The new mutant gender

Reading through the comments at OoL, most are of the opinion that society is knackered, from jobsworthism through education to the non-comps in government. Some are wilfully oblivious that anything is wrong whatever – swings and roundabouts, they think.

A percentage of people have always been against government and it’s de rigeur that the older generation finds the younger less educated and not respectful enough – early 1900s literature abounds in those ideas so is anything in society today genuinely different?

I’d suggest yes. For a start, there’s a top-down world culture with truly nasty elements to it which didn’t exist as the paradigm in yesteryear, secondly those elements have extended right down into primary school and things are laid on kids now which simply shouldn’t be if teachers and parents took their protective role seriously, incompetence and corruption up top are now endemic and values and ethics generally have taken a beating, before we even start looking at aesthetics and style.

As someone who was involved in education, it’s natural I’d decry the sodom and gomorrah situation in schools and don’t expect readers in their walks of life to take it quite as seriously, certainly not those at a libertarian site. Yet so many of those kids are sexualized and drugged so young now and they have no choice, no escape route, they’re not allowed to grow up with a childhood any more – a truly bizarre and disturbing situation which goes under the radar. Peers and older kids are forcing them into it, abetted by the bemused silence of teachers and others in positions of responsibility for children and news pages are full of some adult or other who’s been dipping into it.

The systematic emotional crippling of children today is setting up a really great society in fifteeen years or so, is it not?   William S Burroughs’ Wild Boys [and girls] – here we come.   Welcome to the Clockwork Orange.

However, let’s leave that for now.

One change which is particularly nauseating is the rise of the incompetent, self-entitled, aggrieved mutation of the female sex, with males hanging on in some travesty of chivalry towards the “modern” woman … and then there is the parallel emasculation of men. Perhaps this was why one of the authors at my place sent an email quoting Cranmer, with the comment: “Oh no, here we go again.”

Yep, Christine Emmett in Corby and Whatever [left] has been parachuted in to maintain the quota in parliament. Some comments at Cranmer:

English Pensioner said … Don’t think she stands a chance. Local people will be fed up with candidates which have been forced on them by the feminist policy of CCHQ. Locals won’t trust another high-flying female.

Flossie said… I agree with you, English Pensioner, about women not really favouring other women in politics. In my view there have been very few really strong and able women politicians. I really do think that women ‘have other things to do’ (as Mother Teresa once said when asked whether she favoured women priests). Women have to make big, big sacrifices in family life to concentrate on politics.

Nightmare – another parachutee according to the PC rule. [H/T Wiggia]. For how much longer?

———–

Vox Day is the only major syndicated American blogger I’m connected with [Ezra‘s Canadian]. I’ve always found him lucid and to the point and he’s never been one to mince words, for example:

And now we live in John Adams’s DictatorshipTyranny of the Petticoat. How terribly surprising to discover that the nation’s credit cards are maxed out. The choice is between Suffrage or Liberty and you can only choose one.

Provocative? Yes. Pariah with the female? Apparently not, by all accounts. Why would women still give him the time of day? I can only put it down to his being a man of some direction and fearlessness, who actually speaks the truth and I suspect he treats women in real life appropriately.

I also put it down to the preference of real women for the confident and intelligent male, rather than the SNAG, Metro or the one who’s given up and has succumbed. It’s not unlike the world of pets – you can have your pet tiger or snake if you think you can handle the danger but most will settle for a non-threatening species. Personally, I can’t imagine what fun there is in a guppy-mouthed goldfish staring back through a glass fishtank or what pleasure there is in a lapdog but there you are – tastes differ.

A woman’s perspective is critical to understanding life, politics or anything else – you can’t have just one half of the story to understand what’s going on and that’s one of the strengths of relationships. The men I know have certain opinions on women but still wouldn’t trade that for solitude. Women of talent have always succeeded in society despite the feminist lie to the contrary and Barbara Kay speaks on this – she and many other women were professionals well before feminazis brainwashed women into thinking they were oppressed and couldn’t get anywhere in life. Talent will find its level no matter what.

So I’m certainly not taking the hardline view that women as a whole should be artificially banned from anything. What I am arguing is that the new mutant gender, a sort of bizarre caricature of women, is destroying the long-term prospects of real women and by real women, I mean those who have not transmogrified into misandrist and self-seeking harpies. I’m speaking of the Barbara Kays of the world, the Christina Hoff Summerses, the women who have earned their place and have gone the route men have had to go.

As distinct from parachutees.

