Steve Sailer writes: “Trainwreck is a Judd Apatow-directed romantic comedy in which Amy Schumer plays an alcoholic who reluctantly comes around to deciding to give up a life of one-night stands with professional wrestlers and other random muscleheads and instead settle for the love of a nice guy who happens to be one of the world’s highest paid surgeons. In the NYT, Manohla Dargis praises Schumer’s character as a feminist role model, but is so worried that the film’s ultimate message — that after a decade and a half of having blackout drunk sex with lowbrow steroid-abusing strangers, a 34-year old woman should consider resigning herself to monogamy with a devoted celebrity surgeon — is sexist that she just ignores it.”
Comments to Steve Sailer:
* “Review: ‘Trainwreck’ Delivers the Full Amy Schumer Experience”
The full experience? Such as an STD? Do the theater-seats give you herpes.
* The left seems to embrace an idea I have come to call “heroic promiscuity.”
Dargis is so caught up in rhapsodizing about it that she doesn’t see much else.
It’s consequences of disease, illegitimacy, divorce, psychological damage to women – these don’t register to liberals. Or they get blamed on conservatives, the way they blame the AIDS crisis on Reagan.
There’s a contradiction where the left hates laissez faire, except for when it comes to the sexual marketplace, where they celebrate it. (A more extreme form even, since we are talking about just social stigma rather than government regulation.)
But laissez faire has the same problems in sex as it does in economics: radical inequality. That some people will make bad decisions and lose everything, while others will win completely.
Free markets in economics lead to inequality, but at least it serves a social purpose. Competition means the people who get rich will do so, usually, because they are offering the best goods and services. There are all sorts of abuses and excesses, but the core idea is sound.
Letting Bill Gates get rich serves some social purpose. But how does society benefit by someone like Hugh Hefner get rich in the sexual marketplace?
Then on the other side there are the losers; some black girl in the inner city gets pregnant at 15, and others die of AIDS. Children grow up in broken families. Average men hard a time finding wives, and if they do they stand a good chance at getting divorced.
The left claims to believe in equality, but sexual lassaiz faire can never lead to equality.
* That kind of drinking is really hard on your looks. If she really spent a decade living that hard she wouldn’t have a chance with a wealthy surgeon. Leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that she’s pretty much aged out of the dating high end by that point anyway.
* Like a lot of art made by Jews, Schumer’s work is less about what it pretends to be about and almost totally about spitting in the face of the Christian majority. Her focus on flouting sexual convention is almost entirely anti-Christian. If Christianity changed tomorrow to be about abstaining from bubblegum instead of pre-maritial sex, Schumer would change her focus to being about popping bubbles all day.
This is why a lot of Jewish art is frozen in a permanent state of immaturity, from the juvenile raps of the Beastie Boys to the eternally sophomoric Howard Stern to the countless comedians who rely on shock more than humor. It’s more about sticking it to Christians than it is about creating something original or multi-dimensional.
What surprises me is that people take this at face value and don’t see it for what it is. There is a massive amount of bigotry, paranoia, and resentment in the Jewish community when it comes to anything Christian. Call it Christianophobia. So much of what Jews produce comes from this worldview. I’m guessing that only reason this isn’t spoken about more is that any writer who attempted to bring it into the mainstream would be branded and anti-Semite and blacklisted.
* Are Jewish children taught this specifically? I’ve heard what you’re talking about from other people and I just have to wonder. You’d think Jews and Christians would be allies, sharing the Old Testament in common and all. But they seem to despise Christianity more than anything else. Is it just the really secular ones?
OH, there’s that bit in a Woody Allen film, Annie Hall, I think, where he goes on about his Jewish childhood filled with socialism/communism indoctrination youth camps. Is that stuff really true?
* For someone like Schumer who grew up in Manhattan, Christians just don’t register on their radar. They may grow up without knowing any serious Christian believers (Episcopalian lesbians don’t count). Christians are more cartoon objects of laughter and derision than serious ideological opponents – snake handlers and people who speak in tongues, people who believe that the world was created in 6 days 5,000 years ago. You are not going to define your life in opposition to such hicks and clowns.
Promiscuous sex is no more permissible in Judaism than it is in Christianity (even today Jewish rates of illegitimacy are very low, though this probably has more to do with Jews being more organized about things like birth control and getting early abortions than any difference in the rate of sexual activity outside of marriage).
