A recent episode of someone getting off Scott free, seemingly because she is a girl and well while she was admittedly careless…that should be excused because…well…girl pass…got me thinking, how can women claim to be capable of being equals (much less leaders) when they don’t admit and take full responsibility for their mistakes? Or when society does not hold them to an equal standard, as well?
This builds on the last post — women need to choose if they are indeed really and willing to be full equals including all the downsides of that as well as the upsides, or we need to affirm that we are the weaker vessel and need/want the girl pass. What we can’t do is have it both ways, depending on convenience.
Personally, I recognize my limits. Not that I don’t take responsibility and accountability for my actions. I am equal in some ways, not even close in others. Such is life. And I am OK with that.
Discuss, debate… what do YOU think? And please, be civil to one another even in disagreement — it’s OK to agree to disagree. It’s not ok to attack, shame, name call, or bully. Not here, anyway. My blog, my rules! And I am waaaay too busy to babysit comments, so please behave.
Notes From a Red Pill Girl 
Yes, women need to decide whether or not they want to really be equal. This will mean that they will have to take greater responsibility for themselves. Sometimes I think some women might not even realize that they are trying to demand all of the benefits of a situation, but none of the responsibility. There was once a time when I was awoke by my own double standards. I’m hopeful that other women can have the same awakening.
how can women claim to be capable of being equals (much less leaders) when they don’t admit and take full responsibility for their mistakes?
They (as in, those particular women) can’t.
Even if they manage to convince themselves, the more aware folks amongst us will see them for the pretenders they are.
Or when society does not hold them to an equal standard, as well?
As Liz pointed out over at Spawny’s recently, this is much more difficult. If you are a female who despises chivalry, it may be (and definitely is, I’ll attest) pushed on you anyway. For women who like advantages, chivalry, and being treated as “the weaker vessel” by men this is obviously something they want to keep going. But for those who share my mindset, it is a hindrance towards gaining true social equality (not the faux equality/ridiculously advantageous shite we deal with now) and is actually insulting.
True Tarn,
Thing is not all women want to be equal and not all women want to accept inequality so… it’s a dammed if you do dammed if you don’t thing. Men, otoh, are never given a “girl pass.” And they would never expect to. Women could learn a lot about equality from men!
This builds on the last post — women need to choose if they are indeed really and willing to be full equals including all the downsides of that as well as the upsides, or we need to admit that we are the weaker vessel. What we can’t do is have it both ways, depending on convenience.
While true, the fact of the matter is that like men, no two women are exactly the same. Some will always prefer to be treated as delicate women, a few will do whatever it takes to truly be counted as one of the guys, and a significant number will pull the exact crap that they’re pulling currently. Looking for 100% of women to act and think alike is never going to happen. Heck, I’m the black sheep in my family, precisely *because* I am not Traditional and anti-chivalry when all my other female and most male kin are.
Personally, I recognize my limits. Not that I don’t take responsibility and accountability for my actions. I am equal in some ways, not even close in others. Such is life. And I am OK with that.
Recognizing one’s limits (always a good idea btw, as it helps you push past the ones that can change and accept the ones that can’t) doesn’t necessarily have to mean being unequal society-wise. Whether male or female, one can have equal amounts of personal strength, honor, integrity, valor, conscience, empathy, love, and honesty. I think this is also a choice though…One that fewer and fewer seem to make.
Ha! Posted at the same time, Bloom.
I’m not sure that I’d agree. Or at least not in the idea that sex alone is what makes us unequal from one another. There are lots of ways that people can be unequal. Some people have musical talent, some do not. Some have training in running marathons, while others prefer to paint. But either sex is capable of participating in those things, should they want to. Our differences come between the two sexes and within them.
This is not to sound rude but to put it simply
Most women (notable exceptions we know)
Do NOT have a sense of honour or bushido.
Men do many things for respect and the acknowledgement of their achievements. The flip side of which is owning up to ones failures or just acknowledging anothers greater ability in the thing being discussed. This is honour, bragging rights, pecking order, whatever but put (most) men particularly strangers together and they will size each other up. Thier deeds speak, thier ability to contribute will be assessed, their reaction to failure observed.
Hence the FNG phenomenon in any male undertaking. The Fucking New Guy is addressed as New and given no rank or privaleges until it has been earned. Even an incompotent who tries earns some honour for trying. Slackers, whiners are dishonoured and drop like a rock thru the ranks. e.g. White knights are so unmercifly called out because they are seen as the worst whiners, giving up their honour for a pussy pass.
A man will accept a helping hand. He will listen to those he holds honourable and hks betters so as to improve. No MAN will just accept a pussy pass just because. Many males latey do but they are NOT MEN.
The key questions of honour
What would you do if you could (usual restrictions removed)
What wouldnt you do if you could (no one is looking)
What would you do if you had to (what self sacrifice would you make)
Boys are born with this instinct. Watch them fall into their own structure when playing. Girls not so much. They empathize for those they like but it is based on feelings. I like you so you get special passes. I dont like you so anything I do to you is okay.
Simple test. No woman came to the defense of a stranger saying the immortal words “Hey Buddy, Pick on someone your own size.” Men see an unmatched win as dishonourable and so stand up for the little guy. If they are evenly matched “May the Best Man win”.
Simple test. No woman came to the defense of a stranger saying the immortal words “Hey Buddy, Pick on someone your own size.”
Perhaps none that you’ve personally seen or heard about, Horseman. But such people are in existence. I got a nice batch of bruises from standing up for the dweeby boy, Neil, who sat to the left of me in History when a couple of asshole bullies decided he looked like a fun toy to shove around.
Though I’ll admit my line was “Hey! Leave him alone.” not “Hey Buddy, pick on someone your own size.”
I will absolutely agree that the majority of women aren’t going to react the same in a hostile situation as a man. Likewise, the interactions I’ve seen between New Woman + Existing Group of Men is typically extremely different than New Man + Existing Group of Men. For a female to get the New Guy treatment, she needs to prove herself worthy of being near the group in the first place and only afterwards can she go about earning respect. Most would not be up to doing this, however, because they’d confuse the New Guy treatment for “harassment” or “boys being mean to me”.
