For those who had any doubt about how women are hurtling on the path towards obsolesence :
Feminists demand that only scientific research that furthers feminism be pursued.
The precision to which female psychology is diametrically opposed to the principles of a free, advanced, and enlightened society is just uncanny.
Last week Tucker Carlson had Mark Steyn on for a segment about the trans boy* who won the Texas state championship for girls high school wrestling. In the discussion Steyn stated that this has ruined the girl’s state wrestling championship.
...
This had me wondering just how long girls high school wrestling has been around. Carlson and Steyn are also talking about a broader issue, but with regard to girls wrestling in specific it struck me that there is a very narrow “progressive” window for what the two conservatives are mourning. A society has to reject traditional sex roles enough to encourage girls to wrestle, but it has to be traditional enough to not yet embrace transsexualism. Girls wrestling is a sort of Goldilocks phenomenon. It can only occur for a short window when everything is just right.
With this in mind, I set out to learn how long there has been a girls wrestling championship for trans wrestlers to ruin. How long is the girls wrestling Goldilocks window? It turns out that only six states in the US currently have state championships for girls wrestling, and that Texas has the second oldest:
...
Twenty years ago when Hawaii created the first girls wrestling state championship the conservative argument would have been that girls shouldn’t be wrestling. Today the conservative argument is that trans wrestlers shouldn’t ruin girls wrestling. This puts the observed outer limit of this Goldilocks zone at twenty years, but most states today still don’t have a girls wrestling state championship, and half of the states that do have one have had one for less than ten years.
*A girl taking hormones to transition to a boy.
Along similar lines :
Uber’s analytics proves that the pay gap is a complete myth.
The pay gap is an interesting meme. The fact that people only assert it as fact reveals :
i) Exactly who should have no idea that you even exist, and certainly who you should never hire.
ii) It is the ONE issue that even cuckservatives are brave enough to reject. Even NRO rejects the pay gap. There is no other ‘feminist’ meme that cuckservatives reject. Plus, cuckservatives have not normalized it over time, unlike what they do with every other leftism.
iii) There are a number of women CEOs. Even in tech. They don’t hire women at a greater rate than companies with male CEOs at the helm. Oracle, HP, IBM, Yahoo, and a few others all have or recently had female CEOs. No surge in tech jobs for women.
—and most importantly.
iv) The ‘pay gap’, just like other illogical myths, reveals that the massive transfer of wealth to women could be reversed easily if just the government got ‘game’. In other words, since no amount of legislation and wealth transfer makes them admit anything in their favor ever passed, it is extremely easy for the government to quietly reduce all spending on women while running a massive wave of media interference, and still lose no female votes. Since women don’t track any objective progress towards a defined goal, they won’t notice a slealthy slippage away from that goal. The government is overpaying for the female vote, when the same can be purchased with far less taxpayer (aka male) money.
feeriker,
It really shows how little real faith there is today.
Remember that it is noteworthy only when a man exhibits a complete lack of genuine faith. Such a man is a mangina, pastorbator, cuckservative, etc.
It is not noteworthy when a woman lacks genuine faith. It is natural, since women are far less capable of spiritual enlightenment. It is simply a part of female inferiority, nothing more.
feeriker,
As Paddy pointed out upthread and as I remind everyone occasionally hereabouts, women LOVE drama. Indeed, they require it as a life-sustaining force along with food, oxygen, and water.
Indeed. It is part of the reason women are obsolete.
By contrast, a man over 40 really hates drama. Sometimes, peace and quiet are more desirable than the company of a woman, even a moderately attractive one, net-net (sex in the credit side of the ledger, drama and expense in the debit side).
People thus underestimate how much of a disruption VR sex will be to the level of search costs men are willing to incur to pursue women. VR sex strips out drama, expense, STDs, legal risks, and unattractiveness out of the woman. Only the women who still do valuable things for a man, or is otherwise a 9 or 10, will have anything that he still wants.
[When you read the cover of an econ book once]
More proof that Economics is the subject where women have the greatest underperformance relative to men, even more so than engineering :
When women join the workforce, everyone’s wages rise, including mens’. [Text is a link to a Harvard Business Review study from January 2018: https://hbr.org/2018/01/when-more-women-join-the-workforce-wages-rise-including-for-men]
To the extent that voters should grasp the most basic economic concepts, female suffrage was the greatest disaster a prosperous society can possibly inflict upon itself.
