A few comments about virginity and marriage


I have already addressed and discussed the possibility that there is a correlation, and that causation is not clearly established. There are, as I discussed, many factors that may contribute to dissolution of marriages AND to first instance of sexual intercourse AND to instances of pre-marital sex. These factors may in fact be the cause of marriage dissolution, and not the pre-marital sex, of itself. This lack of clear causation, however, does not necessarily break the link between pre-marital sex and increased rates of divorce, nor does my reference to a single piece of research, dated only ten years ago, negate my argument. There is more research, however, my comment is addressed to a blog post lacking scholarly research, written quickly, and based on research readily referenced and available for you to review.

In that context, you are arguing that I must demonstrate, beyond any conceivable refutation, that pre-marital sex generally, and virginity, specifically, has no impact upon sexual relationships that follow, especially heterosexual pair-bonds. You know this to be a specious argument, based on the fallacy that I must prove more than is necessary to prove my simple and plainly stated argument, which is that chastity has a social and psychological value that impacts relationships. Jellybean’s assertions, which follow below (and to deep in the comment thread to address directly) are NOT withstanding such argument. Shocking though it might be among some, pair-bonded / married couples usually have substantially more sexual experience than non-married singles. The difference lies in the number of sexual partners during the course of a lifetime, not the experience that one may acquire, excepting, perhaps, if one insists that some experiences cannot be explored outside a single lifelong relatiosnhip, such as homosexuality for a hetersexual couple.

I also feel obligated to address the time range of the study, for this has direct bearing on the content of the study and upon several assumptions that you, Melissa, apparently overlooked. First among these is the prevalence of no-fault divorce among US state laws beginning with California in 1969 and ending, somewhat surprisingly, with New York State some scant three years ago. Prior to the general availability of no-fault divorce, it is not possible to separate divorce from cause for divorce, e.g.: one cannot say now, with any certainty, that any particular divorce ended for any particular reason since so many are legally dissolved without assigning fault. As a result, one purpose of such a study would be to determine if there are causes AND CORRELATIONS between any particular quality of a marriage or the individuals within it that may be a predictor of divorce. While prior to no-fault divorce there were certainly stories concocted for the consumption of judges that might then be recorded at court, generally one could rely upon legal record to at least establish the cause for dissolution of a marriage. As things now stand in our courts, such data are no longer available and must be constructed post-hoc.

The study, which surveyed much more than correlation between pre-marital sex and marriage dissolution, nevertheless found at least that correlation. Once might also observe a correlation between so-called race (which one must carefully differentiate from the much more biologically significant cladistic lineage – none of us is sufficiently pure for “race” as implied to have meaning) and marriage dissolution, which, upon close inspection and control for other variables such as two-parent households, income, and education levels, begins to vanish. For example, more recent studies you may yourself find and investigate will demonstrate a correlation between female economic insecurity and other negative social factors no longer favors “white” women. You will also find that married white women are exempt from the negatieve social impacts of poor economic conditions. Lacking strict causation, one may only observe correlation. This does not make the correlation vanish, nor disprove the apparent causation. We each as individuals must make decisions in absence of strict evidence of causation; this does not make us fools, merely human beings with imperfect and incomplete data. The notion that irrefutable science (an oxymoron) is necessary to continue discussions is purpose-built to end debate regarding the content of reality in favor of supporting the accepted dogma.

Second, we would all be grossly irresponsible to ignore the difference in both social acceptance and biological risks and consequences of promiscuity.before general availability of oral contraceptives, not available to women before about 1957-1960, and not available to unmarried women in all states until after 1970. A study of pre-marital sex impacts upon marriage prior to 1970 would therefore introduce a host of complications that would be wholly and completely inapplicable to the legal and social framework in which we now live. Pre-marital sex prior to 1970, and certainly before 1960, carried a host of economic and reproductive risks for women AND for men. Any study reaching back before such a date would necessarily need a host of controls to be valid for consideration and application to modern rules. Therefore, your complaint regarding the beginning date for the study lack credibility.

Third, you complain that there is no information in the study regarding men. I suppose my effort to project some egalitarian empathy is misplaced. There are several studies confirming female mate preference does not rely upon the sexual chastity of men. Such studies confirm that women do not value male chastity as men – in other studies and as remarked within Jellybean’s blog – clearly value female chastity. The scientific literature is remarkable for it’s consistent confirmation of female hypergamy and later pair-bonding for cuckoldry. “Alpha #(_)X and beta bucks,” as the PUA community brutally rhymes. Jellybean inadvertantly confirms this: within communities where pair-bonding is unlikely, sexual experience is preferred versus pre-marital sexual caution. I would encourage you, Melissa, to find and review the studies showing the aggregate economic and psychological results for pair-bonded couples.

