Reader DC Handgun Info (visit his blog) emailed me this link of U.S. Representative Carol Shea-Porter (D-New Hampshire) saying that healthcare reform could be passed into law if only those dastardly men weren’t around to muck it up. From the horseface’s mouth:
We go to the ladies room and the Republican women and the Democratic women and we just roll our eyes. And the Republican women said when we were fighting over the healthcare bill, if we sent the men home…
The full video of her comment, courtesy of Hot Air, can be viewed below. The quote above was met with enthusiastic applause from Shea-Porter’s audience:
Additionally, Shea-Porter’s blatant sexism was defended by one of her lady colleagues:
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) on Monday called “irreverent” but accurate, comments made by a female colleague that Congress could pass healthcare reform if men were sent home.
“Carol Shea-Porter was I think expressing the frustrations in an irreverent way of a lot of women across this country,” Wasserman Schultz said on MSNBC. “We do have conversations like that in the bathroom among Republican and Democratic women.”
“In terms of healthcare decisions, women make virtually all of the healthcare decisions, or are the main decision makers for most families,” Wasserman Schultz said.
In his introduction to The Spearhead, Welmer wrote the following:
We aren’t really interested in conservatism or liberalism — when the entire structure is rotten you might as well bring it down so as to build a newer, better temple.
On the governmental level, he was dead on correct. When female legislators from the two major parties in the world’s most powerful nation can come together through their disdain for men, it is obvious that we have no allies in the halls of power. The Democratic Party is the party of feminism in the U.S., but let it not be forgotten that conservatives and their Republican allies possess their own brand of misandry, an antiquated brand that endorses heavy-handed regulations on men to protect “innocent” young women. To excerpt Welmer again:
They [social conservatives] are not driven as much by an altruistic desire to improve society as they are by the lack of sexual and emotional fulfillment in their own relationships with their mother-wives. They find fulfillment of these desires through an incestuous relationship, both symbolic and real, with the daughters of America, and they wage war against America’s sons with all the primitive passion of savages raiding a village to carry off its maidens.
This is what I have in mind when I think of social conservatives. Essentially, I see them as people who have a strong impulse to judge and punish others – men in particular – for flimsy or backward reasons. They justify their sadism by portraying themselves as defenders of virtuous, defenseless young maidens who, not coincidentally, are the objects of their lust. This is why one can see some very odd intersections between policy advocated by lesbians and social conservatives, who disagree violently on some other issues, such as abortion — they both have similar motives in the matter of relationships between females and other men.
This mentality runs through modern conservatism like a throbbing artery, to the point where the most punitive anti-male legislation of the past two decades, the Violence Against Women Act and the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act, were tacitly endorsed by conservatives (the latter being co-sponsored by two conservative Republicans). Their ingrained ignorance of the nature of women leads them to place them on pedestals, giving them common cause with feminists who seek to beat down men at every opportunity. While I imagine the majority of The Spearhead’s readership is right-wing, we shouldn’t look to mainstream conservatives for our salvation.
On a related tack, this story also lends credence to the idea that allowing women to vote and participate in government inevitably shifts the state towards socialism. Writes Vox Day:
I think every male politician in America should resign his office and let the womenfolk run things for as long as they want to do so. Because that will be the fastest and easiest way to end the disastrous women’s suffrage experiment that I can imagine. There are two words that describe a matriarchal society and those two words are “grass huts”.
Think about it.
_______________________________________________________
Ferdinand Bardamu was an independent before being independent was cool. He blogs at In Mala Fide. You can follow him on Twitter here.
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 130 comments… read them below or add one }
Totally agree. Any time two women get together anywhere their first action after exchanging pleasantries is to conspire against any men who are present and/or men in general.
It doesn’t matter what their ethnic composition, religious beliefs or social background, if there are multiple women somewhere they are almost certainly engaged in a plot against a specific man or men in general.
If they want to just send the men home and pass the bill on their own, then let them.
HOWEVER – and this is a big however.
If they want to exclude men from the legislative process, then they can have no claim on the resources of said men.
No taxation without representation.
And so, women would have to finance their own healthcare system, in which men do not participate in any way.
But wait …
That won’t fly!
Because what they really want is the money that men have earned.
They want to exclude men from the decision-making process, so that they may make a decision which exploits men. It is not truly about excluding men – they need men. They need men to continue earning so that their earnings may be stolen from them. They just don’t want men to stand up for their own property rights.
It is no different from complaining that the shopkeeper won’t just go home so I can steal all his goods.
This is why you should be careful when selecting allies.
Never choose an ally just because it’s your enemy’s enemy.
It’s better to loose a batlle fighting well than to win a bad victory.
It’s even better to shun battles you might loose.
Winning is what matters and in forming societies power must be achíeved without the consent or help of women.
A bad boy with mommys permission to be a bad boy is not a bad boy!
Brotherhoods need to be good in order not to break up!
Democrats and Republicans Unite to Form the Misandry Party because misandry is of the people by the people and for the people.
Even mens rights activists harbour sentiments that resonate and are in consonance with misandry. Afteral they necessarily fall somewhere between the right or left of the political spectrum.
Conservatives want a limited state and a balanced budget. This means all those expensive progams for the elevation, preservation and protection of the place in society of women cannot ever be extended to men. Tis just too expensive !!!
Liberal-Socialists have as a starting point principle, that males are not up to the level of human beings in the way females are. Hence every aspect of the following concepts of liberty, equality, freedom and justice are not to mean the same things to men as they mean to women !!!
A Catholic conservative on one of my favorite blogs, What’s Wrong with the World, put it best about modern conservatism: every generation’s conservatism is the last generation’s liberalism. This behavior started out in the liberal era, aka the “Enlightenment,” not in the distant past. Every generation of “conservatives” since then has simply advocated slowing the liberal advance.
I would also add as proof of this that 200 years ago, social conservatives would have agreed with many of these goals of “protecting women,” but would have found modern conservatism’s general embrace of feminism to be abhorrent. Today, we see much the same with “young conservatives” embracing views like supporting gay marriage and rejecting yesteryear’s social conservatism on homosexuality in general. They will likewise probably face, in another 20 years, a mainstream movement to normalize polygamy from other “young conservatives” who will see it as a way to preserve marriage by letting 5 women marry a good man instead of being stuck with “losers” (likely the kind of men getting crushed by the “mancession.”)
He’s right. This is why conservatism can be worse than useless. Better a radical than a conservative. Best is a revolutionary.
They [social conservatives] are not driven as much by an altruistic desire to improve society as they are by the lack of sexual and emotional fulfillment in their own relationships with their mother-wives.
This is an idiotic fantasy.
Social conservatives are driven by their own excellent relationships with their wives to assume that all women are good and pure. Therefore it must all be the fault of those dastardly men.
Even if women were to control Washington, they would get nowhere without the Renfields in the police and army to enforce their dictates. There’s no way women can beat men in the war of the sexes, so long as men turn up, because everything a woman needs is provided by a man with precious little going the other way.
