In the past month, the national spotlight has been shined on the special election occurring in New York’s 23rd congressional district. For those who haven’t been paying attention, the special election was triggered when the 23rd’s longtime Republican congressman John McHugh was selected by President Obama to become Secretary of the Army. The Republican county chairs of the district selected Dede Scozzafava (pictured above, far right), state Assemblywoman from the 122nd district, as their candidate to replace McHugh. Scozzafava is a notorious RINO, being in favor of abortion, gay marriage, and card check, and her congressional campaign was supported by a bevy of left-wing groups including the AFL-CIO, the New York State United Teachers, and the United Auto Workers. She was even cross-endorsed by the Working Families Party, the political wing of ACORN, who normally backs Democrats in Empire State elections. Naturally, the conservatives that form the GOP’s base were unhappy with the leftist Dede’s selection, so most have switched to backing the Conservative Party candidate, Lake Placid businessman Doug Hoffman (pictured above, far left). Recent polls have shown Hoffman in a dead heat with the Democratic candidate, Plattsburgh lawyer Bill Owens (pictured above, center), and Scozzafava in a distant third.
Last Saturday, a scant three days before the election, Scozzafava announced that she was dropping out of the race. She explains why in the video to the right (hat tip: Irene Jay Liu). Take note of her appearance. Her eyes are watery and bloodshot, her cheeks are flushed, and her voice is broken. It’s blatantly obvious that she was crying before coming on camera. If this sounds familiar, here’s a more famous video to jog your memory.
Conservative blogger Fishersville Mike has compared the NY-23 special election to last year’s Democratic primary for president:
Look at the opponents. Hillary/Dede Scozzafava were both the establishment candidates.
Obama/Hoffman were the insurgents.
Image courtesy of The BEAST
The parallels run deeper then that. Both Clinton and Scozzafava were basically anointed by their respective parties and were expected to win election easily. Hillary as President was a running joke on talk radio shows going back to the early months of the Bush administration. Neither Clinton nor Scozzafava had faced a serious electoral challenge in their careers – Scozzafava has held onto her Assembly seat for a decade and Clinton was elected to the Senate in a heavily Democratic state, based solely on her surname, and facing token Republican opposition. But then, male challengers arose out of nowhere to give them a run for their money. Neither expected a fight and were solidly clobbered once the people had their say. And both of them started crying like spoiled children when they didn’t get their way. “This is my nomination, MY time to shine! How dare this MAN try to take away what is rightfully MINE!”
Last week, Female Masculinist posted a satirical guide dissecting feminist debate tactics. She attributes the feminist inability to debate in good faith to the fact that modern educational institutions are so overwhelmingly feminist that those who adhere to that viewpoint can coast on through without having their ideas challenged once. However, I’m becoming convinced that women in general can not only not handle debate, but competition in general. Why is this? The majority of women in the West live their lives with little challenge or struggle, as Chuck Ross stated in his piece “Women Aren’t Funny – Sorry“:
Your average, run-of-the-mill woman doesn’t have to overcome anything. As Hitchens points out, women find nothing ironic about their station in life. Being the object of male attention isn’t a bad gig. Being considered “sugar, spice, and everything nice†won’t create the slanted worldview that is usually considered funny. Raising children and being all motherly begets a certain sense of responsibility which is antithetical to ironic notions about the world.
As I wrote nearly a month ago, the solipsism of the modern woman is partially the result of their insulation from the consequences from their mistakes, putting them intellectually at the level of spoiled brats. And like spoiled brats, women start crying and throwing tantrums when someone shows them up in a fair and honest competition. They throw out baseless accusations and make personal attacks because it’s all they know how to do. Scozzafava has even gone one step further, endorsing the Democrat Owens in a last-ditch effort to deny Hoffman what she couldn’t win fair and square, the equivalent of an angry child pissing in the sandbox he was kicked out of to ruin everyone else’s fun. “If I can’t have it, YOU can’t either!”
I was confronted with this unfortunate flaw of the female species on my own blog recently. A little over two weeks ago, I wrote a response to relationship advice writer Susan Walsh, who attacked me in a post on her blog. My post was relatively respectful, focused on dissecting and deconstructing her flawed worldview and the ill-informed advice that sprang from it. Mrs. Walsh responded several days later, and I wrote another post focused on logically dissembling the points she made. Her final response on that post (my comments are bolded and in brackets) mostly consisted of hysterical screeching, personal insults, and complete falsehoods (such as her baseless attack on the ladies of Girl Game). When challenged on her beliefs, she folded like a slice of Swiss cheese.
With the occasional exception, females are ill-suited for careers like politics due to their inability to compete in a fair and honest way. If it weren’t for the fact that our egalitarian world is focused on getting us to deny reality, there wouldn’t BE many women in competitive fields. If women are playing checkers, men are playing chess.
And here’s to seeing Mr. Hoffman go to Washington.
(Image at top courtesy of Political Rapids & Current Events.)
_____________________________________________________
Ferdinand Bardamu is a former resident of New York’s 23rd and 25th congressional districts. He blogs at In Mala Fide. You can follow him on Twitter here.
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 100 comments… read them below or add one }
Neither Clinton nor Scozzafava had faced a serious electoral challenge in their careers – Scozzafava has held onto her Assembly seat for a decade and Clinton was elected to the Senate in a heavily Democratic state, based solely on her surname, and facing token Republican opposition. But then, male challengers arose out of nowhere to give them a run for their money. Neither expected a fight and were solidly clobbered once the people had their say.
How does that apply to Hillary Clinton’s Senate elections? In 2000 she was supposed to have faced Rudy Giuliani, who would have been a tough opponents, but then he dropped out when he developed prostate cancer. Clinton ran against Rick Lazio, who ran a remarkably poor campaign. In 2006, Clinton first thought she’d face Jeanine Pirro, who withdrew, and ended up facing a barely more than token opponent, John Spencer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dumb
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Peter:
I was referring to Clinton’s presidential run. Both of her Senate runs were easy money – Obama was the first real challenge she ever faced, and she couldn’t handle it.
Todd White:
Weak
Todd White: “Dumb”
Chuck Ross: “Todd White”
I win.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is one of the reasons why although I might enjoy The Spearhead/MRA blogs, I don’t take them seriously. I can refute your entire post in exactly two words:
Margaret Thatcher
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why did the GOP run her anyway, that is the real question.