Which is not actually a problem, since feminine-minded women populate the female sex more than masculine-minded ones. Complaining that they are unwilling to be treated as a male is like complaining that water is wet. (Shouldn’t prevent us from talking about ideals, what-if concepts, and future possibilities though.)
This is a very large question. I believe that women have agency and that gets me into trouble with men who insist that women are going on instinct or their lizard brains. Seeing my grandmother, who socially was a product of the nineteenth century, led me to this. Collectively, women will have to accept responsibility if they wish to be seen as full persons. For some reason, feminism has worked against this. Forty years ago, women were more responsible and competent. It has gone backwards.
About the pass, a British MP estimated that if men were prosecuted with the same vigor as women, there would be eighty percent less men in jail.
Or when society does not hold them to an equal standard, as well?
Never. These actions are biologically reflexive. Men, including the powerful men who control the reins of power in every society, will never hold women responsible for their own actions to the same degree as men because doing so doesn’t increase biologic survival of men, i.e., it doesn’t increase access to sex. There’s a reason why men are blamed for fatherless children, rather than the women who sleep around and actually eject their children’s fathers from their lives, resulting in a staggering illegitimacy rate.
You know what does increase men’s access to sex? Protecting women from harm, including protecting women from their own carelessness, is a biological imperative for men. The jock getting the most desirable women is a stereotype for a reason. Bill Gates didn’t meet his wife until after he was all ready a billionaire; providing is another male imperative of men.
The best thing to do about it is to recognize this basic fact about men and women and deal with it. And since there will always be men willing to date pretty much any woman (Casey Anthony has a boyfriend), there’s no reason for women to not act carelessly. One of the most important things to do is to repeal the 19th amendment. The state protection paying women to have children and to be single mothers, which I mentioned above, is a direct result of the 19th amendment and is extremely corrosive to society.
On the other hand, men are ruthlessly culled from sexual markets. Women would rather be alone or share a high status man, rather than have the full devotion of some loser.
“Women and children can afford to be careless, but not men.”
There aren’t many sentences that are more true and more consequential than this line.
Tarnished,
I got a nice batch of bruises from standing up for the dweeby boy, Neil, who sat to the left of me in History when a couple of asshole bullies decided he looked like a fun toy to shove around.
Guaranteed you have never done this as an adult. Most adult men have.
“One of the most important things to do is to repeal the 19th amendment.”
“Taxation without representation.” If women are denied the right to vote, then they would be exempt from paying taxes as well.
Not that any of this will ever happen…
Sue,
I used to be all in favor of women voting. It seems that any time the franchise is extended, it lends itself to stability. Now, I am beginning to have second thoughts.Women do not vote as men do. They will vote as a lock on what they consider to be “gender” issues and these things almost always benefit women at the expense of men. As Judgybitch likes to put it, once women got the vote, they voted in lifetime alimony and prohibition. After being divorced, they couldn’t even take solace in a glass of beer.
Ken,
I have to wonder what e have to show for all these concessions made since the sixties. While top tier men may have more access, the overall marriage rate is about fifty percent and, for those under thirty five, seventy percent are single. The birthrate has plummeted to well below replacement level. Did any of these concessions help women to do what they alone can do?
It would be pretty sweet, not having to pay taxes anymore… 😉 It makes the idea of being disenfranchised a tiny bit tempting–to be free of ALL taxation! Not that it will ever happen…
Certain racial groups tend to vote as a block, and vote in a way that I strongly disagree with. I suspect many red pill guys feel the same. Would you guys be in favor of disenfranchising these racial groups as well?
Sue,
Women comprise a majority of the electorate. A bloc that large would create problems but, they would never have to give up the vote. The argument then devolves to an exercise.
I’m still liking the idea of not paying any taxes… 😉
But none of this will ever happen. I don’t know why guys bring it up as much as they do.
i’ve always liked being a girl, being female, and have never desired to be a man, or to have a male’s role in life.
i don’t understand women who make a mission out of forcing the world to see them as they want to be seen rather than as they are just because and get all snotty about it.
(and this does not apply to Tarn b/c you’re not on a mission to change the world b/c the world doesn’t think like you. you just expect common decency and courtesy because we’re human beings.)
“… and well while she was admittedly careless…that should be excused because…well…girl pass…”
That might be a convenient meme with which to start a discussion. But for folks who are at all interested in the facts, that quote is flat-out wrong. The Hillary Clinton eMail Server issue was decided on facts that had zero to do with the fact that Hillary is a girl and so should be given a pass.
There is much precedent out there for top-level government folks being careless with classified information and not being punished for it. They were not punished for that carelessness, and that truth forms the basis for why the FBI could not recommend bringing charges against Hillary Clinton (If they recommended charges against Hillary, they would then have to bring similar charges against Republican folks). That information is laid out in detail in the three links provided below. But for those who don’t wish to read that info, here are just a few of the points made:
– Previous Republican heads of the State Department, and their staffs, used unsecure and/or private servers to pass “classified” information;
– The State Department servers have been hacked more than once – “with terabytes of information improperly downloaded in 2006 alone.” There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton’s server was hacked. Information on her private server was quite possibly more secure than if it had been on the State Department servers.
– Only about 100 out of 2100 eMails thought to contain sensitive information on Clinton’s eMail Server were originated or forwarded by Hillary. The rest were sent into Hillary’s server by other high-ranking government officials – who understood they were sending stuff to Hillary’s private server – or sent in or out by Hillary’s staff.
If the FBI decided to not recommend any of these other high-ranking officials for indictment, how is it any different when they choose to not recommend Hillary for indictment? Sex / Gender is not an issue here.
– During Bush Jr’s administration, multiple high-level folks on Bush’s staff used private servers to evade the scrutiny of the Federal records-keeping requirement. It is estimated that up to 22 million (million) eMails were never recovered. And: “At this point in the investigation, it is not possible to determine precisely how many presidential records may have been destroyed by the RNC. Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC email accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved, and the large quantity of missing emails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive.”
If Hillary’s carelessness was wrong, then so was all the other carelessness documented in the following three links. If the current outcry is motivated by a genuine concern for the safety of classified information, then why are all of these other instances of carelessness / nefariousness not being equally castigated? Most of these folks who got “passes” were male (so did they get a “male pass”?). The fact that they were not indicted informed the FBI’s decision to not recommend indictment for Hillary Clinton.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/19/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-424187.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
Sue,
You were the one who brought it up. That was the first time that I have ever commented on the issue.