Fourth, you refer to the author’s circular logic regarding attitudes toward marriage and related notions: “Although the NSFG contains information tapping attitudes toward marriage and family roles, this information is limited to 1995 and therefore may be as much a consequence of premarital sex, pre-marital cohabitation, marriage, and divorce as a determinant of these events.” Stripped of extraneous words for clarity, the sentence is, “…attitudes toward marriage… may be as much a consequence of pre-marity sex [et al]… as a determinate…” Such fallacious logic provides scant cover for actions lacking motivation while simulteneously indicting actions with motive that correlate with marriage dissolution. You wish to blame the motives without blaming the actions taken according to those motives; such thinking is the definition of wishing to have your cake and eat it, too. If only my clients accepted such excuses for missed deadlines!

I’ll end by returning to the content of the original blog post.

“Virginity is not a thing. Not really. It is a social construct meant to make people, especially women, feel badly about their sexuality and sexual experience. It is a way of policing other people’s bodies and passing judgment on how they use them. It is, at its very core, a way of controlling and subjugating women.”

Logical subtleties of philosphy and metaphysics aside, virginity IS A THING [capitalization for emphasis]. We can describe it; its changebility and malleability within our minds and within language does not alter that metaphysical quality. Moreover, and more to the point, as a THING it can be impactful on OTHER THINGS. It can be harmful, or helpful, and – consistent with other bits of philosophy – may be perceived differently by different individuals or groups. For one person, it may be, “a way of… subjugating women,” whereas for me, it is alternately a method of measuring experience, or social competence, or gauging an individual’s time-preference or social values, guessing a religious affiliation, or, as I have discussed at length, estimating an individual’s future sexual fidelity within a marriage.

As with all things, “your mileage may vary,” however; I don’t spend considerable time upon such written discourse except with empathy toward you. I believe you are mistaken regarding the motives of those who value premarital chastity, and encourage you to examine the available data before assuming your conclusion regarding its irrelevance is valid.

A Message from the Patriarchy: Possible Trigger Warning

We recently began monitoring the blog, “Women, Sex, and Other Hot Topics.” The latest post deserves critical review.


The blog post may be found here. Comments and brief quotes follow.

To begin, we will not debate the “statistics.” Others have reliably dispensed with most rape statistics. We will address, instead, the evil advocated by the blogger.

Please pay special attention to the standard of care advocated by this blogger.

“There is a wide range of what is actually sexual violence or sexual abuse. This can range from a boyfriend pressuring his girlfriend to do things she’s not ready to do yet, to a man getting women drunk in order to get them to sleep with him, to the actual stereotype of the man in the alley.”

The definition of rape is vague and subject to post-hoc adjustment. What constitutes “pressure” in an intimate relationship? Exactly what “things” might a woman be unready to do? Kiss? Grope? Copulate? Copulate among others copulating? Copulate with prophylactic? Copulate without prophylactics? Are particular positions forbidden? Is Sunday sex unacceptable? The mind boggles. We anticipate the objection: “That’s not what we mean!” or its companion, “You know what we mean!” Actually, no. We don’t. As we have written elsewhere, the Patriarchy advocates vaginal penetrative sex, among other sexual encounters. If you have something else in mind, please enlighten us.

Regarding mind altering drugs, including alcohol-induced inhebriation, we have established much common and statutory law to address forced intoxication. Where forced intoxication has been factually determined, the law generally absolves the victim of responsibility for actions while intoxicated and applies criminal sanction upon the perpetrator of forced intoxication. Perpetrators of the crime of forced intoxication who succeed with that initial crime motivated by the further crime of sexual assualt, which is – generally – sexual contact with a person not lawfully able to consent, can be pursued by the criminal justice system and by the victim within the civil justice system upon the premise that forced intoxication occured. It is important to note that consent to intoxication does not usually confer innocence of the consequences of intoxication; intoxicated operation of a motor vehicle is a common example, as is assualt, lewd and lascivious conduct, theft, and murder. One would be obliged to demonstrate a reasonable expectation that personal competence would not be impacted by voluntary intoxication.

