Thai Lesbian is a search term, not an identity, Requires Hate/Benjanun Sriduangkaew edition

In Speculative Fiction Fandom, or SFF, there is an epic meltdown happening concerning a “Thai Lesbian” who was heavily promoted as an up and coming SFF writer.  It turns out this promising Thai Lesbian SFF writer was also a vitriolic, vicious, scatological blogger and tireless rebutter who ran a very popular and immensely rude speculative fiction review and critique blog.  And further, this person was a notorious troll on gaming and fan fiction forums for many years before starting the SFF review blog.

Now one might ask why I keep using that phrase instead of the usernames and publishing name associated with said Lesbian of Thai extraction.  It’s because that remains the primary knowledge social justice whisperer (hereafter SJW) SFF writers and fans have about this person.  I’ve looked (it’s a pretty deep, crazy rabbithole), and the professionals and wannabe professionals are willfully incurious about this person’s actual identity.

Good old petty bickering anon forums are here to help, the old standby of ye internets of yore.  On those forums random anons are discussing the actual background of this “Thai Lesbian” and it’s way more interesting than being told I’m supposed to like boring fiction because of who wrote it, except the people saying that literally refuse to view this person as anything but a search term.  The willful incuriosity of the SJWs is their secret weapon, not their relentless politicization of all aspects of life.  It takes a conscious effort to not learn who and what this Thai Lesbian really was, at least in terms of overall internet persona developed over 15 years of internetting.  Hint: This person was from Thailand, but since Thailand is a hugely diverse, politically complex country, that is utterly meaningless in terms of ethnic and cultural identity.

An example drawn from one of the many email-only interviews this Thai Lesbian did in its calm, cheery, up and coming writer gal persona:  The Thai Lesbian casually mentioned in one interview that she came from a specific region of Thailand that is notorious for being even more politically unstable and complicated than the rest of Thailand.  The interviewer, being quite willfully incurious, failed to even look the region up in wikipedia, as I did, because that would have led to some interesting questions about how one’s birthplace can inform one’s writing.  Instead the interview was pathetically bland, to a point where one couldn’t even make out what the topics of conversation were, because there weren’t any.  They just discussed the idea of having a writing process instead of, y’know, an actual writing process.

Also you are this surprised to learn that the Lesbian part went unremarked too, even though the ethnic groups in Thailand are extremely culturally conservative by SJW standards.

And you are also this surprised to learn that the SJWs are lamenting the crude and violent behavior of this persona while completely making up stuff about right-wing SFF writers, including declaring that they are still worse, because reasons.

As of this posting, the feeding frenzy is winding down for now, but the use of genuine abuse by a powerful individual towards less powerful individuals is still being used as a flimsy excuse to rant about the evil conservative SFF writers who are the real enemy.  Nothing has changed for the poor victims of this mean girl, except that they get to sit on the sidelines being mostly ignored.

I post this kind of curiosity because it’s an example of how leftists talk about important things but don’t care about them in practice.  The SJWs are right that where you come from and who you are inform your imagination.  My imagination is informed by my ruralness, my blackness, my Southern family history and my marriage to a Mountain Man who comes from a Scandinavian-influenced but uniquely American religious subculture.  The right wing folks laughing at this SJW dustup are missing an opportunity to subvert them because a lot of the right wing types are pulling out the old “I don’t see color”, “I treat everyone as an individual”, all that essentially pathological individualism which is itself uniquely American-cultural and hardly something shared round the world.  It’s so dangerous precisely because it cedes the ground of loving and practicing traditional living and honoring and respecting one’s ancestry and past to SJWs, who, as this fiasco reveals, just use talk about that to obsess over reducing people down to search terms and keyword-friendly phrases.

I’d like to see more conservatives talking seriously about identity and its importance.  It is important and we can’t keep letting the SJW types be the only ones who see its significance.  Because really, whatever madness this persona hath wrought, they are obviously much more than the search term being used to represent the totality of their online persona.  And so are the rest of us online and off.