Women do not vote as men do. They will vote as a lock on what they consider to be “gender” issues and these things almost always benefit women at the expense of men.
Which is why more men need to vote. The tides could very well be changed if women weren’t the overwhelming majority of voters. I’m not just talking about Presidential voting either. I vote in every election I can, be it for my mayor, congress rep, etc. Last time I counted, (yes, I actually do a quick headcount of the lines before leaving the voting area) the number of female to male voters was 3:1, and is usually this or 2:1.
We need more men to give their voices and get more balanced representatives in our political offices. Sadly, the US still has one of the lowest voting rates of most countries anyway…
and this does not apply to Tarn b/c you’re not on a mission to change the world b/c the world doesn’t think like you. you just expect common decency and courtesy because we’re human beings.
Well, I expect common decency and courtesy because it is what I put out. I’d like to get back what is given, though this doesn’t always happen. This is true at some point for everyone.
I do want to be treated like a man instead of a woman, including the pros and cons alike, and I appreciate my friends and coworkers who hold me to masculine standards. However, trying to convince the world too would just be an exercise in futility. It’s better to just remain polite towards, but not associate overmuch with, those who treat me in feminine ways.
Now if only we could get this concept through the heads of SJWs, lol.
“You were the one who brought it up. That was the first time that I have ever commented on the issue.”
fuzzie, Ken brought up repealing the 19th amendment. It’s something I’ve heard plenty of times online, from red pill and MRA types.
I don’t know what they hope to accomplish by talking about it. It’s never going to happen. But if it does–woo hoo! No more taxes for us girls. “Taxation without representation” just isn’t happening.
Tarnished is right, more men need to vote. That’s a realistic solution. It’s much better than continually talking something (repealing the 19th amendment) that is never going to happen, ever.
Guaranteed you have never done this as an adult. Most adult men have.
First, the encounter with Neil and the bullies happened in senior year, outside the Burger King a few blocks from our high school after classes were done for the day. Whether you count this age as us being adults or not is up to you.
Secondly, if you mean “guaranteed you have never gotten into a physical altercation while standing up for someone you barely/don’t know as an adult” then you are correct. This was the last time (so far) that I was injured on behalf of another person.
But if you mean “guaranteed you have never stood up for someone you barely/don’t know as an adult” then you are incorrect. There have been a literal handful of times I’ve done this for complete strangers (3 men, 1 woman, 1 child). Times I got between them and their assailant, fully expecting to be physically lashed out at in their place, but it has never occurred. I’m sure one day my luck with diffusing situations will utterly run out and I’ll end up in the hospital with a broken jaw or snapped ribs or something, but that doesn’t mean I will stop following my morals. And my morals say to protect those who are being hurt unnecessarily.
Imho, we need to instate a written and verbal test to prove an individual of either sex is competent enough to vote. That would likely weed out a bunch of the problem right there.
I don’t know if more men voting will help. Men lack an in-group bias that women have, our society is overwhelmingly gynocentric, and all politicians, both male and female, are eager to sell men down the river.
Tarn…”Imho, we need to instate a written and verbal test to prove an individual of either sex is competent enough to vote. That would likely weed out a bunch of the problem right there.” You can be certain that the tests would be highly politicized, and would be designed to encourage more voters of the type that supported the administration then in power, and to disqualify as many as possible of the type that voted against that administration….
David,
I’d settle just for a test that proves the voter has a basic understanding of all the major platforms and candidates. Too many people vote for a politician because “I’m a Republican, they’re a Republican…s/he must be the best choice!” or “I’m voting Democrat everyone in my family does…Platform? I don’t know anything about the Democratic platform.”
It’s absolutely mind-numbing, how folks are willing to admit full ignorance of a very important group of decisions. That’s what I’d like to prevent.
Fuzzie,
What would you do instead?
Tarn,
I honestly don’t know what to do and, I am in good company. As I see it, without change, it is inevitable that civilization will founder. It’s not like we are seeing a pendulum, it is more like seeing a train headed for a washed out bridge. Seriously, we are at the point where we need advice from the Big Guy Upstairs.
Maybe this is just how our species dwindles.
Homo sapien has been a severe J-curve population for much of its recent existence (since around the late 1400s), which in nearly all other animals is unsustainable in the long run without eventually hitting their carrying capacity. Perhaps this is us finally doing so. Ironic that it isn’t caused by bombs, war, or some man-made disease, but just ourselves.
Tarn,
I don’t think tht it is the end of us. There was a genetic bottleneck about 40,000 years ago. We were limited to twelve reproducing couples, according to the theory.
Perhaps I am felling the dread for the inevitable reaction to feminism. We don’t know what form it will take.
No serious thinker and lover of individual sovereignty thinks letting women and non Whites vote is a good idea.
Which is why leftist pushed for them to get the vote
Nor should all White men vote, and for damn sure none who’s family line doesn’t extend to the Revolutionary War
Re Tarns common courteousy.
Everyone should be kind and courteous as part of everyday gracious, honourable living. I hold doors for everyone. I say puzhalusta and spasibo. I listen patiently to those around me.
But I am very aware of the natural tendencies brought by gender and culture and class. I would no more trust an unknown woman not to be hypergomus than I would expect a Hindu to go out for steaks.
And once a particular person’s behaviour manifest I treat them accordingly. A whiner is ignored, a bully is challenged, the infirm are assisted, the honourable are respected.
Treat the stranger with courteousy because they are human beings
Treat the acquantance each to their actions because they are individuals
Treat the friend according to their need because they are family
Treat yourself with honourable justice because it is your life.
As a Canadian I dont get the whe Republican Democrat thing.
We have as many parties as can get the votes to win seats. For most of a centuries it was just the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives. In the 50s a leftist party the SocCreds emerged and became a sitting party. This morfed into the modern NDP. Then after several terms of overstepping their authority in the 90s the Progressive Conservatives went overnight from a majority 130 seats to 2 (two). They then splintered into the remna ts of PC in Ontario and Reform in Alberta. Reform merged and rebranded as just Conservatives and rebuilt to give us multiple terms of Harpers government. He was recently turfed for Justin and the Liberals. All thru the 90s we also had the Party Quebecious who never even ran a seat outside Quebec and se agenda was seperation. They have a few seats as do the new Greens who are strictly a environmental party.