In other words: if you choose to get drunk, you are obliged by law to accept the consequences of your intoxicated decisions. We only exempt those we deem generally incompetent from such obligations. We judge women generally competent. The alternative is the system of law similar to those practiced in the the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

“…it has come to my attention that someone I know has been guilty of getting girls drunk in order to get some action (or at least having sex with them when they’re drunk/high and not in control of themselves). Now, I tried talking to him about this and he admitted to this, but quickly said ‘I’m not a rapist….I wouldn’t be sexually aggressive if I were sober….I just made some mistakes. I’m not perfect. Everyone makes mistakes.’ “

We must begin by noting the following important observations. 1) The blog author has knowledge of incidents of rape. 2) The blog author has confronted the alleged rapist. 3) Alleged rapist has confirmed circumstances which blogger would define as rape. 4) The blogger does not claim to have reported the rape.

Upon receiving knowledge of an alleged rape, member of the Patriarchy are obliged to report rape. Rape is a crime. Failure to report a crime leads to lawlessness and the collapse of civil society. Lawlessness is not a modest and tolerable ill. It is the rot that destriys civilization and leads to cultural collapse.

The blogger continues…

“…If someone doesn’t give enthusiastic, non-coerced consent while sober, then it is not consent.”

The Patriarchy can endorse this message. We call this “enthusiastic, non-coerced consent while sober,” marriage. Each party to a marriage consents to sexual intimacy for life. The contract may be voided by divorce and suspended by a legal separation. Regretably, we do not believe the blogger advocates for this magnitude of “enthusiastic, non-coerced consent while sober.” Further, we do not believe she argues for similar written contractual obligations. We suspect she advocates for less formal arrangements that permit men to be accused of criminal malfeasance. We’ve spent millenia building the legal and cultural framework necessary to provide equity at law for marriage, and that framework is still adequate for those who observe the ancient customs. Sadly, recent innovations threaten the framework so badly that many within the Patriarchy advocate it abandonment pending resolution of the cootie war. While these men are presently within the minority, this balance is subject to change. Most advocates for change hypothesize that a transactioanl relationship may enlighten those who believe the marriage contract outdated or inequitable. The majority concurs: transactional relationships will favor members of the Patriarchy such that some women may not survive. Therefore, the Patriarchy opposes change on humanitatrian grounds: too much needless suffering may result.

The blogger continues further with a discussion of the concept called “victim blaming.”

“This victim blaming is a cause of entitlement that we humans seem to have towards things we view as “objects,” particularly male feelings of entitlement towards women’s bodies.”

The Patriarchy has repeatedly addressed this accusation. We do not treat with unwilling partners. We require long-term commitment and unambiguous contracts. We do not treat women as objects. We find this thread of logic distressing and disturbing. Why does this blogger think men would perceive women as “objects?” Men perceive women as partners or non-partners. The blogger’s examples are depraved [enumeration ours].

“No, you [1] cannot touch her just because she’s being friendly. No, you [2] can not dance with your dick against her ass just because she’s dancing next to you at a party, no [3] you cannot have sex with her just because you are alone in a room with her and she was flirting with you. ‘Well, [4] she was dressed like this,’ ‘[5] We had sex before,’ ‘[6] She sleeps around’… “

The Patriarchy has prepared the legal framework to address the concerns you discuss. If you would observe it and adopt it, you would live long and prosper. Alas, you do not listen.



This is one of those moments where both you and the woman you’re critiquing are right. Email #4 is an idiot. Let’s say the guy is salvageable, for sake of argument. [He’s not.] Here’s where he’s gone wrong.

