Patriarchy Works

Post image for Patriarchy Works

by Jack Donovan on December 21, 2009

Before feminism, men got along just fine.

Some men succeeded, others failed. Collectively, men built and re-built social structures that they preferred, structures that worked best for men and served their proximate interests. Whatever your feelings are about the “rights” of women in society, one thing is undeniable: patriarchy works. It’s not an academic theory. It’s historical fact. Some patriarchal societies have worked better than others, for a wide variety of reasons. It has been proven that a patriarchal society can rise to international prominence. Few, if any real matriarchal systems have ever succeeded. Virtually all of the great achievements of mankind—from the aqueduct to the steam engine to the great works of Western and Eastern arts and literature—are the products of men who worked within patriarchal systems.

There is no matriarchal or feminist society with a comparable track record. Feminists have only “what if” to offer. They can say only that “maybe women would have done great things if they would have been allowed to.” Perhaps they would have. We’ll never know what might have happened if any or every major successful human society had come to different conclusions about the most reasonable and appropriate division of labor between men and women.

What we do know is that as a group, men did not demand feminism. Men did not clamor for women to join them in the workforce. Men did not cry out to be relieved of their burdensome responsibilities as providers. Men did not complain that they were the ones who went to war, or who did the most dangerous work. Men were physically and mentally better suited to certain tasks, and they did them because someone had to do them.

Men did not demand feminism. They made way for it. Men acquiesced to the demands of a minority of demanding women, because men were collectively swayed by appeals to their sense of moral justice and fairness. Machines made equal participation in the workforce conceivable.  The resulting surplus of wealth and goods, population growth, advances in medicine, lower infant mortality and longer life spans made it possible. The novel idea that labor offered personal fulfillment and happiness—and that individual happiness and personal fulfillment were more important than what was best or most practical for a civilization as a whole—made work desirable. Because work seemed more desirable, and because in a thriving materialistic society financial freedom offered greater opportunity for happiness, men were convinced that it was morally unfair to keep women from joining them in the workforce. The success of feminism has always depended on the benevolence of men.

It is important to remember that patriarchy did not fail or collapse.

Patriarchy works.

Does feminism work?

It seems to be good for women, at least on the surface. Others have written about the seamier side of women’s liberation—free-for-all whorishness that often leads to abuse, fatherless children, disease, loneliness, depression and so forth. But women can pursue exciting careers and buy lots of stuff. These things make them feel important. And feeling important is something. Studies seem to suggest that none of this has made women happier, and men are blamed for this unhappiness because they haven’t acquiesced to the demands of women thoroughly enough. But to truly answer whether or not feminism really works requires more than a moral argument about how things should work or a social inquiry into the happiness of women.

For a society to work, it must first survive.

In nations where feminism has had the most influence in shaping social policy, and where women have succeeded in the workplace and ascended to positions of political power, birth rates of non-immigrant populations have dropped below replacement levels. The largest immigrant population in Europe, (Muslims) and the largest immigrant population in America (Mexicans) both have high birth rates and patriarchal cultures. When the family is devalued and women seek happiness and fulfillment in the working world, they have fewer children, and they have them later in life.

If a population that embraces feminism necessarily ages and dwindles, as competing non-feminist cultures surrounding it grow and thrive…does feminism work?

{ 209 comments… read them below or add one }

Neil from Brazil December 21, 2009 at 03:36

Evidently not.

Feminism only grows in rich societies. Like some sort of vacation travel, that you will only make when you’re prosper enough.

Like owning a yatch.

Women working outside home makes sense only in a war effort. Well, there is not a world war. But this extra efforts results in crazy consummerism. Just another kind of war, another kind of bullets.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 8
AfOR December 21, 2009 at 05:39

They can say only that “maybe women would have done great things if they would have been allowed to.”

Err, nobody ever stopped them, ever….

It has *always* been possible for women to rise to the top of the pile on merit alone.

Boudicca and her Irish counterpart Granuaille, both warriors.

Cleopatra. (right up to Queen Elizabeth II in the 21st century)

Marie Curie.

It isn’t hard to compile a list pages long of women who were better than EVERYONE else, male and female.

The USA got fucked when every employer was prevented from setting an aptitude test as part of the employment interview.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2
Ragnar December 21, 2009 at 05:46

Great essay Jack Donovan.
Been promoting Brotherhoods for years – let’s get the Brotherhoods back in charge.

Women use an affluent society like chimps in a fruit plantation. They don’t think/plan ahead, don’t invent, don’t make music and have no idea of a functioning society.

All social achievements are man-made.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 16
Phoenixism December 21, 2009 at 05:47

I appreciate this “macro-cultural” perspective regarding the great Equalization in the role of modern woman. It seems you insinuated the role of machinery as one ingredient (more or less) in the movement to unleash womanhood upon the world. I’ve always been of the opinion that the Industrial Revolution is to blame for at least 80-90% of the social ills plaguing our culture today.

The novel idea that labor offered personal fulfillment and happiness—and that individual happiness and personal fulfillment were more important than what was best or most practical for a civilization as a whole—made work desirable. Only insofar as work offered the route to buying more and more crap. The female mindset has permeated our culture: a job well-done, in itself, provides no reward. A job that allows you to live out some strange sensual and gluttonous consumerism is what it’s all about in the female world.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Snark December 21, 2009 at 05:48

Universal Brotherhood above all else.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Re:AfOR December 21, 2009 at 05:51

I’ve known a few women that were quite exceptional. By and large, they were not feminists. They were all about “girl power” but they were just as happy to celebrate “guy power.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Ragnar December 21, 2009 at 06:10

@Snark
“Universal Brotherhood above all else.”

Indeed!
The philosophy and ethics of Brotherhood can be promoted universally, but real life Brotherhoods must be real life Brothers working together where they are, i.e. locally AND naturally competing the way they can.

I trust that most Brotherhoods would be able to live in relative peace most of the time.

A Global (Patriarchial) Brotherhood would find me fighting them to the best of my ability.

:)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Novaseeker December 21, 2009 at 07:05

Indeed, Jack. There is no historical precedent for a non-patriarchal society thriving in the long-term.

However, this does appear to be a cycle in the course of human history. Oxford anthropologist J.D. Unwin penned a book at the beginning of the 20th century titled “Sex and Culture” which explains this dynamic fairly well. Following a rather exhaustive survey of human cultures around the world, Unwin concluded that societies which restrain female sexuality tend to thrive, but eventually, as a result of their prosperity and success, tend to erode these restraints, due to women demanding this and men acquiescing. In other words, the societies thrive, and this gives rise to demands from women to participate in the success and prosperity, and men generally acquiesce (at least the powerful ones do) at some stage — and that acquiescence pretty much always takes the form of relaxing the strictures of marriage and allowing women to exist “independently” from men — sexually and otherwise. The history here is revealing and, in the broader world, largely unknown. For example, very few people are aware that ancient Babylon, prior to its collapse, instituted civil reforms to family law such as no-fault divorce and child support. Or that Sparta, which is widely known for its military tradition, had liberated women to such a degree that they ran the Spartan economy, and as a result had below replacement rate birth rates, leading to a collapse, eventually, to surrounding patriarchal states. Or that marriage in late Rome had declined so precipitously that the Empire tried to encourage men to marry by instituting a bachelor tax (to no avail, mind you, because men did not *need* to marry due to the relatively freely available sex after women were “liberated”).

The historical record is quite clear: at some point in prosperity and power, it appears that a common trend in civilizations of Europe and the Middle East is that women get, to some degree, “liberated” from having to be married to men in order to have access to the good things of life — in other words, they get liberated from sexual restraint, because one of the main functions of marriage has always been to sexually restrain women so as to coaxe men into forming lasting pair bonds with them for the benefit of the tribe/civilization. Once the civilization gets sufficiently fat and happy, this seems to be less needed, as the whole thing seems nigh on invulnerable — so the rules are relaxed, women’s sexuality becomes liberated (and, living in the age we do, we know very well what that looks like when it happens), family life breaks down, birth rates drop, sexual immorality becomes rife, and the whole house of cards comes crashing down faster than anyone would have thought when they made the reforms to family law and social mores around sex.

What has happened in the contemporary West in the last century is simply a reprise of this pattern. The West is, by definition, the “fattest and happiest” civilization ever on the planet. The strictures of monogamy, sexual restraint, and marriage seem quaint and unnecessary to the vast majority of people living in the West. And so the laws were reformed (in ways very similar to how they had been in Babylon millennia ago), the social mores on *female* sexual expression were relaxed, and the West entered a period of utter sexual saturation, loose sexual mores, devalued monogamy, devalued family life, lower birth rates and so on — all following a familiar pattern. The distinctive characteristics of this particular iteration of “female liberation” are technological — abortion, contraception, the rise of non-labor-based work as the staple of the economy –> these changes made the current iteration of female liberation more robust than the earlier ones, more like “cooking with gas” than the earlier ones, and are what has made this version of it change things as fast as it has. And, the West is, in relative terms, much stronger, for the time being, than the rest of the world. This will change as the economies of the West gradually soften (already happening), requiring diversion away from military spending (already being called for), and proliferation equals the playing field in terms of tactical weaponry. Citadel West seems impregnable now, and it very well may be for the time being, but things change fast in the current environment, and the economic decline of the West, in relative terms, seems unavoidable — and this, in turn, will result in a military decline for the simple reason that there will be less money to spend on the military, relatively, than there was in the past. All of this is taking place in the context, of course, of the contemporary version of female liberation: sexually “empowered” women who live lives “independent” of men, if they wish, with the full backing of the state power, increasing numbers of unmotivated, underperforming men who are dragging down the social productivity rate, and a less than replacement birth rate when compared with birth rates of people from cultures that are not exactly embracing the values of the “contemporary West”. It’s impossible to look to the future with a crystal ball and predict what will happen, particularly due to technological advancements which are true game changers, but if the script keeps going in the direction it seems to be going, Unwin’s book may well prove to be a prophetic vision describing the decline of our own civilization in our time.

But more fundamentally, the real deal here is that, as Matt Ridley points out in his book “The Red Queen”, men and women are in competition within our species. Normally this is a kind of collaborative competition, but it is a competition nonetheless. That competition is to get the “leg up” reproductively, on the other — in other words, at the most reductive level, men and women are reproductive resources to each other, and each exploits the other. The pair bond is a way of making this more of a win/win, but there are always incentives to cheat the pair bond to make it a better deal for either partner. However, every now and then, women get the opportunity to put the “leg up” on men, reproductively, by gaining “liberation” from the pair bond itself — exploiting male reproductive resources while giving nothing to men in return. This allows women to access “higher gene” reproductive resources among the men (see: Lysistrata), and is a short term benefit for women as a class. As with any imbalance, however, it is not sustainable in the long-term. In the longer term, men become disincented to pair bond with women, and become relatively debauched (see: Late Rome, Late Babylon) and women tend to have fewer children, even below replacement rate (see: Babylon, Rome, Sparta). So in the long-term there is a correction, as we see in the histories of Babylon, Rome and Sparta — namely, the society cannot sustain itself with one sex having the “leg up” on reproduction due to the demotion of the pair bond from being the most sacred social institution to being an optional lifestyle choice. That can only last for so long — it cannot last in the long term barring technological changes that fundamentally transform our species. But, importantly, it is very much a part of the endless warfare between men and women in our species. Sometimes men have the upper hand and sometimes women do. We live in an age when women have the upper hand, and we are not alone historically in that. However, we also know that the societies that have thrived the longest are the ones where men have had the upper hand by having regimes of enforced monogamy (i.e., restrictions on sexuality, especially female sexuality), while societies that have relaxed these restrictions have eventually declined under their own weight and decadence. So the war of the sexes never really ends, folks, and we are simply living through a reprise of a chapter that has played itself out in the history of other great civilizations — a downward chapter, to be sure, but not a final one.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3
Jack Donovan December 21, 2009 at 07:11

Thanks for the addition, Novaseeker. I’ll have to put those two books on my long, dusty list…

Tarl December 21, 2009 at 08:11

It has *always* been possible for women to rise to the top of the pile on merit alone.

Boudicca and her Irish counterpart Granuaille, both warriors.

Cleopatra. (right up to Queen Elizabeth II in the 21st century)

ROFLMAO!!! You think Queens rose to the top on merit????

Hello, Queens get their crowns by birth, not by merit. Nobody would have followed any of these women if they didn’t have the birthright.

What a hilariously ignorant statement.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3
USMaleSF December 21, 2009 at 08:23

In our current case, the invention and dissemination of cheap birth control (including safe abortion) has also been crucial to the speed and success of feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Bhruic December 21, 2009 at 08:48

maybe women would have done great things if they would have been allowed to.

There was a pretty nice counter-argument to this in a talk by psychology professor Roy F. Baumeister linked on a previous article on The Spearhead.

In the 19th century in America, middle-class girls and women played piano far more than men. Yet all that piano playing failed to result in any creative output. There were no great women composers, no new directions in style of music or how to play, or anything like that. All those female pianists entertained their families and their dinner guests but did not seem motivated to create anything new.

Meanwhile, at about the same time, black men in America created blues and then jazz, both of which changed the way the world experiences music. By any measure, those black men, mostly just emerging from slavery, were far more disadvantaged than the middle-class white women. Even getting their hands on a musical instrument must have been considerably harder. And remember, I’m saying that the creative abilities are probably about equal. But somehow the men were driven to create something new, more than the women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4
Charles Martel December 21, 2009 at 08:52

@Novaseeker

However, this does appear to be a cycle in the course of human history………

Thank you for writing what may be the best essay that I have ever seen on this topic. Welmer should immediately promote your brilliant comment [brilliant because I am in total agreement ;-) ], as a guest post on The Spearhead.

Your comment is particularly impressive because it is not conjectural. Your comment could easily be expanded, referenced and footnoted as a Ph. D. Thesis. Of course, finding a Sociology Department in any Western university that would accept this topic would be a challenge.

It’s my considered conclusion that the cultural and biological forces that you have described are irrestible. They are far bigger than any person, institution or political party. The only rational course of action is to find a foxhole, put your head down and wait to see if the landscape is still recognizable when the artillery barrage lifts.

I have struck a small blow for the resistance by making sure that my high-school age son has ALL the information he needs to understand the true nature of women. He knows that he does not have to be a success-object for women, that he has other choices. I hope that he can find a life partner, but whatever he does with his life it will be an informed choice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
dragnet December 21, 2009 at 09:10

“I have struck a small blow for the resistance by making sure that my high-school age son has ALL the information he needs to understand the true nature of women. He knows that he does not have to be a success-object for women, that he has other choices. I hope that he can find a life partner, but whatever he does with his life it will be an informed choice.”

Beautiful. This is really the strongest move we can make as men—to educate the next generation. Part of why I frequent these sites and engage in these debates is that it gives me the opportunity to learn the lessons of the men who have been here before me. I’m in my mid-20s and I have been and will continue to be able to avoid the pitfalls many have encountered because guys like Charles Martel, Obsidian, Welmer, and others are passing on hard-won lessons of life.

Coming to sites like this gives me a window into the things I hope to pass onto my own son someday. Keep up the good work, fellas.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Joseph December 21, 2009 at 09:21

The reality that I think Jack was pointing out is that feminism is dependent on technology. Technology however is not dependent on feminism. Take ancient Egypt for example. They built the pyramids and we have no idea how they pulled it off (except for the guy who build Coral Castle in Florida). Their technology was lost with their civilization. The same will probably happen here. When the factories that produce birth control pills get blown up in a war, feminism is on it’s way out. What we have here is an artificial environment brought on by technology. And technology is a fragile base to build a social structure on.

Best regards,
Joey

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Jack Donovan December 21, 2009 at 10:00

@ Mr. Martel –

Thank you for writing what may be the best essay that I have ever seen on this topic. Welmer should immediately promote your brilliant comment [brilliant because I am in total agreement ;-) ], as a guest post on The Spearhead.

Novaseeker is a contributor, actually, and I agree that this would be worth re-formatting and posting as a stand-alone post in response to my post above.

Maybe with an illustration of a different patriarch. ;)

Charles Martel December 21, 2009 at 10:06

…does feminism work?

There are so many ways to approach this question. I’ve spent the last hour thinking about the best, most balanced and inclusive response. My answer: No. Hell, no!

The slow economic growth rate in Sweden since 1970 has had a highly significant impact on the Swedish income level compared to that of other countries. In purchasing-power-parity adjusted comparison Sweden had the fourth highest GDP per capita in the OECD area in 1970, with per capita GDP 5 percent above the average of the 23 rich OECD countries (excluding Mexico, Turkey and the most recent members Poland, South Korea, Hungary and the Czech Republic). By 1990 Sweden had fallen to a tied 9th position 6 percent below this average. In 1998 Sweden was ranked 15th with a GDP per capita 14 percent below the average of the 23 rich OECD countries.

Did you know that US Federal Government spending as a percentage of GDP will be almost 45% in 2009? Sweden, here we come, baby!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Charles Martel December 21, 2009 at 10:21

Jack:

Maybe with an illustration of a different patriarch.

I nominate this guy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Brian December 21, 2009 at 10:35

Of course patriarchy works. That goes without saying. As for feminism, it is a scourge that must be eliminated.

The notion of “gender equality” is utterly absurd. Women are by nature weaker, passive, self-serving creatures, guided by emotions. They expect to be led and guided by men. Women are in fact subordinate creatures in the natural hierarchy of the sexes.

It should be clear to any reasonably intelligent man that women should have their voting rights revoked; they never should have been allowed to vote in the first place. They should also not be allowed to hold political office. Given what we know of female nature, women have no business assuming leadership positions over vast numbers of people.

