It was about this time, 11 years ago, when I was in London, news emerged about foreign men and rape gangs across the UK. The horror story of Rotherham was on all the front pages, and I remember thinking, surely this can’t go on. Surely something must be done.
Yet nothing has been done. In fact, it is getting worse because the importation of foreign men has not slowed down, men who have no kinship with the young women in the societies they now call home. Moreover, nothing can be done because the modern police have no idea how such men think about women on a fundamental psychological level. They think they do, but they don’t.
The police are trained to believe that all men are alike, no matter where they come from. They have forgotten that by the time the police are called to any disturbance involving a British or Kiwi man, the system has already done 90% of the work to control that man’s behaviour. Police are only summoned when one of these domesticated men loses his mind. The police force can afford to be proportionately small and light-touch in both New Zealand and the UK precisely because native British and Kiwi men have been broken like horses to largely police themselves.
This domestication begins from an early age when every boy is shamed for being a boy. Each natural boyish impulse is immediately guardrailed with rules, punishments and incentives the moment it manifests. He is told to conform to the standards set by older men and women, ostensibly in the interests of social stability. And if you can carrot-and-stick a young boy for long enough, he eventually loses the fire and willingly puts on the tie (a symbol of castration) before heading to the office cubicle. You would be shocked by how much of a state’s resources go into controlling and redirecting the masculine energy of its 15–30-year-old young men.
But what happens when the government imports millions of foreign men who have skipped these domestication pressures? What happens when those foreigners come from societies with disgusting cultural norms and extremely alien views about women? What should the police do with such people if the level of self-policing they have been trained to expect does not exist among these foreign men? Well, picture wolves and sheep. Picture Rotherham, Telford, Rochdale or Oldham.
The UK Grooming Gang Inquiry showed that the procedures of domestication failed on these foreign men. It revealed that these systems were built to domesticate a certain kind of male: the Anglo, or more broadly, the European. They were not set up to break the will of males from other races and cultures. The mistake of these systems was to treat all males as the same, in the name of equality and anti-racism. Despite daily evidence that not all men are the same, the system has refused to adapt by applying varying levels of domestication pressure to the different groups of men who now live in our society. The result was horror for thousands of young women.
The correct conclusion of the Inquiry is that our normal systems no longer work inside a multicultural society, and they have not worked for a very long time. The inadequacy and rust are everywhere visible. Young people are not drinking alcohol anymore, restaurants and clubs are failing, and the kids prefer to stay home with Netflix rather than hang out in public spaces. Maybe it’s the economy. But there’s a good chance these are lagging indicators of young people feeling unsafe and disconnected due to the higher number of undomesticated men milling around. The police can’t protect everyone, so the young people are responding on their own by changing how they act.
For example, in Paris, London, Berlin and even Auckland, young women are beginning to realise why other countries encourage their women to cover up. It’s not to control the women. Those mechanisms were put in place by men to contain men, not women. Obviously, burqas and hijabs oppress women; I’m not arguing with that. But oppressing women is not the primary purpose of these clothing options. Women covering up is a sign that the domestication of men in that society is either unsophisticated or inadequate. If the men can’t be controlled, then the women will not be free.
I doubt this has much to do with Islam. After all, about 15,000 Bosnian Muslims live in the UK, and no (reported) rapes of British girls came from that community. A lack of impulse control doesn’t just occur in pre-civilised cultures. Recall the “wilding“ incidents in New York among black American males. Also, many women have stories of ex-boyfriends becoming stalkers or acting creepy shortly after a break-up. Even in rural Europe up until WWII, women covered their bodies as a matter of course. Some places more and some places less, but they all covered up. The reason they were required to do so was to protect them from being raped. That isn’t a joke or a rationalisation.
The reality is that unless overwhelming control, laws and social shaming are brought to bear, men will pursue women for sex. In places lacking such laws and norms, the men are largely uneducated if not totally illiterate, and there is little in the way of strong police authority. Men from these societies are aggressive and hormonal. If a woman walks down the street in little clothing, she’ll be assaulted because the men lack impulse control. In the same way that British and Kiwi men don’t know what it’s like to be really hungry, we also don’t know what it’s like to be really horny. We have many pressure-release valves and effective, persistent domestication procedures. Other places do not.
The leaders of these backward countries understand that other men have no impulse control. However, they lack the resources and intelligence to develop effective domestication procedures. The only power they have is to require women to cover up. From their perspective, the danger isn’t that a woman’s sexuality is so alluring that it must be contained. Rather, body coverings are an acknowledgement that undomesticated men can be incredibly impulsive, so it helps if women participate in their own safety since the police and state will be impotent.