We have lots of “Im a Liberal or Im a Conservative or NDPers” but our parties morf and evolve and even cease to exist. It avoids the bs crap going on where GOP and Dems do nothing just cause. Our politicians know that kind of bullshit will get them reduced to ashes next election.
Our problem is that the PM runs our Parliament (Congress) so a majority government like the Justin has literally is able to do anything as the PM automatically has tbe votes for any bill to pass. Until the 5 year writ expires and he has to call an election. As Harper found out.
I hope Trump or Sanders creats a third party just so your parties can learn the people do have options. Kinda like abundance mentality for voters.
For a second, I thought you were referring to Clinton’s recent case. Then the fact that you used “girl” describe her made me second guess myself…or was that the whole point? If so, you clever one! 😉
I’ll keep it short and simple and say yes for now. I’m starting to see that in myself at work, while finding myself entering the realm of unnatural behavior to not be irresponsible as an employee. By that I mean I have to go out of my way to take the boss/leadership role due to the nature of my job where we’re fed the message that “everyone’s a leader.” I’m sure the folks preaching that don’t actually believe it as much as the need to cover their asses. Can’t blame them though.
There was a genetic bottleneck about 40,000 years ago. We were limited to twelve reproducing couples, according to the theory.
I’m guessing you’re referring to the Biblical story of Noah and his family? I didn’t believe this was a literal truth even when I was still a Christian. (NOT saying that you can’t believe it, however!) I do think it is the remnant history of a great catastrophe that did indeed result in extreme flooding, but not that only 12 people survived. Most geneticists say it would take a viable breeding population of at minimum 70-160 to repopulate the Earth to avoid the issues that interbreeding and negative recessive traits cause.
I’m a bit confused though…If you are a Biblical literalist, shouldn’t you believe the world is only about 6,500 years old?
Or are you talking about a different event? The only one I know about is the creation of Lake Toba via volcanic eruption roughly 70,000 years ago that may have reduced humanity to as few as 2,000 members. There was supposedly one 1.5 million years ago, but that one affected the entire Homo genus and is obviously much older than what you’re alluding to.
Tarn,
There was some sort of cataclysm that happened about 40,000 years ago. Something that charred the whole surface of the Earth. It is linked to the demise of the Clovis people from North America.
I just did a search and there are all kinds of incidents.
The interesting thing about the flood myth is that it’s not just in the Bible but it is worldwide. However, there is not proof.
There are two guys who’s theory is that Noah’s Ark may correspond to the inundation of the Black Sea.
I think it was 70,000 years ago with some kind of volcanic eruption. That was my impression anyway.
Avraham,
Yeah, that was the Toba incident.
Gods forbid if something like that happens nowadays. The death toll would be horrifying.
The interesting thing about the flood myth is that it’s not just in the Bible but it is worldwide. However, there is not proof.
The fact that it is worldwide is what made me take a closer look into it, rather than just dismissing it as a parable or mythology. There is some geographical evidence of severe flooding in many lowland areas, plus the Black Sea aspect you already mentioned. Like I said, I think the “great flood” did occur, just not to the extent the OT claims, nor that homo sapien was reduced to such a small repopulation group.
Though if we did get 7 billion people from an initial breeding stock of less than 50, it might explain why we’re so screwed up…
Tarn,
There is more weirdness. All of us north of the Sahara have a common female ancestor. How did that happen?
I think it would be great if furries and females were released from paying taxes. We’d waste less time being inclusive before addressing difficult matters.
Obviously the current ratio of male-female tax contributions is approximately like the ratio of male-female combat deaths, or male-female workplace deaths. Who cares. They’re already free riders.
Fuzzie,
Probably due to another environmental disaster of epic proportions, perhaps something that made it difficult to bear female children or have them survive. Researchers were able to trace history back to this one African woman by using mitochondrial DNA, which can only be passed through female lineages. If a genetic disease caused more females to die before they could have children, or if huge amounts of people were rendered infertile for some reason thus causing a further breeding bottleneck, or even if the vast majority of babies born in that generation were male, then we’d see a distinct lack of mtDNA during that time. It’s a good thing for our species that this woman had daughters!
Tarn,
It is a good thing that she had sons too. It’s too bad that we don’t know about the male side of it.
Yes it is, Fuzzie, but my point was that something very negative obviously was occurring on the female side of things for us to have only a single ancient “mother”. Daughters are needed to continue our species just as much as sons are, after all.
It’s unfortunate, but we often can only go by female genetics to trace back in situations like this. For similar reasons to this post I did https://spawnyspace.wordpress.com/2015/02/01/microchimerism/ , I also wish we could look further into the male side of things. Maybe in the future we can, and more questions will be answered.
It’s exciting to think about!
If no two women were alike Game wouldn’t be effective
All women are alike
yeah, Ton 😉
fat, skinny, tall, short, clean, filthy, rolly polly, stick thin … we’re all just our own, special, snowflake, (in our own eyes … or our mother’s eyes … or the gubmint’s eyes … or some imaginary person’s eyes 😉 ) tehehehehe 😉
otherwise, you’re spot on 😉
Tarn,
We don’t know the “why” of it. We only know that she was the only one to successfully reproduce. Maybe he offspring had an advantage that others did not?
Yup the packaging differs but the software is the same
Cant say it better than Cadders did over at Dalrocks in the Entrophy and feed the pumps article.
for their real agenda of buying votes to gain power.
Snowy on July 10, 2016 at 10:05 am
I was again reminded recently what a behemoth the Child Support Agency is, here in Australia. Apparently I’d fallen about $97 into arrears. So I received the obligatory letter advising they they were to garnishee my wages. Of course, between the date of the letter and the date of my next pay, I’d already made a payment that would put me in credit again. But of course the bureaucracy just had to give me a great day with their ridiculous and unnecessary letter. It wasn’t as if my 18 and 16 year olds were going to starve over $97. I was reminded that I am a deadbeat dad. And regardless of my ex-wife’s being remarried, they both working and having substantial assets, she has no accountability in the Child Support scenario, but I have all the accountability. I wondered whether “they” might have some much bigger fish than me to fry. But then again maybe they don’t.
