Children and Cornfields

Does anyone remember the episode of the Twilight Zone called “It’s a Good Life“? I rewatched this for this article and I’ve got to stay it still holds up and it’s just as creepy as when I watched it as a kid.

Six-year-old Anthony Fremont looks like any other little boy, but looks can be deceiving: he is a monster, a mutant with godlike mental powers, including mind-reading. Years before, he isolated his town of Peaksville, Ohio. Everybody is under his rule, even his parents. Since he’s begun isolating the town, supplies of common household items, such as bar soap, have been dwindling. He has blocked television signals, caused cars to not work, and, due to his controlling everything, he does not attend school.

The children and adults, including his own parents, tiptoe nervously around him, constantly telling him how everything he does is “good,” since displeasing him can get them wished away into a mystical “cornfield”, an unknown place, from which there is no return. At one point, a dog is heard barking angrily. Anthony thinks the dog is “bad” and doesn’t “like [him] at all,” and wishes it into the cornfield. His father and mother are horrified, but they dare not show it.

One night, due to the townsfolk having always done what he wants, he treats them to one hour of TV. Although they do not like what he shows, they tell Anthony that it was far better than what used to be on TV.

Finally, at Dan Hollins’ birthday party, he gets two presents from his wife: a bottle of brandy and a Perry Como record. As Dan is eager to listen to the record, he is reminded by everyone that Anthony does not like singing. Getting slightly drunk from the brandy, complaining about not listening to the record, and no one singing “Happy Birthday” to him, Dan cannot take the strain anymore and confronts Anthony, calling him a monster and a murderer. While Anthony’s anger grows, Dan yells for someone to attack Anthony from behind and end his reign of terror. Aunt Amy (who isn’t able to sing anymore because of Anthony) tentatively reaches for a fireplace poker, but no one has the courage to act. Anthony cries out to Dan, “You’re a bad man! You’re a very bad man! And you keep thinking bad thoughts about me!” Dan is transformed into a jack-in-the-box (ending his life), causing his wife to break down. The adults are horrified at what Anthony had done, and his father begs him to wish it into the cornfield, which he does.

Because of Amy’s earlier complaints about the heat, Anthony causes snow to begin falling outside. His father observes that the snow will kill off at least half the crops, and he is about to confront Anthony about this, but his wife and the other adults look on with worried smiles on their faces. The father then smiles and tells Anthony in a horror-tinged voice, “…But it’s good you’re making it snow. A real good thing. And tomorrow… tomorrow’s gonna be a… real ‘good’ day!”

I didn’t really understand the significance of this episode until recently. In a sense I guess I can attribute it to a more defined Red Pill Lens but the femosphere events and a few articles brought to my attention this last week reminded me of this Twilight Zone story. I’ll get to why in a bit.

The first event was the highly publicized not guilty verdict in the Jian Gomeshi rape (hoax) trial. Mike Cernovich had a quick hit post about the details here. I’ve written about the particulars of why women’s insecurity about optimizing Hypergamy drives them to insane lengths to control for it before, but my focus this time with Gomeshi wasn’t so much about the women’s lying, or the ambiguity of what constitutes rape or sexual harassment. When the Rolling Stone/UVA fraternity rape hoax was finally revealed for what it was I wrote Hysteria :

Transferring information about a man’s preselected approval amongst a collective of women is one such override. However, it’s very important for men living in a feminine-primary social order to understand that social proof is not just limited to preselection of men as potential partners.

This social proof dynamic extends to the perceptions of women in a collective peer group, as well as men for whom they have no sexual interest in, but serve their material interests nonetheless.

The current cultural atmosphere of male suspicion and autonomous rape-threat assessment of men is another variation of this perceptual, hysterical, collective belief dynamic. Women want to believe in the presumption that every man outside of their preselected, collective approved, hypergamous ideal  is a potential rape threat. In other words, a man who might, by force or coercion, assume control of her hypergamous sexual selection.

The narrative, the perception, is all that matters.

[…]women become so ego-invested in the certainty of their collective perceptions that, even in light of contrary evidence, the only acknowledged verification of that perception is how it makes them feel.

This contradiction of a collective feminine hysteria is what many luminaries of the Feminine Imperative are now being forced to confront. It’s important to remember during this UVa / Rolling Stone rape debacle that women, and more than a few enabling male sympathizers, wanted to believe this travesty was true in spite of the vaudevillian outlandishments and still refuse to accept that it isn’t.

The overwhelming zeitgeist consensus in this case was that the women concerned in Gomeshi’s rape trial were to be believed irrespective of facts that exonerated him. And so strong was this sentiment that suggesting the suspension of the most fundamental aspects of law was the first recourse to be considered – that consideration is to change the presumption of guilt where it affects the accusations of men by women.