1. The girl he’s chasing is too old. Given he’s 48, I recommend the old rule of “half your age plus 7 years.” For this guy, that’s 48/2+7=31. Ignore anything older. [Edit: older women are acceptable, but one should comprehend that such women don’t see themselves as mistresses. This context is too complicated to explain here.]
2. If married, never get involved with a mistress who occupies your mind. If you’re already married with children and have a mentally rewarding life, you don’t have mental energy to spare on your own fixations. Women provide enough of their own.
3. Never go to her place. Ideally, she ought not have a place of her own. If you’re intending to keep two women, you ought afford them both, else your mistress may be somebody’s girlfriend, too. You’re not sharing your wife; why share your mistress?
4. Only very financially secure men ought ever try this game. You must be so rich, and the mistress so beneath your wife in station, that there is no chance your mistress can outclass your wife. Email #4 is interested in an office girl. Unless she’s a bona-fide sexretary, she’s almost certainly career-minded. For a married guy that’s already bought one cow, the next purchase needs to be a goat. Sure, it can be a pretty goat, but it better be a goat. Low maintenance and little aspiration are key here.
5. Some girls aspire to success in marriage as well as career. Don’t pursue such girls as mistresses. They’ll always be after your wife and your estate. Pick girls who self-select out of high-society. These days, that’s the chick at the tattoo parlor with a nose ring who drives an old pick-up. The waitress who’s worked the coffee shop for two years. These chicks are looking for a beta by working-class standards. Men who can afford mistresses look beta to girls who might otherwise date bikers and longshoremen and other laborers.
6. Be clear the relationship is at will but up for renewal. If you become suddenly cash-poor (it happens), you dump the mistress. Do not the wife: such is cost-prohibitive.
7. Yes, your wife should know about your mistress and vice-versa, but that’s about all the contact they have. Neither dictates your schedule, and any children by either are their day-to-day concern to manage under your approval.
8. Mistresses aren’t cheap, even if they’re “cheap.” Realistically, your gifts are their retirement money. You can’t skimp on jewels and gold. If you’re married, you know $10,000 per year is chump change for modern women, so plan accordingly. Refer to #4.

A Message from the Patriarchy: The Enemy Drinks Blood

Some weeks ago, I drove with my daughter to make a college visit. Early on the trip, she asked a question that led to the following discussion. Forgove some fictive license.

“What is the source of rights?”

“What do you think?”

“From the Constitution.”

“So, did we not have rights before the Constiution?”

“Well, yes, we did have rights.”

“So, from where do we get rights? God?”

“You don’t believe there’s a god.”

“No, I don’t. So, you know that’s not where I think we get rights.”

“Alright, what do you think?”

“Well, how are your rights protected?”

“What to you mean?”

“If you have a right to property, and somebody steals from you, what do you do?”

“Call the police?”

“What will they do?”

“Stop the thief.”


“They’ll arrest him.”


“With handcuffs.”

“what if the theif doesn’t want to be arrested?”

“They make him.”


“They’ll grab him and hold him down.”

“Using what?”

“They’re bodies?”

“They use force.”


“The police must use force to make others do something, or the threat of force, which is conditional force.”


“Look, how do we decide things in this country.”

“We vote.”

“Is that moral?”

“Yes. Everybody get’s an equal say.”

“Alright. What do you want for dinner tonight?”


“What do you want for dinner tonight?”

“I don’t know.”

“Pick something.”


“Now, let’s say we go home tonight, and your mom and I decide we want spaghetti. If we’re voting, our votes outnumber yours, and we eat spaghetti.”

“Well, that wouldn’t be the first time…”

Snigger. “Let’s say, everywhere you went, you were always among others who all insisted upon an equal say: a vote. And let’s say that’s how things worked at every meal, every restaurant. Everybody sits down at the restaurant, and everybody orders, and the order with the most votes wins.”


“And no mater what gets the vote, you’re still obligated to pay the bill, even if you don’t eat.”

“I think I get it.”

“And that’s how we run our country.”

“But what if I don’t want to pay?”

“Well, let’s take the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, for instance, but it could be any other tax, for that matter. Let’s say you don’t want to pay the tax. Then what?”

“The IRS will take your money.”

“From where?”

“From the bank.”

“What if I don’t keep my money in a bank?”

“What do you mean, ‘I don’t keep my money in a bank.’ “

“I mean, what if it’s gold in my house, or some other commodity, or land. Then what?”

“They’ll come take that.”



“Yep: the IRS will send some group of people, probably with guns, to take it from me.”


Where Do I Go Wrong?

The referenced article deserves ridicule. I hereafter oblige.
Original: http://thoughtcatalog.com/amy-glass/2014/01/i-look-down-on-young-women-with-husbands-and-kids-and-im-not-sorry/
The referenced article deserves ridicule. Here it is.
Every time I hear someone say that patriarchy is about validating every choice a man makes I have to fight back vomit.

Do people really think that a stay at home dad is really on equal footing with a man who works and takes care of himself? There’s no way those two things are the same. It’s hard for me to believe it’s not just verbally placating these people so they don’t get in trouble with the daddy bloggers.

Having kids and getting married are considered life milestones. We hand out cigars and throw bachelor parties as if it’s a huge accomplishment and cause for celebration to be able to knock-up some chick or find someone to walk down the aisle with. These aren’t accomplishments, they are actually super easy tasks, literally anyone can do them. They are the most common thing, ever, in the history of the world. They are, by definition, average. And here’s the thing, why on earth are we settling for average?