As for Maggie, it’s important to remember that “official womanhood” basically didn’t consider her to be female.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Leopold II, King of the Belgians:
Re-read the post. I wrote “WITH THE OCCASIONAL EXCEPTION, females are ill-suited for careers like politics due to their inability to compete in a fair and honest way.” One individual does not disprove a trend.
Novaseeker:
Dede is buddy-buddy with the North Country GOP county chairs. It’s classic political backscratching, and it’s resulted in the Republicans being run out of every major office in this state.
“This is one of the reasons why although I might enjoy The Spearhead/MRA blogs, I don’t take them seriously. I can refute your entire post in exactly two words:
Margaret Thatcher”
Exceptions, rules, confirmations etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The exceptions aren’t all that rare. If you were to spend more time in what Sarah Palin (there I go, with women again) calls “Real America”, you’ll see plenty of women in leadership roles.
You’ll see women who are tough, yet feminine, as mayors. You’ll even see them thriving in leadership roles in masculine environments. They’re out there right now, running the family lumber yard, putting in IVs, and driving trucks. Many of them are in the desert right now – and they have earned their stripes and their salutes.
You do have a point that many educated urban women are sheltered. Their views have never been challenged, their food and shelter has never depended on their abilities, they have had neither responsibility nor consequence. As they have been treated as children, they act as children.
Fair enough. Sadly there are plenty of Y-chromosome bearers (I hesitate to call them men) from the same social and cultural environment who have been similarly infantilized. They are as unfit as their sisters for leadership, authority, and challenge.
Not only are the Margaret Thatchers and Lisa Kellys of the world more a woman than any sheltered SWPL harpy could ever wish to be, they’re also more a man than any sheltered SWPL eunuch could ever wish to be.
It is certainly true that men are more likely to be suited to leadership, just as it is certainly true that men are more likely to win the Fields Medal or become serial killers. Men are endowed with a certain level of perseverance, bloody-mindedness, and independence that allows us to do such things. But this is a distinction of degree, not of kind.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What is Todd White’s problem?
Todd White says he disapproves of 90% of Roissy’s content, even though no one who has experience with women can deny that, after filtering out the vulgar parts, Roissy’s insights have great educational value.
1) Todd White is more anti-Roissy than anti-Game, but doesn’t realize it.
2) His catchphrase is ‘There are better alternatives to Game’, which itself betrays a lack of grasp of what Game is, as evidenced by his unwillingness to even define what he understands Game to be.
3) His credibility falls apart when he continues to deny the existence of more ‘PG-13′ Game blogs like http://www.approachanxiety.com or http://www.askjdog.com, which directly refute is claim that there is no way to run Game that is moral.
4) He disapproves of Dave in Hawaii, which is a convenient way to say that even LTR Game is immoral.
5) I have yet to see any evidence that he wants to hold women accountable for their irresponsible actions in the modern world.
6) Hence, Todd White should be discussing basic MRA principles before he expresses an opinion on Game (again, which he does not grasp).
There is nothing more to add on the subject of Todd White. Welmer’s article on ‘socialcons’ (which we now call ‘pedestalizers’ or the equivalent) is personified in Todd White. It is pretty clear that in terms of morality, the clear hierarchy is :
LTR Game practitioner > PUA > pedestalizer/white-knighter
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The problem is, Margaret Thatcher was so much of an outlier that the entire Western World has not been able to produce such a person since.
Where is the next Margaret Thatcher? It has been a while.
That shows how rare she was.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Leopold II, King of the Belgians:
I’ve lived a fair portion of my life in upstate New York, a region which has more in common with “Real America” then the blue states. For every “tough, yet feminine” woman, there are three or four sheltered ditzes who have no idea how to run anything. Exceptions are still exceptions.
No man, no matter how infantilized, has his ass kissed and is sheltered to the degree that his female counterparts are. It’s just a part of nature.
Sorry, but I have to ask what the real problem is here? Is it that women can’t handle real competition or debate, or the indisputable fact that it is men who ensure it stays this way?
In some ways I am sure it is much easier to attack children for being, well, childish, but when does the onus fall on those who don’t insist that they mature?
We do indeed have a huge problem with women in modern culture who are overly entitled, and, as you say “the solipsism of the modern woman is partially the result of their insulation from the consequences from their mistakes, putting them intellectually at the level of spoiled brats.”
So who is doing the insulating? Hillary? Scozzafava? Nope, they are the ones being insulated.
Don’t get me wrong. I wholeheartedly agree with everything you say, but I take issue with what is not said in your piece. We live in a culture of spoiled rotten females because we live in a culture of men who rigidly demand to be indulgent idiots on their behalf.
It stems from the one criticism of men by feminists and a lot of women that happens to be true. Men think with their dicks. And dicks ironically don’t make much allowance for balls. Or spines. Or values and integrity for that matter.
Women haven’t become the self absorbed neurotics in western culture that they are because men have allowed it, but because men have insisted on it.
Men in this modern age have become enabling, obsequious, gutless wonders and the only real demand they put on women is to that those women don a crown and walk straight across men’s backs to get whatever they want. Many of those same men will gladly ask you to “step outside” if you present them with their own ridiculous behavior.
Blaming women for this is as accurate as the gardener blaming the weeds he wouldn’t pull for taking over his garden.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Leopold: Awesome, thanks.
And if you go anywhere in the world, you will still see that men occupy most of the leadership positions.
The massive size of the human population coupled with even the slimmest probability of women who are as competitive (or more so) than men emerging would result in the situation you have described.
Congratulations, you re-discovered basic probability and statistics.
When we slim the fields down, you’ll find that men dominate pretty much everything handily.
Hell, let’s even remove the “boohoo chauvinism bawww” factor here by looking at a field which is traditionally considered female: Cooking.
You would think that a skill in which proficiency was required by women for several millenia would result in the best cooks being women, right?
Well, pretty much all the best cooks are males. You could do this in any field and find very few women in the top 5 or even top 10.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Paul Elam:
It’s a bit of both. The solution is for society to shit or get off the pot:
1) Go towards radical sexual egalitarianism and treat women EXACTLY the way men are treated in all ways.
