Blonde in The Belly of The Beast

Followers of my blog know that I feature frequently videos that talk about larger issues than everyday affairs. One of my favorite sources is the beautiful and sweet twenty-something Becky who runs a YouTube Channel with the name ‘Blonde in the Belly of the Beast‘.


Little do we know about her. She grew up in St Louis, studied at Missou, worked at Wall Street, moved shortly to LA, settled down with her fiancée in Seattle, and is in search of a suburban home right now. I hate that I can’t recommend her work providing her full name or at least a pseudonym which includes a surname. And yet she has the best channel on YouTube.


Her videos are usually between 15 and 20 minutes long and well researched. Social and political topics that are rarely spoken about are presented in a crisp, academic manner. All of her sources are transparently mentioned and, if possible, linked to in the description box.


She decided to start her video blog when she was travelling across Europe. She ran into Muslims every step of the way and realised that this group of people behaved very differently from everybody else. The most intense situation happened when some dudes were circling around her, looking menacingly into her eyes while she was sitting on a bench. A policeman came along and did not reprimand the men. Instead she was told to get her shoes off the dirty bench.

The videos differ in quality which is normal for any series, including my blog posts. Yet, I have not seen one video that was actually bad.


Sometimes it takes a while to open one’s mind for an issue. I have seen videos that sound like satires, particularly when she speaks about men and women. I was laughing when she talked about leading gender-conform lives and that men should be dominant in their relationships.


Live and let live! I can respect all kind of personal arrangements and if a woman wants to be led, I am happy to lead. I respect if people make other choices. For me it was cringe-worthy at first to hear somebody advocating for male domination. And sexy! I must admit that. So, even for me, opening my mind for Becky took a moment. One can advocate for something while respecting other choices.


Why does one cringe in the first place? We cringe because of our romantic idea that sexual identity does not matter. It does. I realise now that her blog is only possible because she is a woman. It is only women who live through hell in highschool and know all the traps of human interaction. Only women have this absurd knack for observing human behavior.


If you put your romantic idea aside and allow yourself to watch the world through Becky’s lens, you see the female reality: women who exploit unattractive men, coward men who think it is not modern to defend women against violent attacks, feminists who perpetrate or hide sexual assault, unhappy career women, childless frumpies and so on. It opens the door to the reality, a reality in which women want children more strongly than men and in which men want to support and defend women, yet for romantic ideals both men and women deny themselves their wishes.


Of course, her video blog would be dull if she only talked about romantic relationships, about manliness and womanliness. She talks about leadership, technology, guns, corruption and all other aspects of politics and society. I don’t agree with everything she says, but I can agree to disagree. So open your mind for the smart and pretty lady with no proper name!