Unfortunately, as in the genesis of the Daleks, feminism did create this new mutant gender, perhaps even unwittingly -a race of monsters from what had once been functioning women, sucking the lifeblood, sanity and femininity out of them and rendering them useless – silly people in an increasingly silly society.

Let’s call this new monster the Manwoman. Examples are Dorries, Mensch, Harman, Clinton, Abbott, Pelosi, Warsi, Dunn [of HP], Toynbee, Greer, Mathilda Gregory and so on and so on.

Also unfortunate is that somehow they’ve got to be in charge or in positions of influence to spread their madness.

This new gender, the Manwoman, takes the worst possible aspects of men and combines them with the worst aspects of women as a whole, suppressing women’s nobility and femininity. It derives its power from this ignoble institution of parachutism and promotes the untalented via quotas.

That’s the real crime against women today and why women of sanity and competence are as equally down on the Menwomen as many men are.

The way this mutant strain tries to out-man the man is, frankly, nauseating. You might have read of the woman in America recently [a retired police officer] who, at her retirement party given by her husband, was sexting another [obviously younger] man. Loyalty is an aspect to the new mutant which is virtually unknown, except for loyalty to one’s own kicks and self-esteem enhancement, no matter what it destroys.

When the husband found out, he went ballistic. He is 61, she is 54 and of course, through the marvellous medium of the net, she can have sex with a young man and pretend to be a young nubile herself, as long as no photos are ever exchanged.

I had a client in Russia, a youngish female and from the outset, she was at pains to tell me of her many affairs and even spoke to various men by phone within the same session. She had a regular boyfriend and I asked about how she reconciled what she was doing with how she felt for him.

“Men do it all the time,” was her justification.

No sign of taking on the noble qualities of men – just their excesses and foibles, including being paralytic drunk, imagining that men were impressed with that.

Perhaps a certain kind were.

Exhibit 1 – Dorries [upper left]. For non-UK readers, that is one of our MPs, the people supposedly of gravitas and serious purpose who “run” our nation.

For me, it’s not so much the lack of grace or style or the bizarre attempt to remain what she conceptualizes as “feminine” – it’s that she’s standing on that table in public. Sure Selma Hayek did similar in a seedy bar but that’s supposed to be the other end of the food chain, not one of our elected leaders and a conservative to boot.

Then we come to an example who caused a friend of mine to observe: “Titans of industry, yes?” In other words, Exhibit 2 – Mayer [lower right]:

In a note sent to all employees at 12:45 AM Saturday morning, new-ish Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer announced a program called “PB&J” that she hopes will make Yahoo “the absolute best place to work.”

“PB&J” stands for Process, Bureaucracy, and Jams.

The program is a fancy version of the old suggestion box in the office.

In the email, Mayer and PB&J leader Patricia Moll Kriese say that they want Yahoo employees to “Share your ideas on what would make your job easier, boost your productivity, and help solve problems.”

“What’s on your wish list for our corporate culture and work environment?”

The note goes on to detail some of the things Mayer has already done since she’s been at Yahoo:

  • Give all employees free food.
  • Keep the lights on longer.
  • “Turning off the turnstiles in building D.”
  • “Removing parking lot barriers”
  • “Eliminating mandatory orientation at the gym”
  • (Mayer is also thinking of giving every Yahoo a free iPhone, but the note doesn’t mention that.)

“We know there is more we can do!” write Mayer and Kriese. “Do you see a problem and know how to solve it? Want to brainstorm with colleagues about what to fix and how to fix it? Give us your ideas. Or be heard loud and clear by simply voting.”

No lightweight, our Marissa. That’s why Google were so keen to promote her through the glass ceiling. Not. But still, it’s early days yet. Funny, I sort of thought that when you’re appointed a high-flyer whose brief is to turn a company around, one of the things you might have got past by this stage is sending around brainwave memos after midnight asking everyone – anyone? – how to turn the company around.

One that’s been at it a long while now is Exhibit 3 – Hornstein [left]. In a Techdirt piece:

Silicon Valley is full of hustlers, and that’s often a good thing. But there’s a difference between hustling and flat-out lying, and when people deceive company after company, it’s time to call them out.

So: If you look up Shirley Hornstein online, you might get the idea that she’s one of the most well-connected people in tech. Here she is at the THRIVEGulu party last month, where Silicon Valley types got a chance to meet Hollywood geek heroes Joss Whedon and Eliza Dushku. Here she is at the Crunchies. And here she is on a list of the top women in venture capital and angel investing (which was republished in Forbes).