When an enlightened patriarchy arises from the ruins of this era, they will learn from the mistakes of the 20th-21st century, and steer men and women toward their proper roles, towards a common purpose of ennoblement and greatness.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 12
Mr.M December 21, 2009 at 10:38

Coming to sites like this gives me a window into the things I hope to pass onto my own son someday. Keep up the good work, fellas.

Couldn’t agree more.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Mr.M December 21, 2009 at 10:50

All these posts about Roissy’s info…it actually inspires me, or at least gives satisfaction knowing that I can choose the path of roissy and be swimming in vaj at 41.

Also – it is also quite admirable that he has internet groupies who take the time to point this information out. I can push the buttons of girls no problem – internet groupie though? that’s a whole new level.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4
Gx1080 December 21, 2009 at 10:54

Perhaps, but they need to do it somewhere else. Trolling cunts aren’t supported in here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
null December 21, 2009 at 11:09

Brian, preach it brother. We should also bring back slavery and put those niggers in their rightful place, am i rite oololol

Idiot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8
Jabherwochie December 21, 2009 at 11:33

@Charles Martel-

And here I was thinking you posted your real name for some reason. Makes more sense now. We must continue to hide our identities, unless feminist infiltrators like uriNull, would sabotoge our careers and besmerk our reputations.

@Null-

Have you not figured out that most of the comments directed to you are just fucking with you? Women! No sense of humor either.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
null December 21, 2009 at 11:37

Have you not figured out that Brian’s comment was in no shape or form directed at me (I had not even posted in this thread prior to replying to him), and that you need some kind of medication for your severe paranoia?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Jabherwochie December 21, 2009 at 11:45

?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Jabherwochie December 21, 2009 at 11:47

Oh, I see. We can’t bring up your behaivor from other threads, as you are incapable of seeing past the immediacy of the here and now….sorta…like…a….(everyone together now)……….WOMEN! Yay!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
null December 21, 2009 at 11:47

Oh, you haven’t noticed that you’re delusional and paranoid? Yeah, maybe the feminist infiltrators really are out to get you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
null December 21, 2009 at 11:48

“Oh, I see. We can’t bring up your behaivor from other threads, as you are incapable of seeing past the immediacy of the here and now….sorta…like…a….(everyone together now)……….WOMEN! Yay!”

What do other threads have to do with this? Brian was not talking to me and prior to my reply to his post I had not posted anything in this thread. And you’re still paranoid.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
Jabherwochie December 21, 2009 at 11:55

I’ve noticed. I’m just concerned about who else has noticed. So how do you know about my paranoia anyways, if you haven’t been spying on me? For someone who claims to be on the level, you sure do know a lot about my motives, and you sure do insist that I’m bat-shit crazy, when its rather obvious you are just playing Feminazi reverse psychology games on me. It is apparent to everyone, even the government stooges whose job it is to monitor this website for extremist. Luckily you can’t find the extremist when we all act like extremist, so are all MRA’s mad, or just brilliant? You decide. Who did you say you work for again?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Icaros2K December 21, 2009 at 12:22

Phillip Longman’s article “The Return of Patriarchy” is on topic and worth reading.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
null December 21, 2009 at 12:25

“I’M NOT CRAZY, DOC. NOT ALL THE TIME. AHAHAHA.” -Jabherwochie

Yeah, but seriously: it’s obvious you have mental problems and need professional intervention.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Icaros2K December 21, 2009 at 12:28

This “null” character is somehow strangely endearing. (Or would be if there wouldn’t be so many responses.) Can we keep it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mr.M December 21, 2009 at 12:34

Anyone else find an online diagnosis of someone’s psyche to be …cute?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
iron clad December 21, 2009 at 12:53

Funny how the inexperienced and stupid are oh so quick a to hoist or hurl the label of ” paranoid ” ( experenced ) ” onto the knowied….but we seldom , if ever do we find , the “paranoid ” hurling slurs of , ” child like or naive ” in return to the acccusers ! Reason : Self evident-Efficientcy : it is what it is , mis-deeds…indeed ….child like….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
null December 21, 2009 at 12:55

Icaros2K: “This “null” character is somehow strangely endearing. (Or would be if there wouldn’t be so many responses.) Can we keep it?”

Oh gosh, I sure have never seen this insane clever retort before. You are so original. Have you been doing this for many weeks now?

Mr. M and iron clad, it is plainly obvious that Jabherwochie is paranoid and delusional. Just read his posts if that isn’t too much trouble.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Jabherwochie December 21, 2009 at 13:03

“Yeah, but seriously: it’s obvious you have mental problems and need professional intervention.”

I’ve been to about 5 shrinks, and they all had different diagnoses. I trust my family doctor more now, a Jew (I add that because I love the Jews) to prescribe me what I need, which right now is only a low strength anti-depressent. Most people could probably use one, as mild depression is normal and quite natural. If it wasn’t, we’d still be living in grass huts, hunting deer, and picking berries, just as content as a pig in mud…or is that shit….whatever, but my point is that mild depression is a motivator to do better, to strive for something more, and probably a major contributor to human advancement, hence why it is so common. I also have Asperger’s, but by the time I went to see shrinks for my more severe depression (which was really just a lack of sex), I had developed appropriate social skills so as to mask it. I read books on body language, had gotten rid of my speech impediment, my friends all punched me when I figited, so that had all stopped, etc. The only thing they consistently remarked on was my intelligence, and that with high intelligence, ruminating on negative ideas apparently is somewhat common. Whats your problem, Null? Not enough hugs and attention from mommy and daddy? Not good at sports or any talents that could draw attention to yourself? You overcompensated by talking incessently, didn’t you? But that just made people like you less, although you didn’t realize it, so you just attibuted it to the shittiness of others, not your personal failings, and by talking more and more at people you didn’t even like, you found that you could bully people into acquessing to your ideas and demands, and you found strength in that, embraced it, and it became the main part of your personality. The only problem is, brilliant minds and strong wills exists here, so your powers seem diminished, and it confuses you, so you dabble in what you think is logical debate and intellectual counters, when really, you just want to badger us into agreeing with you, as that is what your used to. It won’t work, and until you change, no one here or in real life, will actually like you. Some people will fear you. I’m sure you have some peons around you or a masochistic girlfriend who you can bend to your will, but this is the real world. Deal with it. Your just very, very average. Am I close, or way off? Tell us about yourself, or we will all assume that I am right.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 21, 2009 at 13:05

@Mr. M-

I want to be the cutest of them all! He shall not take that away from me!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jay R December 21, 2009 at 13:06

Why has such a profoundly informative and thought-provoking article/thread been allowed to be derailed by someone whose only “contributions” are designed to do just that?

To all of the intelligent posters here, please have the self-control not to respond to attempts to disrupt true discussion and analysis.

Thanks to Jack and Novaseeker for the great stuff, and the time (I know) it takes to create this valuable input.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Icaros2K December 21, 2009 at 13:06

null: You are pretty skilled at trolling, I have to give you that. Maybe not a great archievement for an individual, but it’s still something. Gives meaning to life and some emotional kicks, eh?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 21, 2009 at 13:13

I do apologize. Trolls apparently are my kryptonite. I do hate to detract from the brilliant ideas often put forth here, but beating back feminist trolls is sorta like hunting elephants with a bow and arrow. Its probably not smart, but when one goes down, what a triumph! The photo op alone makes it worth it, that is, if your not dead (or in this case, brain dead).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
null December 21, 2009 at 13:15

“Whats your problem, Null?”

Your delusional paranoia.

“The only problem is, brilliant minds and strong wills exists here”

In your imagination?

“I’m sure you have some peons around you or a masochistic girlfriend who you can bend to your will,”

I’m sure this is exactly what’s going down in the fantasy world you’ve constructed in your head. Please seek further psychiatric treatment.

Jay R: “Why has such a profoundly informative and thought-provoking article/thread been allowed to be derailed by someone whose only “contributions” are designed to do just that?”

So it’s okay for Brian to post that women should be stripped of their civil rights and relegated to second class citizens, but not okay for me to criticize him for it by pointing out that we may as well bring back slavery? And not only that, but doing so is actually derailment (whereas his original post was not)? Please explain your logic.

Icaros2K: “null: You are pretty skilled at trolling, I have to give you that. ”

Can’t be skilled at something I’ve never done.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
null December 21, 2009 at 13:16

“beating back feminist trolls is sorta like hunting elephants with a bow and arrow.”

Really? Where have I expressed any support for feminism? I’m pretty sure I’ve repeatedly denounced feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 21, 2009 at 13:21

Am I close, or way off? Tell us about yourself, or we will all assume that I am right.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt December 21, 2009 at 13:23

Actually, Brian, if you simply make women earn what they want, fairly and on equal footing with men, you solve the problem.

There are a handful of women who can fairly compete with men (often ignored, of course, by the feminist wing – look at how they avoid even discussing Margaret Thatcher, for instance); they should be allowed to. A society in which you are refusing to utilize your most productive members is foolish.

Conversely, there are gobs of women who don’t deserve their jobs and aren’t there based on ability; they should be kicked out. A society in which you insist on using your least productive members in high-value jobs is also foolish.

So all you have to do is simple: you want to have “x”? Earn it. We’re not handing it to you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
null December 21, 2009 at 13:24

“Am I close, or way off? Tell us about yourself, or we will all assume that I am right.”

You randomly make something up, or describe your latest hallucination, and if someone doesn’t deny it then it must be true? lol

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 21, 2009 at 13:27

We denounce feminism. + You denounce us. = Feminist troll (and a female to boot) yes, I know you aren’t a chick, we just like saying it because it pisses you off)

” So it’s okay for Brian to post that women should be stripped of their civil rights and relegated to second class citizens, ”

He can state whatever opinion he wants. We don’t censor or ban, or you would have been gone a long time ago. Your problem, is that you claim absolute factual certainty in your claims, and yet disregard other’s opinions as worthless and not having any relevent grounding in unique personal experiences. And your a commie spy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 21, 2009 at 13:28

” null December 21, 2009 at 1:24 pm
“Am I close, or way off? Tell us about yourself, or we will all assume that I am right.”

You randomly make something up, or describe your latest hallucination, and if someone doesn’t deny it then it must be true? lol”

Apparently I nailed it. Otherwise he would have told us something about himself. GOOOAAAAL!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 21, 2009 at 13:35

The below is from Roissy’s site:

______________________________________________

Why 99.9% of history’s accomplishments have been achieved by men:

Researchers using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study brain activation have found that men and women respond differently to positive and negative stimuli, according to a study presented today at the annual meeting of theRadiological Society of North America (RSNA).

“Men may direct more attention to sensory aspects of emotional stimuli and tend to process them in terms of implications for required action, whereas women direct more attention to the feelings engendered by emotional stimuli,” said Andrzej Urbanik, M.D., Ph.D., chair of Radiology at Jagiellonian University Hospital in Krakow, Poland.

Like a little fifteen year old girl, defending her feelings inside.

How does that old saying go? Men win the argument to win the group. Women win the group to win the argument. Which preference is more likely to lead one away from the truth? I’ve said it before: Suffrage is the poison pill that eventually destroys the body politic of a nation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Icaros2K December 21, 2009 at 13:47

Does feminism work?

It can work for some time as stated in the piece. The issue I would raise would be with the catch-all term feminism used here. Some parts of the feminist thought just might be compatible with a humane long-term civilization, but obviously not all (wide-spread lesbian separatism, anyone?). To bring the discussion to a more concrete level, it might also be useful to consider different societies instead of a whole “civilization”, western or otherwise. Some arrangements and people might fare better than others.

Troll discussion: The trouble for me regarding “null” isn’t in its existance, but the replies. I can easily enough skip his/her messages, but it’s not that easy to spot the countless replies made by others. Signal/noise ratio goes way down, and I have better things to do than wade through countless uninformative messages, which don’t add that much to the discussion. Result: less comments read, value of the site brought down.

If you want to converse with null, please at minimum start your message with the nick (e.g. @null).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
null December 21, 2009 at 13:48

“We denounce feminism. + You denounce us. = Feminist troll”

I denounce you and feminism because you are both dangerous extremists. And since when did denouncing the men’s rights movement make anyone a troll? Do you have even the slightest idea what a troll is, or the capability to find out?

“(and a female to boot) yes, I know you aren’t a chick, we just like saying it because it pisses you off)”

Ah, so you say random inflammatory things for the sole purpose of provoking a response… hey, isn’t that kind of like trolling?

“He can state whatever opinion he wants.”

Which is hardly the point. Apparently Brian is not derailing anything at all when he makes such a comment, yet when I respond to his comment I am somehow derailing the thread? That does not make sense at all.

“Your problem, is that you claim absolute factual certainty in your claims, and yet disregard other’s opinions as worthless and not having any relevent grounding in unique personal experiences.”

Hint: this emotional drivel does not actually mean anything.

“And your a commie spy.”

And you need heavy amounts of psychiatric help, though you’re possibly so far gone that even that will not help.

“Apparently I nailed it. Otherwise he would have told us something about himself. GOOOAAAAL!!”

You are retarded.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
null December 21, 2009 at 13:50

Icaros2K: “Troll discussion: The trouble for me regarding “null” isn’t in its existance, but the replies. I can easily enough skip his/her messages, but it’s not that easy to spot the countless replies made by others. Signal/noise ratio goes way down, and I have better things to do than wade through countless uninformative messages, which don’t add that much to the discussion. Result: less comments read, value of the site brought down.”

I have not done any trolling and it impossible for you to prove otherwise.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
iron clad December 21, 2009 at 13:50

Ther are several post that are so well articulated , that I print them , send the out to my laminator , so they my be lent out and passed from hand to hand , person to person , without the risk of damage to the document . This proceedure also allows for the preservation of the said script for very long periods of time , if in the event something fowl should fall upon the innernet from the “Pretty-Commitee-censors ” . This action , also allows me , to hand deliver , in private , to whom I want the infoformation viewed . The fact that it is laminated , shows to the potental reader , the high regaurd to which the infomation which it is held by its provider….. Novaseeker’ last comment is in route to said laminator….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gordon Gekko December 21, 2009 at 13:50

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that patriarchy, for lack of a better word, is good. Patriarchy is right, patriarchy works.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
David December 21, 2009 at 13:54

This is a point that should be made as often as possible: that men created and continue to create civilisation. Metaphorically, men built the house and women’s role was to decorate and make it comfortable. Now women want to help build the house, but they don’t really know how and things are starting to fall apart.

I suspect we are stuck with women voting, but it is probably that which has led to feminism in the West, with male politicians pandering to women voters by offering them lots of goodies (ultimately paid for by other men.) As I wrote on another forum, men are always very generous with other men’s resources.

The fact that really upsets feminists is that, if every intellectual accomplishment of a woman suddenly disappeared over night, no-one would notice.

And I agree with Brian. Women are beneath men in the natural order. When both sexes accept that, there is peace and happiness.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Jabherwochie December 21, 2009 at 13:57

@Null-

You are truly humorless.

Troll:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2] Otherwise known as; Null, Urinal, uriNull, void, .[3]

Damn. Even dictionary.com has your ticket.

I drink your milkshake! I drink it up!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
null December 21, 2009 at 14:01

“Damn. Even dictionary.com has your ticket.”

So you finally learned how to use Google and look up a real definition. Too bad you either don’t understand the definition or you are deliberately making erroneous claims about other people by falsely accusing them of trolling (while trying real hard to ignore the fact that you yourself have engaged in textbook examples of trolling).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 21, 2009 at 14:02

@Null-

controversial – yep, even to feminists
inflammatory – to us, yep, you piss us off good
extraneous – exceedingly, not one pearl of wisdom, or unique insight
off-topic – the real topic, most definitely

y0u = troll

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
null December 21, 2009 at 14:07

Alright, so you don’t understand the definition. At all. I’m glad we cleared that up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
G December 21, 2009 at 14:15

Responding to a troll makes you a troll yourself, fools.

Checked the Coral Castle, what a load of bullshit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
null December 21, 2009 at 14:20

“Responding to a troll makes you a troll yourself, fools.”

No, I’m afraid it doesn’t work like that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 21, 2009 at 14:29

Thanks all for the kind words about my comment above. I will reformat this evening and post as a standalone — it touches on many points in Jack’s fantastic post, but it probably merits a separate discussion, and also should not distract from the discussion of Jack’s article here, which we should get back to once we are done feeding sidebar conversations with interlopers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Hestia December 21, 2009 at 14:50

Does feminism work? It seems to be good for women, at least on the surface
Even on the surface feminism doesn’t work and is a terrible ideology for women themselves and everybody else. Feminism is at odds with a woman becoming a mature, capable adult as to affirm even the most basic feminist thoughts requires a woman to transform herself into a victim who has been oppressed by the patriarchy for time eternal. Such a mindset is not healthy and will force a woman to become bitter and less than what she could have been, as she’ll blame the world for her ills rather than attempt to better herself. Why bother trying at all when the world is out to get you, as the feminists claim it is?

The many “freedoms” feminism has brought about are also at odds with a woman improving herself. Even under the stereotypical “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen” patriarchy that feminists speak of, a woman would grow up and mature as a result of her domestic duties and motherhood. Marriage and motherhood done well, with a woman deeply invested in her husband and children through thick and thin is an initiation to take a young selfish girl to mature womanhood where she can complement men and raise her children well.

Finally, feminism even at its most basic level is an ideology that denies women can do wrong. When the “dark feminine” cannot be acknowledged, women cannot learn how to master their dark side and hurt themselves and many others as they walk through life without putting this part of themselves through examination and discipline. (On the flipside, having only the “dark masculine” acknowledged harms men in our feminized culture, not allowing them any healthy celebration and acceptable of masculinity and all the positives that come with this birthright as men.)