It’s like a predator and it’s prey deciding to disengage and go their separate ways. One starves, the other flourishes. So it never happens.
Feminism will collapse entirely once white knighting recedes, both culturally and in its institutional form (law and order). The moment a women gets punched by a man for acting up – AND NO OTHER MAN COMES TO HER AID – is the day she submits. All the social engineering by feminists is to forestall this moment.
Where I live, healthcare costs represent 50% of total government budget and this is driving us right into… a wall!
Not only that… those costs are increasing way faster than government revenue. The stage has been set for a collision with reality.
If they make this a gender issue, it may get ugly…
“While I imagine the majority of The Spearhead’s readership is right-wing…”
Methinks a definition of right-wing is in store here. If by right-wing, one means that the readership here is Republican / socon, I do not think that is accurate.
Rather, I suspect that the Spearhead’s readership tilts toward the minarchist side of the house; in other words, right wing on a spectrum that places absolute totalitarianism on the left and absolute anarchy on the right.
Many if not all of us here have experienced, in some way or another, the iron boot of a gummint grown too big for its britches. This is left-wingism, be it of the Repub or Dem flavor.
Yup. I probably lean more towards anarchy than the shit we’re calling a government now. I definitely believe the Founding Fathers had a slightly anarchist bent themselves, and I think Jefferson would be proud of the MRM but highly pissed off at the American public at large, as we’re long past due for another American Revolution.
The government grinds men into fucking hamburger and expects us to line up and march into the meat grinder with smiles on our faces. At this point, there are no “good guys”. Nobody in Washington represents anything any of us believe in, unless you stand for being a greedy,self-serving,conceited asshole.
Fuck ‘em all.
Indeed. And in different contexts, this would be considered left wing.
The political spectrum isn’t really that much use today.
http://politicalcompass.org/
This is better. The economic spectrum goes left to right (with right being libertarianism, left being statism) and the social spectrum goes high to low (high being fascism, low being anarchism).
Women putting men down and saying they should control the world. Surprise, surprise. That men do all the real work in the society is beyond these women to understand. Well? They are going to understand this real soon now.
I am more and more looking forward to the anarchy if it comes. I will be laughing my arse off.
Empower women ==> Destruction of society because the beta males stop working. It’s not that hard to understand.
I’m with Jeff.
How long do you think it will be before the majority of legislators are women? Once that has happened how much longer will it take until all legislators are women?
Here in the columns of The Spearhead we read often as to how women are seeking to impose mandated percentages of women on the boards of companies. This idea will surely spread to legislatures. There is also an observable effect that once women become dominant in any area the remaining men depart. So I think the woman spouting above will get her way quite soon.
Just in passing I would not say I was right wing. Fiercely individualistic might be closer to the truth. I also don’t consider myself a hypocrite and only have principals so long as they favour myself. I well understand that to be free is to be responsible and indeed that this can make my life harder rather than easier. This is a price I would willingly pay.
At some primal level men are driven to seek dominance over other men. Whenever men get together there will soon be competition to be top-dog. Whether it is light-hearted joshing or knock-down-drag-out fights, it always exists.
Even if we could join forces we would eventually end up embroiled in battles for leadership and dominance.
This need for dominance over other men is, of course, driven by a desire for sexual access to females. That is the problem in the fight against misandry: the ultimate goal of every man is to end up sleeping with the enemy.
PS
So when the chicks head to the bathroom en-masse they are talking about healthcare legislation. Who knew?
The majority of men must be made a permanent underclass for the aristocracy to become permanent. Women will never rise above the level of middle management, under the most powerful males, and that’s exactly where they want to be.
I’ve always been highly dismayed at men voting en masse for Republicans, expecting them to be any less hypocritical, man hating, and Constitution-destroying than Democrats.
As to Default User’s point about men ultimately being most concerned with sleeping with the enemy – I agree with you. So should the celibate among us (me included) be the standard bearers for men’s rights?
“I am more and more looking forward to the anarchy if it comes. I will be laughing my arse off.”
That’s music to my ears.
And as far as voting is concerned, I ALWAYS vote with my feet.
Paul,
I expect that if it ever did get that far, there would probably be a coup d’etat. I hope that that day never comes.
MikeT,
That blog might have drawn inspiration for his axiom from G.K. Chesterton’s letter of the same name published in the 20s I think.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1717/1717.txt
He also has very un modern thoughts about feminists and the suffragettes.
This need for dominance over other men is, of course, driven by a desire for sexual access to females.
It has been ingrained into us by evolution, but what’s important is that even if there are no females present the urge to compete comes naturally.
That is the problem in the fight against misandry: the ultimate goal of every man is to end up sleeping with the enemy.
This notion needs to be done away with. Truth or not, it’s the source of every charge that is levelled against a man, while at the same time giving a higher moral ground to women who are said to be above it.Saying that a man’s highest purpose in life is to sleep with a woman has become fashionable these days, I just hope it doesn’t last.
Yea in video games men don’t compete for pussy they compete to compete.
Both political ideologies are defunct because each has mutated into a failure of itself.
Who can imagine a “Liberal” philosophy that denies a right to bear arms for (what in reality actually are) the peasantry.
Who can imagine a “Conservative” philosophy championed by Feudal Lords that encourage an armed peasantry?
It’s madness. Absurdity – no, it’s absurd madness wrapped in a farce and there’s plenty of examples of these disturbing contradictions.
The explanation is: Each party exists purely to thwart the other.
When politics have degenerated into our version of 21st century insanity, that stasis is desirable.
It may not be a man’s highest purpose, but the real point there is that there are plenty of men who would gladly shoot you dead to restore a woman’s right to vote in the off chance it would ingratiate them to women. They would dress it up in higher rhetoric, but it would be the same white-knight-hope-i-can-screw-you goal.
Friedrich Hayek noted similarly in his essay “Why I am Not A Conservative” that the fundamental problem with post-enlightenment conservatism is that it is, more or less, simply an exercise in slowing down the lefitist/socialist train –> it does not produce very many “new” ideas of its own, and consists largely in resisting what the left is proposing, or undoing what it has done. This is why Hayek advocated a more dynamic libertarianism, even though he didn’t like that word to describe it, preferring to be considered something of a classical Whig.
This is why, by the way, the culture wars have been so firmly imprinted on American politics –> it provides a way for both parties to articulate their position vis-a-vis the other: the democrats propose a progressive approach to the culture and the republicans are about slowing down changes or turning things back to how they were. In every way this is a losing game for the conservatives — they will keep falling back and falling back and falling back, gradually ceding ground generation upon generation because it is the progressive leftists who are driving the agenda forward.
If conservatives faced this reality with honesty, they would probably recognize that the real way to defeat the leftist progressive agenda is to let it run its course and kill itself — that reaches the endgame of the left’s train faster than trying to slow down the train and giving in to gradualist change (effectively what conservatism is today — look at the generational difference between a conservative like Schlafly and one like Palin — it’s the sliding definition of what counts as “conservative”, adjusted to whatever “new reality” the leftists have created on the ground).