When it comes to Hornstein, however, it can be hard to tell what’s true and what’s not.

Which brings us to a key feature of this new Manwoman – wanting at all costs to be a player with the big boys, an unsustainable position due to certain factors of which mutated gender is one , she therefore has to resort to subterfuge and outright lying.

Sure the world is infested with incompetent male shysters – just look at Bernanke and Co or Obama – but why should women emulate this and not the good qualities of men? And yes, everytime a woman puts on makeup or wears a cunningly concealing cut of clothes, she’s lying – it’s all part of the feminine mystique – but there’s a big difference between doing it where it’s appropriate and translating it into how you conduct your public business.

There are certain specific reasons why this new mutant gender shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near control of anything beyond her own self . And it’s always the wrong kind of women who mutate.

Keypoint 1: Women in positions of power either try to emulate men, to be more more man than the man and in so doing, fail because they just don’t have the backstory, the runs on the board [to employ a cricketism] or else they come in with all their own imagined ideas from another field.

They then attempt to bring female solutions to problems not susceptible to female solutions [e.g. Mayer above] whilst demanding respect from all. They start witchhunts whenever someone gainsays them.

Real women though – unmutated – run the same gamut as men and if they succeed to positions of influence – well, they’ve deserved them.

Back to Vox for females in politics, remembering that it is the mutated gender being referred to:

Keypoint 2: Women will never, ever, be freedom-oriented voters. They will always be security-oriented. Even women who are intellectually freedom-oriented – and what percentage of the electorate is even remotely intellectual? – find it necessary to fight off the emotional appeal of security arguments that appeal to them more powerfully than any man can hope to understand.

Mussolini is one of many socialists who knew this, which is why political equality, including a guaranteed percentage of representative seats in the parliament, is the very first plank in the Fascist manifesto.

And one he quoted which I don’t necessarily go along with, though I’ll present it for its own sake:

Keypoint 3: Mrs. Romney, along with the GOP which approved her speech, has inadvertently demonstrated once again why women should not have the vote and should not have prominent positions in politics.

Because once women have the vote, they become a separate constituency with interests separate from those of men.

This inevitably results (1) in female emotionalism and female resentment becoming central in politics; (2) in everyone bowing down at the altar of the mistreated, overworked “moms” of America, who are thus turned into a new type of oppressed ubermensch; and (3) in women as a group demanding substantive equality with men as a group.

In short, sexual socialism….

The reason I include those last two is simply to illustrate a fourth:

Keypoint 4: Men in general and a large number of women too will never accept a woman in charge of them. They’re hardwired not to. She may have degrees and diplomas coming out of her ears, she might be a honey like our Marissa, she might actually have very good ideas. The situation though will always be like in The Catbird Seat.

An excerpt from the story:

Sitting in his apartment, drinking a glass of milk, Mr. Martin reviewed his case against Mrs. Ulgine Barrows, as he had every night for seven nights.

He began at the beginning. Her quacking voice and braying laugh had first profaned the halls of F & S on March 7, 1941 (Mr. Martin had a head for dates). Old Roberts, the personnel chief, had introduced her as the newly appointed special adviser to the president of the firm, Mr. Fitweiler.

The woman had appalled Mr. Martin instantly, but he hadn’t shown it. He had given her his dry hand, a look of studious concentration, and a faint smile. “Well,” she had said, looking at the papers on his desk, “are you lifting the oxcart out of the ditch?”

As Mr. Martin recalled that moment, over his milk, he squirmed slightly. He must keep his mind on her crimes as a special adviser, not on her peccadillos as a personality. This he found difficult to do, in spite of entering an objection and sustaining it. The faults of the woman as a woman kept chattering on in his mind like an unruly witness.

This same thing happened at Hewlett-Packard – first with Fiorina [right], then with Dunn, then they went back to an ineffectual male, now they’re trying it again with yet another parachuted woman.

And what was the reaction of the males? To termite her, in collusion with the females who also don’t like women in charge – it’s really not just a male thing. It happened with Flint, it’s happened with so many female parachutees. It happened with Mensch.

It ultimately doesn’t work.

………..

The only way to make it work is:

1. to change the very nature of the workplace, so that female-oriented jobs are increasingly the only ones available;

2. to change the very nature of men over a timeframe of two generations.

That is, from infancy, you cross-dress your child, bring him up as a sensitive wimp, not knowing if he’s male or female and voila – fifteen years later, there’s your compliant male who will accept a woman in charge.