People like Schumer, Dunham, Handler, etc. can’t really be though of as Jews or Christians or 1/2 and 1/2 – what they really are are products of a post-religious society, where there is no longer any God who is watching what you do, so you do whatever you feel like. Or you could view them as worshipers of the new religion of Secular Modernism or Cultural Marxism or whatever you would like to call it. Since this is an iconoclastic religion, you do whatever the opposite of the conventional morality says, but they don’t think of the conventional morality (which is also known as JUDEO-Christian ethics) as being particularly Christian (as I said before, they don’t even know many Christians) – their Jewish grandmothers would no more approve of their whoring around than any evangelical minister would. The Ten Commandments are found in the Hebrew Bible, not the New Testament. Many of those who laid out the tenets of, and ascribe to, the new religion were people who were born as Jews but, like early Christians, they (or even their parents or grandparents) converted to the new religion and their acts and beliefs must be assigned to that new religion and not to “the Jews”. Even if these people say they are Jews, they ain’t really, not in any meaningful sense. There are plenty of believers in the New Religion who are not the slightest bit Jewish but who have exactly the same beliefs and act in the same way as Schumer. Look at her cheerleader Dargis – is she Jewish too?
* Until the mid 50′s, when the crimes of Stalin became widely known, it was extremely common for New York Jews to be either Socialist, Communist, Trotskyite, etc. (they are not the same thing). Sanders is sort of a last vestige of that era. But by the early ’60s, the Jewish political spectrum shifted to the right (and/or the Democrat Party shifted to the left) and except for a tiny hardcore fringe, most American Jews found a home in that Party and gave up Communism/Socialism (in the sense of actual party membership) and sending their kids to Communist summer camps. In any case, these camps in America were more about singing songs about oppression than making bombs. They were Peter Seeger Communists.
* One reason why feminists promote a narrative of Heroic Promiscuity is because of the so called double standard: men are considered more attractive if they are promiscuous, while women are seen as less attractive if promiscuous.
Feminists are faced with two way of trying to equalize this. To stigmatize promiscuity among both sexes, or to promote it among both by a narrative of Heroic Promiscuity.
Stigmatizing promiscuity actually promotes equal distribution of sexual affection. It means those who have gotten less sex are more attractive, putting them in position to get more.
Men who are sexually successful appeal to women’s base instincts. Society can try to compensate for that by stigmatizing such men. This is what traditional morality does, it’s what society is supposed to do: control our instincts. It’s not much, but it helps give chaste men (or beta males) a fighting chance in the sexual marketplace. Such stigma promotes equality.
On the other hand, promoting a narrative of Heroic Promiscuity means the sexual rich get richer, and the sexual poor get poorer.
Feminists claim to believe in equality, but choose to promote Heroic Promiscuity. Why? Because destroying traditional morality is more important to them than equality is. Because the main beneficiaries of stigma on promiscuity are unattractive men. And because Heroic Promiscuity is a key part of their secular substitute for religion. Sex without limits, sex without guilt: what could possibly go wrong?
* The manosphere will have a field day with this movie.
This reads like the recurring theme of Rational Male, the Cock Carousel Rider who comes to an epiphany in her 30s after discovering the train of bad boy losers has begin to overlook her and go with younger, tighter versions of her. She then shifts her hypergamic urge from “Alpha Fux” to “Beta Bux” and settles for the boring provider type.
And now this becomes the modern Cinderella tale, a brain surgeon in shining armor, Captain Sav A Ho, comes along loves her for her, and carries her off to luxury and security.
Trouble is, there is massive backlash because often this tale ends up with a second epiphany, usually after the hook has been set in the sucker with a child, and our Heroine goes out on an Eat, Pray, Love binge after divorce raping the sucker in the court. And really, doctors fall prey to this because they are usually quite beta, bookworms.
Back in the day, there was this web site floating around called the Sunday Morning Nightclub. This guy was a classic target for the type of woman that was considered a “Born Again Virgin”, a carousel rider who found Jesus in her early thirties, shut off the easy sex, and attempted to lure a sucker into marriage. So he would go to a new church, join the singles classes, scope out the women that always came to church showing cleavage, then drop his bonafides as a beta provider. He would basically steer them along, have relationships, usually sexual ones (“I don’t normally do this” would be a common thing the woman would say). Then he would dump them. All he would really have to do was at some point just say something like, “I don’t see myself as the marrying type.” The site disappeared after what he was doing became more public. His rationale was he using up this predator woman’s last harrah and preventing her from reeking havoc on some poor defenseless church boy who mistook this new found attention as validation for the life success he had attained.