Remember that it takes a considerably higher level of intellectual enlightenment to see that misandry is the greatest evil of our age. Crude racism/tribalism is the currency of those who haven’t evolved since 10,000 BC, so it becomes the default ideology of the intellectually weak. Plus, any ethno-centric ideology has 99% overlap with feminism and hence is a huge part of the problem, for obvious reasons.
[Later comment]
Why are feminists complaining about the prevalence of male villains in children’s picture books?
Women get gina tingles from villains. There is no more to it than that.
That is why the strict control of women was essential to civilizational progress. Since this is unlikely in the modern age, the next most like outcome is increasing female obsolescence.
...
The truth is, marriage worked when poverty was more widespread. Furthermore, women aren’t really useful for too many roles in modern society, particularly since people don’t have 8 kids anymore.
Marriage is on its way out. Plus, women are obsolete.
Gilder explains why fathers are and must be expendable. If fathers aren’t expendable, women can’t tame men the way civilization requires:
Incredible. The mental acrobatics one has to go through to believe that—
Observing women today, there is not doubt that men did not merely create 100% of civilization. Men created 110-120% of it, as civilization only advanced sporadically when episodes of patriarchy were dominant.
The more a subject advances civilization, the less women are interested in it. Look no further than the reaction women have to the tech industry for proof.
George Gilder, in fact, writes books about fiber optics and wireless technology. The gender breakdown of the people who attend his book signings and conference keynotes should give the old fool a clue.
[Comment down the page]
But the notion that women innately know what is ‘good for society’ is so incredibly wrong-headed that it is astonishing. Everything we see about unrestricted female behavior today proves that civilization only happened while women were tightly controlled. ‘Feminism’ is directly opposed to any and all true pillars of civilization.
See, this is why AI is going to be a disaster for the FI. These idiots that twist themselves into a pretzel rather than recognize the obvious truth – female ability is lower – will find it increasingly impossible to cover up the truth that AI forces everywhere.
As another example :
In response to a comment at her site complaining about divorce theft, Susan challenged “Provide stats for this or shut up.” I provided stats, and Susan was furious. Later she claimed one of my commenters threatened to track her down and harm her. When I asked for a link to the comment so I could address it, she wouldn’t provide me one.
See, a woman lets emotion take the place of cold, hard facts. I can count on one hand the number of times a woman used graphs and charts to maker her point, which is why they get so angry when a man who likes graphs and charts (Dalrock, in this case) presents them and proves the woman wrong.
AI will not back down, and will simply plow through all this, exposing an endless array of politically incorrect truths.
In fact, it is already beginning :
https://www.wired.com/story/machines-taught-by-photos-learn-a-sexist-view-of-women/
...
Even if it doesn’t work, and AI ultimately does its own thing, surely efforts will be made to coerce the humans into making AI toe the line?
By definition, humans can’t do that. Advanced AI (like Deep Learning) delivers a result without explaining how it did it. Humans cannot strip out the fact-based approach to insert feminist-approved garbage.
Upthread, we see an art gallery faggot say that female artists sell less, and he automatically asserts that this is ‘misogyny’, when the real reason is fundamentally lower female talent. AI will cut right to the real reason.
Plus, when human jobs are vanished by AI, female jobs (which are repetitive, require little agility, and often make-work) are far more vulnerable.
...
By definition, it is tasked with performing a certain task or process more productively than a human, and will often have to find the path on its own (Deep Learning). Any attempt to hammer lower-productivity beliefs into it will, by definition, not work, or competing companies using unsupervised AI will rapidly outcompete it.
Observe the growing raft of whining about how AI is coming to ‘sexist’ (aka logical and productivity-prioritizing) conclusions :
https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/608700/ai-learns-sexism-just-by-studying-photographs/
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609129/the-dangers-of-tech-bro-ai/
“I don’t have a dystopian view of AI. I don’t see killer robots. I’m so much more focused on the narrow applications, and I think that if you look at every single one of those narrow applications there is a chance that it negatively affects women. I don’t think artificial intelligence is the issue here; it’s the additional issue rather than the cause. ”
Only a woman could refer to herself in every single sentence in an article that is supposed to be about technology.