Conservatism, such as it is, can never win. It can only slow down the inevitable leftist train.
The “liberals” want to run fill tilt into the abyss — the “conservatives” would rather just walk. None of the major players can conceptualize that we are on the wrong road.
With a two party system, you get a stupid party and an evil party. When they come up with something truly stupid AND evil, it is called bi-partisan.
For over a hundred years, the US government was small and consumed minimal resources. This changed once women got the vote. Whereas men overwhelmingly wish to stand or fall on their own, women want to be taken care of no matter what. It took a while, but Uncle Sam has been replaced by Aunt Samantha, taking from productive men to give to unproductive women.
I got into an argument about this at work with a lesbian, and showed her the basic numbers – government budgets, percentages of GNP and the like, before and after the 19th amendment. It shut her up for days!
In my opinion neo-conservativism murdered the conservative movement, because neo-conservativism is perfectly happy to create a nanny/big brother/welfare state as long as the ruling class benefits from it. Actual conservatives should have been just as terrified at Bush/Cheney as they are at Obama/Biden.
Read the comments section at the original article’s link–you might want to recruit some of those people.
The Bi-Partisan Misandry Party will continue to proliferate and grow strong.
A majority of males will support it fully and nourish its growth. If not checked, this trend will spread until it finally becomes culture.
This is the result of successful propaganda socializing dimwits from cradle to grave. From classroom to CNN.
Every day.
My husband thinks I’m a libertarian nutcase, which is why I wrote, Why I am Not a Social Conservative. A cute nut, but a nut. Doubt there are any social conservatives on here, although there seem to be a few lefties.
Don’t confuse pro-life principles with social conservatism. It’s a question of the right to life, which is a classically liberal principle. The debate is whether or not the right to life trumps the right to liberty.
Social conservatives are driven by their own excellent relationships with their wives to assume that all women are good and pure. Therefore it must all be the fault of those dastardly men.
This. Most of them are in complete denial. If you’ve never dealt with a feminist on a regular basis, then they’re like boogey-men.
”
This is why you should be careful when selecting allies.
Never choose an ally just because it’s your enemy’s enemy.
It’s better to loose a batlle fighting well than to win a bad victory.
It’s even better to shun battles you might loose.
Winning is what matters and in forming societies power must be achíeved without the consent or help of women.
A bad boy with mommys permission to be a bad boy is not a bad boy!
Brotherhoods need to be good in order not to break up!”
TFH,
Are you listening? Sarah Palin is not the enemy of your enemy. She is your enemy as are the democratic women.
What is funny is that a lot of Republicans don’t learn.
Dennis Prager is on his third wife, are are Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani.
How many times can someone go through the same wringer without learning?
Empower women ==> Destruction of society because the beta males stop working. It’s not that hard to understand.
Things like the Bradley Amendment force these men into slavery. This postpones the loss of Beta productivity, but only for so long.
Also, misandry causes Omega males to join Al-Qaeda, and it thus just as effective at recruitment as the direct efforts of AQ. Anyone interested in the War on Terror has to start connecting these dots.
On the bright side, it only takes :
20% of men to avoid marriage for the whole institution to become unviable
10-20% of men to learn and practice Game to disrupt the entire sexual market
A small number of high-income men to stop working to shrink the tax base.
All three are already happening.
B&G- There are many cogent libertarian arguments for supporting pro-life principles. It is such a shame that social conservatives have let themselves be hoodwinked by a GOP that so callously manipulates their heartfelt beliefs.
Though I could say the same about populists in the Democrat party.
Toby,
You view is too un-nuanced for you to be taken seri0usly.
I never said Sarah Palin had MRA sympathies, so quit lying to prop up a strawman.
But she gets under the skin of the hard-core ‘all men are rapists’ feminists to a greater degree than anyone else ever has, which for the time being, is good enough for me.
Now conservatism as a whole is totally useless, but that is an issue far beyond Sarah Palin. Conservative men are just as much of a problem, perhaps more so, as conservative women.
The thing is the idealists among them thought that men and women would work out well as being simultaneously competitors with each other and collaborators with each other. Terribly idealistic viewpoint, but that’s what you generally get from the idealists.
The cynics/realists among them figured that there would be a time when men would resist the changes and so on, but they would eventually succumb to them due to their desire for women and sex — in other words, women could use sex as a tool to force feminism on men by demanding that men embrace feminism in order to access sex and relationships.
What neither the cynics nor the idealists expected, however, was that the sexual revolution would have the effect of empowering the dodgiest men and making women trip all over each other to sexualize themselves the most and dangle themselves before the dodgy men. In other words, they unleashed a promethean force — unrestricted sexuality — and badly misjudged the impact it would have on everyone. As a result, you have a lot of ticked off and alienated women *and* men at the current system.
For the most part, neither the cynics nor the idealists expected women would, given the freedom from social opprobrium and unwanted pregnancy, opt to play *up* rather than *down*, and in an en masse way, their sexuality in an attempt to — you guessed it — snag the most desirable men. The older feminists are quite simply nonplussed at the behavior of contemporary young women, and this has resulted in verbal hostilities from time to time on the internet. As it turns out, the younger women still want men and are not social revolutionaries like their grandmas or even mothers were (or styled themselves to be) — they simply want to snag the best men they can, and in a freewheeling environment, they’ll happily use sex to get that. Makes sense from that perspective. For the older feminist revolutionaries, however, this was *not* the intended result — if anything, most of them envisioned an androgynous world where sexuality was played down, no women wore heels or makeup and so on and set their own standards of beauty (presumed to be different from what men find attractive) and so on. Didn’t happen? Why? Because human sexuality, when unleashed, is a promethean force that is much stronger and much more visceral than any political ideology. It swamped both the idealistic and cynical feminists and became, in the end, the lasting legacy of the cultural revolution.
In other words, the feminist revolutionaries anticipated a future like Star Trek — either because it would “just happen because it’s the right thing to do”, or because “it will eventually happen because men will fall into line when women demand it of them in order to get sex”. It didn’t work out that way, ironically, because the *women* didn’t play ball — instead they went with the free sex impulse and took the whole culture down into a whirlpool with them. I don’t really *blame* the women for this — my impression of female sexuality is that when it is not under some kind of leash it’s a hugely powerful force, especially when combined with emotion — much more so than the male sexuality which tends to be kept, most of the time, in a compartmentalized box (as with most of our lives as men — we have boxes for bits of our lives).
From here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7090944/Hillary-Clinton-raises-prospect-of-resignation.html
“Mrs Clinton said she also hoped throughout her life to be a strong advocate for the rights of women and girls.”
She forgot ‘lying their arses off to further their own agenda’….is that sniper fire I hear Hillary?
Never choose an ally just because it’s your enemy’s enemy.
Toby, I think that was supposed to be a dig at me, not TFH.
I don’t have a problem with women working, or competing in the marketplace. AS LONG AS it is pure merit, without AA, or whining about the bogus ‘pay gap’. All my direct reports are Asian women, who do their job without complaining about anything.