That’s why dinosaurs like me are marginalized and the only male wanted is a SNAG or Metro. What you lose of course is the very masculinity which makes a man a man.

Christy O spoke of this in her series on feminism – the episode titled “The Death of Distinction” – and she was vehement about not wanting wimpy SNAGS or Metros as her pool of prospective partners.

Just as Helen Rowland, in A Guide to Men [1922], wrote:

A husband is what is left of a lover, after the nerve is extracted

… so it is with the emasculated, badly educated new male of today. Greer wrote, in the Female Eunuch [1971]:

Women have very little idea of how much men hate them.

Mandy Rice-Davies [lower right] is the only reply to that gorgon. She is wrong, Greer, in that, left uninterfered with and un-nagged, men do not, per se, hate women – not the ones I know. The men-men, if you understand my poor terminology, actually love their women and would not like to live alone without them.

They would maintain that there is certainly a place for women in public life, there always has been and always will be and so should there be – but not in the aberrant way we’re seeing today, the result of which must be the termiting of society in the long run.

And the collateral damage is that the women of real talent who deserve to be up there will be swept away by the flood of useless women who, combined with the useless men about – the Bernankes, Cleggs, Camerons etc., are bringing this nation and in fact the western world down, prey to the ravening globalists.

How can you tell this new mutant gender from the real woman? It’s changing. Whereas once you only needed to look at a Toynbee or Harman to see the fruitcake, now it’s becoming more tricky as young brainwashed girls who are still lovely in appearance, not yet thoroughly embittered, are recycling the feminazi line.

It’s in the behaviour, the buzzwords, the irrationality, the attitude towards the male oppressor. They infest women’s study groups. The trouble is that it is a difficult call between someone genuinely unjustly treated, e.g. Muslim women in Arab countries and the cushy self-entitled and aggrieved.

Solution? It’s going to take at least another generation to unravel this mess.

Her position is mine. Therefore I take many things women say seriously and not only that, it shows a man and a woman can agree if both are mindful of the completeness of the two sexes together. So where do these gorgons get off trying to split the sexes?

May I tell you what effect Suzanne Venker has on me? She reestablishes my faith in women and were I ever to meet her, I’d go out of my way for her. I’m sure many men would feel the same way – IMHO that is what human relations are all about.

………..

Sigh – yet another one:

ogmundur-jonasson_radherraThe Equality Complaints Committee has ruled that Minister of the Interior Ögmundur Jónasson violated the rules on gender equality following the hiring of a man to the office of the district commissioner of Húsavík, Northeast Iceland last year, despite a female candidate being more qualified for the position. Ögmundur disagrees with the findings.

26 comments for “The new mutant gender

  1. Greg Tingey
    September 2, 2012 at 8:56 am

    SERIOUS PROBLEM

    “Vox Day” (not his real name) is quite insane.

    He believes women should be deprived of the vote.
    [ And you are heading in the same direction, unless I’m seriously mis-reading your intent here. Your misogyny is showing.
    Not nice. ]
    He (Vox Day) is a YEC – which means either he is lying, or, more likely, that he is seriously deluded.
    He makes a classic mistake: he’s very intelligant, but often fails to examine his basic assumptions, which can lead to dreadful traps.
    I’m not sure if he even accepts the reality of Plate Tectonics, for instance.

    • September 2, 2012 at 10:13 am

      I too have concerns about women being parachuted in to positions they are demonstrably unsuitable for, all to satisfy the great god Diversity.

      Does that make me ‘a misogynist’?

    • September 2, 2012 at 10:31 am

      You misread him, Greg, as I suspected you might.

  2. LJH
    September 2, 2012 at 9:52 am

    A bizarre piece unbefitting of a libertarian space. Try again!

    • September 2, 2012 at 10:12 am

      How can it be ‘unbefitting of a libertarian space’?

  3. September 2, 2012 at 10:30 am

    I had an uberfeminist comment at my site this morning telling me to shut up. I see LJH is doing the same. You do realize that trying to shut someone up just makes them worse? And isn’t it interesting that the ones crying “libertarian” are the ones also telling people they disagree with to shut it [in as many words].

    Instructive.

    • LJH
      September 2, 2012 at 8:38 pm

      Ad hominem or ad feminem attacks are the same logical fallacy. I think your analysis is superficial and a tad bizarre. Meltemian’s comment is a far better analysis.