Reinholt-A society in which you insist on using your least productive members in high-value jobs is also foolish.
Very foolish indeed, not only because the job doesn’t get done but because those who ought be the thinkers, leaders, and pillars of society/community wind up being pushed aside to award the less worthy. This is precisely how feminism has helped to disenfranchise men, not only telling men that masculinity is worthless but instituting policies and ideals about fairness that effectively make the contribution of men worthless. “Anything a man can do a woman can do better” the feminists squawk loudly. Under patriarchy, excellence not fairness/equality is what would be celebrated, allowing for the best investment in society to occur, civilization to survive, and a cultural to flourish.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Brian December 21, 2009 at 15:06

Well said, Hestia. Your last sentence in particular is excellently stated.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
E. Steven Berkimer December 21, 2009 at 15:12

Does Feminism work? As a political entity, yes. As a social entity, no.

Feminism has attempted to get values changed by law, not by changing social mores and attitudes. If everything that you want must be codified by law, then it isn’t equality on it’s own merits, it’s force. And force only works for so long. Over time, when you are constantly in fear of the force being applied, it loses it’s effectiveness. Which is what we are seeing now. Feminism is waning, because we’ve been under threat of punishment for not following the current feminist law setup for so long, that the threat just doesn’t scare us anymore.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Renee December 21, 2009 at 15:18

Look, responding to null with insults is just as trollish as any trollish comments. All it leads to is back-and-forth, tic-for-tat arguements. For what it’s worth, I don’t support calling each other “idiots” like null did or any other names, but his very first post wasn’t that trollish. It was related to the discussion, he/she just disagreed with it. Instead of just shouting “TROLL”, maybe ya’ll could of just rebutted his comparison. At least it would’ve been on topic.

“We denounce feminism. + You denounce us. = Feminist troll”

I absolutely disagree with this just so you know. A person can disagree with certain points and not support feminism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee December 21, 2009 at 15:22

Anyway,

But women can pursue exciting careers and buy lots of stuff. These things make them feel important. And feeling important is something

I’m sorry, but do you really think that only reason women pursue careers is to “buy lots of stuff”?

About this whole idea of men being superior.

I believe in the idea of different but equal. I don’t believe that one sex is better or superior than the other. Both are good at certain things, both are weak at certain things. By working together, they make up for each other’s weakness. Now of course this is VERY idealistic, but I think that this is how it was meant to be.

Ragnar,

They don’t think/plan ahead, don’t invent, don’t make music…

Are you talking about historically or overall (especially about the music part

Hestia,

The many “freedoms” feminism has brought about are also at odds with a woman improving herself. Even under the stereotypical “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen” patriarchy that feminists speak of, a woman would grow up and mature as a result of her domestic duties and motherhood. Marriage and motherhood done well, with a woman deeply invested in her husband and children through thick and thin is an initiation to take a young selfish girl to mature womanhood where she can complement men and raise her children well.

I don’t dispute this, but do you think that the only way a girl can mature into womanhood is by getting married and having kids?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Maximus December 21, 2009 at 15:24

Joey,

I don’t know if someone has commented already on the pyramids, lots of comments and good ones by the way… but I saw a documentary that did solve how the pyramids were built.

Blocks… how did they move all those blocks?

Take a flat piece of sturdy wood.

Cut it into a circle just inches LARGER than the square block you want to move.

Now. Place the stone “square” you need to move in the middle of it.

Still see the circle?

Square in the middle?

CUT the square out of the circle.

At the square points where the circle will be, if perfect, just barely intact, and separate what remains of the circle into FOUR semi-spherical pieces.

Attach these sphericals to your “square” stone block on all sides.

And voila!

Just tie ropes around the “wheels” you made and roll that tonne of brick up to the top my friend.

I was amazed when I saw a guy demonstrate it.

Great site and I hail from Canada

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Mr.M December 21, 2009 at 15:28

Mr. M and iron clad, it is plainly obvious that Jabherwochie is paranoid and delusional. Just read his posts if that isn’t too much trouble.

I tend to read this site for its contributors’ content; sometimes this includes comments sometimes it doesn’t. I definitely don’t spend my time trying to decipher who is paranoid and who is not. In the off-chance I would discern someone to be crazy (Lady R…what?), I def wouldn’t wield around such presumptions to win an online argument.

Even if you WERE right, for sake of argument, that jabher is paranoid………….Woohoo…………………!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
InternetWood December 21, 2009 at 15:30

Another point, that I think few understand, is that high levels of immigration are NECESSARY AND INEVITABLE in order to support feminism.

Feminism means discarding the ‘unworthy’ men. Yet men are still needed.

Imports are required.

You CAN NOT ‘discard’ 10 or 20 or 80 percent of men as “losers” and just go along as if nothing happened. Yet a fairly large percentage of men need to be made examples of on a continual basis.(See prison system.) Without immigration, a substantial man-deficit would be created almost immediately.

This is already happening in England, they just don’t talk about it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Mr.M December 21, 2009 at 15:38

Following up on what Internetwood said:

Did the older civilizations mentioned in the sequel article/comment by Nova, that is, the Sparta, Babylon, and Rome, have increased immigration as feminism crept in?

Granted these civilizations all fell, just wondering if immigration, if present, prolonged such a fall.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Renee December 21, 2009 at 15:50

I admit, I was one of those who fell for the whole “Patriarchy is evil” thing. Well, not to the extent of finding it evil; just that the system in general denied women rights and opportunities, and that they were treated as second class citizens – or so they say. Although I never wanted a matriarchy (or never thought that it would led to a matriarchy), there were some things that I agreed with feminists on.

Now I realized that while the whole “treated as second class citizens” thing was probably true in civilization’s early history, by the Victorian era, many things said about the societal treatment of women were either not true, or it had a good and logical explanation.

While there are things that I’m a little iffy on or don’t really agree with in regards to gender relations when it comes to sex, working women,voting, etc., it’s easy and obvious to see that Patriarchy works.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Novaseeker December 21, 2009 at 15:52

All of these places were societies with a lot of slave labor, which can be compared to illegal immigration. Illegal migrants are different from slaves in that they are not purchased and then amortized, but rather are paid, so it is more expensive, but still subversive enough to the economic order all the same.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
InternetWood December 21, 2009 at 16:14

I didn’t look through many articles, but there seems universal agreement that Rome “barbarian-ized” their army as they went downhill.

So yes, later Rome used immigrants. As soldiers!

http://www.historynet.com/romes-barbarian-mercenaries.htm

http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=22680

Sparta’s entire economy was based on massive use of slaves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel December 21, 2009 at 16:18

@jabher

Suffrage is the poison pill……

This is good for a chuckle. Of course, it’s a low blow, how many men can define suffrage?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
tspoon December 21, 2009 at 16:50

@Hestia “Finally, feminism even at its most basic level is an ideology that denies women can do wrong”

True, although to be fair, that tendency was already very well established in british societies, and it’s colonies, since the mid 19th century at least. Once more of course, history had to repeat itself to prove yet again how inaccurate that idea is.

@Hestia – ““Anything a man can do a woman can do better” the feminists squawk loudly. Under patriarchy, excellence not fairness/equality is what would be celebrated, allowing for the best investment in society to occur, civilization to survive, and a cultural to flourish.”

Exactly, and if this were the case everyone would be happy. Most males will accept the knowledge they don’t have what it takes to join the elite of humanity, although they may not stop trying. Why so hard for the modern woman to accept, if in fact that is the case?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
21Guns December 21, 2009 at 17:11

I don’t dispute this, but do you think that the only way a girl can mature into womanhood is by getting married and having kids?

It’s the most natural way, but not the only way. Any situation where a girl is needed by people who genuinely depend on her is going to have a maturing effect. It can be students, animals, the elderly, medical patients, the poor, etc.

Or even employees, if you’re one of those rare people capable of running a business as if it were a family. Unfortunately, that kind of thing is considered bad for business these days.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Brian December 21, 2009 at 19:49

So it’s okay for Brian to post that women should be stripped of their civil rights and relegated to second class citizens, but not okay for me to criticize him for it by pointing out that we may as well bring back slavery?

Adults have more rights than children. For example, no one under 18 is allowed to vote in the United States. Yet, no one would seriously argue that children are held in bondage as slaves, or that they are second-class citizens.

To allow women to vote is a huge error based on a fundamental mis-reading of female nature. The female core is self-centered. They do not have objective standards as far as men’s needs and interests are concerned. Women seek above all to maximize their own choices and freedoms and will do so, if allowed un-impeded, at the expense of men and even society.

And so when women go into politics, society crumbles. Or if you want to reverse the cause-effect relationship: when society crumbles, women go into politics. In any event, the mass participation of women in politics — whether they run for office or just merely vote — is symptomatic of deep societal decay. Another symptom of that decay is the vast numbers of women in professional career positions in the workplace.

I believe that a strong, healthy society (i.e., a patriarchy) will eventually have to reduce at least some of the freedoms and rights that women today enjoy. And that means controls — be they legal, traditional, religious, or even physical — must be reimposed on women. Again, to use the adult/child analogy, the adults must guide and lead the children, even impose some controls on their movements, while at the same time allowing them room to explore, develop, and grow into mature, capable citizens. And all the while, keeping a close watch on them to make sure they don’t get into — or make — trouble.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
schwing December 21, 2009 at 20:01

Jabherwochie, null is tactically trolling you. Silence is the cure, for your reasoned words will not have their intended effect. Indeed, he/she/it will revel in your rising frustration, since that is its precise objective.

Easier said than done, but strive to avoid any direct response.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Red December 21, 2009 at 20:38

Who are the slaves of the American republic? We are. But it’s more like serfdom. We work to support women who get knocked up and produce the next generation of looser kids. Men get out of line at work (say something funny) off to be verbally whipped by the HR director. Try to opt out of paying for someone else’s kid, go to jail. If you give up 50% of everything you earn to support women’s bad choices then you are a serf.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
iron clad December 21, 2009 at 23:01

” MALE SPAWNED – “Inventiveness” …” THE ” ALPHA-TRAIT..of “HUMANKIND”… BRAINS =”PATRIARCHY”… GASP AGOG ! ! ! “

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Throbert McGee December 22, 2009 at 01:27

Brian shares:

The female core is self-centered. They do not have objective standards as far as men’s needs and interests are concerned. Women seek above all to maximize their own choices and freedoms and will do so, if allowed un-impeded, at the expense of men and even society.

Brian, you big silly, just because YO MAMA was a child-like, self-absorbed, bling-bling- chasin’ welfare queen who couldn’t plan past next Thursday, doesn’t mean you can make a sweeping generalization that ALL women are similarly impaired.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
null December 22, 2009 at 01:39

schwing: “Jabherwochie, null is tactically trolling you.”

No, you are trolling. The modus operandi of trolls like you is to divert any given thread into an argument about trolling by randomly accusing someone of trolling for no reason.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
iron clad December 22, 2009 at 01:44

? Is a “Princess” ….a….”Queen”, who’s time has yet to come ?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
sestamibi December 22, 2009 at 02:28

Yawn. Jack, everything you say is true, but nothing new to see here. Move along.

http://tinyurl.com/3ykeej

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
just curious December 22, 2009 at 06:10

@Brian
“The female core is self-centered. They do not have objective standards as far as men’s needs and interests are concerned. Women seek above all to maximize their own choices and freedoms and will do so, if allowed un-impeded, at the expense of men and even society.”

Grameen Bank in Bangladesh has been giving out microloans (starting at $27) to poor people since 1976. Although back in 1976 they were giving out loans to both men and women, what they discovered was that women were less likely to default on their loans and were using earnings from small businesses they started to benefit the entire family (such as prolong schooling for children) and more importantly the community by circulating the money instead of spending it on alcohol. As women showed themselves to be more reliable and responsible the program started to focus on lending to women. Therefore I do not understand why it is categorically claimed on this site that women are morally inferior to men.

@Novaseeker

“In other words, the societies thrive, and this gives rise to demands from women to participate in the success and prosperity, and men generally acquiesce (at least the powerful ones do) at some stage — and that acquiescence pretty much always takes the form of relaxing the strictures of marriage and allowing women to exist “independently” from men — sexually and otherwise.”

Women were not released from their “chains” because men wanted to be fair. Nope, men did it to make more money, to have more consumers and thus make greater profits; in other words selfish, selfish, selfish. For example why did women start smoking publicly in the 1920′s ? Cigarette companies realized that they could sell more cigarettes by targeting women. Through PR tricks they presented cigarettes as torches of liberation for women. It was in the interest of cigarette companies to promote gender equality so that they can double their sales. Therefore, this type of selfish female liberation is a symptom of a deeper problem and not the problem itself (at least when we speak of the contemporary Western civilization). The problem is the underlying pursuit of self interest in patriarchal societies that leads to liberation of both men and women as strictly consumers. And if one of the most important aspects of patriarchy (self interest) leads to its own destruction (women and men going through a frenzy of consuming things and people alike) well, how can you claim patriarchy works? As you sow so shall you reap.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Jack Donovan December 22, 2009 at 06:17

sestamibi-

Nope. Nothing new. But in our society, because it is NOT accepted as a given, it is something that has to be presented and re-presented to new audiences of men over and over again. Thanks for the link.

Jabherwochie December 22, 2009 at 07:53

For those people who like to always be on topic, ignore this rant, even though its about being on topic.

Renee-

“””“We denounce feminism. + You denounce us. = Feminist troll”

I absolutely disagree with this just so you know. A person can disagree with certain points and not support feminism.”””

I understand your frustration, and your point is completely valid, but anything I say to UriNull is just done for sport. I don’t particularly put a lot of thought into my responses to a female feminist troll spy. I’m just shooting from the hip when battling trolls, as they are not worthy of careful aim, so expect plenty of missfires. When I’m trying to discover actual insight into truth and reality, my post will generally be long and I will encourage deconstruction and debate, and answer peoples concerns (I’m sure I’ll put a couple lame jokes through out it, but my tone should be slightly less silly). I apologize for my inconsistency. Formality is quite difficult for some people, just as cutting loose is for others. I am what I am.

“””” “schwing December 21, 2009 at 8:01 pm

Jabherwochie, null is tactically trolling you. Silence is the cure, for your reasoned words will not have their intended effect. Indeed, he/she/it will revel in your rising frustration, since that is its precise objective.

Easier said than done, but strive to avoid any direct response.””””

Its amazing how I’m always called out for responding to trolls (Yes, Null, your not a real troll, we know, you’re a magical fairy troll (MFT) who brings delite and wonder to us all) when so many other people do also, and even though I treat a troll in a silly, condescending, nonreverential way, people think I’m somehow unknowingly under their spell. Look. I know I’m a big dork, but if ya’ll could put a little faith in my magic, I can contain the MFT with deflection, dismissal, and humor, and then we can all sit back and either enjoy the show, or skim past any post by Jabherwochie and Null. If I have something important to say, I’ll put in the header, “SILENCE! Jabherwochie Speaks! Let your ears orgasim to the infinite wisdom of the wocky’s jabber!”…..or something like that…… My point is, I’ve been following men’s issues for about 10 years, almost got kicked out of my major b/c of it, lost my first adult job to it, and continue to spread the word in my actual daily interactions with sheeple, so I’ve been shoveling my gravel, and much of what is talked about here is old news to me, or at least fits comfortably into my mental framework of the issues. I was familiar with several of the authors of this site long before The Spearhead formed, and I’m familiar with many of their ideas, and I don’t need to waste my time further inflating their ego’s (come on guys, you know you like the power of influence you possess) by echoing in their royal chambers. Instead, I like to hang around and look for major flaws in our theories, so they don’t make us look stupid when we make it to the big show, so only occasionly do I step in with real debate, and even then, its still mostly all in good fun (or misdirected rage, but thats fun also). So if I want to hang around with my second family, and shoot the shit for shits and giggles, I will, and if that involves troll slaying, just let me to my bliss. I don’t mind getting caught up in circular debates with people who refuse to give ground, I’ve been doing that my whole life, and I acutally think some of what we say to the naysayers sinks in, even if they would deny it to their grave, and although I’m sure it wastes precious space and time here in the comments section, I’ve got a funny feeling some other people enjoy the fracas and even like to jump in sometimes themselves. Same reason I don’t mind getting pissed once in a while despite the down side of it poorly reflecting on my credibility. I’m not sure if I care about my credibility all that much, it will sure as hell get dragged through the mud when I implement Operation: Angry Harry Event (SHHHH!, its a secret), so I might as well disregard it now. I leave it up to the more sophisticated and refined minds here to distill the pearls of insight from the verbal diarrha of my scattered mind. My main cause right now, my main point in being here, is to fight, and to inspire that fighting spirit in others. Fighting, in all its forms, might the the one thing I’m best at, and thats what I offer to the MRA movement, the movement that has given so much to me already. I offer the sacrifice of my very “character” to this fight, as my character has only held me back in the past anyways. So love me or hate me, I’m here to inflame a war, a war that has been a long time coming. Too long. I’ll let better men then me finish it. Excuse me while I charge head first into the enemy lines. Hopefully it will inspire two more, who will inspire two more, who will eventually inspire an unstoppable juggernaut. We’re not going to win this with polite discourse. Anger is a valuable gift from God (see, ray, I believe also, my God just encompasses yours) and is of vital importance, if not, we would have disregarded it in the evolutionary arms race of humanity long ago, and its time we recognize that. Anger will start this war, anger will see us through it, and anger will win it. Thats just the reality of war. My humor is a counter balance to that, so that the anger doesn’t blind us or overwhelm us. So I’m silly and pissed, and both for good reason. There is a method to my madness. You all have your own plans, agendas, and courses of action, and I have mine, and mine involves troll slaying, as my childlike imagination enjoys the whimsy of it. So many of you could growdown some. Always being so adult is soo boring. Plus, Welmer will know when to pull the plug on it, if it comes to that. All he needs to do is say the word, and I’ll listen. So far he’s done a damn fine job of attracting attention to this site, maintaining it, and encouraging debate. If you don’t trust me, trust him. I’m just the sprinkles on his cupcake. Do you all really want a world without sprinkles? Thats rhetorical, I don’t really care, I’m going to fucking sprinkle, and only Welmer can stop me. MUUHahahaha! MUuHAHAHAHA!