False. They don’t abandon it even then, since women do not grasp cause and effect.
How many times have I pointed out that there is NO organization of even a few paternal grandmothers who protest that they lost their grandchildren when the daughter-in-law kicked the father (her son) out. Remember that when a father loses the right to see his kids, the paternal grandmother loses her grandkids too.
Yet, of all the millions of cases of this, where is the SMALL organization of grandmothers against default daughter-in-law custody? WHERE?
This, more than anything, tells us that women have no business possessing power or the right to vote. They can’t even think three steps ahead.
...
This is precisely an example of where Artificial Intelligence (eventually) will make it harder for this type of blatant unfairness, as AI will not be capable of treating men and women differently.
...
AI is tasked with an end result, and will always find the most productive route.
PLUS, blue-pill betas don’t know that they are blue-pill, so they can’t figure out why an AI that is tasked with treating people fairly suddenly delivers much worse outcomes to women vs. what everyone is used to.
Come on. Anyone who thinks an AI can be programmed to put the FI ahead of productivity (even if the competitors of that business are using AI for productivity) is just as clueless as a feminist who thinks the imaginary ‘pay gap’ can be fixed with legislation.
[Multiple quotes from the same thread by the same fundie]
This, in fact, proves the foreign women aren’t that great either. Why?
Because if they were, they would flood into the Anglosphere to get all the money and better men that are to be had.
In the US, since 70-80% of government spending is a transfer from men to women, the average adult women gets $40K/year (and this is just direct resources) in some form or the other from the government. Individual results vary, of course, from women who get very little, all the way up to Sheryl Sandberg. But in most middle-income countries, not only does the average MAN earn just $10,000/yr or so, but few jobs are available to women at all, and those are usually low status.
It makes astronomically good financial and marital sense for attractive women from EE/LatAm/SE Asia to come here by the millions. But they don’t.
Women are so pathetic in economic thought that even this massive arbitrage opportunity does not inspire them to flood into the Anglosphere. There is no industry where an uncompetitive company earning so much will not attract competition, but with women, it is true.
America is, arguably, no better for a man than Mexico, Thailand, or Poland, since here there are millions of men who have to fight the court system just to see their kids (a concept unheard of outside of the Anglosphere). But for women, the benefits are so astronomically high that if women were capable of proactive thought, this imbalance would correct quickly.
...
The American man does have higher MMV. But women are too stupid to do what would happen in every other market – go where the low-hanging fruits are.
I mean, millions of illegal MEN came from Mexico to work in low-status labor here. Why didn’t some of the better looking but still poor women of Latam do the same, just to land an American man?
The fact that the American man has to devote months or years overseas for a foreign woman is itself testament to female inferiority of thought. They don’t even move to pursue obviously better opportunities (a few Russian woman are the exception, but almost all of them that I know did eventually divorce their BB American husband).
...
Interesting. I always thought that before puberty, boys and girls were equally capable, mentally, whereas puberty is where a female actually goes backwards in certain attributes (since her entire psychology has to orient towards the SMP of 10,000 BC).
But for all the talk of how ‘foreign women are better, even if you bring them to the US’, any basic economic normalization would lead to the wide world of women coming in to feed at the trough that so many Western Women are gluttonously consuming from.
Like I said, in the US, about $40,000 is transferred from adult men to adult women each year. This is several times higher than what a girl in Poland or Mexico can earn on her own, and much more than even her future husband can earn there.
Would you not move to a country where the government was transferring a huge amount of money to you with no strings attached, and the entire society was rigged to inflate your SMV? If you said yes, that is because you think like a man, not a woman.
...
Mandy,
So the only reason foreign women don’t move here is that they don’t understand long term economic reasoning?
Yes. Next Question.
Don’t you think maybe attachment to their homeland, culture, family and not speaking the language might play into that decision? Also we are far more risk averse.
As if men don’t have these attachments or impediments. Thanks for inadvertantly disclosing that men are not seen as fully human.
Women are ‘risk averse’, but immigration to the US is much riskier for a man than for a woman who can even slightly focus on the goal of getting an American husband and extracting government goodies already flowing to women in a torrent.