Advertisements

Why conservatives are losing and will continue to lose.

It’s the liberalism.  Liberalism is like inflation.  Everyone wants a little bit, but nobody wants the full hyperinflation enchilada.  Same with liberalism.  Everyone wants a little bit of liberalism, but nobody wants the full hard-left ultraliberal9000 enchilada.

A great example is conservative Christians regarding marriage and courtship.  You can find places where they talk a good game about wanting “real courtship” back, but when it comes down to having to listen to input of parents, grandparents, pastors, and other close family friends, suddenly anything the traditional gatekeepers of female virtue say is “liberal brainwashing” if it involves rejecting a Christian guy who wants to deflower  marry their daughter because she is very young and very pretty and very virginal and he’s known her six whole weeks.

What these “pro-courtship” Christians really want is a little bit of liberalism, enough that a man gets to just have whatever kind of bride he feels he deserves, but not so much that girls have lots of chances to stop being virgins before 21.  The family should regulate and protect her virtue, but not reject any horny guy who sets his cap at her as a result of their care and concern for her.

I could use no-fault divorce, or thirty year self-amortizing mortgages, or widespread nuclear family mobility, or more esoteric examples of liberalism like representative democracy.  But the story is always the same in (American) conservativeland–they talk about wanting traditional living and traditional social mores restored, but not at the expense of their little preferred slice of liberalism.  And since there is plenty of liberalism to go around, conservatives can’t win unless they do what they have never been willing to do en masse–stop playing the game and seriously weigh the costs and benefits of returning to traditional practices and mores.

It’s demoralizing, but it’s also true.

The Latina high school dropout and Asian immigrant SAHM revolution

So there was a Pew report a while back about the changing demographics of the American SAHM, emphasizing that they were disproportionately “less educated”, “young”, “lower income” and “less white”.  But of course digging into the report’s data reveals that they are also disproportionately “Latina or Asian” and “first generation immigrants”.

It is quite common for liberal women who work outside the home to sneer at SAHMs as uneducated axlotl tanks via news pulpits or just internet comment threads and of course in person, to a SAHM’s face.  They have been able to get away with this because people believed that this was just about being mean to conservative Christian white women who are of course fair game in our sad disordered society.  The reality that the demographic shift in SAHMs is ethnic and cultural is ostentatiously ignored when it comes to pushing that “lol dumb sheltered SAHMs” narrative.  Even when the ethnic changes must be acknowledged, as in the Pew report’s data, the headlines don’t emphasize that “poor and not-white” does not in fact mean “black and female”.  They just sort of let that be assumed even when it doesn’t add up, relying on the head explosion to make people skimming revert to their comforting stereotype that SAHMs are all stupid unschooled right wing white women.

This isn’t included in the Pew data, but it is worth noting as well that these Asian and Latina SAHMs are more likely to live traditionally in the form of households where gramma and auntie live in their own quarters but pop out to assist with the cooking, cleaning and childcare.  This means that these households can manage at a lower income on the books and have a more functional quality of life despite the appearance of “poverty level earnings”.  It also is misleading, as a larger but more efficient household can have a very decent living standard on poverty-level wages, as the thresholds for 5, 6, 7, 9 people are pretty high.

When gramma really will just cook all day while auntie takes the kids to the playground and mamma scrubs the bathrooms, you suddenly don’t need nearly as much money or consumption to maintain a decent living standard for the household.  Lastly, Asian (Including South) and Latin children (with indigenous ancestry) are more docile and less physically mobile as infants and toddlers compared to black and white children.  This is well documented by scientific observation across multiple decades. Thus, the changing demographic shifts also reflect women who have children more compatible with modern SAHM multitasking expectations than white or black mothers.  So it’s a very different experience and one that makes women from these ethnic and cultural backgrounds amenable to staying at home, particularly when their children are young.  Those ethnic differences in how little ones behave are, uh, also not mentioned when discussing SAHM realities and demographics.

