BLM and Women

This completely jives with my anecdotal experience:

The most unhinged BLMers are all women. Somebody needs to study the psycho-sexual nature of female attachment to totalitarian regimes.

35 thoughts on “BLM and Women”

  1. I hope you won’t become so conservative that you’ll deplore giving the right to vote to our sex … or gender … or people with … some body parts. 🙂

    If we agree that there are no biological differences between men and women which would justify discrimination, looking into socialization of girls would be helpful.

    It’s not new. Remember European women initially were for receiving unlimited number of Middle-Eastern men? I suppose most EU women are against mass migration into their countries now.

    One explanation is that being for BLM is a cheap way to present oneself as a caring person. Women still perceive themselves as socially expected to be caring, nurturing, etc.


  2. I’d say it is pretty understandable from the viewpoint of the feminist theory I know (not sure which wave it is): for ages women were socialized to be responsible and were treated as being primarily responsible for “purity” and otherwise good (read – socially acceptable) and ethical conduct not only of themselves, but of their family members as well. For example, they were, and in many backward places are still considered to be responsible for their husbands not drinking, not cheating, attending church, etc, etc. If we also agree that extreme wokeness is quasi-religious, then women presenting themselves as agents of “purity” is simultaneously perfectly understandable… and not very progressive, but a replay of the dynamics hoisted upon them by the patriarchy. 😉


    1. Yet not a single dumb broad is speaking against school closures that are going to make her life hell. They are all wailing and protesting over some guy when exactly zero guys ever cared about their problems.


  3. The data is interesting, but what is most intriguing to me is the way the data is presented. Why did they chose to graph the results as %support – %oppose? Wouldn’t a simple bar graph of say… % support, show the results just as well?


    1. As with every data it tells a story. If this chart was created for mostly young female audience, they will draw certain conclusions about men, given how uncritical the thinking of this generation has become.


    2. “Why did they chose to graph the results as %support – %oppose? ”

      I’m not sure where the graph is from, but…. marketing? BLM is a corporate project and the way to sell things to American women is by framing them as challenges to male power…. (see Edward Bernays and ‘torches of freedom’).


  4. Considering my profession, it’s ironic I just realised I have decyphered this seemingly simple diagram incorrectly. And now have no idea how to do it…

    Clarissa, you have once said you weren’t good in math, but here you are clearly the stronger party. 🙂

    Do columns above the line mean “support” and columns below – “oppose”? Or the opposite? It’s confusing the way it’s presented.

    So in age group 18-34, 8% of men and 40% of women support BLM.

    Aged 35-49, 17% of men oppose and 15% of women support. Where have the other 85% of women and 83% of men gone?

    Or, did they ask the participants to grade their view of BLM from total support (+100) to total opposition (-100) and then counted averages for each age group?

    Math wizards, please help this math expert who is at sea … 🙂 🙂

    Here in the original survey it is easy to understand and you can play with categories on the left and get different graphs.

    But the data I received there is different from the diagram in the post. For instance,
    Refined by: Gender: Female✕Age: 18-34
    Gives 72% Support and not 40.

    The original survey is here:

    The blog post it is from:


    1. el – the bars on the graph are the difference between those who support BLM and those who oppose BLM. It is an odd way to present the data and that is what I was saying in my comment above. Presenting the data the way they did as %support-%oppose is unecessarily complicated. I have to agree with Cliff and Maria above – seems the data is presented in this way to lead the viewer to draw a certain conclusion.


      1. // the bars on the graph are the difference between those who support BLM and those who oppose BLM.

        Thanks, Heimie. I didn’t understand it was a minus sign between “%support-%oppose”. Thought it was a hyphen.


  5. Um. I think there’s something to the idea that feminism and PC culture have made so much progress toward “civilizing” (i.e. feminizing) middle-class white men, and brainwashing middle-class white women into thinking that’s what they want men to be like, that there is a considerable amount of sublimated sexual desire on display here: what middle-eastern men have in common with black men in America is that within their own cultures, it’s still acceptable to display dominance.