2) Go back to traditionalism and admit that most women are unsuited for competition or debate.
@ Ferdinand
I agree in principle, but the problem is we can really do neither.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Massachusetts judge who made the Taylor-vs-Taylor decision mentioned this weekend’s WSJ cover story (The New Art of Alimony) where he reversed a 1982 divorce agreement in 2008 pretty much tells us that a woman should have zero accountability for her actions, decisions, and agreements, and that any contracts that she signs are meaningless.
As Gven Stefani says in her 1995 “I’m Just a Girl”:
Take this pink ribbon off my eyes
I’m exposed
And it’s no big surprise
Don’t you think I know
Exactly where I stand
This world is forcing me
To hold your hand
‘Cause I’m just a girl, little ‘ol me
Don’t let me out of your sight
I’m just a girl, all pretty and petite
So don’t let me have any rights
…
Sad but true. This is not my view. It’s the legal establishment’s view and our government’s view.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
”””””Fair enough. Sadly there are plenty of Y-chromosome bearers (I hesitate to call them men) from the same social and cultural environment who have been similarly infantilized. They are as unfit as their sisters for leadership, authority, and challenge.
No man, no matter how infantilized, has his ass kissed and is sheltered to the degree that his female counterparts are. It’s just a part of nature.
”””””””
Much for difficult for a guy to just have a baby and get free medical, apartment, and money from the state.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Before getting married must demand the woman work to save a couple hundred k as a dowry in the event of divorce.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hmm, Margaret Thatcher might disagree with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah but Ms. Theresa Taylor mentioned in this WSJ article WILL agree with him:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505700448957522.html
She’s just a girl, after all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry about the Margaret Thatcher repeat, I hadn’t read all the comments before I posted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Have men insisted that women stay as self-absorbed neurotics?
Or:
Have men been taught to stand up for their women? That is, to defend, protect and support their women – and – for the last 40 years were just a little too blind to realize that by standing up for their women, they have in fact turned on themselves, since women have been turned against men in the last 40 years (i.e. the start of the 60′s brand of feminism)?
This is not an argument – this is a question.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bigger question: Why do women want to lead in the first place? It’s a crappy, very stressful and a very dirty job. For men it make sense: Power = sexual access, good name for your kids, doing the right thing once in a while. What do women get out of it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is not just that woman can’t handle competition, they can’t handle hard things. Case in point: The male-to-female ratio in hard sciences.
In other point, why is that, when women are critiziced, they (and their white knights) ALWAYS bring the extremes of the Bell curve, huh?. Those are exeptional women, most of you aren’t. Period. That is a constant and when we call them on it, they go to the shaming.
I can deal with flame wars, but the lack of originality of the attackers in here is just annoying. And pathetic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
(That was hypocritical on my part for not caring about the green envy pointed in a Bardamu’s post)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
FB/Chuck/TFH: Sorry, I just can’t work up the enthusiasm to debate you guys on this topic; the premise is so absurd I feel OK with just calling it “dumb” and leaving it at that. We can debate issues that have some degree of plausibility; this isn’t one of them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ll admit I don’t like competition. That’s why I don’t like alpha men. They make the relationship a power struggle.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Todd White:
Translation: I don’t have a counter-argument, so I’m just going to hurl insults.
You’re an intellectual featherweight, Todd. Always have been, always will be.
DADT: “I’ll admit I don’t like competition. That’s why I don’t like alpha men. They make the relationship a power struggle.”
All relationships are power struggles.
Todd White: “FB/Chuck/TFH: Sorry, I just can’t work up the enthusiasm to debate you guys on this topic; the premise is so absurd I feel OK with just calling it “dumb†and leaving it at that. We can debate issues that have some degree of plausibility; this isn’t one of them.”
Weak dude.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I’ll admit I don’t like competition. That’s why I don’t like alpha men. They make the relationship a power struggle.”
Translation: My way or the highway.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Richard,
To answer your question : The latter is the predominant situation today. By far.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
FB: “You’re an intellectual featherweight, Todd. ”
TW: Strange choice of words from someone who apparently isn’t aware of the existence of Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Hillary Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, Angela Merkel, Nancy Pelosi, shall I go on?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Todd:
why leave it at anything? do you want to comment with one-word responses to plug your own blog or do you just want to weigh in on every issue? if you want to weigh in, then weigh in. the norm for the blog world should be “if you can’t comment anything meaningful (or at least in that spirit) then don’t comment at all.”
you’re whole schtick is to go around to blogs that you don’t agree with, stir up the pot with your pithy comments of no substance and then stand back with your hands held out pretending like you didn’t do anything wrong.
and if you aren’t going to pithy route you make tangential arguments to the main point of discussion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To DADT:
No, they make it an assertion of their power, with the expectation that you’ll submit. If you do, there’s no struggle. If you don’t, they pick a different target (not like they don’t have plenty to choose from).
To Gx1080:
I’m not sure that it’s quite correct to say that they can’t handle hard things: I think it’s probably more correct to say that they generally just don’t want to bother.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Todd White:
Name-dropping is not an argument. I’ll restate this:
Individual cases do NOT disprove greater trends.
I’ll also quote Gx1080:
Also, Clinton doesn’t deserve to be on that list. Not after she started crying on the campaign trail after losing the Iowa caucus – which I brought up in the post.
You’re still a featherweight.
””””’Also, Clinton doesn’t deserve to be on that list. Not after she started crying on the campaign trail after losing the Iowa caucus.””””’
Dang,
So how did she get to be were she is today.
Shouldn’t that kind of be a disqualifier jesus christ.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
CR: “Do you want to comment with one-word responses to plug your own blog or do you just want to weigh in on every issue?”
TW: Well, it’s certainly not the first option because I didn’t plug my blog.
CR: “You’re whole schtick is to go around to blogs that you don’t agree with, stir up the pot with your pithy comments of no substance and then stand back with your hands held out pretending like you didn’t do anything wrong. ”
TW: [laughing] “I didn’t do anything wrong, I swear!!”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Todd:
Yes, please do go on. Try to get that list to match the length (or even reach a sizeable fraction of the length) of their male counterparts.