Simply Jews Added Nov 12, 2017 - 4:37am
Sounds interesting indeed. Thanks for the pointer.
A sane viewpoint is something sorely missed these days from the media.
Autumn Cote Added Nov 12, 2017 - 6:37am
Would you mind pointing me to a video where she advocates for male domination?
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 12, 2017 - 6:59am
Autumn: Her channel has multiple of these and the topic is often brought up in other videos.
- Gender Roles & the Myth of Egalitarianism
- Overcoming Unattractive Beta Qualities
- Female Nature and Advice for Young Ladies
Dino Manalis Added Nov 12, 2017 - 7:20am
Good for her, she tells it like it is!
Leroy Added Nov 12, 2017 - 9:10am
"For me it was cringe-worthy at first to hear somebody advocating for male domination. And sexy! I must admit that. "
Sounds Ayn Rand-ish.
Leroy Added Nov 12, 2017 - 10:05am
Thanks, Benjamin.  I watched a couple of her videos so far.  She's good. She's a brainy, well-spoken young lady.
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 12, 2017 - 4:36pm
How does singing praises to the virtues of traditional masculinity, equal advocation of women being reduced to the legal status of second class citizens?
Domination is not defined by the interpersonal social dynamics of voluntary associations.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 12, 2017 - 11:47pm
Pagan: Domination is not a legal term.
Domination, dominance, domi...whatever. She believes the man should dominate the romantic relationship.
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 13, 2017 - 12:07am
Domination requires force, finding assertiveness to be a quality which inspires confidence in someone's leadership, is not the same thing at all.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 13, 2017 - 11:43am
Pagan: I'm not a native speaker and I'd be happy to change the article above, but I'm actually happy about using the word domination.
First of all, words are subjective. I don't find that domination comes with force. I only sense that the word is stronger than the word dominance. The difference between both is gradual.
In the feminist battlesphere we are used to strong words. So I don't know if I should shy away. Is the patriarchy 'assertiveness'? And if so, why put up a fight then?
But I notice that domination evokes strong images of oppression and violence. Of course, I don't mean that. The point is, though, that I don't mean dominance either.
Dominance is habitually reduced to some 'assertiveness'. I don't mean assertiveness. I mean power. I mean that he drives the car, makes the final decision on large investments, increases his office hours on a whim and is expected to read her wishes from her eyes (so she relegates her responsibility to him). This is typical behavior for straight couples. And it doesn't always come with assertion. A couple does not discuss who is the better driver. He drives. He decides.
I would say that the power, real power, not assertiveness, shifts from her (at the beginning) to him during a relationship. To acknowledge that is arguable the best way to steer around the cliffs.
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 13, 2017 - 12:48pm
There is no discussion beforehand, he simply steps up and drives. Yes, that is assertiveness, he believes in himself and has confidence in his abilities, therefore he doesn't doubt or question whether or not he should be in the driver's seat.
Any real power that seems to be transfered is only an illusion, because no matter how strongly he might believe that he should lead, she must repeatedly choose to continue to follow of her own free will.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 13, 2017 - 1:01pm
No, there is also a real power shift. She is no longer wooed by men, he gains money and status. If there is no moral agreement that her earlier concession of power should be rewarded with his loyalty to her, he ends up with extramarital affairs. He can 'afford' it because of the power imbalance.
Power comes with responsibility. In a good relationship this should maybe be addressed before she feels betrayed for 'all the things [she] gave up for him'.
Paul Hosse Added Nov 13, 2017 - 1:06pm
Ben, I watch "Becky" as well. I find her comments interesting and I'm quite pleased that she doesn't try to talk down to her viewers. Her whole production is well put together. I also enjoy watching Laura Southern, "Wild Bill for America", "The Roaming Millennial", Bill Whittle, and "The White Rose" (who is from South Africa). For balance, I watch Abby Martin, Anissa Naouri, Noam Chomsky, and Thom Hartman.  
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 13, 2017 - 2:32pm
And if he fails to live up to her unspoken expectations of him, she can reject his leadership and stop following him at any time of her choosing.
If this is backed up by a legally enforceable marriage contract, that failure to live up to her expectations will also come with the loss of half of his assets, as well as a portion of his future productivity, as an additional consequence of her disfavor.
Seems to me that the real power still ultimately resides with her.
After all, is not the the voluntary power dynamic where a leader's power is based solely upon the confidence of their followers, the conceptual foundation of the Consent of the Governed, upon which the legitimacy of our system of government is based?
mark henry smith Added Nov 13, 2017 - 6:23pm
Geez, haven't men been dominating this world long enough? Yeah we're bigger, stronger, more control oriented, more egotistical, more destructive, etc... I haven't heard anyone say that men are smarter in general or better leaders. From my studies I've found that the trait that really separates men from women is men are less scrupulous. Is that a surprise? Why don't we ask women at what age they think sexual activity would be healthy because most of the men I've met, despite their public stance, believe the adage, old enough to bleed, old enough to boogie.
I think that attitude needs to change.
I have no problem with a king or a queen running the show as long
as their upbringing has instilled in them an unwavering love for justice. 
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 13, 2017 - 6:34pm
Name one example of a royal line that passed on anything other than a sense of entitlement to its descendants.
And my point is that there is no domination, when all that is being referred to are preferences of interpersonal dynamics in voluntary associations.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 14, 2017 - 10:43am
Pagan: The way you argue it you deny the existance of power as such. Hitler also relied on his supporters. Every people can withdraw the power from any leader. Theoretically. And yet, in the real world, there are power imbalances.
Dave Volek Added Nov 14, 2017 - 12:15pm
I went to a couple of videos. She definitely is putting up some ideas that need further discussing.
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 14, 2017 - 12:54pm
There will ALWAYS be power imbalances.
What is in question is where the REAL power lies, and whether such a dynamic equals Domination when it is mutually voluntary.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 14, 2017 - 2:38pm
Pagan: A holocaust denier just told me that Jews lack abstract thinking. So have mercy.
In a relationship she wields most power at the beginning and he gains power over time. At the beginning she dominates and he sinks to his knees, later he makes most decisions and she follows. It isn't all voluntary. Life has restrictions.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 14, 2017 - 2:45pm
Hosse: The current Lauren Southern video is also great, I mean really great. Black Pidgeon Speaks can be great at times. Same is true for PragerU.
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 14, 2017 - 5:06pm
Well I'm not sure how that relates to anything I've been talking about.
If anything I suspect that you've likely been so emersed in feminist propaganda, that its difficult to wrap your mind around the concept that traditional gender interactions could be willingly embraced, and considered functionally desirable as being consistent with human nature.