    1. // what middle-eastern men have in common with black men in America is that within their own cultures, it’s still acceptable to display dominance

      I am unsure what “display dominance” means except following patriarchal stereotypes – treating women as inferior and justifying abuse.

      I would say Barack Obama is a black man who can be seen as dominant, but that’s probably not what you referred to.

      What is dominant in men who leave their kids, commit crimes and are jailed? (*) They are as dominant as poor whites in dead deserted cities who drug themselves to death out of hopelessness.

      (*) I know there are many middle class black people, but they are supposedly already a part of a general American culture, not some special black culture.


      1. I mean it in the testosterone-influenced-behaviors sense. We are mammals. In mammals, dominance displays are one of the major means of attracting a female to mate with: winning fights with rival males, defending territory, controlling resources, casual violence…

        Humans are more complicated, but the basic biological drives didn’t go away when we became self-aware, thinking creatures. They don’t go away just because we want them to, or because we’ve socialized everyone out of them. We’ve sold a couple of generations of girls on the idea that the ideal man is basically just like your girl-friends, but with a penis. He does half the housework, he’s sweet and nurturing toward the kids, he never loses his temper or raises his voice, and he’s probably not even into sports. Maybe he goes for a manicure now and then. Anything else is The Patriarchy, and must be resisted!

        You don’t think those sublimated biological urges are going to come creeping out somewhere? Have you seen Game of Thrones?

        Add in the part where all us good feminist girls were supposed to want to grow up and have A Career, but when we got to adulthood, what we found was A Job, and a life full of crappy decisions we didn’t want to have to make. What do you want to bet a lot of these women fantasize about living in a culture where all those decisions are taken away from them? A Patriarchy. Are these the women who read bodice-ripper novels about pirates, corporate moguls, vampires, etc. ? That’s a HUGE market. It doesn’t come from nowhere.


      2. “What is dominant in men who leave their kids, commit crimes and are jailed? ”

        Why is it that these men have kids? Plenty of men never manage to have kids. Incels are a real thing. If he’s got kids to abandon, odds are very good that some women found him attractive. Why is that?


    2. “middle-eastern men… in America… within their own cultures, it’s still acceptable to display dominance.”


      Survey data? Does your generalization cover only first generation working class immigrants? What about Arab-American Christians? University-educated Arab-Americans? Professional and entrepreneurial Arab-Americans? Turkish immigrants? Israeli immigrants?


      1. // What about Arab-American Christians?

        In Middle East and in other misogynistic cultures, the kind of religion – whether Christian or Muslim or Jewish Orthodox – doesn’t lessen the level of misogyny.

        // Israeli immigrants?

        If one refers to Israeli Jewish immigrants, one should not group them with Muslim or Arab immigrants since we come from very different cultures.


        1. “doesn’t lessen the level of misogyny”

          Survey data? If it’s impressionistic, do you believe you are familiar enough with Arab Christian culture (and sub-cultures like Copts, Maronites, Orthodox) to make confidently this kind of generalization?

          “one should not group them…” yes that was my point, but your point here is undercut by your generalization about Orthodox Jews


          1. // “one should not group them…” yes that was my point, but your point here is undercut by your generalization about Orthodox Jews

            Quiverfull Christians are also misogynistic, but they are not Middle Eastern.
            Agree that my comment was unclear.

            Btw, was really shocked by this example of female oppression. #WhereIsMyName in Afghanistan fights against literal legal erasure of women:

            // In Afghanistan’s patriarchal society, a woman’s name should not be revealed, even on her grave.

            “Mr X’s” mother, daughter or sister, the headstone might read, rather than the name of the deceased.

            Openly using the names of women is regarded as inappropriate and even an insult in the conservative Muslim nation.

            On a birth certificate there is no sign of the mother’s name. On a wedding invitation the bride’s name is not mentioned – only the names of her father and husband-to-be.

