Comments on: The Despotism of the Petticoat http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/09/24/the-despotism-of-the-petticoat/ Piercing the Shield of Ignorance Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:42:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Castrated by chivalry | In Mala Fide http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/09/24/the-despotism-of-the-petticoat/#comment-30699 Castrated by chivalry | In Mala Fide Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:02:25 +0000 http://www.the-spearhead.com/?p=47#comment-30699 [...] chivalry from me and the rest of my gender, get in the kitchen and make us some fucking sandwiches. And if you could give up your right to vote, that would be awesome too. If you’re not willing to take this deal, [...] [...] chivalry from me and the rest of my gender, get in the kitchen and make us some fucking sandwiches. And if you could give up your right to vote, that would be awesome too. If you’re not willing to take this deal, [...]

]]> By: Democrats and Republicans Unite to Form the Misandry Party http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/09/24/the-despotism-of-the-petticoat/#comment-25773 Democrats and Republicans Unite to Form the Misandry Party Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:31:38 +0000 http://www.the-spearhead.com/?p=47#comment-25773 [...] a related tack, this story also lends credence to the idea that allowing women to vote and participate in government inevitably shifts the state towards socialism. Writes Vox Day: I think every male [...] [...] a related tack, this story also lends credence to the idea that allowing women to vote and participate in government inevitably shifts the state towards socialism. Writes Vox Day: I think every male [...]

]]> By: The Despotism of the Petticoat: Part 2 http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/09/24/the-despotism-of-the-petticoat/#comment-319 The Despotism of the Petticoat: Part 2 Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:26:12 +0000 http://www.the-spearhead.com/?p=47#comment-319 [...] continue where I left off  here… Now, of course, in the 18th century, the majority of property owners were most assuredly [...] [...] continue where I left off  here… Now, of course, in the 18th century, the majority of property owners were most assuredly [...]

]]> By: Anecdotal observations on game, women and politics « In Mala Fide http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/09/24/the-despotism-of-the-petticoat/#comment-314 Anecdotal observations on game, women and politics « In Mala Fide Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:33:45 +0000 http://www.the-spearhead.com/?p=47#comment-314 [...] Women should NOT be allowed to vote. Ideally, neither should men, but that’s another topic entirely. Possibly [...] [...] Women should NOT be allowed to vote. Ideally, neither should men, but that’s another topic entirely. Possibly [...]

]]> By: Welmer http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/09/24/the-despotism-of-the-petticoat/#comment-230 Welmer Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:52:07 +0000 http://www.the-spearhead.com/?p=47#comment-230 Oh, sorry about that, HL. I will post the second part as "Part II." Oh, sorry about that, HL. I will post the second part as “Part II.”

]]> By: Dave From Hawaii http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/09/24/the-despotism-of-the-petticoat/#comment-228 Dave From Hawaii Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:24:09 +0000 http://www.the-spearhead.com/?p=47#comment-228 Damn...this was only half of my intended post. I had saved it as a draft and something came up that kept me offline for a week. Ah well, I'll finish it up in a part two. Damn…this was only half of my intended post. I had saved it as a draft and something came up that kept me offline for a week.

Ah well, I’ll finish it up in a part two.

]]> By: Prime http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/09/24/the-despotism-of-the-petticoat/#comment-125 Prime Sun, 27 Sep 2009 03:46:39 +0000 http://www.the-spearhead.com/?p=47#comment-125 From the standpoint of your average man, employing a rudimentary cost-benefit analysis, the 19th amendment was a big mistake. For elite males at the top of the status hierarchy, it was more beneficial than costly. This is to say nothing of 'rights' or moral obligations based on a set of predefined values, one of which might be called 'equality'. One of the many ideas I've come across while reading Robert Wright's <i>The Moral Animal</i> was his distinction between equality among men and equality among women. He seems to imply that <i>total equality</i>, the kind which is lamented and scorned by myself and others of similar mind, is a faulty concept. The equality spoken of by women could be in regards to greater equality among women, which would entail lesser equality among men due to enhanced female sexual choice and mobility. I.e., Lower-status males lose, while higher-status males reap the 'equality spoils'. You may see how this relates with my first paragraph. From the standpoint of your average man, employing a rudimentary cost-benefit analysis, the 19th amendment was a big mistake. For elite males at the top of the status hierarchy, it was more beneficial than costly. This is to say nothing of ‘rights’ or moral obligations based on a set of predefined values, one of which might be called ‘equality’.