Cadders on July 10, 2016 at 12:30 pm
Feminism contained the seeds of it’s own destruction from the day it was birthed.
At the most basic level, as women are the ones with wombs, they have value simply by existing. Men’s value is determined by what they ‘do’. In this sense only women are true human ‘beings’, whilst men are human ‘doings’.
This may seem harsh from a male perspective but in reality, there is an exquisite balance in this, for whilst women’s value is set at the moment of conception (their beauty being their measure of value), a mans’ value is his to define.
So men must build value by ‘doing’. But feminism does everything it can to dis-incentivise that ‘doing’. And then everything starts to fall apart. As I wrote a couple of years ago;
“Feminism is already a dead woman walking. All feminism has is shaming language and the State (ironically, ultimately other men) to keep men to the feminist line.
But now, increasingly, the shaming doesn’t work. And men are disengaging from society in general to avoid entanglements with the state; if you don’t get married, you can’t be divorced, if you don’t co-habit you can’t have half your stuff appropriated, if you don’t have children, you can’t be on the hook for child support, if you don’t enter the corporate world you can’t be be accused of ‘harassment’ and if you don’t date you drastically reduce your chance of a false rape accusation.
These are genuine threat points for men in the modern world that didn’t exist before feminism. It speaks to the feeble minds of feminists that they would think that men will simply carry on as they did when these threats did not exist. For the last 50 years men (mostly) still did. But that’s over now.
So men are doing what they have always done: survey their environment, understand it, and behave rationally according to it. Which means, increasingly, living their lives without regard to what women want. This does not mean living without sex, relationships or female company. Just that the investment men make in all these areas is being dramatically reduced.
As feminism reduces the value of women (in men’s eyes), so men are reducing the amount of time, effort, attention and money they are willing to spend for the declining benefits modern women now bring to their lives.
But the real news is that the true cost of feminism, first born by men, and then children, is now being passed on to women. Record numbers of women are living alone, record numbers of women are childless, record numbers are on psychiatric medication, record numbers are facing a life-time of wage slavery in grinding jobs that they can never leave. And still feminism spins these outcomes as the conscious choices of these women and as ’empowering’.
And yet, women’s self-reported happiness, across all classes, all races, all demographics is lower than ever since records began 50 years ago. Tellingly, for the first time ever, their happiness is also now lower than men’s.
But you do not need to read ‘The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness’ to know this. Just talk to the increasing number of 30 and 40 year old childless spinsters one on one – not in a group – to get the REAL story. The REAL effect of feminism in the REAL world. These women don’t give two hoots about feminism, they are just wondering where all the good husbands, hell, ANY decent man, went.
Mostly, disgusted with what feminism has done to women, he walked away.
For the truth is that men don’t want to fight women, it goes against the core of what it means to be a man. But feminism thrust men into a fight that they neither started nor wanted. To the point that feminists are reduced to crowing about ‘winning’ battles that men never turned up for.
And even now, as feminism pushes and pushes and pushes to ever more absurd levels, as ever more restrictions are placed on normal masculine behavior, ever more insane definitions of ‘rape’, ‘assault’, and ‘aggression’ are drafted into law in increasingly desperate attempts to somehow, anyhow, cast women as perpetual victims – even now – men are still refusing to be drawn into a real battle.
That’s how deeply men do not want to fight women.
The sound of the final battle between the sexes will not be heard in the streets or legislatures. It will not be televised or reported. There will be no flags hoisted or victory parades. Because it is already in progress. It is happening all around us in plain sight, for those with the eyes to see it.
And men are deploying the most devastating weapon of all – indifference. In this final battle who cares least wins.”
Whilst is does no harm to actively fight feminism (I spread the red pill wherever I can), ultimately all we as men need to do is live our lives true to traditional values (and I accept that in today’s world this can be no easy task) and importantly do no more – do nothing to feed the beast. It will be women, not men, who will act to bring the whole feminist edifice down, it will be women, exhausted, broke, barren and miserable who will fire the kill shot. And it has to be this way, for feminism to be truly de-legitamised in the eyes of the masses.
Our power as men in this fight is to limit our ‘doing’. And fortunately feminists are doing everything they can to ensure that’s what we do.
Explains it
At the most basic level, as women are the ones with wombs, they have value simply by existing. Men’s value is determined by what they ‘do’. In this sense only women are true human ‘beings’, whilst men are human ‘doings’.
This may seem harsh from a male perspective but in reality, there is an exquisite balance in this, for whilst women’s value is set at the moment of conception (their beauty being their measure of value), a mans’ value is his to define.
I truly loathe this belief.
Both sexes have inherent value as human beings. Neither is worth more or less than the other until their actions prove otherwise.
I also decline to think that a woman’s level of physical attractiveness is the full extent of her value as a person, just as I don’t agree with the idea that men have no merit outside of their accomplishments. Men have some worth due to their beauty just as women have some worth based on their achievements.
My own thoughts, of course.
Nobody else need agree with them.
“I also decline to think that a woman’s level of physical attractiveness is the full extent of her value as a person, just as I don’t agree with the idea that men have no merit outside of their accomplishments. Men have some worth due to their beauty just as women have some worth based on their achievements.”
What you’re saying simply sounds like common sense to me.
Honestly, I think some people say things just to say them.
But, everyone is entitled to their own view.
Sue,
I doubt the gent that Horseman quoted wrote that comment simply because he wanted to “say things just to say them”. On the contrary, his view of women as human beings and men as human “doings” is shared by a significant portion of the manosphere. It’s become a phrase that seems to appear more and more as the years go on.
The rest of his comment I wholeheartedly agree with though. Western women *do* wait too long to start families, even when they claim they greatly desire children in their lives. Many are highly competitive towards men and have undeserved chips on their shoulders in the workplace, despite an environment that tries to give them money simply for going to school while female. And he was correct in saying the general happiness levels of women have dropped tremendously, as well as 25% of them being dependent on antidepressants/mood altering prescriptions.
I can acknowledge these truths regarding the majority of women while understanding it doesn’t apply to me personally.