            But a women-led campaign on social media is starting to challenge the old Afghan tradition.

            #WhereIsMyName, recently launched by a small group of women’s rights activists, wants to bring women’s given names to official documents and to the lips of Afghan people.



      2. Perhaps the correct word is “aggression” rather than dominance.

        Have you taken a look at the sjw “men” in these protest crowds? Is there anything there to be sexually attracted to? The women are not all lesbians, and desire is going to go somewhere.

        So let’s say you’re a purple-haired SJW gal, and your definition of masculinity is pure evil and if a man wants to be an “ally” or part of your little protest club, he basically has to be neutered. UNLESS he happens to be an Oppressed Minority (TM). They’re allowed to be aggressive. Because oppression or something. So you’ve been spending all your time around skinny vegan boys with gender issues and nail polish, who can’t even tell you that you look nice, because That’s Sexist, and now there’s this BLM thing, where you can (without damaging your sjw cred) go and support the cause of men who have violent run-ins with cops (bad boy appeal!), who are allowed to aggressively pursue women, who don’t have to self-censor because they have Minority Status (TM)… do you really not see it?


        1. For better or for worse, I have a lot of young and not so young woke people among my friends and generally people I know, and my impression is that they are less driven by biological or evo-psych type criteria in their choice of opposite-sex partners than you seem to believe…
          Yes, dominance/aggression/I know what you mean has some appeal, but being too aggressively manly, especially without the ability to modulate oneself and adapt to the situation, may annoy today’s females by the second date, so unless one is after one night stands (not that there is something fundamentally wrong with that), being too manly does not seem to be a particularly rewarding strategy…


          1. But that’s just it! These women aren’t making a conscious decision like they might with a date. They are being unconsciously drawn toward something they’ve expurgated from their conscious thinking. It’s what happens when you refuse to even admit you can have such impure thoughts.


            1. Don’t know… Maybe there is also an element of doing something not approved by their parents. And before someone claims “but woke children come from woke families”… double points for doing something that one’s parents openly approve and secretly disapprove… maybe not for racist reasons, but for classist ones.

              But in general I do not like reducing everything to biology, so why not allow for all those young women actually acting on their principles (which may be age-appropriately simplistic and black and white, pun not intended) rather than being driven by some subconscious biological agenda? Your position offends my old-fashioned feminist beliefs that women are actually as capable of as men and not some “hysterics” driven by biology… 🙂


              1. That’s certainly possible. But I find biological explanations more compelling. Largely because I have no instinctive grasp of how groups of women function socially, and animal models make more sense to me 😉


          2. I missed this whole very enlightening debate but it’s very hard to define what’s manly. Everybody has their own definition.

            I don’t think I ever met a dominant/ aggressive male type. I’m surrounded my sweet, sensitive, gentle types everywhere. And I’m very happy with this.

            Once I asked Hispanic colleagues what they meant by the word macho. They said “it’s somebody who is like you but with a penis.” So I’m still confused.


            1. // Once I asked Hispanic colleagues what they meant by the word macho. They said “it’s somebody who is like you but with a penis.” So I’m still confused.

              Find it hard to believe you are confused since I know exactly what they were talking about and you’ve described yourself thus – though in different words – on this very blog. 🙂

              My grandmother was like that. When she was around 9 years old, she found a horse so her family could be evacuated instead of murdered by Nazis like some other relatives had been. In her old age, she was the engine behind our immigration to Israel. My mother is very strong too. Hope I’ll develop more strength with age too.

              I wish I could have a husband like my grandma. I wouldn’t call such people “a dominant/ aggressive male type.” They are simply strong people with strong character. Strength is attractive in and to both sexes.

              Being drawn to strength is natural and good. However, what methylethyl described – “men who have violent run-ins with cops” and men who are “allowed to be aggressive” because of belonging to “an Oppressed Minority (TM)” – denotes weakness rather than strength. Weakness, stupidity and cruelty / aggression in the bad sense of the word.