If men can do anything, why are we still content with applauding them for doing nothing?

I want to have a party for a man when he backpacks on his own through Asia, gets a promotion, or lands a dream job not when he stays inside the box and does the house and kids thing which is the path of least resistance. The dominant cultural voice will tell you these are things you can do with a wife and kids, but as I’ve written before, that’s a lie. It’s just not reality.

You will never have the time, energy, freedom or mobility to be exceptional if you have a wife and kids.

I hear men talk about how “hard” it is to raise kids and manage a household all the time. I never hear women talk about this. It’s because men secretly like to talk about how hard managing a household is so they don’t have to explain their lack of real accomplishments. Women don’t care to “manage a household.” They aren’t conditioned to think stupid things like that are “important.”

Men will be equal with women when we stop demanding that it be considered equally important to do housework and real work. They are not equal. Doing laundry will never be as important as being a doctor or an engineer or building a business. This word play is holding us back.


One thing that confuses me to no end is how I can have a discussion with someone I agree with, and in the end they walk away offended and convinced they disagree with me.  I’ll grant that the theory and perspectives this circle writes from is unconventional, but it surprises me that even the slightest deviation from the Cathedral party line leads to a total shut-down of dialogue.  In the case below, a friend essentially asked, “Why can’t feminists respect stay-at-home-moms?” and I answered that I believed such a reconciliation was impossible.  Because Progress depends on moderates getting suckered into compromise time-and-time again, pointing out the extremism of the Left Wing, (let alone its very existence) predictably triggered the immediate end of the discussion.

But, being the inquisitive person I am, I’m willing to explore the idea that my style of discussion and persuasion is utterly awful and terrible.  I’m…

View original post 729 more words

Whole Man, Complete Man, and Why They Aren’t Perfect Terms


A is not A if it lacks qualities of A. In the case of Man, we must decide if we are describing different subsets of Men, or Man. I believe you struggle to define Man rather than breeds of Men.

It has become common among the so-called progressives among us to declare that all are due “human” rights. Discarding for a moment the fallacious appeal to natural rights, the term “human” itself betrays allegiance. One might as well say, “mammal rights,” or say, “sentient rights,” or declare some other biological or mechanical taxonomy deserving of privilege. To use your language, such are the philosophies of machines and psychopaths. Such are not Man.

There are still some few of us, debased as we might be, battered, deformed even, who can claim to be Men. Our souls are not yet so fouled that we cannot recognize the depravity of our culture and feel revulsion. We are not so lost that we lose sight of our faults. We are not yet cleaving off our hands, or coupling with other species or even machines in an attempt to abandon our place as Men and become something twisted. We know this thing, Man, and we still recognize ourselves in the mirror.

It is this being, Man, of which I hoped you wrote.

I’ll impose an anecdote upon you, by way of example.

Today I met a client about a small bit of work – honest work – which in the days there were more Men would not have required the special skills I’ve acquired, but now we must rely upon things whoch are not Men to complete our work, so Men are called upon to lead. After settling the business at hand, he again encouraged me to accept further work for this major US corporation. This work, I’ve already determined, afford the opportunity for great profit, but it is morally suspect. Not the usual “profiteering” mind you: even creatures which are not Men can perceive such stench. What this work entailed was providing a service unnecessary for the greater task: a gross waste of effort and duplicative labor to accomplish a task which would be better done at less profit for one with my skills, but at great savings to the corporation, great profit for its shareholders, and – despite the cries of anti-capitalist death cultists – of great benefit to customers and the general public. Alas, the corpse is laid bare and all the scavenger, from the hyena to the lowly bacterium await the opportonity to feed upon a corpse. And so I declined the work, for I am still Man, and do not eat carrion with the vultures.

There are many components that make Man, and perhaps his spiritual nature is some portion, but the spiritual man you describe is not yet a man, for he is too distant from the blood and guts of this earth. Those of us who are Man make hard choices every day because we live in a world so depraved that each day is wallowing in filth. Every third word from the mouth of a stranger is foolish and insane, and the sentences become babbling in the truest sense of the word.

So, perhaps I’ll attempt this task also, and try to describe Man. And perhaps you’ll forgive my apparent arrogance.

A Message from the Patriarchy: Intersectionality and the Dark Enlightenment

I’ve been reading a particular feminist blog more exclusively than usual. Lately, she’s been complaining about the “white feminists” quite a lot. The prompting event appears to have been a radio show episode broadcast somewhere – everywhere? – in Britain. Long story short, she’s complaining that the white feminists are attempting to “own” a concept called “intersectionality.”