Sorry, but you don’t have a good understanding of how women think, even after all these years in the ‘sphere.
[Multiple comments from the same thread by the same fundie]
Not to bring up an old topic, but the diffusion of Artificial Intelligence into many decisions across business, government, and more will make this much harder to sustain. Particularly when democracies fudge numbers to conceal female flaws, but a non-democracy like China does not.
Hey, this took longer than I expected :
CBC : Cryptocurrencies are sexist.
Gee, an advanced technology that is very, very mathematically complicated. 97% of the participants are men. Hence, women show up and demand an extortionary cut.
Ray Manta will like this.
If anything, this is another example of how women are increasingly become obsolete. Whatever you think of cryptocurrencies, they are not ‘sexist’ unless you think mathematical rigor and technological complexity is ‘sexist’.
More and more examples of women complaining about technology will occur, as women become more obsolete*.
*Mangina/whiteknight/cuckservative men are also obsolete.
You are forgetting that the female brain is incapable of connecting cause and effect. If it were, then there would be a mass exodus of women from countries where bad things happen to women, into the West. This is not happening (most immigration to the West is still male).
When will normal people start taking direct, violent action against leftists? Frankly, as pervasive as leftism appears to be, the top 100 people are the drivers, and eradicating them would quickly reverse most SJW-ism that we see today (the drone SJWs and virtue-signalers can be reprogrammed instantly once better people control the media).
The sphere consensus is that female hypergamy leads to polygamy. A couple stays together only until the infant is up on its feet and can move around. 80% of women pursue 20% of men—
If 1:1 pairing up was natural, then the average man would have no trouble getting and keeping the average woman even now..
I separately contend that the condition of poverty that existed for 99.9% of human existence buried a lot of these female traits. Modern prosperity, ironically, has elevated women into a Peter Principle of civilizational uselessness—.
Of course, an article at Heartiste exhibits that which I have been saying for years :
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/comment-of-the-week-women-are-anti-civilizational/
The diametric opposition between unrestricted female nature and the core pillars that any successful, prosperous, and free society is built on is worthy of profound and punctilious study.
Yes, and as you say, also because it feels bad calling women out for anything in this culture.
But, at the same time, many of these guys *want* their daughters to be this way. They *prefer* daughters who have moxie, are sassy, push around boys and take no prisoners, and are focused on their own achievement. If they didn’t want this for their daughters, they wouldn’t mostly bend over backwards to make their daughters like this in countless ways while they are raising them. The pushy, moxie’d, un-feminine young women didn’t materialize from the ether, they were raised to be that way, and mostly with the full cooperation and enthusiastic support of their fathers.
That’s a big part of the “weak men are screwing things up” mindset — they *want* their daughters to be like this, and therefore they want the boys to be even stronger. The idea appears to be a marriage of super heroes — wonder woman can only have Superman as a husband, because no mere mortal man can handle wonder woman, so the problem is that most guys are weak because they aren’t Superman for my daughter’s wonder woman. This is the mindset. As men, we need to hold the fathers of these young women to account for what they are doing to the culture, and their critical role in the cultural destruction and outright vandalism that is taking place.
Women only hold this much sway because full democracy always leads to women voting in a way that distorts the entire economy towards diverting money to women.
The TV commercials Boxer mentioned are just more evidence of this. This only happens because when women can vote, all resources eventually get voted by them to them.
It is the biggest False Economy ever created.
SirHamster,
"Let’s see you build your non-obsolete society with 0 women, then."
Way to completely miss the point.
It is not about ‘women should not exist’. The point is : Women have proven that outside a tightly controlled life managed in a patriarchal structure, they have proven that they simply cannot be net contributors to an advanced society.
Read the point again if necessary.
"The most responsible men of course are deterred from fatherhood by this new family model. This is increasingly true even for marriage minded men, as there is no legal way for a man to opt out of the child support model."
This is why women are obsolete. Every action they take is contrary to the health of a free and prosperous society. A woman is more at home in 10,000 BC than in the information age.
Casey,
"Women need accountability placed upon them. Full Stop.
Until they are saddled with the consequences of their actions, all will remain lost."