The title of the above essay isn’t intended as an absolute universal. It’s an empirical trend, with counterexamples that are notable simply because anyone who reaches the highest heights of competition or debate is notable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
FB: “Individual cases do NOT disprove greater trends.”
TW: What “trends” are you referring to?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And your name on each posting is a link to your blog, since it’s listed in the website line of the submit form.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Todd White:
The title and thesis of this post is “Women Can’t Handle Competition or Debate,” bub. You can’t disprove a thesis with a handful of cherry-picked names, one of which invalidates your point.
You argue like a leftist.
Strange choice of words from someone who apparently isn’t aware of the existence of Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Hillary Clinton, Condoleeza Rice, Angela Merkel, Nancy Pelosi, shall I go on?
Indira Gandhi, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi (such wonderful examples of competence they are) would not have gotten anywhere without either their father or husband’s prior success. Even a staunch Islamic nation like Pakistan had a woman as PM, solely due to being the daughter of a former PM.
The others have varying degrees of self-accomplished merit. But the point is, while a certain percentage of men can handle the necessary pressures of political office, only a very tiny percentage of women can.
Hence, on pure merit, the top political offices will naturally gravitate to a mix of something like 90% men and 10% women (for the same mirroring reasons that prison populations are 90% men and 10% women). No one is claiming the 100%/0% that you allege (similar to how you claim that all Game is immoral without backing it up). The main point is that meritocracy will not lead to anything close to 50/50.
Todd White will not act in good faith and concede this point, even though he claims to be in favor of meritocracy. See my comment above for the true reasons behind his immoral white-knighting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Women are good at winning “debates” by using emotional tactics, rather. Whomever is effected by these (other women, perhaps) is influenced.
P.S. Didn’t see the Walsh reply. That was ugly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Arbitary: “Try to get that list to match the length (or even reach a sizeable fraction of the length) of their male counterparts.”
TW: You want lists? You got lists.
In just this decade, in JUST the Tri-State Area, here’s a list of politicians who have resigned office or quit a statewide campaign very close to the vote…
Rudy Giuliani (2000), Andrew Cuomo (2002), Jim McGreevey (2004), John Rowland (2004), Jeanine Pirro (2006), Bill Weld (2006), Elliott Spitzer (2008).
Bottom line: 6 of the 7 were men.
Gamers thinking to themselves: “Or were they??? Hmmm…”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh and Bob Torrecelli in 2002.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A pure meritocracy will result in top political offices in mature democracies being held 90% by men and 10% by women (or thereabouts).
It will not be 100/0, or 50/50.
I challenge Todd White to concede this point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
FB: “Clinton doesn’t deserve to be on that list.”
TW: Actually, Clinton should be near the top of that list, because she stayed in the 2008 race far longer than any objective strategist thought was appropriate. So much for “quitter.” That’s just a fact.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
6 out of 7 might be a low fraction; you haven’t indicated how many of the politicians who are in office or ran in statewide campaigns were male.
Unfortunately, a sample size of 7 will turn out to be too small to determine this statistically regardless.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
TFH: “I challenge Todd White to concede this point. ”
TW: That depends. In America, it would probably be between 10-20% female (which is about what it is now). In the dysfunctional European nations, it could be anywhere from 25-50% (which again, I think is where we stand now).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Todd White:
Stop trying to change the subject, you weasel. The thesis of the post was “Women Can’t Handle Competition or Debate,” not “Women are Quitters.” Address the issue or shove off.
That still doesn’t change the fact that she started crying when she started losing to Obama, she was unprepared for a challenge, and she felt entitled to the nomination.
TFH: “the point is, while a certain percentage of men can handle the necessary pressures of political office, only a very tiny percentage of women can.”
TW: No, that’s NOT the point of FB’s article or my response. We’re talking about women who have already chosen to make politics their career (like Dede). Dede is currently a member of the NY State Assembly, after all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
FB: Stop trying to change the subject, you weasel. The thesis of the post was “Women Can’t Handle Competition or Debate,†not “Women are Quitters.â€
TW: The weasel says: What evidence do you have that Dede can’t “handle competition” besides the fact that she quit? Oh, right, right: The Hillary Clinton thing. But I’ve already disproven that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Todd White:
You mean aside from the fact that she started crying as a result of losing (how many grown men have done that?) That she couldn’t deal with a third-party challenger? That she felt entitled to the congressional seat?
FB: That still doesn’t change the fact that she started crying when she started losing to Obama, she was unprepared for a challenge, and she felt entitled to the nomination.
TW: Yes, she did cry. Yes, she was unprepared. And yes, she felt entitled to the nomination? But so what? She gave Obama all he could handle in the closest primary race since Reagan/Ford in ’76. Bottom line? Clinton could “handle competition and debate,” despite your claims to the contrary.
By the way, I hope God forgives me for defending Hillary Clinton
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Liberals take 1 thing as a given: anything that white, straight males or their sympathizers succeed in is clearly rigged against them.
This postulate completely protects them from any criticism that their failure is their own fault. Because , you see, it isn’t that liberal women are pussies, its that men are harassing them/playing dirty.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
FB: “You mean aside from the fact that she started crying as a result of losing (how many grown men have done that?) That she couldn’t deal with a third-party challenger? That she felt entitled to the congressional seat?”
TW: The crying thing is weird, but it’s not to clear to me why this shows “women can’t handle debate.” To use one of my examples above, I remember Bob Torrecelli shedding tears when he quit the 2002 Senate race). As for the other stuff, all politicians feel entitled to everything. Are your really suggesting that only women politicians feel a sense of entitlement?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Fifth Horseman:
The problem with saying that some particular ratio is correct is that it ignores the realities of the bell curve: as you increase the ability required (above the average), the fraction of the male population meeting the requirement will decrease less quickly than the fraction of the population of the female population meeting the requirement. Thus, the “correct” ratio, if those of highest ability are selected, is dependent on how far along the ability curve the cutoff is placed (and how large the difference in variance is). If half of people are going to be in public office, then you expect rough gender equality in representation. If you look at the top 1%, the ratio skews, and if you look at the top 0.1%, the ratio skews further. So the “right” gender ratio is dependent upon the fraction of society that will hold office.