The concern over male behaviour is innate to males everywhere. How else can expressions like “dressing modestly” be explained? Or even “dressing provocatively?” And where did the “she was asking for it” defence of rape cases come from? All these expressions accept the implied but universally understood notion that without external forces or domestication, most men can’t control their sexual impulses.
True, sex shaming often is targeted at women rather than men. This just reinforces my point because it reflects the common perception that women can control sexuality by covering up. It also assumes men can’t control their impulses, so how could he be blamed for something he cannot control? Of course this is unfair, and feminists are correct to fight it. But we are asking what happens when millions of men from ancient cultures are imported into a society that operates with an ideology that claims it would be “racist” to pressure these men with harsher domestication procedures than those used on the native men.
If, as a male, you are right now controlling your sexual instincts, understand that this is because you were born in a country where the laws against your male impulses are quickly felt at the round edge of a police baton. You were raised in an environment that taught you to control your sexual impulses. But those sexual impulses have not disappeared. They were channelled into consumerism. Even in enlightened New Zealand, sex still sells. Is there a single product that hasn’t been sold with an attractive woman next to it? Sex sells cars, boats and even airline seats. Companies do this because, although men are trained not to objectify women, their natural instinctive impulse is to look at a scantily clad woman. We are biologically wired to do this.
Don’t believe me? It’s Friday night. Go to any busy city street and watch the eyes of any man on the street when an attractive woman passes by. I’m not suggesting those men are thinking of raping the woman. They probably aren’t thinking of sex at all. But they watch the girl because they can’t help it. Even when they’re talking on the phone, they don’t even pause. Their eyes still move.
Here’s the thing. If there are a hundred men on that street, it only takes one to lack impulse control to make the entire city unsafe for all women. Absent cultural programming and the apprehension of the blunt-force application of the law, the number of men who lack sexual impulse control will quickly exceed the threshold beyond which it is safe for women to dress how they wish. Try some mathematics instead. When X% of a male population misbehaves, then it isn’t safe for any woman on any street because there is a high likelihood that one of those X% would be on any given street at any given time. My contention is that X is probably a single-digit number. Perhaps even 0.X%.
Women feeling compelled to cover up on the train is a proximate result of the same distal failure that led to the rape gangs in UK towns. The system is not prepared for the world it has created. Covering up, avoiding public spaces or not drinking alcohol is a straightforward reaction by women based on a practical necessity to maintain social order, absent a strong police force and effective domestication procedures to control the young foreign men. In an unsafe environment, you do what you can to survive.
Said differently, since there is no sign that multiculturalism will be reversed, like it or not, the burqa or its equivalent is coming to a town near you. Pick any colour you want, so long as it’s black.
This domestication begins from an early age when every boy is shamed for being a boy. Each natural boyish impulse is immediately guardrailed with rules, punishments and incentives the moment it manifests. He is told to conform to the standards set by older men and women, ostensibly in the interests of social stability. And if you can carrot-and-stick a young boy for long enough, he eventually loses the fire and willingly puts on the tie (a symbol of castration) before heading to the office cubicle. You would be shocked by how much of a state’s resources go into controlling and redirecting the masculine energy of its 15–30-year-old young men.
But what happens when the government imports millions of foreign men who have skipped these domestication pressures? What happens when those foreigners come from societies with disgusting cultural norms and extremely alien views about women? What should the police do with such people if the level of self-policing they have been trained to expect does not exist among these foreign men? Well, picture wolves and sheep. Picture Rotherham, Telford, Rochdale or Oldham.
The UK Grooming Gang Inquiry showed that the procedures of domestication failed on these foreign men. It revealed that these systems were built to domesticate a certain kind of male: the Anglo, or more broadly, the European. They were not set up to break the will of males from other races and cultures. The mistake of these systems was to treat all males as the same, in the name of equality and anti-racism. Despite daily evidence that not all men are the same, the system has refused to adapt by applying varying levels of domestication pressure to the different groups of men who now live in our society. The result was horror for thousands of young women.
The correct conclusion of the Inquiry is that our normal systems no longer work inside a multicultural society, and they have not worked for a very long time. The inadequacy and rust are everywhere visible. Young people are not drinking alcohol anymore, restaurants and clubs are failing, and the kids prefer to stay home with Netflix rather than hang out in public spaces. Maybe it’s the economy. But there’s a good chance these are lagging indicators of young people feeling unsafe and disconnected due to the higher number of undomesticated men milling around. The police can’t protect everyone, so the young people are responding on their own by changing how they act.