Intersectionality (credit to Wikipedia) ” is the study of intersections between different disenfranchised groups or groups of minorities; specifically, the study of the interactions of multiple systems of oppression or discrimination. This feminist sociological theory was first named by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989…” For reference, Kimberly is a female black-skinned US-born US citizen – so intersectionality is a black thing. That may be important later, so take note.

Best I comprehend, intersectionality is, in my words, the study of the inter-relationship of systems for ruling a population. The study is pursued from the subordinate end of the authority systems, and has, as a goal of study, exposure of the systems as a means to overcome the rule of the prevailing authorities. If intersectionality seeks to manipulate these systems to change them so that the subordinate become the dominant, such efforts are concealed beneath the conceit of proposed systems of “equality.” Such equality is achieved by means of discriminatory systems meant to provide “social justice” for the subordinate classes. These second-stage efforts, however, appear to lack the academic rigour necessary to construct effective systems for discrimination and subordination of presently dominant populations. On its face, it appears to me that intersectionality fails because it advocates “inclusiveness” and denies its apparent intent to invert the present social systems.

So, what’s this got to do with the Dark Enlightenment (DE)? Neoreaction relies upon the assumption that ancient social, cultural, religious, economic, et cetera systems are evolved to serve the purpose of the populations which they govern and regulate. The religious among the neoreaction movement would even argue that such systems are divinely established and that advocating against them is rebellion against divine will. Being atheist, I won’t go so far. DE, being broader than neoreaction (although occasionally decribed as synonymous), argues that the observed variances between and within human  populations are not the result of the institution of ARTIFICIAL systems of social regulation, but are instead NATURAL expressions of a living society seeking cultural health and reproductive success.

Both these movements – DE and intersectionality – are particularly recent. Intersectionality springs from the victim studies departments of USA academia; DE was built on the ashes of post-French-Revolution reaction, the collapse of the KKK and white power movements under the weight of their ignorance, the pressure of affirmative action programs upon the economic prospects of working class men, and the verifiable success of individuals who abandoned chivalry and politically-correct race interaction for pick-up artist (PUA), Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), and race-realist philosophies.  Throw in some post-libertarian economics, doomsday-prepper habits, and a general distrust of democracy, and you’ve got a fair description of the average DE adherent. It’s worth noting that women are among them. Its also worth noting that such folks are “racist” in the traditional sense – even those that aren’t “white.”

If we accept, for argument’s sake, that intersectionality is the study of an observable trait of human sociology, then what we must further accept is that both sides of the relationships describes may be capable of perceiving the social structures that are present and manipulating these structures to partisan benefit. Said differently, if intersectionality is real – and the Dark Enlightenment would tend to support the theory (we’re way past hypothesis here) – then the obvious conclusion is that those decrying the restrictive and demeaning effects of intersectionality may be late entrants to the social science. The early students and practitioners, if in fact “guilty” of the acts which the new students are now exploring, probably call their field of study rulership, mastery, management, or some similar label. What, pray tell, are instructions regarding how men ought manage women and ethnic or religious minorities except manipulations of facts discerned by the latecomers now describing their “new” social science as intersectionality? Sam Ambreen may cry foul at the actions of white women, but what does it matter if the impact of that white female “elite” (yeah, right) still manipulates social structures to their personal advantage. If the manipulated and “oppressed” remain oppressed, what’s the point? Miss Ambreen would better spend her time using her knowledge to manipulate social structures to her advantage: perhaps a steady gig at a left of center political rag.

For our part, the darkly enlightened ought consider the possibility that there is much to be learned from people studying intersectionality. If nothing else, it provides us feedback. If I’m going to be damned as a privileged racist white male, I may as well take full advantage of the opportunities it affords me, right??

Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden”

Presented for your consideration and comment. Is Kipling’s message ironic? Also, please present your thoughts regarding the last stanza.

Take up the White Man’s burden–
Send forth the best ye breed–
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild–
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man’s burden–
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another’s profit,
And work another’s gain.

Take up the White Man’s burden–
The savage wars of peace–
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to naught.

Take up the White Man’s burden–
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper–
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.

Take up the White Man’s burden–
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard–
The cry of hosts ye humor
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:–
“Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?”

Take up the White Man’s burden–
Ye dare not stoop to less–
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.

Take up the White Man’s burden–
Have done with childish days–
The lightly proffered laurel,
The easy, un-grudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!