(My evil alter ego, the troll slayer and silly master-debater, shall now post under the name Dr. Sprinkles. That should help ya’ll skim over me.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
E. Steven Berkimer December 22, 2009 at 08:08

Ok, glad to be the first to say, thank you, jabherwochie. That was awesome. Speaking for myself, feel free to continue to annoy and harass UriNull. It’s hilarious to read.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt December 22, 2009 at 08:22

Jab,

You get called out because you do it consistently, predictably, without any seeming awareness of the fact that the troll is using you to de-rail threads, and with the longest responses.

I could make money betting that you will respond to null.

The squeaky wheel gets the kick. Null is a creature to be ignored, nothing more. Just move along. Nothing to see here. Nobody will get worked up if everyone knows null is a vapid, vacuous non-entity when everyone ignores it.

As to some other comments, I pretty much stated my piece above, but think that “equality” being warped into “help me to be lazy and not try hard” is the fundamental problem in all facets with feminism; Hestia sums that up on the personal front as well, but we should never eliminate discrimination on the basis of actual talent. That’s the one time it matters.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
null December 22, 2009 at 08:26

Jabherwochie: “I don’t particularly put a lot of thought into my responses to a female feminist troll spy.”

None of these accusations can be proven.

“I’m just shooting from the hip when battling trolls, as they are not worthy of careful aim, so expect plenty of missfires.”

If you want to rid the world of trolls, you should start by killing yourself.

“”

You take trolling to an entirely new level. Most people are content with quick drive-by trolling but you have to write a goddamn essay.

Berkimer: “Ok, glad to be the first to say, thank you, jabherwochie. That was awesome. Speaking for myself, feel free to continue to annoy and harass UriNull. It’s hilarious to read.”

Hey, guess what: that behavior is trolling.

Reinholt: “You get called out because you do it consistently, predictably, without any seeming awareness of the fact that the troll is using you to de-rail threads, and with the longest responses.”

Right… I’m “using” people to derail threads, because the possibility that they’re doing the derailing all by themselves without any help from anyone is just way too crazy to even contemplate. You sound like a fucking feminist who thinks the “patriarchy” is manipulating her into doing things.

“Null is a creature to be ignored, nothing more. Just move along. Nothing to see here.”

Yeah, trolls like you keep saying this in order to keep the trolling argument going. You never actually ignore anyone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman December 22, 2009 at 08:39

“They can say only that “maybe women would have done great things if they would have been allowed to.””
There is no evidence in all of mankind that women, in general, will do invent or innovate in an area that is ‘all their own’. Women did not invent forceps despite being the midwives for 10,000 years. ‘Tongs’ were an invention of the bronze age, I believe, for holding on to heating metal. Yet women did not adapt this invention even when it would save the lives of many women and children. Women can not point to ANY substantial inventions that they did all by themselves. Men? We have all of civilization to point to. Women do not have the intellectual capacity to invent or innovate. The evidence is all around you, yet so many men still refuse to accept the truth of the matter.

Novaseeker December 21, 2009 at 7:05 am
As Nova points out…this has happened many times before…when the Illuminati want to collapse a society the promote ‘womens liberation’…It’s not accident that this has happened so many times before…women today are just as brainless as they were 2000 years ago…you can be sure men are telling them what to do.

“Sweden, here we come, baby!”
And do not forget large companies have been fleeing sweden like rats from a sinking ship because of the stupidly high company taxes. Sweden is collapsing.

Mr.M December 21, 2009 at 10:50 am
“it actually inspires me, or at least gives satisfaction knowing that I can choose the path of roissy and be swimming in vaj at 41.”
Dude, I will be 46 next month and in the last 20 months I’ve gotten at least 10x more sex and at least 2x as good as I ever got as a married man. I was saying to a friend I would be happy to die now after all the great lovemaking and sex I have had the last 20 months. Most men die without ever having that experience. Not that I want to die…I now want to keep this going for as long as I can.

just curious December 22, 2009 at 6:10 am
“Women were not released from their “chains” because men wanted to be fair. Nope, men did it to make more money, to have more consumers and thus make greater profits; in other words selfish, selfish, selfish.”
Typical stupid and ignorant woman. MEN created feminism to destroy society and replace it with their New World Order. Women never do ANYTHING of ANY significance…..why do we continue to allow women to post here when 99.9% of what they post is crap? Let them post on feministing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
porkchop December 22, 2009 at 08:51

@just curious
 
“Therefore I do not understand why it is categorically claimed on this site that women are morally inferior to men.”
 
You are purposefully being naïve to make a false point.  Bangladesh is not the Anglosphere, and Brian’s original comments pertain to the West, not Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, etc.  If you look objectively at what women have done with the political power they have obtained in the US, it is easy to come to the conclusion that women are self-centered and will seek to maximize their own choices (often immoral) at the expense of men, children and society.  Simply look at divorce law.  Most women in this country are fully aware of the corruption of the family court system, but hardly any speak up to fight it.  They don’t speak up about it, and often purposefully try to stifle any serious discussion of the topic, because it benefits them and they want to continue to reap the benefits of that corrupt system even if it means destroying society.
 
“Women were not released from their “chains” because men wanted to be fair.”
 
Again, you are falsely framing the argument.  Women in the West never had “chains” on them to begin with.  Being privileged is not the same as being a slave.   
 
“Nope, men did it to make more money…”
 
Assuming this is true, you are confusing a few powerful men in corporations for men in general.  Most of what is being discussed on this site regarding women is about the average woman in this country, not just a few at the top.  The point you try to make about the lack of integrity and greed regarding men applies to a few at the top, not men in general. 
 
“As you sow so shall you reap.”
 
Yes, the abuse and degradation of men by women will come at a cost, and one that women like you will not want to pay.  You won’t have a choice in the matter though since this gynocracy is not sustainable.
 

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 22, 2009 at 09:05

“Jab,

You get called out because you do it consistently, predictably, without any seeming awareness of the fact that the troll is using you to de-rail threads, and with the longest responses.

I could make money betting that you will respond to null.”

I believe that is a bit of an overstatement (I only post 9 to 5 on weekdays at work, plus I’m aware of what a troll is doing, I just don’t care, I thought I made that point in my long winded rant), but as I like and respect you so much, I’ll take your word for it and tone it down. I’m guilty of being an attention whore. At least I admit that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 22, 2009 at 09:17

@E. Steven Berkimer-

Thanks. One man’s trash is another man’s treasure I guess. However, I will try not to litter so much out of respect for the team. Concentration; ON.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Learner December 22, 2009 at 10:57

Do you all really want a world without sprinkles?

Heh, this is hillarious.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dr. Sprinkles December 22, 2009 at 11:48

Mock me at your own peril!

Today, I conquer The-Spearhead; tomorrow, the entire state of New Jersey!
(Hey, they’re asking for it. Have you seen Jersey Shore!? If I haven’t ever seen a more appropriate slave race, then slap me silly and call me grandma? After that, I’ll probably just retire and settle down with my guido harem….or is that guidette harem? Those silly wops and their slang. They make Dr. Sprinkles giggle. Sigh. I shall treat them well.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee December 22, 2009 at 12:33

Porkchop,

Assuming this is true, you are confusing a few powerful men in corporations for men in general. Most of what is being discussed on this site regarding women is about the average woman in this country, not just a few at the top. The point you try to make about the lack of integrity and greed regarding men applies to a few at the top, not men in general

This is interesting. You say that much of what is being discussed on this site about women is in regards the average female, while what “just curious” described applies to only men “at the top”. What makes you so sure that it applies to only them? Not saying that men in general are greedy and lack integrity, I just think it’s interesting how you’re so sure that it only applies to men at top. How is that any different than a woman saying that the average female isn’t like what you described?

Brian,

I believe that a strong, healthy society (i.e., a patriarchy) will eventually have to reduce at least some of the freedoms and rights that women today enjoy. And that means controls — be they legal, traditional, religious, or even physical — must be reimposed on women. Again, to use the adult/child analogy, the adults must guide and lead the children, even impose some controls on their movements, while at the same time allowing them room to explore, develop, and grow into mature, capable citizens. And all the while, keeping a close watch on them to make sure they don’t get into — or make — trouble.

So adults=men, women=children? Based on the adult/child analogy, I don’t agree with the insinuation that men knows what’s best for women or that they’re the “adult”. None of us are perfect; men and women both have flaws, so to say that one is the “adult” while one is the “child” is kind of ridiculous. I’d say that we all have childish tendecies.

But perhaps I’m speaking too generally.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Dr. Sprinkles December 22, 2009 at 12:54

@Renee-

In reference to both your post, one thing that is important to keep in mind is the preponderance of male outliers.

As it relates to the first discussion, men who reach the top of the capitalistic hierarchy are often ambitious, ruthless, intelligent, and hard working, so yes, most men are not like that, or at least to the extreme extent that Apex Alphas are, those sociopaths who give men a bad name.

In relation to your second discussion, I tend to side with you, as there are men who are at both ends of the bellcurve; very responsible and very irresponsible. So where as women who choose a mate wisely should defer to said mate, many women choose irresponsible fools, who are more child like then any women. For the average man, since men are less affected by emotions, it may be better for him to have final say on matters of importance, like finances.

I’m actually a very moderate MRA in the sense that I would love to be equals with women, but women don’t want a man who is an equal at heart. They want the best man they can get, so that means and outlier, and that means, even if you are an average man, you should act superior, hence “Game”. Its like being programmed to crave fat and sugar to the point of it making us obese. Women crave something that is actually harmful in too large a dose. Women don’t want healthy average men, like healthy boring food. They want extreme men, with status worthy characteristics like wealth, athleticism, looks, charisma, or power, and if they can get it, they’ll take all three. But just like the downsides of too much fat and sugar, men with those extreme dominant characteristics will naturally be assholes and not treat women well. Women want something that is inherently unhealthy for a long term stable relationship based on equality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Jabherwochie December 22, 2009 at 12:55

That above post is me. I forgot to switch my identities. This might get messy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 22, 2009 at 12:58

ambitious, ruthless, intelligent, and hard working…

I should have added emotionless, or stoic, or emotioinally cold, whichever you prefer. Many ultra-successful people get that way because emotions don’t hender their decision making skills or give them pause as they crush their opponents underneath them on their way to the top.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 22, 2009 at 13:01

” all three”

Apparantly I can’t count today. My wife actually takes care of the finances.

HEY team!! Stop throwing rotten fruit at me! I hate finances! It bores me! Ouch!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Renee December 22, 2009 at 13:03

Thanks Jabherwochie. While I hope it doesn’t get messy, I wouldn’t be surprised.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
porkchop December 22, 2009 at 13:04

@Renee
 
“just curious” used a specific example of cigarette companies marketing their product to women to make a point of men and the patriarchy being selfish, greedy and self destructive.  I made the easy to understand point that the people behind such marketing are not men in general, but a few top level execs.  Jack explained in his piece that a central component of the patriarchy is not tobacco execs, but nuclear families with men at their lead.  Clearly, the example she chose does not apply to men in general, while the example of divorce courts that I chose, does apply to women across our entire society.
 
“Not saying that men in general are greedy and lack integrity, I just think it’s interesting how you’re so sure that it only applies to men at top.”
 
I’ve read other posts by you, and I know what side of the fence you are on.  Why don’t you just come out and say what you really want to say?
 

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Nemo December 22, 2009 at 13:07

Patriarchy inspires men to create more resources so that they can gain status and support their children. The Industrial Revolution is the best example of this. Before then, large surpluses of resources were only available to a select few, such as the upper classes of Rome or the court of the Great Khan or the rulers of the Inca Empire. This model of conquest was not sustainable for very long.

Feminism only appears in societies that have a surplus of resources. In other words, feminism is a parasitic system. It needs a strong host to survive, and if it becomes too virulent, it kills its host. If its host must compete with uninfected peers, it will lose. This is precisely what is happening to the US and Europe today. China and India are rising powers and the US and Europe are definitely declining powers in a relative sense and are sliding in the direction of decline in an absolute sense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie December 22, 2009 at 13:22

“Renee December 22, 2009 at 1:03 pm

Thanks Jabherwochie. While I hope it doesn’t get messy, I wouldn’t be surprised.”

Renee, are you cleverly insulting me? You don’t have to pull my pig-tails just to flirt with me. I already like you, so no need for games.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
just curious December 22, 2009 at 13:36

@porkchop
“If you look objectively at what women have done with the political power they have obtained in the US, it is easy to come to the conclusion that women are self-centered and will seek to maximize their own choices (often immoral) at the expense of men, children and society.”

I am not American so I immediately have a different mindset when entering this discussion. But Brian does state that women are selfish at their core, not American women, but women in general.
I am inclined to believe that women in America are behaving selfish as I have read some pretty bad stories on this website, however, I think men are behaving selfish as well. And selfishness of either of the genders is not a result of female liberation but a society driven by self interest.
Here is an article about a matriarchal society that shows what a women driven society would look like:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,627363,00.html

I am aware that there are limitations to drawing conclusions from such a small sample (ok, just 1 society), however, as there are not that many matriarchal societies this serves as some indication of what women really want.

The first thing I noticed is that this society seems complacent, they just sort of exist, and this could be considered as evidence that matriarchal societies would not invent much if given a chance. I will not argue against this. Moreover, this society could easily be invaded by a neighboring patriarchal society so I do not think it would stand the test of time. Therefore, I do believe that patriarchal civilization is more likely to survive and advance the human specie, be it for good or bad.

However, the second thing I noticed was that this is a violence absent society and a society where material possessions are considered irrelevant. Therefore, women enjoy status quo, if left to themselves they would very likely create a peaceful society where material possessions would not be important and tried to distribute goods so that everybody is happy. So although I accept that men are more driven to create I will not accept a statement that women are selfish at their core and materialistic. As a matter of fact, in this society it seems women do all the work, are considered responsible and try hard to keep everybody happy. The price they pay is complacency which I agree could be too high of a price. No risk, no gain.

“Again, you are falsely framing the argument. Women in the West never had “chains” on them to begin with. Being privileged is not the same as being a slave”

I placed chains in quotation marks. My point is that “female liberation” or whatever you want to call what happened was not granted by men wanting to be fair but by men at the top pursuing their self interest.

“Assuming this is true, you are confusing a few powerful men in corporations for men in general.  Most of what is being discussed on this site regarding women is about the average woman in this country, not just a few at the top.  The point you try to make about the lack of integrity and greed regarding men applies to a few at the top, not men in general. “

I am sorry to tell you this, but those few fat men on the top of the hierarchy are the ones that made it in the patriarchal society. This is how a patriarchal society is set up, men are hierarchical. And a guy at the top will not ask the guy at the bottom for his opinion, these are the facts of life. I grant you, America is a democratic society, however, the few men on the top started exploiting psychoanalysis to sell more products in the 1920′s. There was nothing guys at the bottom could do about “female liberation” with such strong support from the top as new “female” markets opened up for businesses.

“Yes, the abuse and degradation of men by women will come at a cost, and one that women like you will not want to pay.  You won’t have a choice in the matter though since this gynocracy is not sustainable.”

Most people in your country believe they live in a democracy and a meritocracy, and some believe it is idiocracy. In the last 15 years people on the top increased their income around 300%, middle class stagnated and poor got poorer. This goes to show where the power lies. Do not look at your women with dollar sings in their eyes taking out loans for their nth pair of shoes, I am not sure if they know what they are doing or thinking, look at the toooop. And I doubt that the guys on the top have time to write on this blog. They are out their making money and making sure they have plenty of it to leave to their kids so that they can make more money while all the betas stay down there in the dust. That is how a patriarchal society works after all, there is always that king on the top. Matriarchal society pays a price of complacency and a patriarchal society pays the price of constant war to get to the top.

Will women pay a price? Hm, history does not show that people or women get what they plan or deserve as a rule. But there could be an asteroid with my name on it, or a nuclear missile (being in the 2000 km radius from Iran). I’ll let you calculate the statistical probabilities, men are good at that, just look at Wall Street ;) .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lara December 22, 2009 at 13:36

Las lentillas contra la ceguera prevenible se llevan tres premios del Salón de Inventos de Ginebra

La doctora española Celia Sánchez Ramos, de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, ha sido galardonada como la mejor inventora del 2009 en una feria que reúne a las mejores innovaciones e inventos del mundo y concede una importancia especial a la investigación científica. Los premios que la organización concede pasan por ser los más prestigiosos que se pueden recibir en el campo de la innovación.
—————————-
Translation: this woman (Celia Sánchez Ramos) has been awarded as best inventor of year 2009 in Geneve (among inventors throughtout all the world) for creating contact lens that prevent from blindness; that´s just one but I´m sure you all know a lot more cases, but you don´t say, or avoid.
That has a name: cynicims

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Jabherwochie December 22, 2009 at 13:43

No man claims men aren’t violent assholes often enough. But laws and culture already take that all into account. Women are seen as angels, and society acts accordingly, even when women are just as selfish as men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Brian December 22, 2009 at 13:47

just curious wrote:

Grameen Bank in Bangladesh has been giving out microloans (starting at $27) to poor people since 1976. Although back in 1976 they were giving out loans to both men and women, what they discovered was that women were less likely to default on their loans and were using earnings from small businesses they started to benefit the entire family (such as prolong schooling for children) and more importantly the community by circulating the money instead of spending it on alcohol. As women showed themselves to be more reliable and responsible the program started to focus on lending to women. Therefore I do not understand why it is categorically claimed on this site that women are morally inferior to men.