In a society without much technology, often threatened by disease, hunger, and war, women of fertile or pre-fertile age *do* obviously have a particular value to the tribe because of who they are, whereas men have no value unless they can hunt, fight off enemies, or do something else of practical value. It seems quite likely that the values that were needed for millennia have survived to some degree, transmitted by genes or memes or both.
Of course, value to the tribe and value to a particular individual are not necessarily the same.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/07/the-chart-that-shows-how-feminism-is-ruining-womens-lives/
Participants are asked four separate questions:
how satisfied they are with their lives overall;
whether they feel that what they do is worthwhile;
how happy they were the previous day, and how anxious they were the previous day.
In a society without much technology, often threatened by disease, hunger, and war, women of fertile or pre-fertile age *do* obviously have a particular value to the tribe because of who they are, whereas men have no value unless they can hunt, fight off enemies, or do something else of practical value.
In said society, most women who could not work hard and help take care of themselves died. Flat out, stone cold dead right next to their man/family.
Although there have always been wealthy people who appear to have value just for existing. Including both males and females.
Horseman,
That was a superb comment from Cadders that you shared here. I have to agree, women will kill feminism the moment they realize that harmful to them too.
Tarn,
A good link. I hadn’t realized that women are so anxious but, it does make perfect sense.
“In said society, most women who could not work hard and help take care of themselves died. Flat out, stone cold dead right next to their man/family.”
True. Certainly, in the tribal societies of which we have perhaps the closest and most immediate knowledge, the American Indian nations, women were in all cases I’ve read anything about expected and required to work very hard.
Perhaps the distinction is that the type of work that the men did—hunting, warfare–was more *differentiated*, in the sense that there was a higher ratio between observable ratio between what the best accomplished and what the mediocre accomplished. Bringing back meat for your family, or not—pretty observable, surely pretty big differences between the great hunter and the poor one.
David,
I’d agree that a hunter who manages to set himself apart from the rest would indeed show himself as having more potential for traits such as leadership or a strong advisor position. But from what I’ve learned, most tribesmen hunted as a pack like our dogs, not solitary like cougars or foxes. So this likely didn’t happen as often.
My anthropology professor explained it this way:
Men, in general, hunted across larger distances for big game. When they were successful, everybody celebrated, for there was plentiful meat that could be both eaten immediately and preserved for later.
Women, in general, trapped small game like fish and squirrels, as well as foraged for plant foods (and later helped grow them).
So men had large but potentially unsuccessful contributions, women had smaller but more stable contributions.
Tarnished wrote:
“On the contrary, his view of women as human beings and men as human “doings” is shared by a significant portion of the manosphere. It’s become a phrase that seems to appear more and more as the years go on.”
Tarnished, oh yes, I’m well aware that many red pill guys think this way. 🙂
I was specifically responding to what you said here:
“I also decline to think that a woman’s level of physical attractiveness is the full extent of her value as a person,”
True, Sue.
But remember that the second part of that sentence (just as I don’t agree with the idea that men have no merit outside of their accomplishments) is just as important.
Absolutely agree, Tarnished. But then again, I usually agree with most of your opinions. 🙂
I have been distracted by real life work and play lately, so catching up on comments. Wanted to put 2 cents in on this:
“women of fertile or pre-fertile age *do* obviously have a particular value to the tribe because of who they are”
Yes, but I’d also argue women of *all* ages served important roles in prior generations. The obsession w youth (childless women as purely a sex object) is part of our MODERN culture. “The crone” is in fact a valued and exalted member of the tribe. She’s able to contribute in encumbered by small children and reproduction, serving to take care of the young and the old as well as train up their own children into young adulthood. She’s (hopefully) wise and a teacher of the traditions of women. If she raised her brood well, she’s the treasured matriarch of her clan, important in an equal but different way to her patriarch mate (or his surviving widow.) I may write a post on this…
Not that I am saying they were sex objects, but maiden hood (today’s ideal) was always valued of course but not the total sum of female value like today. And who made maidenhood what it is today? Feminism and it’s Insistance on a casual sex, slut shaming free culture. Remember, at that time the first wave was after all in their prime maidenhood years! It is a myopic view of women, an unnatural and unhealthy one for society in general, actually.
Tarn…”most tribesmen hunted as a pack like our dogs, not solitary like cougars or foxes”…depends, surely on the game being hunted…buffalo you want to hunt in a group, deer not so much. And warfare in most cases would have had led to highly individualized ‘performance metrics.’
On the other hand…if you look at aristocratic and feudal societies, clearly *being* played a larger role relative to *doing* than it does in anything resembling a meritocracy, for men as well as women. Someone with the right title and property ownership was an attractive marriage candidate, regardless of any ‘doing’ that he might or might not participate in.
Although I would bet his *sexual* attractiveness to women was still related somewhat to doing: a Baronet who had been a successful military or naval officer, or even a successful hunter of foxes, would likely have rated higher (all other things being equal) than a Baronet who only lived on his rents and gambled.
Fyi that entire comment was a cut and paste from Dalrocks comment section. None of it was my words. The part I wanted to point out was the men dont want to fight hence they are withdrawing and by causing the withdrawl is the downfall of feminism. The part about doing vs being I actually personally disagree with. People all do but it is what they do for that differs. I am much of the belief that as women become more openly hypergomous (see rationale.males current post on sugaring) men are going to withdraw from LTRs. This wont just be mgtows. It will also be alphas pump and dumping, puas relying on game notchcounts, sugaring arrangements and other things. But all are ways of resisting or suspending belief in long term, mutual committed relationships be they marriage, commonlaw or just long term steadies. But without LTRs there can be few successful children and as the various “players” age out or tire of their chosen games they will not mature to LTRs but will result in abandonment and lonliness for both sexes. Once that happens, the key powers of.feminism: control of relationships and shaming to enter LTRs will fade and it will be replaced. By what I have no clue.
The part of Cadders I wanted to focus on is this will not be a political or even organized movement (sorry MRAs) and it will be silent and gradual. It will end with a whimper not a bang.
It is the use of indifference, not as a weapon but as a natural response tonfeminist bSed threats that will kill feminism but with it LTRs, economic productivity and host of other things. We are literally throwing away the future babies with the bathwater of tears of both sexes. No one truly wanted this. No one saw it coming. In hindsight it is obvious.