              1. Yes! This crap version of alpha male is what women are attracted to, when the culture they live in is deprived of any template for virtuous manhood: strong, self-disciplined, hard-working, responsible, resourceful, etc. I posit that SJW culture has ZERO templates for men who are both manly and decent human beings, and this leaves a vacuum into which men who are manly, but also crap human beings, easily fall. You could probably sum the whole thing up as “Daddy issues”.


              2. The SJW types I know close enough to realistically have an informed opinion about their value system actually do possess all those positive “manly” qualities (to me they are not “manly”, but just grown-up). The problem (for my taste, apparently not for them) is that they somehow got trained or trained themselves to treat those strengths with great suspicion… As if any strengths must be automatically used to oppress the weak, unless one makes an extra effort to control it and “check one’s privilege”… I mean – reflecting upon one’s actions and their effects on others is good, but it is not the same as following a simple scheme a la “strength=privilege=bad”…

                Liked by 1 person

              3. Actually, now I know what I will say next time I have a conversation with someone about privilege… (And I do have those conversations with SJW sometimes, without participants killing each other.)
                I’d say – embrace your privilege, do not be afraid of it. You do not have to change your ideology – use your education, your ability to debate logically and eloquently, the supposed trustworthiness emanating from being a figure of authority or being a cis white male, etc, and apply them to SJW causes. By all means. For all I care – use these privileges and outdebate a conservative in an honest debate instead of cancelling them…

                As long as you believe that the “natural state” of the SJW side is weak (and if you are not weak, you have to be ashamed of it and make yourself appear weak, or else you are “privileged” and therefore bad) and the Systemic Racism / Oppression / The System / The Man is strong – of course you will have a tendency to go right for the jugular. This is the natural way for the weak to fight the strong. But if you are actually not weak, behaving this way makes you a bully, a “bad sport”, and it is also unnecessary and bad for the society in the long run.

                Note, this attempting to justify one’s actions by assuming victim position is not unique to SJW or left-wing circles. For example, I know of a couple of nuclear powers, whom no sane person would call left-wing, and who justify their bad behaviors by insisting that they are perpetual victims because really bad things (I repeat – very real very bad and not justifiable things) happened to them several generations ago, or because the only reason one may possibly disagree with them is prejudice and bigotry. (I am drawing the parallels I am drawing very consciously; one can read my argument backwards, from the end to the beginning, and ask oneself what conclusions could be made made from such a reading.)


    3. “a considerable amount of sublimated sexual desire on display here”

      This was a minor theme in Okkupert (if you haven’t seen it… see it) in which Norwegian women mostly seem to not find massively domesticated Norwegian men very appealing in comparison with men from cultures that are less…. considerate of female feelings.


      1. Cliff, interesting… I am a fan of Okkupert for many reasons, but I can only think of one woman who fits the profile you described… But at the second look her issues with her husband go well beyond him being “too domesticated”. I am talking about the restaurant owner / journalist-who-ended-up-dead couple)…


        1. There’s also Faisal’s girlfriend and her…. use of the computer guy, Djupvik’s wife seems more and more disgusted with him… like I said, it’s a minor theme but it’s there (especially if you follow Scandinavian culture at all).


      2. // This was a minor theme in Okkupert (if you haven’t seen it… see it) in which Norwegian women mostly seem to not find massively domesticated Norwegian men very appealing in comparison with men from cultures that are less…. considerate of female feelings.

        I think it’s the fear of a non-negligible number of Western men more than true female preference.


  6. Some women are attracted to “bad boys” who boss them around, treat them badly, ruin their lives, and run out on them when things get too hard. Authoritarian politicians are like the “bad boy” of governmental representatives, because they boss everyone around, treat everyone badly, ruin everyones life, and then try to run out of the (collapsed) country with loot when everything gets too hard.

    Explains everything 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.