Sadly, I see more whining and less meritocracy, from white women.
Now, I want to repeat this often :
In my recent Internet battles, I see that after the most strident ‘feminists’, the highest misandric zeal was from whiteknight/mangina men, rather than average women who are only interested in trivial things. Mangina men have misguided goals that we are aware of, but the average woman only wants to side with whoever is winning.
So in terms of misandric obsession :
Hard-core ‘feminists’ > mangina/whiteknights > average women
Remember this hierarchy, and why it is so.
“Because what they really want [with Obamacare] is the money that men have earned.”
Bingo. This is all it’s about for them. According to Kaiser-Permanente, women account for two-thirds of health care expenditures. Yet under Obamacare, they propose to bar charging women more for health care, even though they use two-thirds of health care dollars! This is just another wealth transfer from men to women. Any so-called MRA/etc. who supports this is out of his mind.
I do have to say, though, that I anxiously await the feminist march to protest the “outrage” of men paying more for car insurance. They’re all about “equality”, I heard, so I’m sure they’re out there burning bras over this injustice.
Novaseeker, that post was incredibly insightful, and brings to immediate attention the question: in what way, if any, are we mirroring their mistake? What expectations of future male behavior are our predictions relying upon? How reliable are those expectations?
I am afraid that efforts to convince the general public of the need to change our educational system will be curtailed by the growing presence of an under-productive class of young males, who will be seen as a fault, not of the educational system, but as endemic to the gender.
Similarly, with the continuing collapse of marriage, reform of the family courts may become a moot point as women increasingly come to believe that they neither need nor want to involve a father to begin with–I expect that pushing this idea has been on the feminist agenda for decades, and has only be getting any sort of real traction as marriage has collapsed. This is likely to be aided and abetted by the social policies they are pushing for availability of long maternity leave and flex time (primarily geared towards women).
Sounds right to me. I have come to see *mangina/whiteknights * as the enablers of feminists, whether they do it willingly or not.
Arbitrary,
The funny thing about ‘feminism’ is that it has actually widened the gap between :
1) Women under 30 vs. over 35
2) Women who are hot vs. those who are just 20 pounds overweight.
A society of monogamous marriage masked these differences and made them seem small. Now, they are exposed for the large differences that they are.
So a lot of women lose out under feminism (eventually, ALL women lose out as they age).
Case in point (Just recently posted on Glenn Sack’s blog), a woman tried to hit her boyfriend with a frying pan, then chased him down and stabbed him repeatedly. She won’t be going to jail, however, thank in no small part to chivalrous, white-knighting mangina judge Henrik Tonning.
I think once marriage collapses completely, we’ll move toward totalitarianism. Either the men rule their families, or the government rules everybody.
You can see that in Germany. As marriage died, the state grew to include everything. The black market and emigration grew accordingly, while birth rates went into free-fall. This won’t descend into anarchy for a very long time, because with falling birth rates, you also have a decreasing number of young men (the people most likely to cause trouble). Rather, we’d have genteel decline until we depopulated enough to be taken over.
Geez, guys. I’ve already left one country to get away from that kind of government. Is it going to chase me from country to country for the rest of my freaking life?
slwerner,
Wait, he KNOWS he is being admittedly sexist and still did it?
The most interesting question is, “Would Islamic rule be better?”
See, if ‘Men’s Rights’ were a real movement, they would be all over that judge.
He openly admits to making a sexist decision, but gets away with it. Contrast that to Larry Summer (who merely said something that is true).
There is no Men’s Rights Movement. There is a ‘pre-movement’, but it is not a movement.
The most interesting question is, “Would Islamic rule be better?”
Traditional Right-wing Western Society > Islam > Feminazi hell.
Since the first option is all but dead, I choose option 2 among the poor choices available.
Most men I know love feminism because it means easy sex. They say they don’t like feminism, but if you start naming feminist policies, they’re all for them.
It’s only the guys who get burnt by their ex-wives or baby-mammas, or have trouble “getting some”, who see it for the farce it is. And even some of them, don’t get it. They see their situation as an individual one, not as a part of a wider problem.
On the plus side, without quotas that bypass the electorate, you will never get legislatures to be more than 20-25% women.
A lot of women will not vote for women.
So they have to bypass the electorate. Let’s see what happens then.
Yeah, I’m starting to think, “Okay. We tried and made a hash out of things. Your turn, bring on the sharia. Just don’t try to convert me.” Don’t know if that would work, though.
TFH, it’s called an “Executive Order” or a “Judicial Ruling”.
Most men I know love feminism because it means easy sex. They say they don’t like feminism, but if you start naming feminist policies, they’re all for them.
I used to think this way too. That is, until I became aware of the prospect of false rape charges, and how a man’s life can be ruined just because a woman wants attention.
Bring that up with men who think they love feminism. Make them aware…
B&G has said something very profound above. Take note.
So how do we get the P**** Worshippers to see the Matrix for what it is? To see that it is actually bad for them in the long run?
What i don’t understand is if the only commodity of value that women bring to the table is sex, and they use this sex to extort men to their wills, why don’t men just get together and collectively decide that women will no longer have the sole choice in sexual selection. The only thing keeping men from taking what they want from women is other men. Bitches really don’t appreciate how dependent they are on men for every aspect of their safe, pampered lives.
@ tweell
“For over a hundred years, the US government was small and consumed minimal resources. This changed once women got the vote. ”
Those interested may like the article by Prof. John R. Lott, Jr.
‘Women’s suffrage over time’
November 27, 2007, at Washington Times.
The study was http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html
Note the difference between married and single women. Can everyone see now why the political left is so keen to break up marriages? It really is a big win for them all round, at least until they’re forced out at the wrong end of a pitchfork.
More details in his paper
‘How Dramatically Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=160530
The problem is that bigger government means a more coercive apparatus of control, and more power to force others to your will makes seizing the reins of power more attractive to those of malintent, who force the original well-meaning idealists aside. Friedrich Hayek’s classic ‘Road to Serfdom’ warned about this in the chapter ‘Why the worst get on top’. It’s should be required reading for every voter…
http://www.word-gems.com/wealth.hayek.html
As for TFH
“In my recent Internet battles, I see that after the most strident ‘feminists’, the highest misandric zeal was from whiteknight/mangina men, rather than average women who are only interested in trivial things.”
Remember Nietzsche, TFH…
“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”
Toby – Basically it comes down to how hard it is to create and operate a Cartel. Especially in the game of reproduction. All it takes is one deserter to break the ranks, turn on his brothers, and go impregnate all the women. It can be enforced if the other members are willing to enforce the rules against their own turncoats. I.e. to drive a Spear through the deserter’s chest.
Not easy to do in modern society where Adultery is no longer a crime, but the failure to pay Alimony to an adulterous spouse is.
They don’t care. That’s what you guys don’t seem to get. Most men don’t care.
Just like most women don’t care if you tell them that they’ll age, and that screwing every alpha or alpha-wannabee they come across could ruin their later chances of getting married. Even if they want to get married eventually, telling them this will not dissuade most of them. They don’t care.