But men collectively are rationale first emotional second. We may wish to exchange our souls and labour for the chance of romantic love. But when faced with the lived experience that the odds are one in a thousand then men as a collective (individuals will vary) will go with the odds every time. Faced with literally 1:2 odds of a LTR surviving the 20 years required to produce a child and raise it to adult hood and the price of failure being 1:3 of losing half or more of your assets men will just not play.
They will play the low risk pua, blah blah. Few will go completely women free.
Feminism projected the emotions first mindset onto men. Men will overlook the odds because of their emotional want or physical need for sex. No women do that. This is what killed it.
I am truly sad for my children and their generation. And I fear I will never know grand children. But rationally I would not advise them any other way..
Also point out the Rationale Male.on sugar baby arrangements. That and the number of instageam or tumblr sites of 20 somethings of both sexes with gofindme or amazon links. Open sex for gifts and open hypergamy is increasing. not just AF:BB but now the idea of im not attracted but I dont want to work so I will “play” relationship for money with or without sex. But its not prostitution.
It is the start of Courtesianship. One possible future replacement. Not all women can get alphas. Many do not want betas as emotional partners. So lower males and hypergomous women are entering into Courtesian arrangements. It is at least honest and not vulnerable to emotional awakening i.e. LTR a beta then God I Cant Stand Him. Im not attracted to you at all but I like your money. So its a job.
What will be interesting is as this becomes more open what the “going rate” will be. In its infancy now girls over self rating is obvious. as more enter it will be a rude awakening. 500 for a date with a 5. dream on. Howz about 100?
and by date I mean date. as in dinner, wine , conversation. Not sex.
Rollo refers to 500 to 2000 just for a dinner date not sex with a coed. and 6 at that.
And the daddy pays for the restaurant etc.
In its infancy yes.Thirsty guys who cant hookup on tinder or even Match. But as it becomes open the way hookup culture has, economic market forces will enter.
Im worth 1000 a date as a 6. Same as the 40+ single mom who wont settle.
But unlike the dating marketplace this is for money. as in easy job. So the mom wont settle and so gets no rationship. but what of the coed who needs money for college etc. When its working Starbucks or dropping her price as a dinner companion….hmmm.
And the guys who do this will NOT be alphas or romantic betas (maybe a few) but the cold,jaded otherwise mgtows who like the idea of women and the company but see them for the hypergomous beings they are. The buyers have no illusion about this is playacting. same as few guys truly think strippers like them.
. And these guys, unromantic, seeing it as a business deal will BE BRUTAL in their assessment of value for money. be interesting how the initial go grl be empowered use it evolves in the face of this cold, blatant assessment of tbe value of women.
p.s. I am not endorsing this but see it as an extension. I personally hate hate hate pua culture, hookups, etc. Male female.relations are epitamized by Charles and Carolyn Ingells. (Micheal Landon in real is a hero of mine). A strong kind man supported by a strong, caring woman. But I am jaded enough to KNOW those days are gone gone gone NEVER to return.
Horseman,
I am going to read Rollo’s post but, having read your comments, I don’t think this will end well.Five hundred to be a dinner companion???
Feminism and the sexual revolution aimed for perpetual hypergamy and “maiden” hood via delayed monogamy plus sexual activity combined w contraceptives/choice to prevent offspring — the former natural consequence of sex and a reason to choose well, marry young, and support a patriarchal culture honoring a strong provider/protector vs. the “bad boy.” The whole rabbit hole goes deep, deep, deep – how feminism aimed to overthrow patriarchy in an effort to prolong hypergamous drives and keep options as open in maiden hood minus the “maiden” part resulting in da carousel. I really should write a post on this…
I would very much like to read it.
I agree with everything Horseman has said.
Wish I had more time to comment right now, but getting ready for work.
“The crone” is in fact a valued and exalted member of the tribe.
Yup. Always has been, until recently.
Now we have such things as elder abuse, deplorable care for older wo/men, and a culture that says you have minimal worth after age 60 (or, in the RP section of the manosphere, age 30 for women). This is not how life is meant to be, but it lines up well with the sentiment that Horseman’s quoted gent spouts: Women are valuable due to attractiveness, men are valuable due to what they can do. If a man can no longer “do” and a woman is no longer at “peak” attractiveness…what worth do they have now, right? /sarcasm
Five hundred to be a dinner companion???
It’s highway robbery, Fuzzie.
Or, more accurately, a revitalization of the casual escort business. In Japan, they have both male and female Host Clubs…It’s only a matter of time before we start seeing more pop up in the US.
Every year, Warren Buffet auctions off the chance to have lunch with him, the proceeds go to charity. That may make sense.
I have heard about host clubs. The women get so heavily indebted that they are taken advantage of by organized crime. From an American perspective, this is beyond credence.
While individuals may find solutions, for there to be a collective solution what must happen is for the sexual marketplace be seen to crash. I think that we may be close when average women think they can dinner companions for five hundred dollars. I have no idea how this will go because, it hasn’t ever happened. But I can already see the headlines,”Women hardest hit.”
If the femworshipers would stop worshiping themselves they would realize from a masculine perspective women in fact do not have much value beyond their looks and sex appeal.
Anything else a woman can possible add to a man’s life beyond proceational sex can be hired out or provided by a campion animal for a lot less hassle
It’s only beta males and chumps who think women have value beyond that and hypergammy ensures women dislike the only sort of men who would be clueless enough to “value” women
I would also like to note the hostess of this blog is still welcoming to the troll that shit on her blog and turned this place into abother hang out for harpies and chumps
You literally cannot teach women through experiences… or any other way expect fear
If the femworshipers would stop worshiping themselves they would realize from a masculine perspective women in fact do not have much value beyond their looks and sex appeal.
I postulate that this is an individual perspective, rather than a masculine one.
Even if tomorrow it were to become the viewpoint of all penis-owners, it would not necessarily matter. Whether someone else thinks I have value or not does nothing to change the worth I actually possess as a person.
In my opinion, the only humans who have no worth whatsoever are those who have proven themselves to be scabs on the ass of humanity: drug dealers, serial killers, rapists, etc. Those men and women are worth less than the air they consume.
Everyone else?