Once again, just as in the UVA rape hoax, we see a feminine-primary collective social consciousness moved by a need to believe in order to maintain a collective ego-investment in that social order’s correctness. And all of that in spite of all controverting, unignorable evidence. However, the feminine conditioned reflex for feminine defined ‘justice’ in this regard has been taken a step further – an accusation of rape or sexual assault is as good as a conviction.

I can’t be too sympathetic for Gomeshi. He built his reputation on being a social justice warrior and a self-evincing ‘male feminist, but just like another notable male feminist, Hugo Schwyzer, he’s had to learn the hard way that feminist Game comes with a substantial risk.

However the salient point I took away from his trial wasn’t that women are duplicitous or a feminized society being too ready to unquestioningly presume the veracity of another woman’s rape claims. Neither was it unexpected that a need to believe that presumed guilt would come up. What struck me was the push for control, for absolute unilateral arbitrative power to condemn a man for the accusation of sexual misconduct.

What struck me was that the Feminine Imperative should seek to nakedly place itself above a rule of law that is otherwise founded on a logical, rational process of checks and balances (or at least intends to do so).

As the protests and debate swirled around Gomeshi I was also made aware of a review of a new book Girls & Sex: Navigating the Complicated New Landscape

An economics major taking a gender studies class is getting dressed in her college dorm room for a night out, cheerfully discussing sexual stereotyping in advertising with Orenstein — while at the same time grabbing a miniskirt and a bottle of vodka, the better to achieve her evening goal: to “get really drunk and make out with someone.” “You look hot,” her friend tells her — and the student, apparently registering the oddness of the scene, turns to Orenstein. “In my gender class I’m all, ‘That damned patriarchy,’ ” she says. “But . . . what’s the point of a night if you aren’t getting attention from guys?” Her ambition, she explains, “is to be just slutty enough, where you’re not a prude but you’re not a whore. . . . Finding that balance is every college girl’s dream, you know what I mean?”

Author Peggy Orenstien serves up the same reheated feminist alarmism for her young daughter that Hannah Rosin did 8 years ago. However, Orenstien escalates the narrative much in the same vein that the feminist reaction to Gomeshi has. She defines it for us:

For guys, she says, there is fun and pleasure; for girls (at least the straight ones), too little physical joy, too much regret and a general sense that the boys are in charge. Fully half the girls in Orenstein’s book say they’ve been coerced into sex, and many had been raped — among them, by the way, that econ major, who was so confused that when her assailant dropped her off the next morning, she told him, “Thanks, I had fun.” The sexual playing field Orenstein describes is so tilted no girl could win.

Orenstein presumes the control of a girl with a handle of vodka and dressed ‘just slutty enough’ rest entirely with the boys she’s making out with and more. They are ‘assailants’ by definition – a definition that depends on the Hypergamous whims of the woman involved.

I drew parallels between these stories because they are indicative of a trend I predicted a couple years ago – in a social order that prioritizes Hypergamy as the intersexual priority, men who wont cooperate with it must be legislated into complying with it. But as it develops now this doesn’t go far enough; men must be preemptively convicted of the crime of sexual misconduct before the they are ever judged worthy of a woman’s sexual interests. In other words, men are ‘assailants’ for the very attempt of presenting themselves for the intimate approval of women.

Monday’s Price of Nice post and the femosphere response to men’s want to be Nice in order to ingratiate themselves in the hopes that they might endear a woman to him highlights this even further. Men being ‘nice’ are by definition ‘assailants’.

But it’s not enough to discourage men’s niceties, they must be taught to fear the attempt of initiating anything looking like intimacy. They must fear being whisked away to the cornfield for not thinking the right way about the women they would hope to find favor with.

Commenter SJF had a poignant comment this week:

Infantile as they are, women are ill-equipped to handle power, and that which is born out of the insecurity that a man may do her wrong, turns into an exploitative, predatory misuse of power that fuels grandiose narcissism, and thus masculinizes her. The aforementioned relationships between the different aspects of the female psyche do not explain in it in its entirety, but nonetheless, should accurately depict its root and core.

Which brings us back to our six year old Anthony Fremont in the Twilight Zone episode. On a social scale we are rapidly approaching a time where coddling the childish impulsivity of women will dictate not just the rule of law for men, but will define the nature of men’s dealing with women on a fear based level. In fact we’re already beginning to see this in the workplace.

Taken to its intended and illogical extreme, given unilateral God-like arbitration of men in every aspect of society, politics, religion, academia, etc., women and their imperatives would define intersexual relations much in the same way as Anthony does with the ‘adults’ he controls.