Think about it: there are millions of people in this country who believe in hell. They believe that their beliefs and actions will influence whether or not they will burn in fire for all eternity. That’s a pretty heavy punishment; a risk worth avoiding. But they don’t care. Really, they don’t. They live their lives as if it doesn’t really matter. They can’t even be bothered to go to church on Sunday, or stop fucking their neighbor’s wife.
When I came to the faith I had a Holy Crap! moment were I thought, “Wow. I’d better shape up, or I’m permanently screwed.” Most people, even religious people, never have this moment.
You are attempting to use logic with people who don’t give a shit. Good luck with that, dude.
Not easy to do in modern society where Adultery is no longer a crime, but the failure to pay Alimony to an adulterous spouse is.
This. Marriage was a cartel, and nobody wants it anymore.
Think of the other dimension of this.
Right now, the state wants to see how close to slavery it can push men towards.
But eventually, the state will turn on women too.
The state will see that these ‘empowered’ cougars are not producing new taxpayers nor new technologies. The state will calculate that cutting off these women is worth the prospect of losing their vote (which it still may not lose).
So these women will also be enslaved by the state.
Back in the 70s, feminism was often explicitly sold to men on this very basis — it will be easier to get laid, fewer rules, more free sex, more access to sex, and so on. What a crock that was.
Trouble is that the social dynamic among men is primarily one of competition — and nowhere is that more visceral than as it relates to women (the original source of intra-male competition). This stuff is just too wired in us, I think, to be overcome easily. It’s exacerbated in our culture of chivalry which we inherited from 19th century anglo culture, but the roots are deeper. Combine the biological roots with the cultural inheritance of chivalry and you get the perfect storm we see today — rampant favoritism for females, and a massive societal tilt against men in almost every sphere. Not easy to undo, really, at this point.
I also am uncertain about how men will behave in the future, and whether we can reliably predict how men will react to future developments. It’s troubling.
I do think that the scenario you paint is a plausible, if grim, one — plausible because it isn’t all that far removed from where we are right now. Namely the idea would be that men are clearly the inferior sex, as evidenced by their lack of motivation in life, and generally higher rates of dysfunction. Rather than being seen as useful members of society and fathers, men could be increasingly portrayed as the fundamentally problematic element of society, one in need of control, and one which should be kept far away from children and family life, which could come to be seen even more as the preserve of women. The storyline would be that male power was always fragile and was solely based on physical power — and that once physical power was lessened in importance, their inferiority became unmasked once and for all, revealing that women are — barring a few male outliers at the right end of the bell curve — by far the superior sex in virtually every aspect of a society that has moved beyond the need for physical strength and power. The next question would then become what should be done about the male humans, and the question will be raised in seriousness whether we really need all that many of them to begin with, given how unproductive and dysfunctional most of them are when compared to the superior sex.
That’s a dystopic vision, clearly, and certainly unlikely. But not impossible. It’s quite hard to predict what will happen. As Obsidian says, though, expecting that the laws will be changed to help men is a very, very, very long shot. More likely men will be blamed and marginalized and problematized — perhaps eventually to the degree that a kind of final solution to the male problem becomes discussed seriously among the right tail men and the mass of women.
That’s what I meant by totalitarianism. That’s what happened in Germany. They’re still using carrots (money, lots and lots of money) to convince women to have babies. But as the situation becomes even more desperate, and the entire economy begins to collapse, they won’t be above using sticks.
perhaps eventually to the degree that a kind of final solution to the male problem becomes discussed seriously among the right tail men and the mass of women.
Sex technologies that lead to male addiction will happen before then (8-10 years from now). That will reorganize the dynamics yet again, in hard to predict ways.
They’re still using carrots (money, lots and lots of money) to convince women to have babies.
What type of carrots?
Rural whites in the US still have birth rates slightly above replacement.
Uh, Novaseeker. Hate to inform you of this, but they’ve already completed that discussion in the black community. The verdict is: abortion and incarceration. They are just having trouble keeping the “problem males” in jail, because it’s so darned expensive. That’s why they’re crowding them in the prisons tighter and tighter. The question is, if they have to let them out, will they prefer to shoot them, or merely castrate them?
True enough, but that’s not a final solution — there are still far too many males. A final solution would be more like a hard cap on the % of the population that is permitted to be born with a Y chromosome. Mandatory castration doesn’t work, really, because all of the eunuchs you create would still not really be productive — you’d just have more unmotivated ex-males. If men underperform, underproduce, underengage and so on in a fairly consistent manner over the next 3-4 decades, the question of reducing the number of men will be openly addressed, I think. Of course as TFH says, there are intervening events that could be game changers.
Some of you are laughing at the plight of black American men. Pointing fingers and making statements about how they’re just intrinsically bad, being black. But you will be up next.
If being black makes you intrinsically bad, wait till they start printing the statistics that show that crime is an overwhelmingly male phenomenon. Then people will start (and are already starting) to speak about the problem with intrinsically bad men. They’re trying medication now, on the little boys.
Then there will be nobody left to laugh.
I fail to see what’s so funny.
@We are women, hear us menstruate!
I think what will help is men realizing that you do not have to surrender to women to gain their affection. Indeed, such surrender is likely a turn off. Rock stars and sports stars are often un PC, they do not lack for women. A man that is voluntarily celibate has perhaps more power than a man that simply has game. The voluntary celibate has truly shown independence from women. The man with game may still need approval, even if masked in cool aloofness. A man who is involuntarily celibate will likely be suffering a debilitating loss of confidence and pride. His frustrations will be a drain on his energy.
In short, I am not sure of the answer to your question. I think it is about really being independent of the need for female approval. The voluntary celibate may be free of that need or could still need approval but without the need for sexual conquest.
@hankmoody
I do not believe it is a man’s highest purpose but it is a very strong drive. I believe a man’s highest purpose is to do great things (they will be different for each man). I think if you told the average man that they would never have the affection or companionship of a woman those men would still strive for great things.
General comment:
One part of the problem is that a man’s status amongst males is built partly on his success with women. Even men will throw out the “can’t get laid” argument as a rebuttal. As men, we are driven towards and admire mastery. Success with women is one area of mastery and lack of success here will tend to lower a man’s status with other men. A high sexual appetite is often considered manly and a lack of one can lead to charges of unmanliness (or, heaven forefend, homosexuality*). In some ways men force other men into needing the approval of women.
*Not that there is anything wrong with that. :/
A final solution would be more like a hard cap on the % of the population that is permitted to be born with a Y chromosome.
That’s not beyond reality. They do the opposite in China, remember. And I remember reading a study about IVF couples a while ago. When asked which sex they would choose for their child, if they were allowed to do so, the majority chose female. Even the majority of men chose female. It really shocked me at the time.
It’s funny, because it’s not like gay guys have a low sex drive.
Which, given that feminists of the past have already suggested this, it’s not all that hard to believe it will be seriously discussed.