  4. meltemian
    September 2, 2012 at 10:35 am

    I have a feeling this problem has been created by men (I’m a woman – of course I’d think that) who have allowed themselves to be blackmailed into encouraging unsuitable people into positions purely because they are women. Men feel they have to be seen to be ‘inclusive’ even if it means the ridiculous sex/race/disability quotas have to be followed at all costs.
    Apart from a few strident feministas trying to justify themselves I really don’t think most women really believe they are entitled to special treatment just because they ARE women. That seems pretty insulting to me.

    • September 2, 2012 at 10:49 am

      That’s fair comment, meltemian and an example of a real woman. However, you say “a few strident feminists”. Oh no, it’s rampant and has been documented ad infinitum on many blogs and in political discourse, esp. in the States. That’s where much of the reference material came from.

      It’s a sliding scale, is it not? At the common, garden end, there are fair women who would like it “just a little bit feminist” and at the other end, these gorgons – almost the entire parliamentary lot are this way. The one who came to my blog before was quite real and quite nasty in her hatred. I don’t think it’s isolated, meltemian.

      On the other hand, I can’t see that we can’t get along, just because a feminist says we mustn’t. Really – many women have taken this point of view – I’m just aping what these ladies are saying, e.g.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH-mjGNqlHs&feature=share&list=PL616D23D1DE15D5A1

  5. Greg Tingey
    September 2, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    NO
    I have not mis-read “Vox Day”

    He is on public record as advocating a, shall we say Pauline (as in epistles to Timothy) position on the place of women in society.
    He is on repeated public record as refusing to accept the fact of evolution, never mind the other aspect of “E”, that of the underlying explanatory Theory (in the scientific sense) which makes a coherent whole of the diversity of life here.

    I suggest you re-examine his posts – I’ve been dipping into & out of his ravings, for several years now, wondering how someone so eloquent, and intellignt can swallow the raving nonsense he pushes.

    All very peculiar.

  6. September 2, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    Vox has just replied via email. He doesn’t entirely agree with me and will possibly take it up, he’s as disappointed as I am with Marissa Meyer’s start and on Greg Tingey, he has this to say:

    In the meantime, you may wish to inform the indefatigable Greg Tingey – man, that guy comments EVERYWHERE – that he is, himself, lying. I am not a YEC. I have never been a YEC.

    I would add that as Greg says: “I’ve been dipping into & out of his ravings,” selectively, therefore my suggestion is that Greg actually reads something properly for once and then he won’t be seen as much as the sayer of silly things [and libellous to boot].

    • September 3, 2012 at 8:30 am

      man, that guy comments EVERYWHERE

      Are responses not sought? If not, then why offer a comment box at all.

  7. Greg Tingey
    September 2, 2012 at 5:29 pm

    OK

    Error admited

    I was under the impression he was a YEC.

    He is, nonetheless a Creationist – he does refuse to accept evolution.
    I have asked him in the past as to WHY he refuses to accept “E” – since (IIRC) he claims that it is NOT for religous reasons, but have not had an answer.

    Incidentally, I do not comment “everywhere” – you won’t find me on anything sports-related, nor anything to do with popular entertainment, either …..

  8. September 2, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    He is, nonetheless a Creationist

    That jargon presumably meaning he believes in G-d, the position of billions over the epochs since the dawn of time. I wouldn’t presume to pit myself against the suddenly gained wisdom of a few politically motivated tingods in the last nanosecond of universal time.

    I’ll continue to gaze at the cosmos in awe whilst others bury themselves in rationalist tracts, muttering the mantra to themselves: “Nothing has any purpose, nothing has any purpose.”

  9. Greg Tingey
    September 2, 2012 at 10:03 pm

    NO

    Apart from the total absence of evidence, even with our much-improved detection equipment, for any BSF, anywhere or when …
    NO
    “Creationist” as in does not accept that all animals, including us, are descended from common ancestors, which have, over the millions of years, mutated & changed into others.
    He specifically rejecys what he calls “Darwinism” – and the use of that name is, itself, a give-away.
    He effectively rejects everything in biology since 1859 (that is an exaggeration, of course, but I hope you get the implication) ….
    I also contemplate the cosmos in awe, it’s just that I find a BSF totally unnecessary.
    Why do you need this crutch?

    • September 2, 2012 at 10:34 pm

      Evidence all around you, Greg – none so blind, eh? Billions know differently but you know better, minus any evidence whatever for your view. You’ve produced not a scrap.