Todd:
Just because she was a state assemblywoman, doesn’t mean she could handle competition or debate at the level necessary to run for congress. Just as there are degrees of ability, there are degrees of competitiveness; running for national office involves a much greater amount of competition than running for state or local office (largely because the position is viewed as more important).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
TW : In the dysfunctional European nations, it could be anywhere from 25-50% (which again, I think is where we stand now).
It is dysfunctional precisely BECAUSE it is not a meritocracy. So you are effectively agreeing with me.
Pure meritocracy = 10% (or thereabouts) female. In the US or EU.
At the PM level, even Europe has only been 10-20% post-Thatcher. Merkel, the Irish woman, and a couple of Scandinavians is all that there has been. I actually don’t see any of the Romance countries (France, Spain, Italy, etc.) having a female PM. Gender roles are a little stronger there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Arbitrary,
Absolutely correct. High political office is, by nature, going to be a category at the very top of the bell curve. As is the sample size of Fortune 500 CEOs, or self-made billionaires, or Nobel Prizes in the sciences. That is the underlying assumption in this discussion – that high political office is only for the cream of the cream of the cream.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m going to spell it slowly and keep it short so you can get it, Todd.
She breaked down and cried. She coudn’t handle it. Women do that. End of the story. It doesn’t matter how much she holded (and frankly, she got all the female votes that didn’t go to Obama, so it isn’t a big deal), she still coudn’t handle the whole thing.
The female Senate candidate couldn’t handle it either. Women can’t handle it, and that’s important because people that can’t handle a competitive enviroment are useless as leaders.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“You mean aside from the fact that she started crying as a result of losing (how many grown men have done that?) That she couldn’t deal with a third-party challenger? That she felt entitled to the congressional seat?”
And don’t forget the staggering amount of butthurt and pettiness, exemplified by her endorsement of the democrat candidate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Todd WhiteKnight : That shall be the new nickname.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“DeDe Scozzafava, pictured above far right” and Doug Hoffman, far left.
hehehe
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
TFH: “It is dysfunctional precisely BECAUSE it is not a meritocracy. So you are effectively agreeing with me. ”
TW: Partly. I called them “dysfunctional” because they’re socialist. But they also have gender quotas (or at least some of them do). And I don’t support that at all. I’m one of the true meritocrats.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Todd White,
Have you ever met a woman who could stand up to you in an argument? One you could not crush, drive before you, whining?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Eumaios: Yes. You?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That assumes Todd has ever argued with a woman.
I put the odds of that at about 50-50.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have to say something about the crying. I’m a crier. I am. Sad, happy, maudlin, nostalgic, moving, whatever, I cry at the drop of a hat–though rarely over my own troubles or over not getting my way. My crying is not something I apologize for, and I refuse to feel embarrassed about it anymore. I mean, ffs, Zed made me cry once–and it wasn’t because I’m not his type.
Okay, let’s take the example of the iconic football player giving his retirement speech. I’ve seen men get misty at such moments, giving the speech they know marks the end of their storied careers. I’ve also seen men get choked up when giving a congratulatory speech to a competitor in which they thank all the people who stood behind them, and express their regret that their best efforts weren’t enough.
Is it not even remotely possible that What’shername’s crying was not a temper tantrum or a “princess wants what she can’t have” moment, but rather the fact that she had her shot and failed and now it’s over for her–the effective end of her career? Or that she’s disappointed in herself, and knows she’s let other people down?
Being a chronic crier, I know I’m much more likely to cry when I think I’ve failed other people, or over the troubles of others, than I ever am over my own wants and needs and difficulties.
Just sayin’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Todd White:
Most men are wise enough to keep their mouths shut – and their waterworks dry – in such an event.
Arbitrary:
I should add that the job of being a legislator in this state is laughably easy. Thanks to the “three men in a room” style of governance (Governor, Assembly Speaker, Senate Majority Leader), individual legislators have little if any power. They just vote the way their bosses tell them to. And Scozzafava is a Republican in the Assembly, where the Democrats hold a supermajority of seats, further cementing her uselessness.
kis:
Scozzafava’s career is not over – she’ll go back to her cushy job in the Assembly, holding a seat that’s been specially gerrymandered to ensure she’ll never face a real electoral challenge. Tom DeLay would be proud.
Are you a politician? It’s a profession that generally doesn’t draw altruists.
E. Belfort Bax writing in 1913 says similar sort of things to Ferdinand in his essay ‘The Fraud of Feminism’. So the phenomena has been well understood for a long time. The sadness is that this has not stopped the advance of feminism. It looks to me that it does not in the end matter what the arguments are. I think feminism is impervious to argument. It is more like a fundamentalist fanatical goddess religion that intends to have its way no matter what.
I just wonder for how long places like The Spearhead will be able to operate before they are classified as ‘hate sites’ and are banned for ever.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
They wouldn’t ban us. Here in the US the preferred method is starving people with unpopular views (e.g. make sure they can’t get a job, harass them with lawsuits, etc.).
Even so, I think the tide is turning. Women have allowed themselves to be led down the primrose path to a place they aren’t entirely comfortable with, and will be even less so when they find themselves without many men to call on for help.
In fact, I would be pleased to see some feminist attorney or politician shrieking about The Spearhead. That could only advance our cause and gain us sympathy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The author makes some interesting points. Feminists have bothered me since I was a child and didn’t even know why. The Woman’s Movement helped women in some ways, but harmed them in others and damaged the relationship between men and women in many ways.
Women have all the same responsibilities they always have, but now must also work, on top of everything else. Now women leave their children to be raised by others while they work to pay more and more taxes. The women’s Movement helped socialism make strides in this country.
Men do not honor and protect women as they once did. Sexually transmitted disease runs rampant (HPV, to name one).
I see at my daughter’s school a lack of competition which is one of the many reasons I am taking her out.
The idea that women in general can’t handle debate or competition in general is, of course, ridiculous. The author must be joking. I can hardly believe he has never met a woman who does not possess the qualities he wishes to see. If not I wonder the circles in which he travels. There are many such women, unfortunately our society does not value these traits at present so women who possess them are marginalized, ignored or persecuted.