If this is our worst case scenario, what can we do to avoid it? If it comes, what can we do to prevent ourselves from teetering over the cliff to gendercide?
I thought China’s policy was a hard cap on live births, and that the gender bias in births there is as a result of selective abortion rather than state policy?
In any case, something will eventually need to be done if men remain in a funk, other than the right end of the bell curve.
Who’d want their children to be born as second class citizens?
Those statsistics lie.
Women commit more crimes than men, but they aren’t punished for them.
Think about Rihanna hitting Chris Brown with a stilletto shoe or Ms. Tiger woods taking out two of his teeth with a golf club. Were they arrested? Were their acts of assault and battery even *reported* in the MSM?
Every time a woman slaps or kicks or punches a man, she knows that she almost certainly won’t be punished or even arrested. If a man reciprocates, he’s going to spend a least a night in jail. If initiates it, he’ll probably go to prison for months.
Are the readers of this board aware that there was a *serious* proposal in the UK by a politico known as Baroness Corston to empty the women’s prisons and refill them with men?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6444961.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-442113/Womens-prisons-close-decade.html
That’s how these people think. Men deserve punishment for their crimes, but women can do as they damn well please and escape any real retribution.
“Equal justice for all” is a male concept, not a female conecpt.
Nova, I almost sense that you belatedly agree with them that the men need to be culled. It’s certainly something on your mind, and you aren’t expressing your usual outrage about it (you’re not above using expletives at times, even). What’s the deal?
Zeta, I expect it’s just because of the way I asked about it. It’s hard to express outrage over something as you predict it, rather than as other people suggest that it be done.
Nemo,
Fortunately, as female instigated violence becomes a bigger and bigger problem (both because women believe they can get away with more, and because men become less willing to stop them) this trend will be unable to continue…once females become the primary victims of female instigated violence (in competition over scarce males?), there will be reform. One hopes that it will happen sooner.
Nova wants all the tepid beta males out of the way, so that he can have all the Honeys for himself.
Doesn’t matter if the statistics are true or not. The only thing that matters is whether or not people believe them. In German they have the saying, “Only believe the statistics that you manipulated yourself.”
I thought China’s policy was a hard cap on live births, and that the gender bias in births there is as a result of selective abortion rather than state policy?
It is. But it’s a policy that the state new would result in fewer females born, and they didn’t care. In fact, they saw it as a good thing, as men would work and women would make babies (which they didn’t want). America could adopt something similar, limit couples to the number of children they could have, and the number of boys born would fall automatically.
What type of carrots?
Kindergeld, paid maternity leave, subsidized daycare and preschool, Elterngeld, an extremely low tax rate, etc. It adds up to a huge amount of money, over time. The government can’t afford the payouts, but they can’t not afford the payouts, either.
Americans are almost more generous, but people don’t make babies for money. They make babies because they wish to invest in the future. There are two main reasons people do that: patriotism and religious beliefs. Once you kill both of those, you are demographically screwed.
Rural whites are part of a much-maligned, counter-cultural movement.
It will be presented as perfectly rational — “men really *did* turn out to be obsolete, after all, once we moved past the age of physical power” and so on. Again, if men continue to underperform, there won’t be very many arguments that can be made against it, at least not at the level of elite opinion.
A few things.
One is we need to back the development of disruptive technologies. One of the remaining edges of our sex is our facility with tech — both as designers and inventors as well as users. We need to leverage this to our advantage before it gets turned against us as a sex.
Another is that we need to develop “pods” of men of all ages who are informed and resistant. They will need to be educated, and in many cases, they will likely need to expatriate outside the greater West. These are the basis of a kind of resistance in exile once TSHTF for our sex in the West, if it comes to that.
Another, related point, is that we need to make plans now for building networks and alliances in non-Western parts of the world which are not influenced (or not as influenced) by these trends. Again, the idea is forming a pod, or a series of them, for the remnant of men who can resist these developments, if they occur, from a place of relative safety.
I don’t support that culling idea, but I do think that unless something happens that changes the funk that the rank and file men seem to be in, something will eventually be done about it. My dystopia will almost certainly not come to pass, but something will be done.
Also I think it’s important to articulate the other side’s perspectives, or at least the potentially worst case scenario, as well as one can in order to assess it properly. That can sound like advocacy, but it’s more like devil’s advocacy, really.
Nemo, we’re already on our way there.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6812299/Women-prison-estate-to-be-cut.html
Comment awaiting moderation? What is this hippy shit? Did we lose a war?
That’s true, that could be how it could be approached initially at least.
Just a trip-wire if you have more than X number of links.
That is why no man can afford not to learn Game.
You don’t have to *practice* Game, but a man cannot afford to not be seamlessly congruent with the truths of Game.
Even a man with Game who chooses to be celibate is better off than a Beta.
Ah. I’ll keep that in mind. Thanks.
They could tout “green” credentials and say that overpopulation was ruining the environment. That’s how the Chinese did it.
Too many children are bad for Mother Earth. We should set sensible limits to reduce our impact on the planet. Yada, yada, yada.
They’re good at making this stuff sound reasonable, and everyone against it is a hate-monger, or one of those “religious fanatics” with 3 or more kids. You’d end up stuck having the “What about the children?” argument thrown at you.
I agree it’s possible, though improbable.
A slightly less improbable scenario follows on from an earlier posting about surrogacy and artificial wombs, the consequence of which is the reduction of female numbers.
Consider a future where conception, gestation and child raising can all be outsourced to incubators and specialists a la Brave New World. That trajectory is already being followed, with improving incubator technology able to sustain ever-younger premature fetuses, fertility technology routinely conceiving ex-utero and the growing network of child-care centers staffed by non-parents. Soon women will be optional in the creation of human life, and indeed many women would welcome such a development, considering the havoc childbirth wreaks on a woman’s body. A slow introduction of the benefits of having a baby genetically selected and screened against abnormality, the health and appearance benefits of a pregnancy-free birth, and the expert care of specialists is all that’s needed to win over most women (appealing to their fears is how they are won over).
Once women lose the unique ability to bear children, why would anyone want girl children? They are physically weaker and consume more resources. They don’t produce the same genius that fuels technological advancement. They don’t have the same ability as men to think beyond their own immediate interests and have no regard for mad ideas like consistent application of law or consequence-follows-action. Women will not risk their lives for others – they will even expect a stranger to risk his life to rescue their own drowning children rather than throw themselves in the torrent.
About the only good argument to retain women would be as backup should reproduction technology go awry. 10% of the population would be more than enough.
Once women lose this monopoly
Exactly — the meme will be “quality, not quantity”, when it comes to kids as well.
This is what *we* think, but if trends continue, and universities are 70-80% female, and the overclass of society becomes overwhelmingly female, I would not expect people to prefer to give birth to males. Males will be the lesser sex, full stop. The rise of incubator technology will simply enable more careerism among women who wish to outsource pregnancy, I think. I don’t expect a lot of men will take advantage of it (not the same drive to have kids as women do), or that many of the women who use it will prefer to have male children if men are the underclass of society as a sex.