But now we know-the woman that pursues this path that the Trainwreck follows is damaged, low impulse control, bad future sense, a trunk full of various mental issues, solipsistic, probably an alpha widow, totally void of the ability to bond in the way a less traveled, less damaged woman should. Graphs associate N count with divorce probability and it doesn’t take many to make a woman a high risk. (Feminists graph out at the highest risk. Some put it at 80%.) So the manosphere teaches all sorts of ways to derive the possible N count, all without direct questions, evaluation of her tales, her life experiences, etc. I can go on about STDs, reduced fecundity as a function of that lifestyle, but to make a long story short, any man that would marry a single 30 something woman is statistically making a mistake.
* Apatow’s movies are quite interesting. In that they tend to propagandize things that both sexes have rejected, utterly.
Women are NOT flocking to marry up nerdy man-boys. Indeed Katherine Heigl found it quite offensive that her character WOULD marry someone played by Seth Rogen. Even though Rogen was and is ten times the star she is; the sexual marketplace disparity was too great for her to handle. Movie after movie, from Superbad to Knocked Up to This Is Forty extols the Beta Male to attractive women.
And universally attractive women reject the message of the virtue of settling for Beta Males. Indeed Feminism has been wildly successful in gaining female adherents, because it allows average women the ability to have sex with Alphas (but not commitment — Bill Clinton did not marry Monica Lewinsky). Most women are fine with that.
Will most beta male White men see the movie and decide to “marry up that ho!” Uh … no.
Schumer herself is overweight for Hollywood. Suggesting she no longer cares, unlike Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Aniston, Sandra Bullock, etc. who carefully diet, work out like crazy, and have great plastic surgeons quite probably. Schumer seems more a conduit to do favors to her Uncle Senator Charles Schumer, D-NY than anything else. Want a tax break, intervention with Obama’s Executive Branch? Cast Schumer’s Niece in a Big Role and Push Her VERY VERY HARD. Like fellow fattie Lena Dunham, Schumer seems to rely on relationships more than feminine attractiveness to get her next role. Again problematic. And symptomatic of a Hollywood concerned with insider maneuvering not profits for shareholders.
Amy Schumer in shape MIGHT be considered an acceptable prize for male audiences, maybe, if the male character had significant handicaps. As it is, her character seems a McDonald’s hamburger at Wolfgang Puck prices. I doubt Apatow will get many takers from Beta Males. Marry up a … FAT … woman with a large N count?. Nor is the beta male in the movie much of a prize for the female movie goers. He’s a 100th best choice, if that. Women want the Alpha male, the dominant man who can have any woman he wants. Mr. Big, from Sex and the City. Moody/broody semi-gay vampires, or bondage minded billionaires. Not a wimp settling for a ho.
Long term I think we are going to be resigned to most Whites outside the Upper Class Charles Murray “SuperZips” to be r-selected. That is, men compete to be the most sexy singers, dancers, fighters, etc. and invest nothing in children whose paternity is uncertain, and women are single mothers. Marriage will be for … Rich People. Who will pursue it with dynastic intent.
The old, monogamous, nuclear family, with the wife having N < 4, and the man N < 6, is dead. The condom, pill, anonymous urban living, and crucially female-driven consumer spending and advertising killed it. * The actual life of women more than ever justifies the crack by Jack Nicholson’s character in “As Good As It Gets”: “How do you write women characters so well?” “I think of a man. Then I take away reason and responsibility.” * That Manohla (Good God, what a name for a woman) Dargis totally ignores the implications of the title doesn’t surprise me at all. The Sex and the City series had many episodes where the feckless female characters suffered the consequences of their imprudent behavior. However, the characters themselves and female fans following the show generally learned no lessons whatever as a result. The characters went on their unmerry way, and the fans used the travails of the characters as an opportunity to bond cathartically. Dargis is running in the same groove; any heartbreak, anomie, or depression suffered by the film’s titular character can all be blamed on men, culture, society, whatever — it’s no reason to change any of their own attitudes. * On Schumer’s entertainment value I feel I can take/leave her– can’t remember a single funny line associated w/ her but I do think she’s a gifted sketch actress. She’s clearly more talented than the class of mediocre females who came up through recent SNL/Daily Show or “The Office” remake (e.g. Mindy Project, that Kimmy Schmitts person) or the one-note alcoholislut comics e.g. Whitney Cummings. However I tend to doubt she symbolizes any social trends/truths weightier than herself, heh. This elderly-cheerleader review by Helen Gurley Dargis, on the other hand, is very funny. There are bits in it