You’ve got basic worth as a human being, despite what anyone tries to tell you. This goes for women of all levels of attractiveness, but also for beta/omega men who are “valueless” according to bitchy females and alphas. Don’t let anyone try to define you, lest you become what they see rather than what you are.
You literally cannot teach women through experiences… or any other way accept fear
In my life, those I have been fearful of are lower than dirt to me. My father and stepfather both tried ruling their households through fear, albeit different types (fear of bodily harm/physical pain and fear of sexual abuse/that same abuse being pushed onto my younger siblings if I refused to submit, respectively). I learned nothing of value through these fears, except how to hate…then be completely indifferent towards the existence of…someone. I’ve not spoken to my father since I was 14, and moved out of the other house when I was 17. Because of fear.
I’m going to say that Ton most likely doesn’t mean this type of fear when he’s speaking above. I’d be somewhat surprised if he was. But saying that fear, in general and without further categorization, is what “teaches” someone is incorrect.
Fear does not impart knowledge.
It conditions a response.
Also, the obligatory Star Wars quote:
Fear is the path to the dark side…fear leads to anger…anger leads to hate…hate leads to suffering.
Tarn,
About your father and stepfather, the concept of Christian Hell sounds like a great idea. However, someone is pushing your buttons, looking for a response.
Tarn wrote:
“In my life, those I have been fearful of are lower than dirt to me. My father and stepfather both tried ruling their households through fear, albeit different types (fear of bodily harm/physical pain and fear of sexual abuse/that same abuse being pushed onto my younger siblings if I refused to submit, respectively). I learned nothing of value through these fears, except how to hate…then be completely indifferent towards the existence of…someone. I’ve not spoken to my father since I was 14, and moved out of the other house when I was 17. Because of fear.
I’m going to say that Ton most likely doesn’t mean this type of fear when he’s speaking above. I’d be somewhat surprised if he was. But saying that fear, in general and without further categorization, is what “teaches” someone is incorrect.
Fear does not impart knowledge.
It conditions a response.”
____________
i agree. been there; done that … with my dad, my first husband, and others. that kind of fear is wrong and evil.
i *know* there exists a ‘healthy’ type of fear, but i sincerely cannot comprehend it. i would think it’s something like … if you don’t work, you don’t eat … so fearing being stupid and screwing up your job and forcing your boss to fire you would be a healthy type of fear – as long as your boss isn’t using the wrong kind of fear on you. i actually had a boss in high school who loved to find something to make the girls cry … like a power thing over them. i was an excellent employee, and he had to dig to find something, but dig he did, and it honestly wasn’t even my fault – someone else brought me information i was unable to obtain myself, that information turned out to be incorrect, and he took the opportunity to blame me. sat me down and passive-aggressively chewed me out till i cried. then he stopped.
so, i honestly do not know what healthy fear looks like, but i do know how to instill it in my girls. they know i love them. they know i’ve got their back. but they also know if they do something stupid like doing drugs, getting drunk, they’ll come home to an empty bedroom with nothing but a blanket, a pillow, and 3 changes of clothes. it’s a healthy fear. it’s not a threat. it’s not an anger thing. it’s not a passive aggressive thing. it’s not a control or manipulate thing. it’s a choice. they get to choose. they can either make good choices and keep all their privileges, such as their comfy beds and clothes and all their personal things in their rooms and life. or they can make stupid choices and loose them all. it’s a matter-of-fact thing that they know is there but doesn’t rule them.
kind of like driving on the proper side of the road. drive on the wrong side of the road and cause a head-on probably killing everyone involved. drive on the proper side and follow the road rules, and most of the time you’ll be okay. that would be a healthy type of fear.
About your father and stepfather, the concept of Christian Hell sounds like a great idea.
It does indeed. But I don’t believe in a Heaven or Hell of any kind, so I guess that point is moot.
However, someone is pushing your buttons, looking for a response.
I realize, Fuzzie. Right before commenting, I’d been having a truly frustrating email conversation with someone who found my blog and decided to take issue with my “Why Rape is Seriously Hilarious” post, because they don’t think female-on-male rape and sexual assault is real. Some of my residual irritation showed up in my comment here, for which I apologize to Bloom.
i agree. been there; done that … with my dad, my first husband, and others. that kind of fear is wrong and evil.
May the universe be kind enough to visit karmic justice on them.
i actually had a boss in high school who loved to find something to make the girls cry … like a power thing over them.
I had an employer like this at my first real job as a teenager. Luckily, I knew how to turn off my emotions by then. People like that, it’s better to just be the mountain to their storm. In the end, all their thundering will be for naught and you’ll still be standing same as always.
Regarding your car example and how you raise your children…I can see that some fear might be involved, but I view it more as common sense mixed with knowledge of a specific cause and effect. Same as how you don’t step out into traffic if you don’t want to potentially get your ass run over, but you’re not unnecessarily afraid of getting hit by a car “just because”. It’s less of a Fear of X and more of a To Avoid bad X, Don’t Do stupid Y.
But if they see it as fear and it causes them to behave, then it works anyway. My brain is probably just weird, honestly.
Tarn,
Keep slugging. I don’t have any advice for you beyond that.
It’s good advice regardless, Fuzzie.
Rpg,
I haven’t seen a word from you since Ton made his comment. This is your blog. He has his own.
It bothers me to see this blog go quiet. I have some thoughts on the matter but,it may be best if I keep them to myself.
Hopefully Bloom is just busy with work, Fuzzie…
Btw, semi-related question: Anyone heard from Blurkel as of late?
Tarn,
I haven’t heard a peep out of Blurkel for, I think it has been , months. Do you think that the Wicked Witch of a wife found out that he was talking out of school on the internet?
I hope that it is just that RPG is busy.
Sorry to be so quiet lately Fuzzie, it’s high season in my neck of the woods! Busy, busy! 😀
shes a farm girl. Up here in the northern hemisphere its the middle of haying season, getting cash crops ready for early harvest. plus if she is into livestock its pasture rotation, fencing, weaning youngins. Busy busy time. On my recent two week vacation I replace 600 feet of fencing, sprayed two pasture fields, moved the gates to shift the ponies to the other field, cut and baled 2000 bales of hay.
And she is dealing with the drought we all have this year. Plus its touristy season so likely lots of tours and demos and stuff. She be a buzy girl.
we can pick it up at spawnys. he wont mind.