Feudal women vs. modern women.

This is a quickie revisiting this post I made about how there is an entire contingent of women who find loyalty and stability sexy.  There seems to be a distinct inability in some men to accept this as a concept.  However, it’s not at all true that women as a class find marriage-worthy men less sexy.  Modern women do.  I don’t mean modern in the sense of “uses technology” but rather “completely operates under an essentially individualistic, self-focused, Enlightenment-derived mindset”.

This type of woman is obviously relatively common and due to fitting into narratives of modern mores being successfully propagated, appears to be presented as Ur-woman.  However, I think that the existence of feudally inclined women (i.e., women with a pre-modern view of life and love) is wildly underestimated on all sides.  In my own referenced post, I used the terms “peasant woman” and “aristocrat woman”, but one can just combine those into “feudal woman” and come out the same.

I am a feudal woman and I have even found many feudal women among bohemian folks in my years on this earth.  It is similar to the way that many right-wing people can have a liberally oriented mindset and some left-wing people can have a conservative mindset.  Feudal affinity in women is simply ordering one’s life according to a more feudal notion of life, love, community and romantic attachments despite the ways in which modernity works against such views.

Even in a world of dazzling wealth and extreme pressure to be self-focused, there are women who order their lives around devotion to community, ethny, kin and nation and expect the men they are attracted to to do the same.  And find themselves not attracted to men who don’t show some signs of this collective orientation and lack of individualism. Basically, just as a pretty goodly fraction of men do not find women of highly negotiable virtue appealing, there seem, if one is viewing the world as it is, to be quite a goodly number of women who aren’t into the cad thing and do not find them appealing.

Peasant women find decent men attractive

Women with a peasant’s (or aristocrat’s if they come from that background) mentality find PUAs and most of the “game” playbook unsexy because it represents disloyalty and “feral” instability. Women who find loyalty and devotion to kin attractive don’t find a steady guy who takes his commitments to family and friends seriously to be unattractive. They marry those guys and it’s not settling because it’s precisely what they want in a man. And they tend to marry those guys before 30 (even in UMCland).

What I am wondering, though, is how common is that mentality among women these days? It seems like women up and down the class ladder don’t want to marry. The “white picket fence” perfection requirement is a sign that they aren’t really interested. There is something to the idea that some women are too prideful to marry. At least with some Christian women, they think they have to give up everything they think of as agency to marry even though they can usually see this isn’t true among the married women near them.

And I’ve come over the years to understand that some women don’t find loyalty in men unsexy– they find it threatening, as if his loyalty is a commentary on their life and moral fiber. So the idea that modern women are “feral” and “chasing tingles” misses a lot of the reasons why women aren’t marrying, particularly Christian women.

I refer to peasant (or very far up the class tree, aristocrat) mentality because a woman with that mindset doesn’t have a self-image that focuses on self-as-individual.  She defines herself in terms of her own kin and ethny and patrimony (where such exists).  She might join with another people through outmarriage to someone from another ethny, but she doesn’t think of the choice in individualist terms.  So unlike the meme that has infiltrated all the way into the mainstream right-wing of conservativeland, peasant women aren’t thrilled by violence with no point, by men with no loyalties and attachments beyond the next moment, by unstable sterility marketing itself as dangerous. Such women don’t like danger, they find devotion and demonstrations of loyalty to the right things (church, family, friends) to be what they want in a man.  They might well be blind to some men, but these are the women who are blind to feral men.

This is repurposed from a starter comment about some other stuff entirely and was inspired further by yet another manosphere blog post about the ferality of women as though it was in fact purely natural and not an artifact of prosperity.  I question that because it simply doesn’t make sense or match up with observed reality.

But then again, how many women are ok with hearing they have a peasant mentality?  It’s not all good.  Such a high level of risk aversion can sometimes make it hard to seize opportunities when they appear.  Still, I do wonder if it doesn’t still represent a substantial minority of women.  One can hope.