      Here are some questions:

      1. If time is linear, what was at the start? Could you quote your supporting data for that?

      2. What is the soul? At what point does it enter and depart the human?

      3. What is morality? Do other species possess it? Why or why not?

      4. Why was there a recognizable Christology within twenty years of His death? What would possess so many people to lay down their lives for this? How did he fake his own death? Who stole the body? For what purpose?

      5. Why does every civilization believe in an omnipotent force or entity, including all but the past few generations and on whose say-so have people stopped? The Royal Society?

      6. What is conscience? How did it get into us but not into other species – or does it?

      7. How did the laws of physics come about?

      8. If persistent belief in a life force or creating force shows no signs of dying out worldwide, is that a human need to believe and if so, how did that get into our natures, given it’s in the vast majority of natures?

      9. Have you seen the arrangement of the various strands in the spinal cord? Notice anything unusual about them?

      10. Are the people who have had near-death experiences and reported on them lying? All of them?

      11. Is there life on other planets? Do you have proof there is not? Or do you use your “logic” on it, the “most likely” scenario?

      12. Do ghosts exist? Can mediums contact the other side or is every one of them a hoax? Was the Eldridge a complete hoax? Proof of that please?

      13. What caused the nuclear like explosion in the Krasnoyarsk tunguska long before nuclear bombs?

      14. Is Nessie a fabrication?

      15. Has anyone ever contacted another person to agree, combine and/or collude with them for their mutual interest or is that completely unknown in human experience? Have oligarchs ever colluded?

      16. Is debunking blind faith and fundamentalism a cast-iron proof of the non-existence of God?

      17. Is there any interdependency in the universe?

      18. If someone otherwise trustworthy tells you that by believing, a guardian spirit took him over, is he automatically a liar, just as someone saying he saw a UFO? Leaving aside your logic, is there any final data disproving these things?

      19. Why are atheists so het up about eliminating belief? What problem is it for them that people believe?

      20. Has speaking in tongues ever existed? Where is your definitive proof? Failing that, what is your evidence?

      There are plenty more but that will do for now.

      • September 3, 2012 at 7:17 am

        Nice series of questions. All completely meaningless, of course. The response to most being; so what? Who cares and why should we? None of it constitutes evidence of anything.

        And atheists are not all het up about eliminating belief. Some are, just as some religious people like to ram their belief down others’ throats. Most of us just don’t care as it isn’t important.

        • September 3, 2012 at 7:48 am

          Mandy Rice-Davies, Longrider, Mandy Rice-Davies. 🙂

          • September 3, 2012 at 5:46 pm

            I’m sorry, old bean, but you jumped the shark with your Loch Ness monster, there.

            And, I’ll repeat from previous discussions, you cannot prove a negative, never could. No one is trying, so far as I am aware. A series of circular arguments and statements to which the answer is usually, “we don’t know” is not evidence of the supernatural. Never was.

            1/10 Must do better.

            Otherwise, the Mandy Rice Davies comment could cut both ways. 😉

            • admin
              September 3, 2012 at 9:59 pm

              Yep, didn’t think you’d take them on. LOL.

              • September 4, 2012 at 6:53 am

                There’s nothing to take on, is there? I mean, really, UFO sightings are evidence of the supernatural? The Loch Ness Monster? That lots of people believe something so it must be true? They simply aren’t worthy of any response beyond ridicule.

  10. Furor Teutonicus
    September 3, 2012 at 2:42 pm

    XX Vox Day is the only major syndicated American blogger I’m connected with [Ezra’s Canadian].XX

    And Canada is not part of the Americas then?

    If you wish to differentiate, then use “The U.S” or one of its variants.

    I am sure the Canadians, Mexicans, Argentinians, Ecuadorians, etc will be MOST interested to hear you do not consider them to be “American”.

    • September 3, 2012 at 7:04 pm

      The “Americas” refer to continents. As for Canada and Mexico, they are North American countries. Their citizens and South/Latin American citizens are not “American” simply because they themselves do not refer to themselves as such.

    • September 3, 2012 at 10:00 pm

      To say “American” and “the Americas” can be different things.

  11. PeterS
    September 3, 2012 at 9:54 pm

    South/Latin American citizens are not “American” simply because they themselves do not refer to themselves as such.

    Er… Yes we do.

    Cheers,
    Pedro Espinoza

    • September 4, 2012 at 6:39 pm

      “American”? “South American”? “Latin American”?
      How do you differentiate between countries then?

      “American” in the continental sense I can understand, although no South or Central American countries have “America” in their name.

Comments are closed.