Anyway, Clinton and Sozzafava are the wrong women to hold up as examples of women in general. This is blatantly obvious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Paul
Part of the reason feminism gained such traction is that it took a relatively common and palatable viewpoint (women should have rights and be treated like human beings, not property) and paired it together with an extremely unpopular set of viewpoints smuggled into the movement (the various forms of man-hate, lack of personal responsibility, and women’s superiority).
It’s a common tactic for any number of seemingly strange political movements that often had a lot to do with their initial success. Unfortunately for them, once the agenda is laid bare, it also often means that:
1 – They fall apart
2 – They consolidate and everyone else lives in a tyrannical state that subjugates them, which leads to them falling apart
Time and raising awareness are the real keys at this point.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
People putting Margeret Thatcher’s name around? Huh?
If ‘good’ debaters are judged by having got their own way, why are they not judged also by their ‘achievements’, the end result inflicted upon the wider masses, which on reflection would prove to be, in Thatcher’s case, social annihilation?
Many will agree Thatcher destroyed large sections of British society. Does this make her a ‘good’ debater? She just got what she wanted but with no concern for others. It proves an ability, but that’s all. Nothing praiseworthy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is an extremely contrived and fantastical “analysis,” showing a level of reasoning comparable to a 13-year old. Actually that may be insulting to 13 year olds
Your argument amounts to “scozzafava is a girl, hoffman is a boy, therefore scozzafava dropped because she is a girl, and so is clinton, and they cried because they’re girls, and that means women can’t deal with competition or be leaders.” Wow, let me call up Aristotle and let him know there’s a new master of logic in town.
I notice you fail to mention how 95% of Hoffman’s financial support is coming from outside his district. And fail to mention that NY-23 is seen as the national ultra-right’s chance to get their teabagging orgy on, to cleanse the GOP of “moderate” heretics. There are about a zillion other reasons why Dede had reason to drop and endorse Owens, most notably the fact that she probably believes his governance would actually represent the views of her district, and would rather see him lead than Hoffman, who’s making hay off of sucking at Glenn Becks’s teat.
You then carry this sad line of reasoning over to Clinton, despite that the only commonality is that they are both women, they both were losing out to men, and they both cried. And then bridge that argument to “all other women.”
I don’t think there is anything wrong with illogical ranting on blogs. It can be entertaining, that’s for sure. But when you rant illogically, and present it as sound sociopolitical analysis, you’re no better than the gynocracy getting their estrogen on in freshman women’s studies class.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wonder who wins a higher percentage of cases in the legal field?
Male or female lawyers?
You would obviously need to account for prosecution/defense, civil/legal/ and other areas of the legal field that may tilt the playing field in one’s favor or another.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A bit OT, but what I like best about the Hoffman election is: if he is successful, other Republicans faced with holding their noses for another RINO might learn that they do indeed have another real option.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That’s funny, by the time I was 13 I could recognize that ad hominem attacks were not a meaningful debate tactic. Way to start off without being hypocritical.
This is close to correct. The only incorrect bit you’ve added is the claim that Scozzafava dropped because she is a girl. She dropped because she was basically guaranteed to lose (being a good 15 percent behind the other two candidates). She cried because she never learned to contain and control her emotions, a behavior more typical of girls (at least in my experience). (stealth bit to kis: among men, crying when you retire=okay, crying when you lose=not okay, even if you will have to retire over it.)
Of particular irony is your comparison here to Aristotle, who also believed that women were incapable of debate.
The first point wasn’t mentioned because it is tangential (at best), or irrelevant (at worst) to the point of this article. The second is no better. This isn’t about the fact that she quit, or why she quit. It’s about how she reacted to failure. The best reaction to failure is to learn from it, to use it to achieve future success. The worst is to be vindictive about it.
Yes, because this article is about the crying and its causes, and this is another example of a similar set of causes resulting in crying. And, while I would disagree with the claim that all women inherently must behave this way, I believe the article has a point in saying that almost all do.
Almost all sociopolitical analysis is illogical ranting. But this article isn’t about sociopolitical analysis. It’s about a group of people who have not been trained by our society to behave competitively– regardless of whether or not there is a biological basis for that result.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Todd White – “FB/Chuck/TFH: Sorry, I just can’t work up the enthusiasm to debate you guys on this topic; the premise is so absurd I feel OK with just calling it “dumb†and leaving it at that. We can debate issues that have some degree of plausibility; this isn’t one of them.”
Say, Todd?
Why is it that we see so many instance of women, who find themselves and their ideas challenged in the workplace, resorting to filing complaints/ suits claiming a “hostile workplace”?
Seems like if women could handle competition and debate, they wouldn’t feel threatened every time some disagrees with them.
Personally, I’m familiar with several instances in which women (who supposedly rose to their level based on merit) have tried to use the threat of lawsuits to force management to, in turn, force their peers into letting them (the women) have their way when disagreements have arisen. I can’t think of one instance where I’ve even heard of a man resorting to such tactics.
Maybe you can write another fictional book, in which women dominate in competition and debate. Then, you can reference that book to “prove” your point that women are superior in that area. Hey!, You’ve repeatedly done that with your book to “prove” your arguments about male-female relationships – so why not write another book so as to recreate reality in the ways you’d prefer it to be?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Arbitrary-
The political situation in the NY-23 and in the burgeoning GOP civil war is NOT AT ALL tangential to this case, as it has direct application to the reasons why Dede was losing, and why she quit. The problem with the article is because it tried to present as fact that Dede was losing because women can’t debate, and that she quit because she can’t stand real competition.
I don’t think it takes a brain surgeon to point out that is a pretty fantastical analysis when taking the particulars of the situation into account.
I actually don’t take issue with some of the authors meta-narrative, about some less-than-capable women rising to positions of power, and calling it quits when the going gets tough. I.E. Sarah Palin.
But then, we could all cite a laundry list of cases of men who get where they are due to nepotism, or inheriting family money, or whatever else.
I think there is a pretty clear disagreement in this Men’s Right’s Movement, or whatever we want to call it. Some of you want to attack and belittle women, no matter the situation. Others of us want to promote meritocracy, where being a high performer is your path to success, no matter what your set of genitals happen to be.
I happen to agree that feminism is pretty much antithetical to meritocracy, but no more so than the neoconservatism/neofeudalism that the supposed “right wing” love so dearly in this country.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
W and P, I think this is the main issue…you seem to think the article is about the fact that Dede lost; it’s not. In particular, the article is not trying to claim that “Dede was losing because women can’t debate, and that she quit because she can’t stand real competition.” It’s an article about how she reacted to losing, and how that reaction has appeared before; it only concludes that women can’t debate or compete because debate and competition inherently involve losing some of the time, and her reaction to that loss is of the sort that indicates an inability to “handle it”. Abridged, the article looks roughly like this:
Quick exposition of who the three candidates are and their positions, so people like me who haven’t been following this know what’s going on.
Quick exposition about why Dede needed to resign, setting up for examination of her behavior in losing.
Parallel drawn to Hillary’s behavior in losing the Iowa caucus.
Parallel drawn to general feminist behavior when challenged in an argument.
Allegation that primary motivation for Dede’s endorsement of Owens is vindictiveness.
Comparison to behavior of another woman after being confronted, in a personal anecdote from the author (with documentation).
Conclusion that many (most? nearly all?) women behave this way when confronted with disagreement, and are therefore ill-suited to competition or debate (with the unspoken assumptions that: these anecdotes are representative, and that this behavior is contradictory with effective competition and debate).
The shorter version hopefully makes it clear that the article is about reactions to losing, not causes of loss. The piece itself is entirely anecdotal, and thus should be taken as you would take any other opinion piece–a means of forming hypothesis, rather than itself a rigorous conclusion. Personally, this hypothesis tends to agree with most of my experience in debating with most women, with the caveat that I have no evidence to believe it is inherent rather than learned (or, at least, insufficiently unlearned, as young boys also will behave this way).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is simple. The human female brain has far less information processing power than a human male brain. Therefore their ability to process information is vastly lower and slower than mens brains. This is why there are no (for all intents and purposes) female fighter pilots or females at the top levels of racing in any form, car, motorcycle, horse etc. All these professions require the brain of the person to process vast quantities of previously unseen information at a speed sufficient to respond in time to stop themselves from being killed. No women are there because if they were they would be killed or injured. Unless you are that Danika chick in which case it is the pit crew who get run over and injured. Hell, if an ‘average’ man were put into these positions without years of getting accustomed to it he too might be killed.
Transfer this across to thinking or debating. Mens awesome processing power out guns womens puny procesing power every time. Men should be proud of that massive organ between their … ears…and we should not tolerate the lies that women spout called ‘women are equal’. We don’t tolerate other lies in our life. Why should we tolerate that one. Women can have equal rights if they are willing to take on equal obligationsa and responsibilities. I see no sign of them doing so.
Women call me sexist. Yes, I am. I believe men and women are different. That’s called discrimination, the ability to tell the differenece in qualitied between such things as people. I also note that men look like crap in a bra and panties and we are also crap at making babies. So I am just as sexist towards men as I am to women.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Weak and Pathetic:
How is that relevant? What matters is what the voters think, and almost every poll made in the past month shows the voters rejecting Scozzafava and supporting Hoffman. Money has nothing to do with it.
Yeah man, I mean, how DARE those evil right-wingers demand that the Republicans nominate conservative candidates for office! It’s not like conservatives form the party’s BASE or anything!
The national and NY GOPs have thrown their weight behind Hoffman. Scozzafava’s endorsement of Owens is open betrayal of her party, for the pettiest of reasons. At the very least, she should have kept her mouth shut.
And you fail to note that Hoffman wouldn’t even be in the race if the Republicans had opted to run a conservative candidate.
Are you seriously arguing that women aren’t more emotional then men and that society and the government doesn’t give them unfair advantages? slwerner brought up some good examples.
I attack and belittle those who deserve it.
In a meritocracy, there would be very few women in high positions. You have your Thatchers, Gandhis, and Meirs, and that’s it. Crybabies like Scozzafava wouldn’t be anywhere near the levers of power.
Arbitrary:
You’re right that Scozzafava wasn’t the focus of this piece. I was using her as a recent, newsworthy example.
“If women are playing checkers, men are playing chess.”
GOLD!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you want more evidence that Dede Scozzafava couldn’t take the heat:
“Dede Scozzafava says ‘hate, lies’ wore her down”
Leopold II, King of the Belgians November 2, 2009 at 12:46 pm
“Margaret Thatcher”
I fear you are ignorant King Leopold. Margaret Thatcher was well and truely nothing more than one more programmed Illuminati stooge. She was a good actress, just like Ronald Reagan was, but there has not been a decent politician in the western world since JFK…and they shot him. Why do no English PMs get ‘assassinated’? Because they all work for the bad guys. They were bought and sold years before they got near number 10.
How many people know John Major, Margart Thatcher and Tony Blair are all related. The one family has been in the PMs house in the UK for 25+ years. I guess people just don’t want to know.
“no one who has experience with women can deny that, after filtering out the vulgar parts, Roissy’s insights have great educational value.”
I have yet to read anything ‘vulgar’ on Roissy. I see no call for anyone to cut off pieces of female anatomy or to kill women. I see such regularly on wimmins sites. Killing and mutilating people is ‘vulgar’. Talking about how to get women to put out is merely what men talk about.
Jabherwochie November 3, 2009 at 6:58 am
“I wonder who wins a higher percentage of cases in the legal field?”
Doesn’t matter. The results are all rigged. Aren’t you paying attention? Your legal system is run by a criminal cartel.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
SLW: Why is it that we see so many instance of women, who find themselves and their ideas challenged in the workplace, resorting to filing complaints/ suits claiming a “hostile workplace�
TW: For those who file frivolous lawsuits, I presume greed is the primary motivation.
SLW: Personally, I’m familiar with several instances in which women (who supposedly rose to their level based on merit) have tried to use the threat of lawsuits to force management to, in turn, force their peers into letting them (the women) have their way when disagreements have arisen. I can’t think of one instance where I’ve even heard of a man resorting to such tactics.
TW: That strikes me as credible, but again, I think greed is probably the main motivation, and greed is a quality that’s abundant in both men and women.
SLW: Maybe you can write another fictional book, in which women dominate in competition and debate. Then, you can reference that book to “prove†your point that women are superior in that area. Hey!, You’ve repeatedly done that with your book to “prove†your arguments about male-female relationships – so why not write another book so as to recreate reality in the ways you’d prefer it to be?