that will be quoted long after “Trainwreck” gets licensed to Showtime for like a month in 2016. * Back in the old days, the temperance movement was led by women angry their husbands were drinking the family money away. Both sexes are irresponsible. The difference now is that feminism wants women to get away with it…and has made marriage so dangerous lots of men don’t want to get married. * I kept wondering, when I first saw Schumer, if she would expand her material beyond her crotch. Her whole act seems based on her crotch, which is fine as the opener, but eventually people will get tired of it. That seems to be a thing with female comics. They obsess over their crotch, but feminism is mostly just one long crotch joke anyway so maybe it’s a woman thing. I’m surely showing my age and cultural heritage, but I don’t find Schumer funny or attractive. She’s just vulgar and boring to me. I can live with vulgar if it is clever. Lots of comics are vulgar, but very clever at it. Schumer strikes me as a bit dull-witted. I suspect she is not funny in private either. Away from the stage or camera, she’s just unpleasant. * Jokes about abortion – that’s real classy. I’m sure comics like Schumer think that nothing is sacred and that we should just laugh at everything. Except anti-semitism, of course. That is never a laughing matter. Jews have done a great deal to coarsen american culture in the last 20 or 30 years. * Saw the movie last night. Awful, put me in a foul mood for hours. The first half has some good laffs, but the last half expects the audience to identify with and/or care about the characters. Absolutely nauseating. Plus, we get the (apparently mandatory) cheerleading for sodomy, and Schumer’s character dyslogizes her father at his funeral by calling him a racist and homophobe, the top two secular sins in modern America, reminding the double-digit-IQ audience that the worst thing a person can be is a racist [sic] or homophobe [sic!]. You pay me $500 and I’ll watch that movie again; I’d never watch it for free. Purest brain pollution, a great demonstration of why fiction is dangerous and is forbidden by some religions. * Most women’s only leadership experience is being a mother to their children, and they bring this style to the workplace, treating grown people like children, often even referring to coworkers and subordinates as children. Obnoxious. And no grown person has any inherent desire to follow a woman’s lead — women get authority only from official titles, often called “legitimate” authority, an authority bestowed by rank or position but without genuine buy-in from subordinates. And women HATE having another woman as a boss, though men are more tolerant of it. * OT: Stats wiz Nate Silver: For black Americans, US is about as dangerous as Rwanda.
So the US is Europe for whites and Africa for blacks! Is it like Japan for Asians?
* When (and why) did she turn into a fat chick? In her stand-up act she looked quite cute, although foul-mouthed, which is more than a little off-putting. Her shtick is a clone of Sarah Silverman. But that fat. Why would she let herself go like that?
* A slut like Amy’s character in this film can repent, but she can’t de-experience herself sexually to undo the damage to her ability to form a stable relationship with a man. Films which show otherwise disserve the interests of young women.
* Kind of weird Amy Schumer doesn’t mention Chelsea Handler as an influence. Amy has totally appropriated Chelsea’s schtick.
* I’ve noticed that Jews have an apparent but undiscussed hatred of the Irish and Scots-Irish. Their ethnic cleansing programs of the 1950s-1970s—-under the cover of integration—-targeted neighborhoods and cities dominated by those of Irish and Scots-Irish descent (e.g., Boston’s South Boston and Charlestown neighborhoods, both Irish enclaves). You’ll notice they’ve turned their eye on promoting the priest-abuser stories from an American church dominated by Irish clergy. And of course, the constant attacks by Jewish organizations on “police punishing poor innocent black people”—-what ethnic group is famous for dominating the police ranks?
“Evil Whitey” for Jews seems to stand, not for WASPs, but for those of Hibernian stock.
* Is the jail population really that diverse?
Isn’t the whole point of prisons in the US to lock up blacks so that non-blacks can lead safe lives?
* Has there ever been a female comedian who wasn’t a complete train wreck?
* This phenomenon of being born a black haired baby but becoming “blonde” as an adult is quite the phenomenon among many women in Latin America and The Middle East. They figure if they are light skin enough/look Whitish enough maybe people will mistake them for naturally blonde Northern European WASP chicks.
George Lopez has talked about how his Mexican aunt loves dying her hair blonde even though she was born with black hair. And Steve Sailer talks about how a lot of Persian women in Beverly Hills love dying their hair blonde. With Persians and Mexicans, you are more likely to meet a 40 year old “blonde” woman than you are to meet a 10 year old blonde girl. Meaning they have a much higher rate of adult female” blondism” than child female blondism because hair dye is so popular in Mexico and Iran.