My view is that women like you are out of your league when you attempt to apply skills for which you are generally not well-suited, namely, reasoned debate. The response above only reinforces that view.

It strikes me as both silly and desperate to believe that one obscure example taking place in the Third World can nullify the very real phenomenon of greedy, self-centered, rapacious women exploiting men and the current legal system in America and the West.

I don’t know if women are morally inferior to men, but judging from their overall actions, they do seem less capable of disciplined, reasonable behavior towards men when controls are liberalized to maximize female choices and freedoms — which is really what “gender equality” is all about.

As women are creatures of emotions, it is a waste of time debating them. They are by nature self-centered creatures. The majority of women will never be swayed by objective principles.

We should instead reach out and debate only men, because when more and more men understand what’s going on, they will take action, and then it won’t matter what women think.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Lara December 22, 2009 at 14:00

“women are creatures of emotions”
What??
Let me tell you one thing…if women think with their hearts, men think with their…their…(beeeeep).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Lara December 22, 2009 at 14:06

when more and more men go acting like this, and telling lies like women can´t invent, create or innovate, that are morally or intellectually inferior or other flatteries like this, hatred will be stirred up till heaven (or hell).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
fedrz December 22, 2009 at 14:10

Women are not more emotional than men.

Women have more kinds of emotions than men that can affect them, but the emotions that men have, affect men deeper.

Women have 100 different kinds of emotions pulling at them from all kinds of different directions, but none of these emotions penetrate deeply into her soul. Thus, she swashes from this way to that, changing her emotions on an hourly or by-the-minute basis.

Men have far fewer emotions, but the ones they have pierce straight through into his soul. Men have a much harder time getting over a failed love than women do, because “love” means more to men than it does to women – ie. For men, love is “real” (selfless), whereas for women, love is far more selfishly based.

The men standing on the deck of the Titanic were moved far more by their emotions than the women rowing away from the boat. Imagine the reverse – the men would have hopped overboard the lifeboats and clambored back up the side of the ship to save their wives, so inconcievable it would be to a man to expect a woman to die in his stead.

The men who write great poetry and create great art are men who have deep emotions, or emotional understanding.

Men commit suicide much more frequently than women – and what is the act of suicide more described as than the overwhelming emotions of despair that consume one’s soul?

Women have more emotions, but they are shallow. Men have less emotions, but they run deeper. Neither sex is actually more emotional than the other.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Renee December 22, 2009 at 14:11

Jab,
Uhhh, I was just saying thanks for the comment….
Maybe the joke went over my head :P

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
zimmy December 22, 2009 at 14:14

…hatred will be stirred up till heaven (or hell).

It’s too late; the last several decades have bore witness to intense misandry and
any male criticisms are merely retorts to all that hatred.

The “politically correct” Laras’ of the world are the new cultural dinosaurs.
They have advanced as far as their defensive natures allowed (them); any additional real truths and facts are too much real equality for them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Snark December 22, 2009 at 14:17

“Let me tell you one thing…if women think with their hearts, men think with their…their…(beeeeep).”

Their 6.5x more grey matter than women? (That’s the part of the brain used for problem solving.)

Or their testosterone, recently shown to encourage feelings of fair play?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Snark December 22, 2009 at 14:18

“hatred will be stirred up till heaven (or hell).”

Already happened, idiot. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but men could not be any more hated than we currently are.

The only way is up …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Lara December 22, 2009 at 14:24

fedrz:

You are right, but there´s something you don´t consider: women are genetically programmed to direct their children, not the men; whereas men are genetically programmed to direct to most of women (the most the best).
A woman suffers for her children deeply and in the first place.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
porkchop December 22, 2009 at 14:27

“As women are creatures of emotions, it is a waste of time debating them.  They are by nature self-centered creatures.  The majority of women will never be swayed by objective principles.”
 
Brian, I think “just curious” proved your point with her last couple of posts.  And if you read between the lines of her post, it reeks of Marxism, which isn’t surprising.
 

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee December 22, 2009 at 14:31

Fedz,
Well said.

Just curious,

I am inclined to believe that women in America are behaving selfish as I have read some pretty bad stories on this website, however, I think men are behaving selfish as well. And selfishness of either of the genders is not a result of female liberation but a society driven by self interest.

I agree, and I’m American ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Lara December 22, 2009 at 14:32

“Already happened, idiot”

————-

a good example of men´s less emotional performance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Novaseeker December 22, 2009 at 14:32

Moreover, this society could easily be invaded by a neighboring patriarchal society so I do not think it would stand the test of time. Therefore, I do believe that patriarchal civilization is more likely to survive and advance the human specie, be it for good or bad.

And you put your finger on why so few of these societies exist — they compete very badly with patriarchal societies and are easily overrun by them. Not because of what the *women* in matriarchal society are doing, but because of what the *men* are *not* doing. The men have no motivation at all in a matriarchy, and hence the society is left wide open to domination by other societies which provide men with motivation — patriarchal societies.

when more and more men go acting like this, and telling lies like women can´t invent, create or innovate, that are morally or intellectually inferior or other flatteries like this, hatred will be stirred up till heaven (or hell).

I don’t think women are “inferior” to men in an extistential sense, and certainly there are women who are smarter than most men. The bell curve is a reality, however, when looking at men and women as a *class* — which doesn’t mean men as a *class* are more talented than women are, but that there are more male outliers at either end of the bell curve (geniuses and morons, respectively) than among women — that’s just a documented reality. Women don’t seem to be agitated at all that they are outnumbered by men in the moron category, but when it’s pointed out that they are outnumbered by men in the genius category, steam comes out of their ears. That’s just hubris, pure and simple, and narcissism as well.

As for the hatred, women started this fight. And I can assure you, women will *not* be the ones to end it, in the long-term.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lara December 22, 2009 at 14:42

Women don’t seem to be agitated at all that they are outnumbered by men in the moron category, but when it’s pointed out that they are outnumbered by men in the genius category, steam comes out of their ears.
———————————
And it has an easy explanation: women have always been told (look right above some comments) that aren´t capable of this….aren´t capable of that….all the time, for averything except been at home in the kitchen; that´s why this all bothered all that much…it is pretty much of the same thing, incapability.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Novaseeker December 22, 2009 at 14:55

And it has an easy explanation: women have always been told (look right above some comments) that aren´t capable of this….aren´t capable of that….all the time, for averything except been at home in the kitchen; that´s why this all bothered all that much…it is pretty much of the same thing, incapability.

It’s more fundamental than this. Women have for several decades now been told nothing of the sort, yet they still don’t care about the men on the left tail of the bell curve, only about the fact that they are outnumbered on the right tail by men. The simple explanation for this, as you admitted yourself in a comment above: women care about themselves and their children and not about men. It really is that simple. In the unlikely event that women actually ever *do* take over leadership from the right tail bell curve cadre of men-in-power, it will be disastrous for men, because women couldn’t care less about most men other than their own sons. It would be an absolute disaster for men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Snark December 22, 2009 at 15:00

Hey Lara, let’s just throw a bunch of words together that don’t even make sense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Learner December 22, 2009 at 15:06

Snark

Their 6.5x more grey matter than women? (That’s the part of the brain used for problem solving.)

I am curious about this, can you provide a reference? I was unable to find one. Thanks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz December 22, 2009 at 15:07

I agree, Nova.

Women seem to totally be clueless about this, but, men treat women just like women treat children. This does not mean that women ARE children, but the way that “love” works, means that the kind of love which a woman gives to a child, is very similar to the kind of love which a woman receives from a man.

In that regard, we can see that parents/women are far more willing to be accepting of abusive behaviour from their children than they would be from others, and also, it ought to be apparent even to women, that the way woman to child “love” works, is exploitive. The child necessarily exploits the woman’s love in order to get the things the child needs to survive. It is an unnatural reversal of roles for a child to illustrate more love towards the mother than the mother shows for the child. Also, most women MUST be smart enough to see that a child ought not have authority over the mother, because of the way child->mother “works,” for the child to have authority over the woman, would mean the mother’s needs would not be met, only the child’s… whereas, with the woman in authority over the child, because of the nature of her love for the child, the woman will ensure that BOTH of the woman’s and child’s needs are met.

And, so… if we extend that further… if men’s love for women is similar to women’s love for a child, then if the woman is in authority over the man, only the woman’s needs will be met, but if the man is authority over the woman, because of the nature of his love, both the woman’s and the man’s needs will be met.

If there is no hierarchy, there really is no point.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
just curious December 22, 2009 at 15:16

@novaseeker

I agree, men in that particular society do not appear productive. They are just happy to hang out with the boys and change partners every night. And the truth be told something similar is happening in America right now.
In addition, women take care of the children exclusively, fathers are not considered important at all, so honestly you could not get any more emasculated than that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker December 22, 2009 at 15:29

I agree, men in that particular society do not appear productive. They are just happy to hang out with the boys and change partners every night. And the truth be told something similar is happening in America right now.
In addition, women take care of the children exclusively, fathers are not considered important at all, so honestly you could not get any more emasculated than that.

Exactly.

A good feminist reference on this is Camille Paglia’s book “Sexual Personae”. She explains how, in her view, women are “cthonic” or “earth-bound”, being oriented around fertility, children and child-raising, which tends to be the cycle of the few matriarchal societies we are aware of. It’s rather egalitarian and peaceful (to the extent isolated from other tribal groups which present competition) but also rather limited in development. Paglia once famously noted that, in her view, if women had been running the world for the past several millennia we’d still be living in grass huts. Now one view of that is “why is that so bad”? If we were all living in grass huts, we wouldn’t have environmental degradation, we’d have less war if all societies were matriarchal, more free sex, less worries and so on — but … we’d all be living the lives of primitives. It raises the fundamental question — is the civilizational and technological development we have known, as a historical fact, in our species more desirable than living in a primitive, cthonic state or not? I’ve had feminists tell me that they’d prefer a society of grass huts with a straight face, and that the whole enterprise since then has been one of penis-dominated folly. I guess each woman has to make up her own mind on the matter.

Paglia’s view, as is pretty well known, is that the male focus was critical to civilizational development, precisely because it drew people away from focusing on the more mundane, biological aspects of mere procreation activity, and instead towards broader horizons. She points out the divergence between fertility cults, which she viewed as matriarchal and cthonic, on the one hand, and the newer religions of “sky gods” which were more male oriented and challenged people to think beyond the mere earthy, cthonic needs — challenged them to think of higher things. Paglia associates all of this with the masculine. Of course it breeds conflict and warfare as well — that is the price for the masculine worldview, in a very real sense.

So in many ways it comes down to a cthonic-oriented peaceful matriarchy in grass huts vs. a more conflict-laden yet advanced and outward thinking patriarchy. Some feminists would say that their goal is to transcend this dichotomy and institute something new, something blended — but I don’t see this happening, really. What I see happening is the reassertion of the cthonic prerogatives of the female worldview at the expense of the male prerogatives and worldview — often in a very direct way.

As for how things actually play out in a matriarchy, I would say that I agree with your parallels to the current realities in North America, as well as the trends here. In a classical matrilocal society, women are working the famous “second shift” to beat the band. Why? Because men are relatively unconnected from children. Many matriarchies feature only weak pair bonding if they feature pair bonding at all, and monogamy is not terribly common in them. Many of them, when discovered, didn’t even have a word for “father” — which is understandable, because free sex was basically the norm (at the women’s selection) and no-one knew who the fathers were, to be realistic. In that context, there is no incentive for men to invest in their kids at all — they don’t even know, often, who their kids are. And so women do pretty much all the investment in the kids, as well as other work, because they don’t have a pair bond to provide and divide labor with. That’s becoming increasingly the model in contemporary America as well. The legal system is trying to bridge that gap by imposing provision obligations on biological fathers without giving them much say over children — but that only deals with the financial side of things, and even that is not particularly stable. The increasing number of single mothers raising children mirrors in a very real way the experiences of women in matrilocal societies — women do all of the parental investment, more or less, and men are relatively disengaged. This is simply what happens when you denigrate the pair bond.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Brian December 22, 2009 at 15:39

Brian, I think “just curious” proved your point with her last couple of posts. And if you read between the lines of her post, it reeks of Marxism, which isn’t surprising.

It is no surprise. Marxism is the favorite ideology of the resentful and envious. In a nutshell, power is framed according to two types of classes: the “oppressed” and the “oppressor.” And since we men are inherently more powerful, physically and emotionally, we are by Marxist definition the “oppressor.” So it’s no surprise that women would be more easily susceptible to this type of thinking.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Renee December 22, 2009 at 15:43

Porkchop,

“just curious” used a specific example of cigarette companies marketing their product to women to make a point of men and the patriarchy being selfish, greedy and self destructive. I made the easy to understand point that the people behind such marketing are not men in general, but a few top level execs. Jack explained in his piece that a central component of the patriarchy is not tobacco execs, but nuclear families with men at their lead. Clearly, the example she chose does not apply to men in general, while the example of divorce courts that I chose, does apply to women across our entire society.

In that sense I agree. However, I was refering to the characters in the example (selfishness, etc. ), not the situation of being a top exec. I don’t believe that negative characteristics like selfishness and self-centeredness is exclusive to women. Like I said, both men and women have instances of childishness.

Most women in this country are fully aware of the corruption of the family court system, but hardly any speak up to fight it. They don’t speak up about it, and often purposefully try to stifle any serious discussion of the topic, because it benefits them and they want to continue to reap the benefits of that corrupt system even if it means destroying society.

While this may be true in some cases, I think that your average citizen, men and women, are either not aware of it or don’t give it much thought.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Novaseeker December 22, 2009 at 15:51

While this may be true in some cases, I think that your average citizen, men and women, are either not aware of it or don’t give it much thought.

It depends. I think that this is true for people from intact families with parents who never divorced and with little or no divorce in siblings or other relatives that they are familiar with. It’s true that most of these folks — and there are a good number of these given that about half of first marriages do not end in divorce — are clueless about the system. The others, though, are not. When a woman is running into marital difficulties, there is no end of support that generally comes out of the woodwork from female friends who are “in the know” about how the system works — because they are the ones from divorced families, or are divorced themselves, or have close relatives who divorced or something like that. The information is out there — but there is no desire at all to change it.

A good example of this is the Tiger Woods fiasco. It’s being reported that Elin is asking for a sizeable payout and full custody. That may seem reasonable given his utter disregard for his vows of monogamy to his wife. However, the injustice is not in cases like his, but in the reverse cases, where women violate their own vows of monogamy, yet routinely get rewarded with full custody and financial rewards as well. You’d be hard pressed to find women who are not second wife types who care about that one whit, and by the time they reach their 30s and 40s, most know pretty well how the system works due to experiences of friends and family members, if not their own experiences. Yet women are just fine with the imbalance in the family courts and the tilt in their favor. They’ll all jump on the bandwagon and beat up an easy target like Tiger, but when a woman adulteress is divorcing, you don’t see anything like that reaction from women. It’s very telling, I think.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Renee December 22, 2009 at 15:52

Oh and I’m not on any “side of the fence”. If there are statements about men or women that I really don’t agree with, then I’ll say something about it. Simple as that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Renee December 22, 2009 at 15:53

That last post was in response to what porkchop said.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Mr.M December 22, 2009 at 15:57

Already happened, idiot. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but men could not be any more hated than we currently are.

I disagree, respectfully. I think it’ll get a little bit more worse than the current place we are in. We have not hit bottom – not yet.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Snark December 22, 2009 at 16:08
porkchop December 22, 2009 at 16:13

@Renee
 
“I don’t believe that negative characteristics like selfishness and self-centeredness is exclusive to women.”
 
Those characteristics are not exclusive to women, but far more prevalent in women in the West in 2009.  Women control 51% of the wealth in the US and influence 80% of purchasing decisions.  These facts go against your argument that both genders are the same regarding selfishness.  The data indicated that more male wealth goes to purchases driven by women than vice versa.  Here is a link:
 
http://www.diversityinc.com/content/1757/article/2328/?Women_Control_Most_Personal_Wealth
 
“Like I said, both men and women have instances of childishness.”
 
Sure, but men aren’t rewarded for those instances of childishness by the State.
 
“While this may be true in some cases, I think that your average citizen, men and women, are either not aware of it or don’t give it much thought.”
 
The fact that over two-thirds of all divorces in this country are initiated by women and over half of all marriages end in divorce refutes your claim, but don’t let facts get it in the way of your gynocentric argument;-)
 
http://www.Health.discovery.com/centers/loverelationships/articles/divorce.html
 
 
 

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
porkchop December 22, 2009 at 16:27

@Renee
 
“Oh, and I’m not on any “side of the fence”. If there are statements about men or women that I really don’t agree with, then I’ll say something about it. Simple as that.”
 
No, you are on Team Vagina.  If you really cared about fairness at all, you wouldn’t chime in here at The Spearhead with your typical “not all women are like that” crap.  In the US we live in a society today where under the law men are second class citizens, and we have a misandrist pop-culture and media to boot.  If you really cared about fairness and weren’t on any side of the fence, you would point this out and not excuse it with your typical, “Well, I guess it’s bad, but men are bad too.”  If you want a good example of what YOU ARE NOT, read some of Hestia’s posts.
 