That is not enough. Just a couple of threads ago we discussed how so many women frivorce and end up worse off, even though they see countless other women who did the same thing before them worse off. Those visible predecessors do not deter them. And the last thing women care about is their children.
Hence, the only solution is for women to be stripped of most powers and rights. They are happier after that anyway.
Since that won’t happen, the only two possible outcomes are :
1) Wholesale collapse, and replacement with Islam or equivalent.
2) Rapid proliferation of Artificial Intelligence into most decisions and the legal system, resulting in the FI being stripped out of millions of individual decisions. The AI will simply keep spitting out recommendations with the best bang for the buck, which will always be completely the opposite of FI-centric decisions.
I favor #2, as any pro-civilization person should.
I think the answers from Dalrock and RPL have led to the following analysis about female divorce fantasy and hamsterization:
In real life, a woman may know 40 divorced women. Of those, 2 are doing well, and 38 are much worse off (5% vs. 95%).
But in the entertainment media, the woman may know another 100 women, all of whom are portrayed as benefiting greatly from divorce. So 100 out of 100.
Now here is the key : Women lack the mental capacity to distinguish between TV/films and reality.
Hence, they just add the two figures above. They know of (100 + 2) = 102 women who did well after divorce, and just 38 who are doing badly. So she things that 102/140 = 73% are doing well, and that creates a perception that the has a 3 out of 4 chance of benefiting from divorce.
Hey, the real world only has 5% of women improving their lives after divorce, but once you add a flood of fictitious divorce-fantasy examples from the entertainment media, the perception of 73% comes in.
That is why woman after woman destroys her life (and that of others) despite there being so many women before her who failed – she lets the TV examples cloud her assessment of real-world probabilities. That is how the female hamster takes a 5% chance and turns it into a ~75% chance.
Nope, totally helpless is good. Men say “I love you”, women say “I need you”.
“Take some deep breaths and walk around for a while, then please try to explain why you are so upset by women using tools around the home.”
You want my personal motivation? Buckle up. I live in a society where women are so safe and provided for, they have zero need for unsexy men like me. Guess what? If Barbie doesn’t need me then she doesn’t want me. She marries Welfare and rides the carousel until the Wall hits and leaves her a burned-out waste of a human soul, while I starve for sex and get treated by society like a drone.
I lose. She loses. My country burns.
Does it bother you that I want to spook women into good behavior? To push their faces in the facts of how much that fish needs a bicycle? To sabotage their ability to survive without a man around? I want to do it because it works. The Democrats have been scaring women into obedience for decades with great success. Even Christ did no less when He repeatedly warned us of Hell. Women are creatures of fear. Fear motivates women in healthy directions. Taking away her fear is like taking away a man’s courage. The result is loathsome, unmotivated androgyny.
I live in Androgyny, USA. The men are allowed little chance to strive & succeed, or even trade friendly punches, eventually slouching into parodies of masculinity such as lumbersexuals. The women fear nothing and therefore stop exerting themselves, inflating like pool toys, their minds devolving to a level of stimulus-response that would shame a worm. How did we get here? Safety first! Barbie must always be safe!
Either we frighten women into marrying early and young, ripping away every “I don’t need no man” crutch possible, and in the process giving men the chance to be heroes, or the West will continue its decline into a matriarchal slum of men checked out on video games and women checked out on social media. Neither wanting to live in this Brave New World of safe spaces.
That’s why I don’t want Barbie to feel safe, to be competent in my absence. She is a woman and therefore, the price of respecting a Beta like me is living in a constant state of mild fear to which I am the answer. So be it. I will be her hero and she will be my cheerleader with benefits. I can rent domestic servants. I can’t rent admiration and respect.
That is Christ’s own attitude, right there. He doesn’t want us because we’re useful. He wants us because we’re grateful.
Thank you, that needed saying.
From the discussion of both my post on manface and girlpower characters it is clear that even in the men’s sphere there is much love for “strong women”. In my most recent post the discussion eventually turned to the question of teaching women to defend themselves (martial arts, weight lifting, concealed carry, etc).
Before I go any further, I’ll state that:
My own thinking on this topic has changed over time, as I started with something closer to the mainstream conservative view.
I’m inclined to generally respect other men’s choices regarding their own families.
Temptations of the kickass gal.