One of the many ideas I’ve come across while reading Robert Wright’s The Moral Animal was his distinction between equality among men and equality among women. He seems to imply that total equality, the kind which is lamented and scorned by myself and others of similar mind, is a faulty concept. The equality spoken of by women could be in regards to greater equality among women, which would entail lesser equality among men due to enhanced female sexual choice and mobility. I.e., Lower-status males lose, while higher-status males reap the ‘equality spoils’. You may see how this relates with my first paragraph.

]]> By: Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/09/24/the-despotism-of-the-petticoat/#comment-46 Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Tech Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:50:24 +0000 http://www.the-spearhead.com/?p=47#comment-46 Women's suffrage has been a total disaster. Since 1920 freedom has gone down, and government has gotten exponentially larger. Anytime women get involved in politics its to take away freedom from men (and in many cases women too, but since all but a handful women don't care about freedom they don't notice the difference). The WOMENS Christan Temperance Union was responsible for prohibition. MADD (MOTHERS against drunk driving) was responsible for pointlessly raising the drinking age to 21. The Million MOM March was all about taking away people's freedom to own guns. The list just goes on and on. Women’s suffrage has been a total disaster. Since 1920 freedom has gone down, and government has gotten exponentially larger. Anytime women get involved in politics its to take away freedom from men (and in many cases women too, but since all but a handful women don’t care about freedom they don’t notice the difference).

The WOMENS Christan Temperance Union was responsible for prohibition. MADD (MOTHERS against drunk driving) was responsible for pointlessly raising the drinking age to 21. The Million MOM March was all about taking away people’s freedom to own guns. The list just goes on and on.

]]> By: Ganttsquarry http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/09/24/the-despotism-of-the-petticoat/#comment-42 Ganttsquarry Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:30:35 +0000 http://www.the-spearhead.com/?p=47#comment-42 The notion of historical oppression of women, especially in the western world isn't one I subscribe to - to say the least. From Kanasawa http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200908/why-modern-feminism-is-illogical-unnecessary-and-evil "Further, modern feminism is unnecessary, because its entire raison d’être is the unquestioned assumption that women are and have historically always been worse off than men. The fact that men and women are fundamentally different and want different things makes it difficult to compare their welfare directly, to assess which sex is better off; for example, the fact that women make less money than men cannot by itself be evidence that women are worse off than men, any more than the fact that men own fewer pairs of shoes than women cannot be evidence that men are worse off than women. However, in the only two biologically meaningful measures of welfare – longevity and reproductive success – women are and have always been slightly better off than men. In every human society, women live longer than men, and more women attain some reproductive success; many more men end their lives as total reproductive losers, having left no genetic offspring." I would love to see voting based on a civics test+ net tax payer status. At the very least a disqualification from voting for receiving welfare benefits. Ahh pipe dreams. The notion of historical oppression of women, especially in the western world isn’t one I subscribe to – to say the least.

From Kanasawa
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200908/why-modern-feminism-is-illogical-unnecessary-and-evil

“Further, modern feminism is unnecessary, because its entire raison d’être is the unquestioned assumption that women are and have historically always been worse off than men. The fact that men and women are fundamentally different and want different things makes it difficult to compare their welfare directly, to assess which sex is better off; for example, the fact that women make less money than men cannot by itself be evidence that women are worse off than men, any more than the fact that men own fewer pairs of shoes than women cannot be evidence that men are worse off than women. However, in the only two biologically meaningful measures of welfare – longevity and reproductive success – women are and have always been slightly better off than men. In every human society, women live longer than men, and more women attain some reproductive success; many more men end their lives as total reproductive losers, having left no genetic offspring.”

I would love to see voting based on a civics test+ net tax payer status. At the very least a disqualification from voting for receiving welfare benefits.

Ahh pipe dreams.

]]>