But while I believe that you are vastly oversimplifying the relevant power dynamics, the point is that no one is forcing either of them to do it that way.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 15, 2017 - 12:00pm
Pagan: No, I can wrap my mind around the concept that the power imbalance can be embraced. I would even say that this is what Becky argues for.
the point is that no one is forcing either of them to do it that way.
Well, that is wrong. The 'one' may not be a person, but a woman does not have the choices to replace the guy when she has aged, has given birth to children and a compromised career because of the children. I think you are simplifying the issue if you think the divorce option is levelling off his domination over her. It doesn't. Embracing the power imbalance sensibly may be smarter than fighting it. 
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 15, 2017 - 12:53pm
If you think that I am oversimplifying it, then you have no concept of just how hostile family courts are to men. All of the horror stories you've heard about despicable scumbags corrupting the system, are noteworthy because they are the exception and not the rule.
An honest man doesn't stand a chance. When custody is not disputed, courts give sole custody to the mother 70% of the time, if it is contested his odds actually go DOWN, in those cases sole custody is awarded to the mother 80% of the time. The other 30% or 20% of the time is overwhelmingly joint custody. Even in cases where the mother is proven to be unfit, the courts are still more likely to turn the kids over to children's services than to award sole custody to the father.
There is a reason that divorces are primarily initiated by the wife, because she has the most to gain, while the husband has the most to loose.
And even without that, you still haven't demonstrated how these traditional interactions are a dominating power imbalance.
Making the choice to trust his judgement regarding many major decisions, hardly equals her being helpless.
A decision isn't automatically better simply because it was made by committee. And if the person making the decision is inclined to disregard the interests and feelings of the others involved, and make these decisions solely in accord with their self-centered goals, then there are much bigger problems there than endless rounds of selfish bickering before a decision is made is going to solve.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 15, 2017 - 1:14pm
I agree that the divorce is her final and biggest club. I actually had that in mind before my first comment on this article. But it does not level off the power imbalance that is there during the relationship. She can only threaten the nuclear option. When she follows through it hurts her a lot.
I think that is a good picture: The US and Russia both have nukes, yet the strategic advances in Ukraine are with Russia. You can tell yourself that the threats of a nuclear war puts both parties on par, but I would argue that half of Ukrain still went under the control of Moscow.
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 15, 2017 - 4:22pm
Her options are limited exclusively to threatening to go nuclear, ONLY if the guy she is married to is a malignant narcissist.
And she is harmed by the divorce only if you assume that she is starting out with the honest good will, which you assume all actions of the husband in such a case would be completely bereft of.
Before you base your objections on reflexively casting the guy into the role of the villain, perhaps you should try and explain what power dynamic would result in a relationship with an individual of such character, being anything other than a disaster.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 15, 2017 - 5:50pm
I don't understand your contention.
Your entire argument rests on the premise that they both have to agree on their arrangements. It is factually not true. I'm sorry. I don't even understand what you try to get at. She has less money, less job options, is emotionally stronger bound by her love to the children (don't deny it)....she has less options. He has more. It does not mean that she has to suffer. He can and should be nice to her...and usually is nice to her.
The courts rule in the Western world so much in favor of women to offset this power imbalance. In other societies a break up results in impoverished women and children. In most cultures she has less and less power to seek the protection of another man because her beauty fades. She can't just be on her own - in most cultures. And in the western culture she also just hands over more and more decisions to him. She will work less hours because of the children and will earn less money because of it....I don't know what i'm missing.
I say nowhere that he must be a villain to be in a more powerful position. It is his money and his social standing on which the family relies. What am I missing here?
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 15, 2017 - 6:14pm
How long have you been married?
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 16, 2017 - 11:17am
Pagan: Hm...I have no idea what my or your personal situation has to do with the general condition. There are arguments to deny the existance of a male dominance/domination in our relationships (e.g. she has the 'weapon' to withhold sex or whatever), but ... hm ... I think I've given quite some arguments that back up my perception and I could put out more. I don't really see what speaks for ... what actually? ... equality of power in marriages. Only because feminists see something does not mean that it isn't real.
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 16, 2017 - 3:13pm
Experience matters because you are claiming that without a material mechanism to physically put her hand on the wheel, she is completely helpless and is nothing more than a victim in waiting.
On Tuesday I will have been married for 14 years, and I can tell you that assertion is patently false.
The problems that you are suggesting could result by simply having one person in the driver's seat, are in no way solved or even slightly mitigated by her being able to yank on the wheel.
A husband is exceedingly dependant on his wife in numerous and pervasive ways. Even if she is not being angry or spiteful, if a man's wife is miserable it eats him up inside.
The only way that doesn't happen, is if he doesn't actually care.
And if one side doesn't genuinely care, then you've got a train wreck in the making no matter what.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Nov 16, 2017 - 3:29pm
you are claiming that without a material mechanism to physically put her hand on the wheel, she is completely helpless and is nothing more than a victim in waiting. And I somehow think we are cross-talking. It's not your fault. I don't understand your arguments. They do not really address anything I say.
Somehow, I gleen that you try to say that love is the big equalizer. I don't think so, but it makes a romantic pop song. Some artist will eventually say that it makes sense on a different level, on a somewhat higher level. And I'm all fine with it. Love is all we need. Love lifts us up where we belong. Love makes us equal. Love let's us shine. All we need is love. Love blasts away the petty confinements of life. Love is what love does. Love makes us better humans. It's all in love.
Did you enjoy some of her videos?
PaganTeaPartier Added Nov 16, 2017 - 5:27pm
What I am saying is that selfishness is destructive, and that there is no structural defense for it.
Your power dynamics arguments are based upon the fear of, "But what if he starts being selfish?"
If he does, it will cause harm... No matter what.
If she uses her power, whatever form that takes, to react by being selfish right back at him, that doesn't lessen the harm, it doubles it.
I'm not addressing your arguments because their fundamental premise, is that the dual captains organizational structure, will somehow get around the inherent risks of the fact that they are both in the same boat.

Recent Articles by Writers Benjamin Goldstein follows.