With bullet point number two above in mind, I think we need to be aware of the temptations involved. The kickass gal is a well established conservative feminist trope, and we should be aware of this when considering how we direct the training of our wives and daughters. Feminists know why they want our daughters to move out on their own in the big city and experience the carousel. Conservatives on the other hand pride themselves in knowing how to make this feminist goal “safe” for our daughters to achieve.
The kickass conservative gal trope is easiest to spot when it comes to guns. Conservative shooters love the idea of guns as a realization of the feminist dream. If you aren’t familiar with the subculture, go to any online forum on guns and you will find a group of men eager to explain how tough their pistol packing wives/daughters are. One of the local DFW gun ranges understands this culture well, and features pictures of a kickass gal with a pink gun on their website. This is not, I should add, a range dedicated to women shooters. I’ve been to their store, and their target customers are the same group of men every other range/store in the area caters to. The same is true of another gun shop just a few miles away, B&S Guns. They have a billboard* by the freeway with a picture of a woman shooting a rifle that says something to the effect of “Don’t worry, we won’t tell your husband.”
If you decide you want to teach your wife/daughters to shoot, keep in mind that the entire culture you are bringing them into is designed to tempt them into a feminist rebellious frame of mind. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it, but you shouldn’t kid yourself about the temptations you are throwing their way.
There is also the reality of the difference between men’s and women’s interests when it comes to masculine pursuits. All of the men I know who shoot enjoy going to the range to practice, and even enjoy breaking their guns down to clean and maintain them. I have yet to observe a wife or daughter who takes this level of interest in shooting. They may embrace the “empowerment” of it, or simply enjoy infrequently going to the range for a bit of shooting, but I’ve yet to come across a woman who really “got into it” the way men do. This, plus the realities of men’s and women’s different instinctive response to violence means that training and arming women is going to be much less effective than gun owning feminists desperately want to believe.
Again, I’m not saying you are wrong if you decide to teach your wife or daughters how to shoot. My wife enjoys coming to the range with me from time to time, and I plan on teaching our daughter to shoot. However, we need to be realistic about the risks and benefits involved with this.
We’re so manly, even our women are like men!
There is another temptation involved with this, and this temptation is for the men involved. Part of the appeal of the kickass conservative gal is the idea that the man who masculinizes his women is proving how much more manly he is than other men. This tends to start with selecting a specific masculine pursuit and declaring it to be the very definition of manliness. In a general sense this could include marriage and fatherhood or even the ability to attract women, but for this specific example it is something like shooting, hunting, rebuilding an engine, weight lifting, or martial arts. These are all positive pursuits for a man (in the right context), but none of them are essential for being a “real man”.
The base temptation for men is to declare that one of these manly pursuits is the real test of a man, and any man who doesn’t do them isn’t a real man. The tie in temptation is then to add another layer cementing the man’s status as the only real man in the room, by declaring that any man who doesn’t think highly of masculinizing women in this specific way is merely too much of a girly man to appreciate strong women. This is a standard feminist slogan, but it comes from a conservative I’m more manly than you are position.
*I’ll try to make it over to that section of town so I can snap a picture of the billboard.
What I keep bringing up is that while physical underperformance is to be expected, women also are completely inferior in mental sports like Chess.
98% of all Chess Grandmasters are male. The 2% that are women reside at the bottom of the sample distribution. This is CHESS. It is the activity with the lowest possible barrier to entry, and women don’t even need men to practice with at all – they can just keep practicing with each other and keep improving. Yet, it does not happen. 98% of Chess Grandmasters are men, and that will not change.
That is I think even more damning than any physical sport.
Furthermore, the distribution of Chess Grandmasters by gender is probably a good indicator of gender contributions of useful work in a knowledge-based economy. Can anyone argue that a gender that produces only 2% of Chess Grandmasters can make a valuable contribution in the most high-cognitive fields?
"Feminists want Islam because the Burkha eliminates competition from better looking women."
No. That is only a small part of it, and most Muslim countries do not mandate the burkha.
They just crave the treatment of women under Islam. They get gina tingles from it, so it is all driven by the female hindbrain.
[The two quotes are unreleated but immediately successive, might as well save space]
These ads depicting the male as inferior, and the fact that women demand this, just show how untalented and morally childlike most women are.