The outsourced surrogacy industry is merely one that is allowing married couples who cannot carry to have kids, or older couples to have 2 or more kids quickly (in parallel).
Talking about population ratios as this stage is pointless, because you are speculating on what *may* happen with births in the next few decades, and even after that, it takes 25 years for them to be young adults. So you are effectively speculating about 2050 or later.
There will be technologies that have a bigger impact a lot sooner than that.
In nearly all societies, male has been the sex of choice for yet-to-be-born babies. I suspect the over-arching reason has always been that males can be relied upon to provide for their parents and look after themselves with greater success than females (for the reasons you quoted me above). No matter how advanced we get, that reality will manifest itself in some way – I can’t see the United States military lasting very long if it were staffed principally by females.
As for women’s greater presence at universities, I agree that it presages a period of female totalitarianism, but I’m not convinced that it would be very long-lived. We’ve already entered into it, and its defects are already glaring.
I think the strongest argument against me is the one you raise about men not taking advantage of pregnancy outsourcing as readily as women. Women certainly vocalize their desire for progeny more than men, though men can be just as fervent if some other objective is allied with the child, such as the continuance of a family line, or the necessity for a blood-heir. I really don’t know how the attitude of the sexes would be affected if the whole process of child birth were out-sourced and a child became nothing more than a cash transaction – no different to buying a puppy from a pet-store.
We are both, after all, proposing extreme and improbable outcomes. My money would be on the continuance of the 50/50 ratio.
Novaseeker January 28, 2010 at 12:41
“Another, related point, is that we need to make plans now for building networks and alliances in non-Western parts of the world which are not influenced (or not as influenced) by these trends.”
Nova,
we are already doing this…..John Nada has his web site…..we also have a private mens site and one use of it will be the ‘underground railroad’ to get men out of their femnazi country and into another. This is why I am working on my worlds passport. I am also working on challenging ‘countries’ claim that they control the ‘right to work’ for any human being. If we can get the world passport and ‘right to work’ sorted men can move around as they wish as free men living on Gods planet.
I am already spreading work around that I can spead around, but I am pretty sure other spearhead readers can pass work they need to be done around as well. Associations of men passing work off to each other is a good idea. In Ireland the free man group has started a piece where people note their business and then can buy/sell from each other without the good help of the guvment. All this can be done today. I’d like to see more men pass work to other men who need it.
“Once women lose the unique ability to bear children, why would anyone want girl children? ”
The one child policy in China proves what happens when you are only allowed one child. The MOTHERS kill the baby girls in large numbers.
Hillary Clinton has her knickers in a twist now that sex can be determined early enough to have abortions. WOMEN are aborting baby girls in the majority. Women KNOW that if they have a baby girl she will not provide for her in later life, that only men are usually ‘providers’. So Hillary was on about how the baby girls were being oppressed…I saw a Cary Robert column on that one.
“the overclass of society becomes overwhelmingly female”
What, with their degrees in ‘humanities’ or ‘wimmins studies’? Men will just ignore them and get on with our lives. Let’s see how the wimmin go when they need a plumber or an electrician or a builder or brick layer. I was reading in the UK tradies are charging single mothers more for the same work because the wimmin are clueless. Way to go!!
The wonderful Libertarian think tank Cato Institute puts Bush’s State of the Union next to Obama’s state of the union. Uncanny similarities.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/28/bushs-third-term/
Women being the majority of students at universities matters not a whit.
They study nonsense fields in the humanities and social sciences (which is really brainwashing masquerading as education).
The fields that actually produce value are still dominated by men.
If anything, a college that is 60% female is better for the guys. As a captive audience, they will get laid, and women will feel what it is like to have a ratio not be in their favor.
The belief that women will become 70-80% of all the professions that actually matter is totally absurd.
We are both, after all, proposing extreme and improbable outcomes. My money would be on the continuance of the 50/50 ratio.
Me too. And even if it isn’t, it is absurd to worry that it might be substantially different from 50/50, some 50 years from now.
This is what *we* think, but if trends continue, and universities are 70-80% female, and the overclass of society becomes overwhelmingly female,
Again, this is not even a remote possibility.
Nothing prevents women from starting their own businesses. Yet we see no major tech companies founded by women. No major hedge funds run by women.
You seem to think all those women in universities are actually learning something of value.
””””””’One is we need to back the development of disruptive technologies. One of the remaining edges of our sex is our facility with tech — both as designers and inventors as well as users. We need to leverage this to our advantage before it gets turned against us as a sex.”””’
The thing is once you have people not making technology other countries will fill the vacuum we don’t have to worry about being tortured for long before we are beaten in a war.
””””’It will be presented as perfectly rational — “men really *did* turn out to be obsolete, after all, once we moved past the age of physical power” and so on. Again, if men continue to underperform, there won’t be very many arguments that can be made against it, at least not at the level of elite opinion.”””’
You only need so many people with college degrees though. I mean there where like 8 engineers in iraq so even if everyone had an engineering degree there would still only be 8 jobs. Then the office personnel that jobs were not needed. Then the bosses who came from the workers because they understood the work like the office people didn’t.
If you could make babies without a woman or man then men would be the ones who would have to be had. What the fuck would you need the woman for paperwork? That shit gonna be obsolete.
No argument there. I read Novaseeker’s comment about female domination in universities to mean that public institutions, such as courts, government departments and legislatures, would be overrun by credentialed women – and indeed this is already happening. Bloated government agencies are full to the brim with overpaid women in secure jobs bearing humanities degrees.
Men are still holding sway in elected positions, though even that is under attack with feminist influence in the U.K. forcing political parties to field women only as candidates in some electorates. Appalling legislation is flowing from this, but that is why I don’t think such female dominance can be long lived – legislation that runs counter to common-sense and natural justice soon attracts so much resentment that it undermines itself.
As for the private sector, it is also being afflicted by legislative red-tape – the recent laws in Norway and France mandating 40% representation of women in company boardrooms being prime examples of what’s to come. This is what your ‘useless degrees’ are capable of being turned into. It’s not unlike the 19th century when the ruling class of England considered a sound education in Greek and Latin to be the mark of the educated man, with all other subjects being vocational and inferior – even though these lower forms of knowledge were what gave England her wealth and power.
Globalization destroyed one area of male employment : manufacturing.
The next areas to see cost deflation from globalization? Healthcare and education. Women work in those.
Bloated government agencies are full to the brim with overpaid women in secure jobs bearing humanities degrees.
And the tax base is already maxed out.
I will agree that a society where women are allowed to become lawyers and judges is going to go downhill quickly.
but that is why I don’t think such female dominance can be long lived – legislation that runs counter to common-sense and natural justice soon attracts so much resentment that it undermines itself.
That is what I am saying too. Some smart country somewhere will say to Anglosphere men “We will give you a 15 year tax holiday if you come here and bring your expertise”.
the recent laws in Norway and France mandating 40% representation of women in company boardrooms being prime examples of what’s to come.