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Brian December 22, 2009 at 17:06

So adults=men, women=children? Based on the adult/child analogy, I don’t agree with the insinuation that men knows what’s best for women or that they’re the “adult”. None of us are perfect; men and women both have flaws, so to say that one is the “adult” while one is the “child” is kind of ridiculous. I’d say that we all have childish tendecies.

The analogy is apt.

Men have traditionally always been the providers and protectors. Women have traditionally always been provided for and protected. That men and women both have flaws, or that some men act more immature than women, does not change these traditional roles which are consistent with each sex’s biological nature. One of the aims of society is to reinforce and uphold these roles, knowing that not all men and women will fulfill them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Learner December 22, 2009 at 17:44

Snark,

Thanks for the link, interesting study.

It would probably fit your argument better if it demonstrated that the greater volume of gray matter found in the men studied was related to a greater level of intelligence in the men studied (the intelligence measure was not significantly different for the men and women in the study). Or, if gray matter alone was responsible for cognitive functions such as problem solving (both GM and WM are necessary because the WM is how various chunks of information can come together as is needed in a complex task such as problem solving), though men definitely score better than women on problem solving tasks. I would also like to see a study with more participants (>50 in the study). Perhaps the predominance of men in the higher levels of intelligence (ie; >2 SD) fits your argument better?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Renee December 22, 2009 at 19:26

Porkchop,

Those characteristics are not exclusive to women, but far more prevalent in women in the West in 2009. Women control 51% of the wealth in the US and influence 80% of purchasing decisions. These facts go against your argument that both genders are the same regarding selfishness. The data indicated that more male wealth goes to purchases driven by women than vice versa.

In cases of spoiled women, yes, of course, but other than that I’m don’t really see how your point is a sign of selfishness. I mean, who doesn’t want to live well. Then again, I believe that there’s nothing wrong in wanting to live nice as long as you don’t put material possessions and money before God, having it become your new “god”. Not to mention that budgeting plays a huge role. About purchasing decisions, if it’s true that men don’t really shop or organize grocery lists, then I can understand. But hey if the majority of those percentages are spoiled women then ok.

Sure, but men aren’t rewarded for those instances of childishness by the State.

True. I agree.

The fact that over two-thirds of all divorces in this country are initiated by women and over half of all marriages end in divorce refutes your claim, but don’t let facts get it in the way of your gynocentric argument;-)

Well speaking of facts, the link also said this:
Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be “badly behaved.” Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity.
Do you consider this fact as well?
Anyway, Nova explained it very well in his post that responded to what I said about women and divorce, and I agree.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
porkchop December 22, 2009 at 19:36

@Renee

“In cases of spoiled women, yes, of course, but other than that I’m don’t really see how your point is a sign of selfishness.”

I really have to spell it out for you. The statistics indicate that women in the US spend the wealth and resources men accumulate, despite the fact that they already control half the wealth in this country. They compete with men directly in the job market. How does this FACT not indicate that men are less selfish than women. A selfish individual doesn’t hand over their hard-earned wealth to a competitor so they can spend it. It has nothing to do with wanting to live nice or putting money before God.

“Well speaking of facts, the link also said this:
Also, the higher rate of women initiators is probably due to the fact that men are more likely to be “badly behaved.” Husbands, for example, are more likely than wives to have problems with drinking, drug abuse, and infidelity.
Do you consider this fact as well?
Anyway, Nova explained it very well in his post that responded to what I said about women and divorce, and I agree.”

Are you really dense or just pretending to be? Probably means conjecture, not fact, no, I don’t consider it fact when someone says probably. I only look at the hard numbers, and then take a close look at their source.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Renee December 22, 2009 at 19:46

Porkchop,

No, you are on Team Vagina. If you really cared about fairness at all, you wouldn’t chime in here at The Spearhead with your typical “not all women are like that” crap.

Are you talking about in this post, because I never made a NAWALT arguement. I have made that arguement before, but I don’t anymore, at least not recently lol. It just seemed that you and others were insinuating that certain negative characteristics exclusive to women, like the whole “it’s women’s nature to be such-and-such”. If disagreeing or at the least being unsure with that assessment makes me all “Team Vagina” then I guess in that case I am. Like I said, if I happen to disagree with something, I’m going to comment on it.

In the US we live in a society today where under the law men are second class citizens, and we have a misandrist pop-culture and media to boot. If you really cared about fairness and weren’t on any side of the fence, you would point this out and not excuse it with your typical, “Well, I guess it’s bad, but men are bad too.” If you want a good example of what YOU ARE NOT, read some of Hestia’s posts.

If you’re talking about this post, I already explained that I was still unsure that certain things were “the nature” of women. This doesn’t mean that I excused the behavior.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee December 22, 2009 at 19:55

Porkchop,

The statistics indicate that women in the US spend the wealth and resources men accumulate, despite the fact that they already control half the wealth in this country.

Where in the link does it say that US women spend wealth and resources that men accumulate? All it said was that women control an estimated 51 percent of personal wealth. And I explained my views on purchasing decision.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
porkchop December 22, 2009 at 20:07

@Renee

“Where in the link does it say that US women spend wealth and resources that men accumulate? All it said was that women control an estimated 51 percent of personal wealth. And I explained my views on purchasing decision.”

How convenient, you forgot the part where it stated that women influence 80 percent of purchasing decisions.

“Are you talking about in this post, because I never made a NAWALT arguement. I have made that arguement before, but I don’t anymore, at least not recently lol. It just seemed that you and others were insinuating that certain negative characteristics exclusive to women, like the whole “it’s women’s nature to be such-and-such”. If disagreeing or at the least being unsure with that assessment makes me all “Team Vagina” then I guess in that case I am. Like I said, if I happen to disagree with something, I’m going to comment on it.”

Yes, you have made the NAWALT argument before, and you made the “well, I guess it’s bad, but men are bad too” argument here. You’re on Team Vagina because you post on this forum to defend women, and have no analysis or facts to back up your claims.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee December 22, 2009 at 20:09

Brian,

Men have traditionally always been the providers and protectors. Women have traditionally always been provided for and protected. That men and women both have flaws, or that some men act more immature than women, does not change these traditional roles which are consistent with each sex’s biological nature. One of the aims of society is to reinforce and uphold these roles, knowing that not all men and women will fulfill them.

I see what you’re saying in this sense. But what about this part you posted:

I believe that a strong, healthy society (i.e., a patriarchy) will eventually have to reduce at least some of the freedoms and rights that women today enjoy. And that means controls — be they legal, traditional, religious, or even physical — must be reimposed on women. Again, to use the adult/child analogy, the adults must guide and lead the children, even impose some controls on their movements, while at the same time allowing them room to explore, develop, and grow into mature, capable citizens. And all the while, keeping a close watch on them to make sure they don’t get into — or make — trouble.

That makes me believe that you think that men as the “adults” know what best for women (the children) as a society, which in the case of the analogy you used, I’m not too sure of.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan December 22, 2009 at 20:11

<blockquote"Women and children can afford to be careless, but not men."

- Don Corleone

porkchop December 22, 2009 at 20:15

@Renee

“And I explained my views on purchasing decision.”

And it didn’t add up. Women influencing 80 percent of all purchasing decisions in the US doesn’t have its roots in grocery shopping. That is simply ridiculous and you know it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee December 22, 2009 at 20:33

Porkchop,

How convenient, you forgot the part where it stated that women influence 80 percent of purchasing decisions.

No I didn’t. It was a separate percentage, so I talked about it separately like I already said. Now maybe they

Yes, you have made the NAWALT argument before

Lol, even though I already mentioned that, thanks for pointing it out again :P

and you made the “well, I guess it’s bad, but men are bad too” argument here.

First of all, there was no “I guess it’s bad” going on. Secondly, I was just questioning your sureness in the characteristics of men (as you question my sureness), and that since both sexes have instances of being childishness, one gender being the “adult” and one being the “child” is a little ridiculous. However Jabherwochie puts it in a way that makes sense in one of his posts.

You’re on Team Vagina because you post on this forum to defend women, and have no analysis or facts to back up your claims.

LOL WOW. No I do not post here so I can defend women lol. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t question or comment on some of the assertions about them. There were many times in which I found myself agreeing with some of them. I can’t remember if I made any claims about women themselves other than the NAWALT arguement. And what do you mean about facts? Scientific facts, personal experiences, or both?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 22, 2009 at 20:43

Let me give the briefest possible summary of the mental differences between men and women :

Women are extremely well-tuned to social dynamics. They observe things that most men, even the best practitioners of Game, will miss. They are better at forming social ties that lead to support networks, than the vast majority of men. This is valuable, and increases their chances of survival.

As a tradeoff of this, the areas of the brain that deal with analytics, logic, and the ability to make moral judgements, as well as the ability to understand cause and effect, are extremely underdeveloped in women. The average adult woman is on par with an 8-10 year old boy in this regard. If we randomly select a group of adult women and 9 year old boys to take a math, logic, and analytics test, the average scores of both groups will be equal.

Of course, women will happily accept their superiority in the first paragraph, but get offended by the flip side in the other paragraph. This double standard, of course, proves the truth of the second paragraph.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Renee December 22, 2009 at 20:43

And it didn’t add up. Women influencing 80 percent of all purchasing decisions in the US doesn’t have its roots in grocery shopping. That is simply ridiculous and you know it.

I didn’t just say grocery shopping. I also said shopping in general. I’m just saying that to me, it seems like alot more goes into that percentage like dates, courting, chivalry, etc (are those evidences of selfishness). I’d be nice if they went into detail. But hey like I said, if the majority is actually due to selfish reasons, then I’ll admit I was wrong.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
porkchop December 22, 2009 at 20:53

@Renee

“No I didn’t. It was a separate percentage, so I talked about it separately like I already said. Now maybe they”

Just because you choose to disregard the numbers and ignore them doesn’t make the point any less valid. You’re grasping at straws here.

“First of all, there was no “I guess it’s bad” going on. Secondly, I was just questioning your sureness in the characteristics of men (as you question my sureness), and that since both sexes have instances of being childishness, one gender being the “adult” and one being the “child” is a little ridiculous. However Jabherwochie puts it in a way that makes sense in one of his posts.”

I’ve never defended ALL men as a gender or targeted all women, I am very specific in the language I use to specify which group of women I am talking about, namely Western women. Don’t try to dump other viewpoints onto me that are not my own. I refuted a point made by “just curious.” You supported her, and the gist of her post is the “I guess it’s bad but men and the patriarchy are bad too,” which she tried to prove with the tobacco exec story. I’m not under the impression all men are angels and women are satan incarnate. I am aware however that what is happening in the US to large numbers of men (divorce courts, media portrayal of men as idiots and sexual predators, the bias and discrimination of men in the education system, etc.) needs to be corrected if our Western society is to survive.

“And what do you mean about facts? Scientific facts, personal experiences, or both?”

I include personal experience with analysis, and is valid in a discussion such as this as long as you back it up with analysis. The numbers I gave you which completely refuted your points and you chose to ignore or disagree with were facts, plain and simple.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee December 22, 2009 at 20:56

TFH,

As a tradeoff of this, the areas of the brain that deal with analytics, logic, and the ability to make moral judgements, as well as the ability to understand cause and effect, are extremely underdeveloped in women. The average adult woman is on par with an 8-10 year old boy in this regard. If we randomly select a group of adult women and 9 year old boys to take a math, logic, and analytics test, the average scores of both groups will be equal.

Is there scientific proof of this, especially the part about the tests? Not being snarky (no offense Snark), I really would like to know.

And I don’t know. I would think anyone would get offended reading something like that about their gender lol. Now maybe men won’t. I’m not one, so I won’t claim to know how they would respond to something similar.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee December 22, 2009 at 20:59

Porkchop,
I simply think more factors went into those numbers and broad statements than just selfishness. Agree to disagree.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
porkchop December 22, 2009 at 21:03

@Renee

I didn’t just say grocery shopping. I also said shopping in general. I’m just saying that to me, it seems like alot more goes into that percentage like dates, courting, chivalry, etc (are those evidences of selfishness). I’d be nice if they went into detail. But hey like I said, if the majority is actually due to selfish reasons, then I’ll admit I was wrong.

Still grasping at straws here. I’m a single man with friends, and I do not know anybody who spends a great deal of their monthly income on chivalry. Guys who are good at “The Game” and who go out on lots of dates don’t spend lots of money on women. Since you are a regular on this forum you should know that. This idea that the majority of purchases in this country being comprised of dates is as ridiculous as your point about groceries.

The most expensive purchases most people make are their homes and automobiles. From personal experience, I know many men in marriages or LTR’s who have bought women expensive luxury/sport cars while they drive Toyota Tercel’s to work.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
porkchop December 22, 2009 at 21:08

@Renee

You have stated that you are from the US. If this is the case, and you are a reasonably young woman, you should know that most people don’t go on dates and hardly any courting goes on. People hook up, and sometimes end up in relationships. This is true of most people I have known who were not brought up in a religious household. A great deal of money is not spent on courting or dates in this country anymore.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 22, 2009 at 21:09

Renee,

Yep, there is scientific proof. In fact, older civilizations have known this for a long time, and talking about this casually is quite common.

That women happily accept the areas where they are mentioned to be stronger, but then simultaneously get angry when anyone brings up the areas where they are weaker, sort of proves the latter part as being true.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
porkchop December 22, 2009 at 21:10

Porkchop,
I simply think more factors went into those numbers and broad statements than just selfishness. Agree to disagree.

And all the factors you brought up weren’t just weak examples to prove your point, but were actually ridiculous to anyone with half a brain.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kathy Farrelly December 22, 2009 at 21:25

Jabherwochie: Renee, are you cleverly insulting me? You don’t have to pull my pig-tails just to flirt with me. I already like you, so no need for games.
Lol! I like your sense of humor, Jabherwochie.

And Renee, I enjoy reading your comments. I like the good natured way in which you respond to people who do not agree with you :)

You come across as very honest and unpretentious to me!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Renee December 22, 2009 at 21:34

Porkchop,

I’ve never defended ALL men as a gender or targeted all women, I am very specific in the language I use to specify which group of women I am talking about, namely Western women. Don’t try to dump other viewpoints onto me that are not my own.

Well my originial point you quoted still applies.

I refuted a point made by “just curious.” You supported her, and the gist of her post is the “I guess it’s bad but men and the patriarchy are bad too,” which she tried to prove with the tobacco exec story.

Wrong. My post didn’t support her point or really thought about it. I just questioned your sureness about male characteristics. All I did was mention her post when pointing out what you said. That’s all. The gists of her post may have been like that, but mine weren’t. Don’t dump her viewpoints onto me.

Guys who are good at “The Game” and who go out on lots of dates don’t spend lots of money on women. Since you are a regular on this forum you should know that.

Well 1) I don’t really pay attention to conversations about Game, my bad, and 2)What’s the prevelance of guys actually good at Game?

TFH,
Was there actually a test like the one you described conducted between women and 8-10 yr old boys.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
porkchop December 22, 2009 at 21:46

@Renee

Wrong. My post didn’t support her point or really thought about it. I just questioned your sureness about male characteristics. All I did was mention her post when pointing out what you said. That’s all. The gists of her post may have been like that, but mine weren’t. Don’t dump her viewpoints onto me.

Wrong. Your games aren’t that hard to see through Renee. You don’t ask people like “just curious” your baited questions, only posters with a viewpoint that contradicts your own gynocentric viewpoint. Which is why I stated earlier in this thread something along the lines, “Why don’t you just come out and say what you really want to say” rather than trying to make your points through baited questions. This tactic isn’t new or clever.

Well 1) I don’t really pay attention to conversations about Game, my bad, and 2)What’s the prevelance of guys actually good at Game?

1) Well, if you don’t pay attention to what is going on in the dating scene, what makes your previous comment regarding a large percentage of money spent in this country going into dating/courting worth listening to? This is a rhetorical question btw.

2) Based on what I have seen personally, I’d say guys who are actually good at game are in the minority, and guys who are not good at game hardly get any dates, which still refutes what you said about dating/courtship and would be one factor among many to explain the growing number of single men who still live at home playing WoW. And despite those guys, 80 percent of purchasing decisions are still influenced by women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
fedrz December 22, 2009 at 21:51

Fifth said: “Women are extremely well-tuned to social dynamics. They observe things that most men, even the best practitioners of Game, will miss. They are better at forming social ties that lead to support networks, than the vast majority of men. This is valuable, and increases their chances of survival.

As a tradeoff of this, the areas of the brain that deal with analytics, logic, and the ability to make moral judgements, as well as the ability to understand cause and effect, are extremely underdeveloped in women. The average adult woman is on par with an 8-10 year old boy in this regard. If we randomly select a group of adult women and 9 year old boys to take a math, logic, and analytics test, the average scores of both groups will be equal.

Of course, women will happily accept their superiority in the first paragraph, but get offended by the flip side in the other paragraph. This double standard, of course, proves the truth of the second paragraph.

Schopenhauer place the pinnacle of female development at 26 years of age. He surmised that males catch up to them by the age of 28, and then keep on maturing throughout their lives.

Women = Cheap wine served out of a chilled box, from a rubber hose.

Men = Single malt Scotch, aged for a decade in an oak cask, and still considered “too young.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
porkchop December 22, 2009 at 22:01

@Renee

Well 1) I don’t really pay attention to conversations about Game, my bad, and 2)What’s the prevelance of guys actually good at Game?