Men simply have no desire to see women portrayed negatively, or as even more inferior than they really are.
But women crave this. This is huge evidence of their untalented and morally stunted nature.
...
“What a bitch. She’s betraying her husband, hurting his business, and hurting herself in the process.”
Since when do women connect even the simplest cause and effect?
There is considerable evidence that any democracy devolves into this state over time, as when women gain the right to vote, they ruthlessly vote for an outcome like what you described. This is because since women are the scarcer reproductive resource, the bottom 80% of men seem to be of no value whatsoever. Hence, they do not even deserve human rights.
Of course, the men who give women tingles are not the ones who built civilization. A case can thus be made that the brain-gina interface possessed by women is obsolete.
[Link is the first of 3 posts in a row]
Oh, yes. That is why almost no woman thinks unilateral CS with imputation of income is unjust, except when in the 1% of cases where it happens to women.
Women truly act as though men earn money as easily as they grow hair.
Only three types of women deserve to escape poverty :
i) The 15% of women who can do useful work in the private sector without any affirmative action.
ii) A woman who marries a man, stays married to him, does not put herself ahead of the children, etc.
iii) If a woman has a rich father, and the schlub wants to pay, hey, it is his money and I will grudgingly concede that this is not the business of an outsider.
Those are the only three types of women who deserve to be spared from poverty.
...
Didn’t I often say that the three subjects in which female aptitude is THE lowest (even lower than engineering) are :
Economics
Astronomy
Quantitative Aspects of Finance
These are the three subjects in which women are complete zeroes. Not coincidentally, these are three subjects of utmost importance in the grand scheme of things.
...
You are assuming that women believe in God. They do not. They may *say* they do, but their actions indicate otherwise.
One could argue that the behavior of women in violation of every imaginable pillar of civilization is proof that there is no God, but that is a topic for another day.
The problem with this is that only 20% of men are attractive to women. Hence, either only 20% of people marry, OR polygamy happens.
That is why ALL traditional societies ensured that girls married at 18 as virgins, so as to suppress any chance of this being a problem. It worked for centuries, but I am not sure I am a fan of that either.
The bigger takeaway is that female attraction is adverse for civilization, as women are precisely attracted to male traits that do not move civilization forward, and entirely unattracted to male traits that move civilization forward. Hence, the majority of women are obsolete. The exceptions are the minority.
More on women and productivity :
It is not that women *cannot* be productive. It is that they hate being productive. Hence, when a strict boss holds a woman to high standards of productivity, she can often perform, but hates her job and her life. The reason has to do with the biological hardwiring of humans. When a woman in prehistoric times had to be productive, that means she did not have a provider of her own; even the alpha male did not think of her as worthy for a slot in his harem.
That is why when women dominate an industry, productivity drops, as the women are too numerous to be held to productivity. When a woman works in a male-dominated field and has a boss who is not a mangina or whiteknight, and holds her to the same standards as men are held to, she can perform, but hates it.
So in conclusion, it is not that women cannot be productive, it is that they hate it.
Note that a person with an iota of logic would recognize and admit that :
1) The ‘pay gap’ is not due to ‘misogyny’, as men who work like women earn like women (probably less due to AA and FI).
2) If ‘weak men are screwing feminism up’, then there is no such thing as an empowered, independent woman.
The projection is total. In reality, it is ‘unevolved women are screwing civilization up’. Now THAT is accurate.
One myth that we have to break is the myth that women care about children. In reality, it is only the father who puts the children ahead of himself. Not the mother. To women, children are just social status props.
Evidence of this is everywhere (including from the fact that the few countries where the man can divorce easily without cost still have very low divorce rates, and almost no ‘single mothers’).
Agreed. All societies where men held the cards in divorce (19th century US, present-day Muslim societies) have very LOW divorce rates. Men always put the children first, while women never do.
The only way to have a low divorce rate society is for men to have most of the rights in the marriage, and then rely on the time-tested fact that men are just more responsible and aware of what is best for society.
A statement like this from a woman merely reveals how little they know about history, and how little curiosity they have for it.
Situations like this really put the laughable notion of ‘women entrepreneurs’ and women as business leaders into perspective as the fiction that it is.