* Jews get away with everything. They control the courts and politicians and media. Jews pushed the Iraq War and got it. Jews pushed the toppling of Gaddafi and got it. Jews pushed ‘gay marriage’ and got it. Jews pushed the release of Pollard the criminal and will get it.
* If being captured in war makes you a hero, then all the ‘enemy combatants’ captured by the US in the so-called ‘War on Terror’ must be heroes too.
* Whenever the topic of Pollard comes up, the media shows this photo of him that makes him look angelic or even christ-like.
He looks like some figure out of a renaissance painting. The media do for Pollard what it did for homos. Idolize him through favorable images. Sacramental coverage.* The point of this movie is to propagandize for male acceptance of, or at least resignation toward, female promiscuity. That is, not the kind that you benefit from directly; the more common kind, namely, that you “man up” and “get over” your “hang ups” about her promiscuous past.
Women are more promiscuous than ever, judging from a variety of evidence, including surveys on the mean and median numbers of sexual partners people have. Men, for whatever reason (but surely partly hard-wired natural preference), don’t like this. They may like it to the extent that it gives them a greater shot at one-night-stands, but those benefits are–to say the least–not evenly distributed among the male population. In any case, men don’t like it in a wife or long-term girlfriend.
Women (and the men who push for and excuse female promiscuity) know this. Women also want eventually to “settle down”. This requires either keeping her potential mate in the dark (harder and harder to do in the social media age) or else forcing or shaming him into not caring, or pretending not to care.
The purpose of this movie, then, is to reinforce through propaganda that it is shameful for a man to be concerned about a potential mate’s sexual past. It is to guilt-trip men into suppressing whatever reservations they have on that score.
The alternative–women behaving more chastely and moderately–is out of the question for modern women. But they still want to get married once the top guys lose interest in them for short term sex. And to do that, they have to overcome men’s natural reluctance to commit to a promiscuous woman. Which requires propaganda. Which this is.
* We’re slowly moving toward banning live chimpanzees from entertainment and replacing them with computer generated imagery because the entertainment industry is bad for the chimps.
I’d like to see the same thing happen with child actors: just have underage characters played by adults in motion capture suits.
* Vox is upset that Bernie Sanders doesn’t talk about race: Bernie Sanders is an old school Liberal. He needs to adapt to new school Liberalism which is all about BLACK BODIES, ILLEGAL ALIENS, AND CHICKS WITH DICKS. If he can not adapt to new school Liberalism, The Democratic Party needs to put him out to pasture.
* Men have the ability to experience the equivalent of two or more lives to women’s one life because men age sexually a lot more slowly than women. A young man can start a family with a young woman in their 20′s, then divorce her in their 40′s, marry a younger woman and start another family.
So it makes sense that a man can disengage emotionally from a woman after her fertility crashes in her 30′s.
* The idea that slutty women are really more the result of bad parenting (i.e., daddy issues) than of women being, as the NYT put it, “the absolute agents of their lives and desires” is an old one, and is a stereotype on which both libertines and traditionalists agree.
“Ted:…they’re hookers…Oh! Where are my manners? Lori, this is Angelique, Heavenly, Shereen and Sauvignon Blanc. I love you girls. You know, somewhere out there are four terrible fathers I wish I could thank for this great night.”
* Miriam Lilian D Or I had a blonde wig once and was looking to get another one for costume, I since deleted the immodest blonde pictures. My hair as a child was naturally auburn and then turned dark. I hate hair dyed blonde, even on naturally light skinned women, I don’t care what country they are from. Dyed blonde hair will never look natural. It will always look fake, fried hair- with the texture of dried up hay. The roots will always look disgustingly black or distastefully yellow-after a bleach touch-up. The contrast in colour will always make a woman look sickly and make a woman’s brown eyes automatically look darker and beady. Women have to learn to go for dye that will suit them. They can’t fake the WASP look by looking like an unnatural yellow haired troll.
* Since it is clear, from the Sony leaks, that the movie industry is perfectly aware that they are sacrificing profits when they engage in affirmative action casting, one wonders exactly where the investment money is coming from for this social engineering of the memescape? I mean, it’s one thing when they cast a guy like Dustin Hoffman as a romantic lead with various shiksas while casting blond actors as bad guys — that’s just ethnic sexual aggression at work and it is obvious why they’d sacrifice profits for that kind of social engineering — but why this? Who, exactly, is footing the bill and why?