For example, in Paris, London, Berlin and even Auckland, young women are beginning to realise why other countries encourage their women to cover up. It’s not to control the women. Those mechanisms were put in place by men to contain men, not women. Obviously, burqas and hijabs oppress women; I’m not arguing with that. But oppressing women is not the primary purpose of these clothing options. Women covering up is a sign that the domestication of men in that society is either unsophisticated or inadequate. If the men can’t be controlled, then the women will not be free.
I doubt this has much to do with Islam. After all, about 15,000 Bosnian Muslims live in the UK, and no (reported) rapes of British girls came from that community. A lack of impulse control doesn’t just occur in pre-civilised cultures. Recall the “wilding“ incidents in New York among black American males. Also, many women have stories of ex-boyfriends becoming stalkers or acting creepy shortly after a break-up. Even in rural Europe up until WWII, women covered their bodies as a matter of course. Some places more and some places less, but they all covered up. The reason they were required to do so was to protect them from being raped. That isn’t a joke or a rationalisation.
The reality is that unless overwhelming control, laws and social shaming are brought to bear, men will pursue women for sex. In places lacking such laws and norms, the men are largely uneducated if not totally illiterate, and there is little in the way of strong police authority. Men from these societies are aggressive and hormonal. If a woman walks down the street in little clothing, she’ll be assaulted because the men lack impulse control. In the same way that British and Kiwi men don’t know what it’s like to be really hungry, we also don’t know what it’s like to be really horny. We have many pressure-release valves and effective, persistent domestication procedures. Other places do not.
The leaders of these backward countries understand that other men have no impulse control. However, they lack the resources and intelligence to develop effective domestication procedures. The only power they have is to require women to cover up. From their perspective, the danger isn’t that a woman’s sexuality is so alluring that it must be contained. Rather, body coverings are an acknowledgement that undomesticated men can be incredibly impulsive, so it helps if women participate in their own safety since the police and state will be impotent.
The concern over male behaviour is innate to males everywhere. How else can expressions like “dressing modestly” be explained? Or even “dressing provocatively?” And where did the “she was asking for it” defence of rape cases come from? All these expressions accept the implied but universally understood notion that without external forces or domestication, most men can’t control their sexual impulses.
True, sex shaming often is targeted at women rather than men. This just reinforces my point because it reflects the common perception that women can control sexuality by covering up. It also assumes men can’t control their impulses, so how could he be blamed for something he cannot control? Of course this is unfair, and feminists are correct to fight it. But we are asking what happens when millions of men from ancient cultures are imported into a society that operates with an ideology that claims it would be “racist” to pressure these men with harsher domestication procedures than those used on the native men.
If, as a male, you are right now controlling your sexual instincts, understand that this is because you were born in a country where the laws against your male impulses are quickly felt at the round edge of a police baton. You were raised in an environment that taught you to control your sexual impulses. But those sexual impulses have not disappeared. They were channelled into consumerism. Even in enlightened New Zealand, sex still sells. Is there a single product that hasn’t been sold with an attractive woman next to it? Sex sells cars, boats and even airline seats. Companies do this because, although men are trained not to objectify women, their natural instinctive impulse is to look at a scantily clad woman. We are biologically wired to do this.
Don’t believe me? It’s Friday night. Go to any busy city street and watch the eyes of any man on the street when an attractive woman passes by. I’m not suggesting those men are thinking of raping the woman. They probably aren’t thinking of sex at all. But they watch the girl because they can’t help it. Even when they’re talking on the phone, they don’t even pause. Their eyes still move.
Here’s the thing. If there are a hundred men on that street, it only takes one to lack impulse control to make the entire city unsafe for all women. Absent cultural programming and the apprehension of the blunt-force application of the law, the number of men who lack sexual impulse control will quickly exceed the threshold beyond which it is safe for women to dress how they wish. Try some mathematics instead. When X% of a male population misbehaves, then it isn’t safe for any woman on any street because there is a high likelihood that one of those X% would be on any given street at any given time. My contention is that X is probably a single-digit number. Perhaps even 0.X%.
Women feeling compelled to cover up on the train is a proximate result of the same distal failure that led to the rape gangs in UK towns. The system is not prepared for the world it has created. Covering up, avoiding public spaces or not drinking alcohol is a straightforward reaction by women based on a practical necessity to maintain social order, absent a strong police force and effective domestication procedures to control the young foreign men. In an unsafe environment, you do what you can to survive.
Said differently, since there is no sign that multiculturalism will be reversed, like it or not, the burqa or its equivalent is coming to a town near you. Pick any colour you want, so long as it’s black.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.