Which almost immediately led to underperformance of corporations in those countries, and getting outcompeted by companies headed by men like TJ Rogers. The best tech company in Norway, agreed to get acquired by Cisco, partly to avoid complying with this law.
In America, only 15% of board members are women, which sounds about right if pure meritocracy is applied. Pure meritocracy will usually result in about 15% women at the top.
Plus, a woman who is a ‘board member’ via this will get an ego so big that she will be unable to marry. Remember this ‘hidden cost’.
Just to let you know that we are dealing with a world wide problem:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8485126.stm
Just like in any good Zombie movie, the infestation is world wide.
TFH-
Rich people in my area of the U.S. (Miami) regularly go to Colombia and Brazil for major procedures, just as wealthy Latin Americans come to Miami hospitals. Not long before this starts shaking down to the upper middle class as soon as they get over the ridiculous fears of “foreign” medical care.
I also know a Latino family here that has hired Indian tutors for their sons in math. Meet with them a couple times a week via internet and skype.
””””””The Fifth Horseman January 28, 2010 at 15:03
Globalization destroyed one area of male employment : manufacturing.
The next areas to see cost deflation from globalization? Healthcare and education. Women work in those.””””’
The closest is getting rid of all the female cash register jobs. Notice the self check registers. Well yea gonna eventually be the only thing. Plus you will just be able to run the cart by and it will be scanned right there and you can use your card to pay. Administrative and data entry jobs also female. Gone as well through use of computers to go ahead and do the mundane shit. A lot of formerly female office jobs in trades are already gone since the mechanics doing the work or tradesman just carry their own computer so no admin support needed when it is automatic. Accountants are gonna go the way of the dodo with the new computer programs that make it easy. If we go to no cash though then the government will just take what they need and send you a refund automatically. There go all those call center irs jobs as well. Where are all the travel agents? Oh yea not needed.
””””The Supreme Court President was hit in the face by the shoe. Mrs Beinish was not the judge who ruled on Mr Cohen’s divorce and has no connection to Mr Cohen, reports say. ””””””’
You see who he blamed for the problem though. As long as they blame the right person it cannot be implemented in the same way.
”””’The next areas to see cost deflation from globalization? Healthcare and education. Women work in those.
””
True though what if education went all online so the government would be able to program people with all the same info. Your right what if almost overnight all the teachers were suddenly not needed and you just needed people to monitor halls filled with hundreds of kids.
Or yea if the government started importing nurses from other countries who are just as good but make like 200 dollars a month and would be happy to make 1000.
They did it with engineers why not nurses who also are making too much money right now.
As qualifications and punishments for crimes in work become standard issue as well. You also don’t need hr. For what to tell someone they are fired a manager can do that no problem as long as everything is standardized for punishment then no inequality.
Was a few posts he he he
I tend to get excited when thinking about how easy it is to get rid of majority of womans work.
Here are some stats about medical tourism.
http://www.singularity2050.com/2008/08/more-on-the-economics-of-medical-tourism.html
Same for education. Unlimited tutoring online for $100/month means homeschooling becomes easier.
http://www.singularity2050.com/2007/04/outsourced_tuto.html
That is why Globalization is Horseman #3.
Outsourcing to India and elsewhere, whether of healthcare, education, surrogacy, etc. is a major blow to Western misandry. Beta males whine that software jobs were outsourced, but that is missing the forest from the trees. Women, as a whole, will see a devaluation.
Then there are also Horsemen 1, 2, and 4 of course.
Your right what if almost overnight all the teachers were suddenly not needed and you just needed people to monitor halls filled with hundreds of kids.
There’s actually a private school here were 3 out of 8 subjects are taught online. The kids sit in a computer room for those hours and they have a monitor to help them.
And homeschooling is dead-easy you guys. You get the teacher’s manuals, you see? All the answers are in it. The kids can teach themselves.
Or do the courses online at K-12, or something similar. Takes like 2 to 3 hours a day. That’s it. Teachers are going to go the way of the dodo. They’ve priced themselves out of the market.
””’There’s actually a private school here were 3 out of 8 subjects are taught online. The kids sit in a computer room for those hours and they have a monitor to help them.””””’
Interesting.
Yea I got the hr good riddance from watching the rules that people got fired for. I mean there was a list of rules where you got fired. So really once there is no thinking required at all then what is the point of hr if there are no descisions to be made in any situation because of having to treat everyone the same. Then they just ran resumes through a program to pull the ones they wanted. So just need to insert minority percentage and bam no need for hr then either. Just a homebase hr that establishes ruleset and none of the other redundant jobs. So instead of 50 people need 2.
Can you post the details? I’d love to do the same to a feminist coworker. She just doesn’t believe the numbers I rattle off to her and she says “prove it”. I send her a link her or there, but she doesn’t bother. This time I’d like to just collect the info and spell it on for her in detail where she can shut her trap.
@ Nutz:
Here are a few similar links for you:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x737rhv91438554j/
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2990822
http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/aidt/papers/web/Women_Suffrage.pdf
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~iversen/PDFfiles/LottKenny.pdf
$100 a month per subject for one-on-one online tutoring is all it costs.
Why be restricted by summer vs. winter, weekend vs. weekday?
Why have 6 subjects at once? Why not do only math for 3 weeks, and then only grammar for 2 weeks, or whatever combination you want?
All this is possible now.
“Liberal-Socialists have as a starting point principle, that males are not up to the level of human beings in the way females are.”
I don’t.
Good for you. Most of the leftists have waged unmitigated war against men for a half century now, so it matters not.
Well, all successful societies are man-made, from infrastructure, science, philosophy and law!
It therefore is a reasonable conclusion that men are mankind/humanity and thus the only ones who left the animal kingdom.
Women seems to best described by using behavioral terms from studies of animals.
To support this idea we can simply study how society disintegrates when women are placed in power.
“Aunt Samantha” … LMFAO!
Thank God TFH and Globalman showed up, I can only take so much capitulation, I mean, I know it’s important to know we’re up against such evil, but we need to fight this rather than give up.
btw, I’m not necessarily accusing Novaseeker of such.
Globalization can’t go on forever, Amerigo already circumnavigated it once.
Globalization is based on this: affordable energy (oil.)
Easily accessible reserves are being depleted. There is plenty more energy in the ocean shelves and tar sands but those are more expensive.
It looks like Asia, Russia, OPEC and Brasil will consume more oil.
Traditionally advancements in technology lead to decrease in oil extraction expenses. If this keeps up with depletion there will be no problem, but some economists doubt tech can mitigate both depletion and greater consumption.
There is money to be made if oil is cheap, and money to be made if it is expensive. Keep your eyes open boys.
The results will not only affect finances but affect the way men and women function in our economy.
Mr. N,
In an “information economy” globalization can continue when energy is expensive as long as communication is still cheap: you can still offshore industries like education, software, and even healthcare if energy becomes expensive, but communication is still cheap.
Globalization may out to be cage fighting with multiple players.
So much for being in the same boat, so stick to your guns.
* may turn out to *