Rudeness as Empowerment

2 mins read

A feminist goes out of her way to get into yours:

A few days ago, I was having a bad morning: my train tickets were expensive, my train was delayed, and my coffee was cold. But I cheered myself up by playing a game on my commute. The game is called Patriarchy Chicken, and the rules are simple: do not move out of the way for men…

Just when you thought there were enough jerks in public already, here comes another one.
The whole article* presents a bizarre look into the mind of the modern feminist.  All the jealousy, rage, and denial of personal responsibility that you would expect to see from self-aware cancer is on full display. The rationalization hamster runs at full speed. There is no thought of social-moral concepts like courtesy or rudeness, merely the welcome war of men versus women.  And men are bad, mmmmkay?

I’ll go around, thanks.

They also make fish faces:

Some men don’t walk straight into you, of course. Some men find their brains overridden by the unfamiliar experience of a woman refusing to give way. Last week, on a busy train platform, a man was so confused by my trajectory towards him that he stopped dead in front of me, holding eye contact, and flapped his mouth like a fish. You will find that a lot of men just… stop. It is up to you to decide how to react to this.

I imagine the fellow was rather surprised to step off a train, looking for the nearest loo, when he spots some angry tart marching straight at him with fire in her eyes. But if a lot of men stop, which is a nice way of saying yield, that sort of undercuts the argument that men “never, ever give way”, does it not?  A better explanation is that some people are unnecessarily rude, and lots of them are feminists.
But mostly, men just exist to take credit for Dr. Charlotte’s hard work and to make her not sound like a crazed harridan in her written communication:

(Yielding) is so ingrained that (women) don’t even think about it. We might stand up in meetings and make our point even when we know a man will take the credit; we might dutifully delete the exclamation marks from our emails so as not to undermine ourselves – but we will still step to the side.

If feminists did not have first world problems, they would have no problems at all. For all their clucking about privilege and socialization, it is interesting to note that they are only willing to play these passive-aggressive ego games in Western nations. She would never try this in Algiers or Beijing**.  I leave it to the reader to determine why that might be.
But there is a little irony at the bottom of it.  Not that she’s an academic – that much is obvious. But because she’s an historian:

Dr Charlotte Riley is a lecturer in twentieth-century British history at the University of Southampton.

During the twentieth century, Britain sank from being the world’s foremost power to a marginal colony of Brussels where you can go to jail over a Facebook post. The empire that ruled the seas is now an emasculated political basket case that seemingly cannot import invaders fast enough to satisfy its thirst for virtue signaling.  A young feminist historian of the period is not only the person who can most incorrectly tell you why that happened, she is symbolic of much of the reason it happened.
* At the New StatesMAN of all places.  How bigoted.
** Or Atlanta

El Borak is an historian by training, an IT Director by vocation, and a writer when the mood strikes him. He lives in rural Kansas with his wife of thirty years, where he works to fix the little things.


  1. your juxtaposition of her disconnected reality with the rap song you linked paints the perfect picture of madness which has overtaken Western Diversitythink. Their enemy of my enemy is my friend policy is going to get them flattened (like the “b*tch” in the video).
    She seems utterly clueless how privileged her speech is and has no idea that in many places in the world her churlish, idiotic rudeness would likely make sure she was soundly beaten before it was lights out.
    The question is whether the cultural canker she represents has a firm enough grip to devastate this current culture or if people are finally waking up to just how fecklessly idiotic her “philosophy” is.

    • FWIW, I think the current culture is walking dead. Certainly the popular one is. How long the underlying western traditions can go on I do not know. I’ve got a rant in the hopper that might address that. Or not…

      • I came to the conclusion that the current culture is very much a product of the Enlightenment and it’s doom was simply a matter of time.
        I see it as a once a millennium type opportunity. We might actually have a chance to re evangelized North America, and rip up the faulty planks that we have been saddled with for generations.

