist Trump-tantrum is not caused by Trump per se, but by the part of American society which voted him into office. It’s an important distinction because it means that, as a political instrument, Trump is needed the most by the very people who like him least. Without Trump, the outrage would be revealed for what it truly is: a million personal vendettas against a million brash, powerful and wealthy American men who these women consentingly gave their bodies to.
Trump’s appeal to the free market and private capital (as well as the string of hot women who have let him ‘grab ‘em by the poosy’), is more than just a refusal to push the envelope on welfare policies which enable sexual liberation—it is an exposition of the gulf between what is conventionally true and what is actually true about modern female sexual opportunism.
The self-deception may be genuine, but was revealed nonetheless when #metoo was triggered by the loss of societal contingency plans to ensure female sexual freedom (alpha fucks and beta bucks), by constraining that of men. The fat child screams not while it is happily eating itself to death but when the cookies are taken away.
The premise of #metoo has now been twisted by various degrees to its own complete inversion. Nearly a year ago, I was told by a County Court in Britain that I owed money to a woman whose sexual advances I had gently rebuffed some years before. Neither I nor the court had any idea why I owed her money or what her claim was, but I still had to defend myself.
A case that would never have come to trial twenty years ago dragged out for months as she gradually patched together a claim (without evidence), which gradually escalated to an allegation of sexual abuse.
My trial was the direct result of her assumption that society would stand behind her in extracting resources from the man of her choosing. I was lucky that she had a legal history of ‘choosing’ other men before me, and the judge sent her howling from the courtroom.
But what if I had been her first shot? What if she’d gone to the Crown Prosecution Service?
I add, for the sake of completeness, that I am a strict adherent of pre-marital abstinence and, in the case of this particular woman, had never kissed, hit on, made a pass at, nor been in any form of romantic relationship with her. #Iwouldnt—and that is precisely what enraged her.
Let the irony of this case serve as an illustration of the extent to which feminine imperatives can now be exercised to strong-arm men into compliance. If you have earned a #metoo assertion like I did, you’re probably doing something right.
What for men in 2018?
The dregs of women will always preen their sexual worthiness in a sensational light by announcing that a man once made an unwanted pass at them, just as feminist Phrynes like Emma Watson will always lend a pretty face to their ugly cause (phoney outrage is her profession’s prerogative. I bear her no grudge).
Our toxic tributary of sexual realism to the mainstream discussion sees the feminist victimbragging for what it really is: another attempt to circumvent rational analysis and keep society plugging the feminist narrative. Soon, #metoo will become as passé as ‘Trump Bedroom Backlash,’ but these phenomena are mere symptoms of a deeper social condition.
As private debt piles up and resources cease to flow, society will have to find new ways of demanding that men judiciously restrain their own behaviour on behalf of the unfettered dualistic sexual strategy of women—sexy badboys and stable providers stepping up and down as and when women demand it. The contradictory messages that this sends to men are now compounded by the constant possibility of being criminalised for making a faux pas.
Today, as trials move from the courtroom to the press and to Twitter and Facebook, the degree of kafkaesque reassurance that I had—the basic certainty that I was on trial—is starting to ebb away. A lot of men who don’t grasp the underlying biomechanics behind the sexual victimhood phenomenon are doomed to be spirited on a windowless train of THOT thought from false premise to final solution: their enslavement to women, either directly or via the state.
The chaotic disconnect between the claim and the truth is not a means to an end but the end itself. This climate of fear is the West’s way of forcing the marriage of mankind to womankind, joylessly mandating social responsibilities without providing any privilege. The carrot has gone from the sexual contract and only the stick remains.
The harder men try to opt out of commitment to women, the stronger the social effort will be to drive them back, until escape from women will turn into escape from society itself.