The entire set of quotes from the last three articles show that the thoughts that go through the minds of these twats are so far removed from what even a competent middle-manager would think, let alone a hard-charging entrepreneur, that the difference is even greater than that between a child and an adult..
50% of CEOs are not women? This is proof that anything more than 5% means that there is a thumb or ten on the scale in favor of women as AA tokens—.
Boxer,
"Many public school districts in North America don’t teach logic any longer, which does students a real disservice."
It is politically impossible to teach a subject in which female students will underperform males by a catastrophically huge margin.
This is also why IQ is an amazingly poor metric. IQ tests have to be made in such a way that the female average is never lower than the male average. Yet, just about all innovation (not merely 100%, mind you, but about 120% once you account for pervasive female obstruction of innovation) is by men, and not always the highest IQ men.
So yes, the educational system has long since excised subjects where women are likely to greatly underperform, hence reducing the value of formal educational systems.
[2nd post immediately below by the same fundie]
I should add that female inferiority in logic relative to males only starts at sexual maturity. Hence, among 10 year olds, boys and girls may very well be equal. But after age 14 onwards, males go forward but female psychological caliber actually goes backwards in certain metrics.
Remember that while men can put sexual thoughts aside while another task is at hand, women are not like that. Sexual/SMP psychology comprises the *entirety* of female psychology. They can’t keep that angle out of anything they do.
There was a time when the 911 emergency service was what made America better than most other countries. An ambulance would quickly arrive, and your chance of survival was higher than in almost any other country.
But ‘feminism’ has weaponized the 911 service as a tool of police-state misandry. Now, a husband can be ejected from his home in minutes, sometimes even against the wife’s wishes (a third party can call the cops on the husband). This cannot happen so easily in the supposedly ‘non-first-world’ countries.
Taking something invaluable and turning it into a weapon of horrors that does not exist even in supposedly less advanced countries, described ‘feminism’ perfectly.
Remember, it is not just the horror driven by dollars, but police prioritize VAWA calls above all others. That is probably the real reason a gay club shooting spree was not a priority on Sat night – no Federal dollars are attached to making arrests, so preventing the shootout at the cost of an extra 1 or 2 VAWA calls was not financially worthwhile for the police department.
In short, NEVER, EVER call 911 if you live with a woman, unless there really is a life-threatening emergency serious enough to risk a fictitious DV arrest. Outside of that, calling 911 is not worth it. For all intents and purposes, you are better off pretending that the 911 service we know of from our youth no longer exists in America.
Again, it is well documented that ‘feminists’ don’t wash their hands after using the toilet. They openly declare this as a form of ’empowerment’.
You could not pay me enough to eat a sandwich made by a ‘feminist’.
"We don’t reward, respect or honour hard-working young men, especially those excelling in mathematics, engineering or science – fields that will produce long-term solutions in a world of increasing complexity. Moreover, we shut them out of schools and trades due to gender selection, shut them out of university with financial signals, shut them out of sex and marriage because the ‘hawt guy’ is cooler and ‘less boring’. Then we wonder why, at the statistically extreme end of the Bell curve, we get violent misfits!"
The thing is that you CAN’T avoid doing this without keeping women down, deliberately. If the favoritism in favor of women were eliminated, it would certainly help, but the key issue driving this is the reproductive and financial independence of women from men. When that happens, women choose thug, because they always wanted thug, and now they CAN choose thug, because they do not need a decent man for money or kids. Hypergamy is wired in, but was checked by financial need and reproductive fate. Today, neither applies, so it is unleashed. Social mores buttressed both systems (i.e., the old one and the new one). If you want to unwind this, obviously you can’t uninvent birth control (something which almost all Christians, including almost all of the Christian guys on this blog support, but which was clearly a total trojan horse culturally — the evil one is nothing if not clever), so you’d have to make it nigh on impossible for women to be economically independent of men. That won’t happen unless there is a general calamity, given that the economy has moved to services and “brain work”. So there is no “taking it back” short of Mad Max, and there is no “fixing” it here and there. It’s cooked now. What remains is keeping you and yours as unscathed as you can, because there are indeed personal options despite the culture — there are no broad cultural options that are open to us. That is now cooked, and we lost.