        • Can you skin that cat a little cleaner sir? Saying the culture is a product of the Enlightenment seems a bit like saying that “the current banking situation is very much a product of the development of currency”. Sure…but doesn’t help a lot.
          What in particular sir? Or did the West go completely off the rails in the 1700’s, albeit at a varying rate? Stating that “its doom was simply a matter of time” doesn’t help me much, sir.
          That analysis holds for everything we humans touch. If that is the extent of the claim, so be it, and I agree.

          • “Can you skin that cat a little cleaner sir?”
            I did leave quite a bit of flesh hanging off the bones didn’t I.
            The Enlightenment period is best looked at as a long term replacement of God, at the center of the Western Society with “Science & Reason”. A fair number of the original Enlightenment thinkers had either a tenuous relationship with Christianity if not downright hostile.
            While I cannot say if the original intent was to replace God, its slow morph over the centuries most certainly has been twisted into exactly that.
            Does that define it a bit better?

  2. Mr. Starving Artist, I get the thrust of your point concerning the Enlightenment being a major turning point in Western History. Without going into full-throated approval, the main concept of this being a paradigm shift in both philosophy and cultural life is sound.
    The main thing to try and tease out of you is what in PARTICULAR were the points you contest? All things that man touches will be corrupted in time and turned against God. It is our fallen nature. The wide dissemination of the Bible has led to innumerable heresies and denominational fractures over time…shall we state the compilation of the Bible was the cause of our modern troubles and a poor idea?
    I do not wish to devolve into ponderous essays that waste words to never come to an actionable point. But when we look at the Counter-Enlightenment, we find it quickly devolves into Existentialism and Romanticism. Elevation of the self above that of reason. These carry their own problems, no argument at all, and can be stated to be too far a swing away from the Enlightenment.
    The topic is good to discuss as we spiral obviously towards another period of paradigm shift in Western thought. But what is actionable? What needs to be purged and rethought that was handed down from the Enlightenment?
    For my own part, I am on the side of cycle of history allowing easy times to let foolish thought spread, and hard times leading back towards God and Truth (though I repeat myself). Inevitable cycle of mankind that we are trapped in here on this orb.

    • “But what is actionable?”
      Thats a great question, and one that I have been stewing on for about 2 years now. Stay tuned I think I may have something coming that might be more of what you are after.

  3. Mr. Mantel,
    I will look into getting it sir. Bumming around and listening to the folks over on the neo-Reaction side of things for years has given a glimpse into the highlights of the counter-Enlightenment argument, but a new reference never hurts.
    As always, thank you for the recommendation sir on new material.

  4. There are so many rude, ungentlemanly guys on public transport. They’re all younger than 35 and need some sense knocked into them by REAL men. Train your sons!

  5. “(Yielding) is so ingrained that (women) don’t even think about it.”
    Anyone who thinks this statement has any point of contact with reality has never been inside a Michael’s store between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

  6. I guarantee that if she moved to the South (and I’m sure, the rest of the country) out of whatever big, nasty city she lives in, she’d find that the MEN yield to the WOMEN. And open the door for them.
    Damned patriarchy.

  7. My mother taught me to grant any woman all the civilities she is entitled too. That being said, she also taught me that if a woman wants to act like a man, then treat her like one. Therefore, if she wants to act like a man and play chicken with me to see if I am going to go around her, because she is standing in my way and refuses to move, she will be sadly mistaken. I will knock her down.

  8. US went from being a global hegemon to a colony of Mexico where you can be chased through the streets for opposing open-borders immigration policy. A child who smiles at a native American will face the full wrath of the media which will try to render that child unemployable for life,private jails will bribe judges to falsely convct juveniles just so they can appease their shareholders. The US is far more enriched than the UK or any European country.

  9. Thanks, FLASHman, it’s good to see more Kansans here. I’ll put the editors in contact with you and see what can be done. Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Previous Story

"My Life" by Martin Bakker (Part 14)

Next Story

Video: Who Was Robin Olds?

Latest from Culture