To support my response to #2:

http://www.avert.org/stdstatisticusa.htm

One explanation for the higher STD rates among US women versus men is that most women have sex with a small percentage of men, i.e. the thugs, sociopaths, bad boys, etc. This would support the idea that has been presented on this board that many young US women support the idea of a soft polygamy with “Alphas.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Renee December 22, 2009 at 22:04

Porkchop,

I’m a single man with friends, and I do not know anybody who spends a great deal of their monthly income on chivalry.

So combined with the link you posted, I’m supposed to be convinced?

You have stated that you are from the US. If this is the case, and you are a reasonably young woman, you should know that most people don’t go on dates and hardly any courting goes on. People hook up, and sometimes end up in relationships. This is true of most people I have known who were not brought up in a religious household. A great deal of money is not spent on courting or dates in this country anymore.

Well hey that’s your opinion. Now that I think about it, I do agree that rarely anyone courts anymore.

I know many men in marriages or LTR’s who have bought women expensive luxury/sport cars while they drive Toyota Tercel’s to work.

So women are selfish if they accept gifts? Right….

And all the factors you brought up weren’t just weak examples to prove your point, but were actually ridiculous to anyone with half a brain.

Like I said, agree to disagree. Your proof was weak in and of itself. It simply was too broad and general to support your points overall.

Kathy,
Thanks :D

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 22, 2009 at 22:10

Renee,

Yes, such tests have been conducted many times, in Asia. I see you are not demanding tests to support the areas women are superior in. This proves my statements as true.

At any rate, just about anyone with gender realism will see this as obvious. Men invent 99.9% of new technologies. How many iPhone Aps are written by women? How many patents are filed by women? How many of the best stock pickers are women?

‘Sexism’ is certainly not an explanation here.

Again, you have no problem accepting female superiority in social skills and forming support networks, but seem to have trouble with very obvious superiorities of men in areas of logic, analytics, technological research, etc.

WHICH PROVES THE VALIDITY OF WHAT I SAID ABOUT FEMALE MORALITY AND NOTIONS OF JUSTICE.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
porkchop December 22, 2009 at 22:13

@Renee

Porkchop,

I’m a single man with friends, and I do not know anybody who spends a great deal of their monthly income on chivalry.

So combined with the link you posted, I’m supposed to be convinced?

You have stated that you are from the US. If this is the case, and you are a reasonably young woman, you should know that most people don’t go on dates and hardly any courting goes on. People hook up, and sometimes end up in relationships. This is true of most people I have known who were not brought up in a religious household. A great deal of money is not spent on courting or dates in this country anymore.

Well hey that’s your opinion. Now that I think about it, I do agree that rarely anyone courts anymore.

So, first you mock me and then agree with what I said. You are clearly continuing this debate, which you have lost due to a lack of any facts or a sensible argument, for distance and irritation. Many women use this tactic to harrass men and get them to do their bidding, so it’s nothing new.

So women are selfish if they accept gifts? Right….

Wow, excellent point! Lol.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
porkchop December 22, 2009 at 22:14

@TFH

Yes, such tests have been conducted many times, in Asia. I see you are not demanding tests to support the areas women are superior in. This proves my statements as true.

Fifth, Renee gets it. She is simply using her questions to discredit your points. She isn’t here for knowledge or understanding, she is here to push her Team Vagina viewpoint.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee December 22, 2009 at 22:18

Porkchop,

You don’t ask people like “just curious” your baited questions, only posters with a viewpoint that contradicts your own gynocentric viewpoint.

Not trying to bait anyone. I ask questions in response to what a person posts. Me and people like “just curious” either have similar viewpoints or I used to have those views, so there is nothing to ask about. If I read something that challenges or contradicts my views and beliefs, or if I simply disagree with it, I’m going to ask about it. Most of the time, what follows are good, thought-provoking answers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
porkchop December 22, 2009 at 22:19

@Renee

So combined with the link you posted, I’m supposed to be convinced?

Trying to be snide, you just proved my point. I provided a link with factual numbers, and provided personal experience with analysis to prove my point. If you disagree, you could provide facts, personal experience and analysis to prove your point. You didn’t. So clearly, you aren’t asking questions out of real interest in understanding the issues, you are here to push your own gynocentric viewpoint and mock and discredit others without any meat to your arguments.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
porkchop December 22, 2009 at 22:21

Most of the time, what follows are good, thought-provoking answers.

I provided good, thought-provoking answers backed with statistics. You simply chose to ignore or refute what didn’t suit your preconceived thoughts on the issue. The point of why you are doing this? See my previous post.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kathy Farrelly December 22, 2009 at 22:31

TFH : Yes, such tests have been conducted many times, in Asia:

Have you a link for any of these tests, TFH, I am very curious as to how these tests were conducted, and under what circumstances. If you have links for tests to support the areas where women are superior, I would also be interested in those as I have never come across any myself.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 22, 2009 at 22:31

porkchop,

This is why Game is so powerful, even if a man only sleeps with women sparingly.

Women have a HUGE amount to lose by :

1) The charade of moral superiority being discredited.
2) The revelation that chivalry and financial expenditure are not necessary to sleep with even the best looking women
3) Being held to adult levels of responsibility and accountability

Once men figure out these three things, it is like the Wizard of Oz being revealed as a man behind a curtain. That is why women lose a ton if even a small amount of men truly internalize Game.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
porkchop December 22, 2009 at 22:35

@TFH

Absolutely, Game, along with MGTOW and expatting is going to make women feel the burn of our decaying society sooner than later. An since most Western Women are self-centered, the best way to make them take note of the issue is when they begin to suffer the consequences of their collective actions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 22, 2009 at 22:36

Kathy,

I have trouble finding a good link.

But at least you are seeking to see both, which is good. Most women protest the part that does not favor them (see how Larry Summers got fired) but are more than happy to accept the parts that do favor them, and even make other unsupported claims of female superiority (i.e. ‘women are better managers’, etc.).

But simple observation also makes it pretty obvious which areas women are better in, and which areas men are better in. I gave supporting realities earlier.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 22, 2009 at 22:40

Let me add more fuel to the fire :

At work, I consistently see that Asian women outperform white women to a much greater degree than Asian Men outperform white men (i.e. almost nil). So nurture trumping nature may have some merit.

Solution : Hire Asian women as a low-risk way to get feminists to shut up about gender quotas (or, alternatively, bait feminists into revealing even more outlandish bigotry than they already exhibit).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Brian December 22, 2009 at 23:12

I see what you’re saying in this sense.

No, I’m not sure you do. Flaws or imperfections that exist in society are not an “out” for women to defy their proper roles, and in a future partriarchy those flaws would be minimized. Women have always had — and will always have — obligations and duties to men, to their families, and to society. Strange concept, I know. But then, you American women are not taught selflessness and virtue. I guess they sound too “old school,” or maybe “foreign” to you.

You are taught instead how to fall in love with yourselves, how to get and take from men’s efforts and feel good about it, or at least guilt-free. The wretched state of American women today is such that you will not live down the bitter legacy of regret and shame that awaits you and future generations of American women up ahead.

That makes me believe that you think that men as the “adults” know what best for women (the children) as a society, which in the case of the analogy you used, I’m not too sure of.

I’m not trying to convince you one way or the other.

We found out the hard way that women in fact did not know what was best for themselves when traditional controls were gradually loosened on them during the 20th century. Increased freedoms and choices on their part only made them more confused and clueless, not to mention deeply unhappy and quite destructive towards themselves and those around them.

I’ve said in an earlier post that patriarchy is the best social and governing system in our society, and probably all other societies. The ideal patriarchy would be composed of an elite of vigilant, enlightened, patriotic men who would serve as authorities over all other men and women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
piercedhead December 22, 2009 at 23:16

Again, you have no problem accepting female superiority in social skills and forming support networks, but seem to have trouble with very obvious superiorities of men in areas of logic, analytics, technological research, etc.

WHICH PROVES THE VALIDITY OF WHAT I SAID ABOUT FEMALE MORALITY AND NOTIONS OF JUSTICE.

-TFH

Game, set and match.
Well played Nova, Fedrz and TFH.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Icaros2K December 23, 2009 at 01:14

The Fifth Horseman:

“The average adult woman is on par with an 8-10 year old boy in this regard. If we randomly select a group of adult women and 9 year old boys to take a math, logic, and analytics test, the average scores of both groups will be equal.”

I, too, would be very interested in seeing the source for this claim. It seems preposterous on the face of it. The psychological studies in individual differences generally find that there are some relatively small differences between men and women, but nothing of this magnitude. See, for example, Wikipedia’s article on Sex and intelligence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
barsin December 23, 2009 at 01:37

One thing we know most women are naturally good at: going on and on and on (and on!) without ever really saying a damned thing.
That’s how they get all those gifts. Sheer torture.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman December 23, 2009 at 01:54

Icaros2K,

Perhaps you have a good explanation for why female success in particular fields is all but nil, even where it is possible to work on something solo from the home (like iPhone aps), or why 99% of technological innovations are by men. Not enough encouragement, perhaps?

Plus, I see you did not dispute the claim that women have superior social radars and awareness of social nuances that are invisible to most men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Icaros2K December 23, 2009 at 03:45

The Fifth Horseman:

“Perhaps you have a good explanation for why female success in particular fields is all but nil”

I would mostly try to explain it with personality differences and different interests (more human than tech oriented; probably partly genetic in origin, partly environmental), which have plenty of experimental evidence. Large differences in general intelligence, not so much.

Technical innovations are often made by those who are at the extreme right end of the bell curve in several charasteristics, intelligence and personality-wise, where men are over-represented. Nature plays it safe with women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz December 23, 2009 at 07:18

Actually, all things male & female work in this manner – even genetically.

Men are the mutators, while women are the protectors.

Men have far more genetic mutations than females, and perhaps this is related to the XY rather than XX. What I have read is that when a male has a positive genetic mutation, possibly one that increases his sexual status, it will make him more attractive to females, and she accepts his mutated genetics and protects or normalizes this gene into her system (perhaps the meaning of the extra leg of XX). The mutation then gets passed on to future generations through the female. Mind you, genetics is waaaaaaay beyond my scope, so this is merely relaying what I have read from people much smarter than I.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee December 23, 2009 at 07:45

TFH,
Yes, such tests have been conducted many times, in Asia. I see you are not demanding tests to support the areas women are superior in.
No point in exaggerating, I wasn’t demanding anything. I was just curious. I didn’t ask about it because I’ve heard about it or something similar before, mainly those documentaries. With the second point, I’ve never heard of that before, or rather, I’ve never heard it put to that extent. The test was especially new to me, and it was interesting.

Porkchop,
How was I mocking you by point out that you have your own opinions??? I’m not continuing this for distance or irritation. If that’s what you believe then fine.

1) Well, if you don’t pay attention to what is going on in the dating scene, what makes your previous comment regarding a large percentage of money spent in this country going into dating/courting worth listening to? This is a rhetorical question btw.

I’ll answer anyway. I just didn’t think that Game was THAT prevelant in the dating scene just because people here participate in it. But seeing how it’s popular here and on other blogs, maybe it is.

Look, I just don’t believe those percentages were detailed enough to say that the majority of it represented selfishness. Perhaps I have a different meaning to “personal wealth” in mind compared to you. As for the influence they mentioned, I just wish they went into detail about what they meant, because I think alot can go into that than only selfishnes.

That’s all I’m going to say about this. Looking back on the comments, perhaps I stand corrected on a few things. That’s ok ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Renee December 23, 2009 at 08:22

Brian,

Women have always had — and will always have — obligations and duties to men, to their families, and to society. Strange concept, I know. But then, you American women are not taught selflessness and virtue. I guess they sound too “old school,” or maybe “foreign” to you.

Maybe they do sound “old school”, but nothing wrong with that ;) And it’s not foreign at all, at least not to a Christian (ideally).

You are taught instead how to fall in love with yourselves, how to get and take from men’s efforts and feel good about it, or at least guilt-free.

No arguement there.

The wretched state of American women today is such that you will not live down the bitter legacy of regret and shame that awaits you and future generations of American women up ahead.

Perhaps, but since I tend not group myself with the average American woman that you describe, I feel pretty nonchalant about it. Of course I don’t condone the behavior, but if what you say will happen, then ok *shrugs*

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
porkchop December 23, 2009 at 09:33

@Renee
 
“Look, I just don’t believe those percentages were detailed enough to say that the majority of it represented selfishness.  Perhaps I have a different meaning to “personal wealth” in mind compared to you.”
 
Seriously, I read this and had to chuckle a little.  For the 10th time, what the data proves is that in the US, in general, women spend a good deal of the money earned by men despite the fact that they compete with men directly in the job market.  I really don’t care what you’re definition of “personal wealth” is.  The definition of personal wealth based on those numbers is monetary.  This isn’t an issue of spirituality or accepting gifts, and deciding which women are selfish and which aren’t.  The data are clearly backed up by looking at our consumer-driven materialistic culture.  Next time you watch television or are flipping through a magazine, think about who is being catered to in those advertisements.  You’ll find that it typically is not men, and those products are not “groceries” or related to men taking women out on dates.
 

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi December 23, 2009 at 10:02

Well if ya go to wall mart it does prove that woman can add value at work even at a detriment to themselves. There are hundreds of thousands of em at the cash registers bagging all them groceries and finished goods. So yea obviously woman can work. Some of em are even paying child care services to watch there kids while they do it and taking home like 200 a month for full time work. That is the real reason the companies love em just like all those chicks working at mcdonalds willing to work for nothing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Brian December 23, 2009 at 10:37

Maybe they do sound “old school”, but nothing wrong with that ;) And it’s not foreign at all, at least not to a Christian (ideally).

No, you don’t get it. My remarks were not intended as a debate with you. They were intended as an indictment against American women.

No arguement there.

Then stop arguing and start telling other women on other forums.

Perhaps, but since I tend not group myself with the average American woman that you describe, I feel pretty nonchalant about it. Of course I don’t condone the behavior, but if what you say will happen, then ok *shrugs*

Far from distinguishing yourself in any way as unique, your attitude and glib responses are in fact exactly what a man can expect to find in an average American woman today — which is to say, he can find better women elsewhere. You most certainly are a part of that group we are rebuking in the strongest terms, and don’t you forget it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Hestia December 23, 2009 at 10:39

Next time you watch television or are flipping through a magazine, think about who is being catered to in those advertisements.
Just walk into most shopping malls and try to find a quality gift for a man. What a maddening adventure that is, as nearly every store caters to women for the most part. Thank goodness for the internet and the outdoorsy store across town from the mall.

Renee, women DO spend the most money on rather useless goods whereas men tend to invest their money for the future. Fashion magazines perpetuate a never-ending cycle of “needed” items that women should replace every season. There are nail salons and beauty shops on every corner where many women go quite frequently; some even weekly. Advertisements cater largely to women and always have something new and “needed” to keep up with the Joneses and make life more enjoyable. Look around your average shopping mall and see who is the consumer carrying the most bags and they will be women. The entire shopping world caters to women.

I spent several years in my teens working in cosmetics and was blown away at how much women spent on creams and potions. At one point I worked for a very high end company that had several little jars of face cream that cost over $100. I had customers who would come in *monthly* and spent well over a thousand dollars on products. Being the daughter of a working class man, I could never wrap my mind around this then and I still can’t now. That is a LOT of money! $12,000 a year! Money that could go a long way being invested or saved.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Snark December 23, 2009 at 11:16

The entire shopping world caters to women.

It does, though this is partly because men HATE shopping and commerce has to cater to someone.

I once heard it said that you could sell ice cubes to women in the arctic.

I believe this is true; you just have to attach a name to the ice cubes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
slwerner December 23, 2009 at 11:31

Hestia – “Renee, women DO spend the most money on rather useless goods whereas men tend to invest their money for the future. Fashion magazines perpetuate a never-ending cycle of “needed” items that women should replace every season.”

Since you brought this up, let me just butt-in and toss these two items out there, as they serve to support what you’re saying:

New study shows women buy clothes knowing they won’t wear it &

Over 90 per cent of women own an item of clothing with the tags still on

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Icaros2K December 23, 2009 at 11:56
piercedhead December 24, 2009 at 21:03

Grameen Bank in Bangladesh has been giving out microloans (starting at $27) to poor people since 1976. Although back in 1976 they were giving out loans to both men and women, what they discovered was that women were less likely to default on their loans and were using earnings from small businesses they started to benefit the entire family (such as prolong schooling for children) and more importantly the community by circulating the money instead of spending it on alcohol. As women showed themselves to be more reliable and responsible the program started to focus on lending to women. Therefore I do not understand why it is categorically claimed on this site that women are morally inferior to men.

-just curious

I think this one example has been trotted out to justify ‘women first’ policies so often that there must be a shortage of anything else substantial. United Nations personnel seem to all be acquainted with it.

It could do with a little scrutiny though. Consider that Bangladesh was (and may still be) a patriarchy when this observation was made. It’s very possible that women are more responsible in patriarchal societies – it seems to me that when I think back to earlier generations that I personally knew, when the West still recognized and respected men, women were better people than they are today.

However, now that we live in matriarchies and men are openly denigrated en masse (something which never happened to women when men were in control), it’s ridiculous to assume that women are more reliable and better debtors than men. They are now notoriously unreliable, are more in debt than men and make up the majority of fraud cases. Their conduct in family courts is appalling. Their routine recourse to perjury is legion, as is their immunity from charge. The modern West is nothing like Bangladesh, and it’s absurd to claim the virtues of women in another culture for the very different creature that is the Western female.