TW: I’m not sure how to answer that. The good thing about fiction is you don’t have to “prove†anything. You just have to tell a story. And that’s what I’ve done (or tried to do). You know the old saying, “A picture is worth 1,000 words?†Well, a good story is worth 1,000 hours of intellectual debate. That’s why I chose to write fiction, not non-fiction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Well, a good story is worth 1,000 hours of intellectual debate. That’s why I chose to write fiction, not non-fiction.”
No offense, but if a fictional book is worth 1,000 hours of intellectual debate, then a non-fiction book is worth 1 true insight into reality.
I choose the latter. 1,000 hours of intellectual debate could exist between two pre-teens arguing the merit of chocolate vs. vanilla.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Todd White – “TW: That strikes me as credible, but again, I think greed is probably the main motivation, and greed is a quality that’s abundant in both men and women.”
No! Were talking about petulant spoiled brats who get mad when they don’t get their way, and go straight to those higher up to demand that they be given their way.
In one instance, a committee had been formed to decide on a new policy to address an area that was an increasing concern. One committee member was a coddled young woman, with high academic credentials, but limited work experience.
Although the other committee members had considerably more experience, she took it upon herself to try to “take over”. She had her own set of ideas on the direction to take.
However, several of the older professionals noted potential problems in her ideas. She became angry at them, and started with the ad hominem attacks against them, and threats towards their careers. But, they brushed her aside, and voted on a differing approach.
She flew into a rage, stomped out the door, and straight to the office of a high-ranking executive. No one knows for sure just what was said in the office, though a secretary reports that she heard the women screaming about how the “men” on the committee treated her badly because she was a woman, and made her feel threatened and demeaned. Apparently she made some none-too-subtle hints at the possibility of filing lawsuits.
The up-shot was that it was quickly announced that the committee had been disbanded, and that she was to be given the task of deciding on new policy.
THAT, and several other examples I’ve heard of in which petulant women didn’t get their way and went complaining to higher-ups, was what I was referring to.
I doubt I’m alone in have witnessed and/or heard about such examples of women who could not handle being told “NO”. Perhaps even you, Todd, have personally observed a woman or 20 fly into a rage when they didn’t get it their way, and either threaten to use the power of higher up, or even actually do so in order to try to get what they had wanted via coercion?
“TW: Well, a good story is worth 1,000 hours of intellectual debate.”
1,000 hours of one-side debate, perhaps. But, to equate one person writing a fictionalized account which serves to represent (only) their views with the understanding hammered out by the clashing of divergent ideas???? I don’t think so!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
““TW: Well, a good story is worth 1,000 hours of intellectual debate.â€
1,000 hours of one-side debate, perhaps. But, to equate one person writing a fictionalized account which serves to represent (only) their views with the understanding hammered out by the clashing of divergent ideas???? I don’t think so!”
Damn! Your rebuttal was so much better than mine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
DADT: “I’ll admit I don’t like competition. That’s why I don’t like alpha men. They make the relationship a power struggle.â€
….”All relationships are power struggles. ”
——————
Nope. I don’t power struggle with my friends. The power struggle seems to only present itself amongst parent/child, sibling and sexual relationships. Oh, and at work too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jabherwochie/Slwerner:
I’m still not sure what you’re driving at. I’m making a pretty common-sense, non-controversial observation about the difference between fiction and non-fiction as artistic mediums. You’re so eager to be confrontational, though, that you can’t see that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Women may not like to debate the issues but neither does does right wing trash. When an article starts by claiming various mainstream groups are “leftist” when in fact they represent the moderate center, you know the writer is part of of America’s large block of right wing trash. Real conservatives, like myself, are fed up with this well financed and easily manipulated block of racists, rural welfare queens, fundamentalist nitwits and anti abortion scumbags – all financed by a privileged upper crust who don’t pay their taxes, perpetrate massive fraud and whose children aren’t in Iraq and Afghanistan, where their limited talents and lack of work ethic might make then useful as cannon fodder.
Its time that average Americans woke up to the massive damage these Nazi like criminals have brought down on us. Calling them left or right is disingenuous. Morons and lucky sperm don’t represent a coherent political philosophy. So much for debate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In this article I can’t help but see the glaring contradiction that this site is built around.
1) Women have taken over and ruined everything for men.
2) There are hardly any women in positions of power.
The number of female judges is around 25%. Only something like 17% of Congress is female. So if you’re right that women don’t like competition and debate and thus aren’t in positions of power, than how did they manage to muck everything up?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Finny, this site isn’t a totalitarian domain. There are plenty of contradictory opinions offered here. This is how men figure things out.
Does that make sense to you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good question. The answer is “they didn’t”.
The changes produced by feminism were not produced by women (they are only experts at whining and complaining, so they produced some set of books and journal articles). The changes were produced by men.
Who gave the vote to women? Obviously men.
Who made the feminazi laws? Mostly men.
For example, who created the Simpson when men are depicted as dumb amb women as intelligent? A men.
Behind any sexist law against men, behind any misandrist piece of art, there is a men or a majority of men.
Men are their better enemies and there’s no need to blame women. Women have always been the same: read the last twenty centuries of literature and you will see that the nature of women has always been understood. It’s men who have produced the mess we are in.
They did it because of:
1. Chivalry. Women whined they were oppressed and the white knights were eager to change the laws.
2. Political and personal gain. Pandering to the female electorate, getting into a woman’s pants, etc. (it is amazing how much men think with their dick).
3. Massive feminist indoctrination by education institutions. So men internalized the feminist credo.
If the feminism had only been deffended by women, it would never have succeeded. Men did it. Until MRA’s don’t understand men are our biggest enemies are men, the movement will keep on moving in circles.
If men deffended their rights, not even all women would be able to defeat us. But we are our worse enemies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And that’s precisely why men’s rights, as a movement, will never get anywhere. Men are divided on these issues. Divided as divided can be. And we relish taking each other down — a *lot*. It’s how we are, as men. Normally that works well (political debate, national defense, sports, etc.), but in this specific context it works against us. But it isn’t something that is very much susceptible to changing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Curious as to why there was no mention of Ms. Quit, baby, Quit.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
{ 1 trackback }