Incidentally,the fellow behind Grameen Bank didn’t claim Bangladeshi women were more reliable than men at paying back their loans – he actually said there was no significant difference. What he said was that the women were more likely to invest their success back into their families, and that the social pay back with women was greater. Given that women are more motivated to succeed in business when they have families, and that many men engage in business activity whether they have families or not, there is nothing very remarkable in his observation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
The Fifth Horseman December 24, 2009 at 23:24

Bangladesh is both a Muslim country and dirt-poor. An agrarian society where even pregnant women have to work in the rice fields. It is possible that women actually ARE oppressed there (unlike in the West).

Plus, such women often have 3-6 kids, and may even me married to a man with more than one wife (common in Islam). Naturally, they will engage in activities that help their children, and hopefully move them to something a notch higher than working in the rice fields.

That a pampered Western woman would use this as a refutation of the moral degeneracy of Western women, is laughable. They are really grasping at straws here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Brian December 25, 2009 at 13:34

It’s very possible that women are more responsible in patriarchal societies – it seems to me that when I think back to earlier generations that I personally knew, when the West still recognized and respected men, women were better people than they are today.

The whole notion of the “independent woman” is a destructive lie. Female “independence” entails separating and alienating women from men, whereas patriarchies seek to unite the two in a common purpose. There is nothing in it for men to encourage female “independence,” as it only tempts and facilitates worsening behavior in women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Quent January 4, 2010 at 00:08

Boudicca and her Irish counterpart Granuaille, both warriors.

Boudicca was a political leader, like Joan of Arc, and not a particularly good one. In the old Celtic tales, the ‘woman warrior’ was a device to let the listener know that the story had passed into the supernatural Otherworld. The female ‘warriors’ (actually goddesses) who trained Cuchulain are examples.

The tales often used sex-role reversal to show that magic was being used, typically by witches or druids, always male, by the way. The standard example of this was the male warriors of Ulster coming down with menstrual cramps, due to magic.

Celtic warriors endured years of hard and cruel training, starting when they were boys. The skeletons of Celtic warriors are identified by asymmetrical body development, fractures and hairline fractures, deformed fingers, etc. Not a single female skeleton has been found with these characteristics.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Quent January 4, 2010 at 00:25

I’d like to clarify my previous post. I meant to say that druids, in the old tales, were always male. Witches were always female. The references to female ‘druids’ occur very late in the literature, long after the age of the High Celtic tales, when the word ‘druid’ had metamorphosed into ‘magic worker.’

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Quent January 4, 2010 at 10:24

I’d like to make a final point about sex roles in traditional societies. Leftist anthropologists make much of the fact that sex roles vary to some degree among traditional societies. They use this observation to support the argument that sex roles are simply cultural. I note, however, that while there is some differentiation of sex roles in traditional societies, in no case did men and women routinely perform the SAME role. Roles always were differentiated by sex.

Feminists try to twist the ancient Celtic culture into patterns of sex role equivalence which likely didn’t exist. Since little is known about the Celts, it is easy to use their society as a ‘blank slate’ upon which to project modern prejudices.

ans. The Celts maintained these remnants because they were driven to the European ‘fringe’ and were the least influenced by the Romans.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Cernunnos March 12, 2010 at 14:49

Can Game be used to establish a modern Patriarchy?

The social laws are all stacked against men in this country. Marriage is for fools… but I reject the notion that the only solution is to lay back and give up like the men in that Chinese village (fascinating article, btw).

Mafia families do it. Mormon polygamist groups in Northern Idaho do it. Can it be done?

If so, how?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Walls January 1, 2011 at 09:42

This is like a puddle insisting that because the hole is perfect for him, it is the only way the world is, or can ever be.

The previous historical systems also created enormous wrongs, such as slavery, silencing of the working classes, rewriting history to insist on the importance of the white European Christian male, and both overtly and by implication refusing to see the equality of females, non-Christians, Blacks, Orientals, etc. It’s led to horrible, irrational, unnecessary and irrational oppression of all that is seen as Other, Wrong, Feminine, and so on.

Most of us want the same things; human rights, a chance to succeed, to raise our children in safety and dignity, a fair shot of happiness. However, life is complex, as is society and humanity. People who have been crushed for generations need to fight against those viewpoints (spoken and unspoken) that insist by factors outside of their control (gender, skin colour, nation of birth, and so on), they are only there to serve those who are Right, White and In Charge; and that if they fight against such servitude, that they are wrong, abnormal, and only making themselves terribly unhappy for not accepting their fate with more humility. To avoid such a fate is why people sailed from Europe to the US for freedom, why slaves fled from South to the North for a fairer life for their children, and why women said ‘I have a brain and a pair of hands as good as a man, why is my work paid less, or my right to vote, be safe, and decide my own fate in the hands of others?’

I see what you applaud here. The greatness of civilisation, the wisdom of the ages, the conquest of enormous problems. But many of this was done on the backs of both men and women who had no voice to fight back, and so you and I can’t hear them now. Patriarchy seems to hurt as many men as well as women, by forcing both genders into unnatural roles, and by insisting only some men, rather than all, are fit to decide for all of us (see the recent reassessment as women as being the main parent).

Maybe there is another way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Donna January 1, 2011 at 17:37

The Spearhead? Really? Well, that speaks for itself. Sorry Guys, that you are so threatened by your MOMS, SISTERS, and DAUGHTERS. You are really laughable. You are discussing half or better of the human race. How idiotic. You are right up there with every racist that every lived but even worse because you are downing the other half of you, stupid. But thats OK, women are used to it. Facts are facts. We do need to reduce the population, so low birth rate is actually good. There have been previous civilizations that were gender equal that failed, guess what? It’s just cycles that the earths civilizations have gone through. Sorry you guys are stuck in some post grown up stage….good luck with your Neanderthal attitudes. Bet you don’t get laid very often if you spout that stuff too much. Maybe that accounts for that low birth
rate. Of course you can’t think to that level based on your other attitudes. Just like killing brown people indiscriminately doesn’t lead to terrorism. Clueless and lacking empathy, all that subscribe to this particular ideology.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6
Jennifer August 23, 2011 at 23:30

Amen, Walls! Feminism is a disaster, but I would never support women’s votes and jobs being taken away; we need women in medicine, writing, preaching, missionary work, teaching, and many other areas. But we also need to re-emphasize the importance of home and children, which MUST come first, and not too late in a woman’s life. “The Flipside of Feminism” is a gem in discovering the needed balance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Jennifer August 23, 2011 at 23:32

“ROFLMAO!!! You think Queens rose to the top on merit????”

Yes dear. They didn’t become queens by merit, but they SUCCEEDED as queens by merit.

And no, Game cannot establish patriarchy, unless you think you can seduce all the women in this country into being SAHM’s. Which is bull by itself; game does not control a person.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Kit October 16, 2011 at 20:44

Interesting article, but I disagree with some of the posts here. I won’t post too terribly much here, I see that most people who disagree with the overall point are dismissed. You just can’t do anything about people who refuse to consider what doesn’t fit within their narrow views.

I don’t have any objections to the idea that patriarchy has worked in society, certainly it has, but many points and comments seem to blame today’s problems on women’s rights. A lot of what’s argued here appears to come from the idea that women are not human beings, are only self interested, and can not possibly think using logic.

Yes, there are quite a few differences between men and women, there always will be, but one is not better than the other just because he or she is born with a certain set of parts. I think the gender problems we have today don’t come from one gender or the other being able to do certain things, but rather a lack of acknowledgement that if both genders recognize each others strengths and work equally, wonders can be performed.

I’d go into sentiment against men, something that seems to be very ignored, but is just as powerful as some of the sentiment against women demonstrated here, but this isn’t the place for that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Astrid January 24, 2012 at 14:25

This is the most depressing gathering of self loathing I have ever seen.
Life must be so agitating for all of you… To ponder endlessly over all your shortcomings while watching your female counterparts surpass you in status- especially after the ideology of inherent male superiority being shoved down your throats via history, religion and your peers….
To me, it’s pure comedy.

I am unfortunately everything you hate.

Mid twenties, college graduate, exceptionally attractive (blessed with great genes), have no desire to get married or have kids, and promiscuous as hell.

On the other hand, I have no desire for a man’s money, house, car, mu h less a divorce since that would require me marrying someone which will never happen. I enjoy solitude more than you could know. I love making my own decisions, doing what I want to do when I want to do it. I love life. And to top it off, I don’t feel depressed at all. Funny…

I’m sure you have many just reasons to be so angry at half the population. There are tons of rotten bitches out there looking to screw someone over. All I can say to you is I guess you should have gotten a prenup…. Haha.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Kathryn May 31, 2012 at 09:24

This whole issue of pitting men against women and women against men IS infantile. I can see that this is therapeutic in some ways, but all of the data each side produces cannot explain the complexities or the heart of the strife. It appears we have not learned the lesson from the Garden of Eden after all. Always pointing the finger at someone else for the fault. No humility. Men cannot exist without women. Women cannot exist without men. Genius men are born from women and did not suckle their own breasts to reach maturity. I guarantee that the majority of brilliant men spent much more time developing maturity with their mothers than their fathers. Women would not be living in safe happy homes raising these children if not for the men who cared for them. When one gender puts down the other it is petty because neither one would survive without the other, essentially. The natures of men and women ARE different. It is true that if the brains are analyzed, certain areas are more developed, in general, for the genders. I think women are just as intelligent as men, but do not have the same drive that men do. Marilyn Vos Savant highest recorded IQ Guinness Book. Competitiveness and drive are very male traits that help societies thrive. These traits play into the ability to focus on goals single-mindedly without distraction. Women may be as able to do the mental work, but they seem to spread their energies into multiple areas. Hence the many projects that do not reach the depths of pioneering of men in these fields. On the one hand I readily recognize the beauty and brilliance of men in sciences, technology, and mathematics, but these same men seem stupid over a pair of breasts and shapely legs. (Story of Samson and Delilah) So much for the analytical mind! I love men in their proper roles of leadership and am happy to give the reins to the real men, but as real men, you must accept your faults, as well, and be consistent. If patriarchal societies are the dominant societies with men at the top deciding everything that goes, and women have the mentality of 8-10 yr. old males, then all of the awfulness that has ever happened in the world fits squarely on your shoulders and women are angels. Right? According to some of you, men can out-think women to such a degree that you need to “take control again and fight for male dominance” . But I thought you were the ones who ‘let’ women have a say, etc. Does this mean you are basing your decisions on wishy-washy emotions by giving to the women what they demand even if it is not good for the society? Illogical. Do any males see this is an example of men being emotional and not analytical? How in the world could feminism ever get a foothold except that men abdicated their roles as intelligent, fair protectors of goodness and the proper order of a thriving society? You also cannot have it both ways, either women are smart enough to get their way, and if so, shame on them for their selfishness, and deceit, or they are dumb,helpless, and emotional, and either follow the men around, or go off on silly escapades for whatever sundry causes they are ‘moved’ to champion. It seems to me that there are good men and bad men, good women and bad women, smart men and dumb men, smart women and dumb women, moral men and immoral men, … You get my point. In a business corporation there is a hierarchy so I recognize the importance of men as the leaders, but there position stands firmly on the good judgement and discernment of women who are the glue of the organizations. Greeks (patriarchal) have the saying: “Man is the head, but woman is the neck.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
Lorelei December 4, 2013 at 16:06

Interesting point of view this is… but also very presumptuous. You are absolutely right that full-time, carrer-minded women make less babies and tend to have them later in life. That isn’t a bad thing, however. You see, you cite low birth rate as a problem in today’s world. It isn’t. In fact, having too high a population (caused by high birth rates… not to sound racist, but see the patriarchal racial minorities who make lots of babies AND compare how they live on average compared to the “white feminist majority” who do not make as many babies) can also cause collapse due to rampant poverty in a free market/capitalist society where social welfare is frowned upon by the successful and is only available to the VERY poor (And very very rich, like corporations in the form of capital gains tax cuts and subsidies lending to the fallacious trickle-down theory)… even then it does little for their families.

Keeping the population at a steady and relatively modest growth rate can only help us economically and socially, statistically speaking…. in theory, such would result in less spending on social welfare, due to less people in poverty (assuming all cultures in this country alone can be less patriarchal, like us “white” people), the statistics for which would be directly linked to a more modest and leisurely-paced birth rate.

Now, when you cite women’s liberation leading to fatherless children, depression, and all that other nonsense, it’s nine times out of ten the man’s fault for bailing on the woman in the first place… “honey! I’m pregnant!” The moment the little self-entitled shit hears those words, he runs like a coward from his responsibility as a father…. yeah. you failed to use contraception and now you have to own up to your new responsibility and help support a baby. If your now-ex wants to be a bitch, she’ll hunt you down for child support and make you pay anyway. Then what? The men cry and whine and say “that’s sexism!”…. is it? So, you knocked a girl up and it’s NOT your responsibility to support the life you contributed to the creation of and she chose (or was forced in some states/countries due to religiously promoted and lobbied anti-abortion initiatives) to bear? Why don’t you put on your big boy britches and man up! Take personal responsibility for your choices…. and that’s not the fault of women in any way.

As for the assertion that women were allowed to do all the things men have been praised for doing the whole time, that’s not true at all. Laws were in place in most historical patriarchies that heavily restricted the rights of women from the get-go… by no other virtue than her gender. In Rome, a woman couldnt’ do jack shit without her husband or father’s approval. In the bible, Misogyny is plastered all over, hailed as God’s design ( Timothy 2:12, Genesis 19:5-8, Genesis 3:16, 1 Corinthians 14:34…. I have more, too…)… Greece believed in psuedoscientific beliefs on biology (and I know they didn’t know how Human bodies worked, but how they theorised this was fucked up) by assuming that a woman’s body couldn’t “cook” semen properly and was only useful as fertile ground where a man’s seed could grow…. and here’s the kicker, they believed a man could jizz on the ground an a Human would eventually grow from it, as if it were a woman’s womb, thus effectively comparing women to dirt. Greece had laws against women holding any political office or doing much of anything else outside the home unless they belonged to a religious cult to certain deities. Don’t give me that “we were equal this whole time” nonsense.

Now, in this day and age, it takes two incomes to make a functional and comfortable home. The rich keep fighting anything that would benefit normal common people where it involves money (and that’s most things these days), such as raising the minimum wage, regulating business practices to keep costs reasonable, responsible and ethical use of taxpayer money, equalising pay between genders for the same job, same place of employment, same or comparable experience and tenure, same or comparable education, and same hours worked. Pay jsut isn’t equal based solely on gender and it’s wrong…. also, alot of men bitch about paid maternity leave when a businesswoman actually DOES get pregnant….

Here’s what I have to say on the whole matter: If you don’t have a vagina, shut up about Women’s rights and their physical health/reproductive affairs…. or would it be perfectly okay for us to start legislating on your rights and physical health/reproductive affairs? I’ll bet my total worth that you’d shit a brick if women brought up men’s biological issues to be legislated and debated on politically… Pray that we don’t.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Max January 1, 2014 at 19:25

“Brian December 21, 2009 at 10:35

Of course patriarchy works. That goes without saying. As for feminism, it is a scourge that must be eliminated.

The notion of “gender equality” is utterly absurd. Women are by nature weaker, passive, self-serving creatures, guided by emotions. They expect to be led and guided by men. Women are in fact subordinate creatures in the natural hierarchy of the sexes.

It should be clear to any reasonably intelligent man that women should have their voting rights revoked; they never should have been allowed to vote in the first place. They should also not be allowed to hold political office. Given what we know of female nature, women have no business assuming leadership positions over vast numbers of people.

When an enlightened patriarchy arises from the ruins of this era, they will learn from the mistakes of the 20th-21st century, and steer men and women toward their proper roles, towards a common purpose of ennoblement and greatness.”

You’re WAY ahead of the curve Brian. Unlike Null who is the actual idiot that he claims you are. He’s under the Marxian delusion that equality is even possible. Also, like a fucking moron, he compares what your suggesting to slavery of black. One day, maybe white knight fuckers like him will finally get it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
biblicalgenderroles May 24, 2014 at 09:32

I agree with you that man allowed the scourge of feminism to occur and man can reverse it. Our biggest challenge is to educate our sons and daughters on roles for which men and women are designed, and encourage them to standup to feminist ideology in their schools. My two older teenage sons already do this, they have some great conversations in their middle school and high school. We need fathers that instill a love of truth in their children, and a willingness to fight for what is right regardless of how popular it may or may not be.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
anaris328 June 6, 2014 at 23:24

I find this idea to be interesting, but forgetting some very important points. First of all men and women are intellectually equal. I feel very insulted that the individuals posting here assume that they are superior, especially since they probably are not. (you just want to stroke your egos) Intelligence varies from individual to individual, and cannot be claimed by one gender or race.

However, it is true patriarchy worked. A point that I don’t see made is that a vital component was population growth. Patriarchy thrived at a time when death rates were sky high from wars, disease, natural disaster, famine, and so forth. These are struggles we no longer think about or can relate to at a first hand level. In order to keep population growing women had to keep having children to replace the ones lost. This is a very demanding and debilitating chore. It robs the body of strength and threatens one’s life, especially considering the state of medicine before modern times.

Do you think with such a demand women could build careers, develop theories, focus on politics or philosophize? Of course not. And since men do not have the burden of pregnancy or birth they were able to take control. Not due to any innate superiority but out of biological differences.

But now we live in a time where child mortality is at an all time low, where only 5-7 babies die per 1,000 births (it used to be 250-500 per 1,000 births). Population growth is sky rocketing and women constantly being pregnant and giving birth is a thing of the past. Women are now free of the biological burden to decide for themselves what they want to do. Patriarchy worked, so did monarchies, so did slavery. But these are systems that are irrelevant now and we need to find new systems